Cure for cancer

[steve B]

The foil goes shiny side out.......

[packs]

Who was the last U. S. President to die from cancer?

US Grant died from throat cancer. It is believed by many that Thomas Jefferson suffered from prostate cancer as well. And I remember Beau Biden, Joe Biden's son, died of brain cancer, which John McCain is also suffering from.

[earlywynnfan]

1) when I was growing up, it was always batteries that stay charged forever, but that would put battery makers out of business.

2) regarding cancer, I am not a medical professional, but as I understand it, a cel mutates and becomes cancerous. It then starts to attack and modify the cells around it, looking for oxygen. (cancer cells cannot get their own oxygen out of the bloodstream ). So if you can strengthen the surrounding cells, they can essentially wall off and starve the cancerous area. This is being shown to be much more effective than chemo,
which is human drano that kills ALL cells. There is a medical device common in Europe that has been proven to increase blood flow by nearly 30% which has led to some positive effects in this war, if you catch it early enough.

[Corporal Lance Boil]

As for Ken's above point # 2, I think some clarification is in order because its' incorrect. Cancer is easily misunderstood.

Cancer can extract oxygen and nutrients from blood, preferentially most of the time. It often outgrows its' budding blood supply and become necrotic because it tends to grow quicker than other cells. Also the reason for weight loss while afflicted, the cancer is preferentially taking nutrients such as glutamine.

The mainstay of most chemotherapy (caveat: The newer monoclonal antibodies etc I am only slightly familiar with) is to target fast-replicating cells, i.e. cancer, which is why other cell lines than turn over quickly (hair, nails, GI lining) feel the brunt as well.

I think the problem most people have with grasping cancer is a fundamental misunderstanding of the disease process. Cancer is your own cells, which through a process too long to discuss here, lose their ability to undergo programmed death when damaged, and essentially proliferate without end, spreading to different parts of the body either locally, through blood, or through lymphatics. When tumor suppressor genes on chromosomes fall off or are damaged/mutated, you can't just pop it back on, though people are researching novel genetic treatments all the time, and I hope they eventually will be successful.

We do, actually, have a cure for cancer if caught early enough. Frank can tell you what it is

Just trying to clarify a little,

Tony

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Corporal Lance Boil

As for Ken's above point # 2, I think some clarification is in order because its' incorrect. Cancer is easily misunderstood.

Cancer can extract oxygen and nutrients from blood, preferentially most of the time. It often outgrows its' budding blood supply and become necrotic because it tends to grow quicker than other cells. Also the reason for weight loss while afflicted, the cancer is preferentially taking nutrients such as glutamine.

The mainstay of most chemotherapy (caveat: The newer monoclonal antibodies etc I am only slightly familiar with) is to target fast-replicating cells, i.e. cancer, which is why other cell lines than turn over quickly (hair, nails, GI lining) feel the brunt as well.

I think the problem most people have with grasping cancer is a fundamental misunderstanding of the disease process. Cancer is your own cells, which through a process too long to discuss here, lose their ability to undergo programmed death when damaged, and essentially proliferate without end, spreading to different parts of the body either locally, through blood, or through lymphatics. When tumor suppressor genes on chromosomes fall off or are damaged/mutated, you can't just pop it back on, though people are researching novel genetic treatments all the time, and I hope they eventually will be successful.

We do, actually, have a cure for cancer if caught early enough. Frank can tell you what it is

Just trying to clarify a little,

Tony

I can tell you what it is . For me, twice, it was surgery. Though when I go for blood tests they tell me no evidence of disease, which does not really mean cured. But I will settle for NED.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set

I have given this subject a lot of thought over the years. I ask myself:

Who was the last U. S. President to die from cancer?

Who was the last member of the Royal family in England to die from cancer?

Who was the last Astronaut to die from cancer?

Who was the last cancer researcher to die from cancer?

Kemo was first introduced in 1956. It is still used today as the primary treatment of cancer.

That is 62 years without change.

Think about other fields of technology and their advancement over the last 62 years.

The space program, social media, computers, air travel, automobiles, the internet, cost of living, technology..

Yet, we don't have the technology for a cure for cancer.

We supposedly put a man on the moon and back in 1969... but we can't cure cancer.

We can create a life in a test tube.. but we can't cure cancer.

We can clone animals and people.. but we can't cure cancer.

Just sayin'...

The man, who developed one of the first (possibly the first) chemotherapeutic agents (aka Kemo???) in the 1950s, died of cancer in the 1980s. He was a patient in our office.

And his discovery is still used today, most recently by a gentleman I play golf with.

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

“You know the drug companies have a cure for cancer. They could end cancer tomorrow. But they won’t do it because there’s no money in it. That’s right. They could end cancer but it will kill their profits.”

To those people i say there are many companies working on a cure and the one that does will make a truck load of money.

[packs]

I don't really see why the drug companies would have financial incentive to keep you sick anyway. If you've got insurance, it's the insurer that's going to shoulder the brunt of the cost. If you don't have insurance, the drug company isn't ever getting paid. The insurance companies have just as big a lobby force as the drug companies. I would think it would be in the interest of the insurer to either deny your drugs or keep you healthy so they can get paid for nothing.

[drcy]

A close friend of mine is a medical researcher at Oxford. I won't be showing her this thread, as she already mocks Americans (including me) enough as it is . . . She also has less than zero interest in baseball and baseball cards.

There are many things to say on the topic, but I'll leave it at that cancer isn't one thing and a company or person who had the cure for 'cancer' WOULD make a TON of money. There are 15,112,098 people with cancer in the US alone. At whatever-charge X 15,112,098, a company with the cure would make a ton of money. An incredibly modest $10,000 x 15,112,098 = $141,120,980,000, which is more than amazon, Verizon and GE's total worth. And that's only for US cancer patients. Now tell me which company is going to pass that up? And, of course, that $10,000 is so incredibly modest that it's absurd, and any company with the cure for cancer would be the richest company in the world.