/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7354990]

hey /sci/, can I get a legitimate reason to why there is still no cure for cancer? It has been around for way too long

[Anonymous No.7354996]

>>7354990
There are multiple treatmens for cancer.

[Anonymous No.7355002]

>>7354996
but no cure.
with all the charity money that cancer researchers get, they should have something a little better than chemo by now

[Anonymous No.7355008]

>>7354990
its genetic

[Anonymous No.7355015]

>>7355002
It's not a disease, there is no "cure." Cancer is essentially malfunctions in human genetics. It cannot be "cured" except through genetic manipulation which in no way is modern technology capable of performing to an adult who is already grown.

[Anonymous No.7355019]

can't we all just put a bit of bone marrow on ice when we're young?
(or something, i don't know the first thing about stem cell surgery)

[Anonymous No.7355046]

>>7354990

Because cancer are mutated cells of your own body that don't stop replicating and end up fucking shit up.

It's a mutation, it has the potential to be spontaneous -- while at the same time the potential to be inherited (and both). For inherited cases, we can have preemptive surgery and remove the potentially infected areas. We see this in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation ALONG with a familial history of breast cancer. That is preventative surgery.

For the de novo mutations that lead to cancer, there is nothing we can do to predict that shit and have to treat it as it comes.

Also, what do you mean by "cure"? Why are you not considering our treatments cures? What constitutes a cure in your eyes? A magic pill that fixes everything? That will likely never occur since cancer is a mutational based problem in the DNA of your own cells, sometimes arising through inheritance based mutations, and others through random de novo mutations.

Cancer is fucked, bro. It's always one step ahead.

[Anonymous No.7355056]

Actually is fucking thing, is destroying in horrible ways, many valuable lives in my existence.

I don't know if the approach to the thing is right actually, many things are simply torture and not therapies, people dies within months and suffer, so I think sometimes is better use simply some palleative.

However I hope a true advancement in our comprension can arrive soon, I Want to know that my successors cannot live what I lived.

[Anonymous No.7355059]

"Cancer" refers to any one of thousands of different mutations or combinations of mutations that can happen in any cell in any part of the body. Those mutations all have different effects on their cells, with the overarching symptom being uncontrolled replication of cells that no longer perform their original function and therefore harm the surrounding tissues and body in general.

[Anonymous No.7355064]

>>7355056

Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

[Anonymous No.7355100]

>>7355046
a cure would be a general gene therapy that repairs our genes better than our own cellular mechanisms do, or possibly adding additional genetic repair proteins to our genomes

something that does a really good job of killing cancer and not the patient would also be great, but we have this problem that the longer people live, the more cancer their body makes, so it's not really getting at the root cause

[Anonymous No.7355114]

>>7355046
Mainly this.

Also, don't forget were getting better and better in treating cancer every year. There will likely come a day that we will successfully be able to treat cancer with a high success rate. But it takes time man, research is hard work.

[Anonymous No.7355122]

>>7355100
Okay, let me address why your first proposed solution is unbelievable ridiculous.

We have two types of ways that cancer develops (really generalizing here): inherited and de novo.
Inherited means that the mutated genes have been passed down to you from your parents who also had the mutated genes and also had cancer. De novo means new and novel mutations that occur without any reason or foreknowledge.

Gene therapy can ONLY occur when you're still an embryo and we have a small number of cells to treat -- the problem is, most people don't even know they're pregnant until weeks into their pregnancy, and by that time you have amassed billions and billions of cells.

The human body has 13 trillion cells. Humans can barely comprehend a number that large. How do you propose we treat every cell with these mutations? Sure, the cancer may be only localized to the breast area -- but do you understand how many cells are in breast tissue alone? How can we go in and fix all of that DNA?

Look, I don't even want to talk about this further because it's just ridiculous. Gene therapy of an adult is infeasible -- end of story. This kind of technology is multiple millennia away, not years or centuries -- millennia.

[Anonymous No.7355144]

>>7354990
Anyone cured the common cold yet? No?

Anyone cure anything? No?

[Anonymous No.7355205]

>>7355122
Holy shit man, it's easy to say it's ridiculous to some random ass hole on a messageboard but try telling that to the many researchers who have been investigating gene therapy for decades. On top of that, the biggest advancement in gene therapy ever just happened recently in crispr, and you're still going to tell everyone that it's all impossible?

Viruses can do it, why can't we? You're like the many people who said that flying machines were impossible while you see birds all around you. Your skepticism is warranted for such a big challenge, but you go too far.

[Anonymous No.7355218]

>>7355205

Viruses don't do what you propose. Not even close. Viruses go in and place THEIR own DNA in any random cell (and its DNA) they come into contact with.

What we're proposing is that we engineer a way to make a retrovirus specific ONLY to cancer cells, then once it has found the malignancy, to enter into the cell and the fix the DNA in every cell.

Here's the problem. In inherited mutations, this could potentially work -- still extremely difficult -- because we likely know the mutation. But in a de novo mutation, we have no idea what is wrong with the DNA or where the mutation is.

Forgive me for being so bleak in my last post -- it was unwarranted. You're right, it is possible and much sooner than I made it out to be -- but the technology and what we need to know is still beyond our grasp for quite some time.

[Anonymous No.7355735]

>>7354990
Agreed that the facts post by others are daunting. In my opinion, science proceeds in what appears to be small increments on a year-to year scale but has shown incredible progress when viewed over a larger scale, such as decades. People were busting nuts only a two decades ago with knockout mice; now we can manipulate genomes on an unprecedented level with CRISPR-Cas9 and massively sequence DNA/RNA on the reg. This isn't to say that breakthroughs in cancer therapy are around the corner, but that research methods have progressed tremendously, which gives hope to trickle-down, incremental improvements in therapy. In my opinion, cancer research, and perhaps much of biomedical research, has suffered a severe lack of quality, and many reported findings lack validity:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html

An explanation for this sad truth is complicated, and it involves systematic weaknesses involving researchers, reviewers, and journal editors. Things are getting better with post-pub review for example, and in a decade or two I'd like to think that research quality will be much better, although at the moment things appear to be moving too slowly. And hopefully this progress will extended to better cancer therapies.

[Anonymous No.7355761]

>>7354990
The jews are making money from cancer donations and treatments. Their no reason to find a cure.

[Anonymous No.7355786]

There are many ways to get cancer, along with many types of cancer. So you're expected just one chemical or procedure to be the "magic bullet". Most of the cancer "wonder drugs" work on one type of cancer, you can't really pretend cancer research and treatment hasn't advanced incredibly in the past few decades.
Although I will admit, Jon Huntsman does keep throwing insane amounts of money into cancer research.

[Anonymous No.7357727]

>>7354990
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosis

[Anonymous No.7357747]

Cancer appears now to be faulty wiring in the same machinery that has kept our species (and others) alive for millions and millions of years. Targeted treatments have one hell of a time distinguishing the good from the bad since they are nearly identical and cancer cells also adapt.

The strong suspicion and the real "empty pit" in our knowledge has to do with stem cells. All cancer cells are IMMORTAL meaning that likely at a basic level mutations have to affect interactions with (adult) stem cells. We don't know much of what turns on or off stem cells.

[Anonymous No.7357748]

Wait until medicinal nanobots are invented.

[Anonymous No.7358948]

We actually can't cure many diseases at all, let alone cancer.

[Anonymous No.7359206]

Go to jewtube and search Vice killing cancer.

[Anonymous No.7359707]

>How do you propose we treat every cell with these mutations?

Nanomachines?

[Anonymous No.7359750]

>>7354990
Cancer cells are human cells. It is very difficult to find something that will only affect cancer cells when they act like regular cells in most ways.

Even the best cancer treatments like chemotherapy and radiation therapy will kill our regular cells as well.

So yes, we do have cures for cancer. The problem is that they kill the rest of you in the process.

[Anonymous No.7359873]

>>7354990
Because despite what you see in superbowl adverts for pharmaceutical companies, medicine and healthcare is pretty shit in the grand scheme of things.

We all age, fall apart, and die- for starters.

I've for one have had chronic pain for months, no one has a clue why.

[Anonymous No.7360261]

>>7355122
>13 trillion
>Humans can barely comprehend a number that large.
Biologist detected.

[Anonymous No.7360279]

>>7359707
might as well just say magic if it's what you mean

[Anonymous No.7360350]

Because cancerous people aren't human and scientists know that.

[Anonymous No.7360358]

because cannabis is too cheap to grow

[Anonymous No.7360394]

>>7359873
You seem hella bitter.

[Anonymous No.7360410]

>>7359873
>medicine and healthcare is pretty shit in the grand scheme of things.
>grand scheme of things

As if there's some external universal standard for us to compare ourselves to.

[Anonymous No.7360429]

>>7355122
the shill is strong with this one

[Anonymous No.7360431]

>>7355122
>How do you propose we treat every cell with these mutations?
do we actually need to do that

I admit I don't know shit but surely other things kill cells than some specific thing finding them and stomping them individually. and are they somehow guaranteed to kill the person instead of mutating into something harmless or unviable?

[Anonymous No.7360435]

>>7355015
Cancer actually is a disease. Look up the definition

[Anonymous No.7360444]

>>7355019
we can also isolate stem cells from adipose (fat) tissue. It's much much more feasible than bone marrow derived stem cells. Less pain involved and a higher yield.

[Anonymous No.7360744]

>>7360279
Why so superior, anon? Is the idea of small robots that attack certain kinds of cells too much for you to process?

[Anonymous No.7360831]

>>7360435
Its not a disease. Its a symptom...like a cough.

[Anonymous No.7360835]

>>7354990
Cancer is a genetic disease

[Anonymous No.7360839]

keep an eye on immunotherapy, especially the kind using the HIV virus on a certain type of leukemia

they had, like, an 80% total remission rate over 5 years in their stage 2 clinical trials...which is practically unheard of

[Anonymous No.7360843]

>>7360839
You mean gene therapy?

[Anonymous No.7360857]

>>7360843
no
you take some T cells out of the patient
take a heavily gutted form of HIV which doesnt inject HIV reproducing code, and only injects code that gives the T cells the ability to spot cancer cells

breed these super-T-cells in a bioreactor for a week until they're a few billion strong

infuse them back into the patient

the patient's immune system wakes THE FUCK up and ANNIHILATES the cancer. like full on flamethrowers suffer-not-the-xeno exterminatus shit. the patient has the worst fever they've had in their life.

couple days later the cancer is fucking GONE. like MEGA GONE. any cancer cells that might have tried to adapt during the initial onslaught were quickly caught by the immune system as it itself adapted as well

there's been a number of articles and a documentary, it was also mentioned in the pbs special about cancer recently

[Anonymous No.7361600]

>>7355002
>with all the charity money that cancer researchers get

>on the news everyday
>some major charity gets accused of fraud
>red cross spent 0.5bil on 6 haiti houses at est cost of 500$ each.

lel

[Anonymous No.7361605]

Why would you want to cure your zodiac sign?

[Anonymous No.7361703]

>>7354990
there are literally hundreds of thousands of types of cancer, each originating from a different genetic location causing uncontrolled cell division. This is why it is so hard to treat, there are so many places genetically that the process of mitosis can go wrong.

Curing cancer is not like climbing a mountain to the cure at the summit, but like a mountain range, with a series of smaller successes.

I have an infographic somewhere I'll find

[Anonymous No.7361723]

>>7361703

[Anonymous No.7362985]

There is.

People generally aren't cured because everyone is evil and don't understand why.

[Anonymous No.7363184]

>>7360831
Cancer is people too.

[Anonymous No.7363372]

"A cure for cancer" is like a "cure for viruses" - it doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense. Yes, it is a category of illness that has like causes, but thinking that there will be one singular method to cure all or even most forms of cancer is ridiculous, just like thinking we could use one form of treatment for both HIV and the common cold. Sure, we can use anti-virals or chemo as a blanket of "kill all the bad things" but that's not really an effective treatment since its killing you too, just more slowly.

[Anonymous No.7363417]

>>7360435
Yeah, but anon is getting at the point that you can't cure cancer. All you can do is kill the cells or altering them. Cells reproduce so often that you will eventually get some bad mutations. Curing cancer would be like finding a way to monitor every sentence currently being written and making sure that there are no speling errors.

[Anonymous No.7363462]

Obama wont give it to us

[Anonymous No.7363494]

>>7354990
because cancer isn't a disease, it's essentially a life form.

[Anonymous No.7364360]

>>7360394
True.

>>7360410
Platonic idealism? Seriously speaking, number of people who don't die? That would give a 0% success rate, which seems about right.

[Anonymous No.7364364]

>>7354990

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tzaWOdvGMw

Watch this OP

[Anonymous No.7364368]

>>7363494

Bacteria are also life form yet we can cure multiple illnesses caused by Bacteria. Also Cancer is not a life form

[Anonymous No.7364374]

>>7361723

[Anonymous No.7364379]

>>7354990

The depressing truth OP, is that it's incurable