Re: Genetics: Disease Backs Cancer Origin Theory -- as an exception

[Guest guest]

This is a case where exception proves the rule.

As Vogelstein, whose career-goal is to establish genetic origin of

cancer, himself states: " Unlike the tumors arising from MVA, most

cancers are not hereditary. "

In other words, genetic orgin is established only for a cancer type

which is hereditary. Such childhood cancers are extremely rare.

It has been known for more than a decade that childhood eye-tumor

retinoblastoma (another inherited cancer) is caused by defective

copy of the RB gene. In that case, it has been shown that a certain

genetic region is missing on chromosome 13. In fact, in all

inherited cancer cases, when detailed studies are done, the root of

problem is found to be a DELETION of a genetic region.

Thus it is the absence of a normal healthy gene that is the cause of

malignant transformation -- suggesting that the concept of " bad

gene " or " mutated gene " is quite unnecessary to explain cancer. The

role of genes is passive.

For more on this subject, please see:

http://www.cancer-treatment.net/CancerAndGenes.htm

Jay Kulsh

>

> Science, Vol 306, Issue 5695, 389, 15 October 2004 [DOI:

> 10.1126/science.306.5695.389a]

>

> GENETICS:

>

> Disease Backs Cancer Origin Theory

>

> Grimm

>

> Almost all cancer cells have gained or lost entire chromosomes.

Despite

> the genetic turmoil this causes, scientists have disagreed for

nearly a

> century about whether this abnormality and other types of genomic

> instability, such as that caused by DNA repair defects, are the

starting

> gun for cancer or merely a result of it. A study published online

in

> Nature Genetics this week provides the strongest evidence yet for

the

> starting gun theory by showing that mutations in a gene involved in

> ensuring proper chromosome number result in childhood cancer.

>

> " The connection between chromosomal instability and cancer is now

> unassailable, " says Bert Vogelstein, an oncologist at s Hopkins

> University School of Medicine in Baltimore, land. " This study

will

> stimulate a lot of research into whether mutations in genes

[involved in

> chromosome maintenance] contribute to other types of cancer. "

>

> In 1914, German biologist Theodor Boveri noticed that the cancer

cells

> he was studying contained an abnormal number of chromosomes, a

state

> called aneuploidy. The observation led him to postulate that the

> condition was a root cause of cancer. But as researchers began to

> discover that mutations in specific oncogenes and tumor-suppressor

genes

> were enough to set cancer in motion, the aneuploidy theory fell

out of

> fashion. Now it's back, thanks to a series of studies in the mid-

1990s

> on the larger issue of genomic instability. For example,

Vogelstein and

> others showed that mutations in genes required for DNA repair led

to a

> hereditary form of colon cancer, indicating that the

destabilization of

> a cell's genome could instigate cancer. But the field is still

deeply

> divided between scientists who believe genomic instability must

happen

> early for cancer and those who say it happens later and may not

even be

> required.

>

<snip>

[Guest guest]

Dear Jay:

I would like to add some of your information to my cesiumtherapy group.

I have great hope for electronic treatment but it is an uphill battle with the

big cancer business. I don't know if you are familiar with Kansius of Erie

PA who has a radio frequency generator. He has several doctors at the MD

interested as well as the Univ of Pittsburgh. There was an article

about him in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, I think it was the 25 th of Sept. I

talked to him shortly after that and he was going for a meeting at the MD

within two weeks from then. How much investigation has been done on the

creation of free radicals from the voltages?

Dottie Mashman

[Guest guest]

Dottie,

Gammill was nice enough to send me copy of that article

related to efforts of Kanzius of PA (July 25, 2004).

So much of that article is about protecting the process and getting

the patent. So now you can see why no institution wants to touch

GEIPE cancer therapy since many animal studies, with positive

outcomes, have already been published. This process will be very

hard to patent, and inexpensive to boot.

Jay Kulsh

www.cancer-treatment.net

> Dear Jay:

> I would like to add some of your information to my cesiumtherapy

group.

> I have great hope for electronic treatment but it is an uphill

battle with the big cancer business. I don't know if you are

familiar with Kansius of Erie PA who has a radio frequency

generator. He has several doctors at the MD interested as

well as the Univ of Pittsburgh. There was an article about him in

the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, I think it was the 25 th of Sept. I

talked to him shortly after that and he was going for a meeting at

the MD within two weeks from then. How much investigation

has been done on the creation of free radicals from the voltages?

> Dottie Mashman

>

>

[Guest guest]

As Vogelstein, whose life-mission is to establish genetic origin of

cancer, himself states: " Unlike the tumors arising from MVA, most

cancers are not hereditary. " So if an extremely rare herditary

disease is found to be genetic in origin, where is the news here?

Biologically speaking, hereditary always means genetic.

Important thing to remember is that such childhood hereditary

cancers are extremely rare. These are exceptions just as a few

cancers caused by virus are exceptions!

It has been known for more than a decade that childhood eye-tumor

retinoblastoma (another rare inherited cancer) is caused by defective

copy of the RB gene. In that case, it has been shown that a certain

genetic region is missing on chromosome 13. In fact, in all

inherited cancer cases, when detailed studies are done, the root of

problem is found to be a DELETION of a genetic region.

Thus it is the absence of a normal healthy gene that is the cause of

malignant transformation -- suggesting that the concept of " bad

gene " or " mutated gene " is quite unnecessary to explain cancer. The

role of genes is passive.

For more on this subject, please see:

http://www.cancer-treatment.net/CancerAndGenes.htm

Jay Kulsh

>

> Science, Vol 306, Issue 5695, 389, 15 October 2004 [DOI:

> 10.1126/science.306.5695.389a]

>

> GENETICS:

>

> Disease Backs Cancer Origin Theory

>

> Grimm

>

> Almost all cancer cells have gained or lost entire chromosomes.

Despite

> the genetic turmoil this causes, scientists have disagreed for

nearly a

> century about whether this abnormality and other types of genomic

> instability, such as that caused by DNA repair defects, are the

starting

> gun for cancer or merely a result of it. A study published online

in

> Nature Genetics this week provides the strongest evidence yet for

the

> starting gun theory by showing that mutations in a gene involved in

> ensuring proper chromosome number result in childhood cancer.

>

> " The connection between chromosomal instability and cancer is now

> unassailable, " says Bert Vogelstein, an oncologist at s Hopkins

> University School of Medicine in Baltimore, land. " This study

will

> stimulate a lot of research into whether mutations in genes

[involved in

> chromosome maintenance] contribute to other types of cancer. "

>

> In 1914, German biologist Theodor Boveri noticed that the cancer

cells

> he was studying contained an abnormal number of chromosomes, a

state

> called aneuploidy. The observation led him to postulate that the

> condition was a root cause of cancer. But as researchers began to

> discover that mutations in specific oncogenes and tumor-suppressor

genes

> were enough to set cancer in motion, the aneuploidy theory fell

out of

> fashion. Now it's back, thanks to a series of studies in the mid-

1990s

> on the larger issue of genomic instability. For example,

Vogelstein and

> others showed that mutations in genes required for DNA repair led

to a

> hereditary form of colon cancer, indicating that the

destabilization of

> a cell's genome could instigate cancer. But the field is still

deeply

> divided between scientists who believe genomic instability must

happen

> early for cancer and those who say it happens later and may not

even be

> required.

>

<snip>