Cancer does not have genetic causes

I don't think it's scientific to discuss cancer with respect to gene's. I don't think any one knows what they are talking about. The whole idea of looking into genetics without first discussing the really observable components of disease such as the mechanisms of the anatomy, the endocrine system, the nervous system, is beyond my idea of being "scientific". In fact, in my research there seems to be such a thing as endoneurologists or neuroendocrinologists. I can't do the research myself. I depend on people who are expert in this.To focus on one form of cancer, breast cancer. Very few doctors inform females that there are 3 hormones involved: estrogen, progesteron, testosteron. How can science administer any of these hormones without first testing the individual for measurements of these hormones? In real life that is what happened to me, because of blind faith in the genome project. While I can use my own DNA to help me, because it's me that I'm observing, the results of others is not my concern. If the average volunteer for research is not measured for these hormones in research, then what does it matter about genes?OTOH, if research gathers statistics about these measurements and then applies genetics, and distributes this information to the patient, then chemistry and genetics may be useful.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

spingal,Cancer can have genetic causes, the alleles involved are identified as oncogenes. Genes that, if you possess them, increase the chance that you will develop cancer at some stage.What's your problem with this, exactly?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

First, I'd like to direct your attention towards this article: Environmental Chemicals and Breast Cancer Risk Why is There Concern?

quote:

---

Many chemicals have to become "activated" in the body to become carcinogens. Some people have differences (also called variations or polymorphisms) in certain genes that control these activation pathways. If a person has a variation in such genes, this may result in more activation and a higher level of the active form of the carcinogen. This may put the person at greater risk for developing certain cancers, including breast cancer. For example, women with high body levels of environmental chemicals called polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) usually do not have a higher risk of breast cancer. However, in one study breast cancer risk was higher in a group of women who had both a high level of PCBs and a variation in an activation gene called CYP1A1 (Moysich et al., Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev., vol. 8, pp. 41-44, 1999). This is an example of a "gene-environment interaction." More research is being done to identify important gene-environment interactions. This will help identify groups of women who may have a higher breast cancer risk if they are exposed to certain chemicals.

---

Do you have a contention with this science?A more accessible article on wiki, Breast Cancer:

quote:

---

Today, breast cancer, like other forms of cancer, is considered to be a result of damage to DNA. How this mechanism may occur comes from several known or hypothesized factors (such as exposure to ionizing radiation). Some factors lead to an increased rate of mutation (exposure to estrogens) and decreased repair (the BRCA1, BRCA2 and p53 genes). Although many epidemiological risk factors, and biological co-factors and promoters have been identified, the majority of breast cancer incidence remains unattributable, and the primary cause is unknown.

---

Do you contend that cancer is not the result of damage to DNA?I'm not an oncologist, but I was under the impression that certain chemicals are known as carcinogens. Some chemicals are more carcinogenic than others. Exposure to these chemicals can increase the risk of developing a cancer. These chemicals can cause damage to DNA.Our DNA is damaged on a regular basis and there are mechanisms in place to correct and repair this damage. If the damage is too severe, the cell effectively kills itself to protect the 'host'. Occasionally the suicide mechanism doesn't activate.This can happen when the genes controlling repair/suicide mechanisms themselves are mutated enough to render them ineffective.If the tumor suppression genes are damaged, you are in trouble (tumour suppression genes are sometimes involved in cell suicide). These genes effectively put the brakes on cell division. When they are damaged or mutated a cell can start dividing in an out of control fashion, leading to a tumour. Similiarly with oncogenes
.Are you calling this science into question?Edited by Modulous, : to->too
Subtitle also added

It's the hormones. Exact details.I was 69 YO. As soon as I turned 58 most doctors were after me to go on HRT (to stay young and avoid osteoperosis). At 69, for some reason I started getting pains in my legs. The only meds I'd ever used was aspirin. I was just as scared of ibuprofen as I was of HRT. It wasn't aspirin. I thought that after all those years of medical pressure from both male and female doctors, it would be safe to take HRT. After all what's the difference between that and any other unknown med. I felt good. I did get fatter but that was my fault. Then in the fall when I was 72 I felt my breasts and wondered how in the world could anyone tell if I had lumps. All those years the mammograms came out negative and always said my breasts were too dense to find anything. Duh, now!! Dec 4, 2001 I got out of the shower and looked in the mirror and there was this lump sticking right out. I knew I had cancer. I had been feeling "different" bodily that fall, like out of body control. I called my doc immediately and told her I was stopping HRT. She said "Of course". I also asked her for a anti-biotic. She did it over the phone. When I got back from a planned out of town visit I visited the surgeon. He said I had inflammatory breast cancer. I didn't like the way he managed my application to get surgery so I got another opinion. By that time, the anti0biotics had reduced the lump. What was called inflammatory breast cancer was really an infected tumor. All those years of mammograms were absolutely dangerous to my health besides. I also had problems with oncology where I was dangerously close to neuropathy and the oncologist begged me to stay on taxol. Since my great Uncle whom I met when he was 80 YO was put on house arrest for prescribing Leatrile, I already understood that there might be more danger with taxol than almond pits. A special juniper tree!! When I looked at the manufacturer's site, it said some people reported neuropathy. Later after I was cancer free, they reported neuropathy was possible. I didn't ever hear the word neuropathy. I simply googled in the first place when I got scared with "burning soles of feet" and that's how I even discovered the word which the oncologist disagreed with.Okay, the real details. Orgasms manufacture estrogen. I get spontaneous orgasms. So for me, I was getting estrogen in a system that had too much estrogen in the first place. That's only a theory. However, during the time of HRT I was also getting "horny" a lot. I fell in love with all my profs at music ed. I thought why is this happening to old me? It's taken 4 years to get the excess hormones out of my system.Yes last year I got cancer in my right breast. I'm not really sure about it all because it is now handled so urgently and secretly and mysteriously. I do know they said that they can only tell if you are an estrogen receptor positive AFTER you get cancer.In addition, I never knew my whole life that women had testosteron. I found out accidently in a visit with my bipolar daughter to a psychiatrist. She casually mentioned that when she was in elementary school that in gym she had very weak arm strength and could not keep up with the arm travelling of the high parallel bars. The psychiatrist said: You don't have enough testosteron.Until I read THE DOG'S MIND, I couldn't get any endocrinologist to make an appointment and explain hormones to me. Suddenly last year endocrinologists are available for cancer and diabetes. I asked an endocrinologist about dogs and diabetes and cancer. He only replied "Yes, the dog was the first mammal to get an insulin shot." I'm now pre-diabetic too. I had to put away my first dog at the age of 11 (about 4 years early) because his diabetes was making him too dangerous for me.On top of all this. Dogs are new to me. I got my first when I was 64 YO. I am a sucker for wo/man's best friend. They explain to me a lot about me. I had a dog friendly friend who smoked. I said to the vet, "It's just me, I notice tobacco on her dogs." He said "Vets and pediatricians can smell the tobacco on dogs and infants." Think about the fact that meds are now prescribed drmally.So does this help explain why I think there's a lot of from-the-top information that has to be waded through before you can delve into the atomic level. IOW, Quantum Theory: Study group behavior first, take stats, then identify the atomic structure.I've had a lot of experience with pain since then and I love ibuprofen. If I had used ibuprofen instead of HRT, I probably would not have had breast cancer. We'll never know will we.Which reminds me, I've got to call my doc for my most recent blood test. Amazingly, I just found out from his prescription to the labs that they have such a thing as an estrodial test!! They need a progesteron and testosteron test too. There's DNA in them there anatomical fluids inside us They talk about sperm and eggs and menstrual blood, there's more to us than just that Every fluid alive and providing life for all kinds of one-celled life.Almost forgot, my breasts are healthily flabby

Spingal, In your case, possibly. And even then, does it have a genetic component?Regardless, oncogenes have been identified, why don't you accept their existance?After all, you said: The experts quite clearly state that there is, or rather can be a genetic component to cancer. This is my point, you stated that "cancer does not have genetic causes" when it clearly can do. Not in all instances, but there are genes that predispose us to developing cancer. I assume from this that you are in remission, which is the most important thing! Good health, Spingal!Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

You may end up being correct. But for application purposes, it's all just hypothesis. I don't deny the existence of all these objects. Of course they have something to do with all "life". I learned that to prove a hypothesis, one has to negate it. So you've given a perfect methodology to prove that cancer is genetic. You prove it couldn't be otherwise by offering a hypothesis that follows the path, cancer is not genetic.Evolution includes the evolution of analysis of evolution My first approach is to get all the physical observations agred upon first. Gather statistics about these discrete observations and then tie them into discrete genetic material. I think we have to understand the endocrine system first in research and add them to the descriptive materials in all grants.First, in the case of the hormone, estrogen, is it true that orgasms excite the creation/evolution of estrogen? To add a little humor to this. As a single female, with respect to all this eroticism, I have to laugh at the question on health forms: Do you have sexual problems. I would be abnormal if I didn't So if I see that question, I will answer: Of Course, I'm normal

Spingal, Nor do you accept them. It is not clear why.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

I do accept them. I just don't accept how you theorize from them. About cancer I mean. You haven't answered my question. Do orgasms increase the evolution of estrogen. That's critical before you discuss your theories about cellular discretes. Even female doctors won't touch this subject.In fact, instead of asking on health forms, sexual problems, shouldn't they use the word "orgasm"? I see that is the problem from Clinton's Presidency to discussion of breast cancer. Every "pumping" in every movie that the kids see. What are those people experiencing with all those groans? Are the women's anatomy flooded with more estrogen. That's critical. If so, then we females can handle breast cancer more effectively and efficiently.If our brain gets these questions resolved by mutual agreement then the brain can do something about it. This is the data requried before you can nail down breast cancer, for instance.I was given Ameridex sample because after my second cancer they now discovered I'm estrogen receptive. Maybe the HRT caused that to happen in the first place. Using your own discrete cellular information. Well, I didn't read the label or research Ameridex. I started getting "horny". I looked it up. It's a hormone!!
What gives. This is the result of not gathering observational data and analyzing the observable data first before applying discrete resolutions. You have to ask a whole lot of questions first.I found in my software writing daze that theoretical mathematicians never asked questions about the data they used to plug into their equations. Accountants always analyzed carefully the data first and followed through how it was entered and how it left the software. You know input and output Mathematicians never questioned input and output. They just played games with equations. Rationally it should have worked. But it never did in a timely nor economical manner before they invented transistors, silicon wafers and integrated circuits, which happened by the middle 1980's and is why Google works so well. We knew the algorithms back in the 1960's.Interacting with the elements is important. The behavior of hormones and the brain is very important in cancer.I'm just sticking to my particular kind of experience with cancer, breast. However, I've developed my own theories about thyroid cancer too because I've observed so much about it via others. It's the same kind of method of dealing with hormones. Diabetes I'm familiar with too because it's happening to me. Now do I know if HRT and ancology and radiology caused my tendency to diabetes? I could choose to think so. What's to stop me?I think this is parallel too. How can a man "feel" like a "woman"? Women don't have YDNA and men do. So you can always tell the actual gender of a human being can't you? That's being discrete your way. So ask every transsexual about this. Ask every endocrinologist.Every thought we hard copy on this forum is presented in binary. People obviously accept binary. The natural lingua frenca right at this moment is a language of two characters: plus/minus a range of volts. In my daze, it was plus/minus 5 volts. I don't know the precise range today. About 5 years ago I heard around plus/minus 3 volts.

Spingal, I don't understand, what do you mean about not theorising? Because it's irrelevant to my point. It also doesn't make much sense if you reread it, unless you mean something else by "evolution".MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

There we have it. It's all about ME/MYSELF/I. It's your ME/MYSELF/I vs. my ME/MYSELF/I. I rest my caseI now have a similar community environment with respect to dog walking. I am a devotee of the Dog Whisperer. The dog mind books I've read agree with the Dog Whisperer. Even a President of the AKC.Right now some folks think it's great that a dog barks at every adult they meet while on walks and acts agressive. I'm giving lectures to the dog owners that it's not the dogs fault and that I judge them by their dogs. I also need to find out if my ME/MYSELF/I is generally accepted on this subject or if their ME/MYSELF/I is generally accepted. For me they are bringing their dogs up to be Jihadists.It's especially appropriate to bring up the dogs behavior with respect to this debate of evolution/creation because wolves and humans evolved together. That's a scientific fact. So we can look to the AKC for information about evolution/creation and genetics?

Spingal,I think you lost the plot somewhere.You have made a statement that cancer does not have genetic causes. You then admit that oncogenes exist & that therefore cancer can have a genetic component. You append to this the proviso that: Now, as far as I'm concerned, it's job done, you have retracted your initial claim & accepted that a genetic component does exist for cancer. But I don't understand your continuing problem. What does it mean, "I just don't accept how you theorize from them"?I have no idea why you are talking about dog-whisperers...Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This thread is dedicated to discussing genetics as it relates to cancer (specifically breast cancer). The first sentence is about the only thing that is vaguely on topic here. Dog whispering, dogs barking, the AKC, raising dogs to be Jihadists and dog evolution are very much not on topic.Please please please try to focus on the topic at hand. If you have decided to 'rest your case' regarding cancer and genetics and want to talk about indoctrinating dogs into Wahhabism instead...then propose a new topic and we'll see if it's worth promoting.Once again, don't reply in this thread. If you have any comments about moderator action you can make those comments in the appropriate thread in my signature below.

---

Dear Ms. macnietspingal:
Just out of curiosity, do you have a close relative by the name of Brad McFall? Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.