Possible Cure for Cancer
November 26, 2010 at 1:41 am #14185DrRockagenParticipant
I am a new member here and I am looking forward to sharing my knowledge with all of you. Here is some background information on me:
I am working towards my undergraduate degree in biology at a college ranked in the top 30. I enjoy every aspect of biology but sometimes I feel it is too simple.
I feel at my college that I am surrounded by a bunch of dimwits. In my general biology class, my fellow pupils were discussing cancer and how we’re coming closer to a cure. I thought for a moment and decided to give my two cents. I told them that cancer is purely a myth. How can cells grow uncontrollably? That would mean they would be large enough to see and I have never seen a single cell without looking through a microscope. I then went on to tell them instead of throwing loads of money in order to find a cure, we should just remove the part of the body that is infected. A simple solution to a simple problem.
November 26, 2010 at 5:44 am #102461JackBeanParticipant
And how do you think, that is nowadays cured cancer? Basically by surgery. The problem is, that it is complicated, invasive, sometimes it’s not accesible and even worst, it can spread throughout the body, so unless you don’t want to cut off the whole body you need to use other cure…
The problem is not uncontrolled grow of single cells, that would kill the cells by itself, but they divide uncontrolled and that’s the problem, because normal cells have mechanism either for stopping the cell cycle or to divide only for defined number of times…
November 26, 2010 at 4:33 pm #102469bekbaevParticipant
Surgery is a very primitive way to treat cancer, since cancer cells have the ability to bud off and travel in the blood stream. Cells become cancerous when they loose the genes necessary to stop cell cycle, these genes are usually mutated or deleted. We will probably never find a cure for cancer, but what we can do eventually is slow down its aggressive nature, without the use of harmful chemical treatments. But what about cancer do you find so mythical exactly?
Cancer cells do stay the same size, and yes the go through mitosis as do normal cells, only they do not upkeep the structural identity of their normal counterparts in the organ, they become invasive into functioning tissue, and draw all the bloods resources for their growth. Thus causing the body to starve while the tumors thrives. we need to look more into gene therapy and RNAi technologies within all cell lines and animal models.
Good luck to you and your studies!
November 28, 2010 at 10:47 am #102504Tranc3rParticipantquote DrRockagen:
👿 😕 Did I just read that? 😕 👿
November 29, 2010 at 6:01 pm #102524
Are you sure you’re studying biology? You don’t seem to have much grasp of the basics as yet. I don’t think you know enough to be admitted onto an undergrad course, unless they take students with no previous knowledge of biology at all.
I can only suppose you are winding us up….
November 29, 2010 at 6:09 pm #102525
Apologies if I sounded somewhat cross just now. But it’s always a bit galling when someone pronounces that cancer is a myth.
Would that it were….
(Plus, always a bit suspect when someone thinks everyone else is a dimwit except for themselves!!!!)
December 17, 2010 at 8:43 am #102809shanecantrellParticipant
I agree with the people above, It is really surgery. But did you know, we can prevent cancer? Me and family learned our lessons. My mom sister has a breast cancer it been a year now. As a woman, I need to prevent my self from cancer or any other diseases. Me, my mum and my younger sister kate, we took this supplement called [thieving quackery 👿 ] Multi-vitamins it is really helpful to us cause we know that it can prevent us from harmful diseases. Also, we run together we have the same diet. It works for us ladies. So far so good.
December 17, 2010 at 8:52 am #102811
Sometimes, advertising supplements is a pretty harmless activity, and doesn’t really call for much objection other than to think those that do it could be doing something a lot more useful with their existence.
But to peddle quackery and claim it can save lives??? No, that’s shameful. You shouldn’t be doing this. Look in the mirror, whoever you are, Shanecantrell, and then go and read some forums where cancer patients talk amongst themselves about what they are facing, and then feel the shame you should be feeling for peddling your quackery.
You are not being kind. Use your time alive to be better than this.
And watch out for that karma that might be about to descend on you….
December 17, 2010 at 12:47 pm #102817
December 18, 2010 at 12:26 pm #102839jwalinParticipantquote Julie5:
SO TRUEEEE you stole my words…
What university are you in? And are you really studying bio?
OK many people have cursed you for whatever you typed
but okay coming to the solutions for cancer. hmm does anyone have any possible solutions to cancer?
before that what are the possible causes of cancer? hmm not causes how does the cell change
so this is what i think
there is a change in the gene structure and cell divides uncontrollably. this division is the result of a change in the cell receptors (the cell cant sense the presence of any other cells in its surrounding and starts acting as if it were alone and forms a lump)
over here i have one question what about the telomeres length? if the cell keeps dividing wont they shorten and the end result would be the cell would die.
I do understand that all of the cells are dividing but wouldnt they all start dieing too one by one as the telomeres would shorten?
coming back to the changes in the cell. where else could the change be when i think about it i feel it can and should at many places but when i try to think about specific places i cant pin it down.
there should be something related to cytoskeleton
December 19, 2010 at 9:47 am #102845
From what I’ve read, it takes about 6-10 mutations to achieve malignant transformation of a cell into a cancer cell. Once that’s done, the cell’s away and growing into a tumour.
There’s a variety of possible pro-malignant mutations, and apart from distinct familial cancers where the responsible mutuation is known and inheritable, it would seem that each person’s original cancer cell can be achieved by a combination of mutuations, none of which is individually enough to cause transformation, but which in sum tip the cell into uncontrolled proliferation.
Given the vast number of cell divisions daily, it’s almost suprising cancer isn’t far more common than it is. Overall, the cell does a fantastic job in ensuring cell division runs smoothly.
Whether one could actually prevent non-familial cancers by any means other than living a healthy lifestyle is maybe hard to say. What is currently more essential in terms of decreasing cancer mortality of those who already have it is the ability for medicine to detect, as early as possible, any malignantly transformed cells, so they can be removed, usually surgically, as early as possible (or, better still, pre-malignant cells, such as can happen with cervical cancer thanks to screening).
This is why studying the biology of cancer cells is so essential, so that methods of early detection can be identified. Also, of course, trying to get the body’s natural immune system to recognise and kill off cancer cells.
With some exceptions, most cancer isn’t actually lethal until it metastasises, and the cancer cells get into the bloodstream and spread around the body. Diagnosing it before it does that is critical to whether or not you can survive cancer long term.
By and large, cancer is not symptomatic until it is beyond early stage, and very often has already started to metastasise. Even when the primary (original) tumour has been cut out, and there is no evidence of metastatic (secondary) tumours visible in the body by CT scans etc, metastatic cells can remain in the circulation of the blood/lymph, and lurk in tissues, ready to start growing into tumours when they receive appropriate stimulation to do so (just what that is, is, again, still somewhat mysterious – inflammation seems to be involved sometimes). This is why someone who is apparently cured of cancer can relapse – sometimes even years, or decades later.
You can’t really say someone is cured of cancer until every one of the descendent cells of the original cancer cell has been killed off….
December 22, 2010 at 1:20 am #102892koleanParticipant
I think that the way to go would be to engineer our own immune system to seek and destroy the cancerous cells. Wonder if it would be the innate or the adaptive immune system that would need to be activated…….. probably the adaptive immune system – but then it would have to be tailor made to each person’s immune system? tailor made to the type of cancer and the type of cell that is cancerous. Still, to have the immune system distinguish Self from a Cancerous Self will be hard, as it is the same cell, only the cell cycle is not behaving itself. Though with the sticky proteins (integrins or cadherins?) in such a quantifiable amount. . . . . Mmmm…..Maybe something like a complement system where if a certain quantity of stickiness is achieved, the cell then is destroyed. Too bad we can’t get the cancerous cell to go into the apoptosis pathway and save the body the expenditure of energy in destroying the cancer cells. Oops, I went off thinking again. . . .
Also, the immune system could then be on guard for any of those pesky lurking cancer cells that are hiding in the deep recesses of our body’s tissues after the first wave of destruction.
Prevention of cancer is admirable, but I feel it might be a never ending battle in our environment. Between the drinking water, the air we breathe, the food we eat, and just the natural land beneath us, we have to be oh so careful just to live. Each time a cell divides in our body, we are primed for a mutation to occur.
Now on top of all my studying epigenetics (actually I am looking into regeneration of blastema cells into limbs, body parts, and, perhaps maybe one day, specific tissues), these two articles have me worried about more things:
January 4, 2011 at 12:36 am #103003catielewisParticipantquote Julie5:
i am not against you guys, nor i am in favor of shane because honestly it is true that it is not safe to quaker on something that is serious. but JULIE, shane had never mentioned "IT CAN SAVE LIVES" as what you have mentioned, she never claimed the supplement can save lives, or you may want to read it again and understand what she is trying to imply…. what she said is to "PREVENT", means something not should be happened in the near future. PREVENTING DISEASES is totally different from SAVING LIVES. you should know and read the post first before trying to judge a person. Shane also did not imply nor to force the person who post the thread TO USE THE SUPPLEMENT TO CURE ANY CANCER… you may consider reading it again…
once again, i am not in favor with any of you, i just want you to know that you need to understand the content itself before trying to quacking out your points of view.
January 4, 2011 at 4:16 pm #103012JackBeanParticipant
the point is, that she (if she really is she) is just an spammer with advertisment. How can you prove it prevents you from cancer?
January 5, 2011 at 8:46 pm #103029catielewisParticipantquote JackBean:
if that’s the point, then JULIE must not reply any quaker thoughts she had to. if you think shanecantrell is a spamm, go directly to the point, julie should not make any statement from examining shane’s post that is not there at all… that simple. and besides, once again, shane did NEVER CLAIM IT CAN CURE NOR PREVENT, it is her points of view which she believes is helping her to prevent cancer, and she never did tell the thread starter or whoever post the question to use the supplement nor pushing her to buy it. that’s the very big difference there. we’re no perfect here, c’mon, you guys made your own mistake. if you guys are professional and you know what you are dealing in this forum, you may tell her your sides properly and not by giving statement which is not true like what julie have said. that is also one shame, mind you, you are not a perfect either, consider how you feel also, it’s the same thing, vice versa…
January 6, 2011 at 2:17 am #103033canalonParticipant
your input is duly noted. However there is little to no evidence that those multivitamin pills can help prevent cancer or much diseases (besides the lack of certain vitamins that could other wise be acquired by a decent diet). In some conditions, some vitamin supplements might be useful: Vitamin D in is recommended in winter in Canada, as suntanning becomes a bit harder when the temperature stay below 0ºC for a few month, but even then the benefits are unclear (lack of vitamin D is true, some effects are known like osteoporosis, some are suspected like MS.. maybe) and do not necessitates to buy vitamin as it can be found in other sources such as milk, which will also help with you calcium requirements.
Worse those sites are the same that will tell you that cancer treatments are bad, and that they are the natural solution to save your life against a variety of diseases (infectious, mental or cancerous), not like those unnatural drugs given to you by those murderer MD.
So the peddling of pills under the guise of lifestyle advices (I removed the link to a commercial site selling the best multivitamins you can get… according to itself) is just worthy of scorn. Sane clearly implied that the multivitamins can prevent cancer:quote :
Sorry, they won’t. They probably won’t hurt anything though, besides your wallet that is, which is probably good. And other lifestyle improvements can also be helpful.
In fact that is why Shane has only been warned with the link deleted instead of the usual direct banishment and deletion that is generally the outcome for quack peddlers. I would thank you for letting the mods do the modding, and quit the subject before you make more a fool of yourself.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.