Why hasn't science cured cancer?

[biology4life]

As a science fanboi I can't help but get into arguments with anti-science type muppets. One of the stooopid coments they often make is that 'if science is so great how come it hasn't cured cancer?' of something to that effect.
Of course the answer is 'it has!' I should know I had bowel cancer eleven years ago, cancer treatment has come a very long way thanks to hard work and the scientific method. Alas we don't always win and there are many forms of cancer that still resist our efforts at treatment but science is getting there. It won't get all the way without a lot of graft and a lot of funding.

Which gets to the point , I'm trying to squeese some money out of you for the charity Cancer Research UK.
In a couple of weeks I'm off to Yorkshire to do the Yorkshire 3 Peaks to raise money for them. A bunch of science teachers and a religous studies teacher (gosh we can get along :twisted: afterall).
I've set up a just giving page ( it goes througth to CRUK not my bank account) if you feel like helping out any donations would be welcome.

http://www.justgiving.com/Neil-Browne

Cheers and yeah I know it's a bit spammy, I hope the site admins don't mind.

 

[sinenox]

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1162 ;]

 

[Squawk]

One of the members of the livechat is right at the forefront of cancer research so I know you have a chance of an extremely well informed opinion.

In the meantime you have to make do with me.

First up, we know pretty much exactly what causes cancer, which genes are involved, how they mutate and so on and so forth. However, understanding the problem in principle and fixing it in practice are not one and the same thing. One of the key mutations in cancer (so to speak) is the knocking out of the gene that tells a mutated cell to die. Ie, the bodies natural cancer irradicator is knocked out. If memory serves it's called P53 (actually that might be the protein that the gene creates).

A mutated P53 is a pretty surefire way to get cancer, and to date we don't know how to repair it. We do know that figuring out how to repair it will be a major breakthrough in finally defeating the disease though. As for how to do it, some kind of gene therapy I suppose, but I don't know the ins and outs.

Anyhoo, there may be a real live cancer researcher in at some point to post, so you might get a great answer here.

 

[Niocan]

Because it's far more profitable to treat cancer then to cure it; Cannabis, THC to be specific, causes cancer cells to die via autophagy, and it's also the easiest and cheapest method of treatment available. (1ml / day of extracted cannabinoid oil [Hash oil] for ~30 - 60 days)

There are many different cures, such as just eating raw + organic food, that you just can't put a price tag on... Surprise, modern medicine is far more concerned about cash then health

Congrats on helping to raise funds for a company to find it's own way of patenting one substance though, corporations always need our help! /s

 

[Doc.]

Because it's far more profitable to treat cancer then to cure it; Cannabis, THC to be specific, causes cancer cells to die via autophagy, and it's also the easiest and cheapest method of treatment available. (1ml / day of extracted cannabinoid oil [Hash oil] for ~30 - 60 days)

There are many different cures, such as just eating raw + organic food, that you just can't put a price tag on... Surprise, modern medicine is far more concerned about cash then health

:|

If there is no cure how do you know how much does it cost? or are you suggesting that there is a cure but hidden because it's not profitable? why would it not be profitable in the first place.

a person who will find an effective way to cure the cancer completely will surely win a Nobel prize and won ten times as much as that in following years.

 

[Niocan]

You'll come to find that cancer is caused in most part by the food and subsequently the toxins most people eat; But this is medical heresy already, so there never really was any motivation to find any cure... At least, no corporate motivation
It's a change in lifestyle, and currently the sick and chemically lobotomized masses are easier to control.

 

[TheFearmonger]

Because it's far more profitable to treat cancer then to cure it; Cannabis, THC to be specific, causes cancer cells to die via autophagy, and it's also the easiest and cheapest method of treatment available. (1ml / day of extracted cannabinoid oil [Hash oil] for ~30 - 60 days)

There are many different cures, such as just eating raw + organic food, that you just can't put a price tag on... Surprise, modern medicine is far more concerned about cash then health

Congrats on helping to raise funds for a company to find it's own way of patenting one substance though, corporations always need our help! /s

It a good goddam thing you didn't read anything other than the title, you might've learned something.

 

[Aught3]

It a good goddam thing you didn't read anything other than the title, you might've learned something.

Indeed, the comic alone contains a wealth of new information... for some :lol:

 

[Squawk]

Might I suggest it's for the good of all to ignore any utterance that Niocen makes on the subject of health.

Tell me, Niocen, how is the consumption of good food to correct a mutation in a cell when the gene required to instruct the cell to die is deficient?

You know what, I stand by the right to free speech, but good god if I don't want to shout at some people to stfu.

You'll come to find that cancer is caused in most part by the food and subsequently the toxins most people ea

Defend that statement or retract it as the horseshit that it is.

 

[Squawk]

You know what, I've changed my mind. Free speech is one thing, but what you Niocen is giving is close to medical advice that can actually fuck someone up.

 

[Aught3]

I think we're safe Squawk, the best cure for BS is a good dose of light followed up by some ridicule. People do have to take some responsibility from where they choose to get their medical advice.

 

[e2iPi]

Bollocks, the whole post, bollocks.

Because it's far more profitable to treat cancer then to cure it; Cannabis, THC to be specific, causes cancer cells to die via autophagy, and it's also the easiest and cheapest method of treatment available. (1ml / day of extracted cannabinoid oil [Hash oil] for ~30 - 60 days)

If THC is, indeed, the best treatment for cancer--a veritable cure, to listen to you--then we would expect the rate of cancer among habitual cannabis users to be considerably lower than the general population. Can you provide a link to this?
In addition, the 5-year survival rates among cannabis users should be astronomical. Where can I find that study?

There are many different cures, such as just eating raw + organic food, that you just can't put a price tag on... Surprise, modern medicine is far more concerned about cash then health

Bull. fucking. shit.

E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E. Provide it.

-1

 

[Deleted member 619]

Ah, the smell of stupid. Never stops being funny.

 

[dr_esteban]

Because it's far more profitable to treat cancer then to cure it; Cannabis, THC to be specific, causes cancer cells to die via autophagy, and it's also the easiest and cheapest method of treatment available. (1ml / day of extracted cannabinoid oil [Hash oil] for ~30 - 60 days)

There are many different cures, such as just eating raw + organic food, that you just can't put a price tag on... Surprise, modern medicine is far more concerned about cash then health

Congrats on helping to raise funds for a company to find it's own way of patenting one substance though, corporations always need our help! /s

I would enjoy you explaining why organic food is so much better? This is in light of Organic food repeatedly being found to have no better nutritional content than non-organic food

 

[Zetetic]

Isn't Niocan the guy who thinks colloidal silver is a good antibiotic? Niocan, you can go ahead and go the alternative medicine and nutrition route if you get cancer. That's your choice, just don't make these kind of silly accusations and claims without a better standard of evidence than the 9/11 conspiracy nuts have and you won't be ridiculed for being foolish. Everyone knows nutrition is good, and if you eat healthy you will probably be better off. I gather that there is some correlation between certain types of cancer and highly processed foods, so I guess you probably should moderate your intake of microwaved hot dogs and popcorn chicken.

Also, if you want to smoke dope, I don't think you should have to justify it. There are plenty of studies indicating that it really isn't all that bad for you, and even if it is people shouldn't be able to impose their will on what consenting adults do in the confines of their own homes. That being said, I highly, highly (no bad pun/ corny innuendo intended) doubt, that THC could do anything significant to nearly any type of cancer. Maybe some types of cancer can be treated partially by THC, along with other measures, that seems like it might be reasonable.

 

[Niocan]

For materialistic minds, it's odd how many can reject the idea that we are what we eat, as there's *no* other way to receive the energy / materials required for maintaining our bodies... With this in mind, why is it so out of place to suggest that most of our illnesses are based off of very bad food sources being consumed for too long of a time?
We know corporations take short cuts, we know that money is sought after more then health, and we know there's a lot of money to be made from the ignorance of all what's been said... So why do you expect everyone to be all healthy when we see around us all the bad eating habits and bad sources?

Homeostasis is a huge driving force behind any living thing, and it's foolish to assume our bodies can't heal themselves provided they receive the building blocks it needs while staying away from the toxins that started the decline. Cannabis is the *nutrient* for a system within most mammals that provides homeostasis, whether you like it or not, and because of this we can take advantage of boosting the bodies own ability to heal in the areas it needs; Perhaps not directly in all cases, as there's no magic bullet to all things bad, but it's a great thing to subsidize in your body because of it's functions as seen with the plethora of research behind it. As for the studies, it's hard to carry out large scale tests because, surprise, the substance is class 1 illegal in the US (Class 3 in Canada ); Which is only so because of the threat industrial hemp played out against the timber and cotton industries in the US. Consumption methods also need to be taken into account because of how much THC is denatured if it's combusted, etc. The large studies may not be there, but that's only because it's extremely hard to carry them out, and has nothing to do with the medicinal effects this plant *does* have.

This isn't some small justification for my own use, it's me trying to open your minds to the fact that we've been lied to on so many different levels, health and drugs included. Justify this as a messiah complex if you so wish, but it's merely information that isn't going to be spread by the media or any pharmaceutical corporation...

I would enjoy you explaining why organic food is so much better? This is in light of Organic food repeatedly being found to have no better nutritional content than non-organic food

Because there was only one *meta-analysis* 'study' that was compressed into a PR champaign against the lack of toxins found in organic crops, and the amount of non-major nutrients found in well handled + organic soils (which adds to the plants and thus food). Does it surprise you that a study justifies the shortages found in food today, when these industries are the largest in their field?

 

[Womble]

You know what, I stand by the right to free speech, but good god if I don't want to shout at some people to stfu.

Yes but you do have the freedom of speech to tell him to stfu and gtfo.

 

[Doc.]

For materialistic minds, it's odd how many can reject the idea that we are what we eat, as there's *no* other way to receive the energy / materials required for maintaining our bodies... With this in mind, why is it so out of place to suggest that most of our illnesses are based off of very bad food sources being consumed for too long of a time?

that's true, but we get energy and "building material" from food, but the key point here is how is this material metabolised and used, DNA does that, look at it this way: DNA is the architect, proteins are the workers, food is the bricks(like you've said). once gene has changed (for whatever reason), protein is gone (or changed to different protein). once protein is gone, it does not matter how healthy your food is. you are giving "best" bricks to a worker that is not there or is replaced by other, hyperactive, twisted workers that want to build their army of cyborgs. appropriate nutrition may be good for preventing cancer, not so much for healing it. you were asked to explain the exact mechanism of how can veggies resurrect a gene that is supposed to insure programmed cell death, please do so.

Homeostasis is a huge driving force behind any living thing, and it's foolish to assume our bodies can't heal themselves provided they receive the building blocks it needs while staying away from the toxins that started the decline.

read above.

Because there was only one *meta-analysis* 'study' that was compressed into a PR champaign against the lack of toxins found in organic crops, and the amount of non-major nutrients found in well handled + organic soils (which adds to the plants and thus food). Does it surprise you that a study justifies the shortages found in food today, when these industries are the largest in their field?

if you don't trust studies, and make claims opposite to it's conclusions, you must at least know something in that field yourself, and make your own researches, from what I can tell you nothing much about medicine.

excuse the English.

 

[Netheralian]

Interesting article related to this discussion...

Five a Day Fruit and Veggies have only limited impact on cancer.

 

[Gavin_Farewell]

Science has come a long way in cancer research. I think the most promising field in cancer treatment involves stopping angiogenesis, which starves tumors off and causes them to die.