The Devil you say! “Until now, we’ve always thought that transmissible cancers arise extremely rarely in nature, but this new discovery makes us question this belief…”
The Devil you say! “Until now, we’ve always thought that transmissible cancers arise extremely rarely in nature, but this new discovery makes us question this belief…”
A slide show from four years ago before the second transmissible cancer was discovered.
http://www.livescience.com/18515-australia-tasmanian-devil-photos.html
Don’t worry it’s really hard to catch.
With any luck at all, human devils will starting biting each other with the same result.
Eh What’s up 97% of Docs? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOTlNOZB4Zo
I’m shocked they didn’t blame CAGW, yet.
These transmissible cancers are killing off all the Tasmanian Devils. Maybe that is why similar cancers are so rare? They are too effective in killing off their hosts, and if there are no remaining hosts, there is no surviving cancer cells either?
Transmissible cancers are very common and the singular aspect of this cancer is how quickly it grows and metastasizes. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) causes Burkitt’s lymphoma and nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Anyone who has had mononucleosis carries EBV in their body for the rest of their life. HepC can cause liver cancer. These and many other well known viral/cancer links invalidate the statement about rarity of transmissible cancers if all time scales are considered.
Loki, I think the article is talking about cancer cells spreading to a new host and replicating. Your point about viruses causing cancer is worth mentioning but it is not the same as what the article discusses since viruses are known to be transmissible while cancer cells are generally not.
Dogs get Transmissible Veneral Tumours and the tumours are not dog DNA.
They may have originated from dog DNA, but they do not have the same DNA as the dog with the tumour.
“…but this new discovery makes us question this belief…”
Always comforting words for me to hear from the scientific community. Not like the IPCC where contrary results seem to be either ignored, attacked as treasonous or altered to conform to an agenda.
mono and Hep-C are transmitted, so Loki (who is a medical doctor) is correct. The bases for the disease was transmitted, even tho the cancer it’s self may not have been. Also the USA gov’t had a program in the 50T’s and 60T’s were they were experimenting with transmission (intentionally induced) of cancer. One person working on that program claimed that they had some success.
Why am I not surprised it’s in Australasia where most of the world’s poisonous species reside. Ya gotta be tough to be Aussie…
“…Your point about viruses causing cancer is worth mentioning but it is not the same as what the article discusses since viruses are known to be transmissible while cancer cells are generally not…”
I’m not a doctor but it is obvious to me you are correct Regina Chick in saying it is not the same thing.
Viruses do spread, and some viruses can eventually cause cancer, but that is not the same thing as cancer being spread as cancer.
Loki was partly right. and You were right to note this.
I remain skeptical of the idea of transmissible cancers. The
last I read, they were as roundly rejected by science as the
notion of “Traumatic cancer.” This was as dead as a door-
nail before the turn of the 20th century, until Bismark
implemented social welfare programs, including workers
compensation.
This turd of a theory was not finally eradicated until the
mid 1960s. So, even back then junk science was all the rage
so long as academics are whoring themselves for research
grants.