My 24 year old son has the idea that we don't need early detection screenings, because (he believes) that individuals discover something wrong with their bodies before any physical finds them and report these issues to their doctor and that's when something like cancer is found, not by cancer screenings or alike. I disagree with him and keep telling him that physicals are necessary for early detection of things like cancer. I tried to point out to him that if we had the technology back when Gilda Radner was Dx with ovarian cancer, it might have been discovered earlier, before she had symptoms, and she might have lived longer, even survived, but he won't believe me. I think he lives by a dangerous philosophy about cancer and other like illnesses. He has a belief, for example, that if one has lung cancer, their breath smells like a dead decaying body. I don't know rather to laugh or cry, concerning some of his ideas.I am a big proponent of preventive medicine just as I am of preventive maintenance on your car. The outcome will usually be better if you change your oil regularly rather than waiting for the symptoms of a seized engine to tell you something is wrong. That being said, not all things can be detected at an early stage and even those that can are not always amenable to treatments that can improve the outcome. That's why prevention and screening has to be done based on good evidence. Gilda Radner being a prime example. We have a number of tests which can on a broad scale detect ovarian cancer earlier than symptoms alone yet study after study have shown that things like sonograms and CA125 levels do not improve survival and may actually diminish it. While we are not able to screen and treat all illness in a way that improves the outcome there are many things we can screen for that make a huge difference. BP screening and treatment has dramatically reduced the rate of cardiovascular deaths over the past 50 years. Diabetes can not only be detected earlier with routine exams but its precursor (prediabetes) can be identified and if detected lifestyle changes can begin that may prevent the onset of diabetes. It has been estimated that close to 70% of all colon cancers ( 3rd leading cause of cancer deaths in men and women) could be prevented with regular colonoscopies every 5-10 years. Mammograms have been proven effective at reducing breast cancer deaths in women over 50, and PAP smears have dramatically reduced the death rate from cervical cancer. Vaccines have virtually eliminated the infectious diseases that used to kill most people. we can't detect and cure everything so you have to be selective about what sort of screening you do. Screening for things you can't fix can do m ore harm than good, but if your doctor is smart about it there is a lot he/she can do to prevent and cure diseases that would otherwise lead to an early death if not detected until symptoms developed. So I guess you're saying that my son and I are both right and wrong, depending on the illness being screen for and under what circumstances?
I just don't think it's correct to say that we all have cancer. A cell with a defective code that may become cancerous one day is not cancer. That's all.But it is correct. It is only a fortuitous combination of your immune system being a capable match for the particular cancer cells in your body that prevents you from developing a clinically significant tumor. If your immune system were not there or was slightly different then things would be very different. In some cases those very same cells in another person would cause a malignant tumor. Patients who are immune deficient develop cancer at a much higher rate than the general population because of this. The cancer cells are always there. They are just kept in check by your immune system until they are not You wouldn't say that the 1918 influenza virus is not a deadly virus simply because it happened to be in the body of someone who's immune system was able to defend against it. Every cancer that eventually becomes deadly started out as one of these tumor cells but due to a weakened immune system or a genetic mutation that allowed it to circumvent that person's unique immune system it developed into a potentially deadly tumor.
So I guess you're saying that my son and I are both right and wrong, depending on the illness being screen for and under what circumstances?Exactly
But it is correct. It is only a fortuitous combination of your immune system being a capable match for the particular cancer cells in your body that prevents you from developing a clinically significant tumor. If your immune system were not there or was slightly different then things would be very different. In some cases those very same cells in another person would cause a malignant tumor. Patients who are immune deficient develop cancer at a much higher rate than the general population because of this. The cancer cells are always there. They are just kept in check by your immune system until they are not.I don't think that's right. Not every mutant cell will necessarily keep undergoing additional mutation to reach the status of being cancerous. The cancer cells are NOT always there. They are not cancer cells UNTIL they become cancer cells. Not everyone has cancer.
I don't think that's right. Not every mutant cell will necessarily keep undergoing additional mutation to reach the status of being cancerous. The cancer cells are NOT always there. They are not cancer cells UNTIL they become cancer cells. Not everyone has cancer.I think you are missing the point George. A cancer cell is a cell that if left unchecked will divide and multiply endlessly and will not respond the the normal signals from surrounding cells. These cells DO exist in everybody. The difference between a cancer cell that results in a tumor and one that doesn't can be an additional mutation or can simply be the difference between your immune system and mine or your immune system today and your immune system tomorrow. These cancer cells do not necessarily have to undergo any additional mutations to become problematic if your immune system undergoes a change or becomes distracted by something else.
[Cancer] cells DO exist in everybody.I don't think they do. I'll try to find some more information on this.
Ok, found this:
Q: IS IT TRUE THAT WE ALL HAVE CANCER CELLS IN OUR BODIES RIGHT NOW?
A: “No. Everyone has cells that have mutant proteins from DNA damage, but to say that that’s cancer would be alarmist,” says Jennifer Loros, Ph.D, a professor of biochemistry and genetics at Dartmouth medical school.
See the rest HERE].
Ok, found this: Q: IS IT TRUE THAT WE ALL HAVE CANCER CELLS IN OUR BODIES RIGHT NOW? A: "No. Everyone has cells that have mutant proteins from DNA damage, but to say that that's cancer would be alarmist," says Jennifer Loros, Ph.D, a professor of biochemistry and genetics at Dartmouth medical school. See the rest HERE].She is not talking about the same thing. The fact is that every single cell in your body has mutations not just "some cells" and some of those mutations result in mutant proteins most of which are harmless. I never said that a cell is a cancer cell simply because it has mutations. I have already provided you with the definition of what a cancer cell is. Of all the trillions of cells in your body on any given day there will likely be some that the right mutations to allow them to escape control over their growth and therefor be defined as cancer cells. we dont change the definition just because we are afraid people might be alarmed by the facts. You can look at this as a probability problem. For a cell not to be cancerous it has to obey the rules. Everything has to work right. It has to respond to the controls that are there to prevent it from following its natural tendency to reproduce. Every time a cell divides it has to copy 3 billion base pairs with perfect fidelity. Some mistakes are going to be made. There are systems in place to proof read and correct but they are not perfect so mistakes will occur and some will persist. Some of those mistake are harmless, some are fatal to the cell, some will be silent unless they exist in the presence of other mutations. If enough errors occur in the control genes you have cancer. Entropy and the sheer numbers ( billions of base pairs and trillions of dividing cells) make it very probable that mutations are occurring frequently and those mutations are far more likely to be harmful than beneficial. It would almost be a miracle if rogue cells did not appear on a fairly regular basis. There is nothing alarming about this its simply a statement of fact. The vast majority of time those cells are destroyed before they can cause any problems. We can argue semantics about whether that qualifies them as cancer cells if they can't hide from our immune system but in a petri dish they would divide and behave like cancer cells. If it makes you feel better to not call them cancer cells then you are certainly free to define them as such for yourself. Just keep in mind that these are the cells that become tumors when the conditions are right and therefor we are all at risk and should all try our best to limit the conditions that promote the growth of these cells. That's all I have been trying to say.
George, try looking at it this way if it will make it more understandable what Macgyver is saying. Older adults have a high rate of cancer and PART of the reason for that is, cells (for all of us) die off and new ones form. So older adults still have new cells developing, but because they are of an advanced age, those cells don’t always develop right, even mutate more often than when we’re younger, and they often have more cells that don’t develop right than the younger population. Those that don’t develop right and mutate from what they should be, either get attacked by healthy cells and destroyed or they go “rad”. Those that go radical turn into cancer, such as leukaemia, prostate cancer, etc. The same with lung cancer- new cells are constantly developing as others die off, but if cells continue to get damaged repeatedly, over and over again, it makes it harder for a healthy cell to grow properly and eventually one ends up with many abnormal cells that become cancerous. The elderly are more prone to abnormal cell development in part because of their age and in part because they’ve lived long enough to have repeated damage from their environment. Many also have lower immunity to illnesses too. All is this part of why there is a higher rate of cancer in the aged.
That’s the part that McGyver is saying that doesn’t always work right and those are two very easy examples to explain what he’s saying. With old age or smoking or both, the right ingredients are there for mutated cells to become cancerous. However, one doesn’t have to be old or a smoker to have a cell that is potentially cancerous to develop. Our cells die off every day and we get news ones, but one mutation could mean either the death of the cell, kidney problems, or cancer. However, some organs develop new cells more slowly then others, such as our brains, and this is way people with TBI recover more slowly than someone who gets a broken arm, for example. The cells in the area of the brain that is damage die off and new ones develop slowly, esp in adults. That’s why for the longest time, we thought only children developed new brain cells, but in recent years, we’ve found adults do too, it’s just slower.
I look at cancer as mutated cells that developed in a way that is not conducive to human life and successfully thriving at the expense of the organism. However, by looking at this way, embryonic cells could mutate from the norm in which development could cause not only deformatives, but also cancer, thereby causing a new born to be born with cancer. However, we don’t often hear of such things, even with babies born to mothers who have cancer during gestation, but I guess theoretically it is possible. However, looking at it from the elderly side of cell development, it makes sense. So, I would assume there are a few problems in my own understanding of the subject that need ironing out, but I think that is the jest of what mcgyver is saying and at any given time, we all have cells that mutate and could potentially become cancerous, but many die off or are killed by our immune system, which is also a bunch of cells too.
No, the fact that we all have mutant cells that can turn to cancer cells is what I am saying, not macgyver. What he is saying is that we all have cancer; or at least that’s what he initially said and then said a bunch of other things. The reason why older people are more likely to get cancer than young people is predominately due to the fact that with time it is simply more likely the damaged cells will undergo through a number of mutations, eventually making them so different from the rest of the cells that they will start growing their own “thing,” a tumour.
No, the fact that we all have mutant cells that can turn to cancer cells is what I am saying, not macgyver. What he is saying is that we all have cancer; or at least that's what he initially said and then said a bunch of other things. The reason why older people are more likely to get cancer than young people is predominately due to the fact that with time it is simply more likely the damaged cells will undergo through a number of mutations, eventually making them so different from the rest of the cells that they will start growing their own "thing," a tumour.Think that is what I was saying when I said due to age, exposure to various things in the environment etc. However, I think macgyver is actually saying the same thing, but he's not talking as a layman or you're misunderstanding what he means by mutant cells. Mutant cells can carry a code that is suppose to form a brain cell, but if part of that code is wrong, then it's a mutant, and if that mutant continues to develop, it crashes the whole system- be it kidney failure or cancer depending on the bad code. Like HTML, if the code is wrong, the web page, at the very least won't work properly. At worse, it could carry a virus that can crash your computer, whether it was intentional on the designer's part or not. It all depends on the coding as to whether or not the cell is cancer or not, so mcgyver is right and sometimes our immune cells kill that cell before it has a chance to grow into a tumor. BTW, not all tumors are cancer. Take Grave's Disease as one example.
Sorry, Mriana, but you are a bit confused about this whole thing. Mutant cells don’t “continue to develop,” to turn cancerous but, as I already said about a zillion times, keep mutating until they turn malignant. The reason why they, as you said,“crash the whole system” is because they are very prolific bastards that will not stop multiplying. And we actually know how many mutations it takes to turn a cell into a cancerous one: the estimate is somewhere between three to twelve mutations–in humans. The reason why skin and colon cancer are so prevalent also supports what I have been saying all along: those cells divide more often and chances of the necessarily number of mutations to turn them malignent are therefore more likely. Maybe macgyver (and Brennen) should look this up.
Sorry, Mriana, but you are a bit confused about this whole thing. Mutant cells don't "continue to develop," to turn cancerous but, as I already said about a zillion times, keep mutating until they turn malignant. The reason why they, as you said,"crash the whole system" is because they are very prolific bastards that will not stop multiplying. And we actually know how many mutations it takes to turn a cell into a cancerous one: the estimate is somewhere between three to twelve mutations--in humans. The reason why skin and colon cancer are so prevalent also supports what I have been saying all along: those cells divide more often and chances of the necessarily number of mutations to turn them malignent are therefore more likely. Maybe macgyver (and Brennen) should look this up.Um... You're telling doctors (at least Brennen is one), when you're not a doctor, to look this up when they've studied it? No insult intended, but I've studied some about cells and cell divisions in college too, even researched afterwards and think mcgyver has it right, but my word usage was a bit off. Keep in mind when a mutated cell divides, that division also takes the mutation with it and if that mutation is coded for cancer then you're carrying cancer in your body, even though it doesn't become full blown cancer. That vaccine for a particular STD... can't think of the name of it now, but it helps the body fight off a cancer that is caused by a virus. From what I read, apparently, at least one cancer, is caused by a virus. Viruses are also made up of cells, with our blood cells fight against. The vaccine helps the cells to fight that virus which causes cancer. HPV, I believe it is. Knowing this much information helps me understand what mcgyver is saying, but I'm not sure what you're missing.
Sorry, Mriana, but you are a bit confused about this whole thing. Mutant cells don't "continue to develop," to turn cancerous but, as I already said about a zillion times, keep mutating until they turn malignant. The reason why they, as you said,"crash the whole system" is because they are very prolific bastards that will not stop multiplying. And we actually know how many mutations it takes to turn a cell into a cancerous one: the estimate is somewhere between three to twelve mutations--in humans. The reason why skin and colon cancer are so prevalent also supports what I have been saying all along: those cells divide more often and chances of the necessarily number of mutations to turn them malignent are therefore more likely. Maybe macgyver (and Brennen) should look this up.While you have some of this correct you have made a few mistakes here. Your statement about the number of mutations it takes for a cell to become cancerous is estimated to be a few to a dozen. Where you go wrong is in your assumption that it takes cell division for mutations to occur and your implication that we basically start out mutation free and must acquire all of these mutations as our cells reproduce during our lifetime. We are all born with mutations already in place. Some of us have more than others but on average we all have some. So while it may take an average of 6 or 8 mutations for a cell to become cancerous, your may have come in to this world with several of those mutations in place already. In fact some individuals are born with a single mutation that makes them much more likely to get cancer like the BRCA genes, Conditions like MEN I and MEN II, and the gene that causes Familial Polyposis among many others. In these cases only 1 or two additional mutations may be required. Still other individuals are born with all the mutations necessary and have cancerous tumors at the time of birth. Additionally it is not necessary for a cell to divide in order for it to accumulate additional mutations. While rapidly dividing cells are more prone to mutation even slowly dividing cells can develop mutations. Some mutations are a result of incorrect DNA replication but other types of mutation can occur due to exposure to chemical agents or ionizing radiation that can alter non-replicating DNA. Some mutations actually occur during the proof reading process when the "corrections" go wrong and actually cause the sort of DNA errors they are trying to correct. And Mriana I am a physician. I practice Internal Medicine. You can check with Darron if you're not sure. He's a LinkedIn buddy of mine and I'm sure he will vouch for me ;-)
And Mriana I am a physician. I practice Internal Medicine. You can check with Darron if you're not sure. He's a LinkedIn buddy of mine and I'm sure he will vouch for me ;-)I'll take your word for it. So, I guess I'm not too far off assuming that it is possible for babies to born with cancer, despite my lay understanding of it all, and questioning that I was going down the wrong path when I realized that babies could be born with cancer with what I understood of it, was actually the point where I was starting to go down the wrong path. You don't hear very often that babies are born with cancer though, that's why I was thinking that maybe I misunderstood more than I think. Maybe I don't misunderstand more than think, I just need to learn more to clear up some things.
Sorry, Mriana, but you are a bit confused about this whole thing. Mutant cells don't "continue to develop," to turn cancerous but, as I already said about a zillion times, keep mutating until they turn malignant. The reason why they, as you said,"crash the whole system" is because they are very prolific bastards that will not stop multiplying. And we actually know how many mutations it takes to turn a cell into a cancerous one: the estimate is somewhere between three to twelve mutations--in humans. The reason why skin and colon cancer are so prevalent also supports what I have been saying all along: those cells divide more often and chances of the necessarily number of mutations to turn them malignent are therefore more likely. Maybe macgyver (and Brennen) should look this up.While you have some of this correct you have made a few mistakes here. Your statement about the number of mutations it takes for a cell to become cancerous is estimated to be a few to a dozen. Where you go wrong is in your assumption that it takes cell division for mutations to occur and your implication that we basically start out mutation free and must acquire all of these mutations as our cells reproduce during our lifetime. We are all born with mutations already in place. Some of us have more than others but on average we all have some. So while it may take an average of 6 or 8 mutations for a cell to become cancerous, your may have come in to this world with several of those mutations in place already. In fact some individuals are born with a single mutation that makes them much more likely to get cancer like the BRCA genes, Conditions like MEN I and MEN II, and the gene that causes Familial Polyposis among many others. In these cases only 1 or two additional mutations may be required. Still other individuals are born with all the mutations necessary and have cancerous tumors at the time of birth. Additionally it is not necessary for a cell to divide in order for it to accumulate additional mutations. While rapidly dividing cells are more prone to mutation even slowly dividing cells can develop mutations. Some mutations are a result of incorrect DNA replication but other types of mutation can occur due to exposure to chemical agents or ionizing radiation that can alter non-replicating DNA. Some mutations actually occur during the proof reading process when the "corrections" go wrong and actually cause the sort of DNA errors they are trying to correct. And Mriana I am a physician. I practice Internal Medicine. You can check with Darron if you're not sure. He's a LinkedIn buddy of mine and I'm sure he will vouch for me ;-) I am pretty sure I am quite aware of everything you said here and never implied we are we born mutation free. All I am trying to say, and this is the last time I am saying it, we don't all have cancer.
I am pretty sure I am quite aware of everything you said here and never implied we are we born mutation free. All I am trying to say, and this is the last time I am saying it, we don't all have cancer.I have to agree that I can not prove you wrong. The argument is one of biology and mathematics. Practically speaking everyone does have cells that are truly cancerous but as we can not examine every cell in every individual ( or even in a single individual) there is certainly the possibility that among the 7.1 billion people in the world at any given moment there may be some who are free of any cells which are neoplastic but this is irrelevant, nor is it the argument you are making. Your argument is one of biology and how we define cancer and what I have been saying is that your definition of cancer is neither accurate nor the accepted scientific definition. I also need to reiterate the argument i was originally trying to make which has gotten lost here and that is that no one can ever say they are cancer free because most if not all of us have cancer cells on board but also because most tumors exist for years to decades before they become detectable. Therefor our actions should always reflect that fact and we should therefor avoid anything that promote the growth of existing cancer cells.
I guess I’m still not sure exacty what the difference of opinion between macgyver and George is here. I suspect it’s semantics more than anything else. Let’s see if we can break down “We all have cancer all the time” into narrower statements and see if we can find the difference of opinion. If George and macgyver will each respond with agreement, disagreement, or clarification to the following statemets, maybe that will help.
- A “cancer cell” is a cell with sufficient mutations in relevant genes to undergo uncontrolled division. (Technically, these are called “neoplastic cells,” and can refer to the cells of both benign neoplasms, which show uncontrolled local growth but not tissue invasion or metastsis, and malignant neoplasms, which show both uncontrolled growth and invasion/metastasis. The term “cancer cell” is limited to malignant neoplastic cells per NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms- “Neoplasia-Abnormal and uncontrolled cell growth.
neoplasm-An abnormal mass of tissue that results when cells divide more than they should or do not die when they should. Neoplasms may be benign (not cancer), or malignant (cancer). Also called tumor.”) - “Cancer” is the disease caused by the activity of “cancer cells.”
(This is based on the NCI Dictionary of Cancer terms, which defines “Cancer” as “A term for diseases in which abnormal cells divide without control and can invade nearby tissues. Cancer cells can also spread to other parts of the body through the blood and lymph systems.”) - At any given time, there is a high liklihood that any individual will have neoplastic cells in their body capable of forming either benign or malignant tumors and, if malignant, can potentially lead to the disease state called “cancer.”
- Most of the time, individuals who have neoplastic cells in their body do not develop tumors or cancer because natural defense mechanisms destroy neopastic cells before they are able to replicate sufficiently to form tumors or invade tissue/metastasize.
- Changes in immune function, due to drugs, supplements, environmental exposures, disease states, age, and other factors can lead to the proliferation of neoplastic cells into tumors or cancer which would not have occured without these changes in immune function even though these cells were present in the body.
If we follow these definitions fairly strictly, it probably isn’t accurate that “We all have cancer all the time” but rather “We all have neoplastic cells with the potential to develop into tumors or cancer all the time.” However, the basic point is atill correct that cancer often develops not simply from the appearance of neoplastic cells but from the malfunction of the immune mechanisms which normally kill neoplastic cells before they can form cancers. Thus, the basic point that taking supplements which can interfere with these immune mechanisms (such as antioxidants) can theoretically raise the risk of cancer (and this has proven to be clinically true in some cases; e.g. Vit E and lung cancer in smokers, Vit E and prostate cancer).
I don’t think I need to clarify that for a cell to start uncontrollably multiplying to cause cancer it first needs to acquire sufficient mutations. I do agree that it is ultimately up to proofreading system to detect the mistakes and the immune system to deal with it. Although we are all born with potentially dangerous mutations, it is not correct to say that we all have cancer. A bad mutation can be responsible for, say, having crooked teeth, which is obviously not cancer. OTOH, children can inherit cells with already sufficient mutations from their mother and develop cancer at a very young age. All this, I believe, supports what I have been saying all along: we don’t all have cancer. I do agree it sounds logical to assume some supplements could potentially mess up the immune system and as a result indirectly cause cancer.
Thanks George. SO, do you agree with statement 3 above? I think that is what macgyver really emans by “we all have cancer all the time.”