Milford chronicle., 1963-02-22

liken viruses to free genes with
out a cell.
When a certain virus comes in
contact with a certain living cell
for which 1t has an affinity, 1t
squirts its nucleic acid into the
cell. Once injected, the virus
"genes" make their way to the
cell nucleus and apparently in
sert themselves into the cells
chromosomes, or string Of genes.
The insertion Of these "wild"
genes upsets the whole function
of the cell. In established virus
diseases, such as polio, the virus
causes the cell to stop its normal
operation and turn to the pro-
duction of more viruseS. In the
process the cell is destroyed.
But If viruses are responsible
for cancer, a different process
is employed. Instead of causing
the cell to destroy itself, the
virus causes 1t to burst into
rapid, malignant reproduction.
The viral theory of cancer
was formed by DR.. Wendell M.
Stanley, Nobel prize winning
virologist, in 1856. At that time
the idea seemed revolutionary,
but since then there has been
much experimental evidence to
support such a theory and moth
ing to disprove it.
II is the fervent hope Of many
in the field that virus is neces-
sary to cancer, for then there is
a possibility that 1t can be knocked
out once and for all destroyed
by drugs or neutralized by vac
cineS.
Just how firm this possibility
might be is open to speculation.
Not all virus-cauSed diseases
can as yet be prevented by vac
cines. Besides, to date, only one
virus disease has ever been cured
by a drug and this under rather
unique circumstances.
A sidelight Of the virus
research has been development
OF the idea that certain cancers
may be due to an undeveloped or
suppressed bodily defense me-
chaniSm.
Carcinogenic chemicals, radi-
alton or a weakness developed
before birth may lead to apoorly
functioning system, which in turn
fails to detect or fails to react
against cancer viruses and so
permits them to establish their
chain Of malignancy.
This theory was evolved in part
from studies Of virus-causedl leu
kemia, or cancer Of the blood
forming tissues, in laboratory
animals.
But whether viruses are at the
bottom Of all cancer or not, the
fact remains that exposure to
certain carcinogens tend to pro-
duce cancer.
This was probably first made
clear by the early chimney
sweeps of London who were in
clined to develop cancer, yet
life is impossible without sun
light. Radiation strikes at us
not only from fallout but from
the earth, from outer space and
a hundred other natural and man
made sources.
In addition, some occupations
by their nature expose workers
to specific carcinogens. Radi-
ologists, for instance, used to
expose themselves unwittingly to
a cancer hazard from the very
tools they we're halping to de-
fCAOP " 44SAAl IdlAIG4
Certain metallic dusts, aro-
matte anime dyes, specific frac-
tions Of petroleum and many
other chemicals and compounds
used In industry and certain oc-
have been proven
dangerous because Of their con-
nsction with cancer.
The search for carcinogens
has been drawn out because in
man 1t usually takes so long for
cancer to develop, even under
daily contact with a potential
cancer stimulator.
The possibility that air pol
luton and smoking may produce
lung cancer was not demon
stratable until involved statistics
covering period Of three
decades or more had been sorted
out and evaluated.
Then too, while something like
radiation-induc cancer may
show up in a laboratory animal
in a period Of weeks or months,
a man exposed to aproportionate