Welcome to Gaia! ::

MrFamous
Vannak
Ryu Kei Shou Kawazu
Vannak
Cancer isn't really a single disease that you take a pill for and get cured. It's a wide variety of different types of abnormal cell growths. A "cure" is unlikely. A good library of different treatments and save options for different people is a better goal.
all cancer is cancer and therefore there can be something to counteract all cancers based on their similarities they have.
That's just simply not true, at least with foreseeable technology.

Cancers can arise from a variety of different genetic and environmental causes, a one shot cure for cancer is like a one shot cure for mental diseases, auto immune diseases or anything else.

Cancer is a personal disease, it's not like viral infections where the cause is a simple set of proteins where you find the drug to kill it and it works.

Saying all cancer is cancer and thus we can find a cure by what they have in common is like saying children is children and one day we'll have the perfect method to raise children because of their similarities.
What if we create self replicating nanobots that can constantly change and redesign themselves and police the body for an ever increasing amount of conditions based on an ever increasing amounts of data within some kind of micro quantum computers and these nanobots operate out of a personal server implanted into your body or kept on a person at all times and that server is connected to the internet which feeds new programming updates all the time which creates a cycle of ever improving efficacy somewhat akin to evolution? The risks of foul play may seem high but I can imagine a sort of technological singularity like that implanted inside every human being alive that works to merge us with the collective consciousness of all humanity or even other races in a semi-psychologically unified mental merging of humanity that allows us to access updates and mods to our bodies and minds as we see fit while of course society would need some kind of mechanism to police a planet filled with interconnected immortal super beings that retain the concept of free will or at least free will is it will be understood in the future if it isn't already known now (I don't know s**t). I probably left out a mountain of possibilities due to my lack of knowlage about every damn thing that makes up everything.


So what you're asking is if we could individually control every large molecule in our body, we could cure cancer, right? Yes. And just about anything else. Watch out for hackers.
Ryuseni's avatar

Distinct Dabbler

Many scientists already "cured" many cancers with dichloroacetate. It's just that the drug can't be patented, so pharmaceutical companies are not interested. The economy would also go down, after many jobs being futile, as many of them were trying to cure cancer. That's why I changed my dream career from curing cancer to giving humanity the power of wings.
Takuski
Many scientists already "cured" many cancers with dichloroacetate. It's just that the drug can't be patented, so pharmaceutical companies are not interested. The economy would also go down, after many jobs being futile, as many of them were trying to cure cancer. That's why I changed my dream career from curing cancer to giving humanity the power of wings.

No one has successfully treated patients w/ DCA. Of the Phase II trial conducted in 5 cancer patients, 1 died and the other 4 had alarming deterioration of health resulting in the halting of the trials. In addition, DCA has been shown to increase hepatic cancer rates in transgenic mice. Which means there's a very strong indicator that it will also increase liver cancer rates in humans.
Theres been "theories" that cures for cancer, AIDS, etc. already exist. Just that the government is covering it up because if it got out, major pharmacutical companies will loose alot of money possibly throwing us into a depression.
Conspiracy theories about science and medicine have zero grounding in the fundamentals of science and medicine. If a cure for any of those things existed. And if that cure was being suppressed by a government or corporation, there would be more and more people arriving to the same conclusions based on experimentation and the gradual aggregation of knowledge that is science. Eventually someone or some group will come forward with information, and everyone can then verify the truth of that information with independent testing.
Adam Weishaupt's avatar

Conservative Voter

We won't.

And by that I mean when every living thing dies.
endthedisease
I mean all forms of cancer. I have seen articles that say it might take more than 30 years. crying crying

Any new pharmaceutical or drug that comes out must go through periods of testing and re-testing. There may be one already. But we will not know about it as a people for several years until one is created that has been tested and re-tested within controlled groups for a period of at least 9 years to discover any possible long or short term effects such a drug may have.
Cogent Dream
Obika
Cogent Dream



If you specifically say that "the cure for cancer will never be published because of money and politics" then obviously someone's going to prove you wrong. If you consciously ignore proof, you're living in a bubble.

Also, gravity has been in question for a long time in the science community. People are always challenging facts, but when they do, they do it with proper means and irrefutable evidence, rather than baseless conspiracy stories.

Why don't you put it this way? If you discovered the cure for cancer and could save the lives on millions of people, whilst earning money and fame for yourself at the same time, would you intentionally hide the cure?


Seriously, these are just examples people. I know gravity has been in question for ages; I'm one of the people questioning it, scientifically. Specifically I'm working with gravitational lensing, but it all gets questioned and tested.

Again, I'm NOT saying it's one individual or one group holding it up. If I discovered the cure I'd be jumping up and down, publishing papers, and running to the nearest news station available. It's not like I'm saying I am against a cure, I'm all for it. I am saying that there is a lot more to the picture that's "invisible" to most people. Background work sort of thing. I've been blessed, or as I look at it, cursed enough to see some of this. That's my point.


I fail to see anything special here. There's always a lot more to every picture. That doesn't mean that if a cure for cancer existed, it would never become available (which is what you specifically said in your first post).

You're changing what you meant in your opening argument. Maybe you didn't say what you meant to, but based on what you said there, your argument is invalid.


There is a cure for cancer. Scientists call it Tetrahydrocannabinol. A mouthful, i know. Normal people call it weed.

Seriously, there's an active ingredient in marijuana plants called THC which has been proven time and time again to kill cancer cells and prevent them com spreading or coming back. Many studies from all over the world have come to this same conclusion (very few, if any, conclude otherwise), so as you can see, no scientists are hiding any cure from us; it's the federal government and big pharmaceuticals who are ignoring the facts. They just want to make money in creating their own treatment for cancer. It's a billion dollar industry.

Hard to believe, I know, but that's how corporate America works.

Just read the responses in this thread

And this YouTube video
Usurper Of Thrones
Cogent Dream
Obika
Cogent Dream



If you specifically say that "the cure for cancer will never be published because of money and politics" then obviously someone's going to prove you wrong. If you consciously ignore proof, you're living in a bubble.

Also, gravity has been in question for a long time in the science community. People are always challenging facts, but when they do, they do it with proper means and irrefutable evidence, rather than baseless conspiracy stories.

Why don't you put it this way? If you discovered the cure for cancer and could save the lives on millions of people, whilst earning money and fame for yourself at the same time, would you intentionally hide the cure?


Seriously, these are just examples people. I know gravity has been in question for ages; I'm one of the people questioning it, scientifically. Specifically I'm working with gravitational lensing, but it all gets questioned and tested.

Again, I'm NOT saying it's one individual or one group holding it up. If I discovered the cure I'd be jumping up and down, publishing papers, and running to the nearest news station available. It's not like I'm saying I am against a cure, I'm all for it. I am saying that there is a lot more to the picture that's "invisible" to most people. Background work sort of thing. I've been blessed, or as I look at it, cursed enough to see some of this. That's my point.


I fail to see anything special here. There's always a lot more to every picture. That doesn't mean that if a cure for cancer existed, it would never become available (which is what you specifically said in your first post).

You're changing what you meant in your opening argument. Maybe you didn't say what you meant to, but based on what you said there, your argument is invalid.


There is a cure for cancer. Scientists call it Tetrahydrocannabinol. A mouthful, i know. Normal people call it weed.

Seriously, there's an active ingredient in marijuana plants called THC which has been proven time and time again to kill cancer cells and prevent them com spreading or coming back. Many studies from all over the world have come to this same conclusion (very few, if any, conclude otherwise), so as you can see, no scientists are hiding any cure from us; it's the federal government and big pharmaceuticals who are ignoring the facts. They just want to make money in creating their own treatment for cancer. It's a billion dollar industry.

Hard to believe, I know, but that's how corporate America works.

Just read the responses in this thread

And this YouTube video


Medical use of marijuana already exists. It only works for certain cancers, and only at early stages. It's not so much a "cure" as a slowing down of the cancer process.

Many forms of cancer are curable already. When we say a "cure for cancer" we mean entirely cure all forms of cancer with acceptable side effects.
Cogent Dream
Usurper Of Thrones
Cogent Dream
Obika
Cogent Dream



If you specifically say that "the cure for cancer will never be published because of money and politics" then obviously someone's going to prove you wrong. If you consciously ignore proof, you're living in a bubble.

Also, gravity has been in question for a long time in the science community. People are always challenging facts, but when they do, they do it with proper means and irrefutable evidence, rather than baseless conspiracy stories.

Why don't you put it this way? If you discovered the cure for cancer and could save the lives on millions of people, whilst earning money and fame for yourself at the same time, would you intentionally hide the cure?


Seriously, these are just examples people. I know gravity has been in question for ages; I'm one of the people questioning it, scientifically. Specifically I'm working with gravitational lensing, but it all gets questioned and tested.

Again, I'm NOT saying it's one individual or one group holding it up. If I discovered the cure I'd be jumping up and down, publishing papers, and running to the nearest news station available. It's not like I'm saying I am against a cure, I'm all for it. I am saying that there is a lot more to the picture that's "invisible" to most people. Background work sort of thing. I've been blessed, or as I look at it, cursed enough to see some of this. That's my point.


I fail to see anything special here. There's always a lot more to every picture. That doesn't mean that if a cure for cancer existed, it would never become available (which is what you specifically said in your first post).

You're changing what you meant in your opening argument. Maybe you didn't say what you meant to, but based on what you said there, your argument is invalid.


There is a cure for cancer. Scientists call it Tetrahydrocannabinol. A mouthful, i know. Normal people call it weed.

Seriously, there's an active ingredient in marijuana plants called THC which has been proven time and time again to kill cancer cells and prevent them com spreading or coming back. Many studies from all over the world have come to this same conclusion (very few, if any, conclude otherwise), so as you can see, no scientists are hiding any cure from us; it's the federal government and big pharmaceuticals who are ignoring the facts. They just want to make money in creating their own treatment for cancer. It's a billion dollar industry.

Hard to believe, I know, but that's how corporate America works.

Just read the responses in this thread

And this YouTube video


Medical use of marijuana already exists. It only works for certain cancers, and only at early stages. It's not so much a "cure" as a slowing down of the cancer process.

Many forms of cancer are curable already. When we say a "cure for cancer" we mean entirely cure all forms of cancer with acceptable side effects.


Medical marijuana isn't used as a cancer cure, it's used to alleviate the side effects of chemotherapy and other harmful treatments. When you smoke marijuana, you're burning away most of the medical aspects to it rendering the plant useless against cancerous cells. THC is not to be burned and smoked, it's to be consumed or rubbed on your skin, that's the best way to go about it.

The only "acceptable" ways to treat cancer are to go through surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. The latter, chemotherapy, a totally barbaric form of medical treatment, has a cure rate of 3 percent. So if most forms of cancer are curable, I don't understand why so many people die from the disease every year. Clearly these methods are not very effective at all. Chemicals inside of cannabis seems to be a whole lot more promising, yet our government prohibits any serious testing to be done because the plant is illegal. Strange, considering that throughout human history, marijuana has always been used for medicinal purposes. Our county is the first civilization to criminalize marijuana and this was at the wake of synthetic meds.

This documentary proves my point completely. "What if Cannabis Cured Cancer"

Don't reply unless you've watched at least 30 mins of the video. Pretty interesting scientific finds.
I haven't actually read all of the posts, but I just wanted to say that curing cancer isn't a problem. Scientists can kill cancer no problem, but a lot of the time its the complications with those cures. We have to balance poisoning you with curing the cancer. I would consider therapeutic cloning to be our best option, and that combined with developing medicine that would teach our cell's membrane to not take in the virus and create the vesicle around it that makes it so difficult to treat.
Usurper Of Thrones


Your own link provides a huge list of the effects of cannabis on cancer, and every single one says it slows it down, not wipe it out completely. That is not a cure, it's a bandaid.

Quote:
Palmitoylethanolamide inhibits the expression of fatty acid amide hydrolase

Quote:
Suppression of Nerve Growth Factor Trk Receptors and Prolactin Receptors by Endocannabinoids Leads to Inhibition of Human Breast and Prostate Cancer Cell Proliferation

Quote:
Cannabidiol may be helpful in reducing the aggressiveness of breast cancer cells
(news - 2007)

Quote:
Marijuana Ingredients Slow Invasion by Cervical and Lung Cancer Cells
(news - 2007)


Also, it's a bit of a misnomer to say marijuana cures cancer. It's more like, THC helps fight cancer.
Cogent Dream
Usurper Of Thrones


Your own link provides a huge list of the effects of cannabis on cancer, and every single one says it slows it down, not wipe it out completely. That is not a cure, it's a bandaid.

Quote:
Palmitoylethanolamide inhibits the expression of fatty acid amide hydrolase

Quote:
Suppression of Nerve Growth Factor Trk Receptors and Prolactin Receptors by Endocannabinoids Leads to Inhibition of Human Breast and Prostate Cancer Cell Proliferation

Quote:
Cannabidiol may be helpful in reducing the aggressiveness of breast cancer cells
(news - 2007)

Quote:
Marijuana Ingredients Slow Invasion by Cervical and Lung Cancer Cells
(news - 2007)


Also, it's a bit of a misnomer to say marijuana cures cancer. It's more like, THC helps fight cancer.


Sorry, i didnt specify. I provided the first link to show you that dozens of studies have been done on marijuana (because you seemed skeptical) and to prove that there are medical qualities to the plant that our government isn't allowing scientists to really get to understand. The second link (because I'm sure you didn't watch it) is some guy using cannabis oil (THC) to cure his skin cancer without use of chemo, radiation, or anything else and without suffering side effects. That's not a bandaid, it's a cure.

The third link explains how it all works. We all already have a form of cannabis in our bodies called the endocannabinoid system (ECS) and what it does in essence is protect your good cells while killing the bad ones (ie cancer). When our ECS is suppressed or blocked somehow, cancerous tumors start to form. Watch the second video from 11:00 to 16:45.

Given all those facts, your statement, "It's more like, THC helps fight cancer" is simply irrelevant. Yes, it helps fight cancer, even when not administered properly, but the question is what, exactly, is it that THC is helping to fight our cancer? Not medical treatments made in factories, but our own bodies which already has a built in defense system to fight off cancer. Cannabinoids in cannabis supports our endocannaboid system which defends against cancer.

So, yeah, the search for a cure, or whatever you wanna call it, is over. We need to completely scrap the whole chemotherapy, radiation, surgery methods and put all of our time and money in learning all we can about cannabis. Simple as that.
Tsakune
I haven't actually read all of the posts, but I just wanted to say that curing cancer isn't a problem. Scientists can kill cancer no problem, but a lot of the time its the complications with those cures. We have to balance poisoning you with curing the cancer. I would consider therapeutic cloning to be our best option, and that combined with developing medicine that would teach our cell's membrane to not take in the virus and create the vesicle around it that makes it so difficult to treat.


Therapeutic cloning? Isn't that the use of stem cells to cure diseases or something? Yeah, I heard that was all quackery. In fact, there was a medical center called Envita that claimed to be able to cure cancer with stem cells. A lot of people claim it's a scam.

I agree that a lot of the complications of cancer comes from the treatment of cancer itself but there certaintly should never have to be a balance between poisoning and curing diseases. Poison simply has nothing to do with curing. There is a barbaric mindset behind the very concept of treatments like chemotherapy.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games