Viruses, Carcinogens, and Genetics - The Real Problem

[julierene]

I tried posting this earlier, but I don't think I made the title right to get discussion on this. I hope this isn't offensive, but more insightful about getting all the "riff raff" out of our lives. I love to read these boards, but all the talk about alternatives and foods, just drive me bonkers.



"How come that 90 year old man can smoke a pack of cigarettes since he was 12, and drink a 6 pack of beer every day, and not get cancer?" My Answer: Good Genetics! The things people call carcinogens can really cause cancer in some, but not in others. Look at the differences in oriental women, african american women, and caucasions with breast cancer... Is it diet, or could it really be genetics? Scientists have started to take a closer look at the pathology, and are recognizing that african american women aren't just later stage - their pathology is more aggressive. Look at sickle cell too.

Genetics/DNA can fail later in life just as they can be inherited. A simple HPV virus can CAUSE cervical cancer. How do we survive viruses? Our bodies LEARN how to overcome them, which normally means that a genetic change occurs. Otherwise, we would be perpetually sick and die out as a species. Animals and all living things have the susceptibility of being extinct. If the immune system doesn't "LEARN" how to get rid of the most tiny molecules - viruses and all sorts of cellular enemies - they die.

Then what our bodies learn, it's passed on to our children through our DNA... It's part of the wonderful adaptability of the human race, but to some of us - our demise. It's survival of the fittest "Genetics". I thought this might help some women realize that diet is a far cry from "causing" cancer. Why not blame viruses and genetics first? PLEASE?!

If you want to blame diet for your cancer, you might as well also blame every virus you got too. If you want to eat right, just stick to foods that are as close to nature as you can find acceptable, but don't expect it to change your genetic structure for your body to figure out how to combat cancer. Some people could go as far as eating bugs and raw fish, but count me out on that! If someone could prove to me that could cure cancer, I would do it. But no one ever does, cause it just doesn't stand up to scientific scrutney and tests.

More support from the ACS, that cancer can be triggered by a virus. (Boy, this is just the 1st one that has made headlines and commercials recently. Just imagine how many others have caused other cancers. What if flus and colds could cause lung cancer?! Or what if that virus that had you sitting on the toilet and hugging the trash can could cause colon or stomach cancer?!)

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/c... 8.asp?rnav=cri (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_Do_we_know_what_causes_cervical_cancer_ 8.asp?rnav=cri)


"Do We Know What Causes Cervical Cancer?http://www.cancer.org/common/images/shim.gif

In recent years, scientists have made much progress toward understanding the steps that take place in cells of the cervix when cancer develops. In addition, they have identified several risk factors that increase the odds that a woman might develop cervical cancer.

The development of normal human cells mostly depends on the information contained in the cellsÂ’ chromosomes. Chromosomes are large molecules of DNA. DNA is the chemical that carries the instructions for nearly everything our cells do. We usually resemble our parents because they are the source of our DNA. However, DNA affects more than our outward appearance.

During the past few years, scientists have made great progress in understanding how certain changes in DNA can cause normal cells to become cancerous.

Some genes (packets of our DNA) contain instructions for controlling when our cells grow and divide. Certain genes that promote cell division are called oncogenes. Others that slow down cell division or cause cells to die at the right time are called tumor suppressor genes. Cancers can be caused by DNA mutations (gene defects) that turn on oncogenes or turn off tumor suppressor genes. Scientists now think that HPV causes the production of 2 proteins known as E6 and E7. When these are produced, they turn off some tumor suppressor genes. This may allow uncontrolled growth of the cervical lining cells, which in some cases will lead to cancer.

But HPV does not completely explain what causes cervical cancer. Most women with HPV donÂ’t get cervical cancer, and certain other risk factors influence which women exposed to HPV are more likely to develop cervical cancer. Smoking: Smoking produces cancer-causing chemicals that damage the DNA of cervical cells and contribute to the development of cancer. Immune system deficiency: Another possible cause is immune system deficiency. Our immune system helps keep us free of cancer. HIV (the AIDS virus) infection makes a woman's immune system less able to fight HPV and early cervical cancers."

HPV does not completely explain what causes cervical cancer, but I would be willing to bet that genetic factors DO!

Love yourself, be happy, and do the best you can. I have to struggle every day to try and not be obsessed about all the diets, supplements, and alternative therapies. If I could have my way, I would probably waste ALL of my money on things that probably wouldn't even extend my life by a few days.

This kind of thing helps me to realize that the puzzle is much bigger than what we can see. Literally.

[al from Canada]

Very well thought-out and written! Thank you.Al

[Cathya]

Julierene;

Thank you. I agree wholeheartedly......sadly enough it's in the genes I fear. My mother also had cancer, her two sisters, three brothers, my grandmother on my fathers side, blah blah blah.....the list goes on. I appreciate not having to feel guilty for every steak, glass of wine, desert I have ever eaten. Have a great day.

Cathy

[mts]

I agree its in the genes also, but those genetic mutations are triggered to convert into cancer because of what?
I believe some cancers are just going to happen if that person lived in a bubble, but I also believe that carcinogens found in the air, foods and water also trigger our genes to zap out of sync and turn cancerous. Then there are the mesothelioma patients that developed lung cancer from inhaling asbestos. That was 100% an environmental cause of cancer.
You can read any health studies related to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki a-bombs and the proof is in the numbers regarding cancer stats changing dramatically after the bombs... all environmental.
Animals that ate hay that had been exposed to the Three Mile Island disaster also were contaminated and their milk was too. Very vague studies were done after the food contaminations, but similar situations were found in Japan way after the bombs. Cancer lingered on over decades past the bombs, because of the contaminated ground, water and air.
DDT did a number on many species of birds and fish in the 50's and still there are remnants of that pesticide in rivers... those critters would never have gotten cancer if not for the environmental poisons. Our parents ate fruits and veggies that were dusted with DDT- you knbow if it affects fish and fowl, it certainly affects delicate humans and their offspring.
I just returned from a Scientific/Consumer review of new imaging research that emphasized the fact that the Mammogram radiates the healthy cells with enough radiation that overtime, the chance of breast cancer becomes higher... why? Because the radiation triggered the genetic componenets of the cells to degrade and mutate to cancer cells. The statements from the majority of the scientists overwhelmingly leaned towards the obsoleteness of the mammo machine.
Can you imagine going for mammos for screening only to have the mammos themselves be the trigger to getting the cancer? Several studies have shown a measurable increase of breast cancer/or recurrance in women who get the mammos...We are dammed if we do and dammed if we don't get mammos!
So, in my humble opinion, many of us that carry the genetic traits for cancer would not have been destined to get cancer if not for the environmental factors. Its all about tolerance.
Yeah, genetics are the bullets, but the environmental triggers are the gun.

This is only my opinion...
Maria

[Becky]

I believe cancer is a product of nature and nuture (genetics and environment with environment meaning ALL external forces). For some of us, genetics may play a much stronger role because of the genes involved. For others, there may be other genes or many more genes(weaker indicators) that, one by one, need to somehow be affected and then cancer occurs (ie: the straw the breaks the camel's back scenario). I think for some of us with some genetic predisposition could be exposed to certain carcinogens, have an absolutely horrific diet, no exercise, stress up the kazoo, badly overweight, drink too much (I think you get the picture) and it will happen and might not happen if you didn't do those things. Or perhaps a hyperestrogen state (eating non-organic foods and having a baby recently and, and , and, and... having some gene that gives you only a weak disposition (so it never has shown up in your family before) but nobody else had these certain moon and stars align in the perfect way before to affect this gene - then you get it.


Likewise, you could be the picture of health and do everything right and certain exposures with the absolute wrong genetics (strong cancer causing predispositions) and it will happen too even though you did everything right.


My husband's friend's wife found out she was BRCA 1 as a fluke. Her cousin got ovarian cancer at age 40 and they are Jewish so the cousin got tested and was BRCA 1. However, her mother never had cancer nor did any of her sisters so they tested the father (figuring it must be him) but it wasn't. So they tested her mother and she was BRCA 1 positive, over 70 years old and never had ovarian or breast cancer. So, then the friend's wife's mother got tested. She too was BRCA 1 positive, in the same age group as her sister and never had cancer either. So by a fluke, Bridget got tested and is BRCA 1 positive. She did get her ovaries removed and is contemplating her breasts. She asked why didn't my mother or aunt get cancer yet? Her doctor told her that there is an 80% chance a BRCA 1 carrier will get ovarian or breast cancer in their lifetime (60% for BRCA 2) so even genetics isn't a sure thing (even with a strong genetic indicator that you should like the BRCA genes). It takes another "hit" or 2 for it to happen that just didn't happen to these older ladies (yet - if ever). Maybe they were never exposed to a certain bacteria or virus. Whatever.

Newsweek had an article on diet and your health. I will see if I can find the issue online. In many disease states (this article talked about many disease/diet situations and not just cancer) researchers have found how a certain food can help if someone has one copy of a certain gene versus 2 copies or if they are recessive or dominant in certain characteristics.

Do I believe food, diet or supplements cure cancer? No - I don't but I do believe it can help. It helps prevent a potential new cancer and a good diet helps keep the immune system strong to fight new and old disease (both cancer and all other ailments). I believe one cannot possibly be as healthy as possible without, in general, eating right most of the time. I also believe some supplemention can assist in this like Omega 3 fatty acides (fish oil and flax oil) and possibly others. So, it is nature and nuture for me.

Kindest regards

Becky

[RhondaH]

for some, genes are a bigger indicator than others and diet, exercise, stress, environment plays a role for others. Take care and God bless.

Rhonda

[julierene]

I am so glad others were willing to talk about this. I am amazed by some of the posts. I love this topic - and hate it too! I don't know if you guys remember my story... but the long and short of it is - I tried to do everything to PREVENT it from happening because I had a strong family history. But because my family was so small, I didn't have the data I needed to know what I was looking for.

Anyway, my mother got breast cancer at 28, my grandmother in her early 50s, my grandfather with liver cancer in his 40s, my brother when he was 5 got rhabdomyosarcoma, my daughter got adrenal cortical carcinoma at 5, and I got breast cancer at 28. If you look at my children and all the way up to my mother, 100% of us got the "cancer gene". My 3 children have the gene. My mothers 2 children also. There are only 2 relatives who probably don't (my uncle is in prision, and his son has tested negative.)

My mother and I had totally different lifestyles. She abused herself to NO end, and I tried very hard to do everything right - we still BOTH got breast cancer dx at 28, both went from Stage 2 to Stage 4 in less than 2 years. The genetics are so strong, that diet, exercise, enviornmental factors, etc etc etc, didn't help us one bit. The 2 children in the family dx at age 5, also were perfectly healthy children with very good diets. I hear of many children who eat so much JUNK all the time and SUGAR drinks that I just feel so sad by my children. But what we learned after 12 years, was that they finally found we had a p53 mutation that they didn't know existed when we were tested 12 years ago.

Genes are definetly a balancing game. But I think it helps to hear that they play such an important role. Even with enviornment and diet, genetics still probably hold the key. When people are exposed to carcinogens, I wouldn't doubt one bit that something in their genetic code is altered or mutated because of the exposure. They tell us that we need to be VERY careful about X-rays and CT scans because those types of things can actually "Cause" our family to get cancer. I was freaked out about it, and they basically said "Our genes already have 1 insult with a mutation that isn't able to function very well. Adding another insult to the DNA with exposure to radiation, is enough to probably push a damaged cell into a cancerous one."

The 2 children in the family who got cancer didn't have any x-rays. But with us, it probably wouldn't take much. I always wondered why my grandmother got a very mild breast cancer so late in her 50s, and my grandfather a rare liver cancer in his 40s. According to this p53 mutation, liver cancer really isn't on the menu. So it's weird to think if there might have been the p53 gene from grandma and maybe some other bad gene from grandpa that made the combination deadly. Even in families with p-53 mutations, the variety of cancers make you wonder. One family with the EXACT SAME MUTATION was getting bone sarcoma over and over, we haven't have 1 case of bone cancer yet. The doctors over at St. Judes say there are definetly more than 1 gene responsible for this Syndrome. It's just amazingly complicated. I get so bogged down in science sometimes that I can't even begin to imagine how hard just 1 Stage 4 person would be to cure.

Hugs, Julie

[Bev]

I'm afraid to drink my coffee. I only grabbed the 1st page, but rest is on washingtonpost.com, search intersex fish.


Male Bass Across Region Found to Be Bearing Eggs

Pollution Concerns Arise In Drinking-Water Source

By David A. Fahrenthold (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/david+a.+fahrenthold/)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 6, 2006; Page A01

Abnormally developed fish, possessing both male and female characteristics, have been discovered in the Potomac River in the District and in tributaries across the region, federal scientists say -- raising alarms that the river is tainted by pollution that drives hormone systems haywire.

The fish, smallmouth and largemouth bass, are naturally males but for some reason are developing immature eggs inside their sex organs. Their discovery at such widely spread sites, including one just upstream from the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, seems to show that the Potomac's problem with "intersex" fish extends far beyond the West Virginia stream where they were first found in 2003.

Abnormally developed fish, possessing both male and female characteristics, have been discovered in the Potomac River in the District and in tributaries across the region, federal scientists say -- raising alarms that the river is tainted by pollution that drives hormone systems haywire.



The cause of the abnormalities is unknown, but scientists suspect a class of waterborne contaminants that can confuse animals' growth and reproductive systems. These pollutants are poorly understood, however, leaving many observers with questions about what the problems in fish mean for the Potomac and the millions of people who take their tap water from it.

"I don't know, and I don't think anybody knows, the answer to that question right now: Is the effect in the fish transferable to humans?" said Thomas Jacobus, general manager of the Washington Aqueduct, which processes Potomac water to provide drinking water for residents of the District, Arlington County and Falls Church.

Jacobus, like others at area utilities, said there was no evidence that tap water taken from the Potomac was unsafe to drink. They said humans should be far less susceptible to the river's pollution than fish, because people are not exposed constantly to the water, our hormone systems work differently, and our larger bodies should require higher doses of any pollutant to cause problems. As research on the fish continues, other scientists across the region are trying to determine whether Potomac water or mud can affect human cells. This research, including tests at West Virginia University that examine whether cells react as if estrogen or estrogen mimics are present, has not reached any solid conclusions.

The first intersex fish in this area were found three years ago in the South Branch of the Potomac, a tributary more than 200 miles upstream from Washington. In 2004, more abnormal bass were discovered in a section of the upper Potomac near Sharpsburg, Md.

Following up, last fall federal and state researchers caught smallmouth bass in the Shenandoah River in Virginia and in the Monocacy River and Conococheague Creek in Maryland. All three tributaries eventually empty into the Potomac. At the site on the Potomac itself in the District, there are no smallmouth bass, so the researchers examined largemouth bass.

The results were striking, according to Vicki S. Blazer, a fish pathologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. More than 80 percent of all the male smallmouth bass they found were growing eggs, including all of the fish caught at four of the seven survey sites. The intersex condition doesn't change the fish's outward appearance but can be detected under a microscope.

At the site in Washington, seven of 13 male largemouth bass showed some kind of unusual feminine characteristic. Six of the seven fish tested positive for a protein used to produce eggs, and three of the seven contained eggs, Blazer said.

Taken together, Blazer said, the results on both bass species seemed to indicate that the Potomac watershed has a problem with "endocrine disruptors," contaminants that interfere with nature's chemical signaling. In this case, she said, the contaminants might have turned on bodily processes that normally are only active in female fish.

"What we're seeing now is that it's definitely not a problem just in the South Branch," she said. "There is this sort of widespread endocrine disruption in the Potomac, but we don't know still what are the causes."

Pollutants that mimic hormones have emerged as a worldwide concern in the past decade, blamed for problems in animals as diverse as alligators, minnows and polar bears. Although scientists say the research is in its infancy, they have identified a large array of pollutants that might affect animals, including human estrogen from processed sewage, animal estrogen from farm manure, some pesticides and additives to soap.

[Mary Jo]

Awwwww - Thank you Julie for your post on diet vs genetics. All I can say is "AMEN" to that. I couldn't agree more. Everytime I read a post on what you should eat, blah, blah, blah it makes me a bit angry. I know people who did it all right (or so it seems) and those who don't and it NEVER makes sense as to why it happens to some and not to others. Everytime I read the list of "what to do to prevent getting breast cancer" it makes me sick also because most of the things on the list I did and still, at age 45 was dx with breast cancer.

I don't believe in trying to figure it out. Geez, if the scientists can't figure it out how in the world can we. One day we will all know the "whys and why nots" to life - for now I choose to live one day at a time - do my best to live healthy and leave the rest in God's Hands. That's all I can control.

God Bless and Peace I Pray,

Mary Jo

[RobinP]

I believe that my diet did not play a role in me getting breast cancer. I was thin all my life and ate well, better than anyone else I knew. However, I got bc at 38! Now that I have breast cancer, I still eat well but I don't know if it really will prevent a relapse. Still, trying to eat my best gives me some sense of control. Julirene I don't think that you did anything wrong to get this hideous disease. Sometimes genes curse us.

[tousled1]

Julie,

Thanks for bringing up the genetics. I too have an extremely strong family history of cancer. son - leukemia; sister - breast cancer; brother - lymphoma; father - lung cancer; father's sister - ovarian cancer; paternal grandmother - breast cancer; first cousin - breast cancer; first cousin - bone cancer; mother's sister - breast cancer; fraternal grandmother - breast cancer; and the list goes on even further.

I think genetics is the major player in cancer. Yes, we should all eat healthier but almost all foods have some type of additive or have been treated/sprayed with something. The only option is to only eat those foods that you grow yourself.

As for supplements - yes I take supplements - but then aren't they all man-made? The best supplements would be those that you go out in nature and obtain yourself.

All that being said, I appreciate all the information that is posted on this board. I'm still in the learning phase.