Welcome to Gaia! ::

Usurper Of Thrones
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.


Therapeutic cloning isn't just using stem cells. Its just using the bodies capacity to heal itself, but creating disease free cells in a way that would make it easier on your body. I mean if they know your going to develop cancer at some point they can take a cell out and remove the gene coding for cancer it replace it a cancer free version of the gene. The cloning comes from the PCR or cultivation of those cells.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

There's a cure for all viruses.

Draco cure!
Usurper Of Thrones
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.


Don't worry, I wasn't skeptical; I was already aware of studies being conducted on cannabis. You're right, I didn't watch the video (sorry, but I'm really busy with university work right now), but the idea of a video "proving" a cure just reminds me of the movie Contagion, where that reporter convinced people not to take the government vaccine and just use some other drug, which it turns out was a sham and people died for listening to him. Not saying it's the same thing, but studies do need to be done to monitor all effects, otherwise you end up having a product recall due to terrible unforeseen side effects (which has happened many, many times in history).

I do think there may be some social concerns regarding this study (such as unintentionally increasing marijuana usage for wrong reasons) as well, but scrapping existing methods is a bad idea until we've perfected another method, otherwise, what are victims meant to do in the mean time?

I'm fairly certain that THC only helps during early stages. "Curing" late stages of cancer will always be a problem because the cell production rate of cancer is too rapid to kill discriminately. There are also problems with practical application (how are you going to inject marijuana into the brain?).

But yeah, I'm all for it if it's proven to work without drastic side effects. Another interesting cure was found in ants after studies showed that ants were immune to illnesses and cancer. Scientists have gone far enough in that particular study to use irrodials from ants to cure early stages of cancer, but again, it's not a magic cure for everything.
The problem with going, "We need to study this to fight cancer!" ideology is that it ignores 1) how our body works and 2) how cancer works.

Let's assume I have a patient, stage I breast cancer. Now, people saying THC and cannabidiol can retard breast cancer growth are right. To an extent. We recognize effects in vitro. No one's ever worked on the stuff in vivo, that is with live patients. But we also only recognize the effects in one expression - Id-1.

Now, on the surface that sounds like great news. But here's the catch. When you say someone has "breast cancer," or any cancer really...you're saying they have an anomalous growth/mass. And in that growth/mass there could be one type, two types, ten types, ten dozen types of cancer. If you're one of those lucky women who have the Id-1 gene expression, then congratulations. Cannabidiol can be used to treat your cancer. If you have 6 different cancers in your cancer diagnosis...that one drug isn't going to help.

There's partial truth in the video. The endocannabinoid system does help with some immune functions. B cell migration and IgM regulation. The latter is important in infection because IgM is one of the first antibodies to respond to foreign bodies. But, even with normal IgM levels, someone can still end up with cancer.

Cancer is, very basically, when cells in your body overcome your body's ability to regulate itself due to some sort of mutation. You can be sick or healthy, and cancer can strike. Certainly, being healthy does mitigate cancer risk, but doesn't completely negate it. When lay people hear "cancer," they think cancer is just one cancer, and it's all the same. Just in different areas. When there are just numerous types and sub-types of cancer that can be benign or problematic. It's one of the problem's with the Susan G. Komen Foundation's creed of getting tested for breast cancer. Yeah. Early testing can help. With some forms of breast cancer. There are other forms of breast cancer for which early screening is no help. There's just nothing anyone can do for you except palliative care. But SGKF, like non-medical and non-cancer researchers don't realize that "cancer" is really an umbrella term for hundreds, if not thousands, of things that can go wrong. It's why you can have two patients with pancreatic cancer on two different treatment plans by the same team of doctors and researchers. Because those guys are treating the absolute exact type to the best of their ability and resources.
Developing a "cure" is going to take a long time and probably won't be done within fifteen years.

Developing a medical procedure that involves nanomachines and the targeted destruction of the cancerous cells? Much more feasible.
you'd think in this day and age, they would've found a cure already.
Demyan The Devil's avatar

7,350 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Tycoon 200
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.


Your forgot to tell us that the real cure lies in a cheap, unassuming herb that grows in southern China. Or, according to Usurper in someone's pot farm.

MillKitten
you'd think in this day and age, they would've found a cure already.


And that we'd have flying cars and robots that clean our homes.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Testament of Death
Developing a "cure" is going to take a long time and probably won't be done within fifteen years.

Developing a medical procedure that involves nanomachines and the targeted destruction of the cancerous cells? Much more feasible.
Makto txan palulukan's avatar

Ruthless Hunter

8,000 Points
  • Hunter 50
  • Survivor 150
  • Forum Sophomore 300
It all depends on whether we will be allowed to ever use it. We have a rough idea of how to do it (gene therapy) but we need to refine our technique, currently the success rate is very low. The laws which limit testing are the biggest problems so even if we did manage to perfect it there's still the problem of the people who suggest we are 'playing God' and it's 'wrong' to do so. If people weren't so afraid of progress we may be very nearly there by now though I can't see it happening in our lifetime.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Makto txan palulukan
It all depends on whether we will be allowed to ever use it. We have a rough idea of how to do it (gene therapy) but we need to refine our technique, currently the success rate is very low. The laws which limit testing are the biggest problems so even if we did manage to perfect it there's still the problem of the people who suggest we are 'playing God' and it's 'wrong' to do so. If people weren't so afraid of progress we may be very nearly there by now though I can't see it happening in our lifetime.


Gene therapy sucks.

It's more likely to cause cancer than it is to cure it, and what do we do with people who'd infect others, and how could it possibly cure all types of cancer?
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

BUT THIS MIGHT!

WE CAN CURE CANCER WITH LASAHSZ!
A cure for cancer, to quote SMBC Comics, is like saying a cure for virus. Or a cure for sick. Cancer is caused by too many different things to develop a universal cure; as people have said earlier, gene therapy and nanobots designed to target cancerous tissue are much more feasible than an actual cure.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Aeryn Lecroix
A cure for cancer, to quote SMBC Comics, is like saying a cure for virus. Or a cure for sick. Cancer is caused by too many different things to develop a universal cure; as people have said earlier, gene therapy and nanobots designed to target cancerous tissue are much more feasible than an actual cure.


Cure for all viruses.

Cure for practically all cancer.


Just saying. ninja
Makto txan palulukan's avatar

Ruthless Hunter

8,000 Points
  • Hunter 50
  • Survivor 150
  • Forum Sophomore 300
Suicidesoldier#1
Makto txan palulukan
It all depends on whether we will be allowed to ever use it. We have a rough idea of how to do it (gene therapy) but we need to refine our technique, currently the success rate is very low. The laws which limit testing are the biggest problems so even if we did manage to perfect it there's still the problem of the people who suggest we are 'playing God' and it's 'wrong' to do so. If people weren't so afraid of progress we may be very nearly there by now though I can't see it happening in our lifetime.


Gene therapy sucks.

It's more likely to cause cancer than it is to cure it, and what do we do with people who'd infect others, and how could it possibly cure all types of cancer?


It can cure cancer becuase cancer itself, as I'm sure you know already, is caused by base sequence mistranslations which can lead to the stop codon being interrupted or changed. So gene therapy can be used to alter this sequence of the stop codon in order to make it functional again. I'm sure there are other ways to do it but this is just the one I am most farmiliar with.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Makto txan palulukan
Suicidesoldier#1
Makto txan palulukan
It all depends on whether we will be allowed to ever use it. We have a rough idea of how to do it (gene therapy) but we need to refine our technique, currently the success rate is very low. The laws which limit testing are the biggest problems so even if we did manage to perfect it there's still the problem of the people who suggest we are 'playing God' and it's 'wrong' to do so. If people weren't so afraid of progress we may be very nearly there by now though I can't see it happening in our lifetime.


Gene therapy sucks.

It's more likely to cause cancer than it is to cure it, and what do we do with people who'd infect others, and how could it possibly cure all types of cancer?


It can cure cancer becuase cancer itself, as I'm sure you know already, is caused by base sequence mistranslations which can lead to the stop codon being interrupted or changed. So gene therapy can be used to alter this sequence of the stop codon in order to make it functional again. I'm sure there are other ways to do it but this is just the one I am most farmiliar with.


Yeah but it's gene expression that causes cancer and not necessarily the raw genes themselves. xp

Plus the only known method to do this is with viruses and, as it's very risky it may cause cancer itself and so far we really haven't been able to isolate any particular genes that we want.


While viruses look promising since they can isolate the cell copy gene (as in, viruses make more of themselves and instead could make it so cancer didn't) due to the innate function of a virus is to make more of itself they may prove ineffective or to have other complications.

How do we stop it from reproducing or spreading, how do we get it to not to destroy the host cell, how do we get it not to cause cancer since it won't be destroying the host cell (and thus reproducing the host cell continuously and uncontrollably, which is cancer) how do we get it not to infect other people, and lots of other issues even if we assume it can isolate the exact gene sequence we're worried about and that's more of a gene expression issue (such as cell copying and whatnot) than an actual changing gene one? xp

Quick Reply

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