[Discussion] do you think they already discovered the cure to cancer?

[Power Bottom]

In many shows they tell you things that are happening in this world. In some (I remember family guy) they said why cure something you can make billions of dollars off of.

So what do you think?

 

[Beauty Busty Beast]

I think there isn't but our medical system is getting better and better.
I bet in near future humanity will find something against it.

 

[Jasey]

Because the cure would make billions of dollars itself, and companies would destroy each other for the patent. The same insinuation that greed is hiding it, is the same that greed is why I know it hasn't been discovered.

 

[ObitoRolent]

I think there isn't but our medical system is getting better and better.
I bet in near future humanity will find something against it.

There is no future tho.

 

[Cunning Linguist]

Nope. You can't have a blanket cure for cancer. Cancer is a very varied disease and affects everyone differently. There is no conspiracy out there. No one's out to get you.

 

[ssjsage]

Thc from marijuana helps kill and prevent cancers cells

 

[Hebi Sasuke]

I do trust in those theories. It's highly possible. When there is money involved people turn into beasts and don't care about human life.

 

[Nejisar]

About cancer there's no definite medication currently can kill or counteract the pathogenesis or pathology of cancer cells to eliminate them and kick them outta body,, yet the chemotherapy and organ (ectomy) help stops the spread and surgical removal of involved tissue, also health education partially help prevent it by periodic check up and so on,, I mean you can't go to your doctor and ask himself :" oh my saviour, I'm sick with cancer!! Gimme tablet to return to the point I'm okay!! "

 

[NineSNS]

It's too complex a disease for a single cure. And the ways to prevent or minimize the odds of getting it aren't being widely adopted because they require lifestyle changes - more effort than swallowing a pill.

Maybe cures do exist, but they are held up in litigation. That I could believe.

 

[Hexuze]

Perhaps, the government tends to hide a lot of stuff from the public even if it's beneficial. They just want to maximize profits as much as possible.

 

[HornyPanda3]

Everybody has cancer cells....

 

[Aim64C]

The nature of cancer means that there can be no true cure to all cancer. Which is why I scoff at the institutions that advertise to research 'the cure for cancer.'

Which - I am sure most of them realize that - but they just like to make advertisements that break down into how the average person thinks.

The 'cure' for cancer, if there could be said to be one, would be a means of flagging cancer cells for the host's immune system to eliminate them. I imagine research into auto-immune disorders will be key, here.

Which is probably where most research for cures will end up migrating.

Our immune system is, for all intents and purposes, the ultimate cure for any pathogen. The reason cancer kills is because the body erroneously recognizes it as still being part of the body. Infections are a race between the immune system and the pathogen. The pathogen must be able to evade destruction long enough to replicate sufficiently to communicate to a new host before the immune system reverse-engineers fragments of destroyed pathogen into a means of disabling and destroying the pathogen.

Given enough time - the immune system will always adapt and stamp out the infection. This is why we have passing infections like the flu and 'common cold' - a version of the virus comes along that is just different enough to allow it to out-run our immune system long enough for it to spread to another person before our immune system kills it with extreme prejudice.

Fatal infections sufficiently destroy the body through replication to such an extent that the host's biological processes cease before the immune system completes its task. These pathogens must be capable of communicating to a new host or the pathogen will burn itself out (which is what many 'hot' viruses, like ebola, do - they are exceptionally deadly but very limited in their means of communicating to new hosts - so you get flare-ups of infections and then everyone gets paranoid and the infection burns out).

 

[Takure]

The 'cure' for cancer, if there could be said to be one, would be a means of flagging cancer cells for the host's immune system to eliminate them. I imagine research into auto-immune disorders will be key, here.

Nanorobotics is looking promising. Though we can't "flag" individual cells for destruction, we can now target them and administer cancer drugs right into the troubled cells.

It's not a cure, but it's a start.

 

[-Punk-]

I think so , it's just that the world is not ready for it .

 

[Aim64C]

Nanorobotics is looking promising. Though we can't "flag" individual cells for destruction, we can now target them and administer cancer drugs right into the troubled cells.

It's not a cure, but it's a start.

Nanobots are a sort of 'green rocks' in speculative science, right now.

The nanoscopic world is harsh, though - Brownian motion and osmotic pressure are design-breaking at those scales. Even strong and weak nuclear forces can begin to play havoc with the more intricate portions of designs.

So I think a lot of people vastly over-estimate the realistic applications of nanobots.

That said - nanobots that can be custom built for each patient to tag cancer cells for the immune system would be vaguely within the realm of possibility.

It is difficult to tell exactly which direction to go - which is why I said research into auto-immune disorders and immune response to organ transplants will be very important. Triggering a very mild auto-immune response may do some damage to the host, but be far more damaging to the cancer.