Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Human Intelligence May Cause Cancer (Massive Junk Science Alert)
Fox News ^

Posted on 06/11/2009 8:43:17 AM PDT by Scythian

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: allmendream

If you want to beleive that cancer is gene related go ahead ... I for one file that under junk science as well, in fact, it’s pure foolishness


21 posted on 06/11/2009 9:09:04 AM PDT by Scythian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Scythian
Pure foolishness is denying the existence of Oncogenes.

Oncogenes, for those of you in Rio Linda; are genes associated with cancer.

They are usually mutated in cancer such that the genes that prevent cell division are mutated off, and/or the genes that promote cell division are mutated on.

Now why is it that the p53 gene is mutated in about 50% of cancers?

If you claim to be smarter than a doctor and know how the body works; perhaps you can explain to me why about 50% of cancers have the p53 gene mutated?

Why is there such a high heritability of some forms of cancer that can be directly linked to a gene mutation if there is no connection between genes and cancer?

22 posted on 06/11/2009 9:13:53 AM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

Oh wow. Maybe bananas cure cancer.


23 posted on 06/11/2009 9:15:08 AM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Or it could be because chimps don’t eat all the crap we eat.

Or maybe it's because they throw the crap instead. Hmmm... This could prove interesting and healthy at the upcoming DC tea party.

24 posted on 06/11/2009 9:18:06 AM PDT by Redcloak ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Now why is it that the p53 gene is mutated in about 50% of cancers?

So WHY is it mutating?

Mutations are caused by something, they don't just "happen."

You act as though the mutation is the cause, not the result of some external force.

25 posted on 06/11/2009 9:25:31 AM PDT by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

So this is how they are going to explain the dumbing down of our children, lowering of test grades and graduating morons. It really is better for them, no risk of cancer that way, huh?


26 posted on 06/11/2009 9:27:19 AM PDT by annieokie (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOAT
Why is it mutating?

Because mutation happens all the time as a result of cross linking radiation, intercalating agents, and even just the process of DNA replication.

Mutations introduced by DNA replication is one of the contributing factors to cancer.

Thus we see that cell lines that are under constant replication are MUCH more prone to cancer than cells that rarely if ever replicate.

There is a reason prostate cancer is common and brain cancer or heart cancer are rare.

Do you want me to answer my own question?

I will if you want, as it seems unlikely that you or Mr. “I am smarter than a doctor” has any idea why the p53 gene is mutated in about 50% of cancers.

27 posted on 06/11/2009 9:29:44 AM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Touchy aren't we? Evidently YOU are 'smarter than a doctor' or maybe impressed by your 'understanding' of cancer.

Go ahead Nobel Laureate, answer your own question and rid us of the scourge!

Oh wait, maybe you're just another keyboard pounding know-it-all....

28 posted on 06/11/2009 9:33:24 AM PDT by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

Yep. Took me about 10 seconds to google it: Chimpanzees live about 60 years in captivity; their life span in the wild is only about 35-40 years.

These “scientists” attribute to brain size what life span easily explains. But even if common sense eludes them, why single out brain size as the causative factor? Why not one of the other human/chimp differences? I suspect it’s the shaving that’s killing us.


29 posted on 06/11/2009 9:37:18 AM PDT by Eroteme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JOAT

Nah, just ODD (oppositional defiant disorder). Drag out your DSM-IV and check it out ... a classic specimen.

Always on the opposite side of anything approaching a consensus on FR.

There are several of them here. Evolution and birth certificate threads really bring them out of the woodwork.


30 posted on 06/11/2009 9:41:33 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JOAT
The reason that around 50% of cancers have the p53 gene mutated into inoperability is that the p53 gene starts the process whereby cells kill themselves (apoptosis).

It is a valuable process for a multi-cellular organism to allow cancerous cells to kill themselves.

Those cancers that have a p53 mutation are not subject to this process of p53 induced apoptosis.

Thus the of the cancers that grow and survive within the body long enough to be detected; around 50% have already shut off the mechanism whereby the cell would be instructed to kill itself.

31 posted on 06/11/2009 9:41:46 AM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

And you think that ‘genes have nothing to do with cancer’ is or should be a consensus opinion here on FR?


32 posted on 06/11/2009 9:43:04 AM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
The likelihood of something serious going awry at the cellular level is heritable, obviously, and this applies to any number of health issues.

But, we have so-called "precancerous," damaged cells in our bodies all the time. They're effectively recognized and removed, by a healthy immune system.

Going into some bizarre comparison to chimpanzees and blaming brain size for cancer is ludicrous to the point of near incomprehensibility. It's your side of the debate, so defend it.

Let's see about these genetic percentages being bandied about. Want to toss out a few other creatures? How about an earthworm? And why do you think it important?

Pardon, but your a priori is showing, lol.

33 posted on 06/11/2009 9:53:33 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

PH Balance, Low Oxygen, System Candida, Mineral Defiencies (including Amino Acids). Genes do not cause cancer, not only that, much of what we call “cancer” is not “cancer” but systemic fungal infections. Ever try a PH strip, go get some, hold them into your stream when you take a pee, I bet it’s 5.5 or less, ie, extremely acidic as it is on most Americans, your blood will therefore be carrying much less oxygen, anerobic bacteria will flourish, cancer will form (not get in). Do some research on PH and Oxygen and cancer and do something about your health or sit there and wait for a p53 patch it’s your choice.


34 posted on 06/11/2009 9:53:47 AM PDT by Scythian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Thus the of the cancers that grow and survive within the body long enough to be detected; around 50% have already shut off the mechanism whereby the cell would be instructed to kill itself.

K.

You're still describing the effect, not the cause.

Now instruct us (who are less likely to die from cancer) about the WHY question I asked. Why is p53 mutating and allowing cancerous cells to propagate?

It's easy to point to a breakdown in the defenses, but why are the defense mechanisms of the immune system breaking down in the first place and allowing the cancerous cells to live?

If you have the answer to that, you should stop wasting your time lecturing noobs on a political board and get down to the CDC with your findings!

35 posted on 06/11/2009 9:57:39 AM PDT by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

“If you want to beleive that cancer is gene related go ahead ... I for one file that under junk science as well, in fact, it’s pure foolishness”

Cancer is not always directly related to genes, but genes definitely have a bearing on how resistant you are to cancer-causing factors.


36 posted on 06/11/2009 9:58:43 AM PDT by Texan Tory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
DNA is what is inherited. Genes are DNA. What is going awry at the cellular level with familial associated cancer is genetic mutation that was inherited.

I did not agree with the premise of this article in any way.

I did correctly point out the DNA comparison between human and chimp is over 99% of the “same” genes; that the “same” genes are about 98% the same, and over the entire genome we are about 94% the same. That has nothing to do with the genetic causes of cancer and is not an a priori assumption on my part, but is a clear consequence of looking at the data.

Do you agree that cancer has nothing to do with genes?

Is that the position you wish to defend?

37 posted on 06/11/2009 10:02:55 AM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Texan Tory
Cancer is not always directly related to genes, but genes definitely have a bearing on how resistant you are to cancer-causing factors.

Yes, perhaps, but certainly they do not cause it, and there is no reason to get cancer, there is unrefutable evidence linking cancer to low oxygen and cancer and acidic bodies, this is why American's have such a high rate, not genes, that and the massive pollution we live in (most don't realize the amount of exposure to pollutants we have). The "Gene" thing is merely a new medical field trying to be born so we can all be pre-diagnosed and pre-treated for things that aren't diseases such as heart disease which is reversable without surgery and not a disease ...
38 posted on 06/11/2009 10:04:13 AM PDT by Scythian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JOAT
The cause of around 50% of cancers having a non functional p53 gene is that those that do not are more likely to have been eliminated.

The cause of around 50% of people admitted to MIT having SAT’s above 1400 is that those without high test scores are eliminated from consideration.

Why is p53 mutating? Because mutation can and does happen.

Why are those cancers that grow and survive more likely to have p53 mutated? Because a functional p53 gene kills growing cancer cells.

p53 is not part of the immune system. The gene is expressed in every cell line.

39 posted on 06/11/2009 10:07:56 AM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Why is p53 mutating? Because mutation can and does happen.

*Slaps hand against forehead*

Thank you for playing, you may step down.

40 posted on 06/11/2009 10:14:18 AM PDT by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson