Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Cancer / July 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Looking for missing skin cancer trigger

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Cheerful Pickle - 03 Apr 2004 03:22 GMT
Hi, gang,

I am 57 years old.  As a child, I was raised mostly in Miami, FL, during a
time when no one ever heard of sunscreens.  All there was back then were
worthless suntan lotions that offered nearly zero protection.  Around 95%
of my sun exposure occurred in my first 12 years of life.  Of the remaining
5%, perhaps 95% of that occurred in the next 10 years.  In the last 35
years, I avoided the sun like a plague and received no more than one light
tan in all that time.  However, I am still plagued with an unending stream
of skin cancers (one melanoma, 5 squamous cell and perhaps 100 basal cell
skin cancers).

From what I understand about the anatomy of the skin, skin cells have a
rather short life expectancy.  Unlike neurons or muscle cells, which live
for the lifetime of the person, skin cells only survive a few months before
being pushed up from the dermis to the epidermis where they die and from
which they are eventually shed.  However, the skin cancers occur from 10 to
50 years after a cell is damaged, years, if not decades after that cell
dies.  It is not the damaged cell that becomes cancerous, rather it is that
cells distant descendant.

There must be an additional factor that stimulates the distant descendant of
a damaged cell that causes it to become malignant.  It may be a hormone, an
enzyme, something in the diet, or whatever.  I don't know what it is, but
something must trigger the transformation of the cell into a cancer cell.
The sun exposure is the first assault, there must be an additional one
decades later without which a damaged cell would never become cancerous.

Every time I asked my dermatologist as to what I can do to prevent further
skin cancers, all I hear from him is the tired old litany of "keep out of
the sun."  I've been doing that for decades.  It simply does not work.
There has to be some way of blocking the transformation from a healthy, but
damaged, cell into a malignant cell.  Perhaps it is a drug, perhaps it is a
vitamin, perhaps it is a hormone.  If there is something that triggers a
cancer after half a century, there must be something that blocks the
trigger.  I am sick and tired of medical advice that is utterly worthless.
I need answers, not hackneyed old sayings that dermatologists love to
spout.

Does anyone know of any research in that direction?

There HAS to be an answer.

Thank you.

Signature

Andy Rugg
The Cheerful Pickle
to email me please remove "postheap" from my email address.  Thanks.

Steph - 03 Apr 2004 03:28 GMT
> Hi, gang,
>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>
> Thank you.

The stem cells in the basal layer of your epidermis are immortal. The DNA
damage is in them, and is passed on to the maturing keratinocytes.
You can't undo the damage
Cheerful Pickle - 03 Apr 2004 03:39 GMT
...

> The stem cells in the basal layer of your epidermis are immortal. The DNA
> damage is in them, and is passed on to the maturing keratinocytes.
> You can't undo the damage

I'm not asking about undoing the damage from the initial sun exposure. There
must be something that, decades later, triggers a damaged cell from going
from simply being a damaged cell to being a malignant cell.

That would be prevention of skin cancer, not repair of an earlier damage.

Signature

Andy Rugg
The Cheerful Pickle
to email me please remove "postheap" from my email address.  Thanks.

Steph - 03 Apr 2004 08:57 GMT
> ...
> >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> That would be prevention of skin cancer, not repair of an earlier damage.

After many generations of cell division, the random mistakes on top of the
DNA damage from the sun exposure finally lead to hyperkeratoses, in situ
cancers and invasive cancers.
It's getting older which is the problem. You can't undo it
Tm n Kat - 04 Apr 2004 14:17 GMT
>Subject: Re: Looking for missing skin cancer trigger
>From: "Steph" steph@vancouver.island
>Date: 4/3/2004

>After many generations of cell division, the random mistakes on top of the
>DNA damage from the sun exposure finally lead to hyperkeratoses, in situ
>cancers and invasive cancers.

True to most with exceptions being in those places where people have gotten em
where the sun has never shone.  

>It's getting older which is the problem. You can't undo it

Because some sun worshippers get them and some don't hopefully in time,
scientists can come up with something.  

Kathy J
Steph - 04 Apr 2004 17:24 GMT
> >Subject: Re: Looking for missing skin cancer trigger
> >From: "Steph" steph@vancouver.island
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Kathy J

Some people have better DNA repair mechanisms than others
Tm n Kat - 03 Apr 2004 04:51 GMT
>Subject: Looking for missing skin cancer trigger
>From: Cheerful Pickle cheerfulpickle@net-venture.compostheap
>Date: 4/2/2004

>I am 57 years old.

>Does anyone know of any research in that direction?
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Andy Rugg

Andy,
Just wondering...how old were you when you began getting the skin cancers?
There are some genetic factors that can be found under a Google search with the
keywords "genetic defect skin cancer".  
I think the sun exposure causing skin cancer theory is like smoking causing
lung cancer theory.  Its true for some but not all.  
Kathy J
Cheerful Pickle - 03 Apr 2004 08:41 GMT
> Andy,
> Just wondering...how old were you when you began getting the skin cancers?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> lung cancer theory.  Its true for some but not all.
> Kathy J

I was 27.  It went undiagnosed for years because no General Practitioner
knew what it was.  When I would go to the doctor's office for something
else, I would ask, "Hey, doc, as long as I'm here, what's this big and ugly
open sore on my neck."  Most of the time, the reply was, "I don't know.  If
it doesn't get bigger, then don't worry about it."  Though it did get
bigger, it didn't bother me because it got bigger so very, very slowly.
The most ridiculous reply I got to that question was, "It might be asthma."
I almost laughed in that doctor's face and left not only vowing never to
return to that doctor, but wondering out of what Cracker Jack box he got
his license to practice medicine.

Anyway, it seems common sense to me that if the insults to my skin occurred
mostly before the age of 12 and the skin cancers are still coming, then
there must be something occurring more recently that is switching on a
defective gene that was dormant until now.  That seems to be key to
stopping the cancer now when the sun damage was done half a century ago.
That holds equally true if it was hereditary.  Since I was adopted at birth
and do not know my family medical history, who is to say?  Curse those
stupid adoption privacy laws.

Signature

Andy Rugg
The Cheerful Pickle
to email me please remove "postheap" from my email address.  Thanks.

Karen Lynn - 03 Apr 2004 17:56 GMT
Dear Andy,

You said:
"Since I was adopted at birth and do not know my family medical history, who
is to say?  Curse those stupid adoption privacy laws."

AMEN. Secrecy in adoption kills people. Secrecy in adoption creates a
sub-class of people who are unable to find out their family medical history
and puts them at risk of either acquiring a hereditary disease or in a
situation of being unable to manage a potentilly inheritable disease.
Secrecy in adoption is a relatively new phenomenon but it was created long
before the discovery of DNA and the whole constellation of inheritable
diseases, some of which are cancer (albeit a small percentage). Adoption
reunions can run interference with this problem by allowing biological
family members to share information about hereditary diseases.

For example, I know of a case here in Ontario where a mother who had
surrendered her child to adoption 28 years previously "met" her daughter by
reading her obit in the paper (there was a picture of the daughter in the
obit and she looked remarkably similar to her natural mother). The mother
had had the same cancer, ovarian, for some years, although she was about 18
years older than her daughter. It's possible that the mother could have
warned her daughter about the potential to acquire this cancer had they
known each other a few years previously. One can only imagine the grief of
this woman.

Another case. My friend, an adoptee, died of liver cancer last August after
originally being diagnosed with a rare ocular melanoma. Her (reunited)
mother a couple of years ago in a casual conversation advised her daughter
that the family had a history of glaucoma (a relatively harmless disease)
and advised her to get her eyes checked. She did and that's how my friend
was originally diagnosed. This disease was supposed to be 95% curable and it
was not expected to spread. Unfortunately, although it was detected early,
it did spread and the reunion did not save her life. BUT, now the entire
large biological family is now on the look-out for this disease and other
cancers.

In my personal case: I am a reunited mother of a 40 year old son (5 years).
Several weeks ago my son (with whom I am in constant contact) phoned me to
say he was experiencing pain in the middle of the night in his abdomen. I
had had my gall bladder removed many years ago so I thought he may have gall
stones. I told him to go to the doctor and get it checked out by getting an
ultrasound. He didn't have gallstones--he had Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma!
This is apparently not inherited, but my concern about gall stones sent him
to the doctor and, hopefully, detected his disease early enough to cure it.

I know of numerous similar case involving Polycystic Kidney Disease and
others. If you pursue reunion you may find out some helpful information
about your cancer--no guarantees but maybe. Some laws (in US states and
Canadian provinces) enable people to access their original birth files based
on health reasons.

Best of luck!

Karen

> Anyway, it seems common sense to me that if the insults to my skin occurred
> mostly before the age of 12 and the skin cancers are still coming, then
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> and do not know my family medical history, who is to say?  Curse those
> stupid adoption privacy laws.
Tm n Kat - 04 Apr 2004 14:12 GMT
>Subject: Re: Looking for missing skin cancer trigger
>From: Cheerful Pickle cheerfulpickle@net-venture.compostheap
>Date: 4/3/2004

> Since I was adopted at birth
>and do not know my family medical history, who is to say?  Curse those
>stupid adoption privacy laws.

>Andy Rugg

Hey Andy, since you and I are both adopted and both have had skin cancer at a
fairly young age, maybe it is adoption that causes it, just kidding (my warped
humor).

I agree, most of the states have laws that suck but there are people working
very hard to change them so we adoptees can have a flying chance, at least the
same odds as non adoptees, to find our genetic medical histories.  Don't you
just hate those medical questionaires that Dr's always ask you to complete?    

Have you done any searching on your own?  Feel free to E-mail me if you need
any links.  Kathy J  


p.surtees - 05 Apr 2004 17:06 GMT
Just had my first basal cell carcinoma diagnosed,on the face.For 3 years I
took azathioprine  an immunosuppressant for ulcerative colitis,instead of
continuing with high-dose steroids.Had to come off the immuno medication as
my lymphocyte? count got too low.The facial problem developed initially at
that time and I'm told the impaired immunity system may have contributed to
the bsc development.Is your immune system  strength below par?
BTW my origins are Viking so that hasn't helped either,blond/fair skin etc
spam2death - 23 Apr 2004 21:55 GMT
Have you tried using the newly approved  Solaraze gel?
http://www.skyepharma.com/approved_solaraze.html                  It's expensive but
if you have Rx insurance and some patience it works wonders in reversing solar and
actinic keratosis. You can actually see the damage slowly reverse and the
precancerous growths dry up and fall off. As someone plagued by numerous basal and
squamous cells, I thought nothing could reverse the extensive UV damage on my legs
and forearms. After 4 months of daily Solaraze application 99% of my AKs are gone and
instead of having to get a dozen or more AKs frozen every 45 days, I can now just
treat emerging AKs with the Solaraze (topical diclofenac). Solaraze costs about
125.00 a tube so it's expensive to treat large skin areas but if you are like me and
you have lost track of how many hundred spots you've had frozen or excised by the
dermatologist, then using Solaraze also becomes cost effective. Treatment is
generally prescribed for 3-4 months on each skin area but some of the AKs will dry up
and resolve within 30-45 days. I've also started taking oral diclofenac (inexpensive)
as there is some preliminary medical studies funded by the makers of Celebrex
theorizing that CoX inhibitors taken orally might also slow the growth of potential
skin cancers.

Lower strength (1%) topical diclofenac is available OTC in many countries and sold
via the net as a pain reliever rub (Voltaren emugel). Although the 1% strength works
slower than the Rx 3% strength in clearing AKs, it is also much less expenisve in
case you don't have Rx insurance.

--
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"   Thomas Jefferson

> Hi, gang,
>
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
> The Cheerful Pickle
> to email me please remove "postheap" from my email address.  Thanks.
Frank (aka) \ - 30 Jul 2004 23:06 GMT
>Have you tried using the newly approved  Solaraze gel?
>http://www.skyepharma.com/approved_solaraze.html                  It's expensive but
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>slower than the Rx 3% strength in clearing AKs, it is also much less expenisve in
>case you don't have Rx insurance.

Is this another person to plonk?
spam2death - 01 Jul 2004 01:45 GMT
"Frank (aka) "stew"" <imhere@home.com> wrote in message
Is this another person to plonk?

Frank,

This old message of mine you dredged up is full of pertinent information
meant for the original poster's questions.

I am a ten year survivor of multiple types of cancer.

I will keep fighting another type cancer until I die or it kills me.

Take 2 minutes and do some serious research before you accuse people of
spamming.

Solaraze is FDA approved.

I think you owe me a public apology.

spam2death

> >Have you tried using the newly approved  Solaraze gel?
> >http://www.skyepharma.com/approved_solaraze.html                  It's expensive but
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Is this another person to plonk?
Frank (aka) \ - 31 Jul 2004 02:21 GMT
Ok if you think so

sorry

I still ask because there are allot of people that seem to want to sell
snake oil, I did not mean to well that's not true I did mean to
but I do apologize, I just get so tired of reading all the miracle cure
posters that seem to come out and try and sell or advertise their wares
I hope all read this big SORRY Im not to proud to say it.

 I did not dredge up the msg but again sorry

Frank (aka) "stew"
oh yea
cancer can kiss my a.s

>"Frank (aka) "stew"" <imhere@home.com> wrote in message
>Is this another person to plonk?
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
>>
>> Is this another person to plonk?
spam2death - 01 Jul 2004 03:00 GMT
> Ok if you think so
>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> >
> >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 20:55:48 GMT, "spam2death" <spam2death@comcast.com>

Frank,

Thanks for the apology.

As you can see, the message to which you originally replied was written
April 23 of this year.

I hope your fight against cancer goes well.

spam2death
 
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.