04 Apr 13
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?
04 Apr 13
Originally posted by humyBut it sounds like it will take 20 years to get it to real use if it works out.
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!
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.
04 Apr 13
Originally posted by sonhouseI 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.
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 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.
04 Apr 13
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!
04 Apr 13
Originally posted by humyIt 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.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!
05 Apr 13
Originally posted by sonhouseThey 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.
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 dunno. Saing that their is a "cure" for cancer is kinda like saying that there is a cure for death. Not gonna happen.
05 Apr 13
Originally posted by humyRed 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.
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!
05 Apr 13
5 edits
Originally posted by whodeyNot everyone gives profit priority over humanity.
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.
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?
05 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyStatistically, 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.
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.
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.
