How do we actually cure cancer?

checked

Friend of mine has cancer right now and after the chemo establishes a viable foothold, they'll be treating it with surgical removal of the bad tissues and implanting stem cells to regrow healthy tissue in its place.

It's a form of lymphoma currently isolated in his stomach, but the same methodology could likely be used for other variants.

It's closer to maritime hull-patching than full on R&R but until your orbital organ farm becomes a thing, it has great potential.

Granted, these are still technically treatments rather than cures, but it's still massive progress.

For people who already have it's probably impossible to get better than in currently is. In order to reduce incidence, there's prevention and possible developments in genetics with better DNA correcting mechanisms

You're right, in fact technically my method isn't even a "cure." As your analogy was maritime hull patching, mine is like completely decommissioning a ship and building a new one. I can see problems with my method though, mainly involving costs and the fact that the body will usually reject foreign tissue after ten years. That'd suck to have your cancer or severed leg or heart disease cured and then you have to pay like $50,000 every ten years. Hopefully good ol' Elon figures that part out. For now, this is going to be impossible.

Hey, I hope your bro's lymphoma comes along well. I know this is the Veeky Forumsence board, but I am a religious fag, so for what it's worth he'll be in my prayers.

This is his 3rd time in the last 5 years fighting it off and each one's been a different form (NHL and then testicular) so hopefully third time's a charm and he won't have to go through it again. He's a tough dude though, and his current chemo round is supposed to be the last one before they do the stem cells.

As far as the farm method goes, the microgravity could potentially be simulated in a liquid suspension which may also allow for dialytic handshakes between the potential graft and host.

You can't, cancer is a mutation of the dna, if you cure that, your body will stop producing new cells and you'll die.

Keep your immune system healthy and use organic chemistry to produce anti-bodies specifically targeted at the type of cancer you have if you end up getting cancer. They already do this in labs across the country, but treatment is expensive and needs more research.

>remove and replace
>a small pocket of cells that you don't even know was there until it's spread tumors through the whole body

...

oK

Once this gets really going we're going to need a shitload of LHC level data processing

you really run into the same problems with this as you do with chemo and surgical techniques. you can design a crispr to edit a specific site, but cancer cells have heterogenous genomes even within a single tumor. you might fix one mutation but there could be other tumorigenic mutations in that population you dont know about. that's not even considering the fact that you might not hit all the cells with your crispr plasmid

>you really run into the same problems with this as you do with chemo and surgical techniques.

Chemo and surgical tech are like to kill a spider with a bomb H.

Gene editing is the opposite. You precisely target the affected cells and you can adapt your treatment to a single individual.

Go outside.
Look at a tree.
I want you to find one with ivy growing around it.
Try and cure the tree.

gear the immune system to target a trait in the cancer cells which is not present in normal cells

chop the ivy stems? what do you mean by this analogy

the person who 'cures' cancer will win a nobel prize in every category, including literature and peace. This will cure AIDS as a byprocess, undoubtably the biggest discovery since Newton's calculus and 3 laws as well as quantum mechanics.

How will it be done? using a quantum computer that will edit every single cell at ONCE

interresting

>You precisely target the affected cells and you can adapt your treatment to a single individual.
You're glossing over an incredible amount of technical challenges. How are you going to precisely target cells? How are you going to make sure every single target cell is infected and expressed the Cas9 protein? How do you make sure you've hit every single cancerous mutation in those target cells?

None of those are trivial problems.

Biochem here, also dad is dying from osteosarcoma. Life is pain

this user is partially right but not quite

"Cancer" is in fact the last symptom of a whole spectrum of genetic mutations on the systems regulation DNA repair, replication and maintanence. There won't be a single cure for cancer, but each for every single mutation.

The real cure for cancer would need
A) A SAFE method for genetically modifying ALL human cells of the body AT MOSTLY the same time
b) identification and profiling of every single gene and ALL their SNPs and possible mutations for trying to determinate a genotipe related to health. Sadly since niggers are not human but leftists colleagues wont understand, theyll try in vain to find a common genotype for all races

Cont.
Essentialy, the largest task would be to catalogue and identify "healthy" genotypes for all genes in the human body, also considering the posibility of hidden silent mutations and unforeseen interactions.
That would be the largest task and the one team or person whod be able to design it would be a sure prize winner

I could understand such a person, or group, winning the medicine and chemistry prizes, and maybe physics and peace. But how would curing cancer win the literature and economics prizes?

interesting

qeq

Become a society of genuine realists, and brutally strip hedonism and desire from our reasoning and value systems. Unjustifiably disjointed elements and self delusion are mercilessly identified and immediately pruned.

Subsequently we become capable of the following overall state:
-Proper understanding of the present and the nature of a given action within it
-Realistic and proper prevention
-Use of all available data, not just what pharmaceutical companies can feasibly patent and make use of without destroying their own markets. R&D has not become massively risky and incredibly costly because "all low hanging fruit have been plucked", it's because all low hanging fruit that is profitable, and the frameworks that can be built around them, have been plucked. We are nearing the limits of chemical engineering, which is why the focus is shifting to immunotherapy. If we were smart, however, we'd make proper use of the compounds nature, through billions of iterations under shared overarching mechanical demands, has already created. Nature already arrived at solutions that are cross-applicable to the types of failures you have in the machinery we're composed of. Example, do a cursory search on kavalactones (especially flavokawain B) and rapid sensitization to ROS, or outright apoptosis, in numerous cancer cell lines. Lack of tardive dyskinesia genesis when using mucuna pruriens vs L-DOPA alone in Parkinsons. Eugenol, carvacrol, thymol, and other terpenes as antibiotics. Compounds in wormwood and clove for malaria treatment. Compounds in guarana that trigger apoptosis in BRAF melanoma. Etc. And that's not even getting into herbs used in African and Chinese medicine.

There is so much shit we've had and either forgotten, or delusionally came too ignore due to bullshit ideologies that simply do not map to reality, and do not get results.

interesting

Can you provide evidence against my claim or in support of yours? Either one will work.
You're not necessarily even wrong with your statement, but my pitch is, say you have lung cancer. My approach is we remove the lung and put in a new one. The average human body will reject that lung after ten years, so you'll have to replace it, but I'd rather go under surgery once ever ten years than die an excruciatingly painful (and unnecessarily long) death.

Inject chicken noodle soup into people's veins.

Just found out I probably gave melanomal cancer. Going to a dermatologist soon. Had this for years but was to stupid to think anything if it. Hopefully it hasn't spread too much if it is..

There is the possibility of purely epigenetic malignancies, there is some evidence of this in heme onc

the problem is mostly practical. for a lot of cancers, by the time you find out it's a problem, it's already much too late. you're not just talking replacing a lung once you see some cancer, because that cancer probably already metastasized. you're talking replacing just about every single piece of tissue in the body on an incredibly regular basis, and that's assuming you don't end up with a rare brain cancer.

>Had this for years
A finger? That's normal

Okay maybe there might not be a way to get rid of cancer that has already started to grow in your body, but what if there's a way to prevent it from growing in the first place??
Like from birth or even before birth, a way to make your body not produce cancer
Sounds crazy but I feel like there can be other options, there's not really too many now anyway but it's an idea I guess

Are you blind? The brown strip

why would we want to,it makes too much money and take cares of our population.

If its not a problem,dont fix it.

if you are white that is actualy normal.

Why are you on the science board? Do you know anything?

...

Wait until they find a way to eradicate the disease, then use that method on everyone who has cancer.

Simple.

Focus on emotional health. Cancer cells are angry cells.

Stick chemo wafers in your head they said. You only have 6 months to live they said.

Why should we study a popular herb in traditional chinese medicine when it has already been meticulously analyzed from every angle? The best course for R&D should be judged objectively not based on bullshit superstitions.

put everyone with cancer in an oven

>Quad of truth

medical nanobots.

Take a saple of cancers' DNA
Upload this shit into CRISPR
Wait
Profit

Like with alcohol being injected into tumors to dehydrate them, you could potentially try to somehow starve them of nutrients. Better yet, you could try to make the human body kill cancer cells to disallow cancers getting worse.

Most of the ways that cells become cancerous are through loss of the normal checks on division and growth. Hard to prevent that while still having a living cell. You could try adding functional redundancy by sticking extra copies of ras or p53 in or something, but you're talking critical master regulators there, I'd be very wary.

Did you even read the thread? I know how CRISPR works. I've used it myself. I'm currently writing a paper about some mutants I made using CRISPR.

CRISPR is a tool, not a magic wand. You can't just throw a plasmid at the body and cross your fingers. It only works in cells that have the gene/protein, depending on method of delivery. If you don't hit stem cell niches, you only have mosaics. Targeting individual cell types is quite difficult and is an ongoing area of research.

Look closely.
Note how the ivy wraps around the tree.
Look closely at a coil of vine.
What do you notice?
If you notice what I notice you will see the coil itself embeds itself into the tree. Cutting the stem makes a difference but the ivy is still getting nutrients.

It becomes a parasite. It is made of the same stuff. Plant matter, simple, slow cells and yet it is attacking itself. A war in slow motion. Cancer is similar.

Now imagine this ivy growing INSIDE the tree. Side by side with the trunk.

Now try and cure it.

It is a medical commonplace that the tissues of the human body replace themselves regularly, essentially creating an entirely new body every seven years. From whence then come cancer and the slow degeneration of age? They exist as faults in the patterns of intelligence within the genes themselves; by reprogramming these smallest parts, the whole becomes well.

>The best course for R&D should be judged objectively not based on bullshit superstitions.
We just stated the same thing. You just have a different idea of what it all means and how things work, that happens to not map to reality. We are not a benevolent and homogeneous species fighting against the flaws of our own nature as best we can, trying every angle, objectively and intelligently weighing all things without bias and without prejudice.

We just aren't. It feels better to look at the world through that lens, but it's nonetheless an incredibly distorted one.

Going to be an unpopular response, but we need to stop believing that pharma/med complex is the way to find a cure. Ancient medicines and healing need to be looked deeper into. You don't hear about the ancient Aztecs, Mesopotamians, etc. dying of cancer. The person who cures cancer will likely be an archaeologist or historian rather than a scientist.

fruit only diet and herbs, get the kidneys filtering the lymphatic system. its food that are acid ash not alkaline ash

its diet related you will not find the cure trying to make it more and more complex

we need to harvest mako shark brains and create microscopic sharks to swim throughout our bloodstream feeding on cancer