Re: Low dose stimulation produces immunity to cancer

["John Jacobus" <jenday1@MSN.COM>]

Jim, Jim, Jim,

Why do you doubt that I read what is posted?  Because I do not agree with

YOUR conclusions?  I read the whole article when I can, and not just the

abstract or filtered summary you send to try and convince me of your

political position.  Actually, I find many of the articles intriguing and

enjoy the challenge of analysing the material critially.  (Unfortunately, I

do not read any foreign languages, and have other projects at home and work

that take up my time.  But I try to respond as quickly possible.)



First and foremost, why do you think that it was the patient's own immune

system that reduced the size of the tumor?  Just because there is a immune

response to the whole body radiation, does that automatically mean that the

reduction in tumor was due to the immune response?  Could it have been the

result of the RADIATION?  While the tumor may have been outside of the

primary bean, the tumor may have exposed to scatter radiation, which would

depend on the energy and collimation of the field.  (Of course, this makes

me wonder about the set up.  Generally, you shield the lungs to reduce the

chance of radiophemonitis and not the head during whole and half body

irratiation.)  And, no, I do not think it was a transplanted tumor.  That

would be silly.



By the way, why to you point out that radiation is not a drug?  Who said it

was?  Are you suggesting that there is a conspiracy not to use radiation by

the medical community?  If that is the case, I can assure you that use of

radiation, surgery and drugs all have their place in cancer treatment.

However, for different types of cancers one, different combinations work

better than others.  And there are continual evaluations being make on

treatment modalities.



As for the use of heat in cancer treatment, I don't think that diathermia

has been shown to be useful in the treatment of many kinds of cancer.  I

know it has been used to try and dilate solid tumors, which suffer from

hypoxyia, to allow cancer drugs and monoclonial antibody therapy agents to

enter the tumor volume.



I can give you some ideas on what I considered when looking at this image.



1.  What type of tumor was it?  Was it the same type as that one being

treated that appeared at a different site?  If the primary cancer was

sensitive to low dose, dose rate irradiation, so would occurances at

secondary sites as long as it had become malignant.



2.  If is was of a different type, was the tumor malignant of benign?  As a

different tumor type, what type and stage was it at?



3. Was the tumor complete destroyed or just reduced?  There is a limit to

the resolution of CT imaging, and it may only have been reduced in volume,

but I assume there would have been some mention of this in any patient

follow-up studies.  That is why PET is becoming popular in determining

cancer staging and success of colon cancer surgery.



4.  How would you demonstrate that the immune system was destroying the

tumor?  Again, the immune system does respond to stress, like heat as well

as high doses of irraditation.  This is the distinction between a casual and

causal effect.



Unfortunatey, I think your mission to show the benefits of hormesis are

clouding your ability to critically judge them.



And, again, have a good weekend.  And keep sending those interesting

articles.



-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

3050 Traymore Lane

Bowie, MD 20715-2024

jenday1@email.msn.com (H)

****************************

on Fri, 25 Oct 2002 21:12:23 -0400

Muckerheide wrote:

----------------------

Wrong John,



You have seen humans treated/cured of cancer in papers provided to you here

on the list numerous times. You should read them. Did you forget, e.g., this

example?  http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Figures/Docs/MP98_fig19.gif



Do you think this is an implanted tumor!? (The immune cells could be seen

destroying the tumor tissue in the later stages of these cases. BUT, it's

not used or researched. It's not a DRUG!)



Heating is ALSO good. That ALSO stimulates the immune system. It is

especially effective combined with radiation. The combination is used for

treatment to cure cancer in Japan, with some good results, often over

several months. Many can't stand the heat! :-)



But it's also not a DRUG!



Jim





on 10/25/02 3:15 PM, Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS) at jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov

wrote:



> Jim,

> As a researcher told me, we can cure cancer in mice. In humans we have

> problems.  It is very common knowledge that transplanted tumors, or other

> tissues are rejected by the body.  That is why transplant patients are

given

> anti-rejection drugs. That is also why bone-marrow transplant patients are

> given whole body irradiation to destroy their own bone marrow before the

> transplant.   This study shows that that stimulating the immune system

> increases the rejection of transplanted tissue.  I would have guessed as

> much.  The problem is that stimulating the immune system does very little,

> if anything, to destroy one's own cancer cells.

>

> It is interesting that the other mode of increasing lymphocytes is to

raise

> the animal's body temper. It was known for the days of the ancient Greeks

> that fevers, in response to an infection, often lead to recovery of the

> patient.  What do I find interesting is that heating gives a better

response

> than x-rays (59.4% to 50%)!  Maybe we should all take a hot bath before

> getting cancer.



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/