I think they found a cure for cancer..

[Keatah]

What do you think? So far it's been full on and blasted every type. There's been many dead ends in this research. But these past 5 years we've had kick-ass supercomputers modeling proteins - and I bet they came across a match.

In a nutshell this treatment prevents cancer cells from hiding. Once they are exposed, the immune system gets down to business.

There've been many claims and announcements over the decades and the last time I had any sort of hope was back in the 80's with those Interferon things. Since then we've seen and heard hundreds of announcements. But this is the first one that piques my attention once again.

What do you think?

http://www.disclose.tv/news/Scienti...very_kind_of_cancer_tumor/92606#ixzz2PXDRFrvg
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD47"]CD47 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[garyw]

Nope. This is one step on the road to a possible cure but it'll never be possible to have a 'one drug kills all cancer' solution as there are so many different types of cancer.

 

[PeterRoss]

I'm in no way a cancer expert or something, but I don't understand why you think it's impossible to cure different types of cancer with single drug. Judging by the article it affects the factor that is common for all kinds of cancer.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm in no way a cancer expert or something, but I don't understand why you think it's impossible to cure different types of cancer with single drug. Judging by the article it affects the factor that is common for all kinds of cancer.

That is wrong - there is not a single factor in all kinds of cancer. There are some cancer types, that share one common factor, and there are also already cures, that use such factors for handling multiple kinds of cancer.

But cancer in general, is hard to cure. We have for example not yet fully understood, how HPV causes uterus cancer.

 

[garyw]

I'm in no way a cancer expert or something, but I don't understand why you think it's impossible to cure different types of cancer with single drug. Judging by the article it affects the factor that is common for all kinds of cancer.

I'm no expert either but my understanding is that to say 'there is one drug that will cure all cancer' is like saying 'You only need a hammer for any and all DIY work'.

 

[PeterRoss]

That is wrong - there is not a single factor in all kinds of cancer. There are some cancer types, that share one common factor, and there are also already cures, that use such factors for handling multiple kinds of cancer.

But cancer in general, is hard to cure. We have for example not yet fully understood, how HPV causes uterus cancer.

I see. So the article is just overoptimistic to the point of misleading.

 

[ADSWNJ]

I think it's definitely a positive sign. As human genomics and nanotechnology start to come into range of practical applications over then next 5-20 years, and computing capability to exercise the permutations continues to grow , then I think we will start to see a range of much more tuned drugs for specific types of cancer. The ultimate dream is 'designer drugs', tailored to your specific illness.

Check this out from Ars: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/nanoparticles-formed-using-human-viruses-to-fight-human-viruses/

 

[Eccentrus]

Well, as a person in medical training, I wouldn't so bold Gary. In fact carcinogenesis works pretty much similar to how natural selection does and as such all cancer development boils down to similar types of cells that reproduce similarly for all types of cancer, and this evolution occurs and indeed caused by so many factors and even the cells they produce are different. But as of late people have found that there's only one type of cells that is reproducing much more avidly than others that cause the neoplastic growth, and this is dubbed as the carcinogenic stem cells and have many in common with the embryonic type. Unlike the real working stem cells which are all derived from embryonic cells and other stem cells, carcinogenic stem cells results from a natural selection drive from a functional stem cells which was damaged or mutated in one way or another, but in the end all of these types have pretty much the same mutations or type of mutation that allows these cells into being cancer, well because they are all predated by the same factors and have to escape each and every one of it, and there is evidence that all these mutations results into them having this one type of deranged receptors that might be of use for a universal cancer cure. But of course this only applies to advanced stage of cancers, when the cancer have reached the carcinogenic stem cell stage, but before those things take over from the weirdly multiplying somatic cells type, they pretty much have to have specific treatments for each type of neoplasm.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Judging by the article it affects the factor that is common for all kinds of cancer.

Yes the factor of "not living your whole life inside of a lead vault with no processed food, no cell phone, & no outide air". :lol: The rise in cancer isnt like a disease, its related to the growing number of cancer-causing factors that are present in modern life.

 

[N_Molson]

Thanks Eccentrus. Now this is an answer of the level of Orbiter Forum :thumbup:

 

[Mantis]

You can't look at cancer as a single disease. It's a family of similar diseases but the treatment can vary dramatically depending on which type of cancer is being treated. The biggest challenge, as I see it, is to come up with a treatment that destroys only the cells you want destroyed while doing as little damage as possible to other tissues. Cancer cells are not foreign invaders that can be easily targeted. Chemotherapy basically involved pumping the body full of just the right amount of just the right type of poison to kill cancer cells and other fast dividing cells without killing the patient or doing any more damage than can be avoided.

 

[Ark]

In the last ten years or so, I know I've seen dozens of articles (usually two or three a year) claiming that some miracle drug or treatment has been shown to cure cancer in a lab. And what happens? Every single day, people keep dying of cancer.

Nobody is going to "cure" cancer; ongoing treatment is a WAY more lucrative, profitable market than one-time cures. Pharmaceutical research isn't really interested in "curing" anything anymore, it's all about expensive lifelong management of chronic conditions like diabetes. Why cure a patient when you can milk them for treatment for decades?

This is what you get when medical research is almost completely market-driven, and government shows little interest in funding less profitable or riskier areas of research.

 

[Mantis]

Nobody is going to "cure" cancer; ongoing treatment is a WAY more lucrative, profitable market than one-time cures. Pharmaceutical research isn't really interested in "curing" anything anymore, it's all about expensive lifelong management of chronic conditions like diabetes. Why cure a patient when you can milk them for treatment for decades?

I don't buy that for a second. It's as "out there" as claims the moon landings were faked. Cancer researchers, doctors, healthcare professionals, pharmaceutical researchers all get cancer just as the rest of us do. They have loved ones who get cancer just as the rest of us do. The notion that they would suppress a cure, dooming themselves and their own families is utter nonsense.

 

[mojoey]

Nope. This is one step on the road to a possible cure but it'll never be possible to have a 'one drug kills all cancer' solution as there are so many different types of cancer.

I believe the analogy 'Just because they're called screws, doesn't mean one screwdriver can fit them'

 

[tl8]

Nobody is going to "cure" cancer; ongoing treatment is a WAY more lucrative, profitable market than one-time cures. Pharmaceutical research isn't really interested in "curing" anything anymore, it's all about expensive lifelong management of chronic conditions like diabetes. Why cure a patient when you can milk them for treatment for decades?

This is what you get when medical research is almost completely market-driven, and government shows little interest in funding less profitable or riskier areas of research.

The US is not the only place to do research. There are many institutes and universities here that have done ground breaking research (Especially cancer). They get government funding because, in the end, a cure is cheaper for the government (as we have universal healthcare).

 

[FADEC]

There will never be the one and only solution to cure cancer I think. It's also not possible to defeat cancer. One can survive it. But there is nothing in the world which ensures that one will never get it again.

Just like there are different kinds of cancer, there are also different causes. Some people are genetically doomed and get it during their early childhood already. In some other cases personal circumstances might have some significant contributions, like stress and depressions (not to mention eating habits, lack of sports etc.). Sometimes it's not only important to get a proper treatment, but to also change life. Even the best chemotherapy can fail if the patient believes it will fail or he will die anyway, or if he doesn't change his life afterwards. So I doubt there will ever be a panacea.

I don't buy that for a second. It's as "out there" as claims the moon landings were faked. Cancer researchers, doctors, healthcare professionals, pharmaceutical researchers all get cancer just as the rest of us do. They have loved ones who get cancer just as the rest of us do. The notion that they would suppress a cure, dooming themselves and their own families is utter nonsense.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. The drug industry is one of the mightiest. Their lobbyists are the first ones to take action as soon as some "experts" announce the next doomsday influenza pandemic. They make lots of money by uselessly selling tons of vaccines to governments. Luckily we live at times during which people don't hysterically run to their doctors to get a shot because they said so in the media.

Especially cancer treatment is something that has a future. And they certainly make a lot of money with it. While there are actually not a lot of studies which show that it makes sense the way and commonness chemotherapy is used to cure different kinds of cancer. The only really big study showed a relatively small number of success. Lots of people die anyway. While it's what every doctor recommends and believes in. But there are alternatives which might work or fail also. In the end one can't always objectively say whether it was the chemotherapy which worked or not. Same for alternative treatments. What more and more doctors admit is that our self-regulating forces are underestimated and the believe in drugs is almost religiously. The success of a cancer treatment also depends on the attitude to life of a patient and not only on drugs.

 

[Graham2001]

Nobody is going to "cure" cancer; ongoing treatment is a WAY more lucrative, profitable market than one-time cures. Pharmaceutical research isn't really interested in "curing" anything anymore, it's all about expensive lifelong management of chronic conditions like diabetes. Why cure a patient when you can milk them for treatment for decades?

I don't buy this either, there are plenty of 'alternative medicine' products out there that use the same business model.

The podcast I've linked to below is a reasonably good discussion of the 'Supressed Cancer Cure' meme.

http://www.gokorea.info/cp/ep3.mp3

 

[Linguofreak]

I don't buy that for a second. It's as "out there" as claims the moon landings were faked. Cancer researchers, doctors, healthcare professionals, pharmaceutical researchers all get cancer just as the rest of us do. They have loved ones who get cancer just as the rest of us do. The notion that they would suppress a cure, dooming themselves and their own families is utter nonsense.

I have a feeling Ark was thinking more about pharmaceutical *executives* than pharmaceutical *researchers*, but the "they can get cancer too" argument applies to them as well.