Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice

[WhiteLotus]

They do lots of different jobs, one of them being cell growth and death : ]

I know.

 

[GLD]

More input peeps!

 

[WhiteLotus]

There isn't any more input.

Some people have claimed to cure cancer, but in reality it's kind of so full of holes no one is taking them seriously.


In short, you wont ever "cure" cancer, there are just too many things wrong with a cancer cell that makes it a cancer cell. Cutting it out and blasting your body with radiation/chemotherapy is the best thing we have, and will have. Perhaps if someone invented a dye that makes it easier to identify which cells are cancer, and which aren't then the surgeons could have a better success rate in taking them out without recurrence.

 

[joe50000]

There isn't any more input.

Some people have claimed to cure cancer, but in reality it's kind of so full of holes no one is taking them seriously.


In short, you wont ever "cure" cancer, there are just too many things wrong with a cancer cell that makes it a cancer cell. Cutting it out and blasting your body with radiation/chemotherapy is the best thing we have, and will have. Perhaps if someone invented a dye that makes it easier to identify which cells are cancer, and which aren't then the surgeons could have a better success rate in taking them out without recurrence.

now, thats just being pessimistic of you. We can also:

Improve awareness of the symptoms and risk factors
Make treatment more widely available and accessible
Society could be more accommodating of cancer victims
The financial burden of treatment could be ameliorated
Pain management and reduction of symptoms associated with condition and treatment

 

[Over_Lord]

Hope these companies die.

 

[twilyth]

There isn't any more input.

Some people have claimed to cure cancer, but in reality it's kind of so full of holes no one is taking them seriously.


In short, you wont ever "cure" cancer, there are just too many things wrong with a cancer cell that makes it a cancer cell. Cutting it out and blasting your body with radiation/chemotherapy is the best thing we have, and will have. Perhaps if someone invented a dye that makes it easier to identify which cells are cancer, and which aren't then the surgeons could have a better success rate in taking them out without recurrence.

Actually, the best approach for irradiating tumors is a proton beam. These do much less damage to surrounding tissue than even a gamma knife. The problem is that you need a cyclotron to produce protons traveling at 60% of the speed of light. In the US there are only 2 or 3 on the eastern seaboard and a new one is being built a couple of towns over from me that should go online in about 2 years IIRC.

But aside from that, there are some things that it might be possible to target that are specific to malignant cancer cells. Angiogenesis inhibitors I think are being widely used for example. You might also be able to attack the cell's ability to manufacture telomerase. Telomeres are repeating strings of nucleic acids that get shorter with each cell division. As far as we know, no mature cells manufacture telomerase and if a cancer cell were prevented from doing it, they would eventually start to lose whole sections of their genetic code.

 

[Volkszorn88]

Interesting read.

 

[WhiteLotus]

Actually, the best approach for irradiating tumors is a proton beam. These do much less damage to surrounding tissue than even a gamma knife. The problem is that you need a cyclotron to produce protons traveling at 60% of the speed of light. In the US there are only 2 or 3 on the eastern seaboard and a new one is being built a couple of towns over from me that should go online in about 2 years IIRC.

But aside from that, there are some things that it might be possible to target that are specific to malignant cancer cells. Angiogenesis inhibitors I think are being widely used for example. You might also be able to attack the cell's ability to manufacture telomerase. Telomeres are repeating strings of nucleic acids that get shorter with each cell division. As far as we know, no mature cells manufacture telomerase and if a cancer cell were prevented from doing it, they would eventually start to lose whole sections of their genetic code.

A telomerase inhibitor would be very beneficial actually. To find how it is structured, and then inhibit it would be very beneficial.

Though to get the best results I think some work should be done on artificial p53, see if injecting that directly into a cancerous mass would reduce the amount of growth and/or cells.

 

[twilyth]

For anyone who is interested in some of the actual science involved in battling cancer, here is an excellent article "Crushing Cancer's Defenses." Read this and you begin to understand why simplistic approaches like that in the OP have virtually no chance of ever succeeding.

By the way, the magazine it comes from Science News, is geared to a high school level of understanding. This article in particular is very well written with an interesting mix of science and history and almost no jargon.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

meh i rate this up there with teh cure for AIDs, techinically people who have the same resistence to the bubonic plaque are immune to AIDs / HIV since it changes the cells that AIDs /HIV attacks and takes over. but even though we know that we cant reverse engineer it yet to cure the world of it.

more on topic
This would help cancer patients but it wont out and out cure every cancer patient ever. so its progress but not exactly a bullet proof concept. same as the above situation.

 

[twilyth]

meh i rate this up there with teh cure for AIDs, techinically people who have the same resistence to the bubonic plaque are immune to AIDs / HIV since it changes the cells that AIDs /HIV attacks and takes over. but even though we know that we cant reverse engineer it yet to cure the world of it.

more on topic
This would help cancer patients but it wont out and out cure every cancer patient ever. so its progress but not exactly a bullet proof concept. same as the above situation.

If you're talking about the OP, that's probably worthless. If you're talking about immunotherapy for cancer, that's precisely the point - it's progress.

And the problem with replicating a genetic abnormality is that it involves the trivial little task of rewriting the DNA of every cell in your body. How exactly are you proposing we do that?

 

[Wile E]

If you're talking about the OP, that's probably worthless. If you're talking about immunotherapy for cancer, that's precisely the point - it's progress.

And the problem with replicating a genetic abnormality is that it involves the trivial little task of rewriting the DNA of every cell in your body. How exactly are you proposing we do that?

Jeff Goldblum managed it in The Fly.

 

[Wrigleyvillain]

so is this mean folding@home is useless?

No offense but I thought that already. Especially when you factor in the environmental impact from all that power required. The point is to do something good for mankind right? Burning less coal and creating less nuclear waste would definitely qualify.

 

[fullinfusion]

Im sure they have many other cures out there hidden. The big companies dont make. money if nobody needs long term prescriptions.
It's a shame what this world has come down too, GREED!!!

 

[twilyth]

No offense but I thought that already. Especially when you factor in the environmental impact from all that power required. The point is to do something good for mankind right? Burning less coal and creating less nuclear waste would definitely qualify.

There has been periodic discussion of the patent issue for public domain discoveries like those being pursued by WCG and F@H. The fact of the matter is that any drugs that seem promising still have to be tested. That means putting them into a form that is easy to administer, preferably via the oral route as a pill. A company can get a patent just on the delivery mechanism even if the drug is public domain. Just look at drugs like Niaspan and Lovaza. Niaspan is just a timed release form of vitamin B-3 (niacin). There's no patent on any vitamin AFAIK. And Lovaza is just a special type of purified fish oil. But both of these are drugs that companies like Abbott are making nice profits off of.

And even if a drug doesn't get picked up by a pharmaceutical company, there are other ways to get it tested and out to the public. The govt runs clinical trials all of the time through places like the NIH and other agencies. I can't think of an example off hand, but if something really did show promise in treating cancer, you can bet you life that some govt, somewhere on the planet would be testing it and making it available.

All of the conspiracy nonsense truly is nonsense and if you believe shit like that, then presumably you still put out cookies and milk for Santa.

edit: WV, last comment isn't directed at you. Just wanted to make that clear.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

US Scientist blueprinted a few years back. Basicly paving the way for a cure within a few years. They were even up for the Nobel peace prize but lost it to a politically correct "green" movie. One of the many reasons I call BS on the peace prize.

You know, I hate that you say this (and that I agree with you so much). At the same time, I see where you're coming from.

The nobel prize (no capitols, I have no respect for it) has become a joke. A black man gets a prize for project Acorn, because he just so happened to also be president of the US (republicans could not raise good opposition). I thought racism was dead in America. What the heck does it say when the whole of the world is looking at things in black and white?

Bile aside, this article is a joke based upon poor science and magical hope fairies. Twilyth put it right:

Since I don't have the patience to write a civil response, I'll refer anyone who is interested to my response on GN

http://www.generalnonsense.net/showpost.php?p=123917&postcount=4

Thanks 54th for being the first poster not to buy into the Big Conspiracy bullshit and trying to provide some informed perspective.

Not everything is a conspiracy. If a magical, cheap, non-patentable drug (for the puposes of a patent it is not trivial to produce or a new and unique formulation) existed then countries like Mexico and China would never have cancer related death. If either of them researched this crap, and found it actually cured, they would put it out to decrease the cost of public health care.

Anyone here from Europe? Considering actually asking one of your specialists why they don't just hand this crap out in childrens toys? IT CARRIES SUBSTANTIAL RISKS YOU MORONS!

Yes, your folk remedy might cure cancer. I might also be crowned king of the nerds and reign with Pamela Anderson (from when she was hot, and not a train wreck) at my side. Both situations are about as likely.


Blog based news should always, always be questioned. It is not that they are all liars, but a puff piece about the "cure" for cancer draws in a lot of desperate people. Human greed is a far more reliable quality than unbridled hate from an establishment that could make money and drive their costs into the ground.

Somewhere along the way people forgot that big drug companies have huge research expenditures. It takes decades to get past the FDA. Whenever a real study is published (by a respectable body of researchers) that actually confirms this then I'll listen whole hearted.

Until then f*** off! I've had people in my family die from cancer. It isn't something that some internet trolling prick should use to increase the number of hits on their blog. Even assuming the best, they are spreading false hope (unintentionally) that creates greater pain whenever its proven as such.


I wish I was more level headed about this, but swindlers and con-artist preying on those twisted by the tragedy of cancer belong in a special level of Hell. I say this, fully confessing that on the best of days I'm agnostic and on the worst I believe the myth of a kind and loving creator is the only way to cope with the burden of life's sorrow.

 

[NinkobEi]

Sounds like a false story to me. Sorry. There are TONS of non-profit orgs out there that would jump on this if it were true. One example comes to mind the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. They have all the money in the world to support this program, if it had actual merit. This blogger is just blowing hot smoke.

 

[Thatguy]

technically a lot of cancers are curable. mortality rate is nowhere near 100%.

interesting article though

funny thing, life has a 100% mortality rate.

cancer is the byproduct of a deficient or ineffective immune system period. Now the underlying mechanism of this problem is certainly what the artilce hints at. But why are cancer rates exploding.

I always tell anyone who asks, there is no reason drug companies would want healthy patients, wheres the profit in that.

 

[qubit]

I always tell anyone who asks, there is no reason drug companies would want healthy patients, wheres the profit in that.

Yeah, quite. Very cynical, but true. :shadedshu It's like batteries isn't it? They want them to be useful, but not last too long, to ensure repeat business.

Similarly with drugs, they make you a bit better, but not quite enough to cure the damn thing you're suffering from.

 

[xBruce88x]

^ and often the side effects are worse than what you had to start with.

 

[streetfighter 2]

The US government shells out lots of cash to universities who research things often deemed "unprofitable" by the pharmaceutical companies. The scientific community's system of checks and balances is rather fragile if not for their dedication to ethics . . .
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/r01.htm
http://www.nsf.gov/index.jsp
http://www.grants.gov/

But why are cancer rates exploding.

http://www.who.int/features/qa/15/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr27/en/
Preventative care is part of the Hippocratic Oath.

 

[twilyth]

cancer is the byproduct of a deficient or ineffective immune system period. Now the underlying mechanism of this problem is certainly what the artilce hints at. But why are cancer rates exploding.

I always tell anyone who asks, there is no reason drug companies would want healthy patients, wheres the profit in that.

I never cease to be amazed by what some people believe. I just wish I could tell if they make it up as they go or if they just parrot what they read on some obscure blog.

Anyone who bothered to read this article (in one of my previous posts) would know the many ways cancer evades the immune system.

And the idea that the drug companies have some sort of nefarious kabal to perpetuate human suffering is so utterly ignorant as to not even deserve comment.

 

[Thatguy]

I never cease to be amazed by what some people believe. I just wish I could tell if they make it up as they go or if they just parrot what they read on some obscure blog.

Anyone who bothered to read this article (in one of my previous posts) would know the many ways cancer evades the immune system.

And the idea that the drug companies have some sort of nefarious kabal to perpetuate human suffering is so utterly ignorant as to not even deserve comment.

Umm, show me the money

you have cancer, right now, today , in your body. the difference between you and someone with a aggresive form is immune system performance. Cancers on a long enough lifespan are inevitible and are a byproduct of the degredation of dna/rna.

 

[streetfighter 2]

Umm, show me the money

you have cancer, right now, today , in your body. the difference between you and someone with a aggresive form is immune system performance. Cancers on a long enough lifespan are inevitible and are a byproduct of the degredation of dna/rna.

Did you read the article twilyth posted? I found it quite interesting. This bit may provide you with "the money":

Often cancer cells escape the siege by taking advantage of the body’s hesitancy to attack its own cells. Despite the best laid plans in a healthy body, some white blood cells do wind up targeting healthy lungs, skin or liver. When that happens, the immune system sets off fail-safes that silence or kill outright the rogue white blood cells. Many cancers call off attacks by triggering the same fail-safes. And that’s just the start: Some tumors are downright devious, surrounding themselves with minefields laced with anti-immune chemicals. “Tumors feather their own beds,” Berzofsky says.

We all do have cancer cells in our bodies and some people are more susceptible to tumors than others, but isn't that a bit like saying that water is wet?

 

[Thatguy]

Did you read the article twilyth posted? I found it quite interesting. This bit may provide you with "the money":

We all do have cancer cells in our bodies and some people are more susceptible to tumors than others, but isn't that a bit like saying that water is wet?

Cacner isn't a virus, its a byproduct of a few different factors. One of which is the break down and error rate in rna/dna replication in cancer cells.

Cancer can have many cuases, some viral, some enviromental,some just based on time. Everytime a cell replicates, it gians the risk of th enext cell becomeing cancerous if the proper dna/rna transcrptions do not occur. Ie their is a file copy error.

the biggest problem is that the immune system, its sort of a organism, if has to know the host and it has to know how to identify what cells are behaving abnormally.

So how could the immune system fial to do such a thing. Theres a few ideas out that about immunsystem training disruption and the cuase of aggresive cancers. why would th eimmune system be hesistant to deal with a percived threat ? might be becuase it can't tell friend from foe. If it cannot differentiate, why is this occuring and what is the underlying solution.

Its all about the immune system, you can't remove transscription errors although there are things you can do to minimize them from a nutrional standpoint. some of its just the genetic roll of the dice to.