From: ABlainey@aol.com
Date: Fri Aug 30 2002 - 10:12:46 MDT
In a message dated 29/08/02 11:12:58 GMT Standard Time, bradbury@aeiveos.com
writes:
>The suppressive influence of a primary is most likely due to the fact
>that it has activated genes to suck up all the local resources (glucose,
>iron, zinc, etc.). The growth of a primary presumably depends on its
>activation of angiogenesis pathways. The growth of secondaries is
>presumably due to the activation of metastasis pathways. Presumably
>removing the resource drain the primary represents provides more resources
>for the secondaries. One can cure cancer by starving the primaries
>and the secondaries, unfortunately this method is not usually good
>for the prognosis of the patient.
One thought that comes to mind from this. If it were true that the primary
sucks up all available resources therefor inhibiting the growth of
secondaries (which im sure are already in place). In theory any situation
that reduces available resources would inhibit the growth of the primary. Im
thinking Starvation, Pregnancy, etc.
This does make complete sense as all cells would have their resources limited.
My question would be: Which cells survive starvation the best? normal or
cancerous?
I would like to place my money on normal healthy cells due to the rapid
division rate and therefor extra consumption needs of cancer cells. If this
is true, then I would expect lower rates of cancer in women (especially those
with multiple children), in area's of low food availability like various
African nations and any other areas where food resources were scarce. For
example the concentration camps in WW2 or sufferers of anorexia.
Just a madcap theory, but is anyone aware of any research into this? I know
that Cancer is more prevalent in the western world. Could it be that we are
just feeding our cancers more?
Alex
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:33 MST