|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 12:56 am
Yes, the dreaded Big-C. I think we will, eventually. There was a virus engineered that would seek out dangerous cells and eliminate them, but that idea kinda disappeared. There's chemotherapy, but everyone knows that it can be nasty.
One person did present an interesting point: we could cure cancer, but the drug companies that produces the drugs that are used in cancer treatments would hold them back, since it would render their products useless. It's kinda sad. Trading money for lives.
But on a more humorous note, the 1st owner of Malboro cigarettes died of lung cancer.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 3:10 pm
Heh, that's like the previous owners of Ben & Jerry's dying of heart attacks.
I think there will be cures for various kinds of cancer. I'm not sure if all kinds will be able to be treated, but there are some big developments coming along in specific kinds of cancer. (I wish I could remember the article now, but there was some young boy who found a type of chemical/enzyme/something of the sort without which cancer cells cannot thrive.)
But surely, cancer can be cured in one way or another, in some form now or in the future. Cancer is a finite medical ailment: it's not unstoppable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 4:55 pm
I thought it was AIDS? Obviously, we can't use the same kid, because the two diseases are different.
What's ironic about your last sentence is that cancer works by uncontrolled multiplication of cells.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 3:34 pm
Golden Dysprosium I thought it was AIDS? Obviously, we can't use the same kid, because the two diseases are different. What's ironic about your last sentence is that cancer works by uncontrolled multiplication of cells. Hmm... true. But there's got to be some way to stop that gene that makes it multiply out of control, right? Or just something to choke it off so it doesn't grow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 3:39 pm
The problem with cancer is that the cells that multiply out of control usually have "malfunctions" in the enzymes that are supposed to kill them off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 3:49 pm
So wait, it doesn't just affect the body cells but also the enzymes around the tumor?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 5:03 pm
In your body, there are special mechanisms that are called "executioners", which is literally their job. When a cell reaches a certain point in its life, a "switch" is turned on that results in the death of the cell. This can either be the cell committing "suicide" or the body's immune system finishing it off.
In cancer patients, it's common for the cancerous cells to have this enzyme disabled. Combine this "immortality" (well, not really) with increased cell division, and you've got a hell of a lot of cells that the body won't kill off any time soon because it isn't "told" that they need to die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 5:02 am
 So building off of Golden's last post;
What you're saying is that the cancerous cells, which were infected but whatever, malfunction on purpose to survive. I do believe that that is natural selection at its finest. Basically, the cells mutate and become stronger with every wave of attack from your body, correct?
On topic -- I'm not completely sure what a cancer is. I guess if it were a tumor it would be swelling and stuff but I can't find anything that really describes cancer to me (except maybe my Biology teacher but I have yet to ask her that question). So, bear with me and my slightly vague idea of cancer. If I remember correctly, cancer is kind of like a mass population of infected cells that spread throughout the body, usually quickly, and infect other cells -- much like a bacterium or virus. Or, they divide and there is a new grand amount of them...
These cells have... well, they lack the enzyme you mentioned that allows the executioners to kill them, or let them know to kill them, and of course they're not going to kill themselves off... So, we either a.) have to find a way to "turn on" the enzyme and let our bodies run their course, or b.) find some other way to kill them.
That's all if I follow and remember correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 5:27 pm
No, they just malfunction. There's no survival instinct. ALL ABOUT CANCERA good (though maybe a bit racist) comparison would be China. They're having crazy population issues, and thus try to cut down on female births. If you can understand why, you've got a general understanding of how cancer works. Cancer would be if they removed this policy and made it law that a woman must conceive at least 1 child/year or face the death penalty. Obviously, there'll be a lot of sex and the population will skyrocket. The fact is: the body itself isn't as fabulous as people see it as. A lot of stuff can go wrong in there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 8:03 am
I wouldn't mind log cabins and secret labs... That kind of sounds like the future I want anyways
So hey, about cancer- there is a ridiculous amount of regulation in human cells. Screwing up a single regulating gene may cause any number of things to happen- but some gene regulate cell growth, others apoptosis ("executioners"), others ensuring that replication occurs without error.
If you screw up one of these, it increases the odds that other mutations can occur, or increases the odds that the cell may survive IF the other mutations occur.
Normally, a cell goes about it's merry way, gets hit by some radiation, and mutates. No big deal, it kills itself- or the immune system kills it- and we make a new cell to replace it. A cell mutates and stays alive, producing more mutant cells... and well, it's a slippery slope to more mutations and faster replication. So now, we have a big ball of cells in your chest- expanding and pushing against your lungs, soaking up nutrients that your body needs, etc... not good.
And yes, as cancerous cells are killed off, the ones which are easier to kill go first, and the more hardy cancer cells live on- as well, the faster growing cancer cells are going to make up a majority of the cancer, simply because they can just grow faster. You could consider it evolution, that the cancer cells are attempting some sort of survival instinct, but if it kills it's "host", it's not going to live- after all, it's not really it's own separate organism with a function, simply an error that's snowballing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 6:50 pm
Yay! My favorite user who's name sounds like an STD is here! Well, I'm sure we can find you a secret lab here made out of wood and inhabited by mutants. Try looking in Quebec.
Back to the topic: I should point out that radiation isn't the only cause of mutation in cells. Cigarettes don't emit radiation, but still cause cancer. Actually, if you drink while smoking, the chemicals in the cigarettes bond to the alcohol and can cause stomach cancer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 7:52 am
Golden Dysprosium Yay! My favorite user who's name sounds like an STD is here! Well, I'm sure we can find you a secret lab here made out of wood and inhabited by mutants. Try looking in Quebec. Back to the topic: I should point out that radiation isn't the only cause of mutation in cells. Cigarettes don't emit radiation, but still cause cancer. Actually, if you drink while smoking, the chemicals in the cigarettes bond to the alcohol and can cause stomach cancer. No secret labs I can find here in Ontario, but... they wouldn't be that secret if I could find them, now would they? And of course, there's other non-radiation sources of cancer- chemical inhibitors of DNA replication, loss of cetriole number regulation, DNA polymerase "slippage", and the low risk of an everyday error in DNA replication managing to be repaired incorrectly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 3:57 pm
I'd like to have faith in the power of the human mind.
Maybe I've been playing too much Trauma Center but, really.
Look at all the diseases and problems humankind has learned to treat and fix.
The power of the human mind is pretty great.
Looking at all we've accomplished...
Why should cancer be any different?
[RIP, Cheryl Bradley]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 12:47 pm
SuperOtaku I'd like to have faith in the power of the human mind.
Maybe I've been playing too much Trauma Center but, really.
Look at all the diseases and problems humankind has learned to treat and fix.
The power of the human mind is pretty great.
Looking at all we've accomplished...
Why should cancer be any different?
[RIP, Cheryl Bradley] Because cancer is a word for a condition brought on by a number of different causes. It's like someone claiming they have a cure for the cold- they might have something that works against once virus that has been shown to give people a runny nose, but they havn't cured the common cold. Cancer can be caused by so many different things... In fact, our body already has a system in place to "cure" cancer through apoptosis. The problem is, some mutated cells STILL manage to slip through the cracks. There is NO target that all cancer cells share that no normal cells share, and the only real difference between cancer and normal cells is that cancer cells just keep dividing. We've tried using that, the only difference we could find, as a method to attack cancer- after all, faster dividing cells will take up more chemo and hopefully die, leaving the slower dividing cells hopefully mostly okay. The best we could do is find better treatment for this type of cancer, or that type, and keep doing that for everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 12:56 pm
ok, i heard something grusom and i want peoples ideas on it. i dont believe this because i have faith in human kind.
a conspiracy theorist once tell me, we've already found a cure for cancer but have withdrawn it. along with the pharmecies losing money, as mentioned earlier, another reason is population control. i could see it, but i choose not to believe it. though it seems humans are always trying to keep a balance with nature, but we're the most unbalanced being there is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
