My mind is blown.
- Thread starter hannaugh
- Start date
Super Turbo Deluxe Custom
Epic Member
- Messages
- 8,318
Maybe we can go back to smoking everywhere.
Like when an alcoholic gets a new liver, he can go back to drinking a quart of hootch a day...
I wish them luck... but I do want to hear about the second and third and fourth study that duplicates this. A reporter's job is to find NEWS, and news is best when it's NEW, shocking, against the grain etc. So when a study shows up something weird, even it's just a statistical anomaly, the NEW information gets blasted all over the place. Strange diets, weird treatments and "miraculous" results get much more press than the old, boring proven stuff. I'm at an age now when cancer is chawing away at a few friends, and I really do hope they get somewhere. They've gotten the survival rate a lot higher than even five years ago. I've got a friend with a spot of liver cancer, and they actually implant a chunk of radioactive Kryptonite in the tumor and block off most of the blood vessels - he's adding a guitar-making shop to his (pro) studio, while he's "recuperating."
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but cancer treatment is a multi-billion dollar industry that employs many thousands of people. There are a lot of people and corporations who stand to lose a great deal of money if a cure for cancer is found. So, don't hold your breath while waiting on this one.
Super Turbo Deluxe Custom
Epic Member
- Messages
- 8,318
True, but it won't cure every form, and they'll make the cost so outrageous most can't afford it. Tuberculosis, polio, small pox, bubonic plague all have cures now, and AIDS if you have a Magic Johnson. Health care isn't any cheaper. Instead of being snuffed out by cancer in our 40s, 50s, and 60s, we'll live long enough to die from something else there is no cure for. It's beside the point, but if illness and the generic "old age" were removed as causes of death, the average life expectancy goes to about 600. Bungee jumping, asteroid, plane crash, jealous husband, something would get us all.
Justinginn
Hero Member
- Messages
- 631
The idea seems like it would make sense. I actually had the same idea about a year ago, not that I was smart enough to do anything other than think about it.
Super Turbo Deluxe Custom
Epic Member
- Messages
- 8,318
Sometimes life imitates art, not that Will Smith is an artist. A weakened form of measles curing cancer was the cause of the night seekers in I am Legend. If Hollywood latched onto it, I imagine that logic is more common than we would know about. Good fiction has a little bit of truth in it.
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
hannaugh said:
When you think about it, a lot of fatal disease prevention is done sorta like that. With many immunizations, you get injected with the actual disease on purpose before you get it in the wild, only it's dead. Your body's immune system sees it, doesn't know it's dead and harmless, and so produces antibodies coded for it anyway. Then when a live version shows up your immune system fights it off naturally.
Wana_make_a_guitar
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,793
Well as it seems they're using a modified form of HIV to treat cancer, what will they use to treat HIV/Aids?
AutoBat said:
No, no, no - they tried it in three people with leukemia, and it totally cured two of them and drastically helped in the other case. That's a 66% success rate in the one trial, against the one cancer type, that has been conducted. The people who get offered these kinds of treatments generally have just weeks to live, and all other remedies have failed them already. It's nothing to get all sarcastic about.
In other words - they have found the most promising sign yet of a "cure for cancer" and the next 10 years will probably see a massive amount of research directed at this treatment. So it's a big deal.
reluctant-builder
Hero Member
- Messages
- 816
Wana's made a guitar said:
The problem with HIV is that it's an RNA messenger virus. The RNA infiltrates cells and "rewrites" the inherent directives of a portion of the existing RNA. They don't call computer viruses "viruses" for nothing; they work in much the same way. What needs to be done is to create a virulent type of RNA that seeks out and overwrites the HIV RNA, effectively restoring the original "programming." It well within the realm of possibility, but it's significantly less profitable to cure people than it is to treat them.
Herpes, for example, nets significant monetary profits for pharmaceutical companies who manufacture viral suppressants, whether it's in a tube, a lip balm or pill form. Since most people carry one form of the virus or another (Chicken Pox/Shingles, Cold Sores and Genital Herpes all belong to the same family), the demographic that requires some form of treatment is immense and, over the course of their lifetimes, they will make the pharma companies money ... money those companies would never see if those people were cured.
Look, the drug companies are not monopolistic. If a cure for herpes could be developed, one company would do it, gain a patent and make a fricking mint, charging whatever they felt like, until the patent expired. That's how it works. Long-term (20 years +) profits don't mean jack to any corporation - it's always just quarter by quarter. There's not conspiracy to not cure diseases - the profit motive combined with patent law works pretty well in this case. In the case of software innovation, not necessarily so much...
Similar threads
