# Biological similarities in embryo and tumor cells



## Bear987 (May 13, 2012)

In an article_ A Tumor, the Embryo’s Evil Twin_, the New York Times explains in what ways tumor cells and embryos are similar.

Here are some cherries I picked from the article:

" ... scientists have been finding that the same genes that guide fetal cells as they multiply, migrate and create a newborn child are also among the primary drivers of cancer. Once the baby is born, the genes step back and take on other roles. But through decades of random mutations, old embryological memories can be awakened and distorted. What is born this time is a tumor."

"Rough similarities between the growth of a tumor and the gestation of an embryo were first suggested more than a century ago. But no one could have guessed that the parallels would turn out to be so precise."

"In the early days of pregnancy, the primitive embryo — this rapidly dividing glob of cells — eats out a spot in the uterine lining using corrosive enzymes called proteases. Then it holds tight for the duration with the help of proteins like integrin, a kind of biological glue. Both types of molecules are also used by a cancer as it digs in and adheres to its berth.









Cancer cells, picture not related to the article​
Whether confronted by a tumor or a healthy pregnancy, the immune system reacts with alarm. To keep from being rejected like a mismatched organ transplant, the budding embryo sends chemical signals to quell the counterattack. Cancer cells engage in the same subterfuge.

As the embryo becomes established it secretes other enzymes, and these lead to the sprouting of blood vessels — a nourishing connection to the mother’s circulatory system. This process, called angiogenesis, is also exploited by a tumor as it fuels its growth by creating its own parasitic blood supply.

After hooking into the bloodstream, cancer seeds can spread to other parts of the body and sprout new malignancies. The process, called metastasis, appears to be driven by the same mechanism used in the embryo to dispatch freshly created cells to their proper locations.

In this complex metamorphosis, epithelial cells — the kind that stick together in sheets to form bodily tissues — are converted into loosely organized cells called mesenchyme. In this state they are free to move where they are needed to make body parts. Once they arrive they can regroup to form tissues and organs.

In a healthy embryo, this is an orderly affair. In cancer it leads not to new organs but to more tumors.

There is a point where cancer parts ways with its legacy from embryogenesis. Crucial to the development of a fetus is a phenomenon called apoptosis. The name, derived from ancient Greek, refers to the falling away of leaves from a tree or petals from a flower. Another name for it is cellular suicide.

In the burgeoning of cells that occurs during gestation, many are superfluous, and apoptosis encourages them to die. From a weblike flipper, distinguishable fingers emerge like sculpture from rock.

Once the new being is pushed into the world, apoptosis continues to be involved. Normal cells know to die when they become badly deranged. But an aspiring cancer soon learns how to wire around the self-destruct button. Spinning further out of control, it goes on to produce the mockery of a fetus called a tumor."

READ FULL ARTICLE


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

If I'm ever getting cancer and beat it, I'll say that I've had an abortion.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

There couldn't possibly be an agenda to this article or this topic, no, clearly this was just an informative science piece. Thank you.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> There couldn't possibly be an agenda to this article or this topic, no, clearly this was just an informative science piece. Thank you.


There's no agenda. Scientists have known this for years.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

*listens intently in on thread*


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

I smell agenda. Kind of like comparing someone to Hitler for having a moustache like him.


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> There's no agenda. Scientists have known this for years.


When comparing something like developing human cells to cancer cells it's safe to assume there's an agenda being the former doesn't kill off the host over time.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

SuperDevastation said:


> When comparing something like developing human cells to cancer cells it's safe to assume there's an agenda being the former doesn't kill off the host over time.


There's not an agenda. The same regulatory genes are involved in fetal development that are involved in tumor genesis.


----------



## Bear987 (May 13, 2012)

Euclid said:


> I smell agenda. Kind of like comparing someone to Hitler for having a moustache like him.


 @La Li Lu Le Lo (just in case)

At some point it's paranoia you might be smelling. The article merely fills in with biological facts the story of a woman who beat breast cancer and wrote a book about her experiences. The point of the article is twofold I reckon: firstly it is about how scary good breast-cancer lady's thoughts on tumor cells reflected the science of it and secondly it is to inform about the biology of embryos and tumors.

It's not about comparing the two to suggest that embryos are like tumors and that abortion is therefore a great thing. No. It's about learning how embryos and tumors grow, develop, nestle, transport function-specific cells and so on using the exact same techniques.

Please notice how your own agenda might unintentionally distort reality so neutral information looks like propaganda to you.

Read the article and find out for yourself whether abortion is anywhere on the horizon. Also, find out e.g. - if you care to learn - what enzymes help an embryo to sand the lining of the uterus and glue itself to it.


----------



## Bear987 (May 13, 2012)

SuperDevastation said:


> When comparing something like developing human cells to cancer cells it's safe to assume there's an agenda being the former doesn't kill off the host over time.


Do you feel that? The pain in your foot? 'Cause you just shot yourself in it.

Read the article and see how your assumption is a complete fail. Your false sense of what is safe is preventing you to learn and progress as a human being.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

Lord, why do people still bother with Leeloo Blabla La Ti Da and SuperDevastation? It never turns into an actual debate or discussion. Just rehashing. If you're not going to get through to them and they won't retort rationally, why do you still care to argue with them? It's so unconstructive and not much of a learning experience.


----------



## Bear987 (May 13, 2012)

Derange At 170 said:


> Lord, why do people still bother with Leeloo Blabla La Ti Da and SuperDevastation? It never turns into an actual debate or discussion. Just rehashing. If you're not going to get through to them and they won't retort rationally, why do you still care to argue with them? It's so unconstructive and not much of a learning experience.


I see your point. Once I start blocking people, where will it end though? Perhaps my idealism is getting in my own way here, but I would like to be able to have no one on my black list.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

Bear987 said:


> I see your point. Once I start blocking people, where will it end though? Perhaps my idealism is getting in my own way here, but I would like to be able to have no one on my black list.


Why block people and not just ignore what they say? I don't speak the same language they do. So then, debating them is irrational.


----------



## GottSchreit (Mar 20, 2014)

Interesting, but not surprising. Maybe this has something to do with why bad stem cell treatments can lead to cancerous growths.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

Bear987 said:


> @La Li Lu Le Lo (just in case)
> 
> At some point it's paranoia you might be smelling. The article merely fills in with biological facts the story of a woman who beat breast cancer and wrote a book about her experiences. The point of the article is twofold I reckon: firstly it is about how scary good breast-cancer lady's thoughts on tumor cells reflected the science of it and secondly it is to inform about the biology of embryos and tumors.
> 
> ...


I'm just being skeptical. People aren't necessarily going to process neutral information in a neutral way. Psychology can attest to that. In many ways we are still like animals, and if our critical thinking processes aren't activated and alert, we uncritically associate things in a Pavlovian manner, and we all know how uncritical the unthinking masses are.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

I just read the whole article...I see I made a mistake in even calling is "scientific."


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Oh noes, because the science article dun wot said that fetuses and tumors are, like, da same, den dat means pregnancy is like having da cancers. 

Erm, nope. Although I find the idea extraordinarily fascinating (in that it might go some way into explaining why cancer-causing mechanisms exist within our cells), I don't think it's a grand statement that fetuses and tumors are identical - if you're taking it as such, then you're completely missing the point (on _both_ sides of the issue). Relax, all the article says is that embryos and tumor cells share similar biological pathways; it's hardly the be-all and end-all of the matter. 

The hack journalist is doing something called 'warping what science says to sound as sensationalist as possible'. Don't fall for it.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

I take back what I said earlier to fan the flames a little.

Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals 



> The remains of more than 15,000 babies were incinerated as 'clinical waste' by hospitals in Britain with some used in 'waste to energy' plants


Go!


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

So, all humans are overgrown tumors…… kill all humans! It has been justified! They are cancer! *picks up chainsaw*


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> I just read the whole article...I see I made a mistake in even calling is "scientific."


This won't get through your thick skull, but scientists have known for years that fetal development and tumor development follow pretty much the same biological pathways. You don't have to like that fact, but it's a fact.


----------



## Bear987 (May 13, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> I just read the whole article...I see I made a mistake in even calling is "scientific."


Here is something to ease your mind, I am sure you'll like it!

“Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder.”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer


----------



## Bear987 (May 13, 2012)

Euclid said:


> I'm just being skeptical. People aren't necessarily going to process neutral information in a neutral way. Psychology can attest to that. In many ways we are still like animals, and if our critical thinking processes aren't activated and alert, we uncritically associate things in a Pavlovian manner, and we all know how uncritical the unthinking masses are.


It is hard to argue your point, what with the other posts in this thread that provide enough evidence to support what you're saying.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

Euclid said:


> I smell agenda. Kind of like comparing someone to Hitler for having a moustache like him.


Your comment smells of an agenda, too.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

Nightchill said:


> Your comment smells of an agenda, too.


So does yours.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> There couldn't possibly be an agenda to this article or this topic, no, clearly this was just an informative science piece. Thank you.


Embryonic stem cells *had* been touted as a possible cure for some cancers, e.g. some leukemias; but it turns out that instead of being docile well-behaved stem cells, they are mobile and highly iatrogenic compared to induced pleuripotent stem cells.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

koalaroo said:


> There's no agenda. Scientists have known this for years.


I've always wondered why nobody has tried to engineer nanoparticles containing minute quantities of fractionated brown recluse venom to be selectively delivered to the site of a tumor and thereby destroy nascent blood vessel growth...


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

Euclid said:


> So does yours.


What even if it does? Are you the only one entitled to have an agenda that you should point out something 'smells of agenda?' Dream on.

And, oh, whom did you bring up into the issue - Hitler the Ultimate Evil? You're more sleeky than any article.




Bear987 said:


> The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder.
> ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer


*And no one mentions how forcing mother to carry it, is manipulating her body and life. You're proprietor of female body less than she or you are proprietors of the body of a fetus.*

I guess woman isn't a living being now, just a semblance of it. I don't see any justice or fairness, I see a lot of sad deprived f*cks, flailing half-helplessly under the banner of virtue that women don't want to carry their brood. 

Obviously they never carried their own, so they don't even remotely have empathy for a woman or any active contribution to the life of newborns and children and family planning/sexual education in their respective communities. 
All that their brain tells them is 'you're failing to fornicate, do something, quickly!!!'. And what better method than to try to control the incubators -women. Luckily they have some psyche that can be manipulated.

I won't even go into how and to what extent from an early age, they've been trying to manipulate me into intercourse with them by guilt-tripping, brainwashing, emotional pressure, after which I wouldn't have means to free myself, except by putting a bullet trough my head or jumping in front of a train. Thankfully it was evil 'feminists' that stood up to protect me and inform me.


JUST A LOL.

*As for the article, LOL! again, as if it's going to prevent women who want and are having children of their own volition to have them. Women who want to conceive will usually go trough hell if needed to have them. 

It's hardly fault of all of us that some males are omegas in every sense, incompetent to win favors of the such females.*

I know of one who fought cancer while conceiving, bearing and living birth to her child to hold it for the first and the last time in her arms on her death bed. Her husband I vouch, wasn't u guilt-tripping *ss, he isn't against abortion, but they both actually wanted a family.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

Nightchill said:


> What even if it does? Are you the only one entitled to have an agenda that you should point out something 'smells of agenda?' Dream on.
> 
> And, oh, whom did you bring up into the issue - Hitler the Ultimate Evil? You're more sleeky than any article.


Don't worry, you can have your agenda. I have no problem with that, but let's keep the personal attacks out of this, shall we?


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

Euclid said:


> Don't worry, you can have your agenda. I have no problem with that, but let's keep the personal attacks out of this, shall we?


Then you should do so yourself first.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

Nightchill said:


> Then you should do so yourself first.


We both know who is not in compliance with the forum rules here.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

Euclid said:


> We both know who is not in compliance with the forum rules here.


Hitler, obviously! He never is in compliance anywhere. XD


----------



## castigat (Aug 26, 2012)

The title is pretty sensationalist, so of course (emotional) people are going to cherry-pick what they want out of it—or rather, see what they want to without reading it objectively. If someone reads "embryo" and "tumor" in the same sentence and they are usually apt to lash out with just the first word of those two, they're going to anyway.
I think OP probably knew this when they posted the thread, lol (personally, I saw the title and thought, "What kind of shitstorm is going on now?").

I think it's fascinating and makes sense. In no way is it legitimately saying they're both one in the same, just that they develop similarly. I don't see any "agenda" in it other than the title and "ha ha, let's make this as ambiguously controversial as possible so those with thin skins get offended!", which the writer probably knew would cause problems (and used it for shits and giggles), and "Hey guys, this is some fascinating science, come learn about it!"

But I guess learning is scary for some people.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> This won't get through *your thick skull*,


Don't do that.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

niss said:


> Don't do that.


*Shrug* 

Science is science. He can scream to the high heavens about it, but embryos and tumor cells have many similar metabolic pathways.


----------



## Tea Path (Sep 5, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> *Shrug*
> 
> Science is science. He can scream to the high heavens about it, but embryos and tumor cells have many similar metabolic pathways.


you really want to blow someone's mind, wait till they find out how many pathways are shared between us, bacteria, and plants.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Tea Path said:


> you really want to blow someone's mind, wait till they find out how many pathways are shared between us, bacteria, and plants.


Definitely. I don't think we as humans are all that spectacular or special.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

koalaroo said:


> Definitely. I don't think we as humans are all that spectacular or special.


 @koalaroo --

Ah, but do the plants share in that opinion?


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> Definitely. I don't think we as humans are all that spectacular or special.


I am a single individual out of 7 billion on a planet which is a microscopic speck in our solar system, which - compared to the rest of the galaxy - is impossibly tiny. Furthermore, when you compare the size of our galaxy to the entire universe, you just come out with a big unknown; all of existence (as we know it) is practically impossible for us to quantify. Now would also be a good time to point out humanity occupies a microscopic breath of time that planet Earth has existed, let alone the entire Universe. 

And you're telling me that _I'm_ not special?! Nonsense.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I think such scientific information enlightens an egotistical humanity and humbles us to our rightful place as just a part of Gods creation and mere stewards to God's environment, not little gods ourselves.

If anyone sees what I did there, lemme know.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

About this whole article, I must say the similarity only goes so far--embryos and tumors have similar growth rates and get similar responses from the immune system, but, well, tumor cells don't get increasingly specialized. That's hugely important.


----------

