"Forth, and fear no darkness." Quote from LOTR Movie.|
How to Cure Cancer:1) Collect facts about abnormalities of cancer cells (even if only of some cancer cells)
* Failure of the checkpoint that controls mitosis.
* Failure of the DNA synthesis checkpoint.
* "The Warburg Effect" anaerobic metabolism, including high acidity of cytoplasm & surroundings.
* Reduction of sensitivity to "Contact Inhibition" (cell crawling is less inhibited by cell-cell contact)
* Reduced sensitivity to inhibition of DNA synthesis by crowding of cells (sometimes also called "Contact Inhibition")
* Lack of anchorage dependence. (Ability to continue to divide and survive when suspended in agarose gels)
* Shapes of nuclei are irregular, and have indentations. (In follicular lymphoma, nuclei are shaped like cleaving cells.)
Free your imagination from the assumption that small synthetic organic chemicals are the answer to every problem.
3) Notice Paradoxes.
* Such as that Gleevek inhibits phosphorylation by an abnormal "fusion protein" kinase enzyme, and kills those cells that have this abnormal enzyme.
* A possible explanation is that only this abnormal kinase was keeping them alive.
* Myelogenous Leukemia cells have Philadelphia chromosomes, produced by the same chromosome rejoin as created the kinase (by which their death can be tracked)
* Such as abnormal shapes of nuclei in cancer cells. Presumably some cytoskeletal abnormality causes asymmetrical forces?
* Such as that the anti-cancer drugs we now have work anywhere near as well as the often do: Considering that the reasons for their invention have so often turned out to be over-simplifications, as sometimes have simply been wrong: but still cures people!
Please look up "The Warburg Effect" on Google, and read some of the articles.
4) All cells contain aself-destruction enzyme system (all cell types that can become cancerous are ready for apoptosis). That means you don't need to beat them to death! Just set off their self-destruct caspase pro-enzymes.
"Avastin" and "Zaltrap" are made-up names (meant to sound like names of chemicals) for humanized monoclonal antibodies that selectively bind (the manufacturers say "trap", instead of bind!) normally occurring protein vascular endothelial growth factor A and cross-react with similar proteins. Therefore, they inhibit development of blood vessels in all tissues, and have NO specificity for cancer cells (and no attempt to achieve at anti-cancer specificity). Because monoclonal antibodies are very cheap to make, the companies that sell them want people to believe they are complex drugs that they invented and synthesize, with great difficulty, and with much holding-up of test-tubes. Notice that Genentech slyly calls itself "the drug's manufacturer", as if it were a chemical.
Also notice use of the word "cost", instead of price; and also notice that no reasons are given for the price being raised almost to the price of diamonds.
I copied this supposed chemical formula from the Wikipedia site about Avastin: C6638H10160N1720O2108S44
Their advertising calls it a "soluble receptor", instead of an antibody.
They assume that these companies did lots of expensive research, looking for drugs that would selectively kill cancer cells. The companies spend double or triple as much money for advertising and legal fees, as compared with chemical isolation and testing. Actually, very little effort has been made to find chemicals that specifically attack cancer cells, nor chemicals that selectively inhibit of blood vessel development in cancerous tumors.
What a tragedy that so much rapaciousness and greed is being focused on substances that were never even intended to be specific for cancer cells. It's a failure of economic motivation that we lack methods to focus this energetic greed toward finding actual cures.
I copied the following statement from the "talk" section of the Wikipedia site:
It is now believed that Avastin does not block angiogenesis, but actually increases it. This then stabilises the tumour blood vessels, and allows other chemotherapy agents better access to the tumour site, increasing their efficacy. Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Whether there is any factual basis, I wish I knew.
Notice the British spelling of "stabilise and "tumour"