Correct theory: Cancer = Prion = proteins gone awry ; SCIENCE 
Author Message
 Correct theory: Cancer = Prion = proteins gone awry ; SCIENCE

SCIENCE vol 273, 12JUL96, pp184-189
SCIENCE , Vol273, 12JUL96, pp184-189, titled: Putting Prions to the
Test

--- quoting S in parts ---
Infectious proteins -- once a biological heresy -- have been blamed for
mad cows and dead people, and there is plenty of supporting evidence.
Still, nobody has proven that these prions really exist

. . that began 3 decades ago, when radiation biologist Tikvah Alper
posed a heretical question: Might the agent behind scrapie, a similar
disease of sheep, lack nucleic acid? Pathogens, of course, aren't
supposed to be able to perpetuate themselves without DNA or RNA to
serve as blueprints, so this flew in the face of biological dogma. But
Alper had subjected infectious tissue to radiation that would destroy
DNA and RNA, and it remained infectious. She concluded that the scrapie
agent was indeed nucleotide-free, like a protein.
. . .
. .The putative agent is called a "prion," a malfolded version of a
normal cellular protein. Once prions (for "proteinaceous infectious
particles") get into cells, in theory, they replicate by recruiting
normal proteins to their cause, "flipping" them into a rogue prionlike
shape that can go on to infect other cells and animals.
  "The evidence for the prion hypothesis is getting more and more
solid,"  says Charles Weissmann, a molecular biologist at the
University of Zurich in Switzerland. For instance, infectious samples
from victims of these diseases-- which group under the banner of
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)-- do contain large
quantities of a malfolded protein whose amino acid sequence matches
that of a normal, cellular protein, known as PrP. And when samples
containing those malfolded molecules are injected into animals they get
sick, unless the animals don't have normal PrP-- then they are
resistant to scrapie, presumably because they have no PrP proteins for
the infectious prion to flip. At the same time, no one has found a
virus for any of the TSE ailments.

  Making converts. One hypothesis about how infectious protein
particles, or prions, cause disease is that an abnormal protein --
PrP^Sc -- contacts its normal twin -- PrP^C -- and changes it to the
abnormal form, eventually harming neurons.

   Yet the definitive test for prions -- what Weissmann calls "the
experiment of the decade"-- has not been successful. To dispel
lingering doubts that a virus might somehow be responsible for these
diseases after all, researchers have to synthesize normal PrP in
conditions guaranteed to be free of viral nucleic acid, and then show
that the protein can fold into its rogue state and infect animals.
Although many have tried, no one has succeeded in making a prion de
novo.
   In the absence of this clinching evidence, there are still many --
even staunch prion supporters -- who say prions are not a done deal. "I
would say that the prion hypothesis looks very good in the absence of
any other candidate -- but it ain't formally proved," says . . .
Prions, he says, could actually be receptors that usher a still-unknown
virus or other infectious agent into the cell:  "There isn't an
experiment on the books in the past 10 years that disproves that
hypothesis." Indeed, there are a few controversial experiments that
suggest that the infectious agent is not the protein after all, but
some unknown agent that is caught up along with it.

  Some critics go further, charging that such inconsistencies haven't
received enough attention, while prion advocates have over-sold their
data. "They've been advertised," says . . . "The prion hypothesis is
really the 'cold fusion' of infectious disease -- it's a very radical
idea, and just like cold fusion it has some very appealing aspects,"
says . . . "But because it's so radical it deserves a very very high
level of skepticism and scrutiny before it's adopted."
   Because of the power of the prion hypothesis, its potential
importance, and the enduring doubts at its edges, SCIENCE took a
detailed look at the state of the evidence, interviewing 24 researchers
on both sides of the prion aisle -- and some in the middle-- to find
out just what is and isn't known about prions and their role in
disease.

--- end quoting S in parts ---

  I hope I am not committing a copyright infraction by posting this
SCIENCE article to the world Net. I know there is a "fair use" law. I
would not be posting so much of this four page article if it had not
been so good, informing of the true and correct situation surrounding
the prion disease issue. The reason I am taking the liberty of posting
so much of this four pages from SCIENCE is because I want to address so
very many of these lines and rather than parcel out little by little
and make the comments there, I decided to post the 4 pages so that I
can then take issue line by line as the NET so well affords.

  I am near to submitting a patent application for a X-ray treatment of
prion disease. I hold in the theory that cancer is a protein site gone
awry. And that prion disease is just a mere *rare* form of cancer. What
is unique about prion cancer over say lung cancer or bone cancer or
many of the other forms of cancer is that in prion cancer the actual
site of the protein gone awry is the prions.

   Prion disease is just another form of cancer and since the world's
best treatment for cancer is X-ray or radiation treatment, then also,
prion diseases are treatable by X-rays or radiation therapy.



Tue, 26 Jan 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Correct theory: Cancer = Prion = proteins gone awry ; SCIENCE


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 Correct theory: Cancer = Prion = proteins gone awry ; SCIENCE


Quote:

> SCIENCE vol 273, 12JUL96, pp184-189
> SCIENCE , Vol273, 12JUL96, pp184-189, titled: Putting Prions to the
> Test

> --- quoting S in parts ---
> Infectious proteins -- once a biological heresy -- have been blamed for
> mad cows and dead people, and there is plenty of supporting evidence.
> Still, nobody has proven that these prions really exist

> . . that began 3 decades ago, when radiation biologist Tikvah Alper
> posed a heretical question: Might the agent behind scrapie, a similar
> disease of sheep, lack nucleic acid? Pathogens, of course, aren't
> supposed to be able to perpetuate themselves without DNA or RNA to
> serve as blueprints, so this flew in the face of biological dogma. But
> Alper had subjected infectious tissue to radiation that would destroy
> DNA and RNA, and it remained infectious. She concluded that the scrapie
> agent was indeed nucleotide-free, like a protein.
> . . .
> . .The putative agent is called a "prion," a malfolded version of a
> normal cellular protein. Once prions (for "proteinaceous infectious
> particles") get into cells, in theory, they replicate by recruiting
> normal proteins to their cause, "flipping" them into a rogue prionlike
> shape that can go on to infect other cells and animals.

  This replication of flipping violates several laws of physics, that
of the 2nd law of the thermodynamics and the conservation of
energy/mass and the conservation of charge when charge is taken to be
energy. Under the theory that cancer is a protein site gone awry, then
prions are cancer sites and the proliferation of prions is by means of
the body DNA and RNA producing more rogue prions. The picture that
rogue prions flip good prions is a falsehood.

Quote:
>   "The evidence for the prion hypothesis is getting more and more
> solid,"  says Charles Weissmann, a molecular biologist at the
> University of Zurich in Switzerland. For instance, infectious samples
> from victims of these diseases-- which group under the banner of
> transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)-- do contain large
> quantities of a malfolded protein whose amino acid sequence matches
> that of a normal, cellular protein, known as PrP. And when samples
> containing those malfolded molecules are injected into animals they get
> sick, unless the animals don't have normal PrP-- then they are
> resistant to scrapie, presumably because they have no PrP proteins for

  If Mr. Weissmann took normal healthy lab mice and injected them with
another cancer causing agent such as say asbestos or some cancerous
chemical or even a transplanted cancer, then also, those healthy mice
would grow cancers. Rogue prions are merely highly cancerous material
and specific towards sites which have similar proteins. One could say
that the rogue prion is the actual site of several brain cancers. But
there is probably a protein which is the specific cancer for lung
cancer and another protein which is the specific site for {*filter*} cancer
leukemia, etc. If you inject radioactive material into a healthy body,
do not be surprized that cancer develops, likewise if you inject rogue
prions do not be surprized if the CJD or GSS or Alzheimers disease
cancers develop. Yes, Alzheimers disease is another form of cancer in
which the specific protein gone awry site has not yet been identified.

Quote:
> the infectious prion to flip. At the same time, no one has found a
> virus for any of the TSE ailments.

  Although there have been instances of a virus which facilitates the
onslaught of cancer, there has been little evidence that cancer is
caused by viruses. The virus theory of cancer and the virus theory of
prion diseases should and must be abandoned since the evidence does not
support it. We can say that viruses facilitate cancer and facilitate
perhaps prion cancer but that is probably the extent of virus
involvement in this medical science. Cancer and prion cancer are
sciences of the breakdown of the self-body in copying itself. And my
theory of cancer is that cancer is a protein site that has gone awry,
gone heywire. My chief evidence in support of this theory is the fact
that plants have little proteins for the most part and that plants do
not get cancers. But animals are filled with proteins for proteins are
vital to mobility and therefore strains and stresses on these proteins
makes some of the proteins go awry and cancers develop. Cancers are the
price that animals pay for being mobile.

Quote:
>   Making converts. One hypothesis about how infectious protein
> particles, or prions, cause disease is that an abnormal protein --
> PrP^Sc -- contacts its normal twin -- PrP^C -- and changes it to the
> abnormal form, eventually harming neurons.

  Such simpleton, simplistic ideas run into trouble immediately.
Changes such as described would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics
and the conservation of energy/mass/ or charge in concert. A shame most
biologists are seldom schooled in physics, and more of them ignore
physics when put to them. Ask Prusiner some time to give you a energy
balancing equation for rogue prions flipping good prions into rogue
prions. Ask these prion guys to give you an energy balancing equation.
  And it should be quite obvious to anyone with a biology commonsense
that if, yes if any biological entity existed which so very very easily
can multiply or replicate itself, it would be so easy and so very fast
that it would have taken over quickly. But we see these prion diseases
as rare occurrences.

Quote:
>    Yet the definitive test for prions -- what Weissmann calls "the
> experiment of the decade"-- has not been successful. To dispel
> lingering doubts that a virus might somehow be responsible for these
> diseases after all, researchers have to synthesize normal PrP in
> conditions guaranteed to be free of viral nucleic acid, and then show
> that the protein can fold into its rogue state and infect animals.
> Although many have tried, no one has succeeded in making a prion de
> novo.

  I like this SCIENCE article because it is straight science. The above
pretty well tells the story, that no definitive experiment has been
performed to make the rogue prion.
  Forget about the virus issue, that is a side show issue. The real
issue, I contend is that prions are cancers, a form of cancer. And just
as complex is the science of cancer, so also is the science of prions
complex. In this report by SCIENCE and in all other reports concerning
prions, never is it indicated that prion disease may be just as complex
as the science of cancer is complex. In all of the reports concerning
prion disease, the authors make it look as if the science of prions is
a easier science than that of cancer. And of course noone before me has
proffered the idea that prion disease is merely another form of cancer
itself. So in the above where the scientists are talking about doing
the one deciding and performing experiment to understand fully most of
what is prion disease, that idea is as silly as thinking there is one
deciding and performing experiment on the horizon to tell us most of
what cancer is all about. The complexity of prion disease is the
complexity of cancer because, yes, because prion disease is another
form of cancer itself.

Quote:
>    In the absence of this clinching evidence, there are still many --
> even staunch prion supporters -- who say prions are not a done deal. "I
> would say that the prion hypothesis looks very good in the absence of
> any other candidate -- but it ain't formally proved," says . . .

  Before I offered this theory that Cancer = prion disease = Alzheimers
disease = protein sites gone awry Theory, before I offered this theory
, one could claim that the only other theory was the virus culprit
theory. But now I offer my theory, and I believe I am on the correct
path. For my theory implies many many experiments. One experiment will
be to show that some proteins of liver cancer or lung cancer are
similar to the proteins of PrP^Sc. Another experiment will be to show
that the human body itself can create this rogue prion in total
isolation from infected others, why?, because cancers form in the body
without being infected from outside.
  So now we have a challenger to the prion theory and the virus theory,
and this challenger is the Prion=Cancer theory.

Quote:
> Prions, he says, could actually be receptors that usher a still-unknown
> virus or other infectious agent into the cell:  "There isn't an
> experiment on the books in the past 10 years that disproves that
> hypothesis." Indeed, there are a few controversial experiments that
> suggest that the infectious agent is not the protein after all, but
> some unknown agent that is caught up along with it.

  It is good that SCIENCE is being so honest in reporting to us. Once
when I read that article in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, thinking back, that
was a highly biased article, and of course it was written by Mr.
Prusiner. Perhaps Mr. Prusiner is shaping up or flipping into the Pons
Fleischmann of biology.

Quote:
>   Some critics go further, charging that such inconsistencies haven't
> received enough attention, while prion advocates have over-sold their
> data. "They've been advertised," says . . . "The prion hypothesis is
> really the 'cold fusion' of infectious disease -- it's a very radical
> idea, and just like cold fusion it has some very appealing aspects,"
> says . . . "But because it's so radical it deserves a very very high
> level of skepticism and scrutiny before it's adopted."

  I agree it deserves extra scrutiny and that the Prusiner prion ideas
have been over advertized. I think the recent British Mad Cow disease
with its general public scare and "call to action" has given the
Prusiner camp acceptance of their false theory on prions. Witness that
the Wolf prize was given to Mr. Prusiner in 1995, yet the big science
questions on prion disease are open and unanswered. I agree that ...

read more »



Wed, 27 Jan 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Correct theory: Cancer = Prion = proteins gone awry ; SCIENCE


Quote:

> SCIENCE vol 273, 12JUL96, pp184-189
> SCIENCE , Vol273, 12JUL96, pp184-189, titled: Putting Prions to the
> Test

> --- quoting S in parts ---
> Infectious proteins -- once a biological heresy -- have been blamed for
> mad cows and dead people, and there is plenty of supporting evidence.
> Still, nobody has proven that these prions really exist

> . . that began 3 decades ago, when radiation biologist Tikvah Alper
> posed a heretical question: Might the agent behind scrapie, a similar
> disease of sheep, lack nucleic acid? Pathogens, of course, aren't
> supposed to be able to perpetuate themselves without DNA or RNA to
> serve as blueprints, so this flew in the face of biological dogma. But
> Alper had subjected infectious tissue to radiation that would destroy
> DNA and RNA, and it remained infectious. She concluded that the scrapie
> agent was indeed nucleotide-free, like a protein.
> . . .
> . .The putative agent is called a "prion," a malfolded version of a
> normal cellular protein. Once prions (for "proteinaceous infectious
> particles") get into cells, in theory, they replicate by recruiting
> normal proteins to their cause, "flipping" them into a rogue prionlike
> shape that can go on to infect other cells and animals.

  This replication of flipping violates several laws of physics, that
of the 2nd law of the thermodynamics and the conservation of
energy/mass and the conservation of charge when charge is taken to be
energy. Under the theory that cancer is a protein site gone awry, then
prions are cancer sites and the proliferation of prions is by means of
the body DNA and RNA producing more rogue prions. The picture that
rogue prions flip good prions is a falsehood.

Quote:
>   "The evidence for the prion hypothesis is getting more and more
> solid,"  says Charles Weissmann, a molecular biologist at the
> University of Zurich in Switzerland. For instance, infectious samples
> from victims of these diseases-- which group under the banner of
> transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)-- do contain large
> quantities of a malfolded protein whose amino acid sequence matches
> that of a normal, cellular protein, known as PrP. And when samples
> containing those malfolded molecules are injected into animals they get
> sick, unless the animals don't have normal PrP-- then they are
> resistant to scrapie, presumably because they have no PrP proteins for

  If Mr. Weissmann took normal healthy lab mice and injected them with
another cancer causing agent such as say asbestos or some cancerous
chemical or even a transplanted cancer, then also, those healthy mice
would grow cancers. Rogue prions are merely highly cancerous material
and specific towards sites which have similar proteins. One could say
that the rogue prion is the actual site of several brain cancers. But
there is probably a protein which is the specific cancer for lung
cancer and another protein which is the specific site for {*filter*} cancer
leukemia, etc. If you inject radioactive material into a healthy body,
do not be surprized that cancer develops, likewise if you inject rogue
prions do not be surprized if the CJD or GSS or Alzheimers disease
cancers develop. Yes, Alzheimers disease is another form of cancer in
which the specific protein gone awry site has not yet been identified.

Quote:
> the infectious prion to flip. At the same time, no one has found a
> virus for any of the TSE ailments.

  Although there have been instances of a virus which facilitates the
onslaught of cancer, there has been little evidence that cancer is
caused by viruses. The virus theory of cancer and the virus theory of
prion diseases should and must be abandoned since the evidence does not
support it. We can say that viruses facilitate cancer and facilitate
perhaps prion cancer but that is probably the extent of virus
involvement in this medical science. Cancer and prion cancer are
sciences of the breakdown of the self-body in copying itself. And my
theory of cancer is that cancer is a protein site that has gone awry,
gone heywire. My chief evidence in support of this theory is the fact
that plants have little proteins for the most part and that plants do
not get cancers. But animals are filled with proteins for proteins are
vital to mobility and therefore strains and stresses on these proteins
makes some of the proteins go awry and cancers develop. Cancers are the
price that animals pay for being mobile.

Quote:
>   Making converts. One hypothesis about how infectious protein
> particles, or prions, cause disease is that an abnormal protein --
> PrP^Sc -- contacts its normal twin -- PrP^C -- and changes it to the
> abnormal form, eventually harming neurons.

  Such simpleton, simplistic ideas run into trouble immediately.
Changes such as described would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics
and the conservation of energy/mass/ or charge in concert. A shame most
biologists are seldom schooled in physics, and more of them ignore
physics when put to them. Ask Prusiner some time to give you a energy
balancing equation for rogue prions flipping good prions into rogue
prions. Ask these prion guys to give you an energy balancing equation.
  And it should be quite obvious to anyone with a biology commonsense
that if, yes if any biological entity existed which so very very easily
can multiply or replicate itself, it would be so easy and so very fast
that it would have taken over quickly. But we see these prion diseases
as rare occurrences.

Quote:
>    Yet the definitive test for prions -- what Weissmann calls "the
> experiment of the decade"-- has not been successful. To dispel
> lingering doubts that a virus might somehow be responsible for these
> diseases after all, researchers have to synthesize normal PrP in
> conditions guaranteed to be free of viral nucleic acid, and then show
> that the protein can fold into its rogue state and infect animals.
> Although many have tried, no one has succeeded in making a prion de
> novo.

  I like this SCIENCE article because it is straight science. The above
pretty well tells the story, that no definitive experiment has been
performed to make the rogue prion.
  Forget about the virus issue, that is a side show issue. The real
issue, I contend is that prions are cancers, a form of cancer. And just
as complex is the science of cancer, so also is the science of prions
complex. In this report by SCIENCE and in all other reports concerning
prions, never is it indicated that prion disease may be just as complex
as the science of cancer is complex. In all of the reports concerning
prion disease, the authors make it look as if the science of prions is
a easier science than that of cancer. And of course noone before me has
proffered the idea that prion disease is merely another form of cancer
itself. So in the above where the scientists are talking about doing
the one deciding and performing experiment to understand fully most of
what is prion disease, that idea is as silly as thinking there is one
deciding and performing experiment on the horizon to tell us most of
what cancer is all about. The complexity of prion disease is the
complexity of cancer because, yes, because prion disease is another
form of cancer itself.

Quote:
>    In the absence of this clinching evidence, there are still many --
> even staunch prion supporters -- who say prions are not a done deal. "I
> would say that the prion hypothesis looks very good in the absence of
> any other candidate -- but it ain't formally proved," says . . .

  Before I offered this theory that Cancer = prion disease = Alzheimers
disease = protein sites gone awry Theory, before I offered this theory
, one could claim that the only other theory was the virus culprit
theory. But now I offer my theory, and I believe I am on the correct
path. For my theory implies many many experiments. One experiment will
be to show that some proteins of liver cancer or lung cancer are
similar to the proteins of PrP^Sc. Another experiment will be to show
that the human body itself can create this rogue prion in total
isolation from infected others, why?, because cancers form in the body
without being infected from outside.
  So now we have a challenger to the prion theory and the virus theory,
and this challenger is the Prion=Cancer theory.

Quote:
> Prions, he says, could actually be receptors that usher a still-unknown
> virus or other infectious agent into the cell:  "There isn't an
> experiment on the books in the past 10 years that disproves that
> hypothesis." Indeed, there are a few controversial experiments that
> suggest that the infectious agent is not the protein after all, but
> some unknown agent that is caught up along with it.

  It is good that SCIENCE is being so honest in reporting to us. Once
when I read that article in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, thinking back, that
was a highly biased article, and of course it was written by Mr.
Prusiner. Perhaps Mr. Prusiner is shaping up or flipping into the Pons
Fleischmann of biology.

Quote:
>   Some critics go further, charging that such inconsistencies haven't
> received enough attention, while prion advocates have over-sold their
> data. "They've been advertised," says . . . "The prion hypothesis is
> really the 'cold fusion' of infectious disease -- it's a very radical
> idea, and just like cold fusion it has some very appealing aspects,"
> says . . . "But because it's so radical it deserves a very very high
> level of skepticism and scrutiny before it's adopted."

  I agree it deserves extra scrutiny and that the Prusiner prion ideas
have been over advertized. I think the recent British Mad Cow disease
with its general public scare and "call to action" has given the
Prusiner camp acceptance of their false theory on prions. Witness that
the Wolf prize was given to Mr. Prusiner in 1995, yet the big science
questions on prion disease are open and unanswered. I agree that ...

read more »



Sat, 30 Jan 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 4 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Cancer = prion disease = proteins gone awry; SCIENCE 12JUL96

2. Cancer=Alzheimers=Prion= FOP = Protein Site Gone Awry; SCIENCE

3. Cancer = Alzheimer = Prion = Virus Protein Debris theory

4. Alzheimers disease; proteins gone awry and treatment

5. Prion disease is caused by a virus or bacteria making the sites of protein sythesis go awry

6. Cancer = prion disease = Alzheimers disease = protein site on

7. Cancer = Alzheimer&Parkinson&prion diseases = aging = VIRUS protein missiles

8. Are prion proteins part of virus protein coat,sac,injection

9. arthroscopy gone awry

10. Neuron Network Goes Awry, And Brain Becomes an IPod

11. gene HACNS1 is closing up the science of Anthropology with Stonethrowing theory #177 Rockthrowing theory book


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software