Misplaced Pages

Many people believe that vegetarian diet is good for cancer. And many scientist tried to find out certain factor which is important thing as cancer treatment from vegetables and fruits. But, remarkable factor is not revealed in the world. So this writing is for the discovery of the factor. And perhaps side effect of surfeit of vegetable is the factor. For determine whether low blood sugar which is side effect of surfeit of vegetable is the main factor or have no relation to death of cancer, amount of sugar essential and total of sugar supply are partially calculated.

A human cell has about 2.8billion(1) base pairs(or about 5.6 billion base) and 2.8billion base pairs have 11.2 billion deoxyriboses as a DNA back bone(2). Deoxyribose and glucose are sugar. So glucose maybe used as a raw material of DNA back bone. And for 1.12e+10 deoxyriboses, 3.3477e-12 g glucose may be essential as a raw material of deoxyriboses.

The number of cancer cells is about 2000/mm^2(3) and the density of microvessel is about 200(count)/mm^2(3) and the average diameter of microvessels is about 10μm(). One microvessel of 200 microvessels in 1cm length of tumor is surrounded by 4472 cancer cells.

2000/mm^2 times sqrt{2000/mm^2} times 10mm div 200/mm^2 approx 4472.136 The concept of a cancer cell is a point. And the concept of a microvessel is a line.

Cancer cells which surround one microvessel must needs 1.4971e-8 g glucose per 1cm as the raw material of the deoxyriboses.

The blood flow velocity is about 0.49 mm/sec in capillaries(4). If the average blood sugar level is 100mg/dl, total amount of glucose which passes through a microvessel of10μm diameter is 3.323376e-6g/Day.

1.4971e-8 g is about 0.45% of 3.323376e-6g. But it's not calculated that how percent of 3.323376e-6g glucose is absorbed by 4472 cancer cells. And it's sure that 4472 cancer cells consume more glucose than 1.4971e-8 g.

For calculating the percent of the absorption, osmotic pressure and diffusion velocity must be considered. And it must not ignored that the convection must be limited among the cancer cells.

Most cancer cells starve(die) and 4% of survived cells induce KRAS Pathway Mutations in 9mg/dl glucose(5). This means that low blood sugar induce the necrosis of cancer cells. Besides, the density of microvessels in tumor have relation to cancer returns(6).

Under 70mg/dl glucose in micorvessels may reach under 9mg/dl glucose among cancer cells. One microvessel manages about 40μm from itself. 40μm is 8 times of radius of microvessel of 10μm diameter. Cancer cell which closes to microvessel will absorbs more sugar than enough so another cell may absorbs less sugar than essential amount. Besides, the glucose concentration in a micorvessel of the cancer tumor will be getting lower as blood flows(figure1). Figure1 explains that why huge tumor have disadvantages in low blood sugar level.

The calculation is not completed. But if someone completes this calculation, every things will be sure. Or if someone who has cancer maintains low blood sugar level(under 70mg/dl), we can know the relation between blood sugar level and cancer growth.

At last, the change of dietary has relation to avoid cancer death(7) no matter that the relation are strong or not. The important thing is that perhaps the induced low blood sugar by vegetable based diets are the main reason to avoid cancer death. The concentration of amino acid also needs to consider.

The purpose of this writing is to informing that to maintaining low glucose may be better treatment than chemotherapy. All of cancer patients have to know that perhaps to maintaining low blood glucose(always under 70mg/dl) is enough good as a new cancer treatment.

Figure1. Conception of glucose loss when blood flows : As blood flows, concentration of glucose is getting lower as cancer cell absorb much glucose.

e-mail : evilstriver@hanmail.net

reference

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Chromosome#Human_chromosomes

2. Levene P, (01 December 1919). "The structure of yeast nucleic acid". J Biol Chem 40 (2): 415–24. http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/40/2/415.

3. Tsuyotoshi Tsuji, Yoshihiro Sasaki, Masanori Tanaka, et al: Microvessel Morphology and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Expression in Human Colonic Carcinoma With or Without Metastasis. Lab Invest 2002, 82:555–562

4. M.Stucker, V. Baier, T. Reuther, et al. Capillary Blood Cell Velocity in human skin capillaries located perpendiculary to the skin surface: Measured by a New Laser doppler anemometer. Microvascular research 52, 188-192(1996)

5. Jihye Yun, Carlo Rago, Ian Cheong, et al. Glucose Deprivation Contributes to the Development of KRAS Pathway Mutations in Tumor Cells. Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1174229

6. Noel Weidner. Intratumor Microvessel Density as a Prognostic Factor in Cancer. American Journal ofPathology, Vol. 147, No. 1, July 1995

7. WC Willett: Diet, nutrition, and avoidable cancer. Environmental Health Perspectives 103:165-170, 1995 (suppl 8)

Cannabis compounds have demonstrated effectiveness in significantly reducing cancer and tumor growth and have even completely eradicated multiple forms of cancers and tumors altogether. Numerous studies have been replicated and published highlighting this effect and these results should certainly be displayed in Misplaced Pages's article about cancer. For example: http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/6/11/2921, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673842/?tool=pmcentrez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackpots777 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In vitro studies in isolated cell lines can’t demonstrate efficacy. False claims are not helpful. Alfie↑↓© 13:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

These are replicated scientific studies consistently demonstrating the efficacy of cannabis components in eliminating cancer. They should be included in this article for this reason. Jackpots777 (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Along with the results of the numerous studies demonstrating the efficacy of cannabis components in eliminating cancer, information about the use of cannabis by patients with chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting should also be included. Jackpots777 (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, no cannabis-derived agent is about to be used against cancer. We should not pretend we can predict the future, as loads and loads of investigational compounds never even make it to phase III trials. Just the fact that some of those compounds are derived from dope doesn't make them any more special.

With regards to cannabinoids in CINV, this is already discussed in that article and doesn't require specific mention here. JFW | T@lk 17:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that your comment is simply an opinion rather than a fact about the future potential of cannabis compounds and the numerous scientific studies including the ones beyond those listed here are factual, verifiable, and based upon scientific analysis that is sound and replicated. Since this article is about cancer, and the research being performed in relation to cancer is an important aspect of this topic, the results of multiple studies showing THC eliminating cancer cells while leaving healthy cells untouched should be highlighted somewhere within it. Please stick to facts when deciding whether or not this information should be included to ensure this article provides those searching for factual information about cancer with a complete picture of the existing database of human knowledge that exists pertaining to cancer.

As to the inclusion of cannabis use to stave off chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, other articles are irrelevant since this discussion is about the cancer article. With cannabis being widely used by patients suffering from cancer due to its effectiveness in managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting as can be verified by numerous organizations and scientific publications, this information should also be included in this article. Jackpots777 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

We use review articles which is NOT the same as peer reviewed articles as sources. These do not quality as reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Numerous acceptable sources can be used to reference information about the results of scientific studies testing the efficacy of cannabis compounds in treating cancer. It appears the discussion should be more focused on how this information should be included at this point. Verifiable information provided by reliable and acceptable sources are available concerning the use of cannabis compounds to eliminate cancer cells in multiple replicated scientific studies and this qualifies this information for inclusion. A reference to the hypotheses stating the possible efficacy of THC and other cannabinoids as cancer treatments by reputable experts in the field along with a general overview of the results of these studies should be included with references to the pros and cons of these studies also being addressed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackpots777 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Numerous replicable studies will show that gasoline quickly kills cancer cells in a petri dish, too. So do any number of thousands of substances. In fact, I'm not sure there is any substance in existence that won't kill cancer cells, except maybe solid pieces of glass, metal, or plastic. I can kill cancer cells with the extract of any living organism, so long as you let me pick the dose. I can even kill them with plain old water. It's incredibly easy to kill cells in a dish. In fact, it's keeping them alive that requires skill and effort.

This article generally does not include information about treatments that are not actually approved by regulators after successful testing in real, live humans. You can keep talking if you want, but the answer is no, and the answer is going to remain no unless and until there is non-experimental use of these compounds in real people in the real world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

These studies show cancer cell apoptosis, programmed cell death, without damaging surrounding living cells. The information that should be included is not a treatment but information highlighting these studies and this article is incomplete without this information.Jackpots777 (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Completely trivial. Lots of things of zero medical significance induce apoptosis differentially. Come back no sooner than Phase II trials.Novangelis (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Come back with review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The only requirement for a Misplaced Pages article is a reliable and trusted source. Since this information is available from such sources, it is suitable for this Misplaced Pages article and will be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackpots777 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It fails WP:MEDRS as it should be in a review (WP:PSTS) that demonstrates medical significance, not just a curious laboratory effect that has no overt signs of development (WP:DUE).Novangelis (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It fulfills the requirement for Misplaced Pages WP:MEDRS as a topic concerning current affairs. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:MEDRS#Popular_press Jackpots777 (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not the kind of content one would wish to base on sources in the popular press. It's hardly "current affairs" isn't it? Anycase, a large number of editors has now made it clear that the content you wish to include is not suitable; without consensus everything else stops. JFW | T@lk 19:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Dozens of recently completed studies showing cannabis compounds killing cancer cells without affecting healthy cells certainly qualifies as current affairs. Numerous additional sources can be used that adhere to Misplaced Pages's guidelines for sources. Another potential source is a reputable major medical and scientific body: National Cancer Institute http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:MEDRS#Medical_and_scientific_organizations

Nope, not even close, and the "current affairs" canard is worthless as an end run around WP:MEDRS. There is no point is placing speculations ("preclinical") in with demonstrated treatments (WP:DUE). It is time to move on.Novangelis (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Showing a statement by a reputable major medical and scientific body such as the National Cancer Institute qualifies as a source for this article and this is a clear cut fact with no room for a rebuttal since it is a Misplaced Pages policy. Also, there are thousands of editors. Many more editors than the five who have spoken here should be given a proper amount of time to voice their opinions on this matter. Of the five editors who have voiced their opinion thus far, two present information that has no relevance to the actual studies being referenced and three make false claims concerning the lack of suitable sources. Since a single sentence referring to the verifiable fact that multiple reputable scientific studies have shown cannabis compounds protecting test subjects from cancer as verified by multiple reputable sources including the National Cancer Institute, the consensus is presently in favor of adding this sentence.Jackpots777 (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If this article were about killing cancer cells in vitro, then I'd be happy to support a mention. But it's not. It's about cancer in humans, and you've not produced any sources that show that this is actually being used (not talked about or studied) in humans (living, breathing whole bodies, not just cells in a dish).

This page does not cover details like this. There are hundreds of compounds with just as many papers behind them, and in fact far more reason to believe they will become successful treatments in the near future, and we don't mention any of them. The fact that these compounds are cannabis-derived is irrelevant. We have no interest in naming any specific experimental cancer treatment on this page. We don't even mention any specific drugs by name, even drugs that are currently being used by hundreds of thousands of patients. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments against the addition of this information are being placed in the wrong section, for your argument is based on your personal opinions, not Misplaced Pages policy. Misplaced Pages policy presently declares that statements and information provided by a reputable major medical and scientific body such as the National Cancer Institute is suitable for Misplaced Pages.Jackpots777 (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw my recommendation for the addition of this material. If someone could please delete this section so that the discussions may focus on more relevant topics your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackpots777 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It has already been put in a collapsible box to make this talkpage more manageable, and all discussions are automatically archived 90 days after the last comment is added. JFW | T@lk 08:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)