bullskitur
Planet
Intelligence requires not confusing what you believe with what you know
Posts: 306
|
Post by bullskitur on Sept 29, 2010 17:59:54 GMT -5
Chemotherapy is the closest to a cure that we're ever going to get. Cancer cells will divide infinitely until it takes the life of the individual. You cannot kill that which cannot die. So you can't beat cancer? Strange since I know someone who had cancer and required years of therapy and beat the odds and is cancer free today.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Sept 29, 2010 18:19:49 GMT -5
Chemotherapy is the closest to a cure that we're ever going to get. Cancer cells will divide infinitely until it takes the life of the individual. You cannot kill that which cannot die. So you can't beat cancer? Strange since I know someone who had cancer and required years of therapy and beat the odds and is cancer free today. Indeed, but that was Chemotherapy, was it not? I know someone who went through that and had cancer twice. It's definitely not a *for sure* thing. And you're not really KILLING the cancer itself, are you?
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Sept 29, 2010 19:27:00 GMT -5
I think the idea they're trying to get across is we will never come to a point where we no longer have to worry about cancer at all. We can find better and better solutions to it for when it does occur, but we cannot prevent it from occurring.
Until we all have android bodies, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by newschooled on Sept 30, 2010 0:11:47 GMT -5
I don't wanna get into an in depth explanation of how it works, but it has very recently been proven that over the long term you CAN infact alter your DNA for the better through healthy and active living. (That is...Healthier and more active than you were before) This eliminates many genetic markers which indicate susceptibility or predispositions to developing various cancers. (One of my clients is the Canadian Centre for DNA Diagnostics...They teach me stuff!)
So granted, it's still not cureable...But you can dramatically decrease the chances of ever having cancer on the genetic level.
|
|
bullskitur
Planet
Intelligence requires not confusing what you believe with what you know
Posts: 306
|
Post by bullskitur on Sept 30, 2010 17:10:51 GMT -5
So you can't beat cancer? Strange since I know someone who had cancer and required years of therapy and beat the odds and is cancer free today. Indeed, but that was Chemotherapy, was it not? I know someone who went through that and had cancer twice. It's definitely not a *for sure* thing. And you're not really KILLING the cancer itself, are you? Yeah it was chemo and sure it isn't a sure thing but every test he has gone to since shows that he is cancer free. And I'm no doctor but I don't see how he didn't "kill" the cancer. It's not there anymore and I believe it didn't just pack it's bags and decided to live elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Sept 30, 2010 17:13:42 GMT -5
Cancer doesn't live. It's not an organism or an infection. It's like a programming glitch in a computer. Cells divide relentlessly, making more and more copies of themselves than necessary.
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Sept 30, 2010 21:12:38 GMT -5
You can't cure cancer. Cancer is a mutation where your own cells divide uncontrollably. You can't isolate the mutation, you can't reverse what the cells have done - it'd be like trying to cure homosexuality. All you can do is remove the tumors, and hope it hasn't reached the blood stream and spread yet. Is this your formal education speaking or your simple understanding of cancer? Either way what do you think about the billions of dollars spent on curing cancer each year? Seems like quite a waist if you really cannot cure it. Know what I call it? Billions of dollars spent on treating the symptomsAs Alex and Ryan said - you can't kill that which cannot die. Fun fact: if you remove a tumor from a body, it can potentially keep dividing. Also - that's my Grade 9 science class talking.
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Sept 30, 2010 21:16:54 GMT -5
Indeed, but that was Chemotherapy, was it not? I know someone who went through that and had cancer twice. It's definitely not a *for sure* thing. And you're not really KILLING the cancer itself, are you? Yeah it was chemo and sure it isn't a sure thing but every test he has gone to since shows that he is cancer free. And I'm no doctor but I don't see how he didn't "kill" the cancer. It's not there anymore and I believe it didn't just pack it's bags and decided to live elsewhere. See - you don't know that - either the chemo worked, or the cancer already spread, and just hasn't manifested yet. This is how Terry Fox died - the Cancer could return at any time. As my oncologist says - just because somebody is cancer-free, it doesn't mean they won't die of cancer later on.
|
|
|
Post by Rogers91 on Oct 18, 2010 3:22:05 GMT -5
nice so far but there are cancers we can stop... ohh no here come the skeptics.. however wait for it.. www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/genebam... mind blown right.. there are cancers caused by the p53 gene stop working and instead of checking cell reproduction for mutations it just sits there and lets everything multiply. gene therapy allows for a doctor to inject working p53 genes into a person and replace the existing ones. if it works the cancer would stop spreading and in turn would be no longer a threat. yes there would be the possibility of the process happening all over again and yes there would be a tumor that would never go away but it would but much safer than infusing your patient with poison and hoping you can put enough in there system with out killing there kidney or liver first to kill the cancer. by the way projected to be a viable solution in less than two decades there is also the idea scraping the healthy tissue and replacing the organ with a lab made replacement(yes cloning and cancer) this would require chemo or gene therapy and would have to be caught quickly but would improve the life of the individual drastically. Cloning functional organs is already possible i would give it a decade at most. www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/science_nature/cloned_organs.shtmlohh well just some food for thought.. and cancer... when we find a cure it will be as a whisper and would barely be noticed well unless you have cancer at that very moment...
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Oct 18, 2010 14:37:04 GMT -5
Dude - as long as you have living cells in your body, you're at risk for cancer.
Quick Cell biology lesson: When your cells divide, your chromosomes make copies of themselves, pair up, and split apart - this is called mitosis. The cloning process itself occurs on the DNA level - the DNA splits apart, and re-binds itself with new amino acids - 1 strand becomes 2. Now, every time your DNA does this, there is always a little bit of it that doesn't bind with anything, it's just junk that sits there. That junk is cancer (it's also why people don't live forever - eventually you run of of DNA to replicate).
That's right, as you sit there, right now, you have cancer. It's a simplified explanation, but it'll work. Now - normally your cells detect this junk, and destroy it - but sometimes it's missed, and it mutates - that's when cancer starts to become malignant. Cancer is proof that, if you build a better mouse-trap, nature builds a better mouse.
Gene therapy will help - but it won't be a cure. Cancer is a mutation - and mutation is very basic level of evolution. We can use gene therapy, and we'll have a short-term solution, but eventually cancer will rise again.
But - as I've said before - we can find better treatments - we can remove most carcinogens from the world, we can remove tumors, but we can't cure something our body produces naturally.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Oct 18, 2010 18:18:29 GMT -5
You should be careful taking such a certain stance on any topic. If you were a biochemist or whatever cancer-researchers are you may get away with that tone, but not as an average Joe.
You never know, maybe cancer has been cured somewhere, right now, and it's finding its way into orthodox medicine as we speak... Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Oct 18, 2010 19:35:36 GMT -5
The cure will not be some magical potion that you drink and are back to perfect health in days. They are currently researching nano technology. They are trying to form tiny, cell sized robots that they release in the affected area. The robots remove the cancer cells from your body.
Once we reach that point, things would be great. This isn't just a medicine. It is another treatment. Pharmacies win, and so do we.
EDIT: Also, last time I checked, homosexuality isn't a disease.
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Oct 18, 2010 21:46:18 GMT -5
You should be careful taking such a certain stance on any topic. If you were a biochemist or whatever cancer-researchers are you may get away with that tone, but not as an average Joe. You never know, maybe cancer has been cured somewhere, right now, and it's finding its way into orthodox medicine as we speak... Just saying. Good thing I am a biochemist then - or at least a biochemist in training. Everything related to the bio aspect of my degree is in micro and cell biology. If I don't learn this from my professors, it's from my own independent research, or from my oncologist. And, if there was a cure for cancer somewhere, my oncologist would be among the first to know. I'll believe there's a potential cure the day I don't have to see an oncologist anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Rogers91 on Oct 19, 2010 0:33:50 GMT -5
nano tech is possible.. its as far off as the singularity but at that point you would have the choice of nano bots that keep your body alive for an extended time or a mechanical body that carries your mind or a cloned body that your mind has been transfered to.
so technicaly you could be imortal which is a diferent topic entirely.
sorry if i have implied that being gay is a disease.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Oct 19, 2010 5:13:39 GMT -5
Actually, they already have some prototypes. Just because they have tiny cancer detectors at one point does not mean they will have giant human bodies made of metal with complex wiring and movement.
|
|
|
Post by Rogers91 on Oct 19, 2010 6:05:41 GMT -5
Actually, they already have some prototypes. Just because they have tiny cancer detectors at one point does not mean they will have giant human bodies made of metal with complex wiring and movement. not what i was going for.. the idea of nano technology is to build things from the ground up so to make a nano bot that replaced cells in the human body could eliminate cancer... not just as warning alarms but as a clean up crew basicly. also a clone body would work just as well.. heck the possibility to have your mind dumped into a think tank (super computer) and live the rest of existance in a memory or a community built and maintained by others in said tank. these are all things of theory but are of some possibility even though all of these have there down sides...
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Oct 19, 2010 15:58:31 GMT -5
If the technological singularity counts as the cure for cancer - then fine, but we'll all be part machine at that point anyways.
|
|
|
Post by Rogers91 on Oct 19, 2010 16:16:06 GMT -5
yes and if i live that long it will be awesome...
|
|
|
Post by Spot Moon Cool on Oct 19, 2010 17:05:59 GMT -5
Eazy if there are no cancer they'll be more people.
More people = More Scientific Advances
More Scientific Advances = Flying Cars!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Oct 19, 2010 18:36:37 GMT -5
@aust Kyzor So I suppose your professors or oncologist have not heard of Stanislaw Burzynski..? the idea of nano technology is to build things from the ground up so to make a nano bot that replaced cells in the human body could eliminate cancer... not just as warning alarms but as a clean up crew basicly. And what makes everyone think that the human body is not capable of doing this itself under the right circumstances? There is evidence that supports the notion that the body can take care of itself, including preventing cancer.
|
|