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.

(Reuters)   We might have to retire one of our favorite memes: it looks like there might be a cure for cancer   (reuters.com) divider line 95
    More: Spiffy, Amgen, cure for cancer, melanomas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, memes, David Chang, immune systems, skin cancers  
•       •       •

14144 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Mar 2014 at 2:56 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-17 01:35:26 PM
I hate to seem like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat and covering my loins in bacon to keep the radio waves out, but there will never be a cure for cancer as long as the profit is in treating it.

As long as pharmaceutical companies can keep you alive and with a fairly decent quality of life due to being hooked on the drugs they make and sell to you, that's what we will get. The day the cure becomes more profitable than a longterm treatment, that's when it will be cured.

Now, if you'll excuse me, Mittens and I need to go check under the bed for drones.

cdn8.keeptalkinggreece.com
 
2014-03-17 01:41:50 PM
We might have to retire one of our favorite memes: it looks like might be a cure for a specific type of cancer

Not to rain on the good news, but the article refers to melanoma. There are many types of cancer, which is why it's such a bastard. It can have different causes, symptoms and reactions to treatments.

Still good news, though.
 
2014-03-17 02:01:16 PM

miss diminutive: We might have to retire one of our favorite memes: it looks like might be a cure for a specific type of cancer

Not to rain on the good news, but the article refers to melanoma. There are many types of cancer, which is why it's such a bastard. It can have different causes, symptoms and reactions to treatments.

Still good news, though.


it did say that it shrank other tumors not directly injected. if it can "prime" the immune system to shrink melanomas, maybe they can develop a version to shrink other masses. just a thought.
 
2014-03-17 02:24:25 PM

FlashHarry: miss diminutive: We might have to retire one of our favorite memes: it looks like might be a cure for a specific type of cancer

Not to rain on the good news, but the article refers to melanoma. There are many types of cancer, which is why it's such a bastard. It can have different causes, symptoms and reactions to treatments.

Still good news, though.

it did say that it shrank other tumors not directly injected. if it can "prime" the immune system to shrink melanomas, maybe they can develop a version to shrink other masses. just a thought.


Let's hope so. Cancer needs to be taken down a peg.
 
2014-03-17 02:31:49 PM

FirstNationalBastard: I hate to seem like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat and covering my loins in bacon to keep the radio waves out, but there will never be a cure for cancer as long as the profit is in treating it.


There's logic in that, it's a common opinion but there has to be doctors and scientists out there who genuinely want to cure cancer and don't care about money made from continual treatments.

Melanoma though? One of the most preventable of cancers? Put on some sun block. Cure cancer of the balls.
 
2014-03-17 02:32:40 PM

miss diminutive: FlashHarry: miss diminutive: We might have to retire one of our favorite memes: it looks like might be a cure for a specific type of cancer

Not to rain on the good news, but the article refers to melanoma. There are many types of cancer, which is why it's such a bastard. It can have different causes, symptoms and reactions to treatments.

Still good news, though.

it did say that it shrank other tumors not directly injected. if it can "prime" the immune system to shrink melanomas, maybe they can develop a version to shrink other masses. just a thought.

Let's hope so. Cancer needs to be taken down a peg.


Hell, the word cancer is tossed around like a $2 whore at a group meeting.

Still no cure for cancer. EVAR
 
2014-03-17 02:52:48 PM
At this point, "Hey, there IS a cure for cancer!" headlines are their own meme.
 
2014-03-17 02:59:06 PM
Dont tell me someone killed Bruce McCulloch.
 
2014-03-17 03:00:26 PM
To claim that we've cured cancer is to claim that we've cured aging.
 
2014-03-17 03:04:14 PM
Still not cure for Doge
 
2014-03-17 03:05:30 PM
I really need to organize my pictures. I have like 5 different comics that criticize the dramatization and exaggeration of science news but they're taking too long for me to find
 
2014-03-17 03:07:05 PM
Phew...I was thinking for a second that maybe my dog wanted tofu.
 
2014-03-17 03:07:44 PM

miss diminutive: We might have to retire one of our favorite memes: it looks like might be a cure for a specific type of cancer

Not to rain on the good news, but the article refers to melanoma. There are many types of cancer, which is why it's such a bastard. It can have different causes, symptoms and reactions to treatments.

Still good news, though.


I think we may be approaching a convergence of various treatments that could soon collectively cover a lot of ground in treating all sorts of cancers.  I recently got this from World Community Grid to whom I've been giving CPU cycles since 2007.

"With the help of volunteers participating in the IBM World Community Grid initiative, we have just discovered seven new drug candidates that could potentially be used in new medicines that fight childhood neuroblastoma. These drug candidates work by activating a self-destruct mechanism present in neuroblastoma cancer cells, killing them without affecting healthy cells. [...] our findings may have implications for treating adult cancers as well. "
 
2014-03-17 03:10:12 PM

SomeAmerican: To claim that we've cured cancer is to claim that we've cured aging.


That would be good, too.
 
2014-03-17 03:10:52 PM
Still no cure for religion?
 
2014-03-17 03:11:01 PM

FirstNationalBastard: As long as pharmaceutical companies can keep you alive and with a fairly decent quality of life due to being hooked on the drugs they make and sell to you, that's what we will get. The day the cure becomes more profitable than a longterm treatment, that's when it will be cured.


You speak about pharmaceutical companies like they're a huge monolith. Even if your conspiracy theory is correct, there's companies not making money off cancer treatment. A cure for cancer (even just one type of it) would mean not just massive riches, but Nobel Prizes and no end of recognition. They'd definitely not say to themselves "Oh, Merck is making a ton of cash off chemo drugs, we don't want to cut into their profits and actually CURE this form of cancer." Hell no, that's just stupid to think that way.

Moreover, you're insinuating that everybody, top to bottom, in the companies are profit driven and eager to see people suffer if they can make more money on treatments than cures. That's just not the case. If a pharmaceutical company developed an actual cure for some form of cancer (be it melanoma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, or whatever) but sat on it because they didn't think it would be profitable you'd see researchers coming out of the woodwork to tell the world about it.
 
2014-03-17 03:11:09 PM
So, after curing cancer they still need to cure cancer?
 
2014-03-17 03:12:22 PM

hammettman: Still no cure for religion?


Pray on it.
 
2014-03-17 03:13:50 PM
So "Tanning Mom" might just survive after all.
 
2014-03-17 03:14:54 PM
FTA: laherparepvec

One of the finest single-malts, IMHO.
 
2014-03-17 03:16:53 PM

techgeek07: So "Tanning Mom" might just survive after all.


There had to be a downside.
 
2014-03-17 03:17:17 PM
patricksponaugle.files.wordpress.com

/be carful
 
2014-03-17 03:18:47 PM
Sooooo the name of this thing is "T-vec", and it's a synthetic virus. Therefore someone is making a T-virus. I'm going to start practicing my head shots....
 
2014-03-17 03:19:39 PM

SomeAmerican: To claim that we've cured cancer is to claim that we've cured aging.


Uh, no.

See my reference to childhood neuroblastoma above.  Cancer doesn't really discriminate by age except that the longer you're around, the more likely it is for some of your cells to go mutant by exposure to the environment or just by fark-it, it's your turn.
 
2014-03-17 03:19:44 PM

FirstNationalBastard: I hate to seem like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat and covering my loins in bacon to keep the radio waves out, but there will never be a cure for cancer as long as the profit is in treating it.

As long as pharmaceutical companies can keep you alive and with a fairly decent quality of life due to being hooked on the drugs they make and sell to you, that's what we will get. The day the cure becomes more profitable than a longterm treatment, that's when it will be cured.

Now, if you'll excuse me, Mittens and I need to go check under the bed for drones.

[cdn8.keeptalkinggreece.com image 600x450]


Again, here is why this argument is wrong, and full of faulty logic:

Cancer is not smallpox. Cancer is not polio. If we cured every current incidence of cancer in the world today, that would not mean the pharmaceutical company could no longer make money on cancer. Do you know why?

BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD STILL GET CANCER. A cancer cure would be a license to print money!
 
2014-03-17 03:19:54 PM

akula: FirstNationalBastard: As long as pharmaceutical companies can keep you alive and with a fairly decent quality of life due to being hooked on the drugs they make and sell to you, that's what we will get. The day the cure becomes more profitable than a longterm treatment, that's when it will be cured.

You speak about pharmaceutical companies like they're a huge monolith. Even if your conspiracy theory is correct, there's companies not making money off cancer treatment. A cure for cancer (even just one type of it) would mean not just massive riches, but Nobel Prizes and no end of recognition. They'd definitely not say to themselves "Oh, Merck is making a ton of cash off chemo drugs, we don't want to cut into their profits and actually CURE this form of cancer." Hell no, that's just stupid to think that way.

Moreover, you're insinuating that everybody, top to bottom, in the companies are profit driven and eager to see people suffer if they can make more money on treatments than cures. That's just not the case. If a pharmaceutical company developed an actual cure for some form of cancer (be it melanoma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, or whatever) but sat on it because they didn't think it would be profitable you'd see researchers coming out of the woodwork to tell the world about it.


THIS

Plus, don't forget the very very very very rich get cancer too.
 
2014-03-17 03:20:49 PM
>The drug, talimogene laherparepvec, also known as T-vec, is an engineered virus

>T Virus.

Oh this sounds like a WONDERFUL idea!
 
2014-03-17 03:25:05 PM
 
2014-03-17 03:32:23 PM
I'll believe cancer is cured when some bimbo is claiming that the widely used cancer cure is really bad for you and shouldn't be given to your children. When people forget how bad it was then you can claim it's cured.
 
2014-03-17 03:33:25 PM
Thats why we need to take the profit motive out of healthcare.

When the cure means we all pay less taxes, youll be surprised at how healthy everyone will be.

Single payer cant get here fast enough.
 
2014-03-17 03:34:01 PM
BRB, getting my red-haired self out into the sun for that healthy glow.
 
2014-03-17 03:35:08 PM

FlashHarry: miss diminutive: We might have to retire one of our favorite memes: it looks like might be a cure for a specific type of cancer

Not to rain on the good news, but the article refers to melanoma. There are many types of cancer, which is why it's such a bastard. It can have different causes, symptoms and reactions to treatments.

Still good news, though.

it did say that it shrank other tumors not directly injected. if it can "prime" the immune system to shrink melanomas, maybe they can develop a version to shrink other masses. just a thought.


Uh, guys, they DID speculate about the liver and lung -- that's nicely distinct from melanomas...

"We also want to see responses in distant lesions that are not injected such as in the liver, in the lung and other places," Andtbacka explained.
Of those so-called visceral tumors on solid organs, 15 percent shrank by at least 50 percent, said Andtbacka, who presented the data at the Society of Surgical Oncology Cancer Symposium in Phoenix.
"This indicates to us that we have activation of the immune system to fight these tumors at a distant site," Andtbacka said.
 
2014-03-17 03:41:39 PM

Mugato: FirstNationalBastard: I hate to seem like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat and covering my loins in bacon to keep the radio waves out, but there will never be a cure for cancer as long as the profit is in treating it.

There's logic in that, it's a common opinion but there has to be doctors and scientists out there who genuinely want to cure cancer and don't care about money made from continual treatments.

Melanoma though? One of the most preventable of cancers? Put on some sun block. Cure cancer of the balls.


Whatever...PIMPLE POPPER!

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-03-17 03:42:58 PM

akula: FirstNationalBastard: As long as pharmaceutical companies can keep you alive and with a fairly decent quality of life due to being hooked on the drugs they make and sell to you, that's what we will get. The day the cure becomes more profitable than a longterm treatment, that's when it will be cured.

You speak about pharmaceutical companies like they're a huge monolith. Even if your conspiracy theory is correct, there's companies not making money off cancer treatment. A cure for cancer (even just one type of it) would mean not just massive riches, but Nobel Prizes and no end of recognition. They'd definitely not say to themselves "Oh, Merck is making a ton of cash off chemo drugs, we don't want to cut into their profits and actually CURE this form of cancer." Hell no, that's just stupid to think that way.

Moreover, you're insinuating that everybody, top to bottom, in the companies are profit driven and eager to see people suffer if they can make more money on treatments than cures. That's just not the case. If a pharmaceutical company developed an actual cure for some form of cancer (be it melanoma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, or whatever) but sat on it because they didn't think it would be profitable you'd see researchers coming out of the woodwork to tell the world about it.


I'm sure that researchers would agree to let their loved ones and themselves die just so their God Emperor CEO can get another ivory backscratcher.
 
2014-03-17 03:47:25 PM
There will never be a "cure for cancer" because CANCER ISN'T JUST ONE THING!

Jesus, how do people still not get this?
 
2014-03-17 03:48:10 PM

FirstNationalBastard: I hate to seem like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat and covering my loins in bacon to keep the radio waves out, but there will never be a cure for cancer as long as the profit is in treating it.

As long as pharmaceutical companies can keep you alive and with a fairly decent quality of life due to being hooked on the drugs they make and sell to you, that's what we will get. The day the cure becomes more profitable than a longterm treatment, that's when it will be cured.

Now, if you'll excuse me, Mittens and I need to go check under the bed for drones.

[cdn8.keeptalkinggreece.com image 600x450]


That cat's expression is priceless. I think it will attempt to give you melanoma while you sleep.
 
2014-03-17 03:48:30 PM
I suspect Amgen just made this up to stoke their stock prices. I can tell because it's obvious they got the name of the drug and the researcher by pulling random letters out of a Scrabble box. Study it out!
 
2014-03-17 03:50:53 PM

steveGswine: SomeAmerican: To claim that we've cured cancer is to claim that we've cured aging.

That would be good, too.


Be careful what you wish for. You cure aging and you'll see a social/economic/ethical realignment the likes that we have never seen before.

Think the 1% are bad now, make them effectively immortal and see how things go.

Of course, you could just make everyone unaging, but then we're farked from a population standpoint. I'm not saying its not possible that people might be able to adapt (maybe with a one out, one in system), but its going to social chaos for at least two generations.
 
2014-03-17 03:51:35 PM

SomeAmerican: To claim that we've cured cancer is to claim that we've cured aging.


We have all kinds of cures for aging:.

static.ddmcdn.com
www.bankruptcylitigationblog.com
3.bp.blogspot.com

To name a few.
 
2014-03-17 03:51:53 PM
At least it wasn't one of those petri dish studies...

/I poured bleach in a petri dish, the cancer sample died!  I cured cancer!
 
2014-03-17 03:54:12 PM

mediablitz: There will never be a "cure for cancer" because CANCER ISN'T JUST ONE THING!


No, but there are recent drug developments, such as mentioned in TFA as well as my earlier link which could be wind up being effective beyond their initial target cancer.

As explained about the 7 neuroblastoma treatment candidates:

"Our research team at the Chiba Cancer Center... have just discovered seven new drug candidates that could potentially be used in new medicines that fight childhood neuroblastoma. These drug candidates work by activating a self-destruct mechanism present in neuroblastoma cancer cells, killing them without affecting healthy cells.

Neuroblastoma cells have a receptor on their surfaces called TrkB. When molecules bind to the TrkB receptor and inhibit its function, a tumor suppressor gene called p53 is activated, causing the neuroblastoma cell to self-destruct in a process called apoptosis. Apoptosis is one of the body's natural processes, and ordinarily helps to eliminate damaged cells before they can form a tumor. However, the TrkB receptor in neuroblastoma suppresses this self-destruct function. A similar TrkB process is involved when many adult cancers, including breast, lung, pancreatic, prostate, and colon cancers, metastasize (i.e. spread beyond an initial site). This means our findings may have implications for treating adult cancers as well. "
 
2014-03-17 03:55:03 PM

mediablitz: There will never be a "cure for cancer" because CANCER ISN'T JUST ONE THING!


Exactly. It's a class of more-or-less related-ish diseases, not just the one.
 
2014-03-17 03:57:05 PM
And not a moment too soon either, cuz...

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-17 03:57:47 PM
There's too much money in fundraising to ever really solve anything.
 
2014-03-17 03:59:00 PM

akula: You speak about pharmaceutical companies like they're a huge monolith


Uh...they are.
 
2014-03-17 04:01:02 PM
As modern medicine improves and cures everything else, cancer is the condition that will kill us all. Cancer is defined as cells that change for the worse (mutate) to grow out of control (a malignancy). There is nothing that can stop this from happening eventually, and all of us have mutated cells in our bodies that are not growing out of control (and unfortunately some of us that do have). Maybe it means that we can live for 150 years or more, but eventually some cells will get out of hand and that will be the end of you.

When cancer grows out of control it is still the same cancer. When melanoma starts spreading throughout your body and reaches, for example, your liver, it is not liver cancer. It is still melanoma. That is to say that melanoma drugs ought to work regardless of where it has spread. The problem can be that x cancer drugs are harmless to your x but harmful to your y. y being perhaps your liver, and that would be called liver toxicity.

Sources: Recent scientific research and friends and relatives with cancer.
 
2014-03-17 04:01:04 PM

Fano: I'm sure that researchers would agree to let their loved ones and themselves die just so their God Emperor CEO can get another ivory backscratcher.


Briggs-Myers may or may not be horse hockey, but if there's any robustness at all to it, INTPs (often scientists) tend to be crusading idealists when provoked and wouldn't tolerate someone sitting on a cure. INTJs (often engineers) tend to be crusading cynics when provoked and have very little tolerance for marketing/management shenanigans. They wouldn't tolerate someone sitting on a cure either.
 
2014-03-17 04:01:24 PM

Kheben: >The drug, talimogene laherparepvec, also known as T-vec, is an engineered virus

>T Virus.

Oh this sounds like a WONDERFUL idea!


My thoughts exactly.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-17 04:02:00 PM
If we ever cure any of the big killers (like cancer or AIDS) we'd better be prepared for the extra people staying alive longer.  As it stands, the extra population would put quite a strain on us IMHO.
 
2014-03-17 04:05:10 PM
Since when did Fark become a den of conspiracy theorists? I hope the sane comments in this thread have convinced those who think companies would withhold a cure for any type of cancer otherwise.
 
Displayed 50 of 95 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report