Cancer cells travel all over the body when the primary tumor is active,
but do not attach. But once the primary tumor is removed, the remote
cells
ape inflamation and use it to enter another organ. The angiogenesis view
is
that the remote cells to not have the ability to get blood until after
the
primary tumor is removed. Now, is it possible the primary tumor
actually
causes an immune response which is effective against the remote cells,
but
for which the primary tumor actually has a defense (PD-1?) and when
the
primary tumor is removed, the remote cells feel free to metastase.
What
really bugs me is that the cancer vaccine people have one explanation and
the
angiogenesis people have another one, but the phenomenon seems
identical.
I'm just drawing parallels with how nitric oxide surprised everyone
in
cardiology and how the immune and cholesterol responces are closely
linked.
I apologise for my ignorance, this is not my field, but so many people
close
to me have died of cancer in recent years.
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Reagan Mozart Pindus BioStrategist
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Yellary Clinton & Yellalot Spitzer: Nasty Together]
|
