Oh dear - immune system doesn't fight cancer - article

Public Archive
21

I think the theory that we have cancer cells floating round our system all the time, and our immune system keeps them under check is a very good question, Johns Hopkins explanation on this is Cancer is a genetic disease resulting from a variety of mutations and alterations either inherited from our parents or, more commonly, acquired over time due to environmental exposures and behaviors, such as smoking and poor diet. These alterations turn off important cell growth regulators allowing cells to continually divide unchecked, explains Luis Diaz, a clinician-scientist in Ludwig Center for Cancer Genetics. This type of cell is called a malignant or cancer cell. Among the trillions of cells in the human body, inevitably everyone has some abnormal or atypical cells that possess some of the characteristics of cancer cells, most resolve themselves and never result in cancer, says Diaz. But, while evasive cancer cells are a challenge and the focus of ongoing research, it does not mean, that all patients, even those treated successfully for cancer, have cancers-in-waiting—undetectable but still there.

Hi lizzyspain, think your onc is proberly very wise advising his patients against googleing,unfortunately there is lots of very conflicting/questionable information out there.

Linda

22

Thanks Cornishgirl. The curious thing though is, how does the sitation resolve? I mean if the immune system doesn’t deal with the cancer cells that everyone seems to have floating around their system, what does? Something must stop them, otherwise everyone would have cancer, or are the cancers self limiting I wonder?
Trouble is the scientific community can’t seem to make up their mind. Some say the immune system is irrelevent because the immune system doesn’t recognise cancer cells as foreign, and in anycase cancer manipulates micro-rna (the cell reproduction system), and lox enzymes to spread round the body. On the other side are scientists like Dean Ornish who goes so far to say that diet can prompt the immune system to attack cancer cells (he apparently did some research with prostate cancer patients). In the middle are those, like the Cancer Institute (who Melarks provided a link to), who say that sometimes the immune system suppresses cancer, and sometimes it doesn’t.
Lots of conflicting scientific views, and difficult to reach a conclusion.

23

Hi Lemongrove ,
But the question is does everybody have cancer cells floating around there body?
From what ive read, pretty much the same as Johns Hopkins explanation is inevitably everyone has some “abnormal or atypical” cells it does not mean there are “cancers-in-waiting” these cells will mostly resolve themselves because the process of damage needed to turn a abnormal or atypical cell into a malignat cancer is very complex and it is only when the DNA of a cell comes unrepairabily damaged that a cancer forms.

ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/index.html?quid=616

info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerandresearch/all-about-cancer/what-is-cancer/making-new-cells/

I dont think it is nessessarily correct to assume that we “all have cancer cells” floating around the body . so that may be a bit of a misconception.

“This is only my opinion though and i may be wrong lol” (good disclaimer) but i cant speak for Johns Hopkins or cornell as that is their opinion.

Linda

24

Thank you for this thread - I am relying on your analysis of the research studies as I can’t get my head round them, so its great to read about it. I have stopped googling as a) there are so many conflicting theories - and they are sometimes presented as ‘fact’ and b) the info is too dense for my poor brain, - but that doesn’t mean I’m not interested in the debates. Will read with interest
m xx

25

Hi Lemongrove Hi Linda you both made good points there & ive been pondering over this today
Lemongrove what you said about if our immune doesn’t stop them then what does ? excactly what I was asking myself today … something MUST as Linda said " Do we all have cancer floating around our bodies"? from what ive read up on we all have billions of cells in our bosies that goe through birth, living, dying process & anyone of these cells has the potential to become/turn cancerous … same as a person with unhealthy diets/ living may never get cancer yet another in the same category might … same with 2 people on a 'healthy balanced diet who excercise regular blah blah & all that one may get cancer & one maynot I think we all agree so much much more has to be learnt & researched.

Although I personally like the theory that there is a big difference between a ‘healthy balanced diet’ & 'healthy balanced diet that includes eliminating all the c*ap from our diets that we never used to have many years ago ?? Yes there was still cancer back then but if you look at the studies from say 1940’s to NOW the increased rates are ten fold & quite frightening Yes its not just diet we live with much more stress polution we dont get the ‘clean’ air & excersise we used to so I tend to think it has to be these factors over all the years that have cause the high rise in cancer patients & prehaps just prehaps the way we have evolved there might be something in our immune systems that just don’t work right ? YET for some it must do (those that never develop a cancer) so maybe they still carry a ‘good’ DNA from their relatives all those decades ago ? who knows !

Just a thought

Mekala

26

Isnt the imune system the soldiers floating round in our system looking out for invaders, anything that is not part of us and it recognises as a threat. Viruses, bacteria, pollen,etc.

I thought that cancer is part of us. It is one of our cells that copied the DNA a bit wrong when dividing and so the imune system does not see it as a threat.

However I also understood that in a healthy body another system altogether is constantly checking that cells are dividing properly and correcting bad copies of cells, or telling them to die if they dont like them and if this system goes wrong a cancer cell can manage to live.

But then I thought that all cells comunicated with each other, and so evan if a cancer cell manages to survive, the cells round it keep it in check and stop it growing any more. I understood that we all could have this sort of cancer cell somewhere in our body, either as a primary cancer, or as a secondary cell that managed to escape from a primary tumer before it was treated. These cells can survive but not harm us for decades if the other cells are healthy, but stress, hormone changes illness, etc can compromise the surrounding cells and allow the dormant cancer to develop.

It could be that having a good imune system helps keep your body healthy and in better shape to keep cancer in check, but it does not itself fight against it

27

Hi Cornishgirl, thanks for the explanation, that clarifies things for me. Actually went for a check up with the Prof today, and he confirmed that the immune system is totally irrelevant in BC, because cancer manipulates the system.
But there are unexplained things. I was reading a book by Dr David Servan Schreiber, who believes that the immune system can hold cancer in check/get rid of it, and that this can be achieved by improving lifestyle. Anyway, he mentions a woman who sadly acquired secondary cancer from a kidney that was transplanted into her. Apparently when they looked into the history of the donor, they found he had been diagnosed with a skin cancer 18 years previously, and because there had been no progression he was deemed to be cancer free (and was therefore able to donate). Dr Schreiber dedused from this that the donors immune system must have held the cancer in check, but then when the kidney was transplanted into the recipient, the cancer kicked off. I guess from what you have said, the immune system of the recipient had nothing to do with it, and it was just a case of the cancer becoming active for some reason. Just goes to show how misleading it can be when people put a particular slant on things.

28

perhaps as the kidney came from a man it did not have much oestrogen to feed off, but once it was given to a woman it got all it needed to develop.

Or perhaps it was a bit of a shock for the kidney to be transplanted and so it was weak and not able to keep the cancer in check.

who knows??

29

I must admit i tend to steer well clear of any Anti-Cancer Books out there, most people who write these books have a vested interest, and they do tend to make a very lucritive living out of them.

Take Jane Plant for instance, i think shes now on her 7th book? and apparently can help cure anything from cancer to depression, thing is JP studies “rocks” for a living for goodness sake!.

Antedotal reports should never (in my opinion) be taken as proof as they are just that “antedotal” but i think a lot of people can be swayed by them especialy when they are vulnerable or very frightened.

Apart from the immune system theory being pretty much debunked i think, did Dr David Servan Schreiber mention in his book what type of skin cancer this chap had? if it was a melanoma for instance,the most common places for any melanoma cells to set up a secondry home are usealy in the Lungs,Liver,Bones,Brain,or Abdomen so a “acquired” Kidney Secondry Cancer given to a Lady from a former “Skin” cancer Patient would be extreamly unusal i would have thought as a first choice (kidney) from a secondry Skin Cancer?, then again if it was a non melanoma skin cancer more than 90 out of every 100 people (90%) with basal cell cancer are cured anyway,think the cure rate is even higher if caught early.
(hope im not confusing anyone now lol)its been a long day.

Perhaps of course another explanation for this lady the “recipient” of the Kidney Secondry Cancer was that no site of origin could be found for the primary in her?
(a metastasis of unknown origin)? it happens.

Its all too easy for people to put their own slant on things sometimes i think, but i guess stories like these can also give more creidence to the books .

“This is only my opinion/thoughts though and i may be wrong”

Linda

Edited to add, that sadly ive just read on the forums that David Servan-Schreiber has recently died of cancer which is very sad to hear.

30

Hiya Makalar,
Its so bloomin confusing sometimes isnt it, like you i bet we’ve all been pondering about all this stuff today.
I remember when i first joined the forums back in 2007,and first started looking into all this stuff re possible/probable links with BC (lots of these debates back then too as you can imagine ) i certainly found it a minefield back then and think i still do now,not much has changed i have to say since then though and i still dont think we are any nearer knowing “What” causes/contributes to BC but maybe one day they will prove some other connections.

First when i joined on here and i was new to BC, i thought like some on here it might be that Milk/Dairy/ had a connection with BC because of the possible oestrogens ,then i thought Pesticides ect ,then i thought it could be deordorants/Parabens after Dr Philippa Darbre from redding university published a study about parabens being found on ALL 20 of the breast tumours that were removed in the study,then i came accross and was frightened to death with the “Safe Cosmetics Campagin” with all the chemicals/endocrine disruptors ect in our make up/creams/lotions and potions ect,then i read a lot about the possible “virus” connection with BC especialy “The mouse mammary tumor virus,” (MMTV)and and Epstein-Barr (EBV) virus which are the 2 main possible suspects in that theory.
AND,then i must admit and it is proberly the ONE theory that still holds the MOST creidence for me after now excluding the usual culprits that i think are very unlikely in this list of mine and that of course is
“Xenoestrogens” and i think they proberly do play a HUGE role in cancer development but unfortuneately as we are all surrounded with them in our daily/living enviroment its not so easy to avoid them though you can definately try to reduce some of them .

A while ago myself and quite a few of the other ladies on here kicked around a few ideas into what we though could be possible links between certain stuff and BC,and it turned into a very interesting debate, we all compared notes ect on DX/background and it was great to get everybodys ideas/thoughts and imput ,think most of us enjoyed tossing all the ideas around and we all learnt a lot of new stuff too. If your want to have a read of that thread it was called “Breast Cancer The Bigger Picture”(i was Lindiloo then lol) think you can still proberly find it in the Living With Breast Cancer Section if your interested.

I agree though ,It is certainly a minefield , i was also thinking about what you said earlier about the much higher cancer incidence rates these days? i do agree with you on that but then again dont you think early screening for BC that we have available today and of course the general population liveing much longer nowadays is going to be quite a big contributer to the higher rates too? i know CRUK recently published something on their science update blog about this question.

Not sure if youve ever read the State Of The Evidence Sixth Edition 2010 report from the The Breast Cancer Fund ,but if you want to find out more about “Xenoestrogens” also and “THE CONNECTION BETWEEN BREAST CANCER AND THE ENVIRONMENT” it certainly is worth a read.

breastcancerfund.org/assets/pdfs/publications/state-of-the-evidence-2010.pdf

Certainly seems to be lots for us all to think about!

Anyway,hope your doing ok and are keeping well.
Linda x

31

there has been some discussion about recent high cancer rates one here. Are there figures to show what age group the increase is in ?

it just seems to me, as a gut instinct not backed by statistcs, that more young women seem to be getting cancer. But perhaps the percentage is not going up but the numbers are. There are so many more young women around after the 70/80’s baby boom. (i think in cancer terms young is 45).

Just an idea

32

O&L I agree it would be interesting to find out, because one of the theories is that cancer is not increasing, it’s just that more are being detected - but the thing is young women are not routinely screened are they ? If breast cancer rates are increasing amongst young women, while detection has not improved, it might indicate that there is a genuine increase (I’m not a scientist of course, so this is just me putting forward my own thoughts).

33

just to comment on cornishgirl, It seems to me that cancer is a multifaced disease and not one single factor develops a dx. Thats why I am a strong believer in a holistic view taking in environment,diet, exercise, spiritual and emotional aspects. We are so far removed from natural living now and as you say are in contact daily with xenoestrogens which play a part in weakening immune systems.
I think that is why we have a greater rise in cancers now, it is the disease of modern living

34

yes but i think a lot of cancer is detected in the shower. I think oldies like me have the slow growing cancers that screening can pick up, but younger women have the faster growing more agressive type. and the are more aware nowadays

35

Hi girls . so much to think about for sure, OAL I think your right there seems to me to be a huge increase in the ladies in their 20, 30 mostly slighter increase in the 40’s group 50 + groups are higher than previous years but it tends to be the younger women whos increases have soared each time i visited the clinic I felt old as there seemed to be more of the younger women in their 20’s & 30’s … again I think this has a BIG question mark on diet & lifestyle, for instance am I the only one who has noticed (especuially past 25 years) how much taller girls & boys are most of my daughters (who is small like me) friends tower over me they are like 5ft 10’ & above her 3 closests friends are 6ft + I remember the secondry school kids coming in where I worked during lunch time 20 years ago & all my collegues used to say the same thing “what do their mothers feed them nowadays” ?

Im with a group of ladies that do a prayer circle for children with cancer for 2 years now & seen numorous reports from parents involving research in the USA into childhood cancers which again has rocketed over the past 20 years & the petitions from desperate parents to the food manufacturers to eliminate the very high levels of sugars, artifical sweetners & preserves in foods that are constantly advertised with the main aim of atracting the younger generations, ask any one of these parents their thoughts & they all say the same thing its the c*ap that foods are laced (SUGAR being the biggest factor) with even down to the ‘baby’ foods available now classed as ‘pure’ are far from it.

it does make you think

36

OAL I thought you had a grade 3 ? I know several older ladies that have the more aggressive, I don’t see that there are more ‘slow’ growing cancers in the elder groups ? I could be wrong

37

Thanks Linda thats a very interesting report
hope your keeping well too xx

38

no, the oncologist (or the person dictating the results over the phone) got it wrong, when the report finally came through it was grade 2. That makes more sense given that they are not recommending chemo.

I got the comment about older people more normally having slow growing cancer from Susan Loves book.

39

I was 55 at diagnosis (as the result of a routine mammogram)so probably count as an older person! Mine was very aggressive, grade 3 and HER positive and I know several others of a similar age diagnosed with very aggressive cancer, but also some with grade 1 or grade 2. It would be interesting to know any statistics.
Anne

40

Hi,
This is CRUKs artical of possible explanations of things that have contributed to the increased cancer rates seen today.

scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/02/04/why-are-breast-cancer-rates-increasing/

Linda