Cancer

[Web Rider]

I'm not very sure I understand either. You're saying that chemotherapy can cure cancer, but is unhealthy? As in, it is an unhealthy method to restore the body to a healthy state from what was an unhealthy one?

 

I'm not sure if those of you objecting to his statement are being purposely obtuse or what, but I think it should be obvious that radiation, while effective for it's purpose here, isn't the kind of thing that's designed to make people healthy. We all know the side effects of chemotherapy, some of which can be permanent, some people even die from the side effects of radiation therapy.

[Darth Smaug]

I'm not sure if those of you objecting to his statement are being purposely obtuse or what, but I think it should be obvious that radiation, while effective for it's purpose here, isn't the kind of thing that's designed to make people healthy. We all know the side effects of chemotherapy, some of which can be permanent, some people even die from the side effects of radiation therapy.

 

This

[Astor]

Maybe I shouldn't have quoted the whole post. I'm not questioning/objecting the statement regarding Chemo/Radio Therapy - i'm asking in what way have we 'brought cancer on ourselves'.

[Arcesious]

Although its unlikely for anything like this to be employed soon, I've heard of some interesting ways to combat cancer and other conditions in popular science magazines. (Given a magazine isn't exactly a very academic read, I enjoy this particular magazine as it is often intriguing. I'm considering checking out some of science-oriented magazines in the future.)

 

Anyways, two alternative ways of combating cancer that I've seen posited are:

 

Creating molecules that bind only to cancerous cells, thus making them able to be used to 'light up' the portions of cells that are cancerous so that those cells can specifically be targetted for treatment.

 

They other idea I've heard of is based on how laser surgery works. It involves using extremely precisely focused radiation to target and destroy cancer without damaging other tissues.

 

Of what I know of cancer, it sounds like typically, the longer you live, the more at risk you are for cancer. The shorter you live, the less likely. It has something to do with telomeres and aging. Apparently telemeres control how often cells divide and how many times they can ultimately divide, and if the telomeres are messed up in some way, cells can grow out of control and become cancerous. I don't really know too much about exactly how this all works, as I can't remember what exactly telomeres are since its been so long since I've read about them.

 

Of course, I expect that cancer is very variated among all organisms, so I don't think its that simple.

 

That's all I know of the subject.

[Jae Onasi]

@thread--Yes, chemo is a noxious substance. You're basically pouring poison in and targeting the fastest growing cells (usually the cancer). Chemo is far better now than it was when I was growing up, but it's still, yes, poison. Compared to cancer, however, it's the lesser of 2 evils.

 

Creating molecules that bind only to cancerous cells, thus making them able to be used to 'light up' the portions of cells that are cancerous so that those cells can specifically be targetted for treatment.

Yep, I've seen thoughts on this along with using viruses to attack cancer cells, etc. The problem is there are numerous types of cancer (like something like 26 different lymphoma cell types alone, but don't quote me on exact numbers), so it's hard to design something for each and every type of cancer

They other idea I've heard of is based on how laser surgery works. It involves using extremely precisely focused radiation to target and destroy cancer without damaging other tissues.

It's already in use in some parts of the country--chiefly at some universities and for some types of cancers. It won't target things like leukemia or other blood cancers.

[mimartin]

Compared to cancer, however, it's the lesser of 2 evils.

Sometimes, sometimes, but not always.

 

I watched a few loved ones deal with cancer in the 70s, 80s, 90s and just last year.

 

I have seen surgery, chemotherapy and radiations therapy and all are very intrusive and not at all healthy. Should I ever have to make the choice, I’m not for sure chemotherapy or radiations would be plausible options for me it would depend on the type of cancer. However, surgery and chemotherapy did give me 10 extra years to get to know my father. He would not take a 3rd round of chemo treatments when the cancer return a 3rd time and after seeing what happen to him the first two times I fully supported his decision even though that decision resulted in his death.

 

Yes, we may have brought cancer on ourselves. We also brought on ourself music , art, technology… so what?

[Jae Onasi]

Sometimes, sometimes, but not always.

I'll agree with you on that--there comes a point for some people when chemo no longer provides a benefit in quality of life or is only prolonging suffering. At that point, it's time to stop.

[Darth Smaug]

Maybe I shouldn't have quoted the whole post. I'm not questioning/objecting the statement regarding Chemo/Radio Therapy - i'm asking in what way have we 'brought cancer on ourselves'.

 

I'm sorry, but I didn't reacted because I felt this would lead to an endless discussion with you not agreeing with me and vice versa.

 

Still I found it a bit unfriendly to not answer so to make a long story short my thoughts on this are that we have been slowly 'poisoning' the world ourselves for the past age by our new methods of living and lifestyle, new technologies and such. People in China are interfering with nature and make it snow by satellites, more and more diseases come up, more major disasters of nature, ..

Just to name some examples

[Jae Onasi]

We also have much better diagnostic capabilities than we had 100 years ago, so people are being diagnosed with a bunch of diseases now that weren't even named until the late 1800's and forward. These diseases have always existed, they just didn't have names until relatively recently. Also, people are living substantially longer. Cancer is a disease that becomes more common the older you get. Since the average life expectancy has increased dramatically in the last 100 years due to better nutrition and antibiotics to treat acute illnesses like simple infections, pneumonia, and the flu. My great-grandfather died in the early 1930's from pneumonia because we didn't have antibiotics then. Since people aren't typically dying of these acute illnesses at a young age now, they're dying of chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease.