Is there a cure for cancer?
-
Kwick stoopid que?tion
-
Not in the literal sense of like getting an injection to kill it... But it can be beat through other method which are very difficult on the body. Surgery, radiation, chemotherapy etc.. can eliminate the cancer, but if even one little piece is left(which is impossible to know) it can/will come back. I think there is some very promsing research in th lab with rats etc.. that show some hope of curing some types of cancer.
-
There are treatments for cancer such as radiation and chemotherapy. These treatments all depend on the location of the cancer, and the stage of cancer. Some cancer cannot be cured though, and even if a person is undergoing these treatments, the cancer may not be cured, or may come back later.
-
There are treatments that will kill cancerous cells, with varying degrees of success depending on the type of cancer it is. If enough cancerous cells are killed, the symptoms go away and the cancer is said to be in remission. However, to completely cure a cancer it is necessary to kill every single cancerous cell, and that is difficult. (A cancer is usually not detected until there are at least a billion cancerous cells.) If any cancerous cells remain, resistance to the treatments eventually develops, and the cancer returns. (Typically this happens in a couple of years.) A second line of treatment can be used, but remission the second time is usually for a shorter time, and after it returns again there is usually nothing more that can be done.Sometimes all the cancerous cells are killed, and then there is a complete cure. The cure rate for many childhood leukaemias, for example, which used to kill a lot of young people, is now very good. For most cancers, unfortunately, the proportion of complete cures is low.There is a huge amount of research into cancer treatments, but though there is progress, it is very slow. The newspapers are always reporting exciting breakthroughs, but most of these don't look as good in the clinic as they did in the laboratory. We can treat cancers in mice and rats much more effectively than in humans.
-
Seems to be taking a pretty long time. I know it's a difficult and complex process but... it's too long, ya know? Are they taking long lunch breaks? Not enough rats and mice? I work at a hospital in the mornings and I'm volunteering at a cancer patient's home for children in the evening. (Strange since I HATE hospitals and anything remotely like it.) I'm supposed to make the patients happy but I'm not happy when I get home. In fact, I've had a very depressing day. One of my leaders/counselors said to one of the other volunteers today "Sidney has less than a week left, make sure she gets to bake those cookies she's always wanted." I can't exactly grasp the context of that sentence. I know what it means but it's like... I don't know. This week really sucks.
-
conspiracy theorists believe there is a cure but the research grants are too lucrative to give up the "search"
Probably the same people who believe there is an infinate life battery but the battery companies won't give up the repeat business -
dutty bastarts.
-
People who believe that presumably assume that all the tens of thousands of cancer researchers have no moral sense whatever. It's remarkable what some people will believe.And it makes no sense - any drug company that produces a really effective general anti-cancer drug will make far more money than is handed out in research grants.It's just an extremely difficult disease. It's not a matter of attacking some external life-form, like bacteria or viruses - you're trying to kill human cells that have just gone slightly wrong, without killing all the other human cells.
-
Originally Posted By: IneligiblePeople who believe that presumably assume that all the tens of thousands of cancer researchers have no moral sense whatever.It's not the researchers...it's those that pay for the research (the "hand that feeds the researchers") whose moral compass is questionable. Quote:And it makes no sense - any drug company that produces a really effective general anti-cancer drug will make far more money than is handed out in research grants.The revenue generated by all the health-care concerning cancer patients far outstrips any money to be made over a cure...unless you charged hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars for it. Health-care for a cancer patient is continuous and ongoing, as opposed to a "cure" which could ultimately be a one-time shot. Quote:It's just an extremely difficult disease. It's not a matter of attacking some external life-form, like bacteria or viruses - you're trying to kill human cells that have just gone slightly wrong, without killing all the other human cells. There will be no "cure" per se, as it's not really a disease. Rather, it's a failure of the bodies natural immune system to erradicate the mutated cells. We all have cancer all the time...but our bodies deal with it effectively in most cases. The cancer cells begin to multiply when the body's immune system fails to do its job. I think that, ultimately, we'll find that all the junk we eat, the lifestyles we lead and the polutants we're exposed to are what take its toll on our immune systems over time and cause cancer in the majority of cases. The "cure" (if that's what you want to call it) will be to live healthier lives...not take some kind of drug. Maybe someday when we really begin to understand how the human body works, we'll develope some method of enhancing the bodies immune system to the point where cancer will be all but eliminated...but we're nowhere near that point yet.
-
Originally Posted By: thor
It's not the researchers...it's those that pay for the research (the "hand that feeds the researchers") whose moral compass is questionable.
big money always results in questionable motivations. Are you buying into the conspiracy theory though? If there was a conspiracy, it would require countless doctors who were willing to dispence with their hypocratic oath.
Like any conspiracy theory, it requires a huge leap of faith to believe that so many people opperate with the exact same moral compass. As history shows, that never happens. -
Originally Posted By: unsupervised Originally Posted By: thorIt's not the researchers...it's those that pay for the research (the "hand that feeds the researchers") whose moral compass is questionable. big money always results in questionable motivations. Are you buying into the conspiracy theory though? If there was a conspiracy, it would require countless doctors who were willing to dispence with their hypocratic oath.Like any conspiracy theory, it requires a huge leap of faith to believe that so many people opperate with the exact same moral compass. As history shows, that never happens. Some conspiracy theories predict correct conclusions, even if there is no conspiracy. I don't think all the doctors got together and decided to mess with the general populace, no. But those doing the research are paid to come up with specific results...usually some kind of drug that will allow the patients to survive rather than cure the disease. Since that's what they're paid to do, that's what they do. The FDA is in on this, too. They regulate all drugs...and by definition, nothing can cure a disease unless it is labelled as a drug and, therefor, under control of the FDA. Natural remedies are not allowed to be labelled as being able to cure anything, for example. The FDA has even tried (and is still trying) to get vitamins labelled as drugs so they can control them (and allow the pharmecutical companies to charge whatever they want to obtain them). It's all about money...not curing people. They want folks to remain sick so they can continue to supply them drugs. The pharmecutical companies of this country are right up there with the tabacco industry as far as lack of morals is concerned...and they're the ones funding the research for the most part. Government grants are a drop in the bucket compared to what the drug companies spend on research.
-
citing the FDA's control over the drugs etc is just an example of Americentric thinking. The FDA is only in America. The research continues world wide.
-
Originally Posted By: unsupervised
citing the FDA's control over the drugs etc is just an example of Americentric thinking. The FDA is only in America. The research continues world wide.
LOL! That's a typical thought process for a Canadian. :wink:
And the greed that drives drug companies not to be too quick to find solutions to health issues continues world-wide as well. That said, I'd be willing to bet that there's more money spent here in America than in any other country on this kind of research...so even with a world-view on the issue, the FDA plays quite a big role
-
lmao! Originally Posted By: ThorThat's a typical thought process for a Canadian so would national typicality be something we have in common?
-
Most conspiracy theories require us to believe that large numbers of people know a secret but aren't telling - a scenario less likely than any of the alternatives. If a secret is known to only one or two people, it may be safe enough, but when even a dozen know it and it's morally wrong to keep it, you can be quite sure it will come out in time.On top of that, this particular conspiracy theory requires, to believe it, complete ignorance of how research is conducted and funded. Having done a bit of work in this field myself, let me try to give some information.Cancer research is done in universities, hospitals and research institutes, and within drug companies. Work within drug companies is funded by the companies themselves; work outside the drug companies is funded mostly by government research grants, though a drug company may get involved if asked, if they think something looks promising, in exchange for commercial rights.Within drug companies the research is carried out by employees, who however are well known personally in the scientific professions. The drug companies compete with each other. There is no point in a company paying people to do bogus work - if the companies don't want to do anti-cancer research, no-one is forcing them to. Small ones generally don't. Drug companies don't usually get government grants.Outside the drug companies, research is carried on by various people in various places. There's no special test you are required to take to be allowed to conduct anti-cancer research. And the results are published in the open scientific literature - anyone can search it and read it. The people who carry out the research are the same people who apply for research grants. Research grant applications are vetted for quality by sending them to other researchers in the field; the people who make the decisions are generally senior researchers and former researchers, known personally and professionally in their areas.A research grant will explain why the researcher thinks the research looks promising or is worth exploring, but I have never heard of a grant that says what the results should be. Such a thing would be grossly unprofessional, unethical and fraudulent. Scientific fraud results in people responsible losing their jobs and all scientific credibility - it is treated very seriously indeed. It's something that regrettably does happen occasionally, but it is quite impossible for it to occur without the knowledge of the researchers.Drug companies, incidentally, make far more money out of high-volume drugs, such as minor painkillers, or long-term drugs, such as oral contraceptives, antidepressants or anti-AIDS drugs, than they do out of cancer patients, who generally don't live long.The immune system is not able to detect dangerous cancers - they are the patient's cells, with the patient's proteins. The immune system is primed to detect foreign proteins. Cancer is not an immune system failure, except that those minority of cancers triggered by viruses are more likely in an immune system failure. Pollutants can indeed trigger cancers, but the biggest factor in the rise of cancer in modern times is better nutrition and antibiotics, causing people to live longer. The older you get, the more likely you are to get a cancer.
-
Originally Posted By: IneligibleDrug companies, incidentally, make far more money out of high-volume drugs, such as minor painkillers, or long-term drugs, such as oral contraceptives, antidepressants or anti-AIDS drugs, than they do out of cancer patients, who generally don't live long.Drug companies are only a portion of the health-care industry, which makes more money off cancer patients than the drug companies could make with a cure. And if you think the drug companies aren't connected with the rest of the health-care industy, you're only fooling yourself. Quote:The immune system is not able to detect dangerous cancers - they are the patient's cells, with the patient's proteins. The immune system is primed to detect foreign proteins. Cancer is not an immune system failure, except that those minority of cancers triggered by viruses are more likely in an immune system failure. Pollutants can indeed trigger cancers, but the biggest factor in the rise of cancer in modern times is better nutrition and antibiotics, causing people to live longer. The older you get, the more likely you are to get a cancer. Doctors do not know what causes some folks to get cancer and others not to (all other factors being equal). Bottom line: they don't understand in any great detail how the body really works, though they do understand portions of this and that. Some folks bodies deal with the cancer cells, preventing their spreading, while other folks bodies don't. It's simply a portion of our immune system we don't yet understand...and as we get older, the further all body systems go downhill. It may not even be correct to call it an immune system at all, to be honest, but obviously there's more at work here than the immune system you and doctors are familiar with...it's just that doctors are not in the habit of discussing things or writing papers on that which they don't (at least yet) understand.
-
thor, thor, you are teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. We know much more about how the body works than we used to. Of course there is a very great deal we don't know, but the story is gradually being pieced together.Most doctors, BTW, do little or no research. They are technicians only, most of them, despite their income and their giving themselves a title they are not entitled to. They rarely read primary literature. Research goes on way ahead of them.
-
Originally Posted By: IneligibleMost doctors, BTW, do little or no research. They are technicians only, most of them, despite their income and their giving themselves a title they are not entitled to. They rarely read primary literature. Research goes on way ahead of them. I don't think doctors should be as glorified as they are, alot of them suck and get it wrong all the time. Although in a perfect world doctors would be like House. Slowly dieing of a mysterious illness would be much more bareable with his sarcastic humour to entertain you and also they'ed always get it right in the end.I don't ever really expect there to be a "cure" for cancer but better treatment that can kill cancer cells with less damage to healthy ones. I also think about in future kids might get a cancer vacine like just like they do a menigitice or measles one now that can help ur imune system fight any mutant cells or...something.
-
Originally Posted By: CuteNCrazyI don't think doctors should be as glorified as they are, alot of them suck and get it wrong all the time. How many times have they flip-flopped as to whether or not coffee is bad for you? Good thing they're not politicians...or are they?
-
Doctors who tell you it's good for you are sponsored by starbucks. Just like the ones who tell you red wine is good for you are sponsored by vinyards. It's a conspiracy.
Coffee itself isn't bad for you, but the majority of the coffe you buy is full fat milk and maybe some sugar or whipped cream too if you're that way inclined.