Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Unlock Reasons Cancer Spreads

* * Beatles-Beatles writes "Instead of a cell just breaking off from a tumor and traveling through the bloodstream to another organ where it forms a secondary tumour, or metastasis, researchers in the United States have shown that the cancer sends out envoys to prepare the new site."

293 comments

  1. Great by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1, Funny

    Just what we need, tumors with puppet governments.

    </KindergartenCopON>
    It's not a tumor!
    </KindergartenCopOFF>

    1. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just what we need, tumors with puppet governments.

      Does that mean that I will get cancer on my hand if I accidentally pour petrol over it while filling up?

    2. Re:Great by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Does that mean that I will get cancer on my hand if I accidentally pour petrol over it while filling up?


      Well, yeah. Mainly because the relatively safe tetraethyl lead added to leaded petrol has been replaced with benzine, which is almost spectacularly carcinogenic. Even thinking about the stuff can give you a brain tumour.

    3. Re:Great by Indiana+Joe · · Score: 1

      Even thinking about the stuff can give you a brain tumour.

      Reading your post made me think about it. Now I've got a tumor.

      --
      I can't decide if this post is interesting, funny, insightful, or flamebait.
    4. Re:Great by IcyNeko · · Score: 1

      Makes you wonder why it's not transmutable via open wounds and what not... maybe it's only genetically encoded for the person who is suffering from it? At any rate, does this make Cancer act a lot more like a virus then?

    5. Re:Great by Electron · · Score: 2, Funny

      sue!

    6. Re:Great by Oreo_Borealis · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes. If you were to somehow get some travelling cancerous cells from someone else's body into yours, your immune system wouldn't recognize those cells, and would attack it, thinking it's an infection. Which it is.

    7. Re:Great by RatPh!nk · · Score: 1

      This has long been of interest to scientists. See the thing is cancers tend metastasize to the same areas. Example, colon/GI cancer loves to go to the liver. In fact, like you allude to, if you injected mice with tumor cells, the mouse could get cancer, and that cancer would spread in the same pattern that the original (mouse) cancer did. So there was something more going on that the old concept of cancer invades tissue, ruptures a blood vessel and spreads. IF that were the case, one would think it could go anywhere, or at least wherever blood flows. With areas of high perfusion having high rates of metastasis. Not totally the case. one caveat: people with cancer tend to shed alot of cancer cells into their blood stream, and very little actually stick to metastasize. In short, it is like a virus, in that it you can give cancer to another creature (virulent) with a sufficient dose (and it is usually high). Different in that it is self contained (viruses use the cells they invade machinery for replication), etc.... (quick answer)

      --
      Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
    8. Re:Great by RatPh!nk · · Score: 1
      This seems to be the role of NK Cells. Natural Killer cells seem to be on "tumor patrol"
      Source: Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 865: 329-240, 1986

      "Moreover, the efficacy of the different host defense mechanisms in destroying malignant cells may depend upon the extent of tumor burden, immunogenicity and site of tumor growth. For example, certain immune and nonimmune mechanisms may prove effective in destroying circulating tumor cells even though they might exert only a limited effect against the extravascular primary neoplasm. This may be attributed to the observation that unlike the cells within a solid tumor, tumor cells enter the circulation as single cells or small clumps and are, therefore, highly accessible and more vulnerable to destruction by immune and non-immune defense mechanisms." pg. 214
      "most tumor cells that enter the circulation are destroyed during the first 24 h and only a few cells succeed to extravasate and develop into metastatic foci in the organ parenchyma." pg. 214
      Also, the incidence of spontaneous malignant lymphomas was reported to be increased in NK-deficient mice carrying the beige mutation. In contrast, the relatively low incidence of tumor development in athymic nude mice that exhibit high NK cell-mediated cytotoxicity suggested that a T cell-independent mechanism may be operative in immunosurveillance." pg. 214
      NK cells express receptors to IL-2 (interleukin 2) and can proliferate in response to T cell mitogens and IL-2." pg. 215
      NK cells originate in the bone marrow and exhibit a characteristic organ distribution, their activity being highest in peripheral blood and then, in descending order, spleen, lymph nodes and bone marrow, and absent in the thymus." pg. 215
      ...NK cells and/or their precursors are highly sensitive to treatment in vivo with cyclophosphamide, B-estradiol and Sr. Animals treated with such agents and the beige mouse exhibit low levels of NK cell activity and provide valuable models for studying the in vivo role of NK cells in host defense against neoplasms." pg. 215
      Therefore, it was concluded that NK cells serve as a rapidly acting first-line defense mechanism that is involved in the early destructive events following tumor implantation."

      --
      Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
  2. You have got to be kidding me by ndansmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slashdot: Spam for Readers. Page Rank for * * Beatles-Beatles.

    1. Re:You have got to be kidding me by Jaruzel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Can someone link to/explain the Beatles-Beatles ref. please?

      -Jar

      --
      Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
    2. Re:You have got to be kidding me by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The funny thing is that site is full of copyrighted stuff. That is a dangerous position for someone to hold who is pissing off slashdot. How much will that pagerank be worth after say a DMCA takedown of the page?

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    3. Re:You have got to be kidding me by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Informative
      It's not particularly obvious, but * * Beatles Beatles keeps submitting (legitimate) stories where his username links to random websites that apparently have nothing to do with him or the story. The domains in question are pretty clearly designed to spam Google by leveraging the enormous PageRank that Slashdot has.

      The domains are all registered to the same guy, Carl Fogle, who like all search engine spammers is a premier-league asshole who was apparently never taught that enlightened self interest is supposed to make the world a better place for everybody, not be an excuse for screwing over friends and neighbours who rely on a shared resource.

    4. Re:You have got to be kidding me by putko · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Carl Fogle seems like a really greasy bastard, promoting some schmaltzy Beatles memorabilia with an otherwise interesting cancer story.

      Of course, the funny thing is that if he's misuing the PageRank of Slashdot, that increases the odds that geeks at Google will take note of what the greaseball Carl Fogle is doing, resulting in his sites getting bodyslammed in the future. That will hurt his business, and he won't be getting so much Geld when it is all over.

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    5. Re:You have got to be kidding me by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can someone link to/explain the Beatles-Beatles ref. please?

      Beatles-Beatles is the solid, undeniable, irrefutable proof that the Slashdot editor system is broken. While great submissions are tossed daily, Beatles-Beatles is allowed to continue to abuse his articles on Slashdot to increase his Google PageRank.

      Essentially Slashdot is actively promoting a spammer, at the expense of better articles.

      Several possibilities come to mind. One; the Slashdot Editors have been bribed by said spammer. Two; the Slashdot editors are not bothering to proof read any articles. Three; The slashdot editors have simply stopped reading the article comments, where Beatles-Beatles has been critisised on numerous occassions. Four; The Slashdot Random Story Submission Selection System is broken. The reader can decide which of these is more likely.

      In the era of Digg.com, I think the Slashdot editors should be doing more to justify the editor system. As it happens, Slashdot is becoming the prime example of why the editor system is inferior. I would like this to change, but the Slashdot Eds really just don't seem to care about the site anymore.

      Still the comments are good.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    6. Re:You have got to be kidding me by Urza9814 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ...YOU'VE got to be kidding me. Who cares? I personally have so far found all the stuff he's submitted to be interesting information, so I couldn't care less what his username links to! Slashdot is a news site, and he's posting nows, so what the hell is the problem?

    7. Re:You have got to be kidding me by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about if the people who booked guests for the shows had a queue of possible guests sorted by ascii value so guests starting with "* *...." got picked the most often? I would blame the bookers for the show for a flawed system (*hint* *hint*).

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    8. Re:You have got to be kidding me by zmarty · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Slashdot comments have rel='nofollow' in the tag. So they won't change your Page Rank at all.

      --
      If you can't find a way, make one!
    9. Re:You have got to be kidding me by grazzy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Someone, please, call the 911-GET-A-CLUE. We have a man down!

      This is googles cache of slashdot, as you might notice it is quite old. Now that doesn't really hold any proof for how often google actually _indexes_ the frontpage, but according to my own "research" I'd say it's no more often than every twelve hours. Now, what does this mean?

      Every twelve hour googles comes to download the frontpage and finds a link to beatles-beatles homepage. What does it do? It looks on the older copies of slashdot.org and finds what? That it isnt there! It's a temporary link. No consistency. Does that mean it gets a even share of that juicy pr9 pagerank? No it doesnt. It means it hardly gets any pr.

      So please, do us all a favor, go read up on the theories on pagerank and then, please please please, stay with the uninformed designer mac-zealots over at digg.com

    10. Re:You have got to be kidding me by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      So please, do us all a favor, go read up on the theories on pagerank and then, please please please, stay with the uninformed designer mac-zealots over at digg.com

      I've just emphasised that little gem in your tirade. Neither you nor I nor in all likelihood Beatles-Beatles knows exactly how Google pagerank works. But we, and he, can make educated guesses. You think **Beatles-Beatles is just doing this for kicks? This is a professional search engine spammer we're talking about here.

      He's doing this for a reason. Is that reason to get Kudos on Slashdot or to try and increase his Google pagrank. I'll let the good people in the audience figure that one out.

      Note please that it doesn't actually matter if this method is working or not. **Beatles-Beatles is attempting to abuse Slashdot to gain pagerank, and he is succeeding in making fools of the editors even if his pagerank remains in the doldrums.

      He's making us all look bad. But as you say, I suspect Google are wise to this sort of thing, even if the Slashdot eds aren't.

      And by the way, Slashdot stories get copied almost verbatum by a multitude of other sites, so Beatles-Beatles' story, name and sitelink is going to be plastered all over quite a number of sites across the net.

      You don't believe me? Here's the a Google search of "ObsessiveMathsFreak writes". Notice the one and only submission I ever got posted is in more sites thatn Slashdot. The list used to be much, much higher.

      This came to my attendtion because after posting the story, I was bombarded with spam. My email was included in the article, and with the articles proliferation across the net, so too was my email address duplicated everywhere for all the spammers address crawler bots to see. I've since had to abandon that address. A note of caution to all posters.

      Now. Replace email address by site address, and "spammers address crawler bots" by "Google pagerank" bot, and you can see exactly why Beatles-Beatles is doing what he's doing. Let's hope the eds do as well.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    11. Re:You have got to be kidding me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The justice is in the fact that a google search for "beatles-beatles" doesn't feature the hated spammer on the first page (see also searches for beatles, ** beatles etc).
      The implication of this is that karma-wise, he's creating a massive spirit bomb of ultimate hatred to be fired at him upon reaching sufficient size, without even getting so much as a first-page google website for people to go to. Perhaps there's some "page-rank" list I can visit somewhere... I'm afraid my religion doesn't count such things - only good search result positions can get you into my heaven.
      In other news, I can feel myself becoming another one of those annoying pricks who in some random story post that they are sick of this b.s. and they are quitting slashdot for good. I imagine I will become far more productive once this occurs, so I say to you: keep up the fantastic work various Mr. Slashdot Editors.

    12. Re:You have got to be kidding me by Pxtl · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Comments do, headlines don't. THat's why he's submitting articles - it gets his followable linked name into the headlines.

    13. Re:You have got to be kidding me by dorkygeek · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      So, then please tell me where the attribute is. I, for one, can't find it (this from the front page):
      <div class="intro">
      <a href="http://george-harrison.info/">* * Beatles-Beatles</a> writes <i>"Instead of a cell just breaking off from a tumor and traveling through the bloodstream to another organ where it forms a secondary tumour, or metastasis, researchers in the United States have shown that the cancer <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10366968/">sends out envoys</a> to prepare the new site."</i>
      </div>

      Can you?

      --
      Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
    14. Re:You have got to be kidding me by dorkygeek · · Score: 1
      He does not want to place his beatles page at the top for beatles searches, he is only interested in the link farming page which is linked to from his beatles page.

      --
      Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
    15. Re:You have got to be kidding me by dorkygeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, I will thank you the next time I google for something and the first few hits are all crap pages which where promoted through link spamming like **Beatles-Beatles does on the page he links to here. Have a look at his website, and follow the "reciprocal links" link at the bottom of his page.

      Maybe you'll finally get a clue then!

      --
      Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
    16. Re:You have got to be kidding me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He clearly must be paying Slashdot some real money, his site is the 3rd related link. Only a few links that are not Slashdot articles show up under related links, and they are normally the link in the article or another news source that have a article related to the Slashdot article which is very rare (from a quick count it is about 1 out of 10), but where not included in the blurb.

      My advice, swap to http://wikinews.org/

    17. Re:You have got to be kidding me by susano_otter · · Score: 0

      So?

      In order to leverage Slashdot's high potential value to him and his interests, he has to offer something of high value to Slashdot.

      Which he does.

      So long as there's no conspiracy between him and the /. editors to feature his articles on the front page, what's the big deal? He establishes a name for himself by submitting valuable articles to Slashdot, and then leverages that brand identity however he sees fit.

      What I want to know is why more regular submitters haven't leveraged their fame in the same way already.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    18. Re:You have got to be kidding me by srussell · · Score: 1
      Slashdot: Spam for Readers. Page Rank for * * Beatles-Beatles.
      I have a question about this: how is what he's doing functionally any different than if I were to comment on the artical (as I'm doing right now) and change my URL for every comment? Now that I think about it, how is what he's doing worse than what I'm doing, since I have a URL of my own attached to this comment? Is it because he keeps changing his URL? Would I be guilty of the same offense if I changed my URL to one that isn't associated with me, or would I have to actually alter my URL frequently to be playing foul? Are the stories he submits dups, or not interesting? How are they any different than any other submission?

      No, seriously. I mean, I'm getting Google ranks by commenting here, aren't I? Assuming that I get modded up enough to appear at whatever filter level Google scans at. In fact, I'm getting more rank hits to my URL than Beagle-Beagle because my URL never changes. Does Google not rank the URLs that appear in comments? How is Beagle-Beagle getting more Google rank hits on this thread than I am?

      I must me misunderstanding how this all works. If I'm going to be pissed at this guy, I'd like to know the reason why.

      --- SER

    19. Re:You have got to be kidding me by blincoln · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the era of Digg.com

      Digg is great for articles, but the comments are generally awful. Slashdot has some editorial problems, but there are a ton of smart people who post comments here, which I find very valuable.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    20. Re:You have got to be kidding me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google probable looks at the archives too though - where it isn't a temporary link.

    21. Re:You have got to be kidding me by cagle_.25 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that it decreases the signal/noise ratio on slashdot. There are those of us that think that the S/N ratio is low enough already. YMMV.

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    22. Re:You have got to be kidding me by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Do not say the word Eatlesbay on the page, or it'll increase his page rank even more.

    23. Re:You have got to be kidding me by saskboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      "but there are a ton of smart people who post comments here, which I find very valuable."

      Why, you're very welcome.

      -/I'm part of the arrogant Slashdot crowd.

      Back On Topic, arrogance never caused or spread cancer, unless you're a smoker.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    24. Re:You have got to be kidding me by SoLO · · Score: 1

      Doesn't everyone who has a page linked from slashdot get page rank? I'm not exactly sure why people are only allowed one submitted story, otherwise they are spamming. Even Roland wasn't that bad - the stories were usually good. The use of asterisks in his name makes it stand out more. If you look at his site it's not winning any awards... looks like a personal fan site.
      In short, get over it. Some people get more than one story accepted, and some people have web sites.

    25. Re:You have got to be kidding me by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      How does it decrease the signal/noise ratio?

      Don't the /. editors choose stories based on their signal value?

      I mean, the guy is getting his front-page presence by submitting worthwhile stories; i.e., by trying to increase the signal and decrease the noise on the front page. His articles have merit, which is why they are accepted by the editors.

      How does contributing meritorious articles decrease the signal/noise ratio?

      And why is this the submitter's fault? It's the editors that approve the articles. If they're posting noise instead of signal, that's an editorial issue, not a submitter issue.

      Besides, signal and noise are subjective terms. It's clear that "Beatles" believes he is getting quite a bit of signal from Slashdot, in exchange for his signal-rich submissions to Slashdot.

      And to the extent that Slashdot is rewarding him in the currency of his choice (in this case, boosts for his link farm) for his effort in finding articles that are interesting to Slashdot, I think it's a pretty signal-rich emergent pattern overall.

      You know what decreases the signal/noise ratio, in my opinion? A comments thread that, instead of discussing the interesting implications of recent discoveries regarding cancer propagation, chooses to bitch about the totally irrelevant ulterior motives of the article submitter.

      So, um, thank you so much for doing your part to increase the noise around here.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    26. Re:You have got to be kidding me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is also not documented yet how * * Beatles Beatles achieved his excellent karma rating on November 6th after posting only 5 comments and being upmodded only once to a +3. Maybe you can buy karma as well as story submission slots.

    27. Re:You have got to be kidding me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?


      It's Google's pageranking system that sucks.
      No wonder that people are using it for their advantage.


      If Google's engineers have any brain cells left they use much more sophisticated analysis algorithms for the largest 10^-n % websites that aren't fooled by this.

    28. Re:You have got to be kidding me by EternityInterface · · Score: 0

      Gee, bummer big G can't do that though.

      Our search results are generated completely objectively and are independent of the beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google.
      {the J word}

      --
      the sun is god
  3. Now if we could just unlock the secrets behind... by mattjb0010 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...the spread of **Beatles articles.

  4. Imagine by quokkapox · · Score: 2, Funny

    Imagine no possesions,
    I wonder if you can,
    No need for greed or hunger,
    A brotherhood of man,
    Imagine all the people
    Sharing all the world...

    <p> Just imagine a world without pagerank pirates like ** * Beatles Beatles *

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    1. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just lost my step-mom to brain and lung cancer so for the people that this kind of article affects it's important.

      Funny, but I think that the people this article would affect would be reading about the discovery in a peer-reviewed journal, rather than some watered-down mass-media site linked from /.

      Unless you're implying that this article gives someone whose not a cancer researcher the ability to fight cancer?

    2. Re:Imagine by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Imagine no possesions"

      sang the multi-millionaire from his Manhattan apartment

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  5. Use up the landing pads? by gibbo2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Fibronectin, which acts like a glue to attract and trap the bone marrow cells to create a landing pad or nest for the cancer cells."

    Maybe they can sythesize something which is able to bond to Fibronectin? If they flooded the bloodstream with it, it could use up all the landing pads and effectively block the cancer from attaching anywhere.

    Kinda like a Denial of Service on a molecular level...?

    1. Re:Use up the landing pads? by Muhammar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think much better approach is to identify these marrow-stimulating factors that are produced by tumors. Once you are able to shut off this signaling (by making therapeutic antibodies against these factors, by developing an antagonist for their receptors, etc), you won't have to mess with fibronectin (which has useful function in cell adhesion elsewhere).

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    2. Re:Use up the landing pads? by Maset · · Score: 4, Informative

      But then most (if not all) of the body's organs that rely on fibronectin will suffer if not die.

      Targeting such a widespread protein is not the answer, and is not the answer that researchers are looking at. Otherwise there would have been a large headline stating that anti-fibronectin drugs/antibodies cure metastisis.

    3. Re:Use up the landing pads? by mj_1903 · · Score: 1

      I agree, that is a much better solution. More importantly though, these landing pads are not a natural part of the body so denying the ability for them to be created is much more beneficial to the short term prospects of the patient. I am pretty sure they would have an adverse affect on the cells around them, even without cancer taking hold.

      Now a good question would be, how did cancer, something that doesn't spread between people, come up with something that clever? I guess after enough mutations of the cells they could produce a protein to trigger it off but that would be an impressive accidental mutation.

      I just hope that whatever near term solution we come up with isn't as nasty as chemo and doesn't affect the bone marrow too much if at all. The body has enough stresses as it is.

    4. Re:Use up the landing pads? by xao+gypsie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is already something like that. I have leukemia (Chronic myeloid). The chemo drug (gleevec) that I am on is an enzyme that specifically bonds to the protein associated with the cancerous cell. It not only is supposed to inhibit growth, but it also actively destroys the cancer cells (and only the cancer cells). pretty impressive stuff, but for 3000 USD a bottle, it had better be pretty damn good.

      --


      xao
      http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
    5. Re:Use up the landing pads? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Now a good question would be, how did cancer, something that doesn't spread between people, come up with something that clever? I guess after enough mutations of the cells they could produce a protein to trigger it off but that would be an impressive accidental mutation."
      This is probably not that much of a mutation at all. I could see how this could be used in organ formation. The landing pad is built where a certain type of cell needs to cluster like liver cells. They clump and grow into a liver.
      I am not saying that is how organs are formed but it might be a clue.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:Use up the landing pads? by floodo1 · · Score: 0

      leave the US, then it prolly wont be 3k per bottle!

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    7. Re:Use up the landing pads? by Noehre · · Score: 1

      Just a clarification, Gleevec(STI571/Imatinib) isn't an enzyme. Its a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that binds to the kinase Abl (which in chronic myeloid leukemia is constituative activated through fusion with the Bcr protein). The drug binds to ATP-binding pocket in the catalytic domain of Abl.

      Gleevec happens to be the first FDA-approved kinase inhibitor. The field of kinase inhibitors for use in cancer is now quite large, although approval of new kinase ihibitor drugs has been slow.

    8. Re:Use up the landing pads? by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      ...these landing pads are not a natural part of the body....

      When I read TFA I didn't find anything to suggest that this is case. Did you learn this from other sources, or is this supposition?

      It seems to me that it is just as likely that these "landing pads" are usually a normal mechanism of health maintenance that has been subverted by the cancer. For example, it would not surprise me to learn that "landing pad" formation is a normal and important step in mending a broken bone (callus formation). The article doesn't say, and I'm not sufficiently motivated to google it out.

      ...so denying the ability for them to be created is much more beneficial....

      I don't think this is necessarily true. It could also be that stimulating the normal mechanisms for "landing pad" formation would deprive the primary tumor of available conscripts for its envoys through competition. For instance, the constant repair of minor injuries that is a normal part of athletic training programs might protect against metastatic processes, while actually increasing the total amount of "landing pad" activity.

      If something like this is going on, then the implications for prevention and treatment of the metastatic diseases are profoundly different from the allopathic approach-- rather than our multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry going off in a search for a new patentable drug, we would be better served by exploring physiotherapies, like perhaps intensive bicycle riding (think Lance Armstrong, and his success in fighting cancer).

      Of course the potential profit in putting patients with breast or prostate cancer on bicycles is much less than developing a new pharmaceutical for the legal drug trade-- so much so that it doesn't seem likely that any research leading in this direction would get much funding.

    9. Re:Use up the landing pads? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Actualy there are drugs out ther that cost $1,400.00 a day! These are typically orphan drugs and are for the treatment of rare diseases. Imagine going to bed and asking yourself "was this a $1400.00 day?" every night for the rest of your life.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    10. Re:Use up the landing pads? by xao+gypsie · · Score: 1

      heh, yeah, that sounds way better than what i said. thanxs for the clarification

      --


      xao
      http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
    11. Re:Use up the landing pads? by floodo1 · · Score: 0

      man profiteering sure is nice!

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    12. Re:Use up the landing pads? by ipfwadm · · Score: 1

      If something like this is going on, then the implications for prevention and treatment of the metastatic diseases are profoundly different from the allopathic approach-- rather than our multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry going off in a search for a new patentable drug, we would be better served by exploring physiotherapies, like perhaps intensive bicycle riding (think Lance Armstrong, and his success in fighting cancer).

      You speak as if exercise will be a replacement for pharmaceutical-based solutions. The fact that Lance Armstrong, surely one of the most physically-fit people on the planet, would have died without drug treatment should disprove that notion. That said, exercise does reduce the risk factor for certain cancers, sometimes significantly (just google for 'exercise cancer'). Future studies might show that more cancers are affected, or they might show that most cancers don't care if you exercise. Also, whether the decreased risk has anything to do with your theory, or if it's just that exercise generally makes a person healthier, or if it's some other reason, who knows.

      But the benefit of exercise in reducing heart disease is already well-known, but that hasn't convinced Americans to even walk to the counter at McDonalds instead of using the drive-through, let alone get an appropriate amount of "real" exercise, even though heart disease is the number one cause of death in the U.S. and most of Europe. It would be interesting to see: if exercise were shown to be the "cure for cancer", would people actually get serious about exercising? I doubt it. People still do smoke even while knowing the lung cancer connection, after all. (Not that this is a reason not to pursue fitness-based prevention and/or treatment; it's just an observation)

    13. Re:Use up the landing pads? by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      You speak as if exercise will be a replacement for pharmaceutical-based solutions.

      I regret that you were able to draw that conclusion from my words, since it was not intended. I was offering exercise as one of several possible examples to counter the assertion that "...these landing pads are not a natural part of the body...", and the implication that allopathic medicine was the only possible way to find an effective treatment for metastatic disease.

      Medical practice based on the allopathic model has provided a number of successes, especially when measured by the profits of the legal drug manufacturers and distributors. But prior to Copernicus, astronomical practice based on epicyclic models had been very successful with the pragmatics of calendar development and navigation. But both then and now society has advanced to where an old model has to be replaced by one that better reflects reality if further advances are to be made.

      As you so aptly suggest, if US society is going to meet the emerging health care problems of obesity, it needs to move beyond the limitations of the allopathic model. There is no drug or treatment that will magically undo all the damage that too many calories with too little exercise does to the biological systems. This seems true of cancer therapy as well: after 50+ years of intense research governed by allopathic principles, we don't have any better understanding of the underlying mechanism of these diseases and we've got only a handful of somewhat successful treatments.

      For those who like cliches, it is time to smash the box and thus force everybody to look outside it. The allopathic model is a mindset that is too limiting to allow proper formulation of useful ideas. Let it go; stop thinking about finding "magic bullets" that will correct "unnatural conditions". There are plenty of other approaches to health care and disease management. It is usually better to say "I don't have any idea what is happening" than to adhere to a set of beliefs that don't fit the facts. And allopathy no longer fits the known facts well enough to be useful.

  6. Obligatory M$ reference by neatflux · · Score: 3, Funny

    What, no comparisons to Microsoft yet?

    1. Re:Obligatory M$ reference by kg4czo · · Score: 1

      Micro$oft has spread beyond treatment, and is terminal. Too bad we didn't have this kind of knowledge back when it was treatable.

    2. Re:Obligatory M$ reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're giving Microsoft ideas for new marketing strategies.

      Stop that!

  7. w00t! by digismack · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes! One step closer to finding the cure for cancer. /me lights another Marlboro...

    --
    http://www.hollowdepth.com
    1. Re:w00t! by joey_knisch · · Score: 1

      Trying to race science are we?

      I'll got 5000:1 odds that digismack wins. Any takers?

  8. Ordinary Bone Marrow Cells vs Stem Cells by Quirk · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The article mentioned ordinary bone marrow cells, but recent reports have cited... "Bone marrow stem cells, for example, are the most primitive cells in the marrow. From them all the various types of blood cells are descended. Bone marrow stem-cell transfusions (or transplants) were originally given to replace various types of blood cells."

    "Stem cells from bone marrow can also, quite remarkably, give rise to non-marrow cells"

    Do bone marrow cells exhibit pluripotent characteristics that lend them to the use metastasis puts them to?

    --
    "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
    Cohen
    1. Re:Ordinary Bone Marrow Cells vs Stem Cells by headkase · · Score: 1

      ...Do bone marrow cells exhibit pluripotent characteristics that lend them to the use metastasis puts them to?...
      Evolution does tend to use what's at hand.

      --
      Shh.
    2. Re:Ordinary Bone Marrow Cells vs Stem Cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the article talks about "normal bone marrow cells", it means non-cancerous bone marrow cells, which are effectively tricked into doing work that benefits the cancerous cells:

      "The authors show that tumor cells can mobilize normal bone marrow cells, causing them to migrate to particular regions and change the local environment so as to attract and support a developing metastasis," Patricia Steeg, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, said in a commentary.

    3. Re:Ordinary Bone Marrow Cells vs Stem Cells by paulsgre · · Score: 5, Informative

      Metastasis is merely the movement of a tumor colony to another part of the body. Bone marrow cells are no more useful as a metastasic cell than as any other cell type, because cancer reverts whatever tissue it initially attacks back to a pluripotent state. What cancer cells DO is cause differentiated cells to become pluripotent. Every cell has the same DNA inside it, but most of the DNA is suppressed after development and only the specialized genes for that cell are expressed. Cancer arises when DNA suppression and replication machinery is hijacked and the cell becomes chaotically embryonic in nature, proliferating not only through wild replication but by abusing the cell's ability to produce hormones and other cell to cell signalling molecules. Carcinogens, oncogenes, and onco-viruses all cause cancer by essentially turning on a cell's replication machinery and reverting the cells back to pluripotent and proliferative states, regardless of the state of differentiation that they were previously in. If anything, my guess would be that bone-marrow cells are more resistant to cancerous agents, because they spend extended periods of time in a pluripotent state without dividing out of control, and probably have expression and activation feedback systems that keep them in check that other cells don't necessarily express.

    4. Re:Ordinary Bone Marrow Cells vs Stem Cells by Quirk · · Score: 1
      ... the cell becomes chaotically embryonic in nature,...

      ...all cause cancer by essentially turning on a cell's replication machinery and reverting the cells back to pluripotent and proliferative states,...

      By the above is it then fair to say that teratoma, ( "The best evidence suggests that most [teratoma] are due to abnormal differentiation of fetal germ cells that arise from the fetal yolk sac..." )..." made up of a variety of parenchymal cell types representative of more than a single germ layer, usually all 3. Arising from totipotential cells"..., exhibit the dynamics of cancer in embryology?

      Thanks for lending some clarity to my initial question.

      --
      "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
      Cohen
    5. Re:Ordinary Bone Marrow Cells vs Stem Cells by oringo · · Score: 1

      I'd mod you +5 if I had mod points :). This makes me wonder if cancer is gift or wraith of god. We spend millions of $$ trying tireless to do that same thing in the stem cell labs, yet nature has mastered this millions of years ago by evolution. Maybe one day we'd be able to use cancer cells to produce stems cells to cure disease.

    6. Re:Ordinary Bone Marrow Cells vs Stem Cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is actually substantial controversy on this point. Another hyphthesis that has, in my opinion, been gaining ground in recent years, is that tissue stem cells are the TARGET of transformation events. The resulting "cancer stem cells" retain some potential to differentiate. Partially (and abnormally) differentiated progeny make up the bulk of an early tumor because stem cells normally divide slowly, but over time the stem cells overgrow the tumor (especially since their slow division renders them less susceptible to most current therapeutics). This results in an apparent "de-differentiation" of the tumor, even though no such change has occurred.

      P.S. The bone marrow cells prepare the metastatic site, but are not themselves metastatic cells as the parent suggested.

  9. The more we know, the more we know we don't know by UR30 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Let's quote the philospher-poet D.H. Rumsfeld on this:
    The Unknown
    As we know,
    There are known knowns.
    There are things we know we know.
    We also know
    There are known unknowns.
    That is to say
    We know there are some things
    We do not know.
    But there are also unknown unknowns,
    The ones we don't know
    We don't know.
  10. Link to the article by Hrshgn · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's the link to the original article for those who have access: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7069/fu ll/nature04186.html There's also a commentary in the same issue: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7069/fu ll/438750b.html Greetings, Hrshgn

  11. Forget Mars... Target Cancer! by chub_mackerel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've always thought the wiser thing would be for a President to proclaim that we shall cure cancer within the next decade. Rather than the tired old Moo... er, Mars thing.

    Assuming validity to this story, it seems such a thing might be possible.

    A nice side benefit is that the government money involved goes less into the military-industrial complex, and more into medical research. Yes, I know that there are still military applications to any such research... nevertheless it would be nice if the government's research money was targeted directly and explicitly at a benefit to humanity. A cure for cancer falls in that category.

  12. Somebody think of the children! by xtracto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the rip of a http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169603 &cid=14134565>rip:

    I'm recycling a comment from another AC in another Scuttlemonkey/**Beatles-Beatles post. This guy's getting worse than Roland Picklepail:

    Am I the only person who has noticed the numerous stories that get posted by *--Beatles-Beatles? Am I also the only person who has noticed that the link used in is name is a constantly changing URL (depending on the story) with pointers to various scammy sites? Is it not obvious what he's doing? He's using the awesome PageRank of slashdot do promote his sites based on searches that have the word Beatles in them.

    It's a small price to pay for free advertising. Find a story, summarize it in 5 minutes, post to slashdot, and get a pagerank boost that advertisers would pay hundreds (or maybe thousands) for. (Text links on high-ranking sites is big business - just ask oreilly).

    Slashdot should at least put a ref=nofollow in the links to submitters (or better yet, only link the submitter's name to his/her user page).

    In closing, a quick bit of WHOIS shows that all the sites linked by **B-B are registered to Carl Fogle. Carl, cut this crap out.

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    1. Re:Somebody think of the children! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      There is a solution for this but it will take taco and friend to fix it.

      anything with a moderation of 0 or less have a robots rule in the meta tag that tells googlebot to skip it or if googlebot is following the link to it, simply dont display it for googlebot.

      this sill fix these asshats fast unless people start modding up these turds.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  13. Selection mechanism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just how is such a thing selected for? Seems too amazing to be a coincidence. Do the mechanism involved simply confer a greater advantage than disadvantage to such an extent that they've never been replaced? Is it possible there's a viral cause? Excuse my ignorance :)

    1. Re:Selection mechanism? by meringuoid · · Score: 1, Funny
      Just how is such a thing selected for? Seems too amazing to be a coincidence.

      SET KANSAS_MODE = TRUE

      Obviously this mechanism for spreading cancer throughout the body is too wonderful to have evolved. It's clear evidence of intelligent design... By a complete bastard.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:Selection mechanism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I'm not an IDiot. I'm simply wondering if this is a case of a very nasty spandrel (which is most likely) or if there's a more subtle selection mechanism at work.

    3. Re:Selection mechanism? by ponxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which "thing" are you referring to? The ability of bone marrow cells to bind to fibronectin? That's fairly essential, seeing that's how cells attach to connective tissue. Or maybe the ability of fibronectin to be soluble in the blood stream? Also fairly vital for things like blood clotting etc... (not to speak of the numerous roles fibronectin has in development)

      Lots of things in biological systems are not built "logically". There are some fairly absurd mechanisms that exist merely because they have evolved from other systems that were originally doing something else, and because they "work", but they are not necessarily the simplest or best solution, even though they do usually find a "local maximum"... Sometimes they can leave the system open to attacks.

      As for selection pressure *against* this functionality, I would suspect there is very little (practically none). Why?
      Think about the meaning of selection pressure. It applies almost primarily to your ability to have offspring, and to how far you can support your offspring to procreate themselves. Given that people generally die of cancer later in life, and given that for the vast majority of mammal evolution this would occur at a point far exceeding the average life expectancy (leave alone the time where parents have influence on their children), I don't think there is any negative selection pressure.

    4. Re:Selection mechanism? by Quirk · · Score: 1
      I'm not competent in this area and my readings are related to the epistemological questions that arise from questions akin to questions asked by Erwin Schrodinger in his seminal book, 'What is Life?', and the many other books since that pursue the same question.

      In embryology there is a process known as... "induction This has been widely studied in vertebrates, particularly amphibians. During induction, tissue becomes differentially determined in response to the concentration of a chemical signal from another region of the embryo. Induction involves intercellular interactions. Usually regulation will only occur if certain regions are present. These are the signaling centers or organizers. The ability to respond to the inductive signal is called competence. The range of choices open to competent tissue is a property of its state of determination. For example, once mesoderm is formed it is competent to become somite, kidney, mesenchyme, or blood cells. It is no longer competent to become one of the ectodermal derivatives."

      In my own lame lay terms it maybe that cancer cells loose the chemical markers that tell them to play nice and fit in. Once a cancerous cell looses sight of its utilitarian goal it may enter a state wherein it attempts to develop into a multicelled structure but without the chemical messengers necessary to the task. The bone marrow cells may have characteristics that chemically sense areas that would be receptive to metastasis.

      Just $.02, while maybe just 1/2 cent.

      --
      "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
      Cohen
    5. Re:Selection mechanism? by SilverspurG · · Score: 1
      In my own lame lay terms it maybe that cancer cells loose the chemical markers that tell them to play nice and fit in
      Interesting choice of words in that it demonstrates a "blame the victim" mentality. Repeated physical aggravation and repeated chemical imbalance are major factors in determining the probability of cancerous formation. With that in hand it's much more appropriate to say,"Cells which have been routinely beat up are no longer content with their surroundings."
      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    6. Re:Selection mechanism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way this post and the replies are modded, I can see there are intelligent morons out here. Or some people's humor cell is tumorized (yeah thats a word now).

    7. Re:Selection mechanism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick correction, fibrin, which comes from fibrinogen, is the clotting component you're thinking of. Fibronectin is an unrelated molecule that is part of the extracellular matrix.

    8. Re:Selection mechanism? by ponxx · · Score: 1

      As well as being an ECM protein, there is a significant concentration of fibronectin in plasma (0.3 mg/ml). This is the same molecule that can be found in matrix, just in a different form (and it is possible to lay plasma fn down as a matrix).

      But I should have been more precise, fibronectin is not involved in the initial formation of blood clots, though it does play important roles in blood clots. What I should have said is that fibronectin has a role in wound healing as it allows cells to migrate into the clot, and promotes adhesion and spreadings of platelets, fibroblasts and a number of other cells vital for the healing process.

      Then again, I didn't expect anyone on Slashdot to have even heard of fibronectin ;).

  14. Re:Now if we could just unlock the secrets behind. by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 1

    Make sure you sort to the top of the submission queue, by using a name that start with a character with a low ASCII index. Submit lots of articles. Finished. Eivind.

    --
    Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
  15. Re:An even more interesting cancer finding. by Stephen+H-B · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What the fuck have you been smoking?

    Cancer is a condition of abnormal cell division and growth, not some anaerobic chemical reaction. The cancerous cells have the same metabolic requirement for OXYGEN that normal cells do. OK, sure, they could rely on glycolysis and not use blood oxygen, but rapidly dividing cells use more energy than glycolysis can reasonably provide.

    Take your "omg the evil drug companies invented disease so they could gouge us" conspiriacy theories and shove them where the sun don't shine.

    --
    Sick of WoW? Try the thinking man's MMORPG: EVE Online
  16. Re:Stealing other nations' work? by dan+dan+the+dna+man · · Score: 2, Informative

    Um London is the Reuters news source - if you read TFA, rather than the first word you would realise these were American researchers.

    --
    I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
  17. Cancer research - what a novel idea!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Have you ever hear of the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Center? A ton of government money has been going into cancer research for decades. A problem is that cancer is not a single entity, it is hundreds of different diseases. Tremendous progress has been made, but it is unlikely we will ever make any single discovery that can be called "the cure for cancer".

    1. Re:Cancer research - what a novel idea!!! by aminorex · · Score: 0, Troll

      Spend 300 fucking billion dollars on it, like you do on bombing Iraqi families, and you'll damn sure cure 90% of all cancers.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    2. Re:Cancer research - what a novel idea!!! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The problem with bombing cancer patients is that you don't just destroy the cancer, but also the patients. Hmmm ... well, we will just call it collateral damage. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:Cancer research - what a novel idea!!! by ipfwadm · · Score: 1

      you don't just destroy the cancer, but also the patients.

      Sounds a lot like chemo.

  18. Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by vnsnes · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What is the reason for cancer to spread? What is the reason for tree to grow? They discovered a mechanism not a reason.

    1. Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by Walkiry · · Score: 1

      What is the reason this fragile glass sculpture lays shattered on the floor? The reason is that I hit it with a hammer.

      That is a perfectly valid construct, and it is indeed a reason, without the need to get all phylosophical about the motivation or whatnot. "Reason" and "cause" can be synonyms.

      --
      ---- Take the Space Quiz!
    2. Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by Xenna · · Score: 1

      In evolution there has to be a reason. Something has to be beneficial for the species to evelve (please don't start any ID discussions). So the GP makes a good point. What is the evolutionary reason for this behaviour to evolve? The only effect I see is that it destroys the affected individual. What is the benefit here?

    3. Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by Cadallin · · Score: 1

      Ummm, the cancer cells that develop this mutation become more numerous by being able to spread and become more numerous? You're thinking too many steps ahead. That this adaptation is ultimately self destructive doesn't matter. It's more like a virus that gets transferred from one species (where the disease state is more controlled and frequently leaves the host alive) to another where the may rapidly develop into a fatal condition. Or perhaps even better, a predator that evolves to become so efficient at predation that it drives to extinction the species it preys on. It doesn't matter that the incremented increases drive the species to that conclusion, it only matters that being a more successful predator makes the individual more likely to leave offspring in the short term.

    4. Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by Xenna · · Score: 1

      Yes, I see the short term evolutionary advantage for the spreading cancer cell, but would that be enough to create such an elaborate mechanism?

    5. Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by Xenna · · Score: 1

      In general you're probably right but the more sophisticated a mechanism becomes the more likely it seems to me that there has to be some evolutionary benefit attached.

    6. Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by Walkiry · · Score: 1

      Chances are that, in cancer cells, this behaviour is just a derivation of another process that serves a useful purpose in a healthy organism. Just like cell division is very useful and necessary but not in the cancer-like uncontrolled way. Fibronectin is involved in several processes such as cell adhesion, clotting and so on.

      --
      ---- Take the Space Quiz!
    7. Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by dsci · · Score: 1

      there has to be some evolutionary benefit attached

      You seem to think things happen to make evolution happen. Evolution is a result, a phenomenon. Adaptations occur, and get preserved by selection, and that process we call evolution. It's not like cells are thinking "hey, if I mutate this way, I bet there is an evolutionary benefit, and I cause the evolution of a new, better species."

      So no, there does NOT have to an evolutionary benefit for any biological process at the microscopic level.

      --
      Computational Chemistry products and services.
    8. Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by jcr · · Score: 3, Informative

      In evolution there has to be a reason.

      Nope. Mutation is random.

      Some mutations have survival value, and individuals manifesting those mutations will tend to become more prevalent over time. Other mutations are detrimentall, and will become less prevalent over time. Still others, probably even *most* mutations, have little effect one way or the other.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    9. Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by Xenna · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This is the kind of argument I was hoping to avoid.
      You interpret the term reason to literal.

    10. Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by dsci · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You interpret the term reason to literal.

      Words mean things. In science, we try to define words as precisely as possible. And one thing we try very hard to avoid is the pathetic fallacy. You can learn more about it here and here.

      I think saying cellular processes occur because they "want" evolution fits this definition.

      --
      Computational Chemistry products and services.
    11. Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by Xenna · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Good thing this discussion already has the term 'nitpick' above it.
      But then again, that's probably what drew you to it in the first place ;)

    12. Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Cancer is a bug, not a feature.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    13. Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by scheming+daemons · · Score: 1
      Homo Sapiens has been on this planet for a relatively short period of time. Only in the last century or so, has the average lifespan of Homo Sapiens exceeded 50 years.

      It's possible that, evolutionarily speaking, cancer wasn't "naturally selected" out of human beings because 99.999% of them (for most of humanity's existence) died of something else before they could get cancer.

      If cancer typically hit the majority of humans in their teens and twenties over the millenia, perhaps natural selection would have then "weeded" out the bad genes that lead to cancer and current humans would be cancer free for the most part.

      Because of the very recent development of increased longevity, perhaps only NOW is the process of natural selection, with respect to cancer, playing out. But, historically, this kind of thing would take eons to occur. Because of modern medicine, maybe we're able to accelerate our own evolution?

      food for thought, anyway.

      --
      "I have as much authority as the pope, I just
      don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin

    14. Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by Miraba · · Score: 1
      If cancer typically hit the majority of humans in their teens and twenties over the millenia, perhaps natural selection would have then "weeded" out the bad genes that lead to cancer and current humans would be cancer free for the most part.
      Sorry to nitpick, but you can't "weed out" "genes that lead to cancer." Cancer is a result of errors creeping into genes. However, if cancer was a major problem during the first 50 years of life, there would have been very strong selective pressure towards lower copying errors (and greater repair rates), as well as an immune system better equipped to fight tumors. Use this and you're a bit better off. ;)

      Perhaps natural selection would have then "weeded out" the genes resposible for poor immune reactions to cancerous tumors and would increase the accuracy in copying and checking the genes responsible for cell regulation.

    15. Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by RexxFiend · · Score: 1

      I think this has been adequately answered elsewhere in the discussion but almost all but the nastiest cancers happen after breeding age, ie there is no selective genetic pressure which might weed out people who are predisposed to cancer, unless you consider the lack of grandparents to be an evolutionary disadvantage. You might as well ask about the evolutionary advantage of Down's Syndrome or Multiple Sclerosis; there is none, they just happen when normal processes go wrong.
      If you assume that cancers do evolve, each individual human must be a "tabula rasa" as far as cancerous cells are concerned. That is to say that cancer would need to evolve independantly within each human being as there is no way that a successful cancer can reproduce outside of that human. More importantly, it can't pass on any successful traits to the next generation. You could formulate a theory about cancer being some sort of genetic superparasite which can pass it's own genes though human genes, but I think it is easier to accept that cancer is probably just a simple subversion of normal body functions, probably because we now live a lot longer.

      --

      A crash reduces
      Your expensive computer
      to a simple stone.
    16. Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by Xenna · · Score: 1

      You're all reading me wrong so it must be my explanation skills. Apparently they're so bad I even get modded off-topic to my great surprise.

      I understand that cancer has no evolutionary advantage but is the (unwanted) byproduct of mechanisms that do.

      My point (or rather question) here is that for a cancer to have such skills in spreading, these particular skills (that I see as being too complex to evolve in the life span) must have some original evolutionary advantage in the healthy organism. I wonder where this advantage lies.

      X.

    17. Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by RexxFiend · · Score: 1

      I think I see what you mean.

      It's not so much that these mechanisms have an evolutionary advantage, rather they are the basic mechanisms in cell manufacture and control within most living organisms. It's just that the DNA has been damaged in such a way that the cell still looks normal but key processes, such as the ability to self destroy, don't work any more. As somebody mentioned elsewhere in this topic, it seems that fibronectin is also used to hold cells together in the creation of specialised cell clusters such as organs and the like. Presumably this process would get triggered by a healthy cell during gestation to allow for organ growth but cancer cells can also trigger it.

      Note IANAB(iologist) so the above explaination is probably a little simplistic. I have a slight obsession with cancer at the moment as I had it a few months ago (now cured, yipee!).

      --

      A crash reduces
      Your expensive computer
      to a simple stone.
    18. Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? by Xenna · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what I meant. I'm certainly happy to see that there's a lot of cancer research going on. Inevitably all of us will end up being grateful of that sooner or later. I see more and more people beating cancer amongst my family and friends these days. I'm glad you're one of them!

      X.

  19. Re:The more we know, the more we know we don't kno by n54 · · Score: 1

    Lol what an excellent link!

    Really funny (and I bet he would laugh too) and at times eerily zen-like :)

    --
    this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
  20. Re:An even more interesting cancer finding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is calcium used in any cancer treatment regimen in the US? No.

    Er, yes. My mother-in-law was given a high dosage course of calcium to treat a small benign tumour. It was quite successful and she is now clear.

  21. Re:The more we know, the more we know we don't kno by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was presaged by Yes Minister. Sir Humphrey Appleby.

    Read. Laugh. Weep.

  22. Re:Forget Mars... Target Cancer! by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mars is a single object, it's big, we know where it is, what rules it follows and how to hit it.

    It makes a difference.

    KFG

  23. This is a big deal. by mattite · · Score: 1

    In fact, any advance in the fight against cancer is a big deal. I applaud the researchers who discovered this. I'm going to make a donation. Nothing prepares you enough for the first time you see the oncologist.

    1. Re:This is a big deal. by GETerry · · Score: 0

      Amen!!!! I can't wait to find out if my oncologist has heard about this story, and if he can apply some of it to fighting my cancer.

      --
      Why did I even bother?? (my sig sucks, but it's better than yours!!)
    2. Re:This is a big deal. by xao+gypsie · · Score: 1

      I initially had that thought...but my cancer isnt in a tumor :(

      --


      xao
      http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
  24. Nixon beat you to it by mariox19 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Google "Nixon war on cancer" and see what you come up with. Sadly, it's an example of governmental hubris.

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

  25. Re:An even more interesting cancer finding. by mj_1903 · · Score: 1

    You would need a carrier drug to target the calcium to tumours (something we are not all that successful at doing right now). Knowing this, obviously they can make money so I am sure they have already researched it and rejected it.

    Which brings me to a question that someone else might be able to answer, is oxygen a poison to cancerous cells? If it is only a poison in high dosages like it is to normal cells then using oxygen is an extremely inefficient and dangerous method.

  26. lol no by LostBurner · · Score: 1

    lol no this is not a metastatis

  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. Re:Forget Mars... Target Cancer! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    The problem with research funding is that throwing more money at a goal won't really make the goal be achieved any faster. Research takes time, and having an unlimited bank account doesn't make it go any faster or better. Similarly, having more people doing research also doesn't really speed things up. Just an empirical observation based on experience.

    However, if this is actually a breakthrough, I am thrilled. It seems that after a couple more decades of research, we may understand this well enough to treat it pharmaceutically. It will also take a couple of decades for the billion patents that were likely filed yesterday to expire, allowing real solutions to be developed.

  29. Re:Forget Mars... Target Cancer! by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Similarly, having more people doing research also doesn't really speed things up. Just an empirical observation based on experience.

    Once upon a time, a long time ago, I posted that I rather expect the cure for cancer, assuming there actually is one, will come from some entirely unexpected corner disconected from the massive cancer research projects.

    Science is not an assembly line.

    KFG

  30. well by ShaneThePain · · Score: 0

    I've always explained cancer as being an empire of the flesh. Its always interesting to find the parallels between macroscopic things like that kind of human political entity, and a small biological thing like this. If this article is true, then it just adds more complexity, and one more parallel to my analogy.

    --
    Fascism is the greatest political ideology ever conceived. Sorry.
  31. Finally, a good reason to 'kill the messenger' by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    With the interception of these cancer 'envoys', we finally can 'kill the messenger' and not feel so bad about it.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  32. Maybe I am dumb but... by botik32 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... How is the location selected? The article said that marrow cells are sent to a location. By some chemicals generated by the tumor cells. How does a chemical select a precise location in the body? I am confused.

    Could it be that a certain combination of chemicals sends the bone marrow cells into a specific location? The body must use the same technique to send them to places needed for new organs I guess. So the cancer cells just hijack that technique to use it themselves? If that is so, could they be manipulated to set the address to a non-existing place? Like a loopback address perhaps?

  33. Re:An even more interesting cancer finding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could it be that the cancer has used up the majority of the oxygen in the area around the cancer and not that cancer cannot survive in an oxygen environment. Cancer cells grow and divide very rapidly. This requires lots of energy. Arobic resporation, which requires oxygen is the primary most effecent source of energy in animals. Cancer is serious and giving people false information could lead to their death. I recomend that you talk to a cancer specialist before you spread any more lies.

  34. I see similarities by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

    FTA: "These nests provide attachment factors for the tumor cells to implant and nurture them. It causes them not only to bind but to proliferate. Once that all takes place we have a fully formed metastatic site or secondary tumor," said Lyden.

    I think this is how Windows spreads also. Check out this mildly re-written version of the above:

    "These proprietary APIs provide attachment factors for the 3rd party applications to implant and nurture them. It causes them not only to bind but to proliferate. Once that all takes place we have a fully formed legacy application or secondary reason not to get rid of Windows," said LaughingCoder.

    --
    The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
  35. We are fighting a War by deadbeatsaint · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We are fighting a war: a war on cancer

    And we are losing.

    --
    --
    1. Re:We are fighting a War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are fighting a war: a war on cancer

      And we are losing.


      No, we're fighting a war against * * Beatles-Beatles...

      and we are losing! Primarily because the editors/OSDN are getting kickbacks. Ah, how I love corruption.

  36. The language of cells by SilverspurG · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm surprised that so many researchers still view cancer as a sentient malicious being living within a biological system.

    Cells have a language that they use to communicate. They communicate with the cells in the other tissues around them. They communicate with the blood cells as they pass by. They communicate with the various cells of the immune system. This communication is constant. Every cell is constantly emitting and absorbing a matrix of cytokines, lymphokines, and other chemokines. It is from the interpretation of all of these different levels that a cell adapts and responds to its environment.

    Cancerous cells are simply responding to their environment. In many ways a cancerous cell is malfunctioning. In many ways the set of chemokines which it emits acknowledges that it's malfunctioning. In a body with a healthy immune system the immune response is properly recruited and the cancerous cells are put out of their misery. This is why babies can grow so quickly with so little chance for deformity. The cells are communicating properly and the body ensures that any malfunctioning cells are removed.

    In a cancer, when a cell begins malfunctioning, the immune system is not notified of the problem. The surrounding cells, when exposed to the proper levels of the signaling molecules, may be programmed to imitate the same behavior. I believe that this is part of a larger process that's supposed to work to increase the intensity of the signal and attract the immune system. If the immune system is not properly recruited, though, then the originating cells divide and become more and more degenerate and the increased level, intensity, and garbled nature of the signal aggravates even more cells in the area. When sufficiently aggravated without any response to attenuate the signals from the malfunctioning cells then more and more proper cells will begin to show signs of chemical stress and become cancerous, necrotic, or apoptotic.

    In some cases the original cancerous cell may not be technically malfunctioning. That cell may be responding appropriately to surrounding tissue which has become numb and nonfunctional. This can be seen in bone cancers where the osteoblast count is at extreme low levels. The remaining osteoblasts are tired, overworked, stressed, and more than a little frightened by the absence of their comrades. Those cells begin exhibiting chemical signs of that stress meant to recruit the repropagation of other osteoblasts. If the situation isn't remedied, however, it's very easy to think that the osteoblast is evilly trying to metastasize. In tissues of high cell censity (kidney, pancreas, stomach, intestine, brain) it's most likely that the cancer is a result of a malfunctioning immune system. In a tissue of low cell density (bone) it's most likely that the cancer is a result of a deficiency in the tissue itself--maybe a logical sign of natural aging.

    At any given point in time any one of us has a number of cancerous cells in our body. They're not sentiently floating around looking for tissue to victimize--they're doing what they've been programmed to do: survive.

    The real question has always been: Why isn't the immune system responding appropriately? In most cancers the immune system is responding improperly or flat-out ignoring the problem. The studies of immunologists on the pathways of intercell signaling is very important research but sorely underfunded because research and study rarely leads to quick quarterly profit. There are easily hundreds of different intercell signaling molecules all tailored for their own specific message. The field is so complex that it's very difficult to quantify progress in the eyes of the business managers who have no conceptual understanding of the task or the technology.

    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    1. Re:The language of cells by emoi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And this begs the question: what is the evolutionnary benefit of cancer? If cancer is propagated not just because cancer cells are detached from the original location and travel to another location (randomly?), but rather cancer cells inducing the propagation of cancer through a communication mechanism (not random?)... what competitive / evolutionnary advantages does this spreading of cancer bring?

    2. Re:The language of cells by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And this begs the question: what is the evolutionnary benefit of cancer?
      Why does it have to be a benefit, why can't evolution sometimes make a bad turn, am I alone in thinking that not every mutation has to be a good one.

      PS. I still prefer the old meaning of "Begging the question"

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    3. Re:The language of cells by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      It may bring none. Not all mutations are beneficial. On the other hand, it may be a measure to limit population expansion, or it may simply be an unfortunate side effect of some other process which we desperately need to survive.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    4. Re:The language of cells by Kupek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm surprised that so many researchers still view cancer as a sentient malicious being living within a biological system.

      Did anyone explicity or implicitly say it is?

    5. Re:The language of cells by Miraba · · Score: 1
      what competitive / evolutionnary advantages does this spreading of cancer bring?

      An organism's evolutionary success is determined by the reproductive success of its offspring. However, there is a difference between short-term and long-term success.

      Metastatis is an evolutionary advantage in that the "parent" cancer cells have a high number of (surviving and reproducing)offspring. However, it is a short-term advantage, given the intrinsic nature of cancer; it cannot overcome the facts that cancer can become fatal to the host organism and that it cannot easily jump from one host to another.

      In comparison, the common cold is an organism that has many long-term evolutionary advantages: it is not fatal to the host organism, it can jump easily between the host organisms, and it mutates too fast to be wiped out by medicine.

      While metastasis is an evolutionary advantage, a mutation that allowed cancer to spread to a new host would be an even better one.

    6. Re:The language of cells by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      There are a few issues with your question:

      1. It isn't a foregone conclusion that there even has to be an evolutionary advantage to having cancer, as evolution tends to not have much bearing on post-reproductive-aged organisms. There clearly would be a selection against organsisms who have pre-reproductive cancer, as they are less likely to reproduce.

      2. One possible evolutionary advantage of cancer is that it gets rid of old parents, thus allowing more food for the young and reproductive offspring. On the other hand, in the case of humans the existance of parents usually confers a benefit to offspring, as parents tend to work to advantage their children. Then again, this is mostly a recent development - 1000 years ago most parents probably just lay in bed all day needing attention from their children.

      The only way evolution would get rid of cancer is that if children of cancer victims were less likely to reproduce. I can't think of any reason this would be the case unless you passed a law requiring sterilization of families any time somebody keels over below some threshold age (thus promoting genes for long life). Obviously this isn't going to happen anytime soon...

    7. Re:The language of cells by milimetric · · Score: 3, Interesting

      holy crap dude, if all you said is really true, you're pretty smart. Also, if that is the case, and from the tone of your post, I'm assuming that you're involved with immunology. So you have a problem selling this type of research to potential investors and business partners? Maybe I have an idea: I have no idea of the technical aspects of the following, IANAD-HNEFC (I am not a doctor - heh, not even freakin close).

      What if you sell it by saying that research into this field will not only prove beneficial to killing cancer but will also prove beneficial to killing HIV, because HIV is a disease that kills the immune system (lol, wow, only a business person would believe in that connection). Use the words "killing" and use AIDS instead of HIV. Repeat these words with a loud megaphone directly into the ears of the business and marketting people. Killing Cancer and AIDS sells. Studying immunology in order to find out why cancerous cells that are communicating with the immune system are being ignored does not sell.

      Anyway, best of luck to you, and I didn't meant to sound too trivial in the above, just trying to explain that marketing is not about what's right, it's about what's louder.

      Dan

    8. Re:The language of cells by Scarblac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why does it have to be a benefit, why can't evolution sometimes make a bad turn, am I alone in thinking that not every mutation has to be a good one.

      If it was one single mutation, that had no benefits except it causes cancer... in each generation, part of the bearers of the mutation would die before they had bred, and each generation the percentage of people(*) having the mutation would go down. It's just extremely unlikely that such a mutation would spread to affect the whole of humanity.

      What's much more likely is that there are a number of different causes, some of them not genetic at all, some part of a bunch of mutations that have benefits as well as causing cancer.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    9. Re:The language of cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again, this is mostly a recent development - 1000 years ago most parents probably just lay in bed all day needing attention from their children.

      If anything the situation is the reverse, grandparents were usually asset hunderds or thousands of years ago. Remember that people tended to have kids much younger back then, sometimes as soon as they were physically capable of. So a parent that had children when they (the parent) were between 16 and 18 years old, might be a grandparent in their late 30's. That's not an unreasonable age to expect to live to even in a hunter-gather society, and you are still capable of "pulling your weight" at that age. Also recall that there tends to be a tradition of grandparents helping out parents by looking after and teaching young, thus freeing the parents to do the things the grandparents can't.

      For example: a 45 year old paleo-lithic man might not be as atheletic as he used to be, but he can still teach his 8 year old grandson how to throw a spear while his son does the actual hunting.

      I'm not saying grandparents aren't useful or appreciable now, but the situation is very different. Infact, probably the only time there would be an expectation of grandparents being a burden would be in the late 19th to mid 20th century. It was in that peroid that many people could expect to live long enough to have their physical and mental faculities deteriorate without any effective treatment. Before then, people living to be true invalids was rare, usually only in the upper classes was this possible, and those that did live to an advanced age were healthy enough to be somewhat independent. Now medical knowledge has been improving not only the quanity of life for the aged, but usually the quality of life as well.

    10. Re:The language of cells by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The surrounding cells, when exposed to the proper levels of the signaling molecules, may be programmed to imitate the same behavior.

      Is it known if cancerous cells spread in this manner? I was under the impression that cancers spread from a single cell that divides into the growth, not that surrounding cells could become "infected."

    11. Re:The language of cells by yeuph · · Score: 3, Informative

      This post responds to the entire thread above.



      The nature of genetic diseases is such that a even though there may be no survival benefits to a certain trait, it is propagated in the gene pool for multiple generations until it either mutates into a useful trait, or is finally selected out of the population. The genetics of cancer is such that cancers fall into two broad classes. Quick, very deadly cancers of the young, which come from usually a single serious mutation, and slower cancers of the old, which come from a lifelong accumulation of broken genes. In the young, like all inheritable diseases, are heavily selected against, evolutionarily speaking. In the old, mutations occur from all the various substances, stressors and random mutations that we collectively call carcinogens. The very process of living and interacting with one's environment can lead to mutations which lead to cancer. So it is not necessary that the specific mutations have any benefit, it is the very act of mutation that has a benefit.



      In some cases the original cancerous cell may not be technically malfunctioning. That cell may be responding appropriately to surrounding tissue which has become numb and nonfunctional. This can be seen in bone cancers where the osteoblast count is at extreme low levels. The remaining osteoblasts are tired, overworked, stressed, and more than a little frightened by the absence of their comrades. Those cells begin exhibiting chemical signs of that stress meant to recruit the repropagation of other osteoblasts. If the situation isn't remedied, however, it's very easy to think that the osteoblast is evilly trying to metastasize. In tissues of high cell censity (kidney, pancreas, stomach, intestine, brain) it's most likely that the cancer is a result of a malfunctioning immune system. In a tissue of low cell density (bone) it's most likely that the cancer is a result of a deficiency in the tissue itself--maybe a logical sign of natural aging.


      This statement is grossly erroneous. Cancer cells differ from neighbouring cells moreso than just dividing more. There are two key stages. The first is mutations that lead to the cell proliferating (dividing) uncontrollably. This leads to tumors (intitially benign). The second and truely cancerous stage is when the cell also loses the differentiation. This can progress until the cells begin to grow into nearby tissue (thus destroying it) or lossen from the extracellular matrix and begin to spread throughout the body. The researchers address that this last process is more complex than previously thought because the cancer cells secrete fibronectin and this prepares areas to downstream of the cancer. When the cells dislodge from the cancer and flow, they attach to areas that are ready to accept them. The most important thing is that cancer is is a disease caused by genetic mutations. The cells ARE malfunctioning.



      Finally, the repair mechanisms of the body are limited. Our immune system DOES kill cancerous cells, when the present appropriate signs, but they are not killed outright because they dont have any foreigness to them. The immune system can only do so much to fight off cells that they recognize as part of the body without attacking the body in normal situations, as well. This is why cancer is so powerful. The cells have mutated to a point where they are grossly malfunctioning and are killing the body, but the immune system cant differentiate them sufficiently to stop them!


    12. Re:The language of cells by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      There isn't one, but there's no reason why there should be. MOST cancer strikes people who are considerably older than anyone was likely to be back in the days when humanity was still undergoing evolution. Most cancer is simply random genetic damage that happens to hit something critical (like a tumor suppressant gene) and a "hey, my DNA is damaged, time to suicide" gene at the same time. We have evolved all kinds of mechanisms to make this kind of cancer unlikely during a survival-of-the-fittest style lifespan. There are exceptions, different kinds of cancer that strike the young, but they tend to be caused by inherited genetic defects and are indeed not likely to be passed on to future generations.

    13. Re:The language of cells by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      Some of the best work in characterizing the workings of cellular interaction came about due to research in HIV treatment. While the association may be too vague for most people to make this is the basic theory behind ImClone's monoclonal antibody technology. Their business plan is based on technologies which were refined while studying intercellular interactions. Here, though, we see the effect of quarterly profits. The only way to profit from research in intercellular interactions was to use it directly to treat cancer. When we're forced to spend time on bringing the product to market we're left with hardly any time to continue analyzing and refining out knowledge of how the cells talk to each other.

      The field has a long way to go and I would love to contribute to it. I'm leaving a position this week and I hope to find the proper environment soon (before the savings runs out).

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    14. Re:The language of cells by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      Cells are like people. When one begins displaying odd behavior the reactions are the same: 1) send signals to calm down. 2) adopt some of the same signals to soothe the aggravated cell through feedback mechanisms. 3) send out signals to recruit the immune system to come in and check things out. Immune cells are specialized pieces of machinery which pass judgement on other cells. Sometimes the immune system is horribly wrong--that causes arthrities, some types of diabetes, and may play a role in neurological diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

      The entire situation is environmental. If you receive an injury then it's proper for cells to begin exhibiting abnormal behavior. Immune cells come in and kill the weak while the strong, perhaps still behaving oddly but demonstrating the requisite characteristics for returning to normal, are allowed to proliferate. Immune cells are finely tuned pieces of equipment which assess the environmental situation and decide which cells, if any, are behaving improperly. This same mechanism applies to chemical imbalances like ulcers are infected food. The immune system doesn't wipe out your entire digestive tract over too much coffee but you better believe those cells in the digestive tract aren't behaving normally when that caffeine hits.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    15. Re:The language of cells by Grym · · Score: 1

      At any given point in time any one of us has a number of cancerous cells in our body. They're not sentiently floating around looking for tissue to victimize--they're doing what they've been programmed to do: survive.

      Interesting post. However, on this point I disagree. Normal cells are not programmed to survive as individuals. In fact, programmed cell death is crutial to our very existence as organisms. The very fact that cancer cells lack these functions is what makes them so dangerous, and why it's a useful analogy to compare cancerous cells to something along the lines of a parasite or entity unto itself.

      The real question has always been: Why isn't the immune system responding appropriately? In most cancers the immune system is responding improperly or flat-out ignoring the problem.

      I just wanted to add here that part of the problem is that the rapid division and high mutational rates of cancerous cells selects for cancerous cells which are most able to evade the immune system and proliferate most efficiently. Indeed, even in individuals where the immune system is by all accounts functioning well, cancer can still develop because of these evasive mutations.

      Furthermore, an important function of the immune system is tolerance of self-antigens. If it doesn't, an autoimmune disease (or allergy) is the result. For most mammals, existence is therefore a balancing act between overreacting to perceived threats or incorrectly classifying a threat as "self." It's not that the immune system is necessarily ignoring a threat but rather (fatally) erring on the side of caution.

      -Grym

    16. Re:The language of cells by Shimmer · · Score: 1

      In many ways a cancerous cell is malfunctioning.

      I'm not a doctor, but I know a bit about evolution. From that point of view, it's always seemed to me that cancer cells are not malfunctioning. Rather, they are reverting to an ancient paradigm, still embedded in their DNA, as single-celled creatures. They are, in essence, rejecting the compromise of sharing a body with other cells and deciding to strike out on their own. Even though it leads to death, it is in the short time a remarkably successful adaptation -- resulting in many copies of the original cancer cells.

      It's remarkable to me that some human cancer lines from the 1950s are still reproducing happily as single-celled creatures. Normal human cells cannot reproduce indefinitely like this. I think of these as single-celled versions of humans. They are in some ways a separate daughter species.

      --
      The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
  37. Re:An even more interesting cancer finding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    benign means not cancer!
    The high dosage course of calcium was not used to treat cancer. Benign means not cancer!

    Please learn more before you help to spread lies.

  38. Re:An even more interesting cancer finding. by SilverspurG · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is biological premise for that. When a cancer forms to any significant extent it begins to recruit new vasculature. This process is known as angiogenesis and describes the legitimate formation of new vasculature as well as the formation initiated by a tumor.

    Cancerous cells are cells which are malfunctioning. The lack of plentiful oxygen contributes to their state of distress and causes them to malfunction further. A tumor puts out a cocktail of cell signaling molecules which translates, in English, to "We need more air!" The bodies' natural response is to provide more vasculature. This is two fold: more vasculature allows the immune system greater access to the area to assess the problem and, if oxygen deprivation is truly the only problem, more vasculature solves it.

    The prevailing question still is: why is the immune system not recognizing or not properly responding to the problem? I find it hard to believe that the systems of the body are into playing taunting games with each other.

    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  39. Re:Forget Mars... Target Cancer! by spot35 · · Score: 1

    There are almost 6 Billion people in the world, surely there're enough people to research both?

  40. if i had a dime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for every time i read/heard about some 'new breakthrough' in medical science. bottom line is (as chris rock put very well) THEY CAN'T CURE SH$T!. got cancer? your options are: burning (raditation), cutting (surgery), or poison (chemo). gee thanks. what wonderfull progress you doctors have made. i'll eat these words when they finally CURE ANY disease (antibiotics don't count, we've had those for what 60 years?). for all the money we dump into medical science, i think its scandelous that we have such LITTLE return, apart from boner drugs and the like, yippie!

  41. Re:The more we know, the more we know we don't kno by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

    Darn it...Now that you mention it, it does sound like a clever poem.

    Heh.

  42. Re:The more we know, the more we know we don't kno by Evil+Grinn · · Score: 1

    The Unknown
    As we know,
    There are known knowns.
    There are things we know we know.
    We also know
    There are known unknowns.
    That is to say
    We know there are some things
    We do not know.
    But there are also unknown unknowns,
    The ones we don't know
    We don't know.


    The above is actually an old chestnut of management wisdom that Rummy picked up from his days in private industry. Rumsfeld wasn't being stupid or crazy, he was just being unoriginal.

  43. Re:Forget Mars... Target Cancer! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    My point exactly... I feel like many cures are found completely by accident.. someone whose wife or husband has cancer will be working on developing some new kind of paint thinner or something and discover that their spouse's cancer goes away... or something like that...

  44. Re:Forget Mars... Target Cancer! by dsci · · Score: 1

    Of course, if we were to be truly objective, we have to face the possibility that there is NO CURE for certain cancers. We may find one way to block uncontrolled cell growth, only to find other mechanisms take over.

    I'm not saying we should not do the research, but this may be a case where the journey is worth more than getting there.

    --
    Computational Chemistry products and services.
  45. But cancer is not contagious by michaelmalak · · Score: 1

    I had pretty much the same question as the GP. A two-phase attack -- envoy and then spread -- seems pretty complex to me. How would such complexity evolve since cancer is not contagious?

    1. Re:But cancer is not contagious by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      When two plausible explanations are provided choose the simpler. This can be viewed as a two-phase attack or it can be viewed as the natural progression. Abused children run away to find a more tolerable home. Criminals run away to find a new home to escape capture. The act of running away to find a new home, however, does not imply a criminal.

      In the vast majority of cancers there is a problem not directly related to the cancerous tissue itself. The cancerous tissue is a symptom. Usually the problem is with a malfunctioning immune system.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  46. Re:The more we know, the more we know we don't kno by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1
    This originally came from St. Augustine. (The Lockheed Prez, not the other one).

    It's actually a very profound observation, something along the lines of:

    • When you look over predictions versus final results you find:
    • Costs exceed estimates by 40%.
    • Unexpected costs exceed estimated unexpected costs by 50%.
    • Delays exceed estimated delays by 35%.

    So there's things you know (We wanna build an airplane, around $10 mil each).

    Things you think you know (It's likely going to cost $13 million)

    things you know you don't know ( costs above expected overruns)

    and things you don't know you don't know ( unexpected events beyond the expected unexpected events)

  47. Ah, a reasoned answer by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 1

    While it's easy to jump into the "What's the reason behind mosquitoes" sort of philosophical arguments, the reality is that cancer isn't a single nice, neat package. Even this article falls into the trap - the mechanism they describe is likely just one of many.

    Think of cancer as a statistical event. Cellular mechanisms don't work 100% all the time. Most cancer cells are benign and never noticed. A few have very specific things go wrong with them that allow them to grow and spread and kill the host.

    Think of it as evolution in miniature. The unsuccessful cancers are destroyed by the immune system, fail to grow, or fail to spread. If a particular cell begins replicating and stumbles upon the correct mutations to allow it to do all three, you have full blown cancer. This is also why chemotherapy stops working after awhile - the cancer cells that are resistant survive, allowing them to continue to grow and thrive.

    It's a nasty business, but not a particularly mystical or mysterious one.

  48. Interesting Moderations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Am I the only one to notice the little mod war going on? Anyone criticizing the editors and/or the submitter get's modded down for Trolling and Off-topic posting. Anyone supporting the editors gets modded down for trolling. The best comments of both worlds still make through due to additional Insightful and Informative mods, but it really seems like the editors are trying to squash these threads of discussion and the commenters are fighting back.

  49. Re:An even more interesting cancer finding. by sdpuppy · · Score: 1

    Actually, you're sort of right - guess why in certain cancers there is greater vascularization in tumors? And areas of tumors that don't have the extra blood vessels tend to be necrotic.

  50. Finally an answer to the age old question... by crashcodesdotcom · · Score: 1

    "Why'd the cancer cross the road?"

  51. I for one... by nonlnear · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new cancer spreading special bone marrow cell overlords.

    --
    argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
  52. I beg to differ by xao+gypsie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I beg to differ you little shit. I have leukemia, and 20 years ago the doctor would have told me "make youself comfortable, you have X years/months to live". 10 years ago they would ahve hit me up with a powerful chemo and then done a bone marrow transplant, a risky procedure at best. My odd of surviving that would not have been optimal though it would be possible. Now, with the release of a drug called gleevec, my prognosis is good. Once I adapt to the side effect (which are tough, but not as bad as traditional chemo), this pill could actually put me into remission. So you are absolutely dead wrong. Money for cancer research it working, and it is saving my life (even though I am now only 22).

    --


    xao
    http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
    1. Re:I beg to differ by xao+gypsie · · Score: 1

      yeah, youre right. i was out of line. it was a rough morning so i was grumpy to begin with. so for all /.ers out there, im sorry...

      --


      xao
      http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
    2. Re:I beg to differ by shams42 · · Score: 1

      Hey, at least you've got a good excuse. But I'm glad that your treatments are going well. Good luck!

    3. Re:I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Don't apologize. My wife contracted AML in 1996. She went thru three remissions, chemo, marrow ... you name it. Finally, she went into her last remission in 1999. But now, the post-chemo is what's killing her. She lost her thyroid (survivable if you catch it in time, but nobody did ... she lost 100 lbs and damn near died, completely dehydrated), and now she's developed epilepsy. She can't drive, she can't work ... it's all she can do to walk, slowly.

      I am in awe of all cancer victims who just don't roll over and quit. I've been blessed with being very close to someone who didn't and doesn't. Me, I probably woulda quit long ago.

      Keep the faith. I hope gleevec does the trick for you, and that you have a long, comfortable life. But above all, live in peace. Know that you're one in a million.

    4. Re:I beg to differ by Fenster+Karton · · Score: 1

      I don't know about leukemia but a mouse study using mammary tumor in mice was 97% successful attaining a cure using cesium chloride. Never has gotten past university studies. As for the attachment isn't that how pregnancy starts?

  53. very strange... by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

    ...but very interesting, and the first thing I'd ask is, if metastatic cancers require this "system" to operate in order to be successful, then why are so many carcinomas malignant? Shouldn't we be seeing a lot more benign growths that require only a simple, surgical extraction? Perhaps this behavior serves a more mundane use and is often already active. Unfortunately that means drugs to inhibit it might produce some very unwelcome side effects.

    1. Re:very strange... by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      Carcinomas are statistically malignant because the vast majority of them get removed by the immune system when they're a collection of little more than 25-50 malfunctioning cells. If a carcinoma makes it to a physically noticeable size, or a size where its chemical output has a drastic effect on overall health, then there's a good bet that the carcinoma has the immune system at bay. It's usually the degradation in the immune system resulting from fighting a carcinoma that allows the drastic effect on overall health which leads to seeing a physician.

      Statistically, though, the immune system has a pretty good handle on this. Consider that at any point in your life there are probably 25-50 small pockets of cells beginning to go bad. I've often wondered how many times metastasis was really metastasis or if were a product of the physician seeing what they want to see. Many times it's a completely unrelated cancerous area which is now being allowed to proliferate because the immune system is compromised. Because of this I'm not particular fond of extreme chemo.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    2. Re:very strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually autopsy studies on accident victims have shown that most (>95%) of people over 40 have a tumor in their thyroid that is indistinguishable from cancer except that it is ~1mm in diameter. No immune cells in the area, and yet only ~1/1000 will go on to be a diagnosable tumor. We have models of similar processes in our lab and we rarely see immune-cell infiltration. In other words, with the exception of virally-induced cancers, and melanoma where there is a clear immune component, I am skeptical of the idea that "immune surveillance" plays a significant role in preventing cancer. If this were true then you would expect a dramatic increase in the major solid tumors (lung, colon, breast, prostate, skin) among immunosuppressed patients, and this just isn't seen. Rather, I suspect that the idea of "blocked ontogeny" in carcinogenesis can explain several of the observations that the immune system is currently used to explain.

    3. Re:very strange... by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

      However, don't we see a vastly increased incidence of cancer in AIDS patients?

      Perhaps immuno-suppressive drugs also mitigate the propagation of cancer cells?

      Also hasn't HAART (Highly Active Retroviral Therapy) been associated with increased incidence of aerodigestive cancers, including squamous anal cell cancer?

      So, how would your "blocked ontogeny" hypothesis play out when compared to statistical data and treatment trials that should a good correllation between immune suppression and cancerous growth?

    4. Re:very strange... by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

      Just a layman, but from what I have read yes there is an increase in carcinomas in AIDS patients. Kaposi's sarcoma being a typical symptom of immune sistem degeneration.

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
  54. Prepared to see the oncologist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing prepares you enough for the first time you see the oncologist.

    A pint of Jack Daniels goes a long way towards achieving a good level of preparedness.

  55. Re:slow news day... by xao+gypsie · · Score: 1

    Right, because finding out how cancer spreads is not important or anything... now if we found out that cancer somehow used a Microsoft product to spread its way through the body... THAT would be a story!
    and you're a jackass....For those who actually have cancer and understand what that is like (such as myself, Leukemia), you have rendered yourself a blubbering idiot.

    --


    xao
    http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
  56. What's the big deal, here? by dslauson · · Score: 1

    I don't get the big deal here. The guy is submitting legitimate articles, and the /. editors obviously see enough value in them to put them on the front page.

    So he's getting something out of it, and he's got an alterior motive. So what? Is it really hurting the way you browse the site? You have to admit that this is a newsworthy story. It's not like he's submitting nonsense and then reaping rewards for it.

    If you have that big a problem, don't click on his stories, and don't follow his links. Otherwise, quit freaking out every time he submits a story, because it's getting old.

  57. Re:An even more interesting cancer finding. by orkysoft · · Score: 1

    I think that the problem of the immune system not properly detecting and eliminating the tumor has never been "solved" in the past billion years because it used to be very rare, and usually occur only when the organism was kind of old, and so had no effect on reproduction, hence there was no mechanism to select for individuals who had a better immune response. Nowadays, we've got soap, bandages, doctors. We live longer. Hence, cancer becomes a more significant issue.

    Of course, there might be lots of people around with an immune system that does detect and destroy tumorous cells, but that doesn't get detected by medical specialists, because they rarely get cancer.

    (This is of course just my opinion, feel free to criticize, if possibly constructively.)

    --

    I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  58. A lead to stopping cancer before it starts? by NX-47 · · Score: 1

    The article describes "envoys" that the primary site sends out to find/prepare new sites (metastasis), affirming that this preparation is necessary for secondary tumors to grow. The article also states that without the "landing pads" made possible by the "envoys", it is impossible for the secondary tumors to grow.

    It seems logical to me that this kind of "prep work" is necessary for the initial tumor to grow, so if researchers can learn how to block envoys from "parent" tumors, then they might be able to develop a way to screen for "progenitor envoys".

    Let's hope, anyway.

  59. Seems right place to put this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  60. The truth about * *Beatles-Beatles by dorkygeek · · Score: 4, Informative

    Then please reread my earlier comment about this guy:

    Ok, let's have a look at his george-harrison.info website. Aha, maybe the links at the bottom of the page? Yes, I see: http://george-harrison.info/reciprocal-links.html [george-harrison.info].

    Sooo, what may be on that page? Quoting:

    Our reciprocal links page. These links are useful for website promotion, link trades, and generating traffic to your site. There are many sites with useful products, services, programs, business opportunities, information, and free stuff.

    All reciprocal links have been manually screened before getting on this page. Webmasters that post links on this page, also promote this Links Page on their site too. If you want to add your link and become a member of this reciprocal links page, just click on the top link for details. It's free to join.

    Looking at the link list (just a small excerpt):

    Guaranteed Dropship Wholesalers business directory source

    Good Vibrations for Singles - Free Dating, Love, Romance, and Friendship

    Collection Agency - Williams, Cohen & Gray

    Trade Links - Link Swap Page

    Personals Dating Affiliate Program - Instant Sign-Up

    ProfitsRup2U For Successful Internet Marketing

    Trade links page - reciprocal links page

    HTH!

    --
    Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
    1. Re:The truth about * *Beatles-Beatles by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Yeah, thanks for mentioning the website name three times in an effort to warn people about his increasing PageRank.

  61. Intelligent cancer? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    This really makes me think. I always thought cancer were just defects in cells that caused them to multiply like crazy. But now it turns out that cancer is something like a living being, a parasite invading a host.

    So, perhaps cancer IS caused by a virus (like the Human Papiloma virus)? Perhaps this unknown virus managed to implant its genetic code in humans and this was passed to future generations? You know, I'd really like to have someone sequence the genome of cancerous cells. Who knows what other surprises we might find?

    Everytime a new discovery like this is found, it gives us more questions than answers.

    1. Re:Intelligent cancer? by suchire · · Score: 1

      People are already starting to sequence cancer cells, and they're all quite different from each other. Cancer can be caused by a few select viruses, but the majority are probably caused by simple mutations; and yes, cancer is really just a group of cells that has a change to make it proliferate uncontrollably, which is how it kills the "host." The main thing that makes cancer more complicated is that so many things have to happen for cancer to survive (disable antiproliferative regulatory systems, force blood vessels to grow around it, become immortal, disable anticancer-sensing autodestruct systems).

      --
      Such irE
    2. Re:Intelligent cancer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This really makes me think. I always thought cancer were just defects in cells that caused them to multiply like crazy. But now it turns out that cancer is something like a living being, a parasite invading a host.

      Sorry, it's not. While it may act like a parasite in certain ways, it's still just a group of dysfunctional cells.

  62. And when the envoy cells arrive, they say......... by joppabukowski · · Score: 1

    "lol no this is not a virus."

  63. The Reason ? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    Surely it should be "the method"

    The clue is in the headline of the article :

    "Scientists discover how cancer spreads"

    not why

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  64. Re:Forget Mars... Target Cancer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Chubby, it's like this...

    Cancer kills a lot of people every year. It's tragic.

    A huge rock slamming into the Earth, kills EVERYONE.

    This will happen one day.

    No space exploration, no humans.

  65. Re:And when the envoy cells arrive, they say...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, that is hilarious. One of the short, funny posts that actually gets me to read the comments in slashdot!

  66. Go to Mars... Target Cancer! by Peldor · · Score: 2, Funny

    There have been no reported cases of cancer on Mars in any reputable medical journal. We need to go there and find out why!

  67. Re:The question I want to ask is... by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

    In case anyone is wondering, that was the original title before the crack (smoking) /. editors finally corrected it. Everyone who modded me off-topic is just jealous that they didn't catch it first.

    --
    If you can read this sig, you're too close.
  68. Old News! by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 1
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2805cance r.html

    This is old news... Nova ran a special on this back in 2001! But that's what you get for paying attention to mainstream media (msnbc, in this case), instead of PBS, NPR, and scientific journals.

  69. Your point has been proven by vinn01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh the irony: speaking about the "offtopic" mod war got you modded as "offtopic".

    It's like pointing out the truth and being modded a liar for doing so.

    vb

  70. Re:An even more interesting cancer finding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow!1111!!!!1!!1!!

    You muzt b3 a doctor or sumth1ng with your exc3llent grasp of modern medic4l sc1encz! Calc1um and 0XyG3n! Wow!!!!!1!

    Next time - read a fucking textbook you thick cunt.

  71. troll by towsonu2003 · · Score: 1

    embrace extend extinguish

  72. No, it's new news by tigre · · Score: 2, Informative

    As far as I can tell, the article and the Nova special are talking about different things. The former is about cell attractors, whereas the latter is about blood vessel growth. Important, but different, parts of the puzzle.

  73. Re:slow news day... by continuouslife · · Score: 0

    *sigh* And sarcasm is lost on yet another person...

    --
    Here's my witty comment about a signature. Ha. Ha.
  74. Also... by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We have cured many types of cancer. When someone finds out that they have cancer, the first question is no longer "How long have I got?", it is now "Is it curable?".

  75. Re:Forget Mars... Target Cancer! by blamanj · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've always thought the wiser thing would be for a President to proclaim that we shall cure cancer within the next decade. Rather than the tired old Moo... er, Mars thing.

    Been there. Done that. President Nixon launched a "War on Cancer" to find a cure within a decade.

  76. Re:slow news day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you need to go back and read the parent of the post you responded to, you're lashing out at the wrong person.

  77. In Other News... by Dreamwalkerofyore · · Score: 2, Funny

    Still no cure for cancer. But we're getting closer.

    --
    I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
  78. Re:Carl Fogle... send him a message... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Send complaints to:

    Carl Fogle
    4120 Manhattan Ave
    Brooklyn, 11224
    (718) 996-7672

    Source: http://www.webdesignproz.com/webdesign/listing/163 6799/us/ny/brooklyn/carl--fogle.html

  79. Re:The more we know, the more we know we don't kno by PetWolverine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Then there are the unknown knowns,
    The things we don't know
    We know,
    But that direct and constrain our thinking anyway.
    There are unknown known knowns,
    The things we don't know
    Even though we know
    We know them.
    These are things we think we know,
    But we're way off base.
    There are known known unknowns,
    The things we know
    We do not know,
    Without realizing
    We actually know them.
    These are questions we keep asking
    When the answers
    Are staring us in the face.
    There are also unknown unknown knowns,
    The things we don't know
    We know,
    But that we don't actually know.
    These are unconscious constraints
    That need to be changed.
    There are known unknown unknowns,
    The things we don't know
    We don't know,
    When we actually know them.
    These are the questions
    We could answer
    If only we thought to ask.
    The unknown known unknowns,
    The known unknown knowns,
    The known known knowns,
    And the unknown unknown unknowns
    I will leave to another slashdotter.

    --
    I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
  80. Out of Brainpower by tempest69 · · Score: 1
    Maybe they can sythesize something which is able to bond to Fibronectin? If they flooded the bloodstream with it, it could use up all the landing pads and effectively block the cancer from attaching anywhere. Kinda like a Denial of Service on a molecular level...?
    One problem that I know off the top of my head is that blocking fibronectin is going to impair mental function. Fibronectin is used in the brain to bind polysialic acid, a "grease for the neurons". So if you bind up the fibronectin, your neurons cant get greasier and slip around when you try and connect some new ideas. Mice have a tough time trying to remember mazes without "mental grease".

    My gut tells me that messing with fibronectin is probably a very bad thing.

    Storm

  81. Re:The more we know, the more we know we don't kno by elliotCarte · · Score: 1

    Ah, yes, but what of the unknown knowns? Are there things that we don't know we know?

    From one of my poems: 'Sometimes there are somethings that somepeople shouldn't know.'

    Perhaps this isn't so. Perhaps in these situations it would suffice that those in question should simply not be aware of what they really do know.

    --
    If you can't just be yourself, then be more like me, ok?
  82. Re:slow news day... by eheldreth · · Score: 1

    I think the parent was being sarcastic to the GP's lack of respect reguarding the story and the critical nature of cancer research. Not dismisive of the importance of the find.

    --
    The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
  83. Re:Forget Mars... Target Cancer! by jwiegley · · Score: 1
    What do you mean by "the government's research money???"

    I think what you meant to say was "(My|Our) research money."

    This subconcious, false belief that the government has some magic pool of money from which we all benefit is what is killing this world.

    --
    I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
  84. BFD... by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

    the cause of cancer was discovered about a decade ago.

  85. An interesting shift in perspective by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    Linkspammer aside, what seems interesting to me about this is the change it implies in how cancer should be viewed. Cancer cells aren't just bits of broken machinery going haywire, growing and breaking and growing somewhere else. They're parasitic colonial lifeforms actively seeking their own advancement, and treating the body as a host.

    Less of a malfunction, more of an atavism?

    1. Re:An interesting shift in perspective by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      You've got that backwards. Cancer currently is viewed as singular entity which should be neatly separated from the body. Very few research groups take the approach that cancerous pockets are naturally occuring cyclical events within the body and that they are products of the environment around them. Cancerous pockets vary in frequency and amplitude depending upon the overall health of the individual.

      From what I understand little brown spots (beauty marks) are defunct miniature benign skin tumours. The immune system and surrounding tissue of the person who has them was obviously able to control and deal with the growth appropriately.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  86. Re:slow news day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    look, up in the sky!

    it's a bird!
    it's a plane!
    it's the sarcasm flying over your head!

  87. Re:Forget Mars... Target Cancer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But then you'd get a bunch of Americans, stating that since they invented it, they should control it, and nobody else should benefit from it without permission.

  88. Offtopic? Look at context next time. by joey_knisch · · Score: 1

    Hey moron mods. Click the "* * Beatles-Beatles" link at the top of the page and tell me you didn't have the same reaction.

    Next time take a minute and look at context. If you don't think my joke is funny move on or mark as overrated but don't mark me as offtopic when I am talking about the same thing as the parent and sibling posts.

  89. **Beatles-Beatles by jollyroger1210 · · Score: 1, Troll

    What does cancer have to do with pageranking? nothing? Maybe we shold give this story to someone else, even if it's not theirs.

    --
    Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
  90. Re:The more we know, the more we know we don't kno by Entropy · · Score: 1

    "I guess I forgot if there are any unknown knowns" ;)

    --
    The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
  91. Re: WHAT by s388 · · Score: 1

    you crazy asshole.

    I LOVE THAT POST. the ending stunk. but then your signature made up for it.

    bravo goodshow attaboy

  92. Re:No, it's old news by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 1

    Alright, perhaps I was a bit hasty.

  93. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the slashdot editors modded him down because they don't want their secret out in the public.

    It doesn't need to be modded upto +5 but something like +3 would be reasonble.

  94. newpath4.com/thecancercurefromnewpath4curecancer.h by newpath4comVersion2 · · Score: 0
    Well, thanks for this article > http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/0 8/0053218 .

    Kind of further explains how proper oxygenation of the human body can hold a cancer from spreading, a discovery I made almost 2 years ago > http://www.newpath4.com/thecancercurefromnewpath4c urecancer.htm .

    It doesn't stop the CANCER it stops the outsourcing. Hey, THE KEY TO STOPPING CANCER IS STOPPING THE OUTSOURCING. hahahaha Gee, I knew I'd finally find my way to total knowledge! You have to control the Weather > http://www.newpath4.com/WorldwideClimateEngineMsg. htm , including the little nasty storm fronts.

  95. Re:slow news day... by EternityInterface · · Score: 0

    WONT SOMEBODY *PLEASE* THINK OF THE CANCER CHILDREN

    Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
    Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

    --
    the sun is god
  96. Re:Forget Mars... Target Cancer! by RexxFiend · · Score: 1

    I had cancer a few months ago and am now effectively "cured" in that I no longer have a cancerous tumour inside me. I must have missed the major headlines saying that cancer had been cured!
    In mine and most cases where the patient can be cured, the main factor is time; can we remove the original tumour before it starts to metastase? Failing that, can we disrupt the metastase process if we can't get at the tumour (it's somewhere tricky like a lung or a bowel).
    This research seems to be one step closer to disrupting the metastase process. In my case that would mean that I wouldn't need to go through unpleasant radiotherapy treatments "just in case" there is some metastasis, even though they haven't found any. I could just take whatever drug comes out of this research to disrupt any remaining metastasis sites and that would be that.

    The biggest problem with cancer, and this is where the time factor is most significant, is not so much curing the disease; it's reversing all the damage it has done in the body even if you manage to destroy/remove the tumour(s). That however takes us into an entirely different branch of medical research; stem cell research and organ regrowth, and look how much fuss is being made about that at the moment!

    --

    A crash reduces
    Your expensive computer
    to a simple stone.