 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Breast Cancer / November 2005and another thing
Here's another thing. No, don't go away! Krebs et al in "The Unitarian or Trophoblastic thesis of Cancer' state that no "experimentally established datum (has been produced) that would controvert the thesis of the basic biological uniformity characterising all exhibitions of cancer" So why do oncologists seem so keen to labour the opposite point? The old cliche "Cancer is not one disease but many is cranked out by solemnly intoning specialists to reinforce the notion that the condition is immensely complex and arcane and that only such as they could possibly come close to understanding its many manifestations. Obfuscation in, perhaps, their own professional interests? One day the experts might entertain the possibility that cancer is,after all, one disease (albeit with the capacity to appear in different locations/tissues according to local factors) with just one underlying cause. I mean, what are the odds that all these hundreds of so-called 'carcinogenic' substances having the one identical effect on a cell's behaviour (ie proliferation)? > Krebs et al in "The Unitarian or Trophoblastic thesis of Cancer' state that > no "experimentally established datum (has been produced) that would > controvert the thesis of the basic biological uniformity characterising all > exhibitions of cancer" > So why do oncologists... At the time of writing, this is the only message in this thread. Am I being cynical in expecting a posting pointing out cancer cures based on the unitarian theory which are available for purchase? > Here's another thing. No, don't go away! > Krebs et al in "The Unitarian or Trophoblastic thesis of Cancer' state that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 'carcinogenic' substances having the one identical effect on a cell's > behaviour (ie proliferation)? On reason is that it is well established that some cancers, even of the same tissue, will respond readily to a particular drug, while others seemingly similar, do not. Clearly there is some biological commonality between different cancers, but it is also clear that there are some considerable differences eg in expressed proteins, and I cannot accept that there is no evidence that there are different forms. Are you suggesting that the routine test results for estrogen receptors, growth factor receptors etc, which are statistically proven to relate to the effectiveness of corresponding therapies, are meaningless? It seems to me that the theory that there are many different forms of cancer comes mostly from microbiologists researching the underlying mechanism, not from medical oncologists who are more concerned with the pragmatic solutions of "what works". Tim Jackson |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.