Cancer. It all comes down to bad luck?

[Tony64]

Not sure how to feel about this...

"A new Science study by a team at Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center has concluded that up to 66 percent of all cancer-causing mutations are the direct consequence of entirely random DNA replication errors.

The study suggests that most cancers are unavoidable, they're just part of nature, caused more often by bad luck than anything else. Mutation, which drives cancer, is actually totally normal. In fact, its the engine of evolution--if not for mutation, our genes wouldn't make the random changes that once in a while end up giving us a new, important skill--like making enzymes that break down lactose, or resistance to disease."

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ndom-bad-luck/

[AzPaul]

I find some comfort in the randomness.

[Busyboy]

Book marked

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by AzPaul

I find some comfort in the randomness.

I think I do as well. It becomes more a part of life, less adversarial.
It just ... is.

[KrismanX]

C'est la vie. I can find peace in random. Might still avoid the crazy food stuffs as much as possible...

[thejerseyrock]

Randomness, could be, but also genetics combined with lifestyle, no?

[rdigate]

There is absolutely nothing new about that finding. The enzymes that replicate our DNA all have an inherent error rate. This error rate would result in too many errors when completely replicating our DNA so our cells have also developed multiple pathways to correct mutations made by our replication enzymes and other external factors such as mutagens. That being said some mutations have to occur or we wouldn't evolve. I wouldn't call it exactly luck but a failure of potentially many "correction" systems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[swils8610]

Interesting. Seems that if you live long enough you wind up getting cancer at some point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[tamiya]

Originally Posted by Tony64

"A new Science study by a team at Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center has concluded that up to 66 percent of all cancer-causing mutations are the direct consequence of entirely random DNA replication errors.

Sure is, no disagreement there.

Some things do hasten mutation though... ask Peter Parker or the Ninja Turtles.

On the same track would be "The is No Cure for cancer!!" because it's all your own cells not some foreign invasive bug. No easy way to filter out which cells you want & which you don't.

You can cut it out, nuke it, slow its mutation growth etc etc... but IMHO all dreams of simply popping a pill to fix all damage is totally unrealistic... unless humans can harness the ability to naturally regrow a new limb or organ.

[Etschell]

mostly genetic.

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by thejerseyrock

Randomness, could be, but also genetics combined with lifestyle, no?

Not the way I understood the article. Apparently it's just random, at least 66% of the time.

No guilt, nothing and no one to blame. Not lifestyle choices - just random.

Now about that other 33% ...

[BristolCavendish]

Bad luck + certain genetic predispositions. Two direct relatives (aunts) died of lung cancer yet never smoked a day in their lives. On the other hand, I recall being in the ER when an attending MD was questioning an elderly woman who had taken a spill off a stepstool. She was 98 and he asked her if she smoked. She replied that she smoked 1.5+ packs a day and when he inquired if she would ever consider quitting for her health's sake, you can almost imagine/picture the response that came out of this cantankerous old woman's mouth. A sarcastic and ridiculing reply on her part would be putting it lightly.

So the next question is. So would you rather be healthy and financially strapped or wealthy but with a shorter lifespan? Sometimes you can't have it both ways.

[thejerseyrock]

Originally Posted by Tony64

Not the way I understood the article. Apparently it's just random, at least 66% of the time.

No guilt, nothing and no one to blame. Not lifestyle choices - just random.

Now about that other 33% ...

Just my opinion, not a reference to this article or study.... my thinking is that a combination of genetics and lifestyle seem to explain the majority of health problems.... (not one or the other)... I agree with the common opinion that "genetics load the gun, and lifestyle pulls the trigger".... ergo, you cant control some things (including genetic or randomness), but dont pull the trigger with bad choices that are under your control

[DJ TT 2002]

What kind of genetic pool produced Keith Richards??

I want me some!!!!

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

Bad luck + certain genetic predispositions. Two direct relatives (aunts) died of lung cancer yet never smoked a day in their lives. On the other hand, I recall being in the ER when an attending MD was questioning an elderly woman who had taken a spill off a stepstool. She was 98 and he asked her if she smoked. She replied that she smoked 1.5+ packs a day and when he inquired if she would ever consider quitting for her health's sake, you can almost imagine/picture the response that came out of this cantankerous old woman's mouth. A sarcastic and ridiculing reply on her part would be putting it lightly.

So the next question is. So would you rather be healthy and financially strapped or wealthy but with a shorter lifespan? Sometimes you can't have it both ways.

I'm sure it's asked rhetorically BC, but without health you've got nothing. No one has ever wished for more money on their deathbed.

[Laszlo]

Cancer is a serious subject. I lost some very close people in my life to cancer.

But, now that it's random, what the heck, I'll continue to enjoy a smoke and drink more often than not.

[rebel_1]

I do believe some amount of genetics comes into play for a lot, but there are also lifestyle choices that certainly increase your chances. To make bad health choices and hope for good genetics is a fools mission.

[locutus49]

I would put it this way: if you live long enough you will die at some point.

Originally Posted by swils8610

Interesting. Seems that if you live long enough you wind up getting cancer at some point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[WhatsNext]

There is still the "29 percent of cancers are caused by environmental factors and just 5 percent appear to be hereditary"

If you're smoking cigarettes and sunbathing all day long, you're not in the "random" category and neither are those who's family has had multiple generations of breast cancer.

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong has an interesting perspective on cancer and how research should be conducted. He believes we're doing it all wrong. Rather than having a breast cancer specialist only focusing on breast cancer and a liver cancer specialist focus only on liver cancer, we should be looking at cancer - not a distinct anatomies but as a disease.

[77T]

The predisposition of DNA replication errors is an inherited trait as well. There is little in the source science report that suggests otherwise. (Abstract pasted below)

Abstract
Cancers are caused by mutations that may be inherited, induced by environmental factors, or result from DNA replication errors (R). We studied the relationship between the number of normal stem cell divisions and the risk of 17 cancer types in 69 countries throughout the world. The data revealed a strong correlation (median = 0.80) between cancer incidence and normal stem cell divisions in all countries, regardless of their environment. The major role of R mutations in cancer etiology was supported by an independent approach, based solely on cancer genome sequencing and epidemiological data, which suggested that R mutations are responsible for two-thirds of the mutations in human cancers.

Now this doesn’t eliminate environmental hazards as a source of separate multiple cancers - it just suggests that healthy living alone doesn’t eliminate your risk.

Also, key conclusion is early and regular screenings is beat path to treat inevitable cancers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tamiya]

Originally Posted by 77T

Also, key conclusion is early and regular screenings is beat path to treat inevitable cancers.

depends who you believe, there's some recent rethink on that too

Regular screening &/or "feeling" for prostate has found a lot of false positives which can lead to overtreatment.

If you biopsy everything that you find suspect... often later on there's evidence that the cancerous cells are more prolific along the path of the biopsy needle.

Aggressive treatment works on some cases. But for slow growing tumours, leaving it well alone is being regarded as ok too.

[JasoninDenver]

My dad died of a heart attack at 54 so I was a health Nazi from 15 on.

Model of healthy living. Lived a dream life in the Colorado mountain riding or skiing nearly every day.

Get cancer at 30. First in my extended family.

Yeah, I believe the study.

[cdmorenot]

I am 29 years old - Not a single person in my immediate family has died or suffered from any form of serious cancer except for melanoma. Luck of the draw? Maybe - There are things in life I'd never leave to chance, Cancer is not one of them. Aside from the normal routine checks and basic preventive methods, I'll live my life the way I want and take them as they come. One thing I know for sure: should I be so unlucky, I sure as hell won't spend my final days in a hospital injecting crap into me.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk