because it isn't always the same gene with every cancer. Inmost cases
I understand it is something called a branch site which is part of
the gene. once the branch becomes defective, the cancer starts its
uncontrolled growth.

Check with the National Cancer Institute for up to date information.

I know science is working on how to turn certain genes back on after
they have been turned off. And they use mice to turn off specific genes
(e.g ALS) Then they try different things to try and turn that specific
cell back on.  Science has had success in reversing RETTS Syndrome.

But, if science knows how to target a specific gene and turn just that
gene off, why cant they do this for cancer?

Chemotherapy targets cells that are rapidly dividing, like cancer cells,
which is why people with chemo often have problems with making enough
blood cells, leading to immunodeficiency and anemia, hair loss and
intestinal problems. Radiation and chemotherapy kill both healthy and
cancercous cells. So, unless you can kill only cancer cells, the patient
is going to have side effects. Both radiation and chemo are unable only
to target cancerous cells.

Type cancer into google, and you will find links to wikipedia, the
American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute, each of which
has pages that answer your question more fully.

Jeff

Why does cancer grow? When cells are partially damaged  they  keep
producing and you land up with an over-expression of cells(Thats what
cancer is, an over-expression of cells) If you can use radiation to
completely destroy that particular cell, it will "turn it off". Isnt
that what Chemo does?

On May 26, 10:15 am, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:

Cancer is still a "mystery" disease for the allopath, and why anyone
survives their cut/burn/poison approach is also a mystery.  The
allopath does not know why chemo works as poorly as it does.
Experts in this area report that the correct cure rate for cancer
treated allopathically is 2.1%.  2.1% is hardly 85%.

DrCee
You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons

With Hodgkin's Disease, there is about an 85% chance of survival with
proper treatment. The so-called "natural treatments" that the family is
trying to use not only are not working in this case (the tumors are
getting larger), but, there is no evidence that "natural treatments" work.

The question the court is dealing with is: Does the state have the right
to force treatment on a child with a disease that has a 85% survival
rate when the family wants to do nothing?

In this case, the courts are ruling not to give the kid chemotherapy is
medical neglect.

Jeff