Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Telegraph)   Top cancer researcher: "Let's stop trying to find a cure for cancer." Still no cure for cancer   (telegraph.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Strange, University of Buckingham, gene therapy, prostate cancer, cure, cancers, breast cancer, ecosystems  
•       •       •

1644 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Aug 2014 at 9:17 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-08-29 08:22:13 AM  
It's not a tumour!
 
2014-08-29 09:22:42 AM  
Honestly, this makes a lot of sense.  Cancer is when a cell mutates due to some sort of damage to the cells.  It can come from genetics, age, eating habits, exposure, all sorts of things.  Not only that, but cancer is a range of different mutations with different behaviors.  Trying to cure cancer is somewhat of a fool's errand.  Prevention, removal, and limiting growth is probably the most effective options.  Not that I am saying we should leave masses in people, but "curing cancer" isn't something I see happening.
 
2014-08-29 09:28:40 AM  
tinyurl.com/gov74

/>8-D
//sure, slam steve jobs for being a visionary
 
2014-08-29 09:33:29 AM  
Interesting that aspirin is so notable for preventing intestinal cancer, particularly given how painkilling doses are pretty bad for the stomach.
 
2014-08-29 09:37:54 AM  
Let's give up altogether...

SHUTDOWN  EVERYTHING!
 
2014-08-29 09:40:46 AM  
/oblig
 
2014-08-29 09:41:49 AM  
Jonas Salk was the worst thing to happen for Polio fund raisers.
 
2014-08-29 09:42:00 AM  
www.phdcomics.com
/and again with 'preview'
 
2014-08-29 09:47:20 AM  

phillydrifter: tinyurl.com/gov74

/>8-D
//sure, slam steve jobs for being a visionary


http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabin oi ds-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/

Scientifically (and what I've personally seen) the evidence is inconclusive. But I always support more research (for everything).
 
2014-08-29 09:48:16 AM  
Right concept, wrong message.

It's still worth trying to find better ways of dealing with the multitude of different types of cancer that exist, and prioritizing investment in either treatments that show high success rates or types of cancer that are particularly prevalent or deadly.

But yeah, there's no such thing as "CANCER" there are just a near-infinite multitude of very different conditions that fit under that vague umbrella so you'll never find one cure for all of them but rather a wide variety of different treatment options that may vary in effectiveness.

But since it's so hard for most people to understand what cancer actually is to begin with, it's also hard to get them to understand this concept, so it's not worth the confusion of the message "stop trying to cure cancer".  You're right but you're not helping.
 
2014-08-29 09:58:38 AM  
"Cure" is a word that only matters to scientists.  If it's possible to live a normal life, and still have "cancer" or whatever disease you're afflicted with, you're "cured".

To that end, I agree that medicine, as it exists today, is too limited to support "curing" cancer.  Biotech, and specifically, nanotech, are our best hope for a "cure", and even then I'm not positive it'd do more than contain the cancer.  Engineered virii and other proposed solutions along those lines pose too great a risk, especially with the possibility of rapid mutation.
 
2014-08-29 09:59:22 AM  

sign_of_Zeta: Trying to cure cancer is somewhat of a fool's errand.


But it makes the medical community a giga shiat ton of money.
 
2014-08-29 10:00:05 AM  
I bet he's a joy to wake up to.

When I tell people a loved one had (has) ovarian cancer, they often respond with "When was she told she has ovarian cancer?"

Yeah, I understand the underlying message to their question. But who knows. Every cancer is different.
 
2014-08-29 10:08:50 AM  
I'm still waiting on a cure for stupidity.
 
2014-08-29 10:11:02 AM  
Its much more lucrative to treat cancer than to cure it.

The Free Market is save us.
 
2014-08-29 10:11:26 AM  

rlandrum: "Cure" is a word that only matters to scientists.  If it's possible to live a normal life, and still have "cancer" or whatever disease you're afflicted with, you're "cured".

To that end, I agree that medicine, as it exists today, is too limited to support "curing" cancer.  Biotech, and specifically, nanotech, are our best hope for a "cure", and even then I'm not positive it'd do more than contain the cancer.  Engineered virii and other proposed solutions along those lines pose too great a risk, especially with the possibility of rapid mutation.


100% mortality rate.

According to natural selection, it doesn't care if we don't live past 40, just that our bodies are capable of breeding enough to maintain a stable population. At some point humans started selecting for greater intelligence, which allowed us to figure out ways to live longer, and the population exploded. However, our bodies are wired to self-destruct eventually -- maybe we'll figure it out, but I doubt it'll happen for quite some time.

To truly cure cancer is to cure death.
 
2014-08-29 10:11:38 AM  

Prophet of Loss: Its much more lucrative to treat cancer than to cure it.

The Free Market will save us.


/ftfm
 
2014-08-29 10:13:44 AM  
You can't cure death, but you can push it off for a while.

Which is cure enough.
 
2014-08-29 10:14:46 AM  

sign_of_Zeta: Honestly, this makes a lot of sense.  Cancer is when a cell mutates due to some sort of damage to the cells.  It can come from genetics, age, eating habits, exposure, all sorts of things.  Not only that, but cancer is a range of different mutations with different behaviors.  Trying to cure cancer is somewhat of a fool's errand.  Prevention, removal, and limiting growth is probably the most effective options.  Not that I am saying we should leave masses in people, but "curing cancer" isn't something I see happening.


That depends on what you mean by "cure."  You can't make a vaccine for it---it's not like a virus or bacterial infection in that it's a specific species for which all members have one weakness that can exploited.  But all cancers do have something in common, which is that the body's own immune system SHOULD be stopping them.  If you can make it easy to synthesize the right antibodies and cellular markers for each individual's cancer, you could really easily cure the disease.
 
2014-08-29 10:19:52 AM  
Can we just redefine 'cure' as 'not contagious and not overly symptomatic' or 'able to lead a fairly normal life'?  If so, then I think a lot of things can be cured.
 
2014-08-29 10:24:50 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: sign_of_Zeta: Honestly, this makes a lot of sense.  Cancer is when a cell mutates due to some sort of damage to the cells.  It can come from genetics, age, eating habits, exposure, all sorts of things.  Not only that, but cancer is a range of different mutations with different behaviors.  Trying to cure cancer is somewhat of a fool's errand.  Prevention, removal, and limiting growth is probably the most effective options.  Not that I am saying we should leave masses in people, but "curing cancer" isn't something I see happening.

That depends on what you mean by "cure."  You can't make a vaccine for it---it's not like a virus or bacterial infection in that it's a specific species for which all members have one weakness that can exploited.  But all cancers do have something in common, which is that the body's own immune system SHOULD be stopping them.  If you can make it easy to synthesize the right antibodies and cellular markers for each individual's cancer, you could really easily cure the disease.


Until the body's immune system becomes diseased itself.
 
2014-08-29 10:30:56 AM  

Iszael: Can we just redefine 'cure' as 'not contagious and not overly symptomatic' or 'able to lead a fairly normal life'?  If so, then I think a lot of things can be cured.


Well, to start with, cancer is never contagious.
 
2014-08-29 10:38:59 AM  
I'd like to see some clever person come up with a viral fundraising gimmick to pay for basic research. You know, to discover something about the human body and how it works that we don't already know. Just because we don't know about it yet. Do that on a sufficient scale and we'll learn things we didn't know we wanted to know, and probably wind up curing (or managing) a few diseases and cancers in the process.

It'll be like the Hubbell Dark Field photo, when somebody thought "let's look ... there, maybe it'll be interesting."
 
2014-08-29 10:47:11 AM  

phaseolus: I'd like to see some clever person come up with a viral fundraising gimmick to pay for basic research.


Oh, please don't give the neocons another excuse to cut science funding.
 
2014-08-29 10:48:10 AM  
Nanotech will decimate cancer

You just wait. Tiny little robots will kill your cancer
 
2014-08-29 11:12:09 AM  
Saying "Cure For Cancer" is like saying"Cure for Virus" (to quote SMBC)

cman: Nanotech will decimate cancer

You just wait. Tiny little robots will kill your cancer


Nanobots are a really, REALLY long way off, but! (As in, really, REALLY far, if we are talking sci-fi nanobots. If those nanobots are even *possible*.

There are nevertheless a number of exciting cancer treatments coming out of the nanotech field, yes
.
/Though there is also the concern/question about the long-term issues of some of the metal nanoparticles. Even if non-toxic, they may bio-accumulate and cause the body to encapsulate them, etc... which could cause other issues.
//I swear to god the MSDS for gold nanoparticles basically goes "WE DON'T KNOW! fark, if we'd injected the rats with this much SALINE they'd be dead by now, alright? We can't tell if this has any long term effects or not!"
///Still, exciting field!
 
2014-08-29 11:14:55 AM  
He hasn't asked Watson yet, apparently.
 
2014-08-29 11:32:06 AM  
(deleted: headline fixed)

I still think that we should not stop trying to find a cure fore skin cancer.
 
2014-08-29 11:37:35 AM  

Geotpf: Iszael: Can we just redefine 'cure' as 'not contagious and not overly symptomatic' or 'able to lead a fairly normal life'?  If so, then I think a lot of things can be cured.

Well, to start with, cancer is never contagious.


Um......it can be.  It happens in Dogs, Tasmanian Devils and Hamsters.  There are however plenty of viruses and possibly some bacteria that cause cancer.  They certainly can be contagious.  So yeah, you (as a human) cannot directly contract cancer from another human (thanks to genetic diversity) but you could come into contact with a virus or bacteria that causes cancer.
 
2014-08-29 11:52:40 AM  

AKA Joker: Geotpf: Iszael: Can we just redefine 'cure' as 'not contagious and not overly symptomatic' or 'able to lead a fairly normal life'?  If so, then I think a lot of things can be cured.

Well, to start with, cancer is never contagious.

Um......it can be.  It happens in Dogs, Tasmanian Devils and Hamsters.  There are however plenty of viruses and possibly some bacteria that cause cancer.  They certainly can be contagious.  So yeah, you (as a human) cannot directly contract cancer from another human (thanks to genetic diversity) but you could come into contact with a virus or bacteria that causes cancer.


I'm just glad HELA cells aren't infectious.  Of course given the safeguards used to work with human cells in culture... There might be infectious HELA strains out there that just haven't had the chance to infect anyone yet. *cue theremin music*
 
2014-08-29 12:12:45 PM  
"....  and let's start focusing on the removal of the known carcinogens in our environment that cause cancer."
 
2014-08-29 01:15:37 PM  
We all have to die some how some time. Cancer is the means to an end.
 
2014-08-29 01:26:13 PM  
Need to stop treating cancer as if it is a viral or bacterial disease like smallpox or something. It's a condition. People need to stop thinking about it as otherwise.
 
2014-08-29 01:38:38 PM  
Agrees:

cdn.mos.totalfilm.com
 
2014-08-29 02:35:59 PM  
Professor Mel Greaves, an expert in childhood leukaemia, said developing more advanced cures would only lead to cancer cells becoming more resistant to treatment.

farm4.static.flickr.com
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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