Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : NIFTY NINE IN NINETY NINE PLUS ONE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (395)	2/12/1999 12:35:00 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 613

TD: Gonna do some medline searching and get back to you. I didn't know that Cyclosporine enhanced the frequency of tumors. This plays into a big controversy that has been brewing for gazillions of years. We know that, in humans, most of us can get EBV-induced lymphomas, B cell cancers, and that they are held in check by T cells. Further, we know that cyclosporine inhibits the T cells. So, it wouldn't surprise me that those on cyclosporine and who were EBV+ (about 90% of adults) would get an increased frequency of lymphoma. But, I'll check to see if it goes beyond that. In the old days, some would have predicted that T cell deficient animals would get a higher frequency of cancers. However, when "nudes" became available, it didn't turn out that way. The role of immune surveillance in cancer has been debated ever since. The reports that just blindly say that cancers can be controlled by the immune system are simple-minded crud. It might be true, but the simple-minded assumption is without much experimental evidence, IMO, to back it. Yes, that would make BTRN's approach more appealing. I'll poke around. Did you have any specific types of cancer in mind? Rick