from a complete cure yes. I think we are close to many cures for a single type. The most recent and only? cure so far is cervical which is caused by the hap?????? virus.
Cancer - Our current progress?
- Thread starter SideWinder
- Start date
from a complete cure yes. I think we are close to many cures for a single type. The most recent and only? cure so far is cervical which is caused by the hap?????? virus.
Expand, I am curious
That isn't meant in a 'show me your knowledge' way. I genuinely am interested.
you have to draw the line somewhere, what if you could cure a cancer patient but because of the cost could not afford to save another 10 people from other diseases?
My father has had Prostate Cancer for the last 10 years, has had surgery and chemo in the first two years of being diagnosed. Since then he has had to have a tablet injected directly into his stomach every three months and is on experimental drugs from the States that he has to take on a regular basis.
In the last year we have had a turn for the good, it has now officially gone into remission, but that was due to the cancer thresholds changing within the NHS. But remission is good, and after all he has been one of the lucky ones to survive. We give to cancer research on a regular basis due to the fact the amount of money that has been spent on my father by the NHS. Its our way to say thanks for the hard work
In the last year we have had a turn for the good, it has now officially gone into remission, but that was due to the cancer thresholds changing within the NHS. But remission is good, and after all he has been one of the lucky ones to survive. We give to cancer research on a regular basis due to the fact the amount of money that has been spent on my father by the NHS. Its our way to say thanks for the hard work
Expand, I am curious
That isn't meant in a 'show me your knowledge' way. I genuinely am interested.
There's an std virus, which causes almost all cervical cancer. The virus is pretty harmless other than causing cervical cancer in some people. A high percentage of the population has this virus. By inoculating against it, we will cut cervical cancer by many many folds in the next few decades. However it has to be administered before girls start to have sex. There has been huge uproars about it as some stupid parents think it will encourage sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 3,489
- Location
- At Home
Cervical cancer isn't just caused by that Virus - it's only responsibly for approx 65% of cervical cancers, and it isn't totally curable. And millions of women have the virus and never get the cancer.
It would nice to think it is, but unfortunately not.
And just for the record......There are over 120 types of HPV Cervical cancer causing viruses which can be sexually transmitted and which cause they female cevical cancers...... The vaccine being considered by the NHS only prevents the most common 4 types I think (same as the flu jab almost).......so it's just the usual hard sell from a drugs company.
Skin cancer has a better rate of cure I think as does Prostate.
It would nice to think it is, but unfortunately not.
And just for the record......There are over 120 types of HPV Cervical cancer causing viruses which can be sexually transmitted and which cause they female cevical cancers...... The vaccine being considered by the NHS only prevents the most common 4 types I think (same as the flu jab almost).......so it's just the usual hard sell from a drugs company.
Skin cancer has a better rate of cure I think as does Prostate.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 1,176
- Location
- by the sea
cancer is an uncontrolled cell replication following mutation to dna - it is a '3 stage process' - initiation, promotion and progression
cancer is only 'one disease' - though not all tumours are cancerous and not all cancers cause tumours (i.e. leukaemia)
however when it comes to a 'cure for cancer' - i doubt it will ever be as easy as finding a single cure due to the variant nature of the disease
Expand, I am curious
That isn't meant in a 'show me your knowledge' way. I genuinely am interested.
cervical cancer can now be 'vaccinated against' though as far as i am aware, it is not yet routinely availbale in the uk
by vaccinating all girls who are pre-pubescent and yet to become sexually active (and also vaccinating all of the boys at a similar age) it works by triggering the bodies immune response to HPV (HPV has been linked to almost every case of cervical cancer - though not everyone with HPV will go on to develop cancer)
Nope but it is prevention for a certain type of cancer. Cervical cancer formed by the HPV virus. So it is an amazing step forward. It's the only prevention I know for cancer. Prevention is much better than cure.
Is that a little final fantasy joke there?
I thought that too when I read that guys post...
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 1,176
- Location
- by the sea
the best prevention for lung cancer is to 1.) not smoke, 2.) not spend time in smoky environments
90% of lung cancers in men, and 83% of lung cancers in women are tobacco related
so - not smoking seems like a pretty great tool of prevention to me
Very truethe best prevention for lung cancer is to 1.) not smoke, 2.) not spend time in smoky environments
90% of lung cancers in men, and 83% of lung cancers in women are tobacco related
so - not smoking seems like a pretty great tool of prevention to me
But that is a life style change rather than medical. So is a different catogry than treating HPV. A Prevention taht allowed you to smoke and not get cancer is a proper cure.
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 1,176
- Location
- by the sea
*deleted*
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 3,489
- Location
- At Home
Well, you could say prevention of skin cancer would be use a better sun block (reputed to prevent over 90% of skin cancers) - or prevention of lung cancer (give up smoking - stops 75% of cancers) - but few people take any notice of those tips - and the cancers continue to increase in prevelence.
Last edited:
Greedy possibly. but the more cures you have the more data and knowledge you have, which may lead to cures in other areas. Try9ing not to cure something just because it's a lifestyle choice. MO is silly as the data and knowledge gained can and to a certain degree will always be useful.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 3,489
- Location
- At Home
Thats the problem with it.
What if we had a 100% cure for Lung cancer - would everyone smoke 100 a day.
If we had a 100% cure for Skin cancer - would we all laze about doing nothing in California all day with no clothes on.
And God forbid, what if we had a 100% cure for Cervical cancer - would all the women in the world start to have sex at 13 and end up having 500 sexual partners with no protection ????
Probably not, but there would be a lot of people who would just say 'why worry, there's a cure there' - Same as travelling to remote countries now, we know the deadly diseases of the 18th century probably won't get us anymore, so we risk it -knowing that they can't touch us, and if we do get something, we will be looked after and cured when we get home.
What if we had a 100% cure for Lung cancer - would everyone smoke 100 a day.
If we had a 100% cure for Skin cancer - would we all laze about doing nothing in California all day with no clothes on.
And God forbid, what if we had a 100% cure for Cervical cancer - would all the women in the world start to have sex at 13 and end up having 500 sexual partners with no protection ????
Probably not, but there would be a lot of people who would just say 'why worry, there's a cure there' - Same as travelling to remote countries now, we know the deadly diseases of the 18th century probably won't get us anymore, so we risk it -knowing that they can't touch us, and if we do get something, we will be looked after and cured when we get home.
Last edited:
Tbh I still don't understand why people smoke drugs, considering it is the most damaging way of taking them. Cannabis and tobacco can both be ingested/chewed. In fact giving a much longer lasting effect than smoking, while still having the same potency. It boggles the mind.
I think it's the instant reward you get from smoking. Digestion can have a long time before affects are felt. Also as smoking is almost instant it's far easier to control the level of drug to what you want.
As well as it's the norm.
As well as it's the norm.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 1,176
- Location
- by the sea
i deleted that post because i realized it probably read a way it wasn't intended - would you please take it down?
i was not suggesting we do not try to cure it - only we may have to be willing to make sacrifices as well