>get billions of dollars a year in research funding >only

Because if they cured cancer they wouldn't receive billions of dollars a year.

>>8935254
the one who does would though

File: 1294845831815.jpg (94KB, 450x399px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 450x399px

>>8935249
Cancer cells are human cells. Trying to kill them without harming other human cells is borderline impossible

>>8935267
They already are. Through chemotherapy. Then they get to double dip and receive money through both.

>>8935275
typical response from life sciences brainlet

File: 1318377445394.jpg (105KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 400x400px

>>8935281
Ok. How would you cure cancer then?

>>8935275
>Cancer cells are human cells.
By definition they are not human cells

>>8935267
>cure cancer
>cure costs billions to make
>receive billions and keep medical patent
>jews now receive 0 dollars for their (((treatments)))
yeah, jews would never allow this.

>>8935249
Cancer is an umbrella term for a fuckload of different diseases with different mechanisms and genetic profiles.

I think CRISPR-CAS9 research will eventually lead to highly aggressive, targeted gene treatments to make cancer a curable illness on a patient-by-patient basis, but we're years, possibly decades, from that point today.

We've also nearly found cures for some blood and bone cancers, and a cure for HIV is looking to get human clinical trials later this year IIRC after successfully curing mice.

Cancer is an extremely versatile disease because everybody's cancer is a little different. We've essentially had to try killing an ant nest with a bat until recently.

>>8935368
Couldn't every type of cancer be treated by having a short half-life chemical that causes cells to die if they undergo mitosis before the chemical has broken down?

>>8935398
No, for two main reasons:
1) this would have the same drawback of chemo, and kill any other non-cancerous rapidly dividing cell
2) due to cancer actively supressing systems that prevent mutations, it'll quickly gain some way to bypass the effects of the drug, which is a similar problem with most all cancer medication

>>8935398
Drugs like cisplatin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisplatin) do just that. They interfere with DNA replication which harms cells with faster replication more than the normal ones. But look at those side effects...... Some cells in the tumour might also survive the treatment and give birth to a new drug resistant tumour, often through simply pumping out the drug.

>>8935291
>literally part of your body
>not human cells

>>8935285
>>8935275
Proton Therapy~

OP look into immunotherapy and targeted therapies like TKIs. It's not all chemo anymore.

Source: I work for a pharma company heavily invested in oncology.

>>8935368
CRISPR is just the latest "it will fix everything in 5 years" meme for popsci brainlets, just like nanomachines, "the singularity", and AI

>>8935454
The good thing about it is that the side-effects at least cease once you stop treatment and it's out of your system.

>>8937145
>t. I never looked into any of those topics and decided they're worthless because I was one of the brainlets that got fed into the hype and disappointed after five years despite three of those four having legitimate practical uses in the real world and continued technological development.

>>8935249
Cancer cells are literally just your own cells that are unable to stop growing. You can't differentiate from those and regular cells using any normal method.

It's like that game where 1 cup out of 3 has a ball under, except you don't see which one starts with the ball and there are a billion cups.

Nanobots when?

>>8937391
When ever we can disperse heat well enough to pack enough power into a small enough thing without melting it

>>8935249
Cancer is your cells going haywire you literally cannot cure it retard.

>>8937412
>Cease the mechanism causing cells to go haywire
>???

Brainlets don't even know the cure to cancer.

>>8937416
Why hasn´t anyone thought of this?

>>8937404
You think heat dissipation is the issue preventing us from making nanobots? You are quite wrong. The issue is that we can't make small enough parts and assemble them into structures that we desire.

>>8937427
That's what a lot of the gene-based therapy research is currently looking into.

It's been thought of, definitely, but only recently have we had the technology to start attacking from that angle.

>>8937416
>mechanism

There is no mechanism anon its just a random glitch in your cells that can HAPPEN AT ANYTIME IN YOUR LIFE.

>>8935275
CRISPR and retroviruses would like to have a word with you. Barring your belief in their abilities give it a few decades until injectable nanobots are a thing.

>>8937458
I am aware of what it is Anon but that would mean the mechanism is mutation/insufficient immune response.

You have countless precancerous cells in your body throughout your life but your immune system flushes them out ordinarily.

>>8937458
Actually it can be caused by radiation...
>.>
and ingesting certain radioactive foods....
Lack of certain minerals....
The list goes on.....

Rather it is to say it has many mechanisms but only one outcome....
Cancer is a rebellion of your cells against your body.

>>8935249
in its defense it kills cancer more quickly than it kills you
see >>8935275

>>8937145
Nanomachines, the singularity, and STRONG AI (very important distinction there, brainlet) will be some of the biggest revolutions in all of human history. Nobody intelligent ever said it would be quick or easy, but theres nothing that says any of those things are impossible. One could argue they are an inevitability of technological advancement.

>>8935368
>We've also nearly found cures for some blood and bone cancers, and a cure for HIV is looking to get human clinical trials later this year IIRC after successfully curing mice.
neat

>>8935254
This unfortunately. Why would they willingly cure something that will suck the money out of you like a merchant mosquito?

>>8935275
>cancer cells can't be distinguished from normal cells by any means

>>8937476
Nanotechnology is a promising field, everything else you mentioned is bullshit.

>>8937721
The singularity isn't a technology. I don't know why people keep mentioning it.

"The Singularity" is a theorized point where technology reaches a point of runaway accelerating returns and it speculation becomes pointless. It's not supposed to be a tool to get used; it's just the point in civilization where you can no longer hope to have accurate advancement timescales.

Strong AI is a meme, I agree; we don't know enough about consciousness to emulate it. That said, we don't really need strong AI in the immediate or even near future to reach a "singularity".
>>8937721
Weak AI and nanotechnology can definitely get us there and keep us going for quite a while without strong AI.

>>8935275
>brachytherapy
>BNCT
>IMRT
>proton beam therapy
>external beam therapy
or you could take the alternative and have your effected organ(s) cut out of you. watch out for that recurrence though

>>8935291
us this what a brainlet looks like?

* snaps picture*

>>8935291
nobody has ever gotten cancer from a dog or a squirrel m8.

>>8935249
Can you explain to this poor bio brainlet the details in the cell cycle that make cancer happen?
Then how to fix it?

>>8939171
>the details in the cell cycle that make cancer happen?
it goes wrong

>>8936948
>trashing biochemistry and chemotherapy
>praising radiation therapy
Why do you do this

>>8939210
because radiation therapy has good cure rates.

>>8939217
Yeah but its best combined with chemotherapy and is bound by alot of the same hurdles. Radiotherapy requires and good understanding of biochemistry

>>8935249
im quite certain your shitposting will soon save countless lives, anon