[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Low dose stimulation produces immunity to cancer



Jim,

Rather than posting more links, please answer my questions regarding the

image at http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Figures/Docs/MP98_fig19.gif.  What is the

source of this picture?  What is the "science" that supports your claims

based on this study?  Let us stick to the current level of knowledge, not

digging up studies that were produced at the beginning of the last century?

Several years ago, we had a discussion of low dose whole body irradiation,

which I found interesting.  At that time you asked for an AAPM report on

total and half body photon irradiation, which I supplied.  In the article

"The Immunobiology of Low-Dose Total Body Irradiation:  More Questions than

Answers," Rad Research 153:599-604 (2000) by Akmal Safwat, that YOU gave me,

it was stated in the abstract "Data from humans, though sparse, suggest that

at least some of these mechanisms occur in patients treated with low-dose

TBI.  Whether these immunomodulatory effects are responsible for the

clinical outcome is unclear."  



Again, my questions are:



	"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.

. . .



	"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.

. . .

Sorry of the lenght of this posting and need to repeat my questions.



-- John 

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist 

3050 Traymore Lane

Bowie, MD  20715-2024



E-mail:  jenday1@email.msn.com (H)      



-----Original Message-----

From: Muckerheide [mailto:muckerheide@attbi.com]

Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 8:47 AM

To: John Jacobus; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Re: Low dose stimulation produces immunity to cancer





on 10/27/02 11:55 AM, John Jacobus at jenday1@MSN.COM wrote:



> Jim, Jim, Jim,

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

> YOUR conclusions?



No. Because you don't show any understanding of the science.



For those who are interested in the science before "the demise of a

legitimate hypothesis" (in Ed Calabrese's "kind" published words) in the

1930s, you can see also Pusey in "Science," 1911:

. . .

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

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/