When Will We Have A Cure For Cancer?

[Vannak]

Suicidesoldier#1

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

Has not even been tested in humans. Really?

Also, I'd quit getting your cancer, medical, or science news from any place that isn't a medical journal or another kind of medical based publication.

[DXnobodyX]

Suicidesoldier#1

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.

I doubt nano machines will have a place in oncology, nano drugs however are already being used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIR-Spheres

The problem with nano machines is we have to be able to afford them and be able to build them. Cancer wont have a magic bullet.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

DXnobodyX

Suicidesoldier#1

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.

I doubt nano machines will have a place in oncology, nano drugs however are already being used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIR-Spheres

The problem with nano machines is we have to be able to afford them and be able to build them. Cancer wont have a magic bullet.

Why does everyone just assume they'll be expensive?

If they make more of themselves they'd be super cheap.


How you'd do it is make a single machine designed to make billions- then it would; if you were afraid of it turning your body into a trillion nanobots by going rogue or something, and all you'd have to do is feed it raw carbon and whatnot.

You'd have only so many that could "self replicate" that would then produce models that couldn't, so sort of like a queen bee producing all the worker bees.


Problem solved.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

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

Has not even been tested in humans. Really?

Also, I'd quit getting your cancer, medical, or science news from any place that isn't a medical journal or another kind of medical based publication.

But it works without causing problems in mice, and in theory, it should work in everyone.

That's like saying fusion is impossible becuase it's never been done before. rolleyes


You produce a material to cause cell apoptosis that is sensitive to high levels of infrared radiation, at higher than human levels but still virtually incapable of causing harm to a human.

Then you point that said infrared radiation at cancer medicine- spread throughout the entire body- in only cancerous areas- result, cell apoptosis only in cancer, solving your problem.


In no way does that not make sense.

[DXnobodyX]

Suicidesoldier#1

DXnobodyX

Suicidesoldier#1

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.

I doubt nano machines will have a place in oncology, nano drugs however are already being used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIR-Spheres

The problem with nano machines is we have to be able to afford them and be able to build them. Cancer wont have a magic bullet.

Why does everyone just assume they'll be expensive?

If they make more of themselves they'd be super cheap.


How you'd do it is make a single machine designed to make billions- then it would; if you were afraid of it turning your body into a trillion nanobots by going rogue or something, and all you'd have to do is feed it raw carbon and whatnot.

You'd have only so many that could "self replicate" that would then produce models that couldn't, so sort of like a queen bee producing all the worker bees.


Problem solved.

I think your solving a mice infestation by breeding foxes there.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

DXnobodyX

Suicidesoldier#1

DXnobodyX

Suicidesoldier#1

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.

I doubt nano machines will have a place in oncology, nano drugs however are already being used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIR-Spheres

The problem with nano machines is we have to be able to afford them and be able to build them. Cancer wont have a magic bullet.

Why does everyone just assume they'll be expensive?

If they make more of themselves they'd be super cheap.


How you'd do it is make a single machine designed to make billions- then it would; if you were afraid of it turning your body into a trillion nanobots by going rogue or something, and all you'd have to do is feed it raw carbon and whatnot.

You'd have only so many that could "self replicate" that would then produce models that couldn't, so sort of like a queen bee producing all the worker bees.


Problem solved.

I think your solving a mice infestation by breeding foxes there.

You can solve a mice infestation by breeding foxes. O_O;

I'll be back in a bit.

[GenOberst]

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

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

Has not even been tested in humans. Really?

Also, I'd quit getting your cancer, medical, or science news from any place that isn't a medical journal or another kind of medical based publication.

But it works without causing problems in mice, and in theory, it should work in everyone.

That's like saying fusion is impossible becuase it's never been done before. rolleyes


You produce a material to cause cell apoptosis that is sensitive to high levels of infrared radiation, at higher than human levels but still virtually incapable of causing harm to a human.

Then you point that said infrared radiation at cancer medicine- spread throughout the entire body- in only cancerous areas- result, cell apoptosis only in cancer, solving your problem.


In no way does that not make sense.

Efficacy in transgenic mice doesn't equal efficacy in human trials. There's scores of high efficacy in vitro tests that didn't pan out in vivo. Mostly because the side effects of the treatment in question were more toxic and harmful than the condition they were treating.

The DRACO antivirals are promising, but the problem with antivirals is that almost all of them work by disrupting viral replication at the RNA/DNA level. Since the virus takes over host cells to become viral factories, the drugs have to get past human cellular barriers and disrupt RNA/DNA synthases. Which also means they can disrupt normal synthesis and replication. Which is why antivirals can be so incredibly toxic. Think early AZT trials in HIV patients. Or long term HAART therapies in 20+ year HIV patients. The accumulated toxicity gives rise to a host of comorbidities that can make 40 and 50 year old patients look like they're 70 or 80. With the same host of health problems - osteoperosis, high blood pressure, heart problems, liver problems, kidney problems, etc.

[DXnobodyX]

Suicidesoldier#1

DXnobodyX

Suicidesoldier#1

DXnobodyX

Suicidesoldier#1

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.

I doubt nano machines will have a place in oncology, nano drugs however are already being used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIR-Spheres

The problem with nano machines is we have to be able to afford them and be able to build them. Cancer wont have a magic bullet.

Why does everyone just assume they'll be expensive?

If they make more of themselves they'd be super cheap.


How you'd do it is make a single machine designed to make billions- then it would; if you were afraid of it turning your body into a trillion nanobots by going rogue or something, and all you'd have to do is feed it raw carbon and whatnot.

You'd have only so many that could "self replicate" that would then produce models that couldn't, so sort of like a queen bee producing all the worker bees.


Problem solved.

I think your solving a mice infestation by breeding foxes there.

You can solve a mice infestation by breeding foxes. O_O;

I'll be back in a bit.

Its eradicating a pest with a pest, ie doesn't solve the problem.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

DXnobodyX

Suicidesoldier#1

DXnobodyX

Suicidesoldier#1

DXnobodyX

I doubt nano machines will have a place in oncology, nano drugs however are already being used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIR-Spheres

The problem with nano machines is we have to be able to afford them and be able to build them. Cancer wont have a magic bullet.

Why does everyone just assume they'll be expensive?

If they make more of themselves they'd be super cheap.


How you'd do it is make a single machine designed to make billions- then it would; if you were afraid of it turning your body into a trillion nanobots by going rogue or something, and all you'd have to do is feed it raw carbon and whatnot.

You'd have only so many that could "self replicate" that would then produce models that couldn't, so sort of like a queen bee producing all the worker bees.


Problem solved.

I think your solving a mice infestation by breeding foxes there.

You can solve a mice infestation by breeding foxes. O_O;

I'll be back in a bit.

Its eradicating a pest with a pest, ie doesn't solve the problem.

I don't think this is the issue though. razz

I've already given a way to how self replicating nanobots wouldn't use your carbons so they wouldn't be capable of eating you and stuff, so it would make them uber cheap but also make it so they wouldn't turn you into goop.


It would take frequent injections though.

I imagine that would require some type of system since constant needles poking your arm might not be good- then again with nanobots you could cure any scarring issues so maybe not.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

GenOberst

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

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

Has not even been tested in humans. Really?

Also, I'd quit getting your cancer, medical, or science news from any place that isn't a medical journal or another kind of medical based publication.

But it works without causing problems in mice, and in theory, it should work in everyone.

That's like saying fusion is impossible becuase it's never been done before. rolleyes


You produce a material to cause cell apoptosis that is sensitive to high levels of infrared radiation, at higher than human levels but still virtually incapable of causing harm to a human.

Then you point that said infrared radiation at cancer medicine- spread throughout the entire body- in only cancerous areas- result, cell apoptosis only in cancer, solving your problem.


In no way does that not make sense.

Efficacy in transgenic mice doesn't equal efficacy in human trials. There's scores of high efficacy in vitro tests that didn't pan out in vivo. Mostly because the side effects of the treatment in question were more toxic and harmful than the condition they were treating.

The DRACO antivirals are promising, but the problem with antivirals is that almost all of them work by disrupting viral replication at the RNA/DNA level. Since the virus takes over host cells to become viral factories, the drugs have to get past human cellular barriers and disrupt RNA/DNA synthases. Which also means they can disrupt normal synthesis and replication. Which is why antivirals can be so incredibly toxic. Think early AZT trials in HIV patients. Or long term HAART therapies in 20+ year HIV patients. The accumulated toxicity gives rise to a host of comorbidities that can make 40 and 50 year old patients look like they're 70 or 80. With the same host of health problems - osteoperosis, high blood pressure, heart problems, liver problems, kidney problems, etc.

Which is why this particular kind of treatment is novel for not doing that, as far as we know.

Human trials have started but the results aren't going to be in for a while.

[DXnobodyX]

Suicidesoldier#1

DXnobodyX

Suicidesoldier#1

DXnobodyX

Suicidesoldier#1

DXnobodyX

I doubt nano machines will have a place in oncology, nano drugs however are already being used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIR-Spheres

The problem with nano machines is we have to be able to afford them and be able to build them. Cancer wont have a magic bullet.

Why does everyone just assume they'll be expensive?

If they make more of themselves they'd be super cheap.


How you'd do it is make a single machine designed to make billions- then it would; if you were afraid of it turning your body into a trillion nanobots by going rogue or something, and all you'd have to do is feed it raw carbon and whatnot.

You'd have only so many that could "self replicate" that would then produce models that couldn't, so sort of like a queen bee producing all the worker bees.


Problem solved.

I think your solving a mice infestation by breeding foxes there.

You can solve a mice infestation by breeding foxes. O_O;

I'll be back in a bit.

Its eradicating a pest with a pest, ie doesn't solve the problem.

I don't think this is the issue though. razz

I've already given a way to how self replicating nanobots wouldn't use your carbons so they wouldn't be capable of eating you and stuff, so it would make them uber cheap but also make it so they wouldn't turn you into goop.


It would take frequent injections though.

I imagine that would require some type of system since constant needles poking your arm might not be good- then again with nanobots you could cure any scarring issues so maybe not.

I think you need to think more about your replies.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

DXnobodyX

Suicidesoldier#1

DXnobodyX

Suicidesoldier#1

DXnobodyX

I think your solving a mice infestation by breeding foxes there.

You can solve a mice infestation by breeding foxes. O_O;

I'll be back in a bit.

Its eradicating a pest with a pest, ie doesn't solve the problem.

I don't think this is the issue though. razz

I've already given a way to how self replicating nanobots wouldn't use your carbons so they wouldn't be capable of eating you and stuff, so it would make them uber cheap but also make it so they wouldn't turn you into goop.


It would take frequent injections though.

I imagine that would require some type of system since constant needles poking your arm might not be good- then again with nanobots you could cure any scarring issues so maybe not.

I think you need to think more about your replies.

Or perhaps I should think more during them...?

Anyways nanobots would be awesome, and there would be a lot of ways to apply it, which would make them cheap.

[Lakaryas]

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/targeted

Targeting molecular proteins in cell signaling pathways is the most viable option for the forseeable future as much research has been currently conducted and trials are being pursued for human treatment.

I didnt even know nanomachine technology was existent yet especially not within the human body but i could be wrong.