Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 04 Apr '13 07:58 / 7 edits
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-04-breakthrough-cancer-killing-treatment-side-effects.html

    I just hope that THIS time, unlike so many so-called 'breakthroughs' in cancer treatment in the past, this actually proves to be something just a bit more than mere hype and will not be yet another disappointment to add to the vast list of disappointments. I have totally lost count of the so many times I have heard of extremely promising sounding 'breakthrough' in cancer treatment that sounded like it would surely lead to a real cure only to never hear of it ever again!
    What do you think? is this one mere hype or for real?
  2. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    04 Apr '13 08:10
    Originally posted by humy
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-04-breakthrough-cancer-killing-treatment-side-effects.html

    I just hope that THIS time, unlike so many so-called 'breakthroughs' in cancer treatment in the past, this actually proves to be something just a bit more than mere hype and will not be yet another disappointment to add to the vast list of disappointments. I have to ...[text shortened]... sounded like it would surely lead to a real cure only to never hear of it ever again!
    But it sounds like it will take 20 years to get it to real use if it works out.

    It also doesn't address the underlying causes of cancer but would potentially cure those that come up.

    It will be much more advanced to understand the underlying cause and prevent cancer before it can strike. Of course that is more like another 100 years in the future of present day medical science growth.
  3. 04 Apr '13 08:49
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    But it sounds like it will take 20 years to get it to real use if it works out.

    It also doesn't address the underlying causes of cancer but would potentially cure those that come up.

    It will be much more advanced to understand the underlying cause and prevent cancer before it can strike. Of course that is more like another 100 years in the future of present day medical science growth.
    I believe that it is already well known that cancer is caused by damage to DNA although there are many ways that this damage can occur. In general anything that causes long term stress to cells, eventually results in cancer. So various virus', sunburn, smoking, etc are all examples of this.
    I guess there are several forms of prevention: avoid the causes (stop smoking, get vaccinated against virus', stay out of the sun), or find a way to strengthen cells against DNA damage, or find a drug that kills cancer in its very early stages and just take it regularly.
  4. 04 Apr '13 08:51
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    But it sounds like it will take 20 years to get it to real use if it works out.

    It also doesn't address the underlying causes of cancer but would potentially cure those that come up.

    It will be much more advanced to understand the underlying cause and prevent cancer before it can strike. Of course that is more like another 100 years in the future of present day medical science growth.
    But it sounds like it will take 20 years to get it to real use if it works out.

    And, in the mean time, people are dying painfully of cancer today. Hopefully, they will have the compassion to do everything they can to cut as much of the red tape as possible and rash it through so that, assuming it works, lives will start to be saved as soon as possible. I know I would if I was in their position!
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    04 Apr '13 10:52
    Originally posted by humy
    But it sounds like it will take 20 years to get it to real use if it works out.

    And, in the mean time, people are dying painfully of cancer today. Hopefully, they will have the compassion to do everything they can to cut as much of the red tape as possible and rash it through so that, assuming it works, lives will start to be saved as soon as possible. I know I would if I was in their position!
    It would be a definite boon for people if so. But government grinds so slow it is painful to watch. Any more the research is aimed at reducing litigation from failures as much as getting a new product on the market.
  6. 05 Apr '13 19:44
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    But it sounds like it will take 20 years to get it to real use if it works out.

    It also doesn't address the underlying causes of cancer but would potentially cure those that come up.

    It will be much more advanced to understand the underlying cause and prevent cancer before it can strike. Of course that is more like another 100 years in the future of present day medical science growth.
    They probably already know and have concluded that it is not cost effective enough to do anything about it. For example, if all the crap they put in our food causes cancer to make the food bigger and better tasting and longer shelf life etc would probably make them unwilling to do anything about it.

    I dunno. Saing that their is a "cure" for cancer is kinda like saying that there is a cure for death. Not gonna happen.
  7. 05 Apr '13 20:41
    Originally posted by humy
    Hopefully, they will have the compassion to do everything they can to cut as much of the red tape as possible and rash it through so that, assuming it works, lives will start to be saved as soon as possible. I know I would if I was in their position!
    Red tape is there for a reason. Rushing treatments through too fast can result in more suffering than good. Cancer treatments however tend to progress through the system faster than others, because for many patients its a choice between experimental treatment that might be dangerous, or certain death.
  8. 05 Apr '13 21:04 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    They probably already know and have concluded that it is not cost effective enough to do anything about it. For example, if all the crap they put in our food causes cancer to make the food bigger and better tasting and longer shelf life etc would probably make them unwilling to do anything about it.

    I dunno. Saing that their is a "cure" for cancer is kinda like saying that there is a cure for death. Not gonna happen.
    Not everyone gives profit priority over humanity.
    Typically, scientists, with their higher average intelligence, tend to give humanity priority over profit while marketers, with their lower average intelligence, often don't. Fortunately, as far as I can judge, it is the scientists that are calling the shots here so it would seem extremely unlikely that they would not care a damn about humanity and just think about nothing but profit.

    It is not a question of if but when there will be a really good cure for most cancers and whether this research would lead to such a cure but I don't see any danger of them letting some kind of profit-motive stop them making a cure and, if anything, the people doing the research would make a lot more money (at least partly in the form of more funding) from making a cure than they possibly could from not making a cure! And I don't see why they would be concerned about how " to make the food bigger and better tasting and longer shelf life" nor why this would deter them from making a cure for cancer even if they were concerned with such an irrelevancy! what has the taste of food and what cancer-producing chemicals go into food got to do with how much profit they would make from making a cure for cancer? How would those cancer researchers personally profit from NOT making a cure for cancer? even if they thought of nothing but profit and didn't care a damn about humanity, they STILL would be clearly motivated to make a cure! It is just a question of will they succeed this time when all past attempts have failed?
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    05 Apr '13 22:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    They probably already know and have concluded that it is not cost effective enough to do anything about it. For example, if all the crap they put in our food causes cancer to make the food bigger and better tasting and longer shelf life etc would probably make them unwilling to do anything about it.

    I dunno. Saing that their is a "cure" for cancer is kinda like saying that there is a cure for death. Not gonna happen.
    Statistically, cancer will for sure be cured before death. They make headway in cancer treatment all the time. There are a thousand pathways to cancer so of course it is difficult. This boron-neutron idea seems to be gaining ground. It preferentially attacks cancer cells and leaves normal cells alone.

    That is development on the treatment side but cancer research will be more advanced when they can prevent cancers from starting in the first place.
  10. 05 Apr '13 23:24
    It sounds like an advertisement for MU more that a breakthrough. I'll wait for the clinical trial results on humans.
  11. 06 Apr '13 13:14
    Originally posted by nativetx
    It sounds like an advertisement for MU more that a breakthrough. I'll wait for the clinical trial results on humans.
    What is "MU"?