How can we reduce our cancer risk?
- Thread starter 2-0-Sixx
- Start date
By stating the facts and not denying them, you are implying or directly stating the information is fact.
I would consider it neither "natural" nor "artificial" but BENEFICIAL or HEALTHY.
But wouldn't evolutionary adjustments have a direct relation to genetic predisposition?
And blacks are more prone to prostate cancer than asians, what exactly is your point? I understand worms are used in cancer research, but IMHO, you are comparing apples to oranges. It would appear that the more advanced somethign is, the more it will encounter problems.
I DO get it. That is why I said, "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."
What you're saying is the selective advantage that will benefit you is basically useless to your body because it happened too late (when you were well in your years and on your death bed) and that it is too late to pass on the "good" genes because they were not passed on when they could have provided a benefit. If this is what you're saying, can you see why I said it depends on when you had kids?
Basically what you're saying are the mutations don't happen over night and because of this, it accumulates over time and surfaces when a person is well within there years. Quick question, when I was with my sister at Stanford medical a couple of years ago, we were told that the type of Lymphoma she had was generally found in white women 60+. However, my sister was a black woman in her late 40's, and they couldn't determine exactly why she had that form of cancer. Now, my question is because this is all in the genome, how much of her cancer can be attributed to genes or was it the result of life choices?
Something that would be triggered from outside influences and would not have happened on its own.
WD said, "I just was wondering what exactly somatic lineage meant. The internet has not been helping."
Somatic cells are nonsex cells like the cells of your liver, your hair, your tonsils etc.
I would consider it neither "natural" nor "artificial" but BENEFICIAL or HEALTHY.
But wouldn't evolutionary adjustments have a direct relation to genetic predisposition?
And blacks are more prone to prostate cancer than asians, what exactly is your point? I understand worms are used in cancer research, but IMHO, you are comparing apples to oranges. It would appear that the more advanced somethign is, the more it will encounter problems.
I DO get it. That is why I said, "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."
What you're saying is the selective advantage that will benefit you is basically useless to your body because it happened too late (when you were well in your years and on your death bed) and that it is too late to pass on the "good" genes because they were not passed on when they could have provided a benefit. If this is what you're saying, can you see why I said it depends on when you had kids?
Basically what you're saying are the mutations don't happen over night and because of this, it accumulates over time and surfaces when a person is well within there years. Quick question, when I was with my sister at Stanford medical a couple of years ago, we were told that the type of Lymphoma she had was generally found in white women 60+. However, my sister was a black woman in her late 40's, and they couldn't determine exactly why she had that form of cancer. Now, my question is because this is all in the genome, how much of her cancer can be attributed to genes or was it the result of life choices?
Something that would be triggered from outside influences and would not have happened on its own.
WD said, "I just was wondering what exactly somatic lineage meant. The internet has not been helping."
Somatic cells are nonsex cells like the cells of your liver, your hair, your tonsils etc.
You took what I said a little too personal. It was a serious question. You just read it, it was a serious question. It wasn't rude at all. I've said this a few times. If you assumed I was trying to be rude to you because "lately I've been mean to you" then you need to fucking think again, cause you ain't that important to me! If you can't understand that by now, then fuck it, you really are a stupid mother fucker.
By the way, the age span he put out there was 25 to 30. Do you consider 40-45 to be "elderly"? Cause I sure as fuck don't. Maybe you should have actually taken what I said serious and tried to discuss it with me, rather than being a crybaby bitch about how I'm "not being nice to you recently."
By the way, the age span he put out there was 25 to 30. Do you consider 40-45 to be "elderly"? Cause I sure as fuck don't. Maybe you should have actually taken what I said serious and tried to discuss it with me, rather than being a crybaby bitch about how I'm "not being nice to you recently."
yes, it is, what's the problem?
OK
That's not what I had in mind
no, it's just that falt worms consist almost entirely of stem cells and stem cells are both the ones who have the best protection systems against cancer and the ones who are most often, if not exclusively give rise to cancer (and the two things are related)
The question is why falt worms almost never develop cancer no matter how long you keep them alive and why we don't have the same ability and that's what people are trying to find out
OK
The fact that certain cancer usually develops at certain age doesn't mean it can't develop earlier. If the right mutations happen early, there's nothing to prevent it from appearing earlier. These mutations might be a result of lifestyle but might just as well be the result of bad luck
So you know what molecule cause each and every base substitution in each of your cells and you can trace the origin of that molecule??
I doubt it
and NOT your gonads
OK
That's not what I had in mind
no, it's just that falt worms consist almost entirely of stem cells and stem cells are both the ones who have the best protection systems against cancer and the ones who are most often, if not exclusively give rise to cancer (and the two things are related)
The question is why falt worms almost never develop cancer no matter how long you keep them alive and why we don't have the same ability and that's what people are trying to find out
OK
The fact that certain cancer usually develops at certain age doesn't mean it can't develop earlier. If the right mutations happen early, there's nothing to prevent it from appearing earlier. These mutations might be a result of lifestyle but might just as well be the result of bad luck
So you know what molecule cause each and every base substitution in each of your cells and you can trace the origin of that molecule??
I doubt it
and NOT your gonads
You're the one who has the problem with it. I said you are admiting to something, and you used bold letters to emphasis that you were not.
So what did you have in mind? You can explain yourself.
My take on that is because we are more advanced, and in being more advanced, we are more prone to certain ailments and problems.
Is it really bad luck or is something else happening? IMHO, luck makes it sound random, so if the mutations are random are they natural? Meaning, are they supposed to occur?
That is not what I'm saying, relax and read for a bit bro. When white devil listed chemicals you said, "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". What I am saying is exposure to these chemicals are not natural and were a contributing factor to the development of cancer. Would a person exposed to radiation develop skin cancer if he or she were not exposed to the radiation over a period of time? Probably not, this is what I mean by not being "natural'.
So what did you have in mind? You can explain yourself.
My take on that is because we are more advanced, and in being more advanced, we are more prone to certain ailments and problems.
Is it really bad luck or is something else happening? IMHO, luck makes it sound random, so if the mutations are random are they natural? Meaning, are they supposed to occur?
That is not what I'm saying, relax and read for a bit bro. When white devil listed chemicals you said, "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". What I am saying is exposure to these chemicals are not natural and were a contributing factor to the development of cancer. Would a person exposed to radiation develop skin cancer if he or she were not exposed to the radiation over a period of time? Probably not, this is what I mean by not being "natural'.