Chemotherapy may spread cancer and trigger more aggressive tumours, warn scientists

a reply to: 2Faced

But I never knew, and I was never told, that I could expect what I now experience. Kinda bugs me a bit.

When I had my treatment there was no internet.

I went to something called a "library." I asked questions. The answers I found were that "wheatgrass" was a bad idea.

It must be very cold up there on that high horse.
Ever tried to look thru the eyes of another? Not everyone is as educated tough and leveheaded as you are, evidently. But that does not mean others are as willing to accept what is happening to them. Some people are so scared #less they fear to know more. a reply to: Phage

a reply to: 2Faced

Sounds like a personal problem.

I chose knowledge over ignorance. I knew what I was getting into because I asked questions. I didn't expect to be spoonfed.


Ignorance breeds fear and dread.

Ignorance is not something to base important decisions upon.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: AkontaDarkpaw

Agreed. That and a refund of the cost of treatment.

Do you want a refund if the antibiotics don't save you?
If you die of cancer after chemo?

I see guarantees for neither.

I don't have to worry about it. Hypothetically speaking it depends on the patient. Some patients could survive and use the funds or make those decisions. In other cases it would be their surviving family members.

This isn't limited to just chemo as there are precedents in other legal cases against other medications and procedures.

or assumptions upon....? a reply to: Phage

People tend to forget that doctors and researchers as well as their family members get and die from cancer too. Cancer isn't a money making scheme and the cure isn't hidden away. What it is, is an incredibly complicated disease. Cancer mutates and adapts and the known treatments are extremely harsh, with no guarantees of success.

As a lung cancer patient running out of options, I know first hand. Radiation treatments can cause additional cancer and so can chemo. They tell you these things. They tell you that you can die from the treatment. These are the circumstances of cancer.

This article (I'd read the abstract linked in the article) is actually good news, an important find. But it seems to be being used to scare people away from chemo instead. Researchers have discovered a new way in which cancer can spread and they are working on a solution.

Chemotherapy-induced TMEM activity and cancer cell dissemination were reversed by either administration of the TIE2 inhibitor rebastinib or knockdown of the MENA gene.

Science Magazine

a reply to: seasonal

This has been known about for years.

The fact about Chemo,

Chemo no only kills cancer cells but also kills the immune system, this allows for other none related cancer diseases to take over, when the immune system is low the body lose the ability to fight back, this allow for aggressive cancer to come back.

Now big pharma is coming out with new medications to increase the immune system after chemo, we can see an increase of this advertisements lately on TV.

Beside that we know that the big pharma job is not to cure but to treat as long as they can so curing cancer is not top priority, keeping you alive while fighting cancer is more profitable.

If this is true it will be a mess. If this turns out to be true, I would not be surprised in the least.

a reply to: seasonal

You dropped this:

“If we observe that the markers scores are increased we would recommend discontinuing chemo and having surgery first, followed by post-operative chemo. We are currently planning more extensive trials to address the issue.

originally posted by: Cofactor
a reply to: rickymouse

I don't think it would be wise to do chemo before surgery anyway.

Exactly what I am thinking also. I've come to the conclusion that solid cancer cells are cells that regress to a more primitive, bacteria like status due to damage to the regulation mechanisms that make them cooperate to form an organism (us). Being top notch eukaryotes, they now have all the liberty to show their capacity at adaptation to survive adverse conditions, multiply and invade uncolonized territory.

Like bacterial infection, if you do not eradicate them ASAP, they become resistant. If they find the place where they are unhospitable, they move hoping to find a better place to grow (metastasis). If the tumor (colony) grow too big, thus becoming unhospitable, they move...

Probably better to treat them well and remove the tumor with a scalpel with a generous margin. It have long been believed that biopsying a tumor provided a non negligible increase in risk of metastasis.

It seems to me that if a cancer cell learned to live symbiotically it would not be a problem, it could actually work along with our bodies to speed up healing when triggered. It seems like communication between cells and the brain might be a problem. Just because you have a bunch of WWW wrestlers in your family does not mean they cannot behave like normal relatives do in real life. Why do cancer cells need to be a problem? Not all of the mutations that cause cancer make the cells so they are not viable, the definition of cancer is rapid growth, otherwise they are just tumor cells if they are mutated.

originally posted by: Kali74
People tend to forget that doctors and researchers as well as their family members get and die from cancer too. Cancer isn't a money making scheme and the cure isn't hidden away. What it is, is an incredibly complicated disease. Cancer mutates and adapts and the known treatments are extremely harsh, with no guarantees of success.

As a lung cancer patient running out of options, I know first hand. Radiation treatments can cause additional cancer and so can chemo. They tell you these things. They tell you that you can die from the treatment. These are the circumstances of cancer.

This article (I'd read the abstract linked in the article) is actually good news, an important find. But it seems to be being used to scare people away from chemo instead. Researchers have discovered a new way in which cancer can spread and they are working on a solution.

Chemotherapy-induced TMEM activity and cancer cell dissemination were reversed by either administration of the TIE2 inhibitor rebastinib or knockdown of the MENA gene.

Science Magazine

I like Arizona green tea. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... It is easier to consume foods that inhibit cancer occasionally instead of getting cancer.

a reply to: Kali74

I wish you the best.

I lost a friend to breast cancer, after she was treated and "cancer free" back to exercise and looking great, a few months later she contracted pneumonia and died from complications.

Her immune system was compromised from Chemo.

Right now we have another good friend that had a brain tumor removed last year, went on aggressive cancer treatment, go better for a few months and now the cancer is back, sadly she is given 6 to 12 months she is in stage 4, she doesn't want anymore chemo.

My father and father in law both are surviving prostate cancer but they are too old for more aggressive treatments.

We in this time and age know somebody that have cancer, are survivors or succumb to the disease. Cancer is already within our bodies, but our immune system when in top shape can spot the cells and fix them.

Have you tried Essiac tea? is been used for a long time with some success.

a reply to: rickymouse

the definition of cancer is rapid growth, otherwise they are just tumor cells if they are mutated.

Not as simple as that! The difference between benign and malign lesion are sometime blurred and open to interpretation. Cytological evaluation of biopsyed tissue is quite subjective to the examiner and sometime require consultation among cytologist. Immunological test are not clear cut too. If I remember well, the 3x criterion are: mitosis, chromatin and nucleus/cytoplasm ratio. One thing DeMay was saying: "It's big, it's dark, it's neoplasic".

a reply to: Kali74

You're right, the cure isn't "hidden away," it's been public knowledge since 1997. Yet somehow this has never been properly studied. Must be due to all the mysterious deaths surrounding GcMAF, and I'm not talking about ones caused by cancer.

GcMAF - look it up, research it.

It may not be a cure-all, but it's damn effective for a lot of cancers. Everyone I've ever asked about it has never heard it, yet it was discovered twenty years ago...

GcMAF has yet to be studied in clinical trial, yet the science makes complete sense.

Rather than asking the question of how to kill cancer, GcMAF answers the question of why our bodies can't kill cancer.

Cancer flips a switch in our bodies. It halts the production of a specific glyco-protein (GcMAF). What GcMAF does is activates macrophages.

macrophage - a type of white blood cell that engulfs and digests cellular debris, foreign substances, microbes, cancer cells, and anything else that does not have the types of proteins specific to healthy body cells on its surface

With the production of GcMAF stopped, the macrophages aren't activated, and they don't eat the cancer cells. As a result, cancer runs rampant on the body.

The solution - inject GcMAF. The reintroduction of GcMAF allows the body tells the body to active the macrphages to fight the cancer.

Simple and elegant... and because the body naturally produces GcMAF, it's side effect free.

Perhaps it's snake oil, perhaps it doesn't work, perhaps it's a miracle cure. I just want to know why something with such potential has never been given a chance.

a reply to: scojak

Rather than asking the question of how to kill cancer, GcMAF answers the question of why our bodies can't kill cancer.

Cancer flips a switch in our bodies. It halts the production of a specific glyco-protein (GcMAF). What GcMAF does is activates macrophages.

If it were to be simple as that... Cancer cells are OURS cell with varying degree of disregulation, but still cells belonging to our body, that is why immune system have a difficult time recognizing them. Cancer is more an end result than a single cause disease. Magic bullet for cancer is medical fad, it come as fast as it goes...

originally posted by: Cofactor
a reply to: rickymouse

the definition of cancer is rapid growth, otherwise they are just tumor cells if they are mutated.

Not as simple as that! The difference between benign and malign lesion are sometime blurred and open to interpretation. Cytological evaluation of biopsyed tissue is quite subjective to the examiner and sometime require consultation among cytologist. Immunological test are not clear cut too. If I remember well, the 3x criterion are: mitosis, chromatin and nucleus/cytoplasm ratio. One thing DeMay was saying: "It's big, it's dark, it's neoplasic".

You can have a tumor and it has cancer cells in it and you can have it for twenty years and it does not get any bigger. If you are seventy and have a nongrowing tumor, why would you take it out, the treatment might actually make it spread more by dampening your immune system or spreading the cancer cells all around in the blood stream.

I've spent a lot of time studying what is known about cancer and taken four classes on it. If our bodies control the growth, the cancer does not need removal. Breast cancer early detection and treatments can actually spread cancer. The body will go after cancer once it is detected. Many people have liver tissue that was once cancerous but our bodies killed it. Same with breast cancer, but in the breast, often the lump is consumed where in the liver the cells remain and they can be picked up by a biopsy that cancer once existed.

I only started studying cancer because so many people I know are getting it now. There were not that many people who got cancer when I was a young, we need to figure out why the big change. Not dump all the money into operating on it and doing chemo and immuno therapy.

a reply to: rickymouse

You can have a tumor and it has cancer cells in it and you can have it for twenty years and it does not get any bigger.

I've spent a lot of time studying what is known about cancer and taken four classes on it.

Are you familiar with cytotechnology?

Breast cancer early detection and treatments can actually spread cancer.

Do you mean the biopsy method?

originally posted by: Cofactor
a reply to: scojak

Rather than asking the question of how to kill cancer, GcMAF answers the question of why our bodies can't kill cancer.

Cancer flips a switch in our bodies. It halts the production of a specific glyco-protein (GcMAF). What GcMAF does is activates macrophages.

If it were to be simple as that... Cancer cells are OURS cell with varying degree of disregulation, but still cells belonging to our body, that is why immune system have a difficult time recognizing them. Cancer is more an end result than a single cause disease. Magic bullet for cancer is medical fad, it come as fast as it goes...

Right, but a healthy body still knows to eliminate those unhealthy cells. It does so for our entire lifetime unless the immune system fails to a point where cancer takes over. Even if the immune system finds it difficult to recognize the unhealthy cells, it still does. If what you said is true, then everyone would get cancer randomly. They don't though, because the body knows how to fight cancer. If you maintain a healthy immune system and living environment, you won't get cancer. If you don't, the cancerous cells will become more abundant to the point they are able to take out the defense system that prevents it. But if you reintroduce that defense system, the body starts fighting the cancer again.

And as far as it being a "medical fad", GcMAF has never been properly studied or introduced to society, so it never had the chance to become a fad, let alone a standard.

a reply to: rickymouse

Don't forget about cannabinoids --

www.cancer.org...

www.cureyourowncancer.org...