First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Cancer cure found?
33165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / BC, Canada
Offline
Posted 5/16/11
It will never happen. Cancer is not a disease, so it can't be "cured". Its not simple like sending in an antibiotic to kill foreign cells like in the case of a virus. Cancer cells are your own cells growing in a malformed way. "unnatural" natural growth so to speak. It's in your DNA. You can't modify your own DNA so you can't make some sort of pill that will tell your body to stop growing cells that it thinks are normal. You can only get rid of cancer by literally cutting or burning away cancerous cells. Cancer exists in every persons body, it becomes fatal or dangerous when the growth outpaces how fast its killed or dies naturally.

You can't "cure" cancer just like how you cant "cure" being tall or short or black or white. It's your dna and you're stuck with it.

Sorry folks.

All those charities that take your money in search of a "cure" are just fooling you. They use the money to search for a way to kill cancer more efficiently, but no matter how you kill it, theres no garauntee it won't grow back in the future, because once again, it's in your DNA.
2182 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 5/16/11
Zombie Apocalypse????
16372 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / New York City
Offline
Posted 5/16/11
with power comes great responsibility...
19151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Classified
Offline
Posted 5/16/11
I wonder if someone eventually found a way to "cure" cancer, would the medicine industry try to cover it up?
9304 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 5/16/11
OP, your article is 3 years old.
For some reason this seems to be circulating a lot right now.
Strange.
78855 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F
Offline
Posted 5/16/11
Wasn't there a thread like this 3 or 4 years ago
3245 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / New Jersey, U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 5/16/11
You got to be careful when messing with cancer. There are many corrupt corporations who would do anything to shut up anyone with a possible cure. There is also the possibility of it mutating into ZOMBIE CANCER!, if you mess around too much, Cause of this we may never see a cure in our life time.
59084 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Tacodome
Offline
Posted 5/16/11

Kokashiba wrote:

It will never happen. Cancer is not a disease, so it can't be "cured". Its not simple like sending in an antibiotic to kill foreign cells like in the case of a virus. Cancer cells are your own cells growing in a malformed way. "unnatural" natural growth so to speak. It's in your DNA. You can't modify your own DNA so you can't make some sort of pill that will tell your body to stop growing cells that it thinks are normal. You can only get rid of cancer by literally cutting or burning away cancerous cells. Cancer exists in every persons body, it becomes fatal or dangerous when the growth outpaces how fast its killed or dies naturally.

You can't "cure" cancer just like how you cant "cure" being tall or short or black or white. It's your dna and you're stuck with it.

Sorry folks.

All those charities that take your money in search of a "cure" are just fooling you. They use the money to search for a way to kill cancer more efficiently, but no matter how you kill it, theres no garauntee it won't grow back in the future, because once again, it's in your DNA.


It may not be a literal "Cure" like you say. But if the article is true then there's at least hope for recovery for people who have the disease. It's a potential means for the unnatural growths to stop and thus not kill the patient. I'm guessing you didn't actually read the article at all though.
It seems like you're just wanting to squash potential hope for the sake of doing so.
2322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / California, Hawai...
Offline
Posted 5/16/11
thats cool, to bad i dont know anyone with cancer
85314 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Colorado, USA
Offline
Posted 5/16/11
That article makes it sound incredibly simple, and even states no concern for side effects. Thus, it should be reasonable that any medical student and other non doctors could test this for themselves. Considering how much time has passed, I'm sure that more people have tested this than information could be controlled. I don't think conspiracy theories are valid here, the article's theory must be entirely baseless and false.
41050 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 5/16/11 , edited 5/16/11

Kokashiba wrote:

It will never happen. Cancer is not a disease, so it can't be "cured". Its not simple like sending in an antibiotic to kill foreign cells like in the case of a virus. Cancer cells are your own cells growing in a malformed way. "unnatural" natural growth so to speak. It's in your DNA. You can't modify your own DNA so you can't make some sort of pill that will tell your body to stop growing cells that it thinks are normal. You can only get rid of cancer by literally cutting or burning away cancerous cells. Cancer exists in every persons body, it becomes fatal or dangerous when the growth outpaces how fast its killed or dies naturally.

You can't "cure" cancer just like how you cant "cure" being tall or short or black or white. It's your dna and you're stuck with it.

Sorry folks.

All those charities that take your money in search of a "cure" are just fooling you. They use the money to search for a way to kill cancer more efficiently, but no matter how you kill it, theres no garauntee it won't grow back in the future, because once again, it's in your DNA.



As a medical student, I just want everyone to know how wrong this statement is. The definition of disease covers genetic etiologies as well, so yes, hereditary forms of cancer are DISEASE. Besides, not all cancers are genetic; for example, mesothelioma is primarily a cancer of exposure to asbestos fibers.

While it's true you can't alter your DNA, what you can do is destroy every cell that has the morphological characteristics of cancer--i.e., immortality, self-sufficiency, invasiveness, angiogenesis, etc. That's what chemotherapy is designed to do. As our knowledge of cancer gets better with each passing day, we have now developed "personalized" treatments that can target cancers that arise from specific genetic mutations that we know of. For example, patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) have a characteristic genetic finding called the Philadelphia chromosome that activates a particular mutant gene known as bcr-abl. There are drugs (i.e., imatinib, otherwise known as Gleevec) that can specifically bind to this gene product and destroy the cancerous tumor with far less side effects that conventional chemotherapy. CML, once an assuredly lethal disease, can now be treated into remission in the vast majority of patients.

When I say "remission," I mean that there are physically no more cancer cells in that patient by any test known to doctors, and that the genetic abnormality leading to that cancer is no longer detectable by our tests. That's pretty dang close to saying "cure." If those patients do develop other cancers, it's often due to other RFs or, unfortunately, sometimes the treatment themselves since many of the older chemotherapeutics are toxic to bone marrow and can cause leukemias. In that situation, it's a trade-off between treating the cancer of the patient now, but increasing their risk of a different cancer in the future.


Yes, this article is old. And yes, whoever claims it is a "magic bullet" for cancer is a troll. The metabolic and genetic pathways for cancer can be complex and can differ between cancers and within cancers. The genetic make-up of one patient's tumor can be drastically different than another patient's tumor even if they both have lung cancer, simply because there are so many ways to make a normal cell cancerous. While it's true that cancer cells have apoptosis-resistance mechanisms, not all tumors will be equally susceptible to forced oxidative metabolism as a way to circumvent that; mutations in other genetic pathways can confer resistance to apoptosis in other pathways; what comes to my mind are things like constitutive mutations in bcl-2 (an anti-apoptotic gene) or deletions in p53 (a gene product that can induce apoptosis).

In any case, no human trials large enough to show a statistically significant mortality benefit have been conducted. So any statement that this is a magic bullet has no basis in sound, scientific fact--it's simply a statement of opinion. I certainly hope that such a cheap and freely available drug has a mortality benefit, but until it's proven it'd be better not to deceitfully raise people's hopes.

Finally, in regards to the linked article in the OP, I think it's incredibly offensive to insinuate that somehow doctors "profit" off of their patient's suffering. For that to be our sole reason to practice medicine goes against our entire code of ethics, and frankly, if we were in it for the money we'd be stupid because it'd be so much easier to get rich in a different field like economics. Many doctors who treat patients in the US don't even get paid the full price of treatment because they take Medicare/Medicaid; anyone familiar with those programs knows the reimbursement for those programs are positively atrocious. If you want to blame drug companies that's a different argument for a different day (although I'd disagree with you). I'd just like to remind you all that, contrary to popular opinion, drug development is very costly; the reason why pharmaceutical companies insist on respecting copyright for a number of years is so they can recoup their development costs and show some profit margins to their shareholders before the cheaper generics hit the market. Anyone who tells you that AIDS patients nowadays are profit machines for Big Pharma is lying through their teeth--cheap generic HAART therapy is now available for AIDS patients in the US and even in Africa thanks to some big US/UN programs.

So next time before you bash us doctors and Big Pharma as the spawn of Satan, please think a little bit about what you're actually saying.

Posted 5/16/11
People like cancer. Makes them seem edgy if they willingly inflict it upon themselves.
33165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / BC, Canada
Offline
Posted 5/17/11

hitokiri2486 wrote:


Kokashiba wrote:

It will never happen. Cancer is not a disease, so it can't be "cured". Its not simple like sending in an antibiotic to kill foreign cells like in the case of a virus. Cancer cells are your own cells growing in a malformed way. "unnatural" natural growth so to speak. It's in your DNA. You can't modify your own DNA so you can't make some sort of pill that will tell your body to stop growing cells that it thinks are normal. You can only get rid of cancer by literally cutting or burning away cancerous cells. Cancer exists in every persons body, it becomes fatal or dangerous when the growth outpaces how fast its killed or dies naturally.

You can't "cure" cancer just like how you cant "cure" being tall or short or black or white. It's your dna and you're stuck with it.

Sorry folks.

All those charities that take your money in search of a "cure" are just fooling you. They use the money to search for a way to kill cancer more efficiently, but no matter how you kill it, theres no garauntee it won't grow back in the future, because once again, it's in your DNA.



As a medical student, I just want everyone to know how wrong this statement is. The definition of disease covers genetic etiologies as well, so yes, hereditary forms of cancer are DISEASE. Besides, not all cancers are genetic; for example, mesothelioma is primarily a cancer of exposure to asbestos fibers.

While it's true you can't alter your DNA, what you can do is destroy every cell that has the morphological characteristics of cancer--i.e., immortality, self-sufficiency, invasiveness, angiogenesis, etc. That's what chemotherapy is designed to do. As our knowledge of cancer gets better with each passing day, we have now developed "personalized" treatments that can target cancers that arise from specific genetic mutations that we know of. For example, patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) have a characteristic genetic finding called the Philadelphia chromosome that activates a particular mutant gene known as bcr-abl. There are drugs (i.e., imatinib, otherwise known as Gleevec) that can specifically bind to this gene product and destroy the cancerous tumor with far less side effects that conventional chemotherapy. CML, once an assuredly lethal disease, can now be treated into remission in the vast majority of patients.

When I say "remission," I mean that there are physically no more cancer cells in that patient by any test known to doctors, and that the genetic abnormality leading to that cancer is no longer detectable by our tests. That's pretty dang close to saying "cure." If those patients do develop other cancers, it's often due to other RFs or, unfortunately, sometimes the treatment themselves since many of the older chemotherapeutics are toxic to bone marrow and can cause leukemias. In that situation, it's a trade-off between treating the cancer of the patient now, but increasing their risk of a different cancer in the future.


Yes, this article is old. And yes, whoever claims it is a "magic bullet" for cancer is a troll. The metabolic and genetic pathways for cancer can be complex and can differ between cancers and within cancers. The genetic make-up of one patient's tumor can be drastically different than another patient's tumor even if they both have lung cancer, simply because there are so many ways to make a normal cell cancerous. While it's true that cancer cells have apoptosis-resistance mechanisms, not all tumors will be equally susceptible to forced oxidative metabolism as a way to circumvent that; mutations in other genetic pathways can confer resistance to apoptosis in other pathways; what comes to my mind are things like constitutive mutations in bcl-2 (an anti-apoptotic gene) or deletions in p53 (a gene product that can induce apoptosis).

In any case, no human trials large enough to show a statistically significant mortality benefit have been conducted. So any statement that this is a magic bullet has no basis in sound, scientific fact--it's simply a statement of opinion. I certainly hope that such a cheap and freely available drug has a mortality benefit, but until it's proven it'd be better not to deceitfully raise people's hopes.

Finally, in regards to the linked article in the OP, I think it's incredibly offensive to insinuate that somehow doctors "profit" off of their patient's suffering. For that to be our sole reason to practice medicine goes against our entire code of ethics, and frankly, if we were in it for the money we'd be stupid because it'd be so much easier to get rich in a different field like economics. Many doctors who treat patients in the US don't even get paid the full price of treatment because they take Medicare/Medicaid; anyone familiar with those programs knows the reimbursement for those programs are positively atrocious. If you want to blame drug companies that's a different argument for a different day (although I'd disagree with you). I'd just like to remind you all that, contrary to popular opinion, drug development is very costly; the reason why pharmaceutical companies insist on respecting copyright for a number of years is so they can recoup their development costs and show some profit margins to their shareholders before the cheaper generics hit the market. Anyone who tells you that AIDS patients nowadays are profit machines for Big Pharma is lying through their teeth--cheap generic HAART therapy is now available for AIDS patients in the US and even in Africa thanks to some big US/UN programs.

So next time before you bash us doctors and Big Pharma as the spawn of Satan, please think a little bit about what you're actually saying.



So you basically disproved 15% of what I said and more or less reaffirmed the last 85% of it. Not that bad if you ask me. Disease or not, the rest stands. Treatment and cure are far and away extremely different things. You can cut and burn cancer away until there is not a single atom of it left in you, but never can you promise it won't grow back in the future somehow. Every cancer patient in remission is simply a potential walking time bomb. I'm not trying to be a downer, but lets not be naive here.
59084 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Tacodome
Offline
Posted 5/17/11

hitokiri2486 wrote:


Kokashiba wrote:

It will never happen. Cancer is not a disease, so it can't be "cured". Its not simple like sending in an antibiotic to kill foreign cells like in the case of a virus. Cancer cells are your own cells growing in a malformed way. "unnatural" natural growth so to speak. It's in your DNA. You can't modify your own DNA so you can't make some sort of pill that will tell your body to stop growing cells that it thinks are normal. You can only get rid of cancer by literally cutting or burning away cancerous cells. Cancer exists in every persons body, it becomes fatal or dangerous when the growth outpaces how fast its killed or dies naturally.

You can't "cure" cancer just like how you cant "cure" being tall or short or black or white. It's your dna and you're stuck with it.

Sorry folks.

All those charities that take your money in search of a "cure" are just fooling you. They use the money to search for a way to kill cancer more efficiently, but no matter how you kill it, theres no garauntee it won't grow back in the future, because once again, it's in your DNA.



As a medical student, I just want everyone to know how wrong this statement is. The definition of disease covers genetic etiologies as well, so yes, hereditary forms of cancer are DISEASE. Besides, not all cancers are genetic; for example, mesothelioma is primarily a cancer of exposure to asbestos fibers.

While it's true you can't alter your DNA, what you can do is destroy every cell that has the morphological characteristics of cancer--i.e., immortality, self-sufficiency, invasiveness, angiogenesis, etc. That's what chemotherapy is designed to do. As our knowledge of cancer gets better with each passing day, we have now developed "personalized" treatments that can target cancers that arise from specific genetic mutations that we know of. For example, patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) have a characteristic genetic finding called the Philadelphia chromosome that activates a particular mutant gene known as bcr-abl. There are drugs (i.e., imatinib, otherwise known as Gleevec) that can specifically bind to this gene product and destroy the cancerous tumor with far less side effects that conventional chemotherapy. CML, once an assuredly lethal disease, can now be treated into remission in the vast majority of patients.

When I say "remission," I mean that there are physically no more cancer cells in that patient by any test known to doctors, and that the genetic abnormality leading to that cancer is no longer detectable by our tests. That's pretty dang close to saying "cure." If those patients do develop other cancers, it's often due to other RFs or, unfortunately, sometimes the treatment themselves since many of the older chemotherapeutics are toxic to bone marrow and can cause leukemias. In that situation, it's a trade-off between treating the cancer of the patient now, but increasing their risk of a different cancer in the future.


Yes, this article is old. And yes, whoever claims it is a "magic bullet" for cancer is a troll. The metabolic and genetic pathways for cancer can be complex and can differ between cancers and within cancers. The genetic make-up of one patient's tumor can be drastically different than another patient's tumor even if they both have lung cancer, simply because there are so many ways to make a normal cell cancerous. While it's true that cancer cells have apoptosis-resistance mechanisms, not all tumors will be equally susceptible to forced oxidative metabolism as a way to circumvent that; mutations in other genetic pathways can confer resistance to apoptosis in other pathways; what comes to my mind are things like constitutive mutations in bcl-2 (an anti-apoptotic gene) or deletions in p53 (a gene product that can induce apoptosis).

In any case, no human trials large enough to show a statistically significant mortality benefit have been conducted. So any statement that this is a magic bullet has no basis in sound, scientific fact--it's simply a statement of opinion. I certainly hope that such a cheap and freely available drug has a mortality benefit, but until it's proven it'd be better not to deceitfully raise people's hopes.

Finally, in regards to the linked article in the OP, I think it's incredibly offensive to insinuate that somehow doctors "profit" off of their patient's suffering. For that to be our sole reason to practice medicine goes against our entire code of ethics, and frankly, if we were in it for the money we'd be stupid because it'd be so much easier to get rich in a different field like economics. Many doctors who treat patients in the US don't even get paid the full price of treatment because they take Medicare/Medicaid; anyone familiar with those programs knows the reimbursement for those programs are positively atrocious. If you want to blame drug companies that's a different argument for a different day (although I'd disagree with you). I'd just like to remind you all that, contrary to popular opinion, drug development is very costly; the reason why pharmaceutical companies insist on respecting copyright for a number of years is so they can recoup their development costs and show some profit margins to their shareholders before the cheaper generics hit the market. Anyone who tells you that AIDS patients nowadays are profit machines for Big Pharma is lying through their teeth--cheap generic HAART therapy is now available for AIDS patients in the US and even in Africa thanks to some big US/UN programs.

So next time before you bash us doctors and Big Pharma as the spawn of Satan, please think a little bit about what you're actually saying.



Medical student or not, I think your overly defensive response is is a little ridiculous. Like the real world tends to require things aren't as black and white as some statements would lead people to believe. True, big pharmaceutical companies aren't great evil corporations out to watch us suffer unless they can turn a buck. But also I don't believe that they're these saintly businesses as you might lead people either. They only sell them for the sometimes ridiculous prices they do just to divert the cost of development? Please, they're still a business out to MAKE MONEY and it wouldn't surprise me that much if something that might help out patients got swept under the rug for a bit just so they can make money.
What's more, I don't believe I read that any DOCTORS had fingers pointed at them in this case. Perhaps I missed it but I really don't remember anything about doctors being blamed for any of the problems.
7430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / New York
Offline
Posted 5/17/11
Fake.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.