/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10537473
There is no one monumental "cancer" to be cured, there are tons of different cancers, some can be treated in the same ways, others demand specialized treatment, and some are so aggressive or grow in inoperable places and can't be removed without risking the immediate death of the sufferer.

Restoring aerobic metabolism in the presence of adequate nutritional support.
>>10537502
>there are tons of different cancers, some can be treated in the same ways, others demand specialized treatment
This is a nonsensical fable invented by the Pfizer corporation to sell "immunotherapies".

>>10537473

cancer is just when a DNA abnormality causes specific cells to say fuck it and start their own colony inside of your body, slowly draining it of resources and killing it like a parasite. unless you can stop this process there's fuck-all you can do.

Your immune system will try to kill of foreign organs when you get a transplant right? I do not know how your body recognized foreign cells but maybe you can make this process work on cancer cells since they have a different dna from your own cells. Or maybe get an engineered virus that will target the damaged dna part and replace it with a copy of your normal dna.

>>10537473
Curing cancer once and for all is like trying to cure bugs in programming. You can fix a couple types just like you can goggle a couple errors but its rather unfeasible to figure out and fix all the ways your code can go wrong.

It's better to just throw out whats faulty and start from scratch, and that's potentially feasible in our lifetime if stem cell organ regeneration pans out.

>>10538209
cancer consumes the antibodies that try to fight it and grows off it's atoms unlike healthy cells that take in atoms from the bloodstream to generate new cells or get reactions (like alcohol). i've read a report on crispr being used to eat cancer cells out of a person's lungs tho. a controlled infection that only targeted diseased cells and not healthy ones. when the cancer is dead the crispr microorganism starve to death in your body and die.

>>10538227
this wouldn’t work. Once cancer is systemic it just keeps coming back

>>10537473
You can't invent a pill for cancer, because it's not one disease.
Every cancer is different. Every cancer is in different organ.
You must invent a different pill for every cancer.
But to invent a pill costs a lot of money. To cure one person will cost millions of dollars.

>>10538209
pretty sure the immune system does not recognize DNA, but only surface molecules. Even if your cancer does have different surface properties, it can always mutate those away. The fight against cancer is a fight against evolution, which is why it's so insidious.

>>10537473
It's already been cured.. but the pharma jew needs to stay in business

>>10537473

There is no universal cure for all cancers. Each demands a specialized treatment. Certain types are more rare than others which means there is less of an incentive to research a cure (it won't be profitable).

>>10537473

>>10538517
>phd student
>actually getting treatment
She must not have been very good at her job.

>>10537473
Immunotherapy has already cured a wide variety of cancers. It's just only for the rich.

>>10537473
Cures for cancer within the human life span might be possible, but cancer operates on a probability curve so at long-time scales the entire body will experience cancerous cell growth that is unavoidable. Maybe there is a cure for this with complete cell replacement but probably not.

>>10538517
why is it that comics in this format are universally incorrect

Just put down the ciggies you donut

>>10537473
>Subject really says it all. Causes of cancer have been, for all intents and purposes, identified but how does it get "cured"?
By getting your immune system to actually response to the threat. If you can reliably do that it's basically done, nothing will be as good at selectively destroying cancer cells as the NK cells. Easier said that done of course, but there are notable advancements.

>>10537473
We will never cure cancer. Anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't got a clue what it is they are saying, or they are completely disingenuous. We will have an effective therapy for cancer, but never a cure.

>>10537473
Yes it is impossible. You would have to prevent cells from ever going haywire. Every cell. Cancer is just a native process of a cell gone wrong.

>>10537473
You can force your immune system to track down foreign cells, which effectively kills cancer.
There's no actual "cure" though.

>>10537473
Is cancer just runaway evolution?
Can we not evolve and/or just stop it?

>>10537473
What about the biohacking of T-Cells to combat some types of cancer? I thought it was working.

>>10541018
Again, you're combating the disease once it's formed, you havent prevented it from starting in the first place. What you have there is a treatment, not a cure

>>10537532
no it's a straightforward conclusion we came to before immunotherapy was even a pipe dream

>>10541018
It works in that it can potentially slow down the progression of the cancer, but it doesn’t address the root cause. However, I suppose theoretically if they got it sufficiently dialed in then someone could have cancer but never have any symptom progression, which would be the same practically speaking as curing it. But that might not even be possible.

Cancer is a sexually transmitted disease.
If your spouse had cancer, you're about 800% more likely than the general population to get cancer yourself.

Not talking about our generation or even foreseeable one's but when the human genome gets fully researched and understood where genetic editing can be a possibility with designer babies wouldn't it be possible to isolate whatever part of our genetic causes cancer growth from birth and fix it?

>>10541074
nah that's just couples drinking & smoking together

>>10537502
>There is no one monumental "cancer" to be cured, there are tons of different cancers
I disagree. They have three essential features in common: a cell mutates, it reproduces abnormally due to the mutation, and the immune system doesn't kill it despite the mutation. Therefore, you can develop a comprehensive protocol that handles all such cases.

>>10539853
Your body kills off hundreds of mutated cells a day though

>>10541214
it's fine if you disagree but that doesn't make you right.

>>10541239
>I have nothing whatsoever to contribute to this conversation, but I want to press the Post button.

>>10541078
The genetic theory of cancer is a post hoc ratonalization, mutation are a RESULT of cancer, not a cause.

>>10541252
seethe harder

>>10538335
Assuming you lived decently long and you had prepared stem cells long before it started becoming a problem, couldn't you just keep going with a bunch of constant replacements?

>>10541214
Everything about your statement shows you don't understand anything about why cancer is problematic lol

isnt cancer caused because of damaged dna?

>>10537473
Cancer exists on the physical layer, therefore it can be cured. It's simply an arrangement of molecules. The greater the mastery of nanotechnology, and then the ability to apply it to a body, the closer the cure. Of course at some level you'll just be 3-d printing humans 5th element style, but hey, no more cancer.

>>10537473
I'm hopeful that the day will come for all its varieties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15S0lInhHAA

>>10543308
Don't you mean "tuned exoskeleton" and "evolved to function as disembodied brains"?

I read somewhere that drinking only water (and enough of it) can prevent cancer

I also read that if you have cancer, doing long fasts (like 40 days at a time) can get rid of it, as after a certain point, your body eats all the crap it can find that isn't necessary, for fuel

>>10542579
except you can cause mutations in cells and cause them to become cancer. people do this in labs every single day across the world

>>10543446
>except you can cause mutations in cells and cause them to become cancer. people do this in labs every single day across the world
Correct, you can indeed induce cancers via. introduction of trauma and various stressors, sometimes these associated mutations arise just as we see in humans. To conclude that such mutations are oncogenic, or that there must necessarily be some kind of cancer "gene" (there is not) is a non sequitur.

>>10541035
Cure literally means to CUTE or eradicating the disease of your body, treatment just alleviates symptoms, you absolute retard.

>>10543752
it's not a non sequitur, it's the closest thing science has to a causal relationship. you can use the same genome editing techniques to target other genes in the genome without turning the cell cancerous. it's only when you target certain genes that cells become cancer

>>10537473

Here is how we cure cancer:

1. Identify aspects of a cancer cell that don't overlap with normal cells

2. Generate an agent that attacks this aspect

Sounds easy but why is hasn't been done:

1. Every cancer is different, although they share similar features i.e. always have p53 inactivation etc.

2. Cancer cells are difficult to access

3. Cancer cells adapt

4. You have to kill 100% of them, not 99.9999%.

I was a Cancer Biology PhD student, mastered out because I felt that academia is littered with self-absorbed egomaniacs and 99.99% of research will never benefit patients.

>>10537532
>This is a nonsensical fable invented by the Pfizer corporation to sell "immunotherapies".
Yeah, sure, different hystological types of cancer don't exist, they don't have different MHC molecules on their membranes, they don't have different methabolism and hormonal sensitivity. All research is fake and big pharma wants to sell it's shit.
>>10538209
>maybe you can make this process work on cancer cells
It does. Up to some point. If the cancer cell manages to avoid the immune response by changing it's surface molecules or by hiding them (internalisation of the receptor) it's starts developing into a clinically presented condition.
>>10543434
Pure bs. Keeping hydrated does keep you healthy but it has nothing with cancer prevention. Fasting only makes things worse as you don't starve the cancer, you starve your healthy cells. Cancer cells are specialised in surviving in harsh conditions. What you read is media bulshit and naturalist propaganda.


In general cancer involves a series of complex biochemical and immunological processes and is way beyond mainstream media tries to brainwash you with. It really is complex shit and I don't know why people think it's fucking easy and there's an universal miracle cure.

>>10545228
>as you don't starve the cancer
can you read?

>>10542579
Then what causes the mutation? Environment? I’m clueless on this subject.

>>10546304
then what causes the cancer*

>>10545904
you will die together with the cancer. i read a case report of a woman that tried to starve cancer off and severe vitamin deficiency caused her encepalopathy and she almost died. said report unfortunately didn't mention how her disease progressed (or regressed) during her water fast.

>>10546312
other than environmental factors (like exposure to chemicals or unhealthy lifestyle) it's mostly genetic or bad luck. what "bad luck" means and the extent of it is up to debate.