Cancer will always be with us, according to more recent research

[TheMysteriousGX]

Considering cancer is just uncontrolled cell growth caused by a variety of ailments and mutations.

Until we figure out how to stop mutating, best we can do is play whack-a-mole with whatever pops up.

 

[renegade7]

Here's the thing that must be understood about cancer, and in fact about medicine as a science in general: compared to other fields of science, medicine is about 150 years behind. The state of medical science right now is roughly comparable to the state of physics in the mid-to-late 19th century, looking back in a few hundreds we would undoubtedly call this era medicine's "Classical period", much like how the 19th century was for physics. We're making good progress and have figured out some fundamental ideas, but we've run into some things that we completely lack the scientific knowledge to adequately deal with. Germ theory was medicine's Principia and things like cancer, prion disease, and aging are medicine's Ultraviolet Catastrophe. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe] Medicine is not constrained by money but rather by the state of medical science.

There will never be a thoroughly perfect way to prevent cancer. There are 100 trillion of cells in your body and billions of cell divisions happen every day. Errors in gene copying are inevitable, and in fact they happen constantly. Your immune system is constantly identifying and destroying cancerous cells before they become tumors, sooner or later someone's immune system is going to fail to catch one. "Big Pharma" would roll over for a perfect cancer prevention drug because everyone in the world would want to buy it and every person to ever be born from there on would be a customer, and even if that was impossible then a perfect cure would still be highly desirable to them because, due to the inevitability of cancer, they will forever be guaranteed a market. They don't exactly like chemotherapy either, chemotherapy is so expensive because those drugs are so expensive to produce.

That's not even touching the fact that holding back a cure would be retarded since it would easily make the corporation or individual inventing it one of the richest in the world.

And you think that all the drug companies who compound Chemotherapy wouldn't lobby against the proliferation of something that jeopardizes their position?

This is a perfect example of game theory, specifically this is what's called a "Rabbit and Stag" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stag_hunt] problem. The medical industry as a whole would (taking for granted that what you're saying actually is true) benefit from suppressing a cancer cure, however, they would have to cooperate in unison (the "stag"). However, the first company to market a cancer cure (the "defect" option, ie the "rabbit") would be in the position to market a product with no competition. Thus even though cooperating (contributing to the suppression) might be cheaper and ultimately more profitable than defecting (developing a revolutionary new medicine), it has an uncertain result because every other company individually has a motivation to defect, hence all companies defect. This is why profit-motivated technological suppression just doesn't happen in the real world.

 

[Remus]

Cancer is a malfunction of cells, something that has a higher and higher possibility of happening the older a body is. The best way to prevent cancer is to exercise and eat well, to keep the cells in your body healthy and therefore less likely to glitch out and kill you. That's why I don't mourn people who die from cancer in their 80s - it's a simple eventuality. In cases like this it was not a genetic predisposition like it might be for some forms of breast cancer or kids who get it at age 5 - simply a thing that happened because that person was old. For the kinds of cancer that can be traced back to genetics and are therefore preventable, great, go forth and research a cure. But this is not all cancers so there will never be a magic pill that kills the disease in all its forms.

 

[rcs619]

Meh, this does look very much like an ad hoc explanation at best, not suited to make any useful prediction about what to expect from an organization. You could say the exact same thing about literally every single interest group or field which does not exclusively rely on unpaid work and is meant to solve any sort of problem. Just a few examples: the police, WHO, any kind of politcal activism, environmentalism... just to name a few, but the list is endless.

Pretty much. The "but if they solve it, they will be out of work" fallacy is just that, a fallacy. It implies that cancer research is all that these companies/scientists/groups do. That's like the conspiracy theory that climate scientists are just pushing climate change to make work for themselves even though they all know it's a hoax. There's still going to be climate research to be done even if we fix man-made climate change, and there will still be medical research to do even if we cure a disease.

Medicine is an arms race. You knock out one threat and there will always be more. It's entirely fine to be wary of big-pharma. They do some very shady things with how lax current US regulations regarding them are. But the whole "they don't actually want to cure any disease so that they keep us sick forever" is, I feel, more conspiracy theory than anything. And it assumes that every doctor and scientist in America would go along with such a plan (a lot of them would not).

However! On the topic of medicine, no I don't think we'll ever "cure" cancer. Do you realize how many cell divisions are going on in your body at any given time? Do you realize the unfathomable amount of genetic information that your body has to replicate *perfectly* with each division? It's a wonder that we aren't all constantly riddled with cancer. Cancer is, at the end of the day, a natural result from being alive. Short of massively altering the way our cells function (or inventing nanomachines) I don't think we'll be able to pre-emptively cure all cancer.

What we *can* do is develop ever more sophisticated, and ever less-severe, ways of treating it when it crops up. My money is on targeted viral agents myself. Modified viruses that could specifically target and kill cancer cells without the scorched-earth mess that is chemotherapy. Such viral agents could also mark cancer for your body's own immune system to destroy as well (a lot of the really bad cancers are masked from your immune system because they still retain the normal cell markers healthy cells all have). Duke University has done some interesting research using this exact method. They used a modified strain of the polio virus to attack and mark a type of terminal brain cancer, and a portion of their patients actually showed positive results. I believe some of the patients they tested this on even went into remission (which is an incredible result for a type of cancer that is usually 100%, unquestioningly fatal). It's still way too early to tell for sure, but it's very interesting research that could do an amazing amount of good if it turns out to be viable on a larger scale.

I want to say I've heard of another group who wanted to use modified HIV to treat leukemia as well, but I could never find it again when I looked.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I figure we'll either cure cancer or circumscribe it eventually, but it's not something that seems feasible in the current scientific and economic climates. Unless something else does Humanity in first, I'm confident that we'll have made progress some generations down the line.

I won't benefit from it, however. Neither will my children or my grandchildren.

 

[Glongpre]

Isn't cancer an unregulated growth of cells? You can't really cure that (as in never have it happen), you can only prevent it.

And yeah, there are so many things that profit from cancer that it is unlikely that we will ever see any amazing preventative measures, within our lifetime at least.

I am a little more optimistic though.

 

[Silverbeard]

It's a fallacy of the uninitiated to believe that cancer can be 'eradicated'. There is no eradicating cancer. It's just what happens when some cells in your body decide to grow beyond what they normally should.
In fact your body has a multitude of ways to fight cancer. Abnormally growing cells are usually targeted by a section of your immune system (cytotoxic T-cells) and marked for destruction. The T-cells literally tell the cancerous cells to kill themselves (the proper term is apoptosis) before they spread too much. Your body is probably putting out dozens of cancerous growths right now.
A cancer only becomes noticeable when the rogue cells ignore the command to self-destruct and don't stop multiplying. What we need is more effective treatments for cancer, not ways to eradicate it.

 

[Tiger King]

What we *can* do is develop ever more sophisticated, and ever less-severe, ways of treating it when it crops up. My money is on targeted viral agents myself. Modified viruses that could specifically target and kill cancer cells without the scorched-earth mess that is chemotherapy. Such viral agents could also mark cancer for your body's own immune system to destroy as well (a lot of the really bad cancers are masked from your immune system because they still retain the normal cell markers healthy cells all have). Duke University has done some interesting research using this exact method. They used a modified strain of the polio virus to attack and mark a type of terminal brain cancer, and a portion of their patients actually showed positive results. I believe some of the patients they tested this on even went into remission (which is an incredible result for a type of cancer that is usually 100%, unquestioningly fatal). It's still way too early to tell for sure, but it's very interesting research that could do an amazing amount of good if it turns out to be viable on a larger scale.

I want to say I've heard of another group who wanted to use modified HIV to treat leukemia as well, but I could never find it again when I looked.

I did post this earlier so I hope I don't get told off for it, but vice news did a documentary on these new modified viruses. They used smallpox, HIV, diseases that pretty deadly really. When given the injection the subjects would have a very bad reaction though and results would vary. some have stabilised, others have seen a reduction in their tumours and some have been miraculously cured.
As I said I did post this before so hopefully I don't get told off but you seem like you would be interested in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGkJYMPPA4s

 

[Compatriot Block]

And it assumes that every doctor and scientist in America would go along with such a plan (a lot of them would not).

I wish this counter-point would get brought up more often. How can you have such little faith in such a large number of people (many of whom have dedicated their entire lives to the advancement of medicine) that you believe that not a single one would let slip that there was a "cure" for cancer?

 

[rcs619]

I did post this earlier so I hope I don't get told off for it, but vice news did a documentary on these new modified viruses. They used smallpox, HIV, diseases that pretty deadly really. When given the injection the subjects would have a very bad reaction though and results would vary. some have stabilised, others have seen a reduction in their tumours and some have been miraculously cured.
As I said I did post this before so hopefully I don't get told off but you seem like you would be interested in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGkJYMPPA4s

It's a really interesting area of study. Viruses are, functionally, naturally-occurring nanomachines. The closest thing we're ever going to get to nanomachines until we develop some serious sci-fi tech too.

Important thing to keep in mind is that they aren't just injecting the viruses. In the Duke case at least, since it's the only one I'm familiar with. They modify the viruses so that they can still infect a cell, force it to break open, do everything as usual... *except* hijack the cell to produce more viruses. So, you're outright killing some cancer cells, but more importantly, you are marking those cells with viral proteins that your body can recognize. The cancer can't hide behind your body's cell-surface markers when your immune system thinks it's infected with a deadly virus. Your body goes "Holy shit guys, those cells have polio. Get 'em!" It's actually a really clever way to deal with cancer.

It's also (potentially) much less harmful to the patient than chemo. Surgical strike instead of scorched Earth.

It is still very, very new though and we definitely need to pursue it carefully. Find the right viruses for the various kinds of cancer, and the right ways to modify them to make sure they do their work safely. And it's entirely possible that there will be some people who will always react to such treatments poorly. Everyone's immune system is a little different, and these viral treatments do rely on the body's immune system to share the load some. The fact that otherwise inoperable, 100% lethal cancers have been reduced, or destroyed is immensely heartening.

But yeah, definitely need to proceed very carefully. I'm cautiously optimistic though. My mom died from brain cancer, so the idea of turning a bunch of viruses loose to eat the bastards up appeals to me greatly on a base, emotional level. Harnessing some of nature's greatest killers, and bending them to our will to save lives. I freaking love it, and I hope it turns out to be a productive field of research

I wish this counter-point would get brought up more often. How can you have such little faith in such a large number of people (many of whom have dedicated their entire lives to the advancement of medicine) that you believe that not a single one would let slip that there was a "cure" for cancer?

Especially nowadays. We live in a society where you can't even fart in a public space without twenty different people commenting about it on their social feeds. The idea that *any* big, covert, insanely over-complicated conspiracy could work these days is insane.

And the fact is, there are a *lot* of scientists and doctors out there who also despise big-pharma, and would *love* to blow that kind of story wide open.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

So guys are the conspiracy theories that cancer can be cured but 'big pharma' wont cure it pessimistic or optimistic?

 

[Mr.Savage]

[If] the medical industry as a whole would (taking for granted that what you're saying actually is true) benefit from suppressing a cancer cure, however, they would have to cooperate in unison (the "stag"). However, the first company to market a cancer cure (the "defect" option, ie the "rabbit") would be in the position to market a product with no competition.

So this would have no negative ramifications on the current business model?

Thus even though cooperating (contributing to the suppression) might be cheaper and ultimately more profitable than defecting (developing a revolutionary new medicine), it has an uncertain result because every other company individually has a motivation to defect, hence all companies defect.This is why profit-motivated technological suppression just doesn't happen in the real world.

I wish this counter-point would get brought up more often. How can you have such little faith in such a large number of people (many of whom have dedicated their entire lives to the advancement of medicine) that you believe that not a single one would let slip that there was a "cure" for cancer?

Especially nowadays. We live in a society where you can't even fart in a public space without twenty different people commenting about it on their social feeds. The idea that *any* big, covert, insanely over-complicated conspiracy could work these days is insane.

And the fact is, there are a *lot* of scientists and doctors out there who also despise big-pharma, and would *love* to blow that kind of story wide open.

So if everything is, in fact, on the level, that would mean if something significant in the war against cancer were discovered, it would be evaluated on the basis of efficacy alone, and commercial interest would play no part in whether or not it is made available.

Even if this discovery were found to be more effective than current modalities (Chemo, Radiation, Surgery), it would, without question, be put into regular use to benefit the cancer patient.

If what you are all saying is really true, then I challenge each of you to justify your collective point of view in light of the findings below, because, according to every last one of you, the situation below could never take place:


"The Fitzgerald Report of 1953 from the Congressional Hearing" [http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Fitzgerald%20Report%201953.pdf]

What did the report conclude?

"Accordingly, we should determine whether existing agencies, both public and private, are engaged and have pursued a policy of harassment, ridicule, slander, and libelous attacks on others sincerely engaged in stamping out this curse (cancer) of mankind. Have medical associations, through their officers, agents, servants and employees engaged in this practice? My investigation to date should convince this committee that a conspiracy does exist to stop the free flow and use of drugs in interstate commerce which allegedly has solid therapeutic value. Public and private funds have been thrown around like confetti at a country fair to close up and destroy clinics, hospitals, and scientific research laboratories which do not conform to the viewpoint of medical associations."

Fitzgerald then specifically refers to the (Harry) Hoxsey Cancer Clinic because they revealed the true nature of the AMA in court. It was uncovered that:

"A running fight has been going on between officials, especially Dr. Morris Fishbein, of the American Medical Association through the journal of that organization, and the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic?"

"Behind and over all this is the weirdest conglomeration of corrupt motives, intrigue, selfishness, jealousy, obstruction, and conspiracy that I have ever seen."

Here is the film:

 

[rcs619]

"The Fitzgerald Report of 1953 from the Congressional Hearing" [http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Fitzgerald%20Report%201953.pdf]

1953.

Fitzgerald then specifically refers to the (Harry) Hoxsey Cancer Clinic because they revealed the true nature of the AMA in court. It was uncovered that:

"A running fight has been going on between officials, especially Dr. Morris Fishbein, of the American Medical Association through the journal of that organization, and the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic?"

You really want to hitch your horse to Hoxsey? Okay.

Who was Harry Hoxsey? He was a former coal-miner and insurance salesman who (with help from a local radio personality) claimed that he got the idea for his therapy from his great grand-father and how he treated the horses he raised. I'm not even aware if he had any real medical education or experience. If he did, I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere. He never got an actual license to practice medicine, at any rate.

Just so that we're clear, let's go over what Hoxsey's Therapy claimed was a *cure* for cancer.

- A type of herbal paste applied to external cancers.
- A type of liquid herbal tonic for internal cancers.
- Laxatives.
- Douches.
- Dietary changes.
- Vitamin supplements.

So, a reminder of what cancer is. Cancer is a malfunction with your cells on the genetic level, caused by abnormalities in those cells' genomes. It is not a skin condition. It is not an infection. You can rub as much salve, or shove as many laxatives up your ass as you want, it isn't going to do shit to a tumor. Hoxsey's methods may very well have treated some of the symptoms of cancer, and may have (in some small way) made his patients feel better, but it is not a 'cure' for cancer.

Hoxsey treatment was medical quackery, and there hasn't been a single peer-reviewed piece of research that has indicated it is anything but that. If you think that's because every single anti-cancer organization and medical group has been keeping it under wraps, and maintaining some kind of conspiracy for over 60 years, well... I guess that's your right. Doesn't mean I can't think it's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

 

[Mr.Savage]

1953.

Explain, succinctly, why the date is problematic.

You really want to hitch your horse to Hoxsey? Okay.

Hoxsey's methods may very well have treated some of the symptoms of cancer, and may have (in some small way) made his patients feel better, but it is not a 'cure' for cancer.

Hoxsey treatment was medical quackery, and there hasn't been a single peer-reviewed piece of research that has indicated it is anything but that.

There hasn't been a single peer-reviewed piece of research about any of this stuff, why? If it is all just a load of shit, then how easy would it be to prove under scientific evaluation?

If you think that's because every single anti-cancer organization and medical group has been keeping it under wraps, and maintaining some kind of conspiracy for over 60 years, well... I guess that's your right. Doesn't mean I can't think it's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Nothing has to be kept under wraps, it's just labeled quackery without investigation.

Is every last positive testimonial a paid shill? What gives?

 

[P. K. Qu'est Que Ce]

When did this turn into a thread about your belief in magic? Is this about cancer being a persistent threat, or your belief in a grand conspiracy against a cure that doesn't exist?

Be honest.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

You guys read this shit?

Nope.

Me either.

TL;DR Version:

Big Pharma profits, Oncology, Fundraisers, Research Foundations, and Charities all go away if Cancer is cured. They don't want to go away and get new jerbs.

And electric cars will never be developed because petroleum industry will crush them all.

No wait, I am talking out of my ass.
Times change, medical technology advances and with enough time price of cancer cure will be cheap enough to be funded by the x amount of the charitable people.(who knows what they are doing)

Will cure be developed in my lifetime? Ha ha, unlikely.
Is treatment always more profitable than cure? Absolutely - people hooked on your drugs forever is always more profitable than one time solution.
Does this mean cure will never be developed? No, of course it will be developed. It just takes more time.

 

[Mr.Savage]

Will cure be developed by Big Pharma in my lifetime? Ha ha, unlikely.

Is treatment always more profitable than cure? Absolutely - people hooked on your drugs forever is always more profitable than one time solution. Does this mean cure will never be developed? No, of course it will be developed. It just takes more time.

"In terms of the big picture, we are continuing to make progress, but we have a very long way to go."

Translation: Every year we must show you results. After all, you won't support us if you don't think we're getting something done. On the other hand, we can't be too successful - and we most certainly can't afford to come up with a cure - after all, if we did that, how could we come back to you next year and get more of your money? Get real! Do you have any idea how many people would be out of work if anybody uncovered a real cure for cancer?

 

[rcs619]

There hasn't been a single peer-reviewed piece of research about any of this stuff, why? If it is all just a load of shit, then how easy would it be to prove under scientific evaluation?

Now you're intentionally twisting my words. I said that there hasn't been a single peer-reviewed piece of research to show that it's anything besides quackery. That doesn't mean that it's never been tested in the last 60 years. It has been tested, by multiple medical and anti-cancer organizations. It has even been tested on lab mice, and they found *no* difference in tumor growth between the untreated control mice and those given Hoxsey's treatment.

Also, and this is the interesting one, the FDA actually interviewed a bunch of people who claimed they had been cured of cancer by Hoxsey (three or four-hundred I believe). Turns out a lot of them never had cancer to begin with. He completely misdiagnosed them. Some of the ones who had been cured had been successfully treated for cancer *before* they even went to Hoxsey's clinics. People who actually went to him first, and had active cancer at the time were either dead, or still alive with cancer. The FDA never found a single case of anyone actually being cured by him.

Then again, I'm sure that'll just be proof of a government conspiracy to you.

So how about the Canadians? Because a group from the University of British-Columbia actually went to Hoxsey's clinic in Mexico to check the records of 71 Canadian citizens who'd been treated by him. They found that:

For over one-half of the [cancer] patients from British Columbia, the result [of treatment with the Hoxsey method] has been either death or progression of the disease. In nearly one-quarter there was no proof that the patient ever had cancer. Nearly one in ten of the patients had curative treatment before going to the Hoxsey Clinic. In only one case, an external cancer, was there any evidence at all that the Hoxsey treatment had an effect on the disease; in that case, better results could have been obtained by orthodox means.

The ONE patient of Hoxsey's they found that *might* have been cured by his methods (a patient with skin cancer) had been physically disfigured by his treatment, in a way that could have been avoided had they sought out traditional surgical treatment.

So, does this mean that it isn't just a conspiracy of American medical interests, but now the Canadians are propping this up too for what I'm sure are nefarious reasons?

 

[P. K. Qu'est Que Ce]

There hasn't been a single peer-reviewed piece of research about any of this stuff, why? If it is all just a load of shit, then how easy would it be to prove under scientific evaluation?

Now you're intentionally twisting my words. I said that there hasn't been a single peer-reviewed piece of research to show that it's anything besides quackery. That doesn't mean that it's never been tested in the last 60 years. It has been tested, by multiple medical and anti-cancer organizations. It has even been tested on lab mice, and they found *no* difference in tumor growth between the untreated control mice and those given Hoxsey's treatment.

Also, and this is the interesting one, the FDA actually interviewed a bunch of people who claimed they had been cured of cancer by Hoxsey (three or four-hundred I believe). Turns out a lot of them never had cancer to begin with. He completely misdiagnosed them. Some of the ones who had been cured had been successfully treated for cancer *before* they even went to Hoxsey's clinics. People who actually went to him first, and had active cancer at the time were either dead, or still alive with cancer. The FDA never found a single case of anyone actually being cured by him.

Then again, I'm sure that'll just be proof of a government conspiracy to you.

So how about the Canadians? Because a group from the University of British-Columbia actually went to Hoxsey's clinic in Mexico to check the records of 71 Canadian citizens who'd been treated by him. They found that:

For over one-half of the [cancer] patients from British Columbia, the result [of treatment with the Hoxsey method] has been either death or progression of the disease. In nearly one-quarter there was no proof that the patient ever had cancer. Nearly one in ten of the patients had curative treatment before going to the Hoxsey Clinic. In only one case, an external cancer, was there any evidence at all that the Hoxsey treatment had an effect on the disease; in that case, better results could have been obtained by orthodox means.

The ONE patient of Hoxsey's they found that *might* have been cured by his methods (a patient with skin cancer) had been physically disfigured by his treatment, in a way that could have been avoided had they sought out traditional surgical treatment.

So, does this mean that it isn't just a conspiracy of American medical interests, but now the Canadians are propping this up too for what I'm sure are nefarious reasons?

Obviously Hoxsey is just a good guy who does this all for free, out of the goodness of his heart. Meanwhile everyone in a cancer charity or "Big Pharma" is a profiteering devil peddling bullshit. Everyone is either a dupe, or part of the con.

See his avatar? It's from a fun comedy. Those glasses let him see the aliens in our midst, controlling us. Some people take that shit pretty seriously, and you just have to leave them to it.