If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Still no cure for all the cancer misinformation out there   (motherjones.com) divider line 27
    More: Interesting, cell divisions, DHHS, breast cancer risks, outer wall, tall people, betacarotenes, oxidants, cure  
•       •       •

1785 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Nov 2013 at 11:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-01 09:41:24 AM  
Because people want to believe in hope, and don't want to accept the fact that they are more than likely going to die from a disease in five to ten years from diagnosis in many cases, even with optimum treatment.

They want to believe there's a reason for it. That someone wants to make money off them. That there is some massive conspiracy at play here to keep the "Cures" for the elites. That "THEY" don't want you to know the "truth".

There's a lack of science education on basic biology and anatomy/physiology, which couples with people who are easy to fear and looking for something - anything to help then. Very few people know how the acid/base buffer system works. Very few people know how the cell machinery for self-destruction and self-identification is reworked in cancer. Very few people understand there's a difference between a blood cancer, and a solid tumor.

Chemotherapy is terrifying and rough to endure. The way it works is frightening. And in some cases, we have had to watch our loved ones die despite undergoing optimum care. Because cancer is a biatch. And despite 100 years of progress, we're still losing people close to us from it.

So yes. There is no cure for it. Even before the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1907, there were people using misinformation and lies to sell false hope and sham elixirs. There were still people promoting "enzymes and diets", electrical shock machines, crystals and homeopathy. There were still these weird ideas of bicarbonate-enriched, alkaline diets.

And there will continue to be. Because not only in America do we do a very shiatty job of explaining things to patients and their loved ones, but we also do a shiatty job of teaching our children and teenagers the basic background information they need to be informed patients and consumers.
 
2013-11-01 11:07:30 AM  
... I don't think I can add to that, actually, so I am going to mistake this as an article about Piers Morgan.
 
2013-11-01 11:07:30 AM  
One of their very own related articles at the bottom contradicts this article.

By the way you may like to read our related article : the exact opposite of what this article said


MOTHHHHHHHHHERRRR JOOOOOOOOOOOOOONES!
 
2013-11-01 11:18:22 AM  
Wow. Estrogen is regarded as much of a carcinogen as dioxins or something? That seems, unlikely.

And that's the only mention of carcinogens at all. In a discussion about what causes cancer. The rest is your typical modern misinformation about old age causing cancer, when childhood cancer rates have skyrocketed alongside every age group, and studies have shown it wasn't nearly as common in previous times. They did mention stress being a factor, so i'll give them that. But it's worrying to me to see this trend away from radiation and chemicals causing cancer, which is a fact confirmed in laboratories and hundreds of studies, and instead blaming the victims genes or age. Almost like corporations which might cause a little cancer here and there are tired of being sued for it.
 
2013-11-01 11:21:28 AM  
www.phdcomics.com
 
2013-11-01 11:46:01 AM  

hardinparamedic: There's a lack of science education on basic biology and anatomy/physiology


Some of us are trying to fix that one step at a time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-S2fZ8S0f0
 
2013-11-01 12:02:39 PM  

Bondith: Some of us are trying to fix that one step at a time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-S2fZ8S0f0


Appreciate the work, but the role virus' play in cancer is to disable one of many defenses that look for irregular cells, which may cause more irregular cells to go unnoticed. None actually create irregular cells themselves.

It's an extremely common mistake with certain vaccines making certain claims.
 
2013-11-01 12:06:23 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: Wow. Estrogen is regarded as much of a carcinogen as dioxins or something? That seems, unlikely.


Cancers of the breast, uterus, vagina, cervix, penis, and testes are often stimulated in the same way the growth of normal tissue is stimulated by endogenous and exogenous sex hormones. It's the reason that reproductive cancer history is listed as a contraindication for testosterone therapy and birth control/hormone replacement.

Giving an Estrogen Receptor Positive cancer cell an increase in estrogen makes it divide at an insanely increased rate.

J. Frank Parnell: None actually create irregular cells themselves.


That's not exactly true. HPV causes cancerous cell growth by not only turning off the mechanisms for apoptosis and identification as a "faulty" cell to the immune system, but by actually hijacking the mechanism for protein production and DNA replication.
 
2013-11-01 12:08:07 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: Bondith: Some of us are trying to fix that one step at a time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-S2fZ8S0f0

Appreciate the work, but the role virus' play in cancer is to disable one of many defenses that look for irregular cells, which may cause more irregular cells to go unnoticed. None actually create irregular cells themselves.

It's an extremely common mistake with certain vaccines making certain claims.


Interesting.  Got a detailed link?

Like I said in the video, I wasn't trying to explain every detail of every aspect of a very broad topic, and that there would be exceptions to everything I said.  If you wanna go make a clarifying comment on the video, it'll probably raise the collective intelligence of YouTube comments by a measurable iota.
 
2013-11-01 12:19:57 PM  

hardinparamedic: Cancers of the breast, uterus, vagina, cervix, penis, and testes are often stimulated in the same way the growth of normal tissue is stimulated by endogenous and exogenous sex hormones. It's the reason that reproductive cancer history is listed as a contraindication for testosterone therapy and birth control/hormone replacement.

Giving an Estrogen Receptor Positive cancer cell an increase in estrogen makes it divide at an insanely increased rate.


Lots of things in blood feed or stimulate cancer cells, but wouldn't be considered carcinogens.

hardinparamedic: HPV causes cancerous cell growth by not only turning off the mechanisms for apoptosis and identification as a "faulty" cell to the immune system, but by actually hijacking the mechanism for protein production and DNA replication.


I'll have to look into the hijacking and DNA replication. Was under the impression cancer can propagate without the help of a virus.
 
2013-11-01 12:42:29 PM  

hardinparamedic: Because people want to believe in hope, and don't want to accept the fact that they are more than likely going to die from a disease in five to ten years from diagnosis in many cases, even with optimum treatment.

They want to believe there's a reason for it. That someone wants to make money off them. That there is some massive conspiracy at play here to keep the "Cures" for the elites. That "THEY" don't want you to know the "truth".

There's a lack of science education on basic biology and anatomy/physiology, which couples with people who are easy to fear and looking for something - anything to help then. Very few people know how the acid/base buffer system works. Very few people know how the cell machinery for self-destruction and self-identification is reworked in cancer. Very few people understand there's a difference between a blood cancer, and a solid tumor.

Chemotherapy is terrifying and rough to endure. The way it works is frightening. And in some cases, we have had to watch our loved ones die despite undergoing optimum care. Because cancer is a biatch. And despite 100 years of progress, we're still losing people close to us from it.

So yes. There is no cure for it. Even before the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1907, there were people using misinformation and lies to sell false hope and sham elixirs. There were still people promoting "enzymes and diets", electrical shock machines, crystals and homeopathy. There were still these weird ideas of bicarbonate-enriched, alkaline diets.

And there will continue to be. Because not only in America do we do a very shiatty job of explaining things to patients and their loved ones, but we also do a shiatty job of teaching our children and teenagers the basic background information they need to be informed patients and consumers.


Well, given the article, it is quite fitting the very initial post in the thread be filled with misinformation.  Hurray for the internet.
 
2013-11-01 12:47:49 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: hardinparamedic: HPV causes cancerous cell growth by not only turning off the mechanisms for apoptosis and identification as a "faulty" cell to the immune system, but by actually hijacking the mechanism for protein production and DNA replication.

I'll have to look into the hijacking and DNA replication. Was under the impression cancer can propagate without the help of a virus.


I'd also like to see a citation on the hijacking/DNA replication bit.  E6 and E7 are HPV proteins (that the vaccine targets) that bind to your endogenous proteins, p53 (DNA damage repair/apoptosis) and pRB (cell cycle checkpoint, controls transcription factor E2F).  Highjacking the mechanism for protein production means it's hijacking the ribosome, or a related protein.  While possible, the fact that I've never heard of that makes me amazingly skeptical that is a mechanism of HPV.

There are many mechanisms that lead to cancer.  One mechanism uses the help of a virus.  One such virus is HPV.  One way HPV can create cancer is with E6 and E7.  There are other ways.
 
2013-11-01 01:01:31 PM  

lennavan: it is quite fitting the very initial post in the thread be filled with misinformation.


imgs.xkcd.com

Please cite which part of that post was misinformation.
 
2013-11-01 01:04:42 PM  
Well....I guess I'll go see if I can still cancel that order of sloth blood.
 
2013-11-01 01:05:06 PM  

lennavan: Highjacking the mechanism for protein production means it's hijacking the ribosome, or a related protein.  While possible, the fact that I've never heard of that makes me amazingly skeptical that is a mechanism of HPV.


Molecular Mechanisms of HPV-Induced Carcinogenesis.
 
2013-11-01 01:09:31 PM  

hardinparamedic: lennavan: Highjacking the mechanism for protein production means it's hijacking the ribosome, or a related protein. While possible, the fact that I've never heard of that makes me amazingly skeptical that is a mechanism of HPV.

Molecular Mechanisms of HPV-Induced Carcinogenesis.


Thanks for the enormous PDF.  A single actual primary research article would have sufficed.  I searched that entire document for the phrase "DNA replication."  If DNA replication gets hijacked, one would assume that phrase is in there.  It found one instance:

Retinoic acid is essential for terminal differentiation of cervical epithelial cells because it decreases cellular proliferation and DNA replication.

You didn't actually read that, did you?  You just posted a long article that had a title that you crossed your fingers and hoped would support your suggestion that HPV hijacks DNA replication machinery, didn't you?  This shiat is farking ridiculous.  This is exactly what the linked article is talking about, dipshiats spouting nonsense, spreading misinformation.
 
2013-11-01 01:13:23 PM  

lennavan: You didn't actually read that, did you?  You just posted a long article that had a title that you crossed your fingers and hoped would support your suggestion that HPV hijacks DNA replication machinery, didn't you?  This shiat is farking ridiculous.  This is exactly what the linked article is talking about, dipshiats spouting nonsense, spreading misinformation.


Actually, I was trying to not be technical and simplistic. If I was wrong, correcting me with a citation WOULD have sufficed instead of acting like an ass. No one was being a "dipshiat spouting" until you decided to post in the thread.

I'm still waiting for you to point out what was misinformation in my initial post.
 
2013-11-01 01:20:35 PM  

hardinparamedic: Please cite which part of that post was misinformation.


Sure thing:

hardinparamedic: they are more than likely going to die from a disease in five to ten years from diagnosis in many cases, even with optimum treatment.


The vast majority of cancers have a greater than 50% survival rate for 5 years.  This was actually discussed in the linked article:

But for most of us cancer remains synonymous with death, pain, and suffering. At least, we hope, until somebody finds a "cure." But modern science suggests we've been thinking about this dreaded disease all wrong.

You will have to cherry pick very specific cancers to find something with a lower than 50% survival rate.  I'll get you started - lung cancer (but not if it is detected early) is one.

hardinparamedic: So yes. There is no cure for it.


Yes there are cures.  There is no single cure that will work on all cancers that exist.  There are all sorts of cures for very specific types of cancers.  It is wildly dishonest to summarize that as "there is no cure for cancer."  What's more, that demonstrates a fundamental misconception of all cancers should be thought of the same.

hardinparamedic: Chemotherapy is terrifying and rough to endure. The way it works is frightening.


One way your body fights off bacteria on its very own is with antibodies.  One molecular mechanism that causes breast cancer is HER2 gene duplications that results in too much HER2.  One chemotherapeutic drug is just a farking antibody against HER2.  TRULY TERRIFYING AND VERY SCARY.

http://chemocare.com/chemotherapy/drug-info/Trastuzumab.aspx#.UnPiso Vh 6k0
 
2013-11-01 01:26:05 PM  

hardinparamedic: I'm still waiting for you to point out what was misinformation in my initial post.


Sorry, there was so much it took me awhile.

hardinparamedic: Actually, I was trying to not be technical and simplistic. If I was wrong, correcting me with a citation WOULD have sufficed instead of acting like an ass. No one was being a "dipshiat spouting" until you decided to post in the thread.


I cannot prove that HPV does not do something.  It is exceedingly difficult to prove a negative.  If you had any science education you would not have asked for that study.  I said I was unaware of any evidence whatsoever but since you posted it and said it did, I asked for a citation.  This is where you admit you were wrong, so as to not misinform people.

I don't understand how being non-technical forces you to lie?
 
2013-11-01 01:27:20 PM  

lennavan: You will have to cherry pick very specific cancers to find something with a lower than 50% survival rate.  I'll get you started - lung cancer (but not if it is detected early) is one.


Well, yeah. If you're a white female. The average for selected cancers is 50% at five years. If you're male or non-white, the average is lower.

lennavan: Yes there are cures.


What are you ranting about. I was talking about a cure for fear and misinformation, namely alternative medicine, which I  elaborated on below that. There most certainly are cures for certain cancers, ESPECIALLY Leukemias and certain tumors.

lennavan: One way your body fights off bacteria on its very own is with antibodies.  One molecular mechanism that causes breast cancer is HER2 gene duplications that results in too much HER2.  One chemotherapeutic drug is just a farking antibody against HER2.  TRULY TERRIFYING AND VERY SCARY.


This is what you see as a scientist. I was not talking about science. I was talking about the human side. I was talking about the side that people see as a layperson which scares them shiatless. This:

lh3.googleusercontent.com
And this:

download.thelancet.com

Yes. It IS very scary to the families who have to endure intractable vomiting. Who have to deal with the fact that their loved one may waste away and the fact that they perceive the drug as doing nothing to save them in the end.

So YES. Yes it is VERY terrifying to think of things like this when they see articles on the internet and in less scrupulous clinics about cancer.
 
2013-11-01 01:28:46 PM  

lennavan: I cannot prove that HPV does not do something.  It is exceedingly difficult to prove a negative.  If you had any science education you would not have asked for that study.  I said I was unaware of any evidence whatsoever but since you posted it and said it did, I asked for a citation.  This is where you admit you were wrong, so as to not misinform people.

I don't understand how being non-technical forces you to lie?


I wasn't asking you to "prove a negative". I asked for you to correct what I said by showing me a citation about that.

That's all I asked for.
 
2013-11-01 01:40:31 PM  

hardinparamedic: I wasn't asking you to "prove a negative". I asked for you to correct what I said by showing me a citation about that.


You are asking me to prove HPV does not work in a specific manner.  That is proving a negative.  You will not find that citation.

Here is what you will find:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=HPV  24,410 articles and not one single one will mention HPV causes cancer by hijacking DNA replication.  If you like, you can even find a review that summarizes the major findings of the 24,410 so you don't have to read them all.  You know, like the citation you provided that similarly lacked that evidence.

hardinparamedic: . I was talking about the human side. I was talking about the side that people see as a layperson which scares them shiatless. This:


Not all chemotherapeutics cause hair loss.  That is a common misconception, continued on by jackasses like you.

hardinparamedic: So YES. Yes it is VERY terrifying to think of things like this when they see articles on the internet and in less scrupulous clinics about cancer.


Yes.  People read on the internet posts like yours that cancer means you're going die, chemo is terrifying and going to make you go bald.  Turns out reality is different.

hardinparamedic: I was talking about a cure for fear and misinformation


Yes, it's called "you stop posting."
 
2013-11-01 02:05:31 PM  

lennavan: You are asking me to prove HPV does not work in a specific manner.  That is proving a negative.  You will not find that citation.

Here is what you will find:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=HPV  24,410 articles and not one single one will mention HPV causes cancer by hijacking DNA replication.  If you like, you can even find a review that summarizes the major findings of the 24,410 so you don't have to read them all.  You know, like the citation you provided that similarly lacked that evidence.


Since you seem to be textually deaf, let me enlist the help of Garrett Morris to tell you this.

leadership.gwabbit.com

I DID NOT ASK YOU TO "PROVE ANYTHING". I DID NOT ASK YOU TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HPV DID NOT WORK LIKE THAT. I ASKED YOU TO CITE FOR ME A RELIABLE SOURCE THAT DEMONSTRATED I WAS MISINFORMED ABOUT THE MECHANISM OF HPV.

I HAVE ALREADY ADMITTING I WAS WRONG ON THAT ASPECT.

There. Can we move on now?

lennavan: Not all chemotherapeutics cause hair loss.  That is a common misconception, continued on by jackasses like you.


And now you're making shiat up. I was pointing out it IS a common misconception. I was not continuing it. I was pointing out the popular perception of chemotherapy.

I AM IN NO WAY DISAGREEING WITH YOU. CHRIST.

lennavan:
People read on the internet posts like yours that cancer means you're going die, chemo is terrifying and going to make you go bald.  Turns out reality is different.

The third part I never said, again. I pointed out the common perception on TV and Media about it. The first part I did say. Because there is a good chance you will not be alive five years down the road. 50% is not an insignificant amount, and providers do a very shiatty job of being honest and real about cancer treatment to patients, including side effects of medications. That makes it all the more terrifying to people.

lennavan: Yes, it's called "you stop posting."


As opposed to being an unmitigated ass for no reason to someone because he asked you to correct his misgivings?
 
2013-11-01 02:08:19 PM  
Already admitting?

WTF, Autocorrect.
 
2013-11-01 02:20:17 PM  

hardinparamedic:  I WAS WRONG ON THAT ASPECT.

Yes, you sure were.  Ironic, given we're in a thread on spreading misinformation.

hardinparamedic: I was pointing out it IS a common misconception. I was not continuing it. I was pointing out the popular perception of chemotherapy.


Your method of not continuing a common misconception is to post pictures of it without ever saying it is a misconception?

Whatever.
 
2013-11-01 02:26:07 PM  

hardinparamedic: lennavan: it is quite fitting the very initial post in the thread be filled with misinformation.



Please cite which part of that post was misinformation.


The part where junk medical knowledge is specifically an American phenomenon.

/Korean fan death
/all kinds of Eastern woo
 
2013-11-01 02:28:24 PM  

Fano: The part where junk medical knowledge is specifically an American phenomenon.


Touche.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report