This time for prostate cancer.
In a surprising discovery, researchers say they have found a virus in some prostate cancer patients, a finding that opens new research avenues in the most common major cancer among men in the United States.
The virus, closely related to one previously found only in mice, was found in cancerous prostates removed from men with a certain genetic defect. The researchers, with the University of California, San Francisco and the Cleveland Clinic, warn that they have not discovered any links between the virus and prostate cancer, but they were nonetheless excited about prospects for future research.
Shouldn't really be too surprising by now. Entire texts have been written on infectious causes of cancer; this is just one more potential virus to throw into the pot. (And it should be strongly emphasized right now that even the link between the virus and prostate cancer hasn't been well-established yet, much less a causation. What they have now is an intriguing finding that needs more follow-up).
These findings are again for a symposium presentation, which is always frustrating to me when it's reported in the news because, even if it's been published in the literature (and generally it hasn't yet), they never mention the journal. But the story does mention a bit about their methods:
"This is a class of virus no one would have looked for in prostate cancer," said UCSF researcher Joe DeRisi, who developed the so-called "gene chip" that made the discovery. DeRisi's chip contains 20,000 snippets of vital genetic material from every known virus. It is the same chip that confirmed a previously undiscovered virus in the cold family that caused the SARS outbreak three years ago.
There's some background on the gene chip in this story from 2003 about the identification of SARS, and a PLoS Biology paper on the technique here. It's a technique with a lot of promise for identifying other previously-unrecognized pathogens as well. I'm still hoping for a breast cancer virus. These have been found in other animals (for example, mice) and have been examined in humans, but nothing solid has come out of that yet. As far as I know, that's not been tested using the new gene chips, however.
- Log in to post comments
This may be most interesting in light of the history of the virus/cancer link. Decades ago, in the wake of the discovery of oncogenic retroviruses and other viral oncogenes, there was a great swell of interest in viral cancers, in the optimistic belief that viruses would turn out to be the major cause of cancers. Many research units were set up at that time with names like "Viral cancer group" and the like (many have since been quietly renamed) and although a vast amount of excellent basic research arose from that -- including, of course, much of the general understanding of oncogenesis, and identification of oncogenes and cancer pathways -- the original rationale (which was that we would be able to identify and then treat, or vaccinate against, the viruses that caused most human cancers) never really panned out. As a result, there's a widespread inchoate skepticism, and reluctance to go searching, for this sort of thing now.
Is this a joke? These morons are claiming that prostate cancer is now an infectious disease?
Oy Vey
Barnes, Hank
It's better when it's from symposium proceedings than when it's pure press release. I blogged about this regarding a news item about a dark matter discovery (what with being an astronomer myself), and had to guess at what was going on entirely from the press release. With symposium proceedings, at least somebody was able to see the presentation of the methods and the science at some level. But, generally, I agree that it's tough when we see some sort of press release type thing without the ability for those who can to go back and review the real journal article.
-Rob
Ian--
Yep (as you can see from comments like Barnes'), there's a lot of resistance to these ideas. Dr. Bialy and others involved in the AIDS thread still deny, for instance, that HPV causes cervical cancer, despite the overwhelming evidence for that.
Hank, if you'd read beyond the title, you'd have seen that I was very careful to note that this was a very preliminary finding, and follow-up studies are needed. So, no, they're not yet claiming that "prostate cancer is an infectious disease"--they've simply found a virus associated with some prostate cancers. It's not even known yet whether that association will hold in larger studies, or which came first: the virus or the cancer. Right now it's simply an intriguing link.
Oh, my. I'm beginning to think that science is no different than history. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it--Santayana (despite a glamorous new technique, gene screen or such). More commonly referred to as "rediscovery of the wheel" when it comes to technology. The viral etiology of cancer cost us billions until the simple genetic mutation theory replaced it for priority of funding. Now the single genetic defect theory of cancer is costing us increasing billions (e.g. The Human Cancer Genome Sequence Project). Can't we move onto something beyond both the viral and the simple genetic error theories at this stage? Maybe something that integrates evolutionary theory would be a start (but the recent Science discussion missed the boat in respect to molecular and cellular level evolutionary theory).
Best regards, Polly
Polly,
You one smart person.
You might enjoy this book, which addresses exactly the sort of theory you are demanding, and rightfully so.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=ba6g…
Tara,
I read beyond the title -- in fact, I read the whole gripping piece from.....CNN!
Call me when Derisi stops conducing science thru press release, and starts writing a paper or 2:)
Prostate cancer ain't contagious, this is a good thing!
Barnes
Hi Polly--
This *does* integrate evolutionary theory--ideas in Darwinian medicine discuss just these kind of infections.
Harvey--dear lord, I can't believe you pimp your book in every goddamn thread.
Hank--Don't worry, I'll be sure to review the paper when it's out. ;) And DiRisi has already published a paper or two.
How many times do you have to be told something before you understand it Smith. I swear you gots to be one of the cold-ass dumbest PhDs ever.
I am *not* a "chulo" and my opus is NOT a "puta" - although *you* are.
Harvey, it is you who has the problem understanding. But once again, you show your true colors. Cheers.
Has anyone ever contacted Harvey Bialy independently of his web persona, through Biotechnology, just to verify that this is the same guy?
Oh, sadly, it's the same. IP resolves to the same place, and from conversations I've had with his other "dissident" pals, this is typical behavior from him.
Well, at least now I don't have to feel bad about all the nasty things I said about Nature's editors when my one submission was rejected!
Hank -
You said in your first comment, "These morons are claiming that prostate cancer is now an infectious disease?". Emphasis added.
And when it was pointed out that they claimed no such thing ("The researchers, with the University of California, San Francisco and the Cleveland Clinic, warn that they have not discovered any links between the virus and prostate cancer..."), you said that yes, you had read the whole thing. Then one has to wonder why you would deliberately missrepresent what was said. Frankly, I expected a lot better from AIDS denialists than this. Perhaps the A-team is busy doing other things.
Bialy -
Oh dear, what to say? I feel sorry for you. But more sorry for the people you dupe with your ignorance.
More reality street.
I sent the missive below to Dr. Smith yesterday:
I am quite proud to have supporters like
George Miklos
Wally Gilbert
Charles Cantor
Martin Fussenegger
Kary Mullis
Rafael Rangel
Susan Hassler
Lynn Margulis
Donald Miller
Sir Henry Harris
Gerald Pollack
and the late, truly great Serge Lang
among others
You meanwhile got Dave S, and Orac, and Dale, and Richard and Guitar Eddie and Pharma Bawd and Noble and George.
You must be proud too.
The really smart, know-it-all replies:
"I'd be a bit wary about saying Lynn Margulis is a "supporter." The ID crowd claims that too, y'know.
Ah yes, mathematicians to support your view on infectious disease. Don't forget that athlete you interviewed.
And really, c'mon--Kary Mullis believes in astrology. Real good group you have there, Harvey."
Note once again that all Dr. Bialy can provide is taunting and name-calling, while at least Orac, Dave, Dale, etc. have brought actual discussion to the table.
But, Mr. Bialy, what about the price of tea in China?
GE
Pretty good "name calling" imho, and the athelete I interviewed is Lee Evans, along with Muhammed Ali, according to many other illustrious names, the greatest African American sports figure of the last century (and this).
GE: You opined that your mistress Smith was in line for canonization once upon a time, and I asked you if you meant by Pope David I. Perhaps you missed that, so I say again this name in a slightly different form.
I too think that Smith should be canonized by Pope David I.
Do you know who that is? Every real molecular biologist in the world does (Dr. Smith of course "had no idea" and "guessed" it was David Ho, whose most important paper she had somehow forgotten.)
Bialy, do you have actual content to bring to the discussion? So far there has been none. And, no I am not going to buy your book to find out what content you might have been able to bring to the table, if you felt like it. Instead of content, you have brught insults and spam, have been busy misrepresenting other peoples' research, and have been busy name-dropping.
Maybe you could perhaps give us some content?
And in regards to the list of people you like having on your side, can you provide me with (even a partical) list of scientific articles or papers they have written on the subject? Or studies they have done? Please note, that commentary/review articles are not suficient, nor are privately published books. I am interested in peer-reviewed material from well reputed sources.
Oh, and I wonder why you don't mention Phillip E. Johnson, since he is one of the people on your side.
It's not that the mere fact that he is on your side makes your side wrong, but it clearly shows that either a stance stands on its own, or it doesn't. So, instead of bringing up the people who support you, bring up the science that supports you.
I never thought I would be forced to directly reply to anyting KW ever wrote, but once again I am proved wrong in otherwise reasonable expectations
KW: My list has nothing to do with *sides*. It is a list of people who have publically (or via email) been effusive in their praise for my *work*, i.e. the book you could not possibly understand, even if you processed all the words.
My favorite customer review on Amazon (esp. for KW)
difficult to read for the layman, July 24, 2005
(2 stars)
Reviewer: G. Federico -
it requires a lot of effort if it should be read by a person without the background in the subject. i couldn't get much out of it.
Guys & Gals todos
It's been more fun than shooting fish in a barrel (or is the expression "a barrel of monkeys"?)
Whatever. It's been fun, but even aged, semi-retired in the lap of total luxury me has got one or two other things that need doing.
Hasta whenever ....
From the article:
"It is a very exciting discovery," said Dr. Eric Klein of the Cleveland Clinic, who will present the findings Friday at an American Society of Clinical Oncology prostate symposium in San Francisco. "There is now a suggestion that prostate cancer could be caused by an infectious disease."
Sorry, Dave S, that is a claim. The problem, though, is: (a) it is not exciting and (b) there is not even a suggestion. These idiots don't have squat. Yet, that won't stop them for begging for research $$ to explore this "fascinating" area of inquiry.
But, we all know it's Bovine Scatology. They've been singing this viral-cancer link for decades. Total dry hole. If you honestly believe that protate cancer is a contagious disease, spread by a slow virus, that somehow magically affects only old men, and will cured one day by the prostate cancer vaccine, then you are clueless.
If you don't understand cancer, then read this article by Gibbs in Scientific American.
Barnes
bialy writes to Kristjan Wager:
That's right Kristjan, it has nothing to do with sides, and everything to do with Harvey's ego. Why, he was practically in tears of pride when he told us how this Miller guy positively reviewed his book (not that anyone asked mind you).
It's all about the praise.
They like him...they really like him!
Sorry Hank, but compare what you wrote to what they wrote again.
"These morons are claiming that prostate cancer is now an infectious disease?"
That's what you wrote.
That is not what they said.
Please read more carefully Hank. I'm tired of correcting you.
"GE: You opined that your mistress Smith was in line for canonization once upon a time, and I asked you if you meant by Pope David I. Perhaps you missed that, so I say again this name in a slightly different form."
"I too think that Smith should be canonized by Pope David
I."
"Do you know who that is? Every real molecular biologist in the world does (Dr. Smith of course "had no idea" and "guessed" it was David Ho, whose most important paper she had somehow forgotten.)"
Never heard of the bum.
Cancer is not a contagious disease, Dave S.
That's a good thing.
Fondly,
Hank
No one said it was a contagious disease, Hank. Just because something is caused by a microbe doesn't mean it's "contagious." Are autoimmune diseases "contagious?" Is cervical cancer "contagious?" (Note: there are indeed several successful vaccines that have been tested for that one).
But just keep goin', Hank. It's amusing to see just how little understanding of biology you possess.
And dear Harvey, can you please link where I said I'd "forgotten" Ho's paper? I simply asked if I was supposed to review every AIDS paper ever published, but nice mischaracterization.
"No one said it was a contagious disease, Hank. Just because something is caused by a microbe doesn't mean it's "contagious." Are autoimmune diseases "contagious?" Is cervical cancer "contagious?" (Note: there are indeed successful viruses for that one)."
"But just keep goin', Hank. It's amusing to see just how little understanding of biology you possess."
I find it rather amusing, too, Tara; in a somewhat tragic sense.
In the words of my dearly departed sibling: "Stupidity is way of life."
Hank says:
And now you missrepresent what I said. I never said it was contagious Hank. I said you missrepresented what was said in the article.
Any position that relies on missrepresentation piled on missrepresentation like this doesn't deserve a whole lot of respect.
So, lemme understand this. There is a "suggestion" that a virus causes prostate cancer, but there is no "suggestion" that prostate cancer is a "contagious" disease?
Is that about right?
Do you know what "contagious" means, Hank? Cancer is a multifactorial disease--the mere presence of the virus, even if it's a causal factor, ain't enough. The development of cancer will be a result of the virus (again, pending futher research), host genetics, and other environmental factors. Cancer is never "congatious"--I already discussed that here.
Per Guitar Eddie:
Tara writes: (Note: there are indeed several successful vaccines that have been tested for that one).
GE tries to quote immediately thereafter: "(Note: there are indeed successful viruses for that one)."
Yes, Stupidity is a way of life, GE:)
Barnes
p.s. This "virus/vaccine" catch-all explanation for every ailment known to mankind is causing some systemic ignorance and wishful thinking among the scientific profession.
Tara,
"Cancer is never "congatious"
I'm just a simple idiot, but what does "congatious" mean?:)
Barnes
That was my typo--I wrote viruses first.
Hank--just curious, so you you deny the effectiveness of vaccines as well as HIV?
Here's a link to one one cervical cancer vaccine trial. Others have reported similar efficacy. I suppose this is all just "wishful thinking?"
Hank, grasping at typos is the lowest form of "debate." Obviously that should have been "contagious." Do you have anything useful to add?
In between the "other things"...real quick
Tara,
When you write "Cancer is a multifactorial disease"
You are partly correct. The crucial incorrect part in your statement is that human cancer is not *a* disease, it is many, many *diseases*. You have the same problem (that Wiitgenstein called "the fallacy of misplaced concreteness") with AIDS.
"p.s. This "virus/vaccine" catch-all explanation for every ailment known to mankind is causing some systemic ignorance and wishful thinking among the scientific profession."
How do you figure that "virus/vaccine" is a catch-all explanation for every ailment known to man, Hank. There are also genetic ailments such as Osteogenises imperfecta (brittle bone disease), alcoholism, etc.. Or are you just being facetious?
GE
Hank--just curious, so you you deny the effectiveness of vaccines as well as HIV?
To the contrary, I whole heartedly accept that vaccines cured polio and small pox. Those are real diseases, which no longer exist (in USA), because of vaccines. Science/medicine at its best.
Do you have anything useful to add?
Well, you guys are the ones quibbling over the words "suggestion/claim" and "infectious/contagious"
But, Yes, I do have something to add.
Let's, momentarily, agree that HPV causes cervical cancer.
Would you then call cervical cancer a contagious disease?
Would you then call cervical cancer an infectious disease?
My answer would be "Yes" to both, but mebbe yours is not.
Hank
So, what, cancer isn't a "real disease?"
No, my answer is not "yes" to both. Cervical cancer is an infectious disease, but it is not a "contagious" disease--again, as I noted in the previous post I linked above. You can't "catch" cancer, as you can't catch autoimmune disease. What you *can* catch is the microbes that result in the subsequent development of cancer etc., but the disease itself is not contagious.
Harvey--certainly you know that when I use "cancer" in that manner, it's is a catch-all term for a number of discrete diseases.
And one more thing:
Vaccines "cured" neither smallpox nor polio. They prevented their transmission.
Tara,
So, what, cancer isn't a "real disease?"
Cancer, indeed, is a real and terrible disease. Second leading killer of americans (about 500,000 deaths/year).
But, as Polly Anna, much more eloquently stated above, y'all have been milking 2 barren ideas for too long: (1) that viruses are a cause of cancer and (2) that oncogenes explain the development of cancer.
Dr. Duesberg's new idea -- trumpeted by Dr. Vogelstein at Johns Hopkins -- is that chromosomal imbalance is the trigger that leads to cancer. Find out what causes this imbalance at the cellular level (bad mitosis?), develop a diagnostic test to detect these abnormal cells, and find a way to kill them (without killing healthy cells in the process).
Then, you would make a dent in cancer, and regain the noble pedestal where scientists once sat.
Hank Barnes
Hank,
You appear to be ignoring the HPV vaccine, which already has the potential to make a considerable "dent" in cancer, and is due to one of the "barren ideas" you revile above.
1. Ooops, I see that in my haste I conflated two favorite thinkers. The "fallacy of misplaced concreteness", of course belongs to Alfred North Whitehead, and is elaborated in his *book*, "Process and Reality", of which my dear departed friend, Ed Dorn, once famously opined, "The heaviest part of *that* book is the *and*."
The Wit wrote a lot of other good stuff, some of it not too different.
2. Tara, The most distal, properly designated initiating event in *all* malignant transformations involves a chromosomal or segmental aneuploidy that destabilizes the genome sufficient to allow a mathematically, chaotic attractor to be established during mitosis.
If you do not understand this, then you do not have the toolbox to do meaningful biology in the 21st C.
3. Enough pedagogy, and back to having fun:
a. Dave S, you write in another thread:
Bialy asks:
May I ask all of you evolutionary biologists out there if one or another of you would care to express an opinion on the work, and intellectual calibre etc of Lynn Margulis?
I think her earlier work on endosymbiotic theory was brilliant (and for a time highly controversial), and her more recent work on a more general symbiotic theory less convincing but still intriguing. As far as her intellectual calibre, she's one of the great original thinkers of our time in my opinion.
Why you ask?
Posted by: Dave S. | February 26, 2006 01:01 PM
Because last night I received an email from a mutual friend that contained the following from Prof. Margulis:
"The Bialy book to which your review sent us changed our lives: Duesberg reconsidered, etc."
So I was wondering if she was an ID nutjob too? Na mas.
Posted by: Bialy | February 26, 2006 01:23 PM
b. You are correct Dr. Smith:
Here is the full text of what you wrote re your memory and appreciation of the landmark Ho & Wei Nature papers that ushered in the era of "you gotta give HARRT" and "viral loads".
"Heh. Am I supposed to comment on every HIV paper written over the past 20 years? I think I've been much more amenable to questions than your colleagues, and I've not seen those papers brought up yet (but with over 100 comments and limited time, it's quite possible I missed it). I don't have much to say about them, anyway. Yes, I'm quite familiar with them, and with both the critiques by Duesberg et al. and with the responses to the critiques and responses to the critiques of the critiques etc. etc. In the end, I think the proof is in the pudding, and the drug cocktails have largely worked. Does this mean Ho et al. were correct? I can't say, but again, that paper was 11 years ago, and the field has progressed since then.
Posted by: Tara | February 14, 2006 04:01 AM"
Quoted from http://bialystocker.net/files/Pipedream.pdf
You can't "catch" cancer, as you can't catch autoimmune disease. What you *can* catch is the microbes that result in the subsequent development of cancer etc., but the disease itself is not contagious.
I'm sorry, you are wrong here. If the microbes are necessary (yet not sufficient)for the subsequent development of cancer, (meaning if no microbes, no cancer), then you are in fact claiming that cancer is contagious, and that healthy people should avoid cancer patients, for fear of acquiring the "necessary" microbe.
I'm saying that microbes are not necessary, nor sufficient to develop cancer -- that is why cancer vaccines, generally, are futile (which is unfortunate), but also why cancer, generally, is not infectious (which is fortunate).
Barnes
p.s. In another decade, y'all will come full circle with a claim that some new "cancer" microbe is sexually transmitted.
bialy says:
Is there supposed to be a point here Harvey?
She's not an ID nutjob....I never said she was. In fact, I'm pretty sure just the opposite is true.
P.S.
Dave S, You write "this miller guy" somewhere above.
Prof. Donald Miller is a very distinguished professor ofcardiac surgery.
Who is this "Dave S" disrespectful brat?
My, my, that's rich.
Um, no. Really, Hank, I'll again implore you to actually do some reading before again placing your foot in your mouth. For one, development of cancer (or any chronic disease) is a lengthy process, and by the time you reach that endpoint, the microbe may not even be present, or at least may not be actively replicating. Second, even if the microbe is still there and still transmissible, as I mentioned, there's a very good possibility that anyone who it's passed to may not have the other necessary elements to develop carcinoma.
There are, however, directly contagious cancers: see here.
Then, again, what about the HPV vaccine?
Nobody else seems to have mentioned it so I thought I would. The reason these investigators went looking for viruses in prostate cancer is because one of the genes that is associated with familial prostate cancer is a gene called RNAseL . Mutations in the RNAseL gene segregate with prostate cancer in some small proportion of patients with familial prostate cancer. The viral connection comes from the fact that this is a gene that is activated by viral infection in cells and whose gene product contributes to the antiviral response of the cells by digesting double stranded RNAs. The patients in which this new virus was found at high frequency were those who had two mutated copies of the RNAseL gene.
& Tara, I did not write "agree with", I very deliberately wrote "understand", as in "comprehend,i.e. being mentally enabled to follow, and intelligently discuss".
bialy says:
It's funny how the denialist community pays such reverence to those that agree with them.
I'm sure he'd suddenly be a whole lot less distinguished if he didn't agree with you.
Tara,
For one, development of cancer (or any chronic disease) is a lengthy process, and by the time you reach that endpoint, the microbe may not even be present, or at least may not be actively replicating.
This is extremely dubious. You're claiming that a virus is a necessary component of causing cancer (I agree there can be multiple components), but may not be present ?
You attribute far too many magical powers to itty, bitty, 9kilobase viruses -- which can only do one solitary thing -- replicate.
Second, even if the microbe is still there and still transmissible, as I mentioned, there's a very good possibility that anyone who it's passed to may not have the other necessary elements to develop carcinoma.
True, but so what? Under your theory, there's also a possibility that the person has the other necessary elements, and should avoid like the plague the missing carcinogenic piece of the puzzle (the virus).
Barnes
Read: "but may not be present"
Should read: "but may not be present by the endpoint"
Barnes
As for HPV, Yes, I'm skeptical that it cause cervical cancer. But, I could easily be convinced. I haven't read any of the literature on it, so I have no position.
Bialy wrote:
Two things, I am sorry, but to me:
sounds like talking about sides. What you are saying is that "hey I got X on my side, while you only have those loosers over there". You see, you didn't only mention one list, did you?
And the second point. I freely admit that I am not as well versed in these things as Orac or Tara (and probably several others here), but you know what, given time I might be able to understand whatever you have written in your self-published book, as long as it is written in English, and in competent sentences.
However, we are never going to find out are we?
And don't forget I didn't notice that you didn't refer to any peer-reviewed studies, papers, books or articles by the people you listed as supporters. Come on, I am sure that the people who support you are well known in this particular area of expertice - otherwise, why is it relevant to bring them up?
"And don't forget I didn't notice" should of course be:
"And don't think I didn't notice"
from Prof. Margulis to our mutual friend (last night):
"Of course Bialy can use my words. Any one can. Never tell me any secrets as I can't remember who I'm supposed to not tell.As you say he just wrote the facts..and it is very interesting to me that his book was published by UNAM where I have close colleagues. See attached ( http://bialystocker.net/files/Lazcano.pdf )
y un poco mas
If "name-dropping" is what *your* problem is, what about the "Durban Declaration" (the *most authoritative* statement of the tenents of the AIDS church)?
First, let's be clear. I'm not claiming a virus is ever necessary to cause a certain type of cancer. For every type, there certainly can be cases that develop without a virus. But yes, in many cases, a virus (or other microbe--bacteria have also been implicated in several cancers, notably gastric) is a major cause.
Second, Hank, have you ever heard of rheumatic heart disease? Or heck, even scarlet fever? Both of those are caused by Strep pyogenes. The bacterium initiates the disease, but by the late stages, it's gone. In scarlet fever, the disease is caused by toxins the bacterium produces. In rheumatic heart disease, it's caused by an autoimmune reaction targeted against the host's own cells, which cross-react with antigens of the bacterium. A microbe causing disease that continues even in its absence is anything but rare.
Wow, are you morphing into Harvey? Again, HepB is much smaller than that, but it's been shown to cause liver cancer. Where do you think these viruses replicate, Hank?
Indeed, but that's still not "catching cancer." You're just catching the virus, which may or may not result in the subsequent development of cancer. Contrast this to the Tasmanian devil post I linked, where they're directly inoculating each other with the tumor cells.
Well, gee, color me green and call me Gumby--Hank pontificating on matters about which he hasn't a clue? Here's a good place to start--bet you could find it in a university library, or plunk down $33 for it used on Amazon. Or, as I expect, you can just continue to wallow in your ignorance and not bother to actually do some research before making the silly pronouncements you have.
Harvey, you're boring me again. I don't fall into the Duesberg hero-worshipping school of cancer development.
None of us have brought up the Durban Declaration, which counts among it's 5000 signers, quite a few people who works, and publishes, in this particular field. Instead, what people have done, is to refer to specific articles and studies, and have explained why your reading of a particular study isn't warrented. They even explained it, so I could understand it.
Again, I am asking you to refer to peer-reviewed articles, papers, studies and books about this particular subject, published by the people you keep mentioing. Otherwise, stop mentioning them, and start refering to people who actually work within the field.
Is it really that hard toi understand that we are not impressed by the mentioning of names of people, who - however eminent they are in other fields - doesn't work within this field?
You are behaving like ID-people who keep refering to scientists outside biology as people who dispute evolution. That's very fine, but it's really irrelevant to the field of evolution. The same goes with the field of HIV/AIDS, epidemiology or public health studies - if they haven't done any work within the field, it's highly unlikely they know all the relevant information, and however eminent their reputation is in other fields, their endorsement of a particular view is uninformed.
I came across an article that might be of interest to people here (it mentions Duesberg as well) - Proof Positive - How African Science Has Demonstrated That HIV Causes AIDS (from 2000).
Very Asst. Prof. Smith
You have just demonstarted the truth of my assertion that if you cannot understand what I wrote about the initiation of malignant transformation sufficient to intelligently discuss it, you are not mentally competent to do any sort of biology at all in the 21st C.
How bout trying this Sci Am article that you can probably understand if you exert yourself:
http://bialystocker.net/files/Sci_Am_aneuploidy.pdf
First, let's be clear. I'm not claiming a virus is ever necessary to cause a certain type of cancer.
Backtracking.
Indeed, but that's still not "catching cancer." You're just catching the virus, which may or may not result in the subsequent development of cancer .
Wishy-washy beyond belief.
Well, gee, color me green and call me Gumby--Hank pontificating on matters about which he hasn't a clue?
Funny!
Here's a good place to start--bet you could find it in a university library, or plunk down $33 for it used on Amazon.
Note the name of the book:
"Infectious (darn, there's that word!) Causes of Cancer":)
So, we have infectious "causes" but not infectious "diseases". Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.
But, it does look like an interesting read, thanks for the tip! I think Goedert is one of those schmucks who wrote this paper.
Note the Acknowledgement section of the paper:
We are grateful to William Blattner, Vanessa Hirsch, Ron Desrosiers, David Hillis, Peter Radetsky, Cheryl Winkler and Peter Duesberg for discussion and suggestions. Peter Duesberg was invited to sign this article, but after some discussion he declined.
Translation: We wrote the paper, got it pre-cleared at Nature, tried to beg and grovel Peter to sign on (with Temin), took him to the opera, but he expressed to us that the paper was a piece of shit and it ended up in this obscure journal. (See Bialy's book re Tuxedo Night)
Y'all are hysterical:) You want viruses to cause cancer in certain mysterious ways, (presumably so you can develop a sancrosanct cancer vaccine) but you don't want the cancer considered an "infectious" disease.
Pretzel logic writ large
Hank
To all of you who have not had the time to read the Pusblisher's synopsis on Barnes & Noble, understand please that my book is mostly about cancer genetics and not AIDS, and that many of the distingusihed reviewers in my list have impeccable credentials as cancer resarchers.
And in any case the most prominent of the Nobel-bearing signatories of the DD (like Duesberg and Temin, and Pope David I - mostly) never worked on this most expensive and important virus, and that the conditions for signing the DD did not include having prior publications, or laboratory, or field experience with HIV, only that the signatory be above the rank of post doc.
& Tara, since you brought it up (recall my email to you earlier about push hands), here is the real deal about my "hero-worship".
from Amazon customer reviews
-----
Duesberg's Huxley, September 10, 2004
Reviewer: William Breeze (New York, NY) - See all my reviews
Bialy does for Duesberg what T.H. Huxley did for Darwin, by taking up the cudgels for a fellow scientist and his thinking. Employing deft characterizations and a mordant wit (to which he occasionally gives free rein with delightful effect), he provides an incisive understanding of the scientific and social issues behind cancer genetics and AIDS research. Written from the unique vantages of a longtime friend and colleague, and from within the hallowed precincts of the world's oldest continually published scientific periodical, Nature, the book gives a real "inside analysis" of biomedical science since the advent of the modern biotechnologies. The book is elegantly composed and has an overall sonata allegro form, with the first and last chapters developing the various themes of cancer genetics and the middle three featuring the story of HIV and its relationship to AIDS. The first person style, and the clear but rigorous scientific history that it relates, make it both accessible and enjoyable to the general reader. It is guaranteed to provoke a few smiles and many grimaces from the stalwarts of HIV and oncogene (cancer gene) theory.
Bialy is a molecular biologist who was involved in the genesis of biotechnology as the founding scientific editor of the most prominent journal in the field (Nature Biotechnology). His literary talent allows him to guide the reader through a gradual exposition of the scientific issues while telling the cautionary tale of Duesberg's courageous struggle to restore objectivity, fairness and intellectual integrity to cancer and AIDS research. It shows just how vulnerable the great tradition of hypothesis, experiment, proof, peer review and publication can be to manipulation by vested interests, media, and government institutions with public health party lines. When these close ranks they wield a formidable, monolithic power that can dictate the way science is allowed to proceed. Pit against this a scientist at the top of his field who commits the unforgivable 'sin' of challenging an orthodoxy he himself was critical in establishing, and the predictable outcome is marginalization, ridicule and out-of-hand dismissal. Duesberg suffered all of this. Yet he continued, in an amazingly dogged way as the reader learns, to apply the high standards of scientific proof that had made him so famous, feared and respected in the intellectual salad days of molecular biology. These are the elements of a classic heroic tale, but rather than portray Duesberg as a white knight, Bialy more interestingly and accurately doesn't portray him at all. Instead he presents the unadulterated thinking of this immensely reasonable, patient and persistent scientist, who is if anything an anti-hero. The plot, accordingly, is not that of an epic but of a dark mystery -- the central one, left unsolved and for the astonished reader to ponder, being "why?" The book reveals "how," "what" and "who" in a way that I found irresistible.
Whilst Peter Duesberg's rethinking of AIDS dogma has not as yet become even semi-respectable (although this book could help change that if enough people actually read it), the book's final chapters show how his two decades of criticism of qualitative oncogene theory led him to his now well-recognized quantitative aneuploidy (numerical chromosomal abnormalities) theory of cancer causation.
Harvey, once again, my problem is with your use of all.
Hank,
I'll again note that you failed to even attempt to address the substance of my post. Par for the course, I see.
Tara,
Please say more.
Tara,
I'll again note that you failed to even attempt to address the substance of my post. Par for the course, I see.
Baloney. Yes, I ignored the discussion on strep (your favorite topic!), because: (a) I agree with much of it and (b) it's irrelevent to cancer.
We're at an impasse here, which is fine.
Me: Most cancer has absolutely nothing to do with viral etiology.
You: Please, oh, please, oh please, will this microbe be the one that causes cancer!??! (Although, of course, it's still not an infectious disease.)
I repeat, the "viral-vaccine" paradigm for the "cause/cure" of every disease oughta be discarded into the ash-heap of history. Polio and small pox are over. Get with the program. It's the chromosomes, stupid!
Hank
It's not irrelevant at all. You were saying that infectious agents couldn't cause disease after they were cleared; that example shows they can indeed.
Actually, I agree with that. Estimates put ~20% of cancers with a viral etiology.
I said it's not a *contagious* disease. It can be considered an infectious disease, since it has an infectious cause. The reason you were wrong when you first mentioned that wasn't because you termed it an "infectious disease;" it's because you incorrectly said that the researchers had claimed prostate cancer was one. Please keep up.
Said despite the fact you've admittedly not put any research into the topic. Once again, simple hero worship. Boring.
"Me: Most cancer has absolutely nothing to do with viral etiology."
How do you know that, Hank? Have you done the research necessary to ascertain that?
"You: Please, oh, please, oh please, will this microbe be the one that causes cancer!??! (Although, of course, it's still not an infectious disease.)"
How old are you, Hank? The statement doesn't sound a day over 13 years old.
A rather adolescent ah hominem attack.
"I repeat, the "viral-vaccine" paradigm for the "cause/cure" of every disease oughta be discarded into the ash-heap of history. Polio and small pox are over. Get with the program. It's the chromosomes, stupid!"
Again, how do you know, Hank?
GE
Said despite the fact you've admittedly not put any research into the topic.
I didn't say that. No research with respect to HPV => cervical cancer (alleged) link.
I'm skeptical on that one, but admittedly, ignorant. That's why I haven't argued it one way or the other. You keep bringing up strep, Herpes, HPV and Hep B. Not I.
I really have been trying to stay out of this particular "line of argument", but if as you say cancer can have an infectious "cause" (never mind *how* necessary or sufficient)and yet the infectious is not itself transmissible, i.e., the "cancer is not contagious", then are we not faced with a classical chicken and egg problem?
But what would I know? I only wrote a dumb, "hero-worshipping" book on cancer causation.
Or maybe you meant like infectious but not contagious as in vector-borne diseases like malaria where one does not have to be afraid of catching the malaria from the infected person.
If so, OK. But The person still got infected, and in the case of malaria, the answer is eliminate the mosquito vector. If cancers (any of them) have "infectious causes" then discovering the route of transmission of theh infectious agent would seem to be a high-priority research item, and yet I know for a fact that the NCI/NIH funds almost research in this area.
Is a puzzlement no?
That's because herpesviruses, HepB, and HPV are other "giants" in the viral causation of cancer field, which you write off altogether. You've claimed from the beginning that the researchers were "morons" for even suggesting a viral cause of prostate cancer (which is all they did, and did not claim that their work established one). Then you said that infections can't cause chronic disease (well, cancer) after they've been cleared, and got in another dig about the size of HIV, even though HepB is ~a third of that size, genome-wise. You show once again that you need to take a course or two in infectious disease epidemiology, discounting the work of hundreds or thousands of scientists in the field, and not even bothering to try and understand the terminology. It's just...sad, and depressing to a working scientist, for someone to have such certainty and at the same time, lack intellectual curiosity.
Harvey--
I've never said anything about your book. As I've not read it, I don't know whether it's "hero worship" or not. I'm only speaking of posts here.
Not quite, but closer than Hank.
The routes of transmission are known for most of the established ones. Obviously, HPV is a sexually-transmitted disease. Hepatitis B and C can also be sexually transmitted, or passed via blood. H. pylori remains controversial, but may be via saliva, vomit, and/or stool. HHV-8 can be transmitted in a number of ways, including saliva. Likewise with EBV. I don't know about NCI funds for this specifically--more of it may be handled via NIAID as research on the basic epidemiology and microbiology of the organisms.
Is a puzzlement no?
"You show once again that you need to take a course or two in infectious disease epidemiology, discounting the work of hundreds or thousands of scientists in the field, and not even bothering to try and understand the terminology."
And perhaps a year of Biology I & II.
"It's just...sad, and depressing to a working scientist, for someone to have such certainty and at the same time, lack intellectual curiosity."
Yes, Tara, it rather sad, though I also find it quite disturbing and perhaps even frightening. The Hank Barnes and Duesbergs of the world have the ear of likes of George W. Bush and Thabo Embeke - people who base their public policies on their arguments.
GE
Then you said that infections can't cause chronic disease (well, cancer) after they've been cleared
I don't think I've ever said this.
Barnes
Harvey writes : The most distal, properly designated initiating event in *all* malignant transformations involves a chromosomal or segmental aneuploidy that destabilizes the genome sufficient to allow a mathematically, chaotic attractor to be established during mitosis.
That is nonsense! While there may well be a single "most distal, properly designated initiating event in *all* malignant transformations" (although I think it unlikely as cancer is not one but many different diseases), I'd be curious to know how you think such an event could be identified?
Apologies. You said it was "dubious" and would require magic:
I also find it quite disturbing and perhaps even frightening.
Then, you scare easily, child.
The Hank Barnes and Duesbergs of the world have the ear of likes of George W. Bush and Thabo Embeke - people who base their public policies on their arguments.
1. It's Thabo Mbeki. Learn to spell.
2. Lumping little 'ole me with Duesberg and Mbeki is a great, but undeserved honor. Thanks.
3. Lumping me in with GWB is not nice. You see, domestically, he's a political stooge for the pharmaceutical industry. Ironically, you, Bush and Big Pharma are all alligned, but you're too dense to recognize it.
That's it for today, gotta catch a plane. Gotta take care of some biz.
I remain,
Hank Barnes
p.s. BTW, Tara, I have a lot of intellectual curiousity. How do ya think I came across Duesberg's work?
Tara,
I think you should just drop this.
Hank is a troll. It's very clear he is almost completely ignorant of every subject that has arisen in the past three days: vaccines, viruses, cancer,...
And it's obvious what Bialy is trying to do, but I can't imagine it's very effective. Is it Dr. Bialy? Do you have any way of tracking sales after an internet kerfuffle like this? Does it sell books? Frankly I'm outright hostile to you, and although I think the HIV/AIDS arguments are total junk, I am interested in the cancer aneuploidy portion of your book. Clearly aneuploidy is present in cancers but often time the origins of this aneuploidy can be traced back to genetic (mutant p53, Rb, etc.), as well as viral (HPV) causes. But your behavior on the internet has completely turned me off to reading anything that you have written.
And, frankly, I don't understand how you and Hank can associate with one another. Given the insulting things you have said about other people's intelligence, training, experience,... yet you cavort with this profoundly ignorant man who doesn't understand: how vaccines (or indeed any part of the immune system) work, that a cancer vaccine may target the cancer cells not a virus, how an infectious virus may contribute to a disease that is not, itself, contagious,...
And you Hank, how if you truly believe good scientists rightfully belong on a pedestal, can you baer to see a scientist with a distinguished career like Bialy reduced to a carnival barker peddling his book at every breath in blog fights?
You two are the oddest odd couple I've ever seen!
Dale the perpetually anonymous,
Theories of causation are general theories. The oncogene theory holds the initiating event in "all" cancers to be a mutation or two or three in particular genes. The aneuploidy theory is based on quantitative changes in chromosome number. The first such genetically destabilizing
aneuploidizations have been identified by Duesberg and others via sophisticated newer techniques in cytogenetics. You could learn all about this by reading...guess what?
Virus: yet another form of oxidative stress, which can lead to cancer genesis.
Also remember the fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc".. just because A comes before B doesn't mean A is the CAUSE of B.
Otto Warburg, two-time Nobel Laureate said in the 60s: "The cause of no disease is better known than that of cancer" [archaic anaerobic/lacto-fermentative cellular respiration due to faulty ATP production, via a disruption of the mitochondrial energetics]
Warburg's famous speech at http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/warburgcancer-cause-prevention.ht…
New experimental studies have been carried out at the German universities of Berlin, Potsdam, and Jena, which authenticate the Warburg phenomenon and thereby disprove the fundamental models of genetic medicine (blindsided focus on nuclear DNA versus mitochondria-cell symbiosis wholism) :
http://aliveandwellsf.org/articles/frataxin_warburg_2006.pdf
Basically, the Warburg phenomenon predicts that upon disruption of mitchondrial (oxidative) ATP production, the cell nucleus reverts to archaically conserved genetic programs for fermentation and immortalized proliferation (aka CANCER!) Fascinating stuff.
The mitochondria are very susceptible to cellular oxidative stress, because they need antioxidants themselves for normal operation (i.e. gluathione peroxidase to mop up the ROS they make during phosphorylation) A gross lack in cellular antioxidants will cause the mitochondria to self-destruct, rendering the cell susceptible to either apoptosis/necrosis or compensatory lactofermentation (carcinogenesis), depending on how quickly the mitochondrial dysfunction happens.
Care to cite a reference saying that? I've never heard a cancer biologist make that claim.
Harvey, Thanks but I know where to read all about it. That's what I do Medline searches for.
Oh yeah, I notice you've failed to answer my question.
Tara,
Without getting into an argument about the "actual published evidence" you might marshall to substantiate all the assertions (one of your favorite words)above,let me ask you one simple question.
HTLV-I is generally considered to be not only a distal cause of ATL, but a proximal sufficient one as well (you can check the literature on this quite easily.) Therefore the Red Cross spends about 10 bucks US per test to screen all donated blood for antibodies to this cancer virus (guess who patented the test and gets much royalties from it?). Yet prior to screening, there had never been a single case of transfusion-related ATL.
Got an explanation for this puzzlement?
Dale the anponymous dunce
When you, in your usual deft way, excerpt a post of mine to say:
"The oncogene theory holds the initiating event in "all" cancers to be a mutation or two or three in particular genes.
Care to cite a reference saying that? I've never heard a cancer biologist make that claim."
You have just argued that because you have never heard (whoever the f. *you* are)or your Pub Med searches do not reveal it that the Schrodinger equations are stuff and nonsense.
I really, this time, am through with trying to discuss anything remotely scientific with you.
Harvey, that was me, not Dale. All I'm asking is for you to back up your claim--surely that's not too difficult? I'm not even saying you're wrong--just that you need to support your argument 'cause every other cancer biologist I've ever discussed the issue with or had as an instructor has said that a mutation is just one potential initiating event. But, y'know, that's just me--I don't say things I can't support with a little thing called evidence.
Regarding HTLV-1, how is it a puzzlement? HTLV-1 is rare in the US; it's not surprising there's not been a case related to transfusion (if that is, indeed, the case--I'm accepting that for now 'cause I'm heading out the door). But even if there wasn't one doesn't negate the potential for one in the future. I sure wouldn't want to get it during a blood transfusion.
I didn't say that Harvey. But you still haven't answered my question. How are you going to identify that elusive single distal initiating event in malignant transformation?
For the benefit of Pharma Bawd and anyone else who may be unclear about this very well advertised fact.
*All* profits from the book I am "pandering" (and all over the place too) go here:
http://www.ibt.unam.mx/virtual.cgi
So I hope it sells one million copies, and so should you.
And since except for Harper's none of the usual outlets for reviews of a book like this, like Nature or Science or the NY Times will touch it (don't venture an opine as to why...por favor), I have to resort to internet guerrilla tactics to get the word out when I can.
This is really, really it.
You identify this distal, most critical event, or some step close to it, by means of FISH and sophisticated cytogenetics as experimentally reported by Duesberg and others. I really do think I wrote something very close to this above.
Tara/Dale
Sorry i mixed you up. Silly me.
But Tara, the same thing goes for you....what I stated is basic oncogene gospel. You don't know anything about the field, really. Go study before you try to write me again because like Dale, I am finished with you.
And if you want some proof, send all of this thread that concerns me to Bert Vogelstein and ask him!
Harvey, you apparently misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking how you detect aneuploidy, I was asking how you propose to distinguish between aneuploidy as an initiating event and aneuploidy as a consequence of a mutation or epigenetic event Either way you look at it, cancer is a genetic disease in which many events are apparently required either for a tumor to form or for it to progress to malignancy.
The all oncogene all the time theory of cancer, if it was ever in vogue, certainly hasn't been for quite some time as far as I can tell.
Yeah, I got that Dr. Bialy, again.
About HTLV-1 and leukemia, do you deny that mothers who became infected with HTLV-1 through blood transfusions have passed the virus to their children through breast feeding and that some such children have subsequently developed ATLL? And yes, the evidence suggests the ATLL is due to the presence of HTLV-1.
(This is Japan, not America, and seems to be a case of racial discrimination by a virus which Duesberg claims does not happen...)
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Hence the blood test.
Mierde, you have an amazing skill.
The papers that I pointed you to do exactly that...they experimentally, by use of FISH and other sophisticated cytogentic techniques, distinguish essential initiating events from epiphenomena. Detecting aneuploidy is relatively trivial as you should have know.
Now, if you have *anything* further, and you have even the slightest hope of an answer from me, put a real name that I can search on the Internet to it or shut your fing anonymous and totally ignorant mouth once and for all.
& (maybe) before you write something, as I know you will:
You can do the same thing as I challenged Tara to do. Send our conversation to Bert Vogelstein and ask his opinion. He is a very gracious scientist, and I am certain he will answer you.
His email is easy to find, although the papers I have pointed you to 3x now are not so easily found, except by a skillful user of Pub Med (or a careful reader of Ch. 6/7 of the dumbass book you for some reason will not touch)
I give you a hint, you could try adding "specific aneusomy" to your search criteria.
Harvey writes: The papers that I pointed you to do exactly that...they experimentally, by use of FISH and other sophisticated cytogentic techniques, distinguish essential initiating events from epiphenomena.
If by 'they' you mean Duesberg and colleagues, then I beg to disagree. They do no such thing. They and others find that the majority of malignant tumors are aneuploid. The majority of malignant tumors also show perturbations in gene expression and carry mutations. Duesberg et al show that in some experimental animal systems they can induce aneuploidy before they induce detectable malignancy, but malignancy still requires a relatively long (relative to cell division times) latency. Others have shown that certain mutations that increase chromosomal rearrangements or numerical errors predispose to cancer, just as some mutations causing other types of perturbations in gene expression and/or cellular metabolism appear to do. Aneuploidy may join the list of "predisposing" events but I have yet to see data that make me think it very likely that it's ever going to supplant them.
And Harvey? Having seen on this blog several new examples of how you treat people who provide you with real names and e-mail addresses, I have no intention of providing you with either.
Now available // A New "Bllog/Book"
The Cancer Cult
http://bialystocker.net/files/cancercult.pdf
btw..."The Magnificent Pipedream" is up to 2000+ individual downloads...doing better (but not much) than my book that can be bought, but it's only been 2 weeks and not 18 months, although for anybody who cares, the Harper's article has had a nice effect on sales as the Amazon and Barnes sales rankings the past days reflect.
A(nother) parallel (sic) discussion of these matters has been going on over at DW. The following comment is (imho) one of the clearest articulations of the most general form of these online debates that I have seen in the more than one year I have been right in the vortex.
A few of you, I hope, will be able to see yourselves in "Elizabeth"...right Dick?
------------------
(link)Doc Rampage II (mail) (www):
Elizabeth: I'll take your word for it that you are approaching this sincerely, but your suggestion can hardly be taken seriously. It's the "expert immunity" argument: "I can't possibly explain why I am right until you know everything I know about this issue". It creates an artificial barrier to skeptics who aren't experts. So you can ignore the non-experts until the meet your high standards and you can ignore the experts who are skeptics because if they really were experts they would be funded by the NIH.
What if Dean took you up on your challenge? He would have to spend weeks studying these ten papers, then, assuming that they are really relevant, he would have to spend more weeks studying background information, and then he could begin the process of spending weeks debating the merits of each paper. But that debate wouldn't be necessary, because if those papers didn't convince him, then you could always say, well, then try reading _these_ ten papers.
A debate like that is important, surely, but it should be undertaken by the medical profession, not by bloggers, and a big part of Dean's point is that the profession has never had this debate. Did they? Can you site the seminal papers where this debate was carried out? If so, that would do a lot to convince me. I wouldn't have to study the papers; just seeing that there has been a real debate would make me less inclined to be skeptical.
The thing is that Dean and the other people on his side can state their reasons for doubting the HIV/AIDS connection without demanding that you spend weeks reading papers to see what their point is. They also have the papers, but they can state the major claims in a few paragraphs. And some of those major claims strike me as very persuasive: that there is no primary epidemiological study that showed the connection, that the nature of the disease changed drastically over the last thirty years, that the criteria for diagnosing the disease in Africa seem politically motivated, that one can have the virus for years, or even decades, without contracting the disease.
So what are your major claims? That HIV has been found in every AIDS patient tested? That no one has ever found HIV in a person without AIDS? I know those aren't your claims, but what are? What are the major facts that you believe show the correlation beyond a reasonable doubt? Just a description, that's all I want. If your description of the evidence is convincing, only then would it be reasonable to delve further to see if your description is accurate.
You should be able to say things like "There have been a dozen solid epidemiological studies showing a link between AIDS and HIV", and then describe in general terms what the studies found and then give the citations. Just saying "these ten papers support the AIDS/HIV link" without saying how they support it is not an argument.
2.28.2006 5:20am
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1141006050.shtml
It should be obvious that the same argument the savage doc makes above applies equally to virus-cancer (and gene mutation-cancer too).
Updated Cancer Cult, now online...with terrific new notes to make Daffy Dale's clear and highly representative 'orthodox' biology (sic) thinking even clearer to more people.
I hope you appreciate all the effort I have expended on you DD over the past year. I sure appreciate the hours you have put into our educational and amusing "discussions", as do all your "fans" in cyber (and other) spaces. I have little doubt (as does anyone else) why you choose to remain anonymous. If I had your lines, I would too.
Dale,
Look fella, I know that there are an awful lot of people who are now convinced that you and the different "bialy-forms" here and at DW (Harvey Bialy, Bialy, bialy and Eccles The Idiot) are all one in the same person.
You and I know this is "nonsense!", but the only way to convince *them* is by declaring an actual, living person behind the various internet manifestations of "you".
There is no possible way I could be more insulting to you if I knew who you were than I already have been over the past year, and I certainly have no damn reason to write "us" any email, and I never asked for an email address for you anyweay. Why whould I need it, since I have all of mine? Check the literature ( http://www.thegoonshow.co.uk/scripts/ ) to understand better.
Harvey,
I'll again point out you simply haven't addressed my question, and pointing me to one person who may or may not confirm what you've said is a waste of time. You claim that folks who support the oncogene theory suggest that's *all* that can initiate cancer. *All* is a very strong statement. But that's okay--everyone is by now used to you not supporting your statements.
In 2001, I was asked by Fidias Leon-Sarmiento (MD, PhD) to write a prolog to his book "VIH & Los Virus de la Imaginacion Humana" (ISBN 9589327168).
Its text will show that all my "calling out" of Daffy Dale, et al. is most definitely *not* a joke.
Find it here: http://bialystocker.net/files/prologo.jpg
And once again dr. Smith, like DD, you display an amazing skill at making me write to you again, and even more at not being able to read what is before your eyes.
My *proposition* dear child (dripping with venom)is that *all* cancer is initiated by "xyz" NOT that "xyz" is the *only initiator*.
It leaves open for experimentation the underlying question of what is (or are) the "mechanism(s)" by which the initial, sufficiently destabilizing aneusomies are generated. It's a little lite asking "how" does HIV cause T cell depletion.
Ahorra, Bastante Perra!
"Ahorra, Bastante Perra!"
Mr. Bialy, you are one classy chingon. What bario were you educated in, vato?
GE
That you do not recognize the "one name", I ask you to ask to mediate this utterly stupid (by now) "conversation-not" 'tween us says all that need be said regarding your actual knowledge of this field.
I would not, at this point, advise you writing him...about anything.
GE
Cojimar, Habana, Cuba
So since you speak Spanish you can enjoy the "Public Highways".
Do "you" have a real name Edouardo?
"Do "you" have a real name Edouardo?"
Yes. My name is Edward Rios. But everyone calls me Eddie.
Gracias "Eddie".
Now, I can ask you my actually *serious* previous question again, and seriously.
What do you think the "real" name of Pope David I is, and why would I agree with you that dr. Smith indeed deserves a bestowing of sainthood by HE?
Aviday Altimorebay
& dr. Smith, before YOU come with another predictable sophomoric (or worse) quasi-rhetorical ploy to deflect the argument to trivia (US presidential lawyers are excellent at this when their bosses are in trouble too..."Depends on the meaning of 'is' and what you mean by "sex", and the current much, much worse crop of misdirections coming from the cadavers passing as cadres of La Ley).
I never, ever, ever, asked you to *agree* with my proposition, only to demonstrate that you understood what I was writng about, something you have several times now shown the wide worlds, including Prof. V., you do not.
Why would I care about any opinion, about anything "you" had, and more importantly why should any of your poor students?
"Word Up" guys and gals in her "classes"!
Harvey,
I've never asked anyone to care about my opinion. What concerns me is backing up, my opinion with a little thing called evidence--references, data, etc.--that you've still not provided for damn near everything you've spouted off about on here. You'd think as a big-shot former editor it would concern you as well. Guess I simply have higher standards. As such, my patience with you is at an end--cheers.
I am now addressing dr. Smith's poor students, wherever and whoever they might be.
The presumption that your prof. makes in ALL of her discussions is that because she is an assistant professor something at a respectable university, and received her magnificent piece of piled higher and deeper paper
(We used to sing back at the MBVL in the bad ole days of molecular biology..."Escherichia coli, which comes from the feces, has been the subject of innumerable doctoral theses.")
and has maybe read (one chapter ahead of you) the expensive, first class "textbooks", that she can just pump the crap out to whomever she wants.
She is secure in this self-deception because she receives 100% support
(at least in the background, you will have noticed that no one of any accomplishment or stature or even a real CV and name has come forth to defend her "assertions of the truth" -- about as empty as her presentation of any evidence other than off hand refs to a vast literature she has not read, and is not capable of reading, and expensive books written by shysters...see Hank's almost 100% accurate depiction of Goddert above somewhere, and even worse, her utter contempt for the careful scholarship, as noted by many very, real scientists, in my scientific history of cancer genetics in the past 50 years, which if she read might actually teach her something)
from the scientific elite that she has been mal-educated by and whose gospels she trumpets, however feebly.
"Aviday Altimorebay" = David Baltimore
Never heard of the bum, Harvey.
"To assert" has the very distinct connotation of presenting one's own authority as a valid point of evidence.
For example, I "asser" that dr. Smith doesn't know shit about cancer genetics.
I "contend" that the two primary competing "theories" (not hypotheses) of cancer causation are "all cancers are initiated by mutational changes in specific genes (oncogene theory), and all cancers are initiated by specific aneusomies that lead to the creation of chaotic attractors in the genome (aneuploidy theory).
To contend, to propose, to postulate, to argue, etc are all much more proper scientific terms, and carry neither burden nor insinuation, as do for ex. terms like "deniers" instead of the n-tuple times requested slightly more neutral descriptor of "skeptic" for those who criticize the scientific literature on HIV/AIDS.
Thanks "Catch".
But Eddie, has he ever heard of you?
bialy wrote:
I "contend" that the two primary competing "theories" (not hypotheses) of cancer causation are "all cancers are initiated by mutational changes in specific genes (oncogene theory), and all cancers are initiated by specific aneusomies that lead to the creation of chaotic attractors in the genome (aneuploidy theory).
I posted this yesterday and it got lost in the cracks (Tara, what happened??):
There is a not-so-new theory of cancer causation along the lines of two-time Nobel laureate Otto Warburg, who said:
"The cause of no disease is better known than that of cancer"
( refer to Warburg's famous lecture at
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/warburgcancer-cause-prevention.ht… )
This cause is the cell-metabolic activation of archaic genetic programs for anaerobic/lacto-fermentatative glycolysis. This happens when the mitochondria dissolve their symbiosis with the host, and the cell can no longer make ATP by OXPHOS.
And there is new evidence to further support this claim!
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 281, Issue 2, 977-981, January 13, 2006
Induction of Oxidative Metabolism by Mitochondrial Frataxin Inhibits Cancer Growth OTTO WARBURG REVISITED*
( http://aliveandwellsf.org/articles/frataxin_warburg_2006.pdf )
The mitochondria are extremely susceptible to oxidative stress and cellular antioxidant imbalances because they produce reactive oxygen species in their normal operation. Glutathione-peroxidase is needed by the cells to mop up these ROS's, so if the thiol groups get all used up then the cell is in trouble... so it digs up it's evolutionarily conserved programs to make ATP without the mitochondria (archaic protistan subgenome). If the oxidative cell stress happens too fast, then the cell doesn't have time to counterregulate and just dies by necrosis instead.
I think mitochondria are also needed to initiate apoptosis... so that's why cancer cells are immortalized.
For decades, research has been narrowly focused on the nuclear genome, but there is a dynamic cell wholism that occurs in concert with the mitochondrial genome. Maybe it's time to start thinking outside the nuclear "box"??
Mitochondrial dysfunction can also potentially explain the genetic changes that occur in so-called "HIV infection"
All kinds of strange things can occur once the cell metabolic program is changed... things like degenerative particles appearing...
Chew on this one:
Huber V, et al. Human colorectal cancer cells induce T-cell death through release of proapoptotic microvesicles: role in immune escape. Gastroenterology. 2005 Jun;128(7):1796-804.
( http://aliveandwellsf.org/library#microvesicle )
Just in case there are any actual scholars of modern Spanish language literature reading this very strange string, let me point out that the lovely fable linked above (and relinked here : http://bialystocker.net/files/prologo.jpg ) is a back translation of a "Cronopio" story of Cortazar's from an English language translation of selected "Famas and Cronopios" made by his good friend (and my friend and teacher) the poet Paul Blackburn in 1968, a few years before Paul was killed by an aggressive lung cancer, chemo-mechanically induced by a first bad aneusomy, which fed the chaotic attractor in the genome with more and more aneusomic food with each mitosis until the trajectory led inevitably to the black hole of a highly aneuploid metastatic tumor, almost for sure itself induced by decades of smoking Picayune cigarettes at the rate of packs a day.
I have never seen the original Spanish text of the story because for some reason the complete "cuentas" (2 vols) of Cortazar stories that I own does not contain it, and for years I actually thought it was a private joke between Julio and Paul and it never existed in Spanish.
Recently, Roberto Stock (the fellow who translated my book for the UNAN Press official Spanish language edition -- almost sold out first (small but repectable) printing and published only in January, who knows everything, informed me that he had read the story in Spanish once, and would try and find me a copy.
I would be very, very interested to compare the two Spanish texts (and to know the pub. date of the Cortazar version that Roberto remembers) ...very.
My post immediately above is even less gratuitous than even I realized when I sent it.
A quick "Search Inside the Book" of "guess which book" on Amazon for Cortazar, or cronopio or fama, will quickly reveal another meaning I have always found in the magnificent fables of Cortazr that he wrote in revolutionary Havana on his way to life-long, self-exile in Paris.
Ya know Tara,
When we first met on the internet, what seems an ice age ago, you pretended to be flattered that I had dropped in on your febrile trashing of Tom Bethell's no doubt much more interesting than you make it out book, which I have not read, and actually don't intend to -- as I thought I made clear to you once, Tom and I share little in common other than aspects of his analysis of the HIV/AIDS complex -- but there I am running off at the keyboard again...to resume..
When we first met, since you knew my name and you were an Asst. Professor and all, I assumed you might have actually read something, anything, I had publsihed on the topic of HIV, AIDS, Africa, and even omg, since it had been out and widely advertised in the scientific community for over 16 months, read my opus that took me twice as long to complete as my very excellent thesis (published in two papers in Virology and J. Virology ca. 1970) before presuming to engage me in any professional conversation about either HIV etiology or the reality of AIDS in Africa or cancer genetics.
Boy was that ever silly of me.
Bialy, I am sure that Tara would love to read any peer-reivewed articles, papers or studies you have written on the subject. Can you direct us to them?
As you know, peoples' times are limited, and peer-reviewed articles, studies and papers have the advantage of not having to explain everything from the start, but instead present their findings to those who already have a understanding of the subject. Unlike books. Also, peer-reviews make agood filter against bad/unsubstanced arguments, since those are addressed by the peer-reviewers.
Note, that unlike what many people claim, peer-reviewers don't block articles they disagree with. That is not their job. What they do, however is to ensure that the arguments are well foundated in facts, that counter-arguments are addressed, and that the finidings are presented in a way that they warrent, with alternative readings presented as well. This especially goes for arguments and findings that goes against the commonly held understanding of a particular subject.
Plate tectonics shows how this works. This was a theory that was not generally accepted, but was put forth through the scientific channels. Over time it became generally accepted because other observations indicated that the theory was sound. This is why it has become a theory.
Albert Einstein is someone people keep refering to as a patent clerk, when they want to indicated that it's people who stand outside the scientific community that help revolutionize it.
Not only was very much part of the scientific community - he studied at one of the major physics institutes in the world at the time, and was writing his doctorate thesis - but he went through the scientific channels, publishing his groundbreaking articles in the foremost scientific magazine at the time (Annalen der Physik). Again, his ideas were not generally accepted at the time, but other observations backed them up.
Harvey,
For the past week or so, Tara and others have asked you to address their questions and point them to the studies to back up your assertiions. Instead, all you've done is trash Tara and assaulte her with Spanish profanity.
I think it's time for you put up or shut up, and stop being a jerk.
GE
KW: Intersting you should mention continental drift in relation to Duesberrg's reformulation of cancer genetics.
"The close fit between the continents was obvious to everyone who looked at a world map since accurate maps existed; similarly, the association between aneuploidy and cancer has been obvious to everyone who studied it for more than 100 years. But just as continental drift was not taken seriously by most geophysicists until plausible mechanisms were worked out, most experts in recent decades have regarded aneuploidy as a side effect of cancer, rather than its cause.
If Peter Duesberg and David Rasnick (University of California, Berkeley) are right, however, aneuploidy is indeed the cause, and metabolic control analysis reveals why. Not only is the association between aneuploidy and cancer so close as to be virtually exact, but the predicted metabolic effect of over-expressing a large and arbitrary set of genes is just the collapse of normal regulation seen in cancer."
Cornish-Bowdin, A. Metabolic control analysis in biotechnology and medicine. Nat. Biotechnol. 17:641-3.
And dr. Smith (or anyone else) could try reading these two articles to quickly gain an appreciation of the clear writing above.
Only one is peer-reviewed, however, and I did not even partially author it... rats, there goes my chance at The Prize.
http://bialystocker.net/files/The_Sigmoidal_Curve_of_Cancer,__Nature_Bi…
http://bialystocker.net/files/How_aneuploidy..._BJ_1999.pdf
Harvey, I've read some of Duesberg's aneuploidy papers as well as the Nature Biotech. piece by you & Stock from 2003. I expect a fair number of cancer biologists are prepared to accept that genome instability is an important early event in malignant progression - why shouldn't they when there's tons of supporting data? But to argue that mutation has no role in initiating cancer makes no sense in my opinion when there are multiple childhood and adult cancers that arise at higher frequencies in individuals with certain genetic mutations, including genetic mutations that promote genome instability.
In any case neither mutation nor aneuploidy preclude a potential role for a virus.
bialy says:
You can request the more neutral term, you may find it more to your liking...but it is less accurate than "deniers", so why use it? A true "skeptic" would use the same standard of evidence for the HIV/AIDS connection that they would for any other similar connection. You don't. In addition, true skeptics would be equally as skeptical about the denial literature as they are the mainstream literature. I haven't seen much of that. Denialist arguments tend to accepted far less critically.
This was posted to appear immediately after GE's commnet, but for reasons having nothing to do with multiple links and glitches, it was held by the blog owner (whoever that is) although other comments obviously have not been. As usual, I have written DD's line's for him, and since as usual DD is a scholar of everything all at once and somehow knows what people in every field think, even though he has no field himself, and once again cannot distinguish a mechanistic cause from a vague cause, like a virus or smoking, I have presented below for those who can read, the proper citations that DD never provides, for any of his claims.
----------------
KW: Intersting you should mention continental drift in relation to Duesberrg's reformulation of cancer genetics.
"The close fit between the continents was obvious to everyone who looked at a world map since accurate maps existed; similarly, the association between aneuploidy and cancer has been obvious to everyone who studied it for more than 100 years. But just as continental drift was not taken seriously by most geophysicists until plausible mechanisms were worked out, most experts in recent decades have regarded aneuploidy as a side effect of cancer, rather than its cause.
If Peter Duesberg and David Rasnick (University of California, Berkeley) are right, however, aneuploidy is indeed the cause, and metabolic control analysis reveals why. Not only is the association between aneuploidy and cancer so close as to be virtually exact, but the predicted metabolic effect of over-expressing a large and arbitrary set of genes is just the collapse of normal regulation seen in cancer."
Cornish-Bowdin, A. Metabolic control analysis in biotechnology and medicine. Nat. Biotechnol. 17:641-3.
And dr. Smith (or anyone else) could try reading these two articles to quickly gain an appreciation of the clear writing above.
Only one is peer-reviewed, however, and I did not even partially author it... rats, there goes my chance at The Prize.
http://bialystocker.net/files/The_Sigmoidal_Curve_of_Cancer,__Nature_Bi…
http://bialystocker.net/files/How_aneuploidy..._BJ_1999.pdf
To gladden the hearts of the few who follow this blog, this is my last post, and it is only to say to anyone who might like to 'dispute the assertions' in the two articles above to do so through the proper scientific channels and write letters to the editors of the journals in which these 'assertions' were made, and take them to task.
I seem to recall a similar suggestion being made to myself and Dr. Duesberg, "more than somewhat", in the words of the Immortal Damon Runyon.
Precisely. Despite all the bluster and all the insults by Dr. Bialy, no matter if aneuploidy or oncogenes or some other mechanism are most important, that simply doesn't rule out the role of a virus.
And Harvey, just because I strongly disagree with you and haven't read your "opus" doesn't mean I'm unfamiliar with your work and your position. When I said I "suppose I'm flattered" you dropped by, it was because I thought I'd actually hear something interesting from you. Was that ever silly of me.
Dale sez:
I expect a fair number of cancer biologists are prepared to accept that genome instability is an important early event in malignant progression - why shouldn't they when there's tons of supporting data?
Ok, my friend Dale, that's a great start for some common ground.
A few questions, though:
1. Why did these cancer biologists take so long to see what was clear to Duesberg 15 years ago?
2. Why do all of Duesberg's grants still get denied by NIH?
3. Why do some authors -- even esteemed Harvard doctors -try slightly to jump on the aneuploidy bandwagon in Nature yet fail to cite Duesberg's seminal work on this issue?
If there is a near perfect correlation between tumors and aneuploidy,(and I believe there is, as I don't believe we see any diploid tumors) then it follows that aneuploidy is either: (a) a cause or (b) a consequence of carcinogenesis.
Why not design the necessary experiments to discern between (a) and (b), and then compare to the "gene mutation" theory, which hasn't gotten us anywhere for decades?
Recall, Dale, AIDS is a pussycat in the US(15K+ deaths/year), while cancer is the number 2 killer (500K+ deaths/year). So, similar indefensible tactics used to stifle Duesberg on AIDS, should not be used vis a vis cancer. There's too much at stake. Unlike AIDS, we all have a vested interest in disentangling the roots of cancer. (courtesy of Gibbs)
Good discussion,
Barnes
The Cancer Cult NOW has A New and Even More Educational (if that is possible) Curtain Call.
http://bialystocker.net/files/cancercult.pdf
I know, I lied (again), but in a good cause, and how could I let dr. Smith have the last word here, although she does there.
Maybe you could let her have the last word here, because it's her blog? That's one thing that I can't help wonder about - why do you feel it is within your right to keep insulting the host of the place you are commenting? You have done little else, and you certainly haven't addressed any of the many questions people have asked you.
Hank asks the following questions
1. Why did these cancer biologists take so long to see what was clear to Duesberg 15 years ago?
2. Why do all of Duesberg's grants still get denied by NIH?
3. Why do some authors -- even esteemed Harvard doctors -try slightly to jump on the aneuploidy bandwagon in Nature yet fail to cite Duesberg's seminal work on this issue?
If there is a near perfect correlation between tumors and aneuploidy,(and I believe there is, as I don't believe we see any diploid tumors) then it follows that aneuploidy is either: (a) a cause or (b) a consequence of carcinogenesis.
Why not design the necessary experiments to discern between (a) and (b), and then compare to the "gene mutation" theory, which hasn't gotten us anywhere for decades?
1. In my opinion what other cancer biologists are *seeing* is not what Duesberg is saying
2. As I've never read any of Duesberg's grants I have no idea why they're being denied funding.
3. I don't know any of the authors of the paper you link so I have no idea why they might not cite Duesberg, although it could be related to my answer to # 1.
Actually I have designed an experiment to test just what you're suggesting. Unfortunately, I don't have funds to perform it. But as its design required no great intellectual leaps on my part, perhaps someone else will perform it and publish the results. Personally I'd be surprised if it supported aneuploidy as *the* cause of cancer, but the possibility of being surprised is why I'd do it in the first place.
Blah blah Duesburg blahbity blah. low signal to noise ratio here folks...
I'm curious to have someone respond to what I posted (twice, oops!) about Otto Warburg...
it seems plausible to me that abberrent chromosomes could be a result of disruption of the mitchondrial function/symbiosis
Dale,
Actually I have designed an experiment to test just what you're suggesting.
Excellent! What is it?
Unfortunately, I don't have funds to perform it.
Hell, I'll loan you the cash, if it's a good test!
Personally I'd be surprised if it supported aneuploidy as *the* cause of cancer, but the possibility of being surprised is why I'd do it in the first place.
Why prejudge the results? Why be surprised? Make the hypothesis, then simply test it.
Hank
Dale,
This time *you* have done it. What have you done (besides return me to this tedious blog)? You have proved that you and I are not the same blog-writer becasue I never would have given my character such unbelievably pompous and idiotic lines as you just provided.
Hat's off. You have done this while still remaining totally anonymnous. How do you sign your grant applciations?
Is your experiment simpler and better than the one Stock and I discussed in our NBT commentary that you say you have read?
This is the relevant part:
"Of particular
significance is a paper published last year by
the Duesberg group3 that comes very close
to showing the existence of hitherto elusive,
stage-specific chromosomal combinations
(aneusomies). It does so by clearly demonstrating
that particular aneusomies appear
in nitrosomethylurea-transformed Chinese
hamster cells in vitro, and in tumors derived
from these cells in vivo, with a much higher
frequency than would be expected based on
random chromosome shuffling. For example,
79% of in vitro?transformed cells were
trisomic for chromosome 3, and 59% were
monosomic for chromosome 10; moreover,
52% of the transformed cells shared trisomy
3 and monosomy 10, much higher than the
0.6% expected if the aneusomies were the
result of random chromosomal imbalances."
I also retract, once and for all, all insinuation that you are a stooge of Tony the Paer Tyger. Not even Robert Gallo would have anything to do with you.
Dr. Bialy,
How would an aneuploidy theory of cancer explain the fact that plants don't get cancer?
Aneuploidy is quite common in plants. Triploids, hexaploids, allo-tetraploids,... Can all be found in your local grocery store, they are usually larger but very similar to their diploid cousins. None have cancer. If widescale disregulation of the genome because of aneuploidy causes cancer why don't aneuploid plants exhibit a disorder similar to cancer?
I would say that a gene theory of cancer can explain this by the fact that plant cell division is restricted to a very few specializes meristematic tissues. This would require that the necessary mutations occur in a very few undifferentiated cells of the meristem in order for cancer to occur in plants.
I suggest that epigenetic changes in gene regulation, which can be triggered by both aneuploidy and by mutation, are a more probable proximal cause of cancer in either a gene theory or an aneuploidy theory of cancer.
& por favor DD (even though I know my plea is useless)
do not say that I am BOTH pompous and idiotic in my posts.
Idiotic is a matter of opinion, but pompous no. I have merely laid out *some* of my credentials in the areas of professional scientific publications, HIV/AIDS scientific criticism, laboratory and personal long experience with endemic diseases in Africa, cited with hot-links all relevant publications, and apart from that had a good time...until recently.
What exactly have "you" (whoever you are) ever done?
PB
OK. I answer one last specific question set, in addition to the tens I have already answered.
Plants are polyploid not aneuploid. And for your information, the entire field of plant genetic engineering began with the isolation of Ti plasmids, you know...the ones that cause tumors.
I would agree with your last statement except for the very, very solid treatment in the article by Duesberg and Rasnick linked above, which formally precludes single (or even tens) of mutational changes in single genes from being an initator of genome instability ( almost the same as aneuploidy). The papers by Vogelstein and Lenauger et al which claim mutations in such genes are not solid. Don't take my word, read the papers.
Harvey asks: Is your experiment simpler and better than the one Stock and I discussed in our NBT commentary that you say you have read?
If you're referring to Duesberg et al ref 3 from your commentary then yes, I think so Harvey.
Hank, I would suggest that if you have $$$ available to fund research you should offer them to Dr. Duesberg whose approaches are likely to be more to your liking.
Sorry, an old habit, I never leave the classroom without a final, little question.
This time, thanks to PB.
More relvant to human cancer than the question of whether plants ever get it (whatever that might mean for a plant)is:
Why don't sharks?
Dale,
You drag me back screaming....
I offer to publish your experiment in the pages of NBT with an introduction that will be quite flattering (no sarcasm) to you.
That is, of course, if it passes editorial review as being worth the expensive number of words that the Duesberg et al. paper was deemed worthy of receiving.
Now this would seem to be an offer that cannot be refused, so why do I not only suspect, but know you will?
Harvey, as I explained to Hank; unlike Duesberg's experiment, this one hasn't been performed yet. I was taught that the appropriate place to submit proposed experiments is granting agencies, not journals.
Look you nitwit,
I am offering you a prestige publication of your great gedanken expt, in such a way as it is guaranteed (guarantted!) to attract funding, interest, and other goodies to your fledgling career as a sceitnist somewhere.
How can you refuse?
The examples I gave are of polyploidy, true. But aneuploidy is quite common as well. Some lines of wheat for instance:
http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=fulltext&file=CGR…
The tumors caused by Agrobacterium are in no way similar to human cancers. Nor are they aneuploid, so if they were cancers, and they aren't, that would still be a counter-example to an aneuploidy theory. They are also created by a very small peice of transforming DNA, similar to a retrovirus in size and less complex, yet produce a largescale change in the physiology and growth of transformed plant cells. You and Hank have earlier expressed skepticism that small relatively simple agents like viruses can produce complex phenomena like AIDS and cancer, clearly the right (or wrong) genes can wreak havoc despite a lack of genetic complexity.
I dispensed with following the math in the Rasnick & Duesberg paper but I did notice this:
"Their data clearly show that diploid and tetraploid
cells (2n ploidy) are the most stable, and triploid and hexaploid cells [3[2(nâ") ploidy] are the least stable (Figure 3) [78]. The HT29 colon-cancer-cell line, for example, has a modal number of 71 chromosomes, for a DNA indexر.5. The observed 50% genetic instability of the triploid HT29 cells [79] is due to the conØ©ct between the most economical production of translation products on the one hand and the maintenance of chromosomal balance on the other."
Which suggests we might expect polyploid plants: triploids (like bananas) and hexaploids (like strawberries) to exhibit genetic instabilities and cancers. They don't.
"I would agree with your last statement except for the very, very solid treatment in the article by Duesberg and Rasnick linked above, which formally precludes single (or even tens) of mutational changes in single genes from being an initator of genome instability ( almost the same as aneuploidy). The papers by Vogelstein and Lenauger et al which claim mutations in such genes are not solid. Don't take my word, read the papers."
I'll take a look at Duesberg's treatement again. The fact that epigenetic modifications lead to aneuploidy and aneuploidy leads to epigenetic modifications suggests that there will be a lot of chicken and egg here.
Dr. Bialy,
I think you just suffered a self-inflicted wound.
Sharks DO get cancer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/703082.stm
Proof-positive you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.
Shark Cartilage, Cancer and the Growing Threat of Pseudoscience
The promotion of crude shark cartilage extracts as a cure for cancer has contributed to at least two significant negative outcomes: a dramatic decline in shark populations and a diversion of patients from effective cancer treatments. An alleged lack of cancer in sharks constitutes a key justification for its use. Herein, both malignant and benign neoplasms of sharks and their relatives are described, including previously unreported cases from the Registry of Tumors in Lower Animals, and two sharks with two cancers each.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/23/8485
PB
An "A" response overall. B's in the first part, but an A++++ on the last!
Very well done. I am seriously impressed, and would like to carry on the discussion of plants/ploidies/mutation/epigenetic etc with you more privately. dr. Smith can supply my email address.
Funny enough, you turned out to make this whole aventura worthwhile. Thank you.
Harvey writes : How can you refuse?
This is one of the most nonsensical discussions that I've ever had with anyone. I can think of at least four reasons why I might refuse your *offer*. I might be seriously thinking about turning my experiment into a grant proposal. I might not believe that *you* are Harvey Bialy, NBT editor at all. I might not consider your offer sincere. Or I just be yanking your chain by lying about having an experiment.
Take your pick.
Harvey, weren't you leaving? I've written to both Anon II and KL re: questions and I'll have a post up tomorrow. This isn't a single-issue AIDS blog, and I'd appreciate if you stopped trying to make it so.
Posted by: Tara | March 2, 2006 10:44 AM
Yeah, I was but then you and your lawyers dragged me back.
This is now about free speech Ms. Smith.
Have fun defending your outrageous attempt at censorship.
BTW. There will very shortly (within mins after this posts) be a *new* version of The Cancer Cult that is much more forceful and compressed, and so far above any possible infringement on "fair use" that even your Ms. Dow will not be able to write me about it.
http://bialystocker.net/files/cancercult.pdf
Posted by: bialy | March 2, 2006 12:41 PM
LOL...I love the posturing Mr. Bialy.
"Free speech" indeed.
Hey Ms "no censorship"...The link to the NEW way-above-any law version of The Cancer Cult, which derives from this very string was deleted by you. Now nobody reading what Dave S. writes can understand him (and this time through no fault of his own)
http://bialystocker.net/files/cancercult.pdf
It was an exact repeat of what you said here. You're living in a strange world if it's "censorship" because I deleted a double-post of yours.
[Edited: hell, since it's that big of a deal to you, I restored it.]
The thing that mystifies me is that Bialy thinks that his bllog/books reflect badly on every one else apart from himself.
Perhaps his justification for being rude and obnoxious is that he has the strong conviction that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
Not on "everybody" else Chris. And the "bllog/books" present people in "their own words", na mas. Context, like timing, is everything.
You judge. Or more to the point, thousands of others already have and will (check the usage stats at "bialy/s").
And even more importantly, there is now a much easier to read edition, with new notes at
http://bialystocker.net/files/cancercult.pdf
OK, not everbody. You apparently think people that agree with you come out smelling like roses.
If you were interested in context you could just provide a link. Of course people reading it would miss out on your charming editorial.
Why not post a link to the thread that discusses the Padian study (the one that accoridng to you "demonstrated so well that sexually transmitted HIV was a figment")?
People can read it and judge your contribution to the discussion - zero.
A few questions about Karposi's sarcoma from an earlier post.
"I came across an article that might be of interest to people here (it mentions Duesberg as well) - Proof Positive - How African Science Has Demonstrated That HIV Causes AIDS (from 2000).--Posted by: Kristjan Wager | February 27, 2006 03:59 PM
I read in the article about "a no-nonsense cancer surgeon named Anne Bayley had also seen this new type of KS--13 patients in 1983, eight of whom were dead by the end of that year. She was virtually certain it was related to the new disease that was killing American gay men"
Are there now 2 kinds of Karposi's? Hasn't another virus (not HIV) been discovered that causes at least one kind of Karposi's? If another virus causes Karposi's, why was it a disease in the AIDS constellation?
In response to: Is this a joke? These morons are claiming that prostate cancer is now an infectious disease?
Posted by: Hank Barnes | February 24, 2006 5:01 PM
After all maybe the moron is Mr. Barnes himself! Look at "The Nation's Investment in Cancer Research FY 2010 ... AN ANNUAL PLAN AND BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010" -> "FOLLOWING IMPORTANT LEADS" -> "Infectious Etiology" http://plan.cancer.gov/Infectious_Etiology.htm
Scientists in the NCIâs Infections and Immunoepidemiology Branch are using principles of both infectious and chronic disease epidemiology to investigate .... sexually-transmitted viruses that may cause prostate cancer.
After hitting on the topic of sexy scientists earlier in the week, this one is kind of the flip side. I probably don't need to tell this audience that a lot of biology ain't exactly glamorous. Sure, there are biologists...