Is skin cancer a chronic disease

Is skin cancer a chronic disease

http://www.chacha.com/question/is-skin-cancer-a-chronic-disease

Skin cancer does not have to be a chronic disease. If you catch it fast enough, the doctor can do a short procedure to take out the cancer before it affects other part of the body. i.e. before cancer gets to other body parts. ChaCha again!

Related Questions Answered on Y!Answers

Is cancer a chronic metabolic disease which can be cured, but is perpetuated by our health /drugs industry?

Q: Cancer is a chronic metabolic dicease, it is a nutrional problem linked to our typical westernized diet.. Are science & the medical associations, perpetuating the problem because there is big money to be made from death and expensive drug treatments.Certain, grasses, seeds, and kernels contain in nitrylocide (viatmin b17) which is anti cancerous- it is toxic to cancer only and controls the bodies self healing mechanism using estrogen. All cancer starts in muccus mebranes- due to a malifunction of that cell. But the body has a complex anti cancer mechanism but only works when you eat the right stuff.Are we supposed to eat the bitter seeds as well as the fruit flesh, skin. and plith. Longevitity is in the apricot seed/salmon berry, many jungle tribes and eskimos dont get cancer! Over the last 50 years there is less B17 in the meat we eat (because the animal eats less natural grass), and the cancer rate has risen. http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4312930190281243507TinyMe thats a very quick conclusion, i’m afraid you are totally wrong. If you are in the medical profession you may be part of the problem.i’d ask you to sign you prozac sponsored post it note and start again.Every cancer you deal with is more or less a secondary one (afetr it has spread from a specific site) primary cancers always start in a muccus membrane first.Socially,narcissistic. Thank You, i’m glad you are not the type to have your eyes wide shut. I have the expertise of genetic scienistst and leading alternative helath practitioners plus my own personal experince in the NHS to understand the huge level of corruption in this sector.Pammy please watch the video in my link- its an hour long, drink lots of pure water too, if you bless before you drink it also it takes on healing properties it takes the impression your projected thought. (yes sounds crazy but its another secret- water is a living crystalline form- yes H2O-the ash of burning Hyrdogen in oxygen )B17 can be found in mosts bitter seeds-esecially Apricot seeds.Unfortunatley the AMA and BMA (/British medical Association) have outlawed its prescription and destroyed the careers of renegade GP’s who have sung its praises. There is big money to be made in the NHS if you can run it like a business-but it only works if you can forecast the life expectancy and death of individuals in that system. This is why the associated companies benefit from this relationship.Alex are siting secondary cancers? surely! The thorax has muccus mebranes too. Its all interlinked. its like saying the pistons of a car is not part of the engine. You need a holistic approach to medicine not a study of one specialism in isolation.POSITION OF THE CANCER CELL IN THE LIFE-CYCLE In accounting for the nature and origin of the single cell type comprising the constant malignant component in the varying morphological exhibitions of cancer, we find one of two alternatives open. The definitively malignant cell either has its normal counterpart in the life-cycle or the malignant cell is without a normal cellular counterpart and, therefore, arises as a spontaneous generation.Since spontaneous generation is an untenable postulate, the only alternative is that the malignant cell has its counterpart in the life-cycle. The question then arises whether this counterpart is a relatively developed cell or the most primitive cell in the life-cycle. Since the primitivity of the cancer cell is a commonplace, in looking for its cellular counterpart in the life-cycle we turn to the most primitive cell in this cycle. This is the trophoblast cell. Then as a logical corollary of the unitarian thesis, we should find the trophoblast as the constant malignant component in all exhibitions of cancer: the malignancy of the cancer varying directly with its concentration of trophoblast cells and inversely with its concentration of somatic cells.If the unitarian thesis is valid, then the most malignant exhibition of cancer possible should be comprised almost completely of frank trophoblast cells; and, in being so comprised, should epitomize the cellular and other phenomena shared by exhibitions of a lesser malignancy. The most highly malignant exhibitions of cancer known are the chorionepitheliomascomprised of frank trophoblast cells, cytologically, endocrinologically and otherwise indistinguishable from normal pregnancy trophoblast cells. If cancer is an unitarian phenomenon whose malignancy is a function of the concentration of trophoblast cells within a given tissue, then the greater the concentration of such cells within a tissue the higher the malignancyof the tissue and the more profound its cytological deviation from the cytology normal to the tissue. If the unitarian thesis is valid, then the single exception to this generalization would comprise the most malignant of all exhibitions of cancer: that involving the pathologic exhibition of the normally or “physiologically” malignant pregnancy trophoblast. It is, therefore, most significant that when pregnancy trophoblast is malignantly exhibited as primary uterine chorionepithelioma there is no ascertainable cytological, endocrinological or other intrinsic change whatever from the normal trophoblast cell. As Boyd has phrased it, “microscopically the chorionepithelioma is an exaggeration of the condition normally found in pregnancy.”23 All other tumors represent an attenuation of the condition of their normal tissue of origin.PROPERTIES OF THE TROPHOBLAST CELL But if cancer is, as an unitarian phenomenon, trophoblastic then we should expect to find occasionally in the male—where trophoblast never normally exists—at least some cases in which the failure in somatic resistance to the definitive malignant cell (trophoblast cell) is so complete that the trophoblast is frankly exhibited as such in the fiercely malignant testicular or primary extra-genital chorionepitheliomas.24, 25, 26, 27, 28 The chorionepitheliomas are unquestionably the most malignant tumors in either sex, and the degree of their malignancy is routinely determined by measuring the gonadotrophin their trophoblast cells excrete.29, 30, 31If the trophoblast cell, presented outside the normal canalization or checks of pregnancy, is truly the cancer cell, then it must be impossible for the trophoblast cell or its hormone—“chorionic” gonadotrophin—ever to be found in the male or, aside from the canalization of normal pregnancy, in the female except in a malignant fashion. Neither the trophoblast cell nor its hormone has ever been so found except as cancer. And whenever the trophoblast cell or its hormone has been found in the male or the non-pregnant female, the associated malignancy is observed to vary directly with the urinary excretion of trophoblast cell-produced gonadotrophin.Even a superficial examination of the trophoblast cell indicates that it possesses such properties of the cancer cell as invasiveness, erosiveness, autonomy and ability to metastasize throughout the organs of the host.32, 33 Indeed, though normally canalized to physiological ends, the pregnancy trophoblast in carrying the conceptus from anatomically outside of the maternal host to implantation within the uterine wall must behave in a profoundly malignant fashion. No malignant cellinvades any tissue any more rapidly and completely than the pregnancy trophoblast does the human uterus in he first few weeks of gestation.If the trophoblast cell, then, is instrinsically malignant, this malignancy should become especially apparent when the trophoblast is removed from the normal extrinsic checks and controls surrounding it in its normal canalization of pregnancy. Maximov is among those who have observed normal pregnancy trophoblast in tissue culture pari passu non-tropho-blast.34 He describes as follows a tissue culture preparation of a normal rabbit embryo plus the contiguous trophoblast: “From the very first moment of their formation in vitro, the trophoblastic elements, whose function under normal conditions is to destroy, resorb, and penetrate into the uterine mucosa, attack the growing embryonic tissues. They glide between cells through the intercellular spaces, along blood vessels, gnaw large holes in epithelial sheets….Wherever they appear they dissolve, destroy and resorb everything surrounding them. The picture sometimes bears a striking resemblance to chorionepithelioma malignum. As in vitro there is no maternal tissue, the destructive tendencies of the trophoblast are directed toward the net and only available—the embryonic tissue itself. This is rapidly destroyed and totally used up for the nutrition and growth of the trophoblast.”Maximov’s description of the nutritive utilization by the trophoblast of somatic or embryonic tissue in vitro bears a striking parallelism to the following observation of Greenstein35 on the nutritive behavior of the cancer cell: “It is, indeed, astonishing that a tumor can thus attach itself to an organism already running downhill in negative nitrogen balance and subsequently grow at the host’s further expense.” Parasitization is eloquently clear in the description given by Maximov and it is implicit in Greenstein’s observation. Normal pregnancy trophoblast represents, of course, a parasitization of cells of one genetic constitution by those of another. If cancer is an unitarian and thereby a trophoblastic phenomenon, its parasitic behavior is very easy to understand.Were pregnancy trophoblast in vivo or in situ to lack the humorally mediated checking influences that are lacking in vitro then such tissue would expectedly behave as it does in vitro and be exhibited in the fiercely malignant fashion of primary uterine chorionepithelioma. Rather than pause here to review in further detail the points of identity between the cancer cell and the trophoblast cell, of which the senior author in a review of over 17,000 papers has been able to catalogue 43, let it suffice to say that we have been unable to find a single point of dissimilarity between the cancer cell and the trophoblast cell. The points of identity, of course, are those shared exclusively by the cancer cell and the trophoblast cell and not shared by any somatic cell.Oh and did anybody tell you what happens to the male human if you have synthetic female birth control (hormonal contraceptives) in the drinking water? He gets hormone imbalances, more Estrogen and in some cases feminization, and testical trouble, icluding lumps and high cancer rates.Albert Einstein said he came up with the thery of relativity by imagining himself to be a partical of light travelling through the universe. Perhaps we should go right to the very genesis of the cancer cell, and look at the processes from its perspective. Too often scientists have the logic on a fixed path- but not the lateral thought and imagination to shed light visulaize something very complex – problems are opportunities, get our heads together and collective intelligence will crack it

A: If all cancer starts in mucous membranes, explain Leukaemia (cancer of leukocytes – blood cells), Mesothelioma (cancer of the lining of the thorax), Melanoma (cancer of the skin), Osteosarcoma (cancer of the cells in bone), and tumours such as Myeloma which affect the brain – These are all primary cancers, not metastases or secondaries, and none of these have mucous membranes. Equally, many other cancers such as Lung Ca have various types – Small Cell Cancer, Basal Cell Carcinoma, etc – not all these cells are in the “mucous membrane”. Same thing applies to, for example, Bladder Cancer….there’s Small and non-Small Cell Ca. of the Bladder, TCC (Transitional Cell Carcinoma), yada yada yada. I could go on. I think perhaps you should read up on your subject – at the very least perhaps read up on a definition of “Mucous Membranes” – and the biogenesis of malignant tumours. As I’ve said, NOT all cancers start in the Mucous Membranes of any organ. Equally, NOT all cancers respond to B-vitamins. It depends on the type of cancer, the location, and varius other factors. Really, you might want to read around the subject a bit before making such sweeping and frankly dangerous generalisations. There’s certainly a place for a holistic approach to nutrition, along with complementary and alternative therapies in Oncology (that’s cancer medicine), but to lay the blame FOR cancers at the door of medicine/pharmaceutical companies is at best naive and ill-informed, and at worst extremely counter-productive and dangerous. Perhaps you should read a few more books on the subject, and watch less video clips?

cancer question ?

Q: My dad had pancreatic cancer, colin cancer, and another type that I cannot recall. My mom has skin cancer. My sister has Hodgkin’s lymphoma, or Hodgkin’s disease. She went into remission, but it came back recently. My entire family has a history of drinking and smoking, on both sides. For eight years, I lived in a house that had HEAVY cigarette smoke in it.. Now, I get chronic headaches and migraines, and I smell cigarettte smoke, even though no one has ever smoked a cigarette in or around my house. I’ll smell it at random points in the day, and it’ll smell like it’s right beneath my nose. I don’t hang out with people who smoke, so that is not a possibility. What’s happening to me ? And what’s the possibility that I’ll have cancer in the future ?I’m only fourteen, and have never smoked firsthand. I perform breast checks on myself at the beginning and end of my periods, like I’m supposed to, and I’ve yet to find a lump anywhere on my body. I don’t think I have cancer ?My headaches occur without a noticible cause; sometimes, I’ll listen to loud music, and never get a headache. I woke up this morning, and about three hours later, I had a super human headache. Usually, a tylenol takes care of it, but for the most part, it only dulls the pain slightly, and I end up taking another to have the pain go away completely. There is no general area of pain, it hurts all over, and it feels like someone is putting my head into a compressor. I’ve gotten headaches so bad before that I’ve been completely handicapped, in so much pain that I can do nothing but cry until the pain subsides. I have no mental handicaps, and I’m in AP classes, so there’s no evidence of any cranial damage in the educational department.

A: The smell is from memory. I would suggest you talk to your doctor and get a prescription for inderal(propanolol). I is a beta blocker and is used quite often for young people who have headaches. I had a friend who’s son had really bad headaches(age 11) and he used this drug and was cured.

Do I have Ichthyosis? If not, what do I have?

Q: Hi,At the start of last year sometime, I developed dry skin around my groin area (just outside of my knicker/pany line). It then spread a little higher up around my hip bones (symmetrical on each side). It looks quite scaly and I thought it might have been a side effect from losing weight – I thought that it looked kind of like the skin had been stretched. But I only dropped 3 dress sizes – so it’s not like I was obese and dropped down to skinny and was left with loads of saggy skin.Anyway, it has got worse ever since and now covers my whole stomach, sides, under arms, bottom of breasts and has recently started on my arms. It has recently creeped up my back (only the bottom though). The skin is extremely flaky on the sides of my stomach – it doesn’t seem as flaky down the centre of my stomach any more. It’s not flaky on my chest. My legs above the knee are quite dry but don’t flake that much.I went to see a skin doctor and he said that I defiantly had a skin condition rather than just dry skin. He said he thinks it could be Ichthyosis. He said it is not Eczema.At the moment I have had to try to exfoliate the skin away with a brush once a week, then have my shower as normal. I shower once a day and then lather myself in Oilatum shower stuff each time then rinse off and pat dry with a towel.I have been using Eurcerin Dry Skin Intensive 10% w/w Urea Treatment Lotion on the affected area after my shower – it does help but I feel like it is just sticking my skin together rather than treating me. It’s also very oily and makes my skin feel very clammy and uncomfortable. If I have a shower and don’t use these lotions – my skin is very flaky – to the point that when I take off my t shirt in the morning my skin starts whooshing up like a whirlwind! Gross!I am a 27 year old female and as far as I know no one in my family has any skin problems.I am worried because I have read that Ichthyosis not caused by genetics, known as acquired ichthyosis, is very rare. This type is said to usually start in adulthood and is usually associated with other internal diseases, such as cancer, thyroid disease or chronic renal failure. Do you think that I have one of these problems? I have had quite a few none-related blood tests within the last year and they have come back normal, apart from the hormone blood test which showed I had low oestrogen levels. Could low oestrogen levels be related?Is there a cure for my skin? I don’t understand why it suddenly started last year when I have never had problems before? I have been to the doctor about it but as usual they just try to sell you a load of creams rather than try to find out what it is and if it can be cured.Could diet be a factor? Could putting a filter on my shower water help? Any other ideas? Could colonic irrigation help? Could washing powder be a factor?I hope somebody out there can help, as it’s getting quite upsetting now.Thanks for your time.

A: I’ve seen ichthyosis develop in an adult without underlying medical problems. We tried a few things, and am-lactin (ammonium lactate) cream seemed to help a bit, but definitely hard to treat. Thankfully, it never involved his face, just arms and legs.This sounds pretty disturbing to you. Did the dermatologist take a skin biopsy? If not, I’d ask for one or seek a second opinion!!