The "anti-cancer" gene...

[veritas]

• Tweet

Is a rare inherited genetic condition. Apparently these folks are susceptible to the worst cancers but can self heal. They have a super human immune system. Their blood can literally cure ailments. Stuff of science fiction if you ask me.

[veritas]

The threats are real, so it must be real.

[Reticent Solipsist]

Is a rare inherited genetic condition. Apparently these folks are susceptible to the worst cancers but can self heal. They have a super human immune system. Their blood can literally cure ailments. Stuff of science fiction if you ask me.

Fascinating. More so as I've always thought of the converse, for example, cancers like ovarian having a degree of hereditary causes. Siddhartha Mukherjee's book, The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer really opened my eyes to the subject.

[veritas]

Ovarian cancer may not necessarily be ovarian cancer. They may have PMP variants or appendiceal variants or "in situ carcinoma" "diffuse carcinoma" may not even be cancer at all. Poorly differentiated carcinoma types which mimic aggressive cancers judged by pathologists looking through microscopes. 25% of diagnoses are corrected at MD Anderson. . apparently.

The rate of false positives and negatives ... imagine the wrong diagnosis and treatment in 25% of cases because biopsies were incorrectly read, CTs assumed this but not. The cure for cancer is embedded in the system itself, but unfortunately lost in a myriad of untimely complexities. They need to design a system for monitoring everything. They call it "personalized medicine" but the technology lags and there are so many intrusive anomalies like big pharma incentives, resource allocation, and cost benefit protocols.

The problem also lies with doctors too busy to think. Cancer is complex. You sort of need to have a naturally inquisitive mind to think of each patient's case and investigate further.

[veritas]

There's also something horrifically wrong with oncologists. Good cop/bad cop syndrome. The older they are the more serial killer like. Read this: http://drsircus.com/medicine/cancer/oncologists-worst-people-treat-cancer

[Georgesoros]

Sorry I dont believe it.

[veritas]

Believe. It matters.

[MOON Ki]

Sorry I dont believe it.

It is certainly an intriguing notion.  Say you whack something with antibiotics hard enough, for long enough.   We know that the something will develop resistance.   Same thing is true for a lot of other things.   Mosquitoes and malaria treatments etc.    We all know that, but we don't say the attempts created the problem.   

Anyways, I'm not a medical type, so I was intrigued to read that cancer treatments were in fact causing cancer!   Wow.    I thought I'd take a close look, and what I found was  ... well, shall we say interesting?

The article has this initially disturbing statement:



(The disturbing part is not Dr. Li's statement; it is the following addition by Dr. Sircus.)

Poking around reveals a much more interesting situation.   For example, the aptly-named Dr. Sircus seems quite excited about the fact that Fox News reported on this:

"."

If you look at the Fox News archives on what Dr. Li of Harvard supposedly said, it appears that Dr. Circus has left out quite a few things.  For example:

"Li cautioned these lab findings might not prove relevant in patients in real life. "This was all carried out in the petri dish," he said. "There is a long way we have to go before we can be sure about its clinical implications for patients, if any."

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/09/27/common-cancer-treatments-may-create-dangerous-cancer-stem-cells/#ixzz27gq8DI8V

And so on, and so forth. 

On that basis, Dr. Sircus hit the ground running:

"".

Anyways ... I eventually located the article in which Dr. Li reported the results that so alarmed Dr. Sircus.   Even for a non-medical type, I consider them to be rather modest---for example, according to the authors their results merely "suggest", not "prove" ... ---and do not appear to be anything that will worry people about traditional treatments.  But folks will have to judge for themselves.  Definitely not Nature level of stuff.    Here it is:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0043628

[veritas]

Radiotherapy is used as a last resort for relieving pain and for palliation. Not for cure. It stimulates cancer cells around scar tissue and that's why surgical oncologists don't operate on pts who've undergone extensive radiation treatment. That's just a known fact not some cell theory. Journal articles and the media are far, far behind medical realities.