Re: [pyrnet] Cancer

[JGentzel@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/16/2002 9:06:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, bamb@monmouth.com writes:

> ", but then many things on the "cutting edge" have been disproven as well. IMO, the statement is still only perhaps true in the broadest generalization. Which to me, seems that it has no real bearing on the subject of cancers and their cause. Cancers are, (or at least are believed to be) mutated cells in the body. Environmental causes for such mutations have been proven. Heritable perhaps, in that cancer only occurs in living organisms. <G> JMO. 


When we are on the threshold of having vaccines for certain cancers, that might open up our minds to such thoughts.  No one is saying that environment, diet, etc., does not play a role, but we need to acknowledge the genetics behind much of this as well, otherwise it is difficult or impossible to explain why some do and do not get these things.  Would not it be great for us all to develop some treatment or procedure to prevent these from occurring or at least decrease their incidence?  Understand, I am not saying the other variables are not very important as well.  In the end we just do not know enough, any of us.  Which carries the greatest promise for substantial success i.e. identification of environmental specific causative factors including diet (This would carry the need to eliminate or clean them up once identified with certainty) or some natural defense carried in the genetic makeup of organisms?  Clearly both will be necessary in some measure, but I suspect in the end the scientists will give us more results than the politicians.  

Right now I think I will listen acutely to the researchers in the centers doing the research than what we, the lay public, generally thinks may be occurring.

Joe