How can we reduce our cancer risk?
- Thread starter 2-0-Sixx
- Start date
Please tell me that his dick isn't shoved so far up your ass it is coming out of your mouth.
Instead of worrying about my questions, and his statements, you should be working at a half-assed attempt explaining your fucked off reasoning on how everyone is going to get cancer. Let the man answer for himself. He is claiming that organisms aren't supposed to live long enough to develop cancer, yet for some reason, the two of you believe cancer is a disease of the elderly, yet offer no credible explanation as to why people who are not 25 or 30 are still diagnosed with cancer.
Instead of worrying about my questions, and his statements, you should be working at a half-assed attempt explaining your fucked off reasoning on how everyone is going to get cancer. Let the man answer for himself. He is claiming that organisms aren't supposed to live long enough to develop cancer, yet for some reason, the two of you believe cancer is a disease of the elderly, yet offer no credible explanation as to why people who are not 25 or 30 are still diagnosed with cancer.
You need some anxiety pills or somethin. All that talk about dicks, you better go repent "faggot."
My question was a simple one and the fact that you can't answer it and instead act like a third grader shows a lot. I don't think God likes you very much.
And so you know, I was replying to this:
I didn't say shit about it being a "disease of the elderly," and if you think I did, you're mistaken and need to read everything over again.
My question was a simple one and the fact that you can't answer it and instead act like a third grader shows a lot. I don't think God likes you very much.
And so you know, I was replying to this:
I didn't say shit about it being a "disease of the elderly," and if you think I did, you're mistaken and need to read everything over again.
If homosexuality were my problem anxiety pills would not be the cure. However, I take it you are speaking from experience, so I won't doubt you. Now it is obvious that you are the one seeking male attention since you've been recently following me from thread to thread. I don't swing that way, bucko.
No, your question was not a simple one. After the junky thread, you've taken it upon yourself to post underhanded and snideful remarks. I see EXACTLY what you're doing and I respond accordingly. You aren't fooling me with that shit. You know exactly what you're doing.
You're right. You didn't say it. In fact, I'll take it a bit further and tell you that you've said nothing remotely important so far. You are the one who made a post after I asked him him to explain himself, and I said it twice. Once was when he said, "The "natural way of life" is to die at 25 or 30", and the other was, " Moreover, organisms are not supposed to live long enough to develop cancer ."
So what the fuck were you replying to, Albert? Both of his statements actually support his belief that cancer is an "elderly" disease, and one of them openly implies it.
No, your question was not a simple one. After the junky thread, you've taken it upon yourself to post underhanded and snideful remarks. I see EXACTLY what you're doing and I respond accordingly. You aren't fooling me with that shit. You know exactly what you're doing.
You're right. You didn't say it. In fact, I'll take it a bit further and tell you that you've said nothing remotely important so far. You are the one who made a post after I asked him him to explain himself, and I said it twice. Once was when he said, "The "natural way of life" is to die at 25 or 30", and the other was, " Moreover, organisms are not supposed to live long enough to develop cancer ."
So what the fuck were you replying to, Albert? Both of his statements actually support his belief that cancer is an "elderly" disease, and one of them openly implies it.
Listen, recently, YOU haven't been attempting to have cicil convo's with me. What you've been doing is throwing bricks and trying to hide your hand suspecting I won't reply or "get it."
And considering you're attempting to be the genius of this thread, Albert is a fitting name.
By the way, I would take Jesus, but you've already tainted "I Am" so need to call me that.
And considering you're attempting to be the genius of this thread, Albert is a fitting name.
By the way, I would take Jesus, but you've already tainted "I Am" so need to call me that.
I mean that unless you got some really nasty mutation from your parents (p53, Rb, ATM, FANC, XP-genes, etc.) you are not likely do develop cancer until late in your life when these mutations have already acumulated in the somatic lineage
Because, as I already said, unless you have some mutation that makes you develop cancer at the age of 10, you will pass your genes to the next generation before you develop cancer. I even explained this in my first post. This means that all selection against cancer predisposition will be directed against cancer in pre-reproductive age
I think it's simple, it's evolution in action
BTW we have multiple molecular defense lines against cancer, the question is why we don't have more of them because (obviosuly) we're still gettign cancer, and I gave you the answer
The life expectancy has increased from 25 to 75 years for the last 2000 years, the average age at which people develop cancer is above 40
No organism in the wild dies from cancer unless it has some really bad mutation
Does this answer your question?
see above
Because, as I already said, unless you have some mutation that makes you develop cancer at the age of 10, you will pass your genes to the next generation before you develop cancer. I even explained this in my first post. This means that all selection against cancer predisposition will be directed against cancer in pre-reproductive age
I think it's simple, it's evolution in action
BTW we have multiple molecular defense lines against cancer, the question is why we don't have more of them because (obviosuly) we're still gettign cancer, and I gave you the answer
The life expectancy has increased from 25 to 75 years for the last 2000 years, the average age at which people develop cancer is above 40
No organism in the wild dies from cancer unless it has some really bad mutation
Does this answer your question?
see above
So you admit to some forms of it being genetic. But would you agree that life choices also contribute to the fact that it develops in the elderly?
I believe that would depend on when you actually had kids. If you were 40+ when you had kids yes that would be applicable, but if you were in your 20's I don't see how that would work. Do you believe teh following endorses your view?
http://cancer.stanfordhospital.com/forPatients/services/geneticCounseling/Predisposition/
Btw, I remember when I used to reply to the siccness from that spot. Stanford medical is a good place to get treatment if you're battling cancer.
I believe industrialization has contributed to such an increase (which is why countries liek Japan and america have longer mortality rates), but the age of cancer development would actually depend on the type of cancer and gender of the person.There is no set number for development.
Would you say this mutation is a natural mutation?
I believe that would depend on when you actually had kids. If you were 40+ when you had kids yes that would be applicable, but if you were in your 20's I don't see how that would work. Do you believe teh following endorses your view?
http://cancer.stanfordhospital.com/forPatients/services/geneticCounseling/Predisposition/
Btw, I remember when I used to reply to the siccness from that spot. Stanford medical is a good place to get treatment if you're battling cancer.
I believe industrialization has contributed to such an increase (which is why countries liek Japan and america have longer mortality rates), but the age of cancer development would actually depend on the type of cancer and gender of the person.There is no set number for development.
Would you say this mutation is a natural mutation?
I don't admit anything, these are facts, just as it is a fact that lifestyle is a huge factor
What I wanted to emphasize is that the lifestyle that can reduce your cancer risk is by no means the lifestyle of animals in the wild so it should not be called "natural", it is actually very artificial...
see, I am not speaking about genetic predisposition to cancer, I am speaking about why the species H.sapiens develops cancer when it could have been prevented to a much greater extent with some evolutionary adjustments...
Some lower organisms like Planaria develop cancer very rarely as opposed to mammals
The question is why is that and the answer is that the selective pressure simply has not been there...
Suppose you have a genetic variation that makes you less susceptible to cancer in late age
It provides no selective advantage to you because you have already reproduced and you're most likely dead by the time it will make you better off so it will not be stabilized in the population (you will not reproduce with a greater frequency than other individuals)
Now suppose you have a genetic variation that makes you more susceptible to cancer in late age.
Again, this provides no selective disadvantage to you because by the time you develop cancer, you have already reproduced and transmitted your "bad genes" to the next generation or you're most likely dead
I don't think you got it judging from your post
You're generally right but in order to develop cancer you need to acumulate lots of mutations (at least 5 in most cases)
You need to mutate a master regulator of the cell cycle (Rb, INK4, ARF, etc), overactivate mitogenic signalling pathways (for example, oncogenic K-Ras, HER2, APC, or something like this), immortalize cells (overexpress hTERT) destabilize the genome (mutate some DNA repair proteins, or even better, p53), then you need a mesenchyme-to-epithelial transition in order to spawn metastasis, you need angiogenesis, etc.
These are lots of mutations and changes in the genome and it takes years and decades for all of them to occur.
Everyone of us has some of them in many of his cells, but most of these cells will never undergo the second, third, etc. mutation needed for cancer to develop, or will be eliminated by the immune system, undergo oncogene-induced senescence or die from apoptosis
what is an "unnatural" mutation?????????????
what's the point of your question?
What I wanted to emphasize is that the lifestyle that can reduce your cancer risk is by no means the lifestyle of animals in the wild so it should not be called "natural", it is actually very artificial...
see, I am not speaking about genetic predisposition to cancer, I am speaking about why the species H.sapiens develops cancer when it could have been prevented to a much greater extent with some evolutionary adjustments...
Some lower organisms like Planaria develop cancer very rarely as opposed to mammals
The question is why is that and the answer is that the selective pressure simply has not been there...
Suppose you have a genetic variation that makes you less susceptible to cancer in late age
It provides no selective advantage to you because you have already reproduced and you're most likely dead by the time it will make you better off so it will not be stabilized in the population (you will not reproduce with a greater frequency than other individuals)
Now suppose you have a genetic variation that makes you more susceptible to cancer in late age.
Again, this provides no selective disadvantage to you because by the time you develop cancer, you have already reproduced and transmitted your "bad genes" to the next generation or you're most likely dead
I don't think you got it judging from your post
You're generally right but in order to develop cancer you need to acumulate lots of mutations (at least 5 in most cases)
You need to mutate a master regulator of the cell cycle (Rb, INK4, ARF, etc), overactivate mitogenic signalling pathways (for example, oncogenic K-Ras, HER2, APC, or something like this), immortalize cells (overexpress hTERT) destabilize the genome (mutate some DNA repair proteins, or even better, p53), then you need a mesenchyme-to-epithelial transition in order to spawn metastasis, you need angiogenesis, etc.
These are lots of mutations and changes in the genome and it takes years and decades for all of them to occur.
Everyone of us has some of them in many of his cells, but most of these cells will never undergo the second, third, etc. mutation needed for cancer to develop, or will be eliminated by the immune system, undergo oncogene-induced senescence or die from apoptosis
what is an "unnatural" mutation?????????????
what's the point of your question?
Seems like you take the currently accepted and widespread line (supported by the FDA and phrma industries) in American science that essentially reduces all relevant cancer causation to genetic factors.
Genes and heredity are in no way the end all and be all of cancer.
Chemical inhalation (esp working at or living near factories) the overabundance of pesticides and household chemicals, constant exposure and ingestion of synthetic substances...all contribute highly to cancer.
Look at cancer rates in certain industries (for example, working with vinyl) before more rigorous protections were developed as well as cancer rates among people constantly exposed to chemicals...
Genes and heredity are in no way the end all and be all of cancer.
Chemical inhalation (esp working at or living near factories) the overabundance of pesticides and household chemicals, constant exposure and ingestion of synthetic substances...all contribute highly to cancer.
Look at cancer rates in certain industries (for example, working with vinyl) before more rigorous protections were developed as well as cancer rates among people constantly exposed to chemicals...
Seems like somebody doesn't understand what I'm talking about...
When I say mutations, I don't emphasize on mutations in the germ line of your parents but rather in mutations in your SOMATIC lineages
The second is not a genetic factor
All the chemicals you listed cause cancer because they are mutagenic or at least they bind some cellular proteins that control the cell cycle (phorbol esters and PKC are the classical example) and if this happens in cells that already have other mutations, or mutate some important gene in some subsequent division, you initiate cancer development
When I say mutations, I don't emphasize on mutations in the germ line of your parents but rather in mutations in your SOMATIC lineages
The second is not a genetic factor
All the chemicals you listed cause cancer because they are mutagenic or at least they bind some cellular proteins that control the cell cycle (phorbol esters and PKC are the classical example) and if this happens in cells that already have other mutations, or mutate some important gene in some subsequent division, you initiate cancer development