Posted on 06/27/2007 10:57:15 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Thirty-six years into the war on cancer, scientists have not only failed to come up with a cure, but most of the newer drugs suffer from the same problems as those available in the pre-war days: serious toxicity, limited effectiveness and eventual resistance.
This is no surprise to University of California, Berkeley, genetics researcher Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular and cell biology. According to his novel yet controversial "chromosomal" theory of cancer, which is receiving increased attention among cancer researchers, each cancer is unique, and there is no magic bullet.
"The mutation theory of cancer says that a limited number of genes causes cancer, so cancers should all be more or less the same," Duesberg said. The chromosomal theory, which he laid out in an article in the May 2007 issue of Scientific American, implies instead that, "even if cancers are from the same tissue, and are generated with the same carcinogen, they are never the same. There is always a cytogenetic and a biochemical individuality in every cancer."
The most that can be expected from a drug, he said, is that it is less toxic to normal cells than cancer cells, and that as a result a cancer detected early can be knocked back by chemotherapy. His chromosomal theory offers hope of early detection, however, since it ascribes cancer to chromosomal disruption, called aneuploidy, that can be seen easily through a microscope...
(Excerpt) Read more at physorg.com ...
ping
ping
Like hell he invented that concept, or that it's remotely controversial.
I think you guys can do better.
In this latest post at PhysOrg, it seems that Darwinism hasn’t helped, but instead hindered the fight against cancer.
Dr. Peter Duesberg, a molecular biologist at Berkeley,
“proposed in 2000 that the assumption underlying most cancer research today is wrong. That assumption, that cancer results from a handful of genetic mutations that drive a cell into uncontrolled growth, has failed to explain many aspects of cancer, he said, and has led researchers down the wrong path.”
And, in words that support Behe’s main thesis in “The Edge of Evolution”, Deusberg also adds:
“In this new study and in one published in 2005, we have proved that only chromosomal rearrangements, rather than mutations, can explain the high rates and wide ranges of drug resistance in cancer cells.”
Think of the number of people who die each year of cancer as compared to the number who die from bacterial infection, and one can easily see that all the chest-slapping by the Darwinists about how RM+NS has given us anti-bacterial drugs can know pound their breasts in remorse at the “wrong path” mutational theory has led cancer researchers. This isn’t just a battle between the God-denying and the God-affirming segments of our global society, it’s about good science versus bad science, about reason versus myth.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/
see post #6
Maybe Jesus miracled the cancer cells there, right?
Let’s have an exorcism!
There is a differenct between “novel” and “invented”. Consult your dictionary.
bump for later
The dispute is Darwinism-neutral from all appearances. Mutations according to traditional models and aneuploidy non-mutation “mutations” would result in the same consequences. Cancers generate so doggone many new cells that either way they are likely to “discover” ways around the drug being used.
This is the same scientist who has claimed for years that
HIV is not the cause of AIDS but the consequence of a drug life style that weakens the immune system.
Yes it is.
PS Among other things, depending on risk factors associated with a specific country or region.
I don’t see anything in what Duesberg is saying that stands in contradiction to Darwinism. In fact, it’s entirely consistent with it. He’s just saying, basically, that large scale chromosomal abnormalities (aneuploidy), rather than a collection of smaller-scale mutations in particular genes, are what allow tumor cells to grow at abnormal rates and under adverse conditions, such as under chemotherapy treatment. He’s also saying that not only does aneuploidy allow tumor cells to become malignant and resistant to treatment, it actually speeds up the process because aneuploidy itself leads to more aneuploidy, ie, more genetic diversity, from which new, more robust tumor cell populations can be selected. Basic evolutionary theory.
Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus lists "original" as a primary synonym for novel.
"Invented" can mean fabricated, or it can mean to produce something as an original idea.
Obviously I meant the latter in my post. Although toward the other usage, it is fair to say that "he invented a novel idea" -- in that the invention is a fabrication of his imagination.
So in this case there is no differenct at all, you see.
Wasn’t sure if I pinged you or not—GGG
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.