Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes |
Date: |
Fri, 9 Dec 2011 07:23:42 -0700 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
<op.v577lsc9g31j6c@beatrice> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
In-Reply-To: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 05:14:36 -0700, Jim Swayze
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It seems to me that, to use a city analogy, even if you are right and
> you cannot constrain a tumor as it grows to a small town, it is not when
> it is small that it is dangerous. The question is can you cut off its
> food supply when it is New York City or Hong Kong and can kill you.
A cancer has to do a lot of work to continue to grow; it has to get a
good blood supply, for one thing, while continuing to fool the immune
system into thinking it's friendly. Autopsies have found that nearly
every man who died in his 80s had a malignant tumor in the prostate,
but that was not their cause of death. For some reason, the tumor
was unable to keep doubling.
Just a hypothesis: I think it's common that cancers stall at a
small stage, but if a person is bereaved or goes through a traumatic
experience, that lets the brakes off. How often have we heard of
someone dying of cancer a year or less after such a loss? And there
are statistical studies of such things (though I don't have a link).
I was also interested to see in the article that a fair number of
people with the aggressive cancers were totally unable to control
their appetite for sweets. That's the cancer talking: Give Me
Sugar. My father died of metastasized prostate cancer, 27 years ago,
long before I was nutritionally aware. He went through a one or
two lb bag of candy a day!
Lynnet
|
|
|