[ RadSafe ] cancer is the result of defective tissue/immunecontrol

John Jacobus crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 7 10:19:30 CDT 2006

You really should give me more credit for giving you a
soapbox for your interpretation of biology.  I also
gives you a chance to rail against those who dare to
question your views.  I am always amazed at the number
of groups that have conspired against you.  You had to
even go back to 1936 to find a report.

As always, not all that follows in your post in
relevant to the original discussion.

My point was that the cancers are seldom if ever
attacked by the body's own immune system. 
Consequently, medicine is looking at other therapies. 
For example Herceptin (Trastuzumab) a recombinant
humanized monoclonal antibody was been recruited to
deliver chemotherapy drugs to the HER2 receptor that
is overexpressed in breast cancers. There is no
evidence that the body's own immune system targets the
HER2 receptor.  This is the future of cancer

--- "Muckerheide, Jim  (CDA)"
<Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us> wrote:

> That's great John.  
> You see that radiation-induced cancer is NOT caused
> by DNA damage.
> Also, that the biological responses of low vs. high
> doses are different (essentially "opposite").  They
> are discontinuous in health effects (as low as 20-30
> rem for acute dose ratse - for some cancers, but
> then not usually for total-cancers - so is that
> significant "health effect")?  
> At the low dose rates, the biological responses are
> those that explicitly stimulate factors that
> perform/enhance "error-free" repair, including
> immune cells and functions, and other damage
> response and repair mechanisms, especially key
> enzymes.  At higher doses, different genes and other
> factors respond, with opposite responses (stimulated
> vs, suppressed, or vice versa) by a subset of genes
> and other factors.
> Cancer is the result of failure to repair damage in
> tissues, not of damaged cells (much less DNA), of
> which moderate to high doses make a small
> contribution to normal metabolic damage, including
> double strand breaks.
> This was the basis of the letter from the DOE
> Director of the Office of Science to the President
> of the NAS stating that the BEIR VII Committee had
> failed to take into account the current knowledge of
> radiation effects. Indeed, BEIR VII just
> regurgitated much irrelevant and discredited data,
> while obfuscating some relevant data, and simply
> ignoring the voluminous actual data, as always,
> since 1935-36. (We can identify more than 3000 data
> sources, since 1896, while there are essentially NO
> confirmed sources supporting the LNT.  There are
> few, perhaps less than a dozen, nominally relevant,
> confirmed, results that are claimed to support the
> LNT.  These are like Alice Stewart's claim that
> fetal x-rays caused increases in childhood cancer,
> which is of dubious significance even if it were
> true. But this was from interview recollections of
> x-rays which are subject to bias by people
> with adverse consequences vs. those who did not.
> This is claimed to be confirmed by McMahon in
> Boston, with a similarly uncertain study.  However,
> more definitive studies. e.g., a cohort in Chicago
> in which all women were x-rayed without medical
> indication to bias selection "for cause" which would
> clearly tend to refute low doses as a possible cause
> of health effects. We sent several hundred refs and
> made a presentation, as did Ed Calabrese, without
> any substantial assessment of the data.) 
> These committees are the equivalent of people who
> would claim that apples can fall UP, and claim that
> 'we really don't know what makes gravity work' so we
> can't really know that they don't just because we
> haven't seen them.  But they would "recommend"
> putting nets over all the orchards in order to
> protect us from losing apples until the research can
> be certain one way or the other.  
> Of course, they would then claim that apples falling
> up may be "tunneling" through the net "barrier." 
> They could say, with a straight face, that it was
> because of DNA damage - wait, that is, "it's because
> the core of the earth is magnetic, and some apple
> seeds in the apple core (which are also magnetic,
> which make the apple fall) can change polarity,
> causing the apple to be ejected into outer space so
> fast that it is never seen." Of course they would be
> working for the net-makers who use these researchers
> to get the king to provide more funding for
> "research"and radiation protection - that is,
> "netting the orchards" with thousands of square
> miles of nets (with public funds to "protect
> society" from the possibility of losing apples -
> with the danger that some apples could come back to
> earth with enough energy to kill somebody :-). 
> The government has done this since FDA got a
> "scientist" to write a report, which they got funded
> through the NAS in 1935-36, to claim that there was
> no stimulation by low doses. (This primarily
> addressed plants, since she was a botanist!? She had
> conducted large experiments in the early '30s that
> she claimed had failed to see stimulation - Edna
> Johnson at U. Colo.) She  did not apply the work of
> her own thesis advisor (Duggar, at U. Wisc.) or
> substantial work that had gone on since before 1900,
> with a major compilation of the data in 1908 (by
> Gager, 2 papers) which was adopted as still the
> definitive study on plants by Richards in a
> substantial cover article in "Science," Sep 3, 1915,
> on "the physiological effects of radiation" in which
> low vs. high doses were addressed.
> Murphy, and others, showed in testing immune
> response for suppressing cancer (e.g., in the PNAS,
> 1920, for physical treatments, i.e., heat and
> radiation) that, for radiation, 'at higher doses
> lymphocytes were suppressed compared to controls'
> (and cancers increased), but 'when the dose was
> further reduced, suddenly the lymphocytes were
> stimulated compared to controls' (which caused
> cancer to be REDUCED compared to controls, with
> irradiation either before or after injection of
> cancer cells). 
> In a later paper, another author
> (blank-at-the-moment, 1925, J. Exp. Med. :-) stated
> in his first paragraph that the claim that the
> effects of low doses are simply a lesser response to
> the effects at high doses had been shown (by Murphy
> and others) to be in error by showing that the
> effects at low doses are different/opposite, and
> discontinuous, compared to the effects at high
> doses.
> And, of course, this is what recent microarray
> analysis of thousands of genes and other factors
> shows (although without the animals/health effects
> results, carefully reducing the ability to make
> subsantial conclusions on health effects), plus the
> thousands of experiments, including that original
> work at Rockefeller University, and the work of
> hundreds of experimenters over the intervening
> decades. This especially includes Liu at the Norman
> Bethune Medical School (now incorporated in Jilin
> University) in Changchun China. (He was formerly the
> university president there, and he was a researcher
> in the premier AEC radiobiology research program at
> Rochester.) And now the work by several
> experimenters in Liu's lab, and in labs supported by
> the DOE Low Dose Research Program.  
> Of course, such results in the past have simply, and
> continuously, been ignored by the closed cabal of
> well-funded/rewarded reviewers that control the
> radiation research funding and academic and
> government appointments, who write the BEIR Reports,
> the NCRP and ICRP reports, fill agency Advisory
> Committees and contracts for "studies" of radiation
> health effects "consequences," etc.  
> Of course, this excludes the researchers doing the
> substantial immunologically-whole animal low-dose
> research (who can even be on some committees, but
> fear retribution by speaking out too much, and/or
> are seeking advancement in their "chosen
> profession.")  Norm Frigerio told me around 1978
> that "We no longer get 'the best and the brightest'
> coming into radiobiology research. Most of them see
> what it takes to succeed while doing graduate
> research, and decide to do something else with their
> interests and skills. And we get the people who see
> what it takes to succeed (in the AEC-funded
> programs), and (unfortunately) chose to 'play the
> game,' to make it their career.
> As I've reported before, I had the (good?, or
> dubious?) fortune, following a meeting when we were
> addressing AEC Part 50 App D and App I regulations,
> to sit in on a discussion between a senior AEC
> official and a senior Oak Ridge scientist, with my
> boss, a recently retired former AEC official. These
> guys shared experiences about people at Oak Ridge
> (and elsewhere) "who were given other things to do"
> when they wanted to pursue the beneficial effects of
> low dose radiation. A 1961 (May?) paper by Hugh
> Henry (who was at Oak Ridge at the time) in the J,
> of the Amer. Med. Assoc. Art Upton, at Oak Ridge,
> tried to keep him from publishing the paper, and the
> editor at JAMA, in correspondence with Marshall
> Brucer, said he had to decide to "take on" those
> arrogant "people" to decide to publish the paper
> "anyway."
> The results refuting the LNT had especially been
> demonstrated in work during the Manahattan Project,
> under Bob Stone, i.e., by Miriam Finkle, Egon
> Lorenz, and others.  See Lorenz' work in the
> voluminous 1954 McGraw-Hill series on Manhattan
> Project science (Vol. 22F? or some such letter? :-).
>  See also his late-'40s and 1950, etc., papers where
> he had already obfuscated those results.  He had
> also eliminated the lower doses in similar post-war
> work. He dropped the 0.044 r/day group, starting at
> 0.11 r/day - 40 r/year.  This also resulted in
> longer life spans, but tis was ignored by drawing a
> straight line through the data.  There were lifetime
> doses up to 2,000 r and 2,500 r, with no adverse
> health effects, generally normal litters, and longer
> mean lifespans. Nevertheless, he stated in papers
> that 'any dose is likely to have adverse effects.' 
> Lorenz worked for NCI.  Suppressing the low-dose
> radiation 
=== message truncated ===

e to the x, dy dx, e to the x, dx
Tangent, Secant, Cosine, Sine
Square Root, Cuberoot, udv
Slipstick, slideroot

Cheerleaders chant from my old undergraduate college.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the RadSafe mailing list