Can cancer be eradicated?

[p_p_man]

Considering the amount of money that's been poured into cancer research over the past 50 years...

Considering there is now a huge industry built up involving thousand of jobs, careers, research grants, charities and other peripheral organisations...

Considering the total amount of cancer deaths worldwide have not fallen significantly since research began (no source provided just something I read once)...

Has a total cure already been found but we're not being told about it?...

 

[Chuckus]

Has a total cure already been found but we're not being told about it?...

Yes I believe it has, money it all has to do with money. *walking away from thread*

 

[Weird Harold]

Has a total cure already been found but we're not being told about it?...

I seriously doubt that there is a single cure for "cancer" because cancer is not a single disease or condition.

"Cures" exist for some cancers, while for others there aren't even effective pain relievers. "Cures" in quotes, because they don't work for everyone, and most aren't even cures, but excisions that remove the cancerous growths before they spread.

 

[doctor_insanus]

I'd like to think that there are still some ethics left in the world...

On the other hand, having lost two loved ones to cancer in the last year, I will say that if there is a cure - and it has been withheld sheerly for profit - then these people deserve whatever Hell may be in store for them.

Whoa... I think I just got a little heavy there.

 

[YoungGun69]

Fastest way to find a cure for Cancer is to give the heads of the major Phamecutical companies and their families cancer. We'll get a cure fast.

 

[morninggirl5]

Re: Re: Can cancer be eradicated?

Yes I believe it has, money it all has to do with money. *walking away from thread*

I may be wrong but I think that most of the more dedicated cancer researchers have a personal interest in their work, they've lost someone close to them to the disease. I don't think they are concerned about profit and the drug company that first gains approval for a cure is going to make literally billions, they're not going to sit on that kind of profit.

 

[Todd]

There is a cure/cures for cancer/cancers and ther has ben since the 50's. The Pharma Cartel has it and has withheld purely on an evil profit motive.

The Pharma Cartels knows that there is no money in curing people. Because once a person is cured they no longer have to pay for a cure.

In fact thanks to the Pharma Cartel most illnesses are a percentage longer than they were 100 years ago.

It is a very sickly evil world we live in when profit is more valuable than human life is.

But of course, allow me to quote the normal response to this, "Todd your off your rocker, there is no Pharma Cartel, and the governement has your best interest in mind when they make thier decisions"

 

[Chuckus]

Re: Re: Re: Can cancer be eradicated?

I may be wrong but I think that most of the more dedicated cancer researchers have a personal interest in their work, they've lost someone close to them to the disease. I don't think they are concerned about profit and the drug company that first gains approval for a cure is going to make literally billions, they're not going to sit on that kind of profit.

Maybe I am wrong, but I just have this gut feeling is all. I don't doubt for a second the cancer researchers intent or interest in their work, just a mere feeling is all. I do think that there are cures and treatments that are not being told to the public......for whatever reasons.

 

[pabloback]

WE EAT CRAPPY FOOD enhanced with chemicals and preservatives we drive gas guzzlers that run on fuels enhanced with benzene [carcinogenic] we wrap the crappy food we eat in pvc [causes cancer] and reheat it in the microwave. we walk around all day chatting on cellphones and cordless phones listening to radios and watching tv's or in front of computer screens [like this one] radiating spurious emissions then wonder why there is an increase in the number of cases of cancer diagnosed each year . it is our life style and we choose to do nothing about it apart from shouting "IT IS NOT MY FAULT" WHILE WE SMOKE ANOTHER CIGARETTE. i am as guilty as the rest i am a petrol head

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Can cancer be eradicated?

I seriously doubt that there is a single cure for "cancer" because cancer is not a single disease or condition.

"Cures" exist for some cancers, while for others there aren't even effective pain relievers. "Cures" in quotes, because they don't work for everyone, and most aren't even cures, but excisions that remove the cancerous growths before they spread.

Yes I realise there is more than one type of cancer but it does seem strange to me that more progress hasn't been made in affecting a general cure.

The researchers must know enough about the problem by now to eliminate any initial research. Each cure they produce and publish always seems to me to be a question of producing something before too many questions are asked.

And there is that question that the total number of cancer deaths per annum has not made a significant drop since records began..

I really do have strong doubts about the lack of progress being made.

As Chuckus has said a lot of money is involved...

 

[ChaoticLil]

I personally believe that if they really wanted to eradicate/cure cancer they would. It's too big of a money maker.

 

[Todd]

I personally believe that if they really wanted to eradicate/cure cancer they would. It's too big of a money maker.

The bigger money maker is letting cancer not be cured.

A long term patient doles out more money than a quickly cured patient does.

You could charge say $10,000 for a complete cure or you could charge $500 a month for a lifetime of the patient. sure the $10,00 is quick money but the $500 is long term big time cash.

It is all a mater of economics for the Pharma cartel, not a matter of lives saved.

 

[Chuckus]

The bigger money maker is letting cancer not be cured.

A long term patient doles out more money than a quickly cured patient does.

You could charge say $10,000 for a complete cure or you could charge $500 a month for a lifetime of the patient. sure the $10,00 is quick money but the $500 is long term big time cash.

It is all a mater of economics for the Pharma cartel, not a matter of lives saved.

I don't necessarily believe in the "Pharma cartel" thing but Todd hit the nail right on the head..........BIG money is on the line.......

 

[Bitch_Goddess]

While I do agree that there might be a “cure” out there for cancer, I do not think we will ever be able to completely eradicate cancer.

Many types of cancer, especially breast, are genetic, and to be eradicated it would take extensive research and costly gene therapy. I recently did research that shows that up to 40% of women have precancerous changes in their breasts. This is alarming. Simply aging also increases one’s risk for most types of cancer.

Most cancers are also lifestyle related, and if people would pursue a more healthy lifestyle, their risk would be significantly reduced. Eating right, not smoking, and getting annual exams greatly reduces one’s risk. The cancer rate would also be much lower if people would take time for monthly self-exams, breast for women, and testicular for men. Many people are not even aware of factors that may play into their risk for cancer, such as sun exposure. For some women, not having children can increase their risk of certain cancers.

I seriously believe that if more money went into educating people, promoting prevention, and assisting people in getting annual exams, the cancer rate would be significantly less than pouring more money into finding cures for people who already have the disease, which might have been able to be prevented. Don’t get me wrong, I think the strides being made in cancer research are great, but I think we haven’t reached the root of the problem.

So this is just my 2 cents on the topic. I guess it is personal to me because I never would of thought at the age of 21 that I would be a cancer survivor.

 

[Cheyenne]

No, I think there are too many different types of cancers that cancer will be with us for many years to come.

But I also don't believe for a second that there is a known cure that is being hidden from the general public for profit motivation reasons. Unless the cure is stored with that engine that someone designed years ago that runs on only water for fuel.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Before this gets out of hand with crazy conspiracy theories...

...let me set this issue straight. Listen to your argument here. Does this make sense? If cancer and other medical researchers and those who invest in this research actually are all motivated primarily by money, do you think this kind of scheme is the best way to do it? I can tell you that they could make exponentially more by marketing effective treatments to the public than by concealing cures and continuing to milk the government and investors for research dollars. So from a purely business standpoint, the theory is bunk.

From a scientific standpoint it's just as ridiculous an idea. As Weird Harold mentioned, cancer is not a disease, but an extremely broad family of diseases in which an incredibly diverse spectrum of pathology causes one's cells to dysfunction and behave like European protesters when George W. Bush comes to town.

You're definitely right PP, that in general, medical science has made only modest headway towards the eradication of cancer. I suppose people outside of the health field are justified in their wonderment at how so many billions of dollars have been spent and so many promises made toward this end with such little to show for it, but believe me when I say that the frustration of the public is just a fraction of that experienced by those actually involved in the research.

I'll try to illustrate what medical science is up against. In some ways, I think medicine's a victim of it's own success. In the last 150 years medicine in general has gone being largely palliative to significantly extending lives and sometimes offering cures. I'll use the example of the development of antibiotics to show you how we're in a different era now and advances won't come so easily today.

In the last century, medical science scored a huge victory over leading cause of mortality throughout human history - infection. The development of effective antibiotics in the 1930's and 40's stands among medicine's greatest achievements and even mankind's greatest moments, almost instantaneously adding years to the average lifespan in populations with access to these drugs.

To develop antibiotics, researchers were able to expliot anti-bacterial compounds that already exist in nature - produced by many species of fungi, plants and other organisms to kill competing bacteria. The development of these antibiotics was hastened by the fortunate fact that there are many significant differences in the basic biochemical processes within bacterial and human cells, allowing the development of drugs to target "bacteria-specific" enzymes and other molecules. The upshot of this is that these compounds are effective poisons against bacteria but relatively harmless to people because our cells lack the "targets" these drugs attack. Hence, infections can be "cured".

Curing cancer is a much more difficult proposition. The very cells we're trying to kill are our own. Trying to cure cancer with chemotherapy, which has been one of the mainstays of cancer treatment for 50 years is like trying to do brain surgery with a stone axe. The idea of chemotherapy is to preferentially kill actively dividing cells (which is of course one of the chief harmful properties of cancer). The problem, of course, is that the chemicals don't distinguish between cancer and non-cancer. Any dividing cell is poisoned... hence the considerable side effects associated with these drugs. Any cure for cancer will have to exploit very subtle biochemical differences between cancer cells and normal cells - killing the cancer and leaving the rest alone. We simply don't know enough basic cell biology yet to do this very well.

But we're learning slowly but surely. I have faith that human genome research and the considerable basic cell research going on will give us the basic knowledge we need to beat cancer. It'll just take time.

This is not to say, though, that great strides haven't been made already to fight cancer. As WH rightly pointed out, our best treatment for most cancers today is early detection and some form of surgical excision. Imaging technologies and cancer screening techniques are getting better all the time. A cure won't be nearly as important if we can get a lot better at catching it early.

WH isn't correct that surgery is our only "cure" for cancers, though. There are a significant and growing number of cancers that can be cured in 90+% of patients even at rather advanced stages. Hodgkin's Lymphoma, certain testicular cancers, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and choriocarcinoma spring to mind. These diseases are have very prognoses. The American 2-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong had advanced testicular cancer that had spread to his lungs and brain. It was completely cured by chemotherapy. The media portrayed his case as miraculous, but a complete cure for his particular type of testicular cancer has become the rule rather than the exception.
There's a great new drug called Gleevec that came out for another kind of leukemia.

I've gone on far too long, but the take home point is this: don't buy into this conspiracy crap. People are working hard on this disease. To quote PP's hero, GWB, "help is on the way."

 

[Barb Dwyer]

Good points all, Bitch Goddess. And congrats on being a survivor.

May I just add that even if one pursues a 'healthy lifestyle' - by eating right, not smoking or drinking, refraining from illicit drugs, sleeping 8 hours/night, exercising and practicing moderation in all things, keeping on an even keel and being part of a loving relationship and petting animals...... it does not ensure a cancer free life.

Many external factors contribute to your susceptibility. Environmental influences (pollution, toxins, natural and man made carcinogens in our air, water and food sources) are the greatest threat over which we have little control.

Finally, people's genetic makeup also influences their predisposition to developing cancer. And, as you pointed out, aging in general and the mutations our cells undergo during that process, lead to disease.

So, pp man, it is difficult to visualize a time when we can eradicate 'cancer' since it is, by definition a malignant tumor of potentially unlimited growth that expands locally by invasion and systemically by metastasis. To address all the different forms on a cellular level is a daunting prospect.

 

[p_p_man]

and soap...

Unless the cure is stored with that engine that someone designed years ago that runs on only water for fuel.

You may only be joking on that one but I've actually seen it and it works!

It's not quite as simple as just water of course but includes fat and other compounds which I wasn't told anything about. I'm afraid my knowledge of these things is very minimal.

But I did see a test run of a very small model and it's similar to the thing you do as a kid with a piece of cardboard some soap and hot water in the bath. A soon as the object is placed in the bath there a chemical reaction between the water and the soap which pushes the cardboard along the surface.

What I saw was a matchbox sized container full of hot water into which was poured some washing up liquid. The stopper was put back on the container which was then placed on a smooth surface. And off it went.

Crude yes but with time it could have been developed into something to rival the oil giants...

 

[Cheyenne]

Re: Before this gets out of hand with crazy conspiracy theories...

...let me set this issue straight. Listen to your argument here. Does this make sense? If cancer and other medical researchers and those who invest in this research actually are all motivated primarily by money, do you think this kind of scheme is the best way to do it? I can tell you that they could make exponentially more by marketing effective treatments to the public than by concealing cures and continuing to milk the government and investors for research dollars. So from a purely business standpoint, the theory is bunk.

Thanks, Oliver. If I had said it in quite that way, I'd have been accused of being part of the big business people who are the guilty ones holding back the cure just for profit motivation.

There is no way that hiding a cure makes any economic sense at all. Stock prices for companies that even HINT they may have found a cure for cancer invariably head up on just a hope and a prayer. People know that any such kind of a cure is worth its weight in gold and then some.

 

[Mischka]

Oliver's post covers everything, but I still want to add my little bit. I have pre-cervical cancer, and have had it for several years now. I am under constant screening to make sure that the cell division does not increase to the level of cancer. I have had half of my cervix removed. Any more, and there is no chance of natural conception.

So to answer your question yet again, p_p_man, no there will never be a full cure to cancer. A reduction in its rate, yes, but no cure. It is an all encompassing name for abnormal cells that we already have within us. As Barb pointed out, all cancer is - in the most simplistic terms - is abnormal cell growth. But the catch is you already have those cells in you. Genetics, environmental factors, etc. can trigger the cells to grow at a rate considered cancerous, thus displacing the healthy cells around them.

I read an interesting article once that discussed why the battle against cancer seems so daunting. The rates of cancer are not really rising. People, on the other hand, are simply living longer lives, and hence developing cancers that would never have been detected or recorded before. Keeping us alive and healthy through our reproductive stage is nature's concern. Since most cancers develop well after a person's reproductive stage, cancer is simply not weeded out through the successive generations. We already carry the genes in us before our parents show the signs.

 

[p_p_man]

Good post Oliver...

...I started this thread more as a question than a "theory". There has been a lot of money poured into various fields involving cancer research and I suppose my question in a loose way is "all this money, where are some results?"

I certainly don't denigrate the work carried out by researchers (as I said I'm only asking a general question) but as you said yourself the drop in cancer deaths seems very small compared to the years of research, even taking into account the cure of one cancer one moment doesn't stop the rise of another the next, I would have thought that by now we should have seen more significant inroads made into the death rate.

And Barb Dwyer I used the word eradicate incorrectly. I mean more general, wide ranging, successful cures. More progress. That sort of thing...

 

[Chuckus]

Re: Good post Oliver...

...I started this thread more as a question than a "theory". There has been a lot of money poured into various fields involving cancer research and I suppose my question in a loose way is "all this money, where are some results?"

I certainly don't denigrate the work carried out by researchers (as I said I'm only asking a general question) but as you said yourself the drop in cancer deaths seems very small compared to the years of research, even taking into account the cure of one cancer one moment doesn't stop the rise of another the next, I would have thought that by now we should have seen more significant inroads made into the death rate.

And Barb Dwyer I used the word eradicate incorrectly. I mean more general, wide ranging, successful cures. More progress. That sort of thing...

I would also like to say that I am not of the opinion that their is a "grand conspiracy" or anything. I feel much the same as pp does about it. I hope that one day they do come up with more effective treatments if not a cure itself for cancer. Cancer has touched my life in more ways than I care to have, but you must deal with the cards that are given to you. I am not saying that I have had cancer, but family members and close family friends have gone through it.............

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Yeah, I can understand the question, PP. The problem has the medical community asking plenty of questions too.

Mischka brings up a great point about the nature of cancer as a disease that hasn't been an "evolutionary issue" and it's an important concept to keep in mind when thinking about the disease. Until relatively recently, the average human being usually didn't live long enough to develop cancer. Something else killed him first - usually some kind of infection.

Keep in mind too, that no matter what happens, life is a terminal disease. We all have to die of something. If I dramatically cut down the rate of infection-related deaths, the rate of people dying from all other causes has to rise correspondingly. It's a zero-sum game because we're all headed back to the dust we came from. If we ever beat cancer there'll be something else to put us in our graves...

...until I'm able to upload my soul onto Literotica, of course.

 

[Barb Dwyer]

Life is a terminal disease...

Absolutely true, Oliver. We begin dying the moment we are born. And just like bacteria that find a way around the latest antibiotics we can concoct, diseases also 'learn' and adapt to their environment and become killers in different ways.

I just hope that when they come for my body, they can somehow use the knowledge to discover why having sex at age 120 killed me so suddenly.

 

[Chuckus]

Re: Life is a terminal disease...

Absolutely true, Oliver. We begin dying the moment we are born. And just like bacteria that find a way around the latest antibiotics we can concoct, diseases also 'learn' and adapt to their environment and become killers in different ways.

I just hope that when they come for my body, they can somehow use the knowledge to discover why having sex at age 120 killed me so suddenly.

LOL. Very true to both of you...........Oliver and Barb.