Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Crack 'Entire Genetic Code' of Cancer
Entropy98 writes "Scientists have unlocked the entire genetic code of skin and lung cancer. From the article: 'Not only will the cancer maps pave the way for blood tests to spot tumors far earlier, they will also yield new drug targets, say the Wellcome Trust team. The scientists found the DNA code for a skin cancer called melanoma contained more than 30,000 errors almost entirely caused by too much sun exposure. The lung cancer DNA code had more than 23,000 errors largely triggered by cigarette smoke exposure. From this, the experts estimate a typical smoker acquires one new mutation for every 15 cigarettes they smoke. Although many of these mutations will be harmless, some will trigger cancer.' Yet another step towards curing cancer. Though it will probably take many years to study so many mutations."
I didn't use to like skin cancer, but it grows on you
Smivs on the intertubes!
Although many of these mutations will be harmless, some will trigger cancer
And some will give you super powers.
What does it mean that melanoma has 30,000 errors in the DNA? Is it that the one melanoma they looked at had 30,000 differences from the other cells in the patient's body? It appears that, far from finding the needle in the haystack, they've found 30,000 haystacks.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
I wonder if they will patent this so everyone who develops a treatment using techniques discovered here must cough up a royalty?
Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway?
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Maybe we can make cigarettes that don't cause cancer.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Well I just quit.
(Actually, I've been smoking less and less this week, haven't - and won't - buy a new pack once this last one's gone. With this news, the 1 in 15 smokes stat is a real motivator!)
Both my parents died from it and I suspect I probably will too. Or maybe not if they can find a cure.
Hopefully this will lead to treatments for other cancers as well.
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
So, since it's cigarette smoke that's the problem... Everyone switch to pot?
It seems that they should do this with cancer cells from several different patients and compare them to find out which mutations actually trigger the cancer.
Do these guys promise to come back in 2 years and report on their progress?
Hacking would be to add or change something on that code on a original but cheap way to produce a practical result. Chop chop.. hack hack.
The article sounds more like deassembling the code. but IANGE.
-Woof woof woof!
This is a terrible summary. There is no *single* cancer genome. They sequenced the genome of one cancer biopsy. There are probably as many different cancer "codes" (also a horribly misleading term) as there are tumors in the world.
Cancer is not a single disease, it is a phenomenon, like evolution. This would be like sequencing the genome of two organisms and claiming to've "cracked the evolution code".
Smoke 'em if you got 'em!
Will this change how the tobacco companies are viewed?
The critical point here is that most of these mutations are acquired *after* the cancer gets going, regardless of whether the mutagen in question is still being administered.
Therefore, it's not proper to infer a linear relationship between the dose of mutagen and the number of mutations.
Beyond that, the numbers involved in that extrapolation seem to have been pulled out of thin air, and I question whether they knew the smoking history of the individual who donated the material that created that cell line. (The lung cancer in question had 30,000 mutations, so by their logic the smoker must have smoked 345,000 cigarettes, or 17,250 packs of 20. That's a pack a day for 47 years, which is admittedly within the bounds of possibility, but still an awful lot of smoking.)
Whatever. Smoking is still awful for you, but this kind of nonsensical extrapolation without regard to detail is terribly annoying.
It's exhilarating to see such visceral confirmation of the superior efficiencies of free market capitalism. If the scientists working for this cancer research corporation didn't have the profit motive behind them, who knows how long it would have taken for them to reach this point in their research, that is, if the project had even gotten off the ground at all!
Why is 40-a-day for 25 years in a sufferer of lung cancer that much of a surprise?
Cancer will be issuing a DMCA take-down notice and sue the pants off the scientists for cracking its code.
I agree. Most confusing summary.
Are they saying that all 30,000 mutations are the DIRECT result of exposure to sunlight, or are they saying an initial mutation caused by sunlight exposure was then multiplied by cell division/replication?
If it was the first case, how did they determine the cause of each mutation? If it was the second case, the question still remains--How did they determine the cause of ANY of these mutations?
"Whatever. Smoking is still awful for you, but this kind of nonsensical extrapolation without regard to detail is terribly annoying."
Yes, terribly annoying, but apparently it gets them grant money.
you can smoke 344,999 cigarettes and not get cancer but if you smoke just one more BAM! CANCER!
I know it doesn't but the article kinda hints at that.
Wouldn't it be great though if it was that precise.
15 cigs = 1 DNA error
23,000 errrors = CANCER
15 Cigs X 23,000 = 345,000 cigs
345,000 Cigs = Cancer
Average life span ~67 years
If you start smoking at 18 that's ~17,897 days till your dead anyway
So you can have 19 Cigarettes a day.
Hey cigarette companies I think I have a new marketing campaign for you. You just need to start selling packs of smokes with 19 Cigs in each.
So, since it's cigarette smoke that's the problem... Everyone switch to pot?
I know you're joking, but there's no conclusive evidence that nicotine itself causes cancer. It's particulate matter and other smoke residues that seem to drive lung cancer, and we know that there are just as many carcinogens in pot smoke as tobacco smoke.
Weirdly, however, large studies seem to indicate that there isn't an increased cancer risk from heavy pot smoking. Other research suggests that THC reduced lung cancer growth. However, pot smokers are at elevated risk for other lung diseases that come purely from breathing hot smoke all the time.
So, if you're going to switch from tobacco to marijuana, consider going with methods other than smoking. You may not get cancer from smoking, but it's still not good for you, and there are much safer ways to get high. (They are also ways that do not force other people in your presence to participate through second-hand smoke, which will bother others regardless of the long-term health risks or lack thereof.)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I just completed an intensive undergraduate course on cancer with a focus on genetics at UC Berkeley. We spent a significant amount of time on cancer genomes, and I have to say this announcement doesn't mean that much unfortunately. Cancers are genetically very unstable, and any given tumor you sequence will have many mutations that are completely unrelated to the cancer's survival and proliferation. they are known as passenger mutations, and need to be separated from the causative 'driver' mutations. sequencing many tumors of the same type and applying statistical analysis has been useful in this area, but considering that there are potentially millions of different combinations of active and inactive genes that lead to tumor formation, this approach has its limitations. this is especially true given that some genes are both tumor suppressors and tumor activators in different contexts (eg the TGF-b pathway). even if you identify a genetic locus as highly associated with a particular cancer, it is hard to go from there to understanding the molecular biology behind that association.
we have a long way to go before we defeat cancer, and sequencing can only take us so far.
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
I can't help but think that cancer is acting as a brake on the population explosion. If we cured cancer tomorrow these people who are dear to me wouldn't suffer, but we'd be even less sustainable and eventually we'd see wide spread poverty and famine. So the question becomes: If we do gather the knowledge we need to cure various forms of cancer so that those dear to us don't suffer, what are we going to do to balance things out and prevent the population from skyrocketing?
I don't have easy answers. I certainly don't like watching friends and family die, and would like to see a proper cure instead of various poisons in the form of radiation and drugs that take their toll on the person as much as the disease.
Well the summary actually says it's 30,000 mutations for skin cancer and 23,000 for lung cancer, but at least you got it right in your math.
Yes, I am obsessed with ellipses.
Oh my. An AC troll without a spelling mistake and good grammar! Sorry Mr AC but you fail
If I was witty I'd put something funny here but, as it stands, I am not and have just wasted seconds of your life
the article is total crap. UV light causes very specific kinds of DNA damage (pyrimidine dimers for the most part), but simply replicating too quickly without the proper error repair mechanisms working at full efficiency is more than enough to induce mutations simply from polymerase errors. the parent is spot on: the genetic instability of cancer contributes significantly to the mutations, and only a subset of them are related to the cancer's actual ability to survive/continue proliferating.
"The scientists found the DNA code for a skin cancer called melanoma contained more than 30,000 errors almost entirely caused by too much sun exposure."
This is obviously such a ridiculous statement that I'm surprised it made it into the BBC article.
Show me the evidence that almost 100% of DNA errors in skin cells or skin cancer cells are caused by sun exposure...
Ah let me see...my crystal ball says that in the future you will be excluded from insurance cover if your DNA shows cancer markers. What about that job you applied for? Your DNA says that you may have a propensity for borderline personality disorder...go straight to management!
One of the things driving me when I began the quitting process was that my back of the napkin math showed I had smoked in the area of 148,000 cigarettes. I had a hard time putting that in terms of anything else. I couldn't compare it to any other non-reflexive thing. I haven't signed my name 148,000 times, or tied my shoes. What have I done 20+ times per day for 20 years?
Now I learn that that means I have 10,000 cell mutations on top of that. Neato. Of course, 10,000 cells is kind of a drop in the bucket compared to the inner surface of my airway.
To smokers: Please note his does not mean that I'm not still hopefully addicted to nicotine. Now it just comes in the form of Cherry Commit Lozenges. They work pretty OK. I've had maybe 1 cigarette per month for the last 5 months.
On the other hand, I miss that I no longer look cool.
I like music
If this is true, does that not mean (by cause and affect) that there is a provable direct relation between cigarette smoking and cancer? Would that not indicate that a lawsuit is in order?
Mean what you say...say what you mean.
Now that these scientists got the genetic code for skin and lung cancer, should we get them to figure the genetic code for the stupidity cancer? I think so, it will be hard, but very well rewarding
> The genes aren't patentable.
Tell that to Monsanto. If the genes from their GE plants turn up in a farmer's soy crop, he's in for hell even if they just drifted over as pollen from neighboring fields.
In the United States, patents protect not just the device or technique, but also the product of it. Thus, those who patent techniques for isolating genes also have patent-protection for the genes, themselves. Patents do not ordinarily cover "products of nature," but when something exists in a lab in "purified" form, it's exempted from this limitation. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml
Here's what Monsanto does with their patents:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0115-04.htm
Under U.S. patent law, a farmer commits an offense even if they unknowingly plant Monsanto's seeds without purchasing them from the company. Other countries have similar laws.
In the well-known case of Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, pollen from a neighbor's GE canola fields and seeds that blew off trucks on their way to a processing plant ended up contaminating his fields with Monsanto's genetics.
The trial court ruled that no matter how the GE plants got there, Schmeiser had infringed on Monsanto's legal rights when he harvested and sold his crop. After a six-year legal battle, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that while Schmeiser had technically infringed on Monsanto's patent, he did not have to pay any penalties.
Schmeiser, who spoke at last year's World Social Forum in India, says it cost 400,000 dollars to defend himself.
"Monsanto should held legally responsible for the contamination," he said.
Another North Dakota farmer, Tom Wiley, explains the situation this way: "Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell."
Saying they've "cracked" the code to these two cancers (skin and lung) is not really as big a step as the title implies. They've found the genetic mutations associated with the cancers. That's probably the easy part (and it wasn't so easy). The problem in studying cancer is that the function of genes is often dynamic and interdependent. Think of a room with 30,000 light switches. Sometimes light switch #5 will turn on the light bulb, but sometimes it won't. It depends on whether light switch # 7, 100, and 10542 are all on simultaneously or not. And if switch #2742 is on, the light, if it's on, will be very dim. This why even though we give a cancer a single name - e.g. "melanoma" - there are often very different mutations present, any one or multiple ones which can affect the person's survival, but not necessarily all the time. There are cancers which reliably result from single mutations, but the most common ones are due to mutations in many many different genes. To the point that most cases of cancer can or should be considered unique.
IMHO, where I think the results of these studies may be most helpful with regards to treating people successfully is figuring out which mutations cause the cancer to spontaneously regress, whether it's by self-destruction or immune mechanisms. Even then, maybe it's not even because of a cancer mutation. Maybe some people possess some genetic trait in their immune system that allows them to destroy cancers. In which case, too many people would be looking in the wrong haystack for a needle.
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
"the experts estimate a typical smoker acquires one new mutation for every 15 cigarettes they smoke."
I will now become a heavy smoker in hopes of gaining X-Men-like superpowers.
Isn't "crack" slightly sensationalistic?
Seems like this type of endeavors have recently been fairly routine.
After much research and thought, I've come to the conclusion that white mice actually cause cancer.
Actually, the article in Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091216/full/news.2009.1143.html) reports that it's 15 mutations per cigarette smoked. BBC got it wrong.
FTA: "The team estimates that every cigarette smoked results in 15 mutations."
Thereby making it only 100 packs needed to cause cancer.
'Show me the evidence that almost 100% of DNA errors in skin cells or skin cancer cells are caused by sun exposure...'
Not 100% perhaps, but from the paper:
'DNA damage due to ultraviolet light leads to the formation of covalent links between two adjacent pyrimidines. Consequently, C>T mutations due to ultraviolet light usually occur at dipyrimidine sequences. Therefore, to evaluate further the role of ultraviolet light in the pathogenesis of somatic mutations in COLO-829, we examined the sequence context of C>T substitutions...[Lots of technical stuff about the sequence context of the mutations with some impressive looking p-values] ...Therefore, the mutation spectrum and sequence context indicate that most C>T/G>A somatic substitutions in COLO-829 are attributable to ultraviolet-light-induced DNA damage.'
Vaporizers are one way an individual could reduce the particulate matter in the inhaling of most any substance that otherwise needs to be superheated. Most use one for smoking dope but it is just as viable for tobacco. Insert head shop jokes here.
// Not sure where I was going with this.
Their they're doing there hair.
I always thought that the nicotine is completely harmless. You can chew the nicotine gum for every second of your life and you will probably be fine.
There's some controversy over some research that needs to be hashed out over nicotine and FOXM1 expression. Recent research has suggested that if you have a mutation in this gene (which is a precursor to cancer), nicotine may worsen your chances of getting cancer. Nicotine alone won't do it, but if you're already heading down that route...
Some researchers are skeptical over the study because numerous other studies have shown no link between nicotine and cancer, but only time will tell who is right.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Seriously, what you are suggesting is ether unreasonable; recoup direct investment costs only, or; basically, the regulated utility model, where you could turn a profit by redecorating the presidents office and old investments where never called failures or obsolete, just run forever (and ever and ever) with guaranteed ROI.
You've heard of the floating break-even? (Hollywood accounting) Do you really want to inflict that on R&D? That's the first obvious unintended consequence.
As long as patents don't go the way of copyrights and extend the term unreasonably they remain necessary. There scope is a question to me (not that I've got shit to say about anything). Particularly business method/algorithm patents.
Your capitalism light around R&D approach fails on capital mobility grounds alone. The R&D capital will travel to the best ROI.
Leave us with the current capitalism light, at least it sort of works for now.
I expect old fashioned secrets to return to vogue when the international IP landscape fractures just slightly after the Dollar does (which is to say well after the Pound craters but slightly before the Euro.)
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
One of the reasons why slashdot is good is because its readers tend to be aware of the state of the technology. Thanks commenters for precise answers to some very stupid genetic advertising. And yes, skin cancer grows on you....:D
I'm not saying whether or not I agree with that, but that's the way it is.
No, it is not. Research is expensive, but a lot of that is already paid for by taxes. Furthermore, the resulting medicines are themselves very profitable and expensive, and a lot of that profit is, again, derived from the government.
Additionally, market forces aren't working: profitable drugs (the ones drug companies have an incentive to develop) are not the drugs that people actually need. Drug companies love to develop drugs that reduce the symptoms of uncurable diseases and need to be taken for life; the drugs we actually need are drugs that cure diseases with a single dose. They also prefer to develop lifestyle drugs and drugs for common but harmless ailments, instead of developing drugs for curing serious disease.
According to them, without patents, there would be no research and progress in this field whatsoever.
We'd have to increase public funding for research and clinical trials somewhat, but on balance, we'd pay a lot less and get better drugs.
The market works for a lot of things, but it doesn't work well for either research or drugs.
They should patent the cancer genes and start suing everybody with cancer for violating their IP! They could make a killing...
Is this poster savagely mocking the Randroids and Glibertarians that infest /., or is he one of the Randroids and Glibertarians that infest /.?
"It's exhilarating to see such visceral confirmation of the superior efficiencies of free market capitalism. If the scientists working for this cancer research corporation didn't have the profit motive behind them, who knows how long it would have taken for them to reach this point in their research, that is, if the project had even gotten off the ground at all!"
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
See - it's just not a problem for most of us pasty white boy types :-)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Never worked in a VA hospital, eh? :) You measure smoking history in "pack-years" (actually packs/day * years). 47 is pretty unremarkable. It's not until you hit triple digits that it seems extraordinary.
So how many joints does it take to get a mutation?
No, I will not work for your startup
Though the story is newsworthy, this has the misleading title of the century. They didn't unlock it. They sequenced it. There's a big, big difference. It's the difference between having a map of South America and doing Sharon Stone on the throne of the Lost City of Gold.
http://seqcore.brcf.med.umich.edu/doc/educ/dnapr/sequencing.html
Nature has a nice summary of the original research paper published in the same journal: http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091216/full/news.2009.1143.html
One of the key benefits to this kind of technology will be the potential for comparative genomics to be performed. This will provide the means to discount the vast majority of the "passenger" mutations whilst singling out the drivers. It works, as the name suggests, by taking the genomes of many cancers and comparing them. If you see mutations occurring over and over again in the same genes, regulatory sequences etc. this is a sign that the target of that mutation is doing something important.
Obviously, if you compare multiple gliomas, for example, you will draw out glioma specific mutations (as well as being able to define subtypes of glioma based on mutations). If you were to go broader and compare all types of blood cancers, say, then you would pick out targets important in the development of those cancers etc.
Obviously we currently have a complete genome for only two cancers but within the next decade the improvement in sequencing will see this rise exponentially.
People are looking in the wrong place for the cure.
Google Brian Peskin and the explanation on what this disease actually is.
I quit 4 years, 3 months, 9 days, 7 hours, 14 minutes and 52 seconds ago.
And I don't miss them at all.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
If you fire a rifle at a running car, it might survive several shots and still keep running. Some of the shots go through the windows, some through the doors, and some just bounce off the pillars. But some shots could poke holes in the body and leave underlying parts exposed. Then further shots might puncture the gas tank or the radiator. A little less likely, shots might break the fuel pump or electric distributor. And just maybe a shot will interrupt the ignition circuit.
Even though any particular car's damage will be unique, the damage that made cars stop running will be common. Most will involve the gas tank or radiator. And a few will involve smaller parts.
A study like this is looking for those major parts which are likely to be damaged in cancer cells. It might also reveal common patterns of damage which disabled protective mechanisms and left those key part vulnerable. Then you might have an idea of how to detect critical damage, how to repair subcritical damage, how to armor critical areas, and how to completely disable malfunctioning cells.
You quote the article as saying:
I follow that link to find the article saying:
And now there's a notice at the bottom:
Nature got it wrong and got corrected.
Under the new ACTA agreement, this is considered to be an international act of mass genocide. But before they get tried for that, they'll be sued one million dollars per Human Genome End-User License violation (you'll learn more about that when the time comes) - somewhere around 6.8 quadrillion dollars - by the Pharmaceutical Industry Association of Earth (again...you'll find out about that later).
Remember, the PIAE only wishes to protect your rights as a Human Genome licensee from those who wish to undermine the value of HG code by illegally reverse-engineering, illegally altering, or making illegal copies and illegal derivative works of the code. Without the PIAE, the rightful owners of HG copyrights and patents would not have the money they need to make life better for us all.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
This is definitely a very impressive achievement in its own right, and the technology that has made this possible is pretty amazing, but it's a bit premature to say "we've cracked the genetic code of cancer" full stop.
But how then would they manage to catch the attention of enough reader/viewer in order to accumulate enough eyeball-time to sell at an interesting rate to advertiser ?~
More seriously :
If they can find mutations that are more common than others or genes that are mutated more often than others, then they can perhaps discover new genes which, when mutated drive the development and progression of the tumor. If you can discover which genes are important you can perhaps design treatments for that.
Yup. There's some interesting potential in data-mining if this experiment is repeated enough. You could also achieve some interesting result to pin down possible suspect by sequencing *several* tumoral cells and trying to see which mutation are common to most cells of 1 patient's cancer. But it needs to be also repeated over a population of several cancerous patients to obtain a list of "usual suspect" (beyond those we already know about. Like p53, BCR-ABL, ABC-transporters, etc.)
By having a bigger amount of "gene usually over- / under- expressed in tumor", scientist may find expression pattern which don't- or seldom- occur in healthy cells and thus design drugs which are more cancer-specific.
In an over-simplified caricature :
- Lots of current cancer drugs target fast-replicating cells, because that's typical for cancer cell. Sadly, other important healthy cells also do replicate quickly - such as the immune system. Thus people treated with these drugs are immunodeficient
- Such series of study might reveal a complex network of 30 genes all working together in tumours. Activity of the same genes might occur in other cells, but never more than 3 at a time. One could design a treatment which contain a mixture of two dozens of drugs, targeting these 30 genes and slightly lowering the efficiency of the produced proteins. Healthy cells won't be that much affected : they slightly lose some activity in only 3 crucial proteins. Cancer cells would be much more affected : they have decreased activity in all 30 proteins - this adds up and they might be significantly less good at surviving.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Doesn't the presence of childhood diseases that have genetic causes, like cystic fibrosis (to name ONLY ONE), falsify this logic? Heck, doesn't childhood CHOKING have a genetic cause (genes place that windpipe where it is, after all, sure is good for speech though). Doesn't the same genetic trait that causes sickle cell help defend against malaria? Maybe life-form design involves trade-offs, some of which we know of, and some are yet-to-be-discovered.
Secondly, this logic fails a whole different way by assuming grandparents don't help survival of their young.
I will just throw away every 15th smoke, that should about do it.
Not as "cool" as you wasting one of your two posts to moan about it.
You don't look cool. You just look like an addict.
80% of the smokers never get lung cancer. 80% of the people with lung cancer don;t have family history with lung cancer
....They found 30,000 needles.
Regards;
Actually, cigarette smoking lowers public expenditures. Cigarette smokers are likely to die younger.
The main savings is in pensions, social security, and health care for the aged.
An Eastern European country required a cigarette company to submit data on the costs of cigarettes. The company handed the job over to their usual health economists and PR guys, who came up with a report that cigarette smoking would save the country money for those reasons.
It was nice to see such refreshing candor from a cigarette company. Or maybe I should say, I'm glad they didn't stop to think about it before they released the report.
Sorry I don't have a citation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1172650/Chewing-nicotine-gum-increase-risk-mouth-cancer.html
from wiki:
nicotine and the increased cholinergic activity it causes have been shown to impede apoptosis, which is one of the methods by which the body destroys unwanted cells (programmed cell death). Since apoptosis helps to remove mutated or damaged cells that may eventually become cancerous, the inhibitory actions of nicotine may create a more favourable environment for cancer to develop, though this also remains to be proven.
so its quite possible that pure nicotine itself promotes cancer, if only by decreasing the chance that a harmful mutation wont be stopped by one of the bodies safety mechanisms.
Just like the electric car that was created, with plenty of power and everything (see documentary "Who stole the electric car") in the same way someone did find things about cancer that were not only ignored but also discredited :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuLncndAU0
So what you read in the above article is nothing more than .... you decide!
Wait, so if I patent topological sorting, I also have a monopoly on the use of sorted lists?
Possibly.
Adobe got a patent on code for generating tabbed and docking windows and sued Macromedia for using completely different code that would not have in any way infringed copyright, but nevertheless produced similar tabbed and docking windows in a GUI.
Adobe won.
Otto von Warburg was given a Nobel Peace Prize for discovering that cancer dies and then is removed by the white blood cells when it's environment is oxygenated and too high of a PH level.
Raymond Royal Rife discovered under microscope that varying or lowering the PH level of the substrate infected by cancer would cause a lifecycle in the cancer to produce a stage of virus to spread in that host substrate.
Dr. Simoncini ( http://cancerisafungus.com/ ) is a professional surgeon that no longer cuts cancer out of bodies by scalpel because he has found the relationship of cancer growth to be indistinguishable from a fungus, therefore he only injects a solution of common Baking Soda directly into that cancerous growth and it therefore dies a death indistinguishable from how a fungus would die from the same administry.
If you don't get enough oxygen, if you eat processed and GMO'd "food" biproducts, then you will get cancers. Cancer isn't caused by mutations in skin cells; cancer adheres to the weekend immune system and cells that it can infect. Raise your body's PH level by diet, hyperventilate yourself in some aerobic exercises, and constantly monitor your salival PH for changes and you'll always remove the cancer. By nature, everyone originally has cancer in their body that only takes root because something is done that causes the immune system to bypass it for a short enough time that it gets out of control.