What would you believe to cure cancer?
Would it be radiation, a miracle vaccine, or just a simple protein present already in the human body?
General Cancer thread
>What would you believe to cure cancer?
Nanobots that entire the blood stream and seek out cancerous cells with the help of a massive super computer directing/coordinating the attack.
>aaand it's doing a great job I would say since no one ever had any cancer.
Your immune system is actually a very excellent cancer fighter. The fact that the vast majority of people don't get cancer is a testament to how amazing your immune system is. Also people with weak immune systems like transplant and AIDS patients are at very high risk for cancer because of this fact.
I'm no expert, far from it, but:
It's sad that people seem to repeat the same mistakes once and once again...
AFAIK, "cancer" is NOT a single thing, there are many types of cancer. Also, you don't really "cure" cancer. Even if there was a therapy that could kill tumors easily, there could be some kind of cancer cell left, and also, you could have yet another type of cancer in the future. Doctors will tell you that you are "in remission", not really cured. For example, the very own therapies could produce another cancer... as is the case with radiotherapy (it raises the probability of getting a second cancer).
Anyway, these days new treatments (immunotherapy) are giving more hope to people that had no options in the past. I found the story of these techniques really cool: in the 1890s, some guy used and documented a technique that gave some results in a % of his patients. Medicine "rediscovered" the technique some decades ago and, as I said, they are having success where there were not alternatives.
If there is something I can say about murrica, is that, while I hate most of what they do in terms of ideology, foreign policy, and their economical interventionism, is that, AFAIK, mostly US companies and the US govts drives scientific research in this area. Sadly, there is usually some degree of greed involved...
Well, that's all I can say. Hopefully the future looks much brighter for cancer patients... The treatments are really expensive, though.
The illness and the treatments themselves are harsh, but there is hope.
Oh, btw, please correct me if I'm wrong somewhere in this post, I could be talking bullshit without knowing.
Also, someone should post an article/explanation on how cancer actually happens. My knowledge is limited, but AFAIU, it happens because the programmed dead mechanism(? called "apoptosis") of the cells fails for some reason (there could be many, genetic, environmental, etc.), and these cells keep growing and reproducing without dying. The thing is, many organs have many different types of cells.. which means, there are many types of cancers.
Just throwing a bone out here to anyone knowledgeable about these things:
Would it be possible to re-activate the genes responsible for Apoptosis in cancer cells? And if possible, could it work as an effective treatment?
>Also people with weak immune systems like transplant and AIDS patients are at very high risk for cancer because of this fact.
but then people who have aids wanted aids. it is not like aids is natural.
Stem cells. You could brew up a broth containing a hundred billion natural killer cells containing your genetic material and then flood the body with them, and then watch cancer cells get BTFO.
What if the stem cells just stuck to the cancer cells and became cancer cells themselves?
Cancer cells, from my B.S. Biology knowledge, usually arise from a buildup of mutations in genes involving the normal cell-cycle. It seems like you'd have to target cells that are making specific protein products in abnormally large or abnormally small amounts, which isn't impossible.
>It seems like you'd have to target cells that are making specific protein products in abnormally large or abnormally small amounts, which isn't impossible.
It is though. A lot of the drugs used in chemotherapy are based around this and it is the philosophy behind rational drug design.
>rational drug design
Can you tell us more about this? Currently reading about angiotensin II antagonists over ACE inhibitors for a more favorable side effects profile, and the sissyphean search for orally active inhibitors of renin (and most proteases.) How exactly is drug design "targeted" to the given biological targets? Do people come up with a lead compound just by drawing something that looks kinda like the endogenous or naturally occurring ligand? Do they come up with something that has a potential surface and spacial arrangement that represents a sort of intersection of a range of known ligands? What sort of empirical evidence about the structure of the active site and induced fit is relevant and how is it used? How does quantum chemistry fit in here?
Remission does not preclude it being cured, it just allows that it may not be. Once the tumour mass has been greatly reduced your own immune system can fight the final cells if they were not destroyed by the treatment.
It's reductive to pretend it is never successfully removed.
Various mutations can cause cancer, but a lack of apoptosis wouldn't cause highly malignant cancer - most maligant tumours have a greatly accelerated reproductive rate. A mutation causes them to be permanently stuck in division and they begin to vascularize themselves to nourish growth and actually in some cases to inhibit and kill nearby cells in order to increase their space.
In short, lots of mutations can feasibly cause cancerous growth, apoptosis being one.
Dr. Otto Warburg, the chap who discovered cancer, wrote the book 'Cancer: It's Cause and it's Cure' where he states that cancer can be stopped by treating the cells to an alkaline environment; however this obviously quite trick
Can we stop with this all cancer is not the same meme. Sure cancer cells have different effects in different parts of the body but in the end there can be a universal cure for them, since they work on the same basis. As soon as genetic manipulation reaches a certain level, cancer will become obsolete.
i think a specifically designed nano technology carrying small amounts of an acid naturalizing substance.
(which ever works as a good neutralizer for acidity of cancer cells.)
this would operate in two ways
1, The nano machines can be used to "cut out" large masses and the ph neutralizer will be used to assist the healing process by killing the cells just ahead of the newly regenerating cells.
You faggots need to realize that cancer is just evolution getting out of control.
It's this very gene mutation phenomenon that gives rise to new species.
In fact you could even say that many many quasi-cancer like events are what eventually gave rise to humans.
You should be thanking cancer for no longer having the brain of a small mammal like creature.
Sometimes. Just sometimes shit hits the fan is all.
i pressed enter too quickly there
your the reason the internet is shit
>i think a specifically designed nano technology carrying small amounts of an acid naturalizing substance.
>(which ever works as a good neutralizer for acidity of cancer cells.)
>this would operate in two ways
>1, The nano machines can be used to "cut out" large masses by simply moving in a way that would tear ts bonds to its self in an area predefined by radiology and ultrasound.
2, the ph neutralizer will be used to assist the healing process by killing the cells just ahead of the newly regenerating cells and clean up what ever is left over.
Also, tumorous cancer cells require space to grow and the nutrients provided by blood.
>so by creating counter pressure around the tumor (if caught quickly enough) by some form of medically controlled swelling. this would prevent the tumors cells from growing.
>And purposely placed blood clots in the veins and arteries the tumor is using to feed would quit effectively destroy the tumor by suffocation.
>The fact that the vast majority of people don't get cancer
EVERYONE CAN GET CANCER BECAUSE THE MEDIA SAYS SO
WE WILL FIND A CURE TO CANCER ONE DAY
SO FUCK YOU
DONATE TO CANCER RESEARCH NOW OR JUST DIE
The difference between Cancer and Human cells are that the DNA is slightly different. Is this the only difference? Because if not then the literal only way to kill it is by DNA sequencing EVERY cell in the body and killing it when it's identified that it's different. This would require a VERY fast computer.
This. The same oncogenes are responsible for everything. All cancers evolve out of the same phenomena, where cells proliferate wildly and don't obey general inhibition systems. Sure, cancers can present differently, but at a genetic level, it's mostly uniform.
another potential cure for caner is microwaves.
The most promising drugs today against cancer are antibodies against cancerous cells and they still cannot lead to complete remission in metastatical states.
Nanobots scanning the entire body by means of genome reading are the future. You could come up with statistical super computers that would crank up the specifity to nearly 100%
It's not so much the apoptotic genes but more so the inactivated telomerase that poses the great problem here. Cancer cells are virtually immortal because of that. Sure you could come up with some virus transfecting specifically cancerous cells and bringing in a CRISPR machinery capable of restoring the telomerase. But people have thought about that and it's tremendously hard to achieve of course.
What happened to the guy who asked /sci/ a few months back about a potential cure? He used some drug that overloaded the cancers metabolic process and burned out its mitochondrial membranes basically killing the cell.
This? Or some analog thereof?
It's used as a weight loss drug because it makes the process by which you convert ATP into ADP + energy less efficient. If you take too much you get a crazy high fever and die. I never thought about it specifically targeting cancer drugs, but perhaps the fact that cancer cells tend to use more energy would mean that the effect would be greater on cancerous cells, leading them to die first so long as the patient is kept alive with supportive treatment. Sounds pretty shitty, but then again so is treatment via other types of chemotherapy. Now, if you could make an analog that does the same thing but only enters "cancerous" cells...
>Also green tea has a chemical that kills cancer cells which is pretty cool.
EVERYTHING has chemicals in it that kill cancer cells. Your body has thousands of complex chemical systems in place which prevent mutations from occurring and (normally) kill cells which have gone full retard. Cancer only manifests as a disease when these systems fail. The reason why there are so many retards that think the cure for cancer is kept as a secret or something is because scientific journalists publish ridiculous articles like "Green tea extract shown effective in killing cancer cells" when the cited article was just some study that showed a 10% reduction in growth of cancer cells in a petri dish when it's soaked in an equivalent of 10 gallons worth of green tea extract relative to a full sized human.