Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
6 Stubborn Myths About Cancer...
19 Answers
Not a question as such, but I thought people might find this article from the Grauniad of interest. It references a couple of topical alternative therapy issues from these boards; The treatment of Neon Roberts, and the Burzynski clinic.
http://
http://
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LazyGun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well....a bit of half truth here concerning sharks and cancer..................
the concept was never that sharks did not get cancer, but the cartilaginous skeleton of sharks was resistant to the local spread of cancer......that is true.
Does this apply to humans? Well...yes.....the larynx is almost completely surrounded by cartilage and cancers of the vocal cords rarely if ever invade surrounding tissues.
Might this not suggest that cartilage has a particular resistance to the local spread of cancer?
the concept was never that sharks did not get cancer, but the cartilaginous skeleton of sharks was resistant to the local spread of cancer......that is true.
Does this apply to humans? Well...yes.....the larynx is almost completely surrounded by cartilage and cancers of the vocal cords rarely if ever invade surrounding tissues.
Might this not suggest that cartilage has a particular resistance to the local spread of cancer?
@Sqad. Tumours of cartilaginous tissues are rare, but not unheard of. Chondrosarcoma, for instance.
There is work and research to suggest that cartilaginous tissue = from any source= has anti-angiogenic properties.And depriving a nascent tumour of its blood supply by inhibiting its ability to grow new blood vessels aids the fight.
Problem here is that the notion that taking pills comprised of cartilaginous shark tissue can cure or help fight cancer are not just unproven - they are disproven, with a variety of studies showing no clinical benefit.
And whilst sharks are indeed comprised of cartilaginous tissue, the fact remains that sharks do indeed develop cancer. It should not be surprising to anyone that the nature of their cancer may differ from a bipedal land dwelling air-breathing primate :)
You might be interesting in reading a paper published not that long ago in The New Scientist, which discussed this very issue, Sqad...
http://
There is work and research to suggest that cartilaginous tissue = from any source= has anti-angiogenic properties.And depriving a nascent tumour of its blood supply by inhibiting its ability to grow new blood vessels aids the fight.
Problem here is that the notion that taking pills comprised of cartilaginous shark tissue can cure or help fight cancer are not just unproven - they are disproven, with a variety of studies showing no clinical benefit.
And whilst sharks are indeed comprised of cartilaginous tissue, the fact remains that sharks do indeed develop cancer. It should not be surprising to anyone that the nature of their cancer may differ from a bipedal land dwelling air-breathing primate :)
You might be interesting in reading a paper published not that long ago in The New Scientist, which discussed this very issue, Sqad...
http://
LazyGUn...let us be clear here...a chondrosarcoma is exceedingly rare and is a sarcoma and not a carcinoma and we are dealing with cartilage resisting the LOCAL spread of malignant tumours as i have highlighted above. Take osteogenic sarcomas....highly malignant, almost always at the lower end of long bones, close to cartilages e.g knee....but....the cartilage is never invaded by its highly menacing malignant neighbour........why?
Your link does indicate in it's contents the resistance of cartilage to local malignant spread.
I am not suggesting a "shark cartilage pill" that one takes to suppress the growth of cancer, but one ignores the resistance of shark cartilage or indeed ANY cartilage to local invasive malignant spread.
Your link does indicate in it's contents the resistance of cartilage to local malignant spread.
I am not suggesting a "shark cartilage pill" that one takes to suppress the growth of cancer, but one ignores the resistance of shark cartilage or indeed ANY cartilage to local invasive malignant spread.
@Sqad I am aware of the difference, and its rarity sqad. I cited chondrosarcoma to illustrate a point. And a sarcoma is still regarded as a cancer, just one derived from mesenchymal origin rather than epithelial cell origin.
And although I have not read the book, I am pretty sure the guy who popularised the myth that "sharks do not get cancer" and wrote a book about it was at all concerned about the distinction - nor would the general public, I would hazard. To them, a cancer is a cancer.
Cartilage has anti-angiogenic qualities, no question, but infiltrates do occur SCC of the larynx for instance can spread to the cartilage.And we do have access to other material that has anti-angiogenic qualities that does not require killing sharks by the hundreds of thousands.
"I am not suggesting a "shark cartilage pill" that one takes to suppress the growth of cancer, but one ignores the resistance of shark cartilage or indeed ANY cartilage to local invasive malignant spread"
But the author of the myth was.The consequences to the global shark population have been devastating,with no appreciable health benefit.
Were you intending to add anything to the sentence, above? Cartilaginous tissue might provide some useful pointers, true, but we do not need to be harvesting shark cartilage in order to benefit from those pointers, in my opinion.
And although I have not read the book, I am pretty sure the guy who popularised the myth that "sharks do not get cancer" and wrote a book about it was at all concerned about the distinction - nor would the general public, I would hazard. To them, a cancer is a cancer.
Cartilage has anti-angiogenic qualities, no question, but infiltrates do occur SCC of the larynx for instance can spread to the cartilage.And we do have access to other material that has anti-angiogenic qualities that does not require killing sharks by the hundreds of thousands.
"I am not suggesting a "shark cartilage pill" that one takes to suppress the growth of cancer, but one ignores the resistance of shark cartilage or indeed ANY cartilage to local invasive malignant spread"
But the author of the myth was.The consequences to the global shark population have been devastating,with no appreciable health benefit.
Were you intending to add anything to the sentence, above? Cartilaginous tissue might provide some useful pointers, true, but we do not need to be harvesting shark cartilage in order to benefit from those pointers, in my opinion.
Lazygun......you know full well that I hold you and your opinions in the highest esteem and I appreciate that you know the difference between a sarcoma and a carcinoma and I know that the general public regard them all as cancers.............but that was not my point.
We were discussing the possibility of a defence mechanism of cartilage ( any cartilage, not only sharks) by direct tumour involvement and you did mention a chondrosarcoma to make a point, so I took up on this.
A chondrosarcoma develops in cartilage, so as we were discussing local extension, this tumour should not be considered as an example....in my opinion.
A squamous cell carcinoma of the vocal cord will even spread to the opposite vocal cord or even the subglottic region rather than take on it's great adversary, the formidable thyroid cartilage. I have never seen cartilaginous involvement from a SCC of the vocal cord.
I am not suggesting we " harvest sharks" al I am suggesting is we should not kick cartilage as anti cancer, into the "long grass"
We were discussing the possibility of a defence mechanism of cartilage ( any cartilage, not only sharks) by direct tumour involvement and you did mention a chondrosarcoma to make a point, so I took up on this.
A chondrosarcoma develops in cartilage, so as we were discussing local extension, this tumour should not be considered as an example....in my opinion.
A squamous cell carcinoma of the vocal cord will even spread to the opposite vocal cord or even the subglottic region rather than take on it's great adversary, the formidable thyroid cartilage. I have never seen cartilaginous involvement from a SCC of the vocal cord.
I am not suggesting we " harvest sharks" al I am suggesting is we should not kick cartilage as anti cancer, into the "long grass"
If someone came across a cure that worked for some people, it doesn't mean they would automatically be rich, so I don't believe Patrick Swayze's comment necessarily holds. The one who would get rich is the one with a consistently successful product tested & proven in the lab.
In desperation I tried a few products when trying to save my mother many years ago. I knew it was a long shot. In the end it didn't seem to achieve much.
In desperation I tried a few products when trying to save my mother many years ago. I knew it was a long shot. In the end it didn't seem to achieve much.
Sqad - I think there is little doubt that 1) sharks do get cancer and 2) that ground up shark cartilage taken orally is ineffective in treating cancer.
The fact that cartilage, human and shark, is relatively immune to tumour spread is well known, but research (which has not been kicked into the long grass) has as yet failed to come up with a (for example) effective anti -angiogenic agent useful in cancer treatment. See LazyGun's link above.
The late John Diamond in his book "Snake Oil and Other Preoccupations" suggests one reason for the rise in the belief in alternative medicine (ignoring the political slant)..
"Alternative medicine, like Thatcherism, tells us that our personal well-being is entirely in our own hands, that we can all have anything we want - perfect health, freedom from anxiety - if we want it enough and are willing to take the steps to make the thing happen.....so alternativism masqueraded as another form of consumer liberation. No longer would we be tied to a single provider of health - the medical orthodoxy - but we would be free to choose."
The fact that cartilage, human and shark, is relatively immune to tumour spread is well known, but research (which has not been kicked into the long grass) has as yet failed to come up with a (for example) effective anti -angiogenic agent useful in cancer treatment. See LazyGun's link above.
The late John Diamond in his book "Snake Oil and Other Preoccupations" suggests one reason for the rise in the belief in alternative medicine (ignoring the political slant)..
"Alternative medicine, like Thatcherism, tells us that our personal well-being is entirely in our own hands, that we can all have anything we want - perfect health, freedom from anxiety - if we want it enough and are willing to take the steps to make the thing happen.....so alternativism masqueraded as another form of consumer liberation. No longer would we be tied to a single provider of health - the medical orthodoxy - but we would be free to choose."
@Slaney Good post. I had forgotten how good a writer John Diamond can be.
@Sqad I think I now see the distinction you were trying to make, so sorry for any confusion. And I do not dispute your observations regarding the resistance of cartilaginous tissue to infiltration by carcinoma, although I do have papers showing this does occur, if you are interested :)
Regardless, I think we can all agree that the notion that taking tablets of ground up shark cartilage offers little prospect of a cure for cancer.
@Sqad I think I now see the distinction you were trying to make, so sorry for any confusion. And I do not dispute your observations regarding the resistance of cartilaginous tissue to infiltration by carcinoma, although I do have papers showing this does occur, if you are interested :)
Regardless, I think we can all agree that the notion that taking tablets of ground up shark cartilage offers little prospect of a cure for cancer.
hope this link works you learn something new everyday
http://
http://
Og the problem with things that work for "some people" is that you can't know what would have happened to those people if they hadn't taken the cure. It might look like the whatever worked but it might just have been spontaneous remission (it happens, rare but it happens) or misdiagnosis or the action of some other treatment. Cures, real cures, may work on some cancers and not others, but don't work on some people and not others... and yes the discoverer of a real cure would either be rich or famous or both.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
I Am Supposed To To What I Am Told
Body & Soul106 mins ago
How it Works107 mins ago
ChatterBank110 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.