Yes, I'm for stem cell research
Options
Replies
-
The point is there is already a cure for cancer what they are doing now is finding a better less life threatening cure.
This statement is ignorant.
If youre going to claim a statement from someone who has done the research is ignorant I would like an explanation as to why? There is cures, problem is our medical system can only provide treatment given the FDA approves that treatment, and the point of giving medicine since ALL have risks and side effects is considering whether or not the benefitd outweigh the risks. Yes, there is a cure in certain cancers, refer to the link I posted stating just that, but it is also imperative to ensure the cure itself is safe.
Well, let's start with the fact the term "a cure for cancer" is ignorant. "Cancer" is actually over 200 distinct diseases. Each one has a different causes and treatments. There is no single "cancer". In fact the concept of a "cure for cancer" is impossible due to this fact. Progress can be made in treatments and outcomes for people who have been diagnosed with cancerous disease, but there is no single disease known as "cancer"
Cancer is a process, so theoretically if we discovered a way to interrupt or reverse this process, it could be considered a "cure for cancer". As it is, many cancers can already be cured either surgically or medically, so I agree with you it is not a very useful phrase.
Right now 'cancer cure' is not even words you would hear an oncologist utter to a patient that has no signs of cancer after treatment. Right now, it is called remission. But my statement was only a general statement to the T cell treatment that is being looked at and studied in clinical trials with a handful of patients who have had "curable" outcomes.0 -
Fluorouracil or 5-FU (trademarked as Adrucil (IV), Carac (topical), Efudex (topical)) was what I was treated with. My hair didn't fall out. My feet did have neuropathy. I didn't vomit, but they gave me a high dose of benadryl as a pre-chemo to combat this at times. I also couldn't touch anything cold as it would damage my nerves. Quite the task living in Chicago area.I do know they will tell you your options some chemo works better for certain cancers and some chemo are the only ones used in treatment of certain cancers. Depends on type. But if it is an option and it doesnt make your hair fall out, they will happily provide that treatment. And in many cases, oncologists will combine two different types of chemo to treat a patient. I forget the names of the chemo that doesnt cause hair to fall out, do you remember the type? I only remember that taxol causes neuropathy in the feet but not nausea or vomiting, again in most patients who undergoes taxol treatments.0 -
Fluorouracil or 5-FU (trademarked as Adrucil (IV), Carac (topical), Efudex (topical)) was what I was treated with. My hair didn't fall out. My feet did have neuropathy. I didn't vomit, but they gave me a high dose of benadryl as a pre-chemo to combat this at times. I also couldn't touch anything cold as it would damage my nerves. Quite the task living in Chicago area.I do know they will tell you your options some chemo works better for certain cancers and some chemo are the only ones used in treatment of certain cancers. Depends on type. But if it is an option and it doesnt make your hair fall out, they will happily provide that treatment. And in many cases, oncologists will combine two different types of chemo to treat a patient. I forget the names of the chemo that doesnt cause hair to fall out, do you remember the type? I only remember that taxol causes neuropathy in the feet but not nausea or vomiting, again in most patients who undergoes taxol treatments.
Oh boy that would be def hard to avoid anything cold in chicago, not just winter time there but the wind alone ouch. Well, thank you for allowing me to know your treatments, I have a friend right now that was just diagnosed with testicular cancer and he is nervous about all of this, fortunately he is going to oncology clinic my mom works for so I know he is in good hands. Oh, and if you are in remission, congrats, you are a very strong individual. Anyone who has to deal with cancer that I have met, have been the strongest people I have ever known. Prayers to you my friend.0 -
This is a topic near and dear for me. As my mom had battled cervical breast and angiosarcoma cancer. And due to that my doctors are on high alert for myself. My mother has worked for ontology for 20 years and its what I am thinking of specialising in myself. Premed right now... so have awhile to think which field is best. I just have anxiety with the whole cancer thing so not sure I could handle it emotionally. Hats off to all that do including my champion of cancer mother.
Haha ontology nice auto correct... oncology
I find it very interesting that you consider yourself pre-med and are considering specializing in oncology considering all of your comments on this thread about cancer are quite naive. I don't know how far along you are in your degree, and I know that half the people in health sciences at my university are "pre-medicine" (which isn't an actual program or anything it's just like I'm doing a health science degree and I am applying for medicine) so I guess I can't really give that a lot of weight but... you might want to do a little more research. Cancer is extremely complex - it isn't just uncontrolled cell proliferation and consititutive growth factor receptor signalling, it also involves anti-apoptosis (absence of cell programmed death), and very importantly abnormal cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions in order to transition from benign to metastatic. The issue with targeting cancer cells specifically is that they have a lot of markers common to the host cells, it's hard for the body (immune system) to recognize the cancer as non-self because.. well, they are self, technically. And even if it's recognized as non-self they are hard to kill because they don't respond to external apoptosis signalling. Additionally, within a population of cancer cells there are many unique mutations and so it isn't as simple as targeting a single marker because it is a mixed population. So... as you said earlier, yeah, there is a cure... to kill the patient with the highly toxic cancer drugs. I doubt that there is a cure as simple as inject T-cells back into someone, and I know that there is a lot of research being done on the immunology angle of targeting cancer but I don't think anyone is withholding a cure to cancer. There is no panacea for cancer. There will be better treatments that put more people into remission and make treatment less unpleasant for patients. Cancer is so complex you can't make a target specific enough for cancer cells and actually kill the whole population specifically due to the accelerated proliferation and high mutation rate of cancer cells that leads to a heterogenous population of cells. However, I would like to read the paper on the T-cell strategy you were talking about if you have a source for that study.
tl;dr Cancer is really complex and there will never be a cure-all for it.
I don't think that having an opinion based from what I have experienced with my mother snd three differrnt kinds of cancer makes me ignorant, but an idea based off of experience. I think you also missed the post where I stated that cancer will always rule the medical field even with a cure. I also never said that they were withholding a cure so I am very confused where that idea came from. I will definitely post a link to the T cell article I was discussing since you're showing an interest in it. They are not only looking into this for a cancer cure, which many patients have under went for treatment but as well to cure the flu, since the proteins of the flu virus never change even with mutation, they are assuming these T cells will always recognize it on a protein level. Pre-med is not a degree, or a course as it's still considered undergraduate and just simply means taking medical courses. I have an associates in applied science and just taking purely the last few medical courses I need to apply for PA school. I understand and know that cancer is not the same for everyone and how advanced it can be from one person to the next, which again brings up my point in saying cancer will always rule the medical field. Give me a moment to track down that article or a few and to post it.
Your words:The point is there is already a cure for cancer what they are doing now is finding a better less life threatening cure.
So if there's a cure, then doctors just let people die? I dont get it. Why do people still die from cancer?
You may not have explicitly stated it, but given the fact that people die form cancer, you sure as hell implied it.0 -
This is a topic near and dear for me. As my mom had battled cervical breast and angiosarcoma cancer. And due to that my doctors are on high alert for myself. My mother has worked for ontology for 20 years and its what I am thinking of specialising in myself. Premed right now... so have awhile to think which field is best. I just have anxiety with the whole cancer thing so not sure I could handle it emotionally. Hats off to all that do including my champion of cancer mother.
Haha ontology nice auto correct... oncology
I find it very interesting that you consider yourself pre-med and are considering specializing in oncology considering all of your comments on this thread about cancer are quite naive. I don't know how far along you are in your degree, and I know that half the people in health sciences at my university are "pre-medicine" (which isn't an actual program or anything it's just like I'm doing a health science degree and I am applying for medicine) so I guess I can't really give that a lot of weight but... you might want to do a little more research. Cancer is extremely complex - it isn't just uncontrolled cell proliferation and consititutive growth factor receptor signalling, it also involves anti-apoptosis (absence of cell programmed death), and very importantly abnormal cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions in order to transition from benign to metastatic. The issue with targeting cancer cells specifically is that they have a lot of markers common to the host cells, it's hard for the body (immune system) to recognize the cancer as non-self because.. well, they are self, technically. And even if it's recognized as non-self they are hard to kill because they don't respond to external apoptosis signalling. Additionally, within a population of cancer cells there are many unique mutations and so it isn't as simple as targeting a single marker because it is a mixed population. So... as you said earlier, yeah, there is a cure... to kill the patient with the highly toxic cancer drugs. I doubt that there is a cure as simple as inject T-cells back into someone, and I know that there is a lot of research being done on the immunology angle of targeting cancer but I don't think anyone is withholding a cure to cancer. There is no panacea for cancer. There will be better treatments that put more people into remission and make treatment less unpleasant for patients. Cancer is so complex you can't make a target specific enough for cancer cells and actually kill the whole population specifically due to the accelerated proliferation and high mutation rate of cancer cells that leads to a heterogenous population of cells. However, I would like to read the paper on the T-cell strategy you were talking about if you have a source for that study.
tl;dr Cancer is really complex and there will never be a cure-all for it.
I don't think that having an opinion based from what I have experienced with my mother snd three differrnt kinds of cancer makes me ignorant, but an idea based off of experience. I think you also missed the post where I stated that cancer will always rule the medical field even with a cure. I also never said that they were withholding a cure so I am very confused where that idea came from. I will definitely post a link to the T cell article I was discussing since you're showing an interest in it. They are not only looking into this for a cancer cure, which many patients have under went for treatment but as well to cure the flu, since the proteins of the flu virus never change even with mutation, they are assuming these T cells will always recognize it on a protein level. Pre-med is not a degree, or a course as it's still considered undergraduate and just simply means taking medical courses. I have an associates in applied science and just taking purely the last few medical courses I need to apply for PA school. I understand and know that cancer is not the same for everyone and how advanced it can be from one person to the next, which again brings up my point in saying cancer will always rule the medical field. Give me a moment to track down that article or a few and to post it.
Your words:The point is there is already a cure for cancer what they are doing now is finding a better less life threatening cure.
So if there's a cure, then doctors just let people die? I dont get it. Why do people still die from cancer?
You may not have explicitly stated it, but given the fact that people die form cancer, you sure as hell implied it.
what you seem to miss is the obvious knowledge that even if there is a cure, it would mean its still extremely new to medicine. Therefore, clinical trials are needed before it ever makes it out of the trial phase. Cures can be found, T cells have been studied in regards to cancer since at least the 1970's. The fact IS just because it has proven to cure cancer, it needs to replicate that same result over and over in a wide range study to be proven acceptable by the FDA. Not only that but like many other forms of medicine, there is always a kink that needs worked out before it is set to be placed on the healthcare market. A better, safer, less life-threatening cure could mean still the T cell trials they have done and cured patients with, but bringing back into the lab to fix the flaws, so that it is deemed a SAFE cure. You really believe that things as cures, vaccines and other medications poofed over night and had zero issues and was just magically signed away to all the health care markets by the FDA? NO, it is an extremely complexed system that requires many standards met before it's available. Hey bleach is a cure for HIV but we know, if you take bleach it will also kill the host. So, it is not a safe cure. Therefore, they continue to find a better one. Not a good example, but still fits and oh wouldn't you know T-Cells have also shown curative properties for HIV as well.0 -
This is a topic near and dear for me. As my mom had battled cervical breast and angiosarcoma cancer. And due to that my doctors are on high alert for myself. My mother has worked for ontology for 20 years and its what I am thinking of specialising in myself. Premed right now... so have awhile to think which field is best. I just have anxiety with the whole cancer thing so not sure I could handle it emotionally. Hats off to all that do including my champion of cancer mother.
Haha ontology nice auto correct... oncology
I find it very interesting that you consider yourself pre-med and are considering specializing in oncology considering all of your comments on this thread about cancer are quite naive. I don't know how far along you are in your degree, and I know that half the people in health sciences at my university are "pre-medicine" (which isn't an actual program or anything it's just like I'm doing a health science degree and I am applying for medicine) so I guess I can't really give that a lot of weight but... you might want to do a little more research. Cancer is extremely complex - it isn't just uncontrolled cell proliferation and consititutive growth factor receptor signalling, it also involves anti-apoptosis (absence of cell programmed death), and very importantly abnormal cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions in order to transition from benign to metastatic. The issue with targeting cancer cells specifically is that they have a lot of markers common to the host cells, it's hard for the body (immune system) to recognize the cancer as non-self because.. well, they are self, technically. And even if it's recognized as non-self they are hard to kill because they don't respond to external apoptosis signalling. Additionally, within a population of cancer cells there are many unique mutations and so it isn't as simple as targeting a single marker because it is a mixed population. So... as you said earlier, yeah, there is a cure... to kill the patient with the highly toxic cancer drugs. I doubt that there is a cure as simple as inject T-cells back into someone, and I know that there is a lot of research being done on the immunology angle of targeting cancer but I don't think anyone is withholding a cure to cancer. There is no panacea for cancer. There will be better treatments that put more people into remission and make treatment less unpleasant for patients. Cancer is so complex you can't make a target specific enough for cancer cells and actually kill the whole population specifically due to the accelerated proliferation and high mutation rate of cancer cells that leads to a heterogenous population of cells. However, I would like to read the paper on the T-cell strategy you were talking about if you have a source for that study.
tl;dr Cancer is really complex and there will never be a cure-all for it.
I don't think that having an opinion based from what I have experienced with my mother snd three differrnt kinds of cancer makes me ignorant, but an idea based off of experience. I think you also missed the post where I stated that cancer will always rule the medical field even with a cure. I also never said that they were withholding a cure so I am very confused where that idea came from. I will definitely post a link to the T cell article I was discussing since you're showing an interest in it. They are not only looking into this for a cancer cure, which many patients have under went for treatment but as well to cure the flu, since the proteins of the flu virus never change even with mutation, they are assuming these T cells will always recognize it on a protein level. Pre-med is not a degree, or a course as it's still considered undergraduate and just simply means taking medical courses. I have an associates in applied science and just taking purely the last few medical courses I need to apply for PA school. I understand and know that cancer is not the same for everyone and how advanced it can be from one person to the next, which again brings up my point in saying cancer will always rule the medical field. Give me a moment to track down that article or a few and to post it.
Your words:The point is there is already a cure for cancer what they are doing now is finding a better less life threatening cure.
So if there's a cure, then doctors just let people die? I dont get it. Why do people still die from cancer?
You may not have explicitly stated it, but given the fact that people die form cancer, you sure as hell implied it.
there are effective treatments for cancer that have such significant side effects that the patients often don't survive even when the cancer itself is "killed" during the treatment.
those could be considered "cures" by some people that need to be improved to be less life threatening, which is precisely what she said. radiation therapy and chemotherapy are examples.0 -
Your words:The point is there is already a cure for cancer what they are doing now is finding a better less life threatening cure.
So if there's a cure, then doctors just let people die? I dont get it. Why do people still die from cancer?
You may not have explicitly stated it, but given the fact that people die form cancer, you sure as hell implied it.
You are reading a whole lot of context in to that statement that I just don't see. We DO know how to cure cancer, we just don't know how to kill cancer at all times without also killing the patient. Hence needing a less life threatening cure....0 -
^^^ yes, both brainyburro and ambermglover obviously got the idea that surrounded my statement.0
-
This is a topic near and dear for me. As my mom had battled cervical breast and angiosarcoma cancer. And due to that my doctors are on high alert for myself. My mother has worked for ontology for 20 years and its what I am thinking of specialising in myself. Premed right now... so have awhile to think which field is best. I just have anxiety with the whole cancer thing so not sure I could handle it emotionally. Hats off to all that do including my champion of cancer mother.
Haha ontology nice auto correct... oncology
I find it very interesting that you consider yourself pre-med and are considering specializing in oncology considering all of your comments on this thread about cancer are quite naive. I don't know how far along you are in your degree, and I know that half the people in health sciences at my university are "pre-medicine" (which isn't an actual program or anything it's just like I'm doing a health science degree and I am applying for medicine) so I guess I can't really give that a lot of weight but... you might want to do a little more research. Cancer is extremely complex - it isn't just uncontrolled cell proliferation and consititutive growth factor receptor signalling, it also involves anti-apoptosis (absence of cell programmed death), and very importantly abnormal cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions in order to transition from benign to metastatic. The issue with targeting cancer cells specifically is that they have a lot of markers common to the host cells, it's hard for the body (immune system) to recognize the cancer as non-self because.. well, they are self, technically. And even if it's recognized as non-self they are hard to kill because they don't respond to external apoptosis signalling. Additionally, within a population of cancer cells there are many unique mutations and so it isn't as simple as targeting a single marker because it is a mixed population. So... as you said earlier, yeah, there is a cure... to kill the patient with the highly toxic cancer drugs. I doubt that there is a cure as simple as inject T-cells back into someone, and I know that there is a lot of research being done on the immunology angle of targeting cancer but I don't think anyone is withholding a cure to cancer. There is no panacea for cancer. There will be better treatments that put more people into remission and make treatment less unpleasant for patients. Cancer is so complex you can't make a target specific enough for cancer cells and actually kill the whole population specifically due to the accelerated proliferation and high mutation rate of cancer cells that leads to a heterogenous population of cells. However, I would like to read the paper on the T-cell strategy you were talking about if you have a source for that study.
tl;dr Cancer is really complex and there will never be a cure-all for it.
I don't think that having an opinion based from what I have experienced with my mother snd three differrnt kinds of cancer makes me ignorant, but an idea based off of experience. I think you also missed the post where I stated that cancer will always rule the medical field even with a cure. I also never said that they were withholding a cure so I am very confused where that idea came from. I will definitely post a link to the T cell article I was discussing since you're showing an interest in it. They are not only looking into this for a cancer cure, which many patients have under went for treatment but as well to cure the flu, since the proteins of the flu virus never change even with mutation, they are assuming these T cells will always recognize it on a protein level. Pre-med is not a degree, or a course as it's still considered undergraduate and just simply means taking medical courses. I have an associates in applied science and just taking purely the last few medical courses I need to apply for PA school. I understand and know that cancer is not the same for everyone and how advanced it can be from one person to the next, which again brings up my point in saying cancer will always rule the medical field. Give me a moment to track down that article or a few and to post it.
Your words:The point is there is already a cure for cancer what they are doing now is finding a better less life threatening cure.
So if there's a cure, then doctors just let people die? I dont get it. Why do people still die from cancer?
You may not have explicitly stated it, but given the fact that people die form cancer, you sure as hell implied it.
there are effective treatments for cancer that have such significant side effects that the patients often don't survive even when the cancer itself is "killed" during the treatment.
those could be considered "cures" by some people that need to be improved to be less life threatening, which is precisely what she said. radiation therapy and chemotherapy are examples.
Actually very good example regarding chemo and radiation as "cures" but cures that can also damage and/or kill the host. My mom is a perfect example of the radiation side of this statement. When she was diagnosed with breast cancer 12 years ago, she had a lumpectomy, chemotherapy and radiation treatment, she went into remission before her last treatment. Fast forward 11 years later and she was diagnosed with radiation induced angiosarcoma of the left breast, the same breast she had radiated on for her breast cancer. Angiosarcoma is a very rare very aggressive form of cancer and secondary is caused driectly from radiation given to the patients. In which she had secondary Angiosarcoma. It is a cancer of the lining of the blood vessels and usually is only diagnosed in the very late stages as it only appears as a bruise, luckily for her her doctor knew just from looking at it what it was. Most doctors never seen this cancer before. This doctor had only one patient prior to my mother with this cancer. So, radiation in itself can kill the patient, if not years and years later causing this type of cancer which is so unknown, not studied due to the small amount of cases per year and it is an aggressive form, more so than the original breast cancer she had, as this time around they were so concerned with this type and how fast it can spread they took no chances and just took her entire left breast, followed by chemo only obviously no radiation treatment. SO, yes prime example. Which is a big reason I made that statement, I have experienced with my mother the 'cures that can kill'.0 -
This is a topic near and dear for me. As my mom had battled cervical breast and angiosarcoma cancer. And due to that my doctors are on high alert for myself. My mother has worked for ontology for 20 years and its what I am thinking of specialising in myself. Premed right now... so have awhile to think which field is best. I just have anxiety with the whole cancer thing so not sure I could handle it emotionally. Hats off to all that do including my champion of cancer mother.
Haha ontology nice auto correct... oncology
I find it very interesting that you consider yourself pre-med and are considering specializing in oncology considering all of your comments on this thread about cancer are quite naive. I don't know how far along you are in your degree, and I know that half the people in health sciences at my university are "pre-medicine" (which isn't an actual program or anything it's just like I'm doing a health science degree and I am applying for medicine) so I guess I can't really give that a lot of weight but... you might want to do a little more research. Cancer is extremely complex - it isn't just uncontrolled cell proliferation and consititutive growth factor receptor signalling, it also involves anti-apoptosis (absence of cell programmed death), and very importantly abnormal cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions in order to transition from benign to metastatic. The issue with targeting cancer cells specifically is that they have a lot of markers common to the host cells, it's hard for the body (immune system) to recognize the cancer as non-self because.. well, they are self, technically. And even if it's recognized as non-self they are hard to kill because they don't respond to external apoptosis signalling. Additionally, within a population of cancer cells there are many unique mutations and so it isn't as simple as targeting a single marker because it is a mixed population. So... as you said earlier, yeah, there is a cure... to kill the patient with the highly toxic cancer drugs. I doubt that there is a cure as simple as inject T-cells back into someone, and I know that there is a lot of research being done on the immunology angle of targeting cancer but I don't think anyone is withholding a cure to cancer. There is no panacea for cancer. There will be better treatments that put more people into remission and make treatment less unpleasant for patients. Cancer is so complex you can't make a target specific enough for cancer cells and actually kill the whole population specifically due to the accelerated proliferation and high mutation rate of cancer cells that leads to a heterogenous population of cells. However, I would like to read the paper on the T-cell strategy you were talking about if you have a source for that study.
tl;dr Cancer is really complex and there will never be a cure-all for it.
I don't think that having an opinion based from what I have experienced with my mother snd three differrnt kinds of cancer makes me ignorant, but an idea based off of experience. I think you also missed the post where I stated that cancer will always rule the medical field even with a cure. I also never said that they were withholding a cure so I am very confused where that idea came from. I will definitely post a link to the T cell article I was discussing since you're showing an interest in it. They are not only looking into this for a cancer cure, which many patients have under went for treatment but as well to cure the flu, since the proteins of the flu virus never change even with mutation, they are assuming these T cells will always recognize it on a protein level. Pre-med is not a degree, or a course as it's still considered undergraduate and just simply means taking medical courses. I have an associates in applied science and just taking purely the last few medical courses I need to apply for PA school. I understand and know that cancer is not the same for everyone and how advanced it can be from one person to the next, which again brings up my point in saying cancer will always rule the medical field. Give me a moment to track down that article or a few and to post it.
Your words:The point is there is already a cure for cancer what they are doing now is finding a better less life threatening cure.
So if there's a cure, then doctors just let people die? I dont get it. Why do people still die from cancer?
You may not have explicitly stated it, but given the fact that people die form cancer, you sure as hell implied it.
there are effective treatments for cancer that have such significant side effects that the patients often don't survive even when the cancer itself is "killed" during the treatment.
those could be considered "cures" by some people that need to be improved to be less life threatening, which is precisely what she said. radiation therapy and chemotherapy are examples.
Somewhat effective treatment and cure aren't the same thing. I can take a number of medicines that effectively treat a cold, but none of them are considered a cure for the cold. Many people who receive radiation or chemotherapy still die from uncured cancer. Neither can be considered a "cure" - just a frequently effective treatment.0 -
Why?I AM AGAINST THIS
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
This is a topic near and dear for me. As my mom had battled cervical breast and angiosarcoma cancer. And due to that my doctors are on high alert for myself. My mother has worked for ontology for 20 years and its what I am thinking of specialising in myself. Premed right now... so have awhile to think which field is best. I just have anxiety with the whole cancer thing so not sure I could handle it emotionally. Hats off to all that do including my champion of cancer mother.
Haha ontology nice auto correct... oncology
I find it very interesting that you consider yourself pre-med and are considering specializing in oncology considering all of your comments on this thread about cancer are quite naive. I don't know how far along you are in your degree, and I know that half the people in health sciences at my university are "pre-medicine" (which isn't an actual program or anything it's just like I'm doing a health science degree and I am applying for medicine) so I guess I can't really give that a lot of weight but... you might want to do a little more research. Cancer is extremely complex - it isn't just uncontrolled cell proliferation and consititutive growth factor receptor signalling, it also involves anti-apoptosis (absence of cell programmed death), and very importantly abnormal cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions in order to transition from benign to metastatic. The issue with targeting cancer cells specifically is that they have a lot of markers common to the host cells, it's hard for the body (immune system) to recognize the cancer as non-self because.. well, they are self, technically. And even if it's recognized as non-self they are hard to kill because they don't respond to external apoptosis signalling. Additionally, within a population of cancer cells there are many unique mutations and so it isn't as simple as targeting a single marker because it is a mixed population. So... as you said earlier, yeah, there is a cure... to kill the patient with the highly toxic cancer drugs. I doubt that there is a cure as simple as inject T-cells back into someone, and I know that there is a lot of research being done on the immunology angle of targeting cancer but I don't think anyone is withholding a cure to cancer. There is no panacea for cancer. There will be better treatments that put more people into remission and make treatment less unpleasant for patients. Cancer is so complex you can't make a target specific enough for cancer cells and actually kill the whole population specifically due to the accelerated proliferation and high mutation rate of cancer cells that leads to a heterogenous population of cells. However, I would like to read the paper on the T-cell strategy you were talking about if you have a source for that study.
tl;dr Cancer is really complex and there will never be a cure-all for it.
I don't think that having an opinion based from what I have experienced with my mother snd three differrnt kinds of cancer makes me ignorant, but an idea based off of experience. I think you also missed the post where I stated that cancer will always rule the medical field even with a cure. I also never said that they were withholding a cure so I am very confused where that idea came from. I will definitely post a link to the T cell article I was discussing since you're showing an interest in it. They are not only looking into this for a cancer cure, which many patients have under went for treatment but as well to cure the flu, since the proteins of the flu virus never change even with mutation, they are assuming these T cells will always recognize it on a protein level. Pre-med is not a degree, or a course as it's still considered undergraduate and just simply means taking medical courses. I have an associates in applied science and just taking purely the last few medical courses I need to apply for PA school. I understand and know that cancer is not the same for everyone and how advanced it can be from one person to the next, which again brings up my point in saying cancer will always rule the medical field. Give me a moment to track down that article or a few and to post it.
Your words:The point is there is already a cure for cancer what they are doing now is finding a better less life threatening cure.
So if there's a cure, then doctors just let people die? I dont get it. Why do people still die from cancer?
You may not have explicitly stated it, but given the fact that people die form cancer, you sure as hell implied it.
there are effective treatments for cancer that have such significant side effects that the patients often don't survive even when the cancer itself is "killed" during the treatment.
those could be considered "cures" by some people that need to be improved to be less life threatening, which is precisely what she said. radiation therapy and chemotherapy are examples.
Somewhat effective treatment and cure aren't the same thing. I can take a number of medicines that effectively treat a cold, but none of them are considered a cure for the cold. Many people who receive radiation or chemotherapy still die from uncured cancer. Neither can be considered a "cure" - just a frequently effective treatment.
And there are SO many more scenarios that you can't even begin to put in play here that you are yet again lacking the obvious knowledge to see. These patients that die regardless of surgery, chemo, radiation etc? When were they diagnosed? What stage was their cancer when they were diagnosed? Had it metastasized? Had it not? See, you are seeing a cure as a one track treatment when in actuality, prevention is the best cure even if they find a cure for all cancers known to man. Taking medication for a cold and comparing that to taking chemo and radiation for cancer, is nothing more than you comparing apples to oranges. Two entirely different situations here. But I will go ahead and indulge this idea of yours. Those medications you are taking for the COLD, is NOT to cure the cold as you already have it, it already multiplied in your body causing you to become ill. What those medications are doing is lessening the severity of your symptoms and MAYBE lessening the length of the cold. It isnt treating YOUR COLD, IT IS TREATING YOUR SYMPTOMS.0 -
This is a topic near and dear for me. As my mom had battled cervical breast and angiosarcoma cancer. And due to that my doctors are on high alert for myself. My mother has worked for ontology for 20 years and its what I am thinking of specialising in myself. Premed right now... so have awhile to think which field is best. I just have anxiety with the whole cancer thing so not sure I could handle it emotionally. Hats off to all that do including my champion of cancer mother.
Haha ontology nice auto correct... oncology
I find it very interesting that you consider yourself pre-med and are considering specializing in oncology considering all of your comments on this thread about cancer are quite naive. I don't know how far along you are in your degree, and I know that half the people in health sciences at my university are "pre-medicine" (which isn't an actual program or anything it's just like I'm doing a health science degree and I am applying for medicine) so I guess I can't really give that a lot of weight but... you might want to do a little more research. Cancer is extremely complex - it isn't just uncontrolled cell proliferation and consititutive growth factor receptor signalling, it also involves anti-apoptosis (absence of cell programmed death), and very importantly abnormal cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions in order to transition from benign to metastatic. The issue with targeting cancer cells specifically is that they have a lot of markers common to the host cells, it's hard for the body (immune system) to recognize the cancer as non-self because.. well, they are self, technically. And even if it's recognized as non-self they are hard to kill because they don't respond to external apoptosis signalling. Additionally, within a population of cancer cells there are many unique mutations and so it isn't as simple as targeting a single marker because it is a mixed population. So... as you said earlier, yeah, there is a cure... to kill the patient with the highly toxic cancer drugs. I doubt that there is a cure as simple as inject T-cells back into someone, and I know that there is a lot of research being done on the immunology angle of targeting cancer but I don't think anyone is withholding a cure to cancer. There is no panacea for cancer. There will be better treatments that put more people into remission and make treatment less unpleasant for patients. Cancer is so complex you can't make a target specific enough for cancer cells and actually kill the whole population specifically due to the accelerated proliferation and high mutation rate of cancer cells that leads to a heterogenous population of cells. However, I would like to read the paper on the T-cell strategy you were talking about if you have a source for that study.
tl;dr Cancer is really complex and there will never be a cure-all for it.
I don't think that having an opinion based from what I have experienced with my mother snd three differrnt kinds of cancer makes me ignorant, but an idea based off of experience. I think you also missed the post where I stated that cancer will always rule the medical field even with a cure. I also never said that they were withholding a cure so I am very confused where that idea came from. I will definitely post a link to the T cell article I was discussing since you're showing an interest in it. They are not only looking into this for a cancer cure, which many patients have under went for treatment but as well to cure the flu, since the proteins of the flu virus never change even with mutation, they are assuming these T cells will always recognize it on a protein level. Pre-med is not a degree, or a course as it's still considered undergraduate and just simply means taking medical courses. I have an associates in applied science and just taking purely the last few medical courses I need to apply for PA school. I understand and know that cancer is not the same for everyone and how advanced it can be from one person to the next, which again brings up my point in saying cancer will always rule the medical field. Give me a moment to track down that article or a few and to post it.
Your words:The point is there is already a cure for cancer what they are doing now is finding a better less life threatening cure.
So if there's a cure, then doctors just let people die? I dont get it. Why do people still die from cancer?
You may not have explicitly stated it, but given the fact that people die form cancer, you sure as hell implied it.
there are effective treatments for cancer that have such significant side effects that the patients often don't survive even when the cancer itself is "killed" during the treatment.
those could be considered "cures" by some people that need to be improved to be less life threatening, which is precisely what she said. radiation therapy and chemotherapy are examples.
Somewhat effective treatment and cure aren't the same thing. I can take a number of medicines that effectively treat a cold, but none of them are considered a cure for the cold. Many people who receive radiation or chemotherapy still die from uncured cancer. Neither can be considered a "cure" - just a frequently effective treatment.
you can play semantic games if you want. i understood what she meant because i don't think there is any such thing as a "cure" for cancer. all you can do is treat malignant cancer cells.
so rephrasing her statement as "treatments" instead of "cures" is still valid in my mind.
we'll always have cancer cells in our bodies. it's when they become malignant that they become a problem.0 -
Somewhat effective treatment and cure aren't the same thing. I can take a number of medicines that effectively treat a cold, but none of them are considered a cure for the cold. Many people who receive radiation or chemotherapy still die from uncured cancer. Neither can be considered a "cure" - just a frequently effective treatment.
Now we're just arguing semantics. The original statement was an admitted oversimplification of what we are all well aware is really an extremely complex issue. Oversimplification is a necessary evil when discussing topics like this on a public forum where not all participants have the same level of expertise. The statement was not ignorant, just simplified for general consumption.0 -
you can play semantic games if you want. i understood what she meant because i don't think there is any such thing as a "cure" for cancer. all you can do is treat malignant cancer cells.
so rephrasing her statement as "treatments" instead of "cures" is still valid in my mind.
we'll always have cancer cells in our bodies. it's when they become malignant that they become a problem.
Quit typing faster than me dammit!0 -
This is a topic near and dear for me. As my mom had battled cervical breast and angiosarcoma cancer. And due to that my doctors are on high alert for myself. My mother has worked for ontology for 20 years and its what I am thinking of specialising in myself. Premed right now... so have awhile to think which field is best. I just have anxiety with the whole cancer thing so not sure I could handle it emotionally. Hats off to all that do including my champion of cancer mother.
Haha ontology nice auto correct... oncology
I find it very interesting that you consider yourself pre-med and are considering specializing in oncology considering all of your comments on this thread about cancer are quite naive. I don't know how far along you are in your degree, and I know that half the people in health sciences at my university are "pre-medicine" (which isn't an actual program or anything it's just like I'm doing a health science degree and I am applying for medicine) so I guess I can't really give that a lot of weight but... you might want to do a little more research. Cancer is extremely complex - it isn't just uncontrolled cell proliferation and consititutive growth factor receptor signalling, it also involves anti-apoptosis (absence of cell programmed death), and very importantly abnormal cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions in order to transition from benign to metastatic. The issue with targeting cancer cells specifically is that they have a lot of markers common to the host cells, it's hard for the body (immune system) to recognize the cancer as non-self because.. well, they are self, technically. And even if it's recognized as non-self they are hard to kill because they don't respond to external apoptosis signalling. Additionally, within a population of cancer cells there are many unique mutations and so it isn't as simple as targeting a single marker because it is a mixed population. So... as you said earlier, yeah, there is a cure... to kill the patient with the highly toxic cancer drugs. I doubt that there is a cure as simple as inject T-cells back into someone, and I know that there is a lot of research being done on the immunology angle of targeting cancer but I don't think anyone is withholding a cure to cancer. There is no panacea for cancer. There will be better treatments that put more people into remission and make treatment less unpleasant for patients. Cancer is so complex you can't make a target specific enough for cancer cells and actually kill the whole population specifically due to the accelerated proliferation and high mutation rate of cancer cells that leads to a heterogenous population of cells. However, I would like to read the paper on the T-cell strategy you were talking about if you have a source for that study.
tl;dr Cancer is really complex and there will never be a cure-all for it.
I don't think that having an opinion based from what I have experienced with my mother snd three differrnt kinds of cancer makes me ignorant, but an idea based off of experience. I think you also missed the post where I stated that cancer will always rule the medical field even with a cure. I also never said that they were withholding a cure so I am very confused where that idea came from. I will definitely post a link to the T cell article I was discussing since you're showing an interest in it. They are not only looking into this for a cancer cure, which many patients have under went for treatment but as well to cure the flu, since the proteins of the flu virus never change even with mutation, they are assuming these T cells will always recognize it on a protein level. Pre-med is not a degree, or a course as it's still considered undergraduate and just simply means taking medical courses. I have an associates in applied science and just taking purely the last few medical courses I need to apply for PA school. I understand and know that cancer is not the same for everyone and how advanced it can be from one person to the next, which again brings up my point in saying cancer will always rule the medical field. Give me a moment to track down that article or a few and to post it.
Your words:The point is there is already a cure for cancer what they are doing now is finding a better less life threatening cure.
So if there's a cure, then doctors just let people die? I dont get it. Why do people still die from cancer?
You may not have explicitly stated it, but given the fact that people die form cancer, you sure as hell implied it.
there are effective treatments for cancer that have such significant side effects that the patients often don't survive even when the cancer itself is "killed" during the treatment.
those could be considered "cures" by some people that need to be improved to be less life threatening, which is precisely what she said. radiation therapy and chemotherapy are examples.
Somewhat effective treatment and cure aren't the same thing. I can take a number of medicines that effectively treat a cold, but none of them are considered a cure for the cold. Many people who receive radiation or chemotherapy still die from uncured cancer. Neither can be considered a "cure" - just a frequently effective treatment.
you can play semantic games if you want. i understood what she meant because i don't think there is any such thing as a "cure" for cancer. all you can do is treat malignant cancer cells.
so rephrasing her statement as "treatments" instead of "cures" is still valid in my mind.
we'll always have cancer cells in our bodies. it's when they become malignant that they become a problem.
Yes but then again we have had "treatments" for years for cancer, I do not believe in a cure that will prevent cancer from ever happening, we simply do not know who will fall to that.... I do however believe in a one set treatment someday, that will cure a patient. So really next time I will make sure I say there is already a cure to cure a cancer patient rather than there is already a cancer cure. Semantics is right. And, he can play them all he wants at this point I am starting to think he is simply a troll.0 -
Somewhat effective treatment and cure aren't the same thing. I can take a number of medicines that effectively treat a cold, but none of them are considered a cure for the cold. Many people who receive radiation or chemotherapy still die from uncured cancer. Neither can be considered a "cure" - just a frequently effective treatment.
Now we're just arguing semantics. The original statement was an admitted oversimplification of what we are all well aware is really an extremely complex issue. Oversimplification is a necessary evil when discussing topics like this on a public forum where not all participants have the same level of expertise. The statement was not ignorant, just simplified for general consumption.
and yet, it has proven to STILL NOT be simplified enough lol0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions