|
More speculation
It is good to hear from you, Debbie! I enjoy hearing your thoughts on this, in combination with the article about possible implications of surgery....
You already know I don't give up easily and I know you don't take offense if I question the idea that the building of the vascular network and the actual volume of blood cells mean 2 different things are going on. Sometimes my thinking can be too simplistic, so if I don't fully understand what you mean I trust you will explain further. I'm thinking that building a network of vessels could still be stimulated by some body response, but isn't it the blood cells themselves that provide the "fuel" for the growth of the cancer cells? So the network itself would be there but there would still be inadequate supply of the right materials to adequately encourage cancer cell growth?
I don't want to rush the discussion too much. But a bigger question I have is, if there is a less toxic substance than the chemotherapy that messes with the GI system and the integumentary system, but that still brings on the condition of lower blood counts, and if it were also controllable by dose or frequency of dose so that it was reversible, and if it wasn't otherwise toxic (admittedly lots of ifs), would it work well enough to allow us to move away from chemotherapy? Or even at least move toward using less chemotherapy in conjunction with the lowered blood counts?
AlaskaAngel
|