6 Common Misconceptions About Cancer

Today we take a look at six misconceptions about cancer that seem plausible, but just don't hold up.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BAKzzV8Pw4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGeGqe2wFa4

I can post numerous youtube videos of people claiming to be cured from cancer using alternative treatments but you will say they are fake - so why are your video's any more reliable than mine ?

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:I can post numerous youtube videos of people claiming to be cured from cancer using alternative treatments but you will say they are fake - so why are your video's any more reliable than mine ?

I am sure you can, these though are back up with science, not bullshit

Thorin wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:I can post numerous youtube videos of people claiming to be cured from cancer using alternative treatments but you will say they are fake - so why are your video's any more reliable than mine ?

I am sure you can, these though are back up with science, not bullshit

It's not very good science if it can't cure .

Also the personal testimonies of people who claim they are cured is far better evidence than your non cure .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I am sure you can, these though are back up with science, not bullshit

It's not very good science if it can't cure .

Also the personal testimonies of people who claim they are cured is far better evidence than your non cure .

That is because there never will be one single cure, because there is so many types of cancer and the fact due to mutation, which can be different to another person with the same cancer. So a treatment could cure this in one person and fail with another. There will never be a single cure for cancer, but eventually have many different methods that will cure cancer for some or many people.

Yes thorin , you are right
the "cure" wont be like an antibiotic for cancer, but highly individually tailored "bespoke" treatments for each and every patient....

probaly requiring the use of genetic engineering etc

Lord Foul wrote:Yes thorin , you are right
the "cure" wont be like an antibiotic for cancer, but highly individually tailored "bespoke" treatments for each and every patient....

probaly requiring the use of genetic engineering  etc

Agreed and glad you saw this answer, saves me writing on the other one.
Like I say the best way forward with treating cancer is like with combating a computer virus, and funnily enough Microsoft are actually looking to develop such a possible cure.

I think this could lead to some major breakthroughs, but again because of the many different types of cancer and how in each person the mutations of the same cancers complicate the chances of cures, will still make it difficult.

Have a read is very interesting.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/microsoft-cancer-cure-research-solved-machine-learning-cells-programming-diseases-a7317616.html

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I am sure you can, these though are back up with science, not bullshit

It's not very good science if it can't cure .

Also the personal testimonies of people who claim they are cured is far better evidence than your non cure .

@VoD : "Personal testimonies" are neither 'evidence' nor 'proof'...

They are simply more chaff to fuel the fake claims from usurious quack cure merchants..

You obviously know zero about science, medicine, alternative therapies --  or indeed, the actual meaning of terms such as "cure, treatment, evidence, proof, opinions, onus, and methodogy."

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

It's not very good science if it can't cure .

Also the personal testimonies of people who claim they are cured is far better evidence than your non cure .

@VoD :  "Personal testimonies" are neither 'evidence' nor 'proof'...

They are simply more chaff to fuel the fake claims from usurious quack cure merchants..

You obviously know zero about science, medicine, alternative therapies --  or indeed, the actual meaning of terms such as "cure, treatment, evidence, proof, opinions, onus, and methodogy."        

the personal testimonies are proof when they can show medical re testing and cancer has gone not just into remission .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


@VoD :  "Personal testimonies" are neither 'evidence' nor 'proof'...

They are simply more chaff to fuel the fake claims from usurious quack cure merchants..

You obviously know zero about science, medicine, alternative therapies --  or indeed, the actual meaning of terms such as "cure, treatment, evidence, proof, opinions, onus, and methodogy."        

the personal testimonies are proof when they can show medical re testing and cancer has gone not just into remission .

No, that is called hearsay.

Show me the test results to show what they claimed cured them , was actually what cured them?

bloody hell, this again

Only something like 50 percent of people survive cancer over a ten year period.  74 percent of woman survive for one year after diagnosis.  To me,, that's not really high enough.  

So, although all we have at the moment is chemo, it often fails and the victims die anyway. It's not the answer.

A common misconception is to treat five-year survival as the point of 'cure'. However, survival continues to fall beyond five years after diagnosis for many cancer types.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/survival/all-cancers-combined#heading-Zero

HoratioTarr wrote:Only something like 50 percent of people survive cancer over a ten year period.  74 percent of woman survive for one year after diagnosis.  To me,, that's not really high enough.  

So, although all we have at the moment is chemo, it often fails and the victims die anyway.    It's not the answer.

A common misconception is to treat five-year survival as the point of 'cure'. However, survival continues to fall beyond five years after diagnosis for many cancer types.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/survival/all-cancers-combined#heading-Zero

Nobody said it was the answer but it offers at present the best chances of survival

No it doesn't .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:No it doesn't .

Yes it does.

There are more promising methods in the testing phase but at present these are the best options.

there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a 'cure' is....

And cancer is only ever in remission,
never cured only in remission long enough to die of something else.

I don't think we can 'cure' cancer until we can 'cure' aging. it is a by product of cellar reproduction and damaged DNA... the same as aging.

veya_victaous wrote:there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a 'cure' is....

And cancer is only ever in remission,
never cured only in remission long enough to die of something else.

I don't think we can 'cure' cancer until we can 'cure' aging. it is a by product of cellar reproduction and damaged DNA... the same as aging.

That is a very fair view point, but to me you cure it like a computer virus is cleaned from a PC, through programming cells. Or reprogramming them as the case maybe

I avoid reading anything about Cancer, sets anxiety off.

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a 'cure' is....

And cancer is only ever in remission,
never cured only in remission long enough to die of something else.

I don't think we can 'cure' cancer until we can 'cure' aging. it is a by product of cellar reproduction and damaged DNA... the same as aging.

That is a very fair view point, but to me you cure it like a computer virus is cleaned from a PC, through programming cells. Or reprogramming them as the case maybe

exactly
if we could reprogram cells we could prevent aging.
It would actually probably be easier, cause you just working out how to stop DNA degrading.
as opposed to trying to fix degraded DNA in Critically degraded cells.

to use your analogy of a computer virus the 'virus' is 'the degrading of DNA' a.k.a. aging

although personally I am all for conscious transfer into a superior vessel

it is truly an exciting time, we are on the cusp of multiple technologies that would provide 'functional immortality'. we would no be the first species with it either there are some Microscopic sea life that's DNA seems to have a reset button when they age too much they go through a process of 'rebirth' where almost all their cells are restored.
there is also Methuselah trees that's DNA is some how 'un-damageable' ....

research into these functionally immortal life forms has yet to reveal the nuts and bolts of it, but it does seem to be biologically possible so we should be able to replicate it somehow.

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


That is a very fair view point, but to me you cure it like a computer virus is cleaned from a PC, through programming cells. Or reprogramming them as the case maybe

exactly
if we could reprogram cells we could prevent aging.
It would actually probably be easier, cause you just working out how to stop DNA degrading.
as opposed to trying  to fix degraded DNA in Critically degraded cells.

to use your analogy of a computer virus the 'virus' is 'the degrading of DNA' a.k.a. aging

although personally I am all for conscious transfer into a superior vessel

it is truly an exciting time, we are on the cusp of multiple technologies that would provide 'functional immortality'. we would no be the first species with it either there are some Microscopic sea life that's DNA seems to have a reset button when they age too much they go through a process of 'rebirth' where almost all their cells are restored.
there is also Methuselah trees that's DNA is some how 'un-damageable' ....

research into these functionally immortal life forms has yet to reveal the nuts and bolts of it, but it does seem to be biologically possible so we should be able to replicate it somehow.

Microsoft is actually trying to cure cancer this way

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/microsoft-cancer-cure-research-solved-machine-learning-cells-programming-diseases-a7317616.html

they are using the sea-life research I mentioned, Same methodology for achieving functional immortality. in practical terms it will probably resulting a 'reimage button'. like when you use a system restore disk on a PC.
hard to imagine what such a process would be for large complex lifeforms like ourselves.
I'm thinking an injection of nanobots or some sort of 'cocoon' process that rapidly resets our cells. but who know what someone will come up with between now and then.

If you look 'short term' section you will notice they are going to use 'learning computers' these are the beginnings of 'skynet'. Each of these learning systems have amazing potential to correlate huge amounts of data, each of them is specialist in a particular thing. the first where in the fields mathematics and Physics(things computers excel at) these new ones are amazing in their ability to correlate 'soft data'. Microsoft plan is to use one of these to become a medical expert, when they are complete there will be single unit that possess ALL the medical knowledge, and hopefully with that it will know the answers.

Completing Skynet will just be interlinking these 'learning systems' and having the capacity to make new 'learning systems'.
'Science fiction' will become reality. like so many other 'Science fictions' that we have made reality

Oncologist told me the only cure for cancer is to catch it early and cut it out before secondarys occur. Chemo isn't a cure, it just gives the patient an extra few months or two years if they're lucky.

Sadly too many any cancers are caught too late.

veya_victaous wrote:they are using the sea-life research I mentioned, Same methodology for achieving functional immortality. in practical terms it will probably resulting a 'reimage button'. like when you use a system restore disk on a PC.
hard to imagine what such a process would be for large complex lifeforms like ourselves.  
I'm thinking an injection of nanobots or some sort of 'cocoon' process that rapidly resets our cells. but who know what someone will come up with between now and then.

If you look 'short term' section you will notice they are going to use 'learning computers' these are the beginnings of 'skynet'. Each of these learning systems have amazing potential to correlate huge amounts of data, each of them is specialist in a particular thing. the first where in the fields mathematics and Physics(things computers excel at) these new ones are amazing in their ability to correlate 'soft data'. Microsoft plan is to use one of these to become a medical expert, when they are complete there will be single unit that possess ALL the medical knowledge, and hopefully with that it will know the answers.

Completing Skynet will just be interlinking these 'learning systems' and having the capacity to make new 'learning systems'.
'Science fiction' will become reality. like so many other 'Science fictions' that we have made reality

The world we live in, is killing us.

@HT
Umm no, we don't live for ever.
You like everything else is born to die, the world we live in keeps us alive FAR FAR longer than nature will. this is one of problem with the way people in this thread are treating a 'cure'. How many cures do you want how much magic? literally on average we live twice as long as our ancestors.

If it where NOT all the modern miracles that  are part of our world at 33 I would be a old man. If I lived to 40 I'd be ancient.
now Most people in modern western nations live past 70
in ancient Egypt to live past 50 and people thought you where touched by the gods since so few did.
Rameses the second lived to the age of 77 and there are 2 generation that where born and died under his rule. And he was literally thought to be a living god .

Cancer treatments are moving forwards.

This Manchester man treated at the Christie is one of only 12 people worldwide who has been treated with this new drug combination.
He was given a short time to live....he is now presently free of cancer.
Hopeful news for many.


http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/christie-patient-left-no-trace-12556940

Good news indeed Syl. It gives hope and that's the one thing anybody suffering or have someone close suffering with this terrible disease needs in abundance. Hope.

veya_victaous wrote:@HT
Umm no, we don't live for ever.
You like everything else is born to die, the world we live in keeps us alive FAR FAR longer than nature will. this is one of problem with the way people in this thread are treating a 'cure'. How many cures do you want how much magic? literally on average we live twice as long as our ancestors.

If it where NOT all the modern miracles that  are part of our world at 33 I would be a old man. If I lived to 40 I'd be ancient.
now Most people in modern western nations live past 70
in ancient Egypt to live past 50 and people thought you where touched by the gods since so few did.
Rameses the second lived to the age of 77 and there are 2 generation that where born and died under his rule. And he was literally thought to be a living god .

Well, children get cancer. You expect an older person to perhaps get it, but not a child. More and more kids are being born with asthma and allergies. Child cancer rates are up by 38 percent since the 1960s. Slowly, it's crawling up to the halfway mark. One has to ask why?

Syl wrote:Cancer treatments are moving forwards.

This Manchester man treated at the Christie is one of only 12  people worldwide who has been treated with this new drug combination.
He was given a short time to live....he is now presently  free of cancer.
Hopeful news for many.


http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/christie-patient-left-no-trace-12556940

And Lo and Behold, It combines the drug with an immunotherapy treatment with the intention to make it more effective. Immunotherapy treatments harness and enhance the innate powers of the immune system to fight cancer.

Anything, no matter how small, or seemingly insignificant, that aids the body to heal doesn't do any harm. So long as you don't claim it to be a cure all. When you have chemo, it's not claimed to be a cure all. The doctor doesn't say...have chemo and you'll be cured. It's all about your own body's capacity to heal itself. Lending a helping hand, be it with drugs or simply relieving stress and anxiety holistically, is all good in my books.

@ht
evolution, the more we assist those with faulty genes to reach adulthood and pass on their genes. the more that are born with inherited faulty genes. sad harsh reality of the situation. Plus older mothers the eggs DNA has degraded leading to increased medical complications.

I do think some aspects are made worse with the environmental factors. but it Also due to better diagnostics that we know they have died of cancer rather than being unknown deaths. the largest increase have been in nervous system and brain tumors that many not have been identified with the medical equipment available in the 1960's.

and 38% increase is not near halfway. it is an increase on the affected rate. it has gone from 0.013% to 0.017%.
https://curesearch.org/Incidence-Rates-Over-Time


here is a good one it is older but it is a properly referenced science article and not seeking donations of any fiscal influence.
http://www.envirohealthpolicy.net/kidstest/Cancer%20Pages/IncreasingChildhoodCancer.htm

Cancer research is a big industry and some are less scrupulous than others in the way they represent data.

since when have cancer rates been rap[idly increasing? since the late 1940's

when did various countries start nuclear testing ...and therby dumping plutonium into the environment

since the late 1940's

how bad a trigger for cancer is plutonium.....very very very bad...ONE particle of plutonium dust can trigger cancer

It is long lived in the environment

1000's pounds of it have been distributed as the finest imaginable dust from nuclear tests....

bear in mind when a plutonium device id detonated many pound of plutonium are used as the core....only about 1% or less is converted into energy..The rest just kinda gets vapourised....and condenses out as a very fine dust....

Lord Foul wrote:since when have cancer rates been rap[idly increasing?  since the late 1940's

when did various countries start nuclear testing ...and therby dumping plutonium into the environment

since the late 1940's

how bad a trigger for cancer is plutonium.....very very very bad...ONE particle of plutonium dust can trigger cancer

It is long lived in the environment

1000's pounds of it have been distributed as the finest imaginable dust from nuclear tests....

bear in mind when a plutonium device id detonated many pound of plutonium are used as the core....only about 1% or less is converted into energy..The rest just kinda gets vapourised....and condenses out as a very fine dust....

It's more than that though. We contaminate our air, our water and our food chain. The food we're encouraged to eat is full of antibiotics, growth hormones, sugar, salt, additives, chemicals. Where I live in Manchester, you can drive out to somewhere like Winter Hill, in Bolton, and see the dirty yellow brown soup of pollution hanging over the city.

Banning Diesel cars from city centres might help, but delivery lorries,
Buses etc and private cars that run on diesel make it a no no.