Cancer could be good for us in the future.

sanaxe1 · 5 Dec 2009 at 06:23

I've just watched this video, Its 15minutes long and i have to say what she says makes a lot of sence.

Basicaly what she is saying is that Cancer occurs when damage is done to a part of the body, an example of this would be smoking damages your lungs and you get lung cancer.This cancer is sent to the damaged area to try and fix the problem , However the body/cells just can handle this tumour which was supposed to fix you, it gets out of control and ends up being the bad guy. (Think Harvey Dent from the batman ). What she proposes is that we should not be trying to destroy the cancer as the cancer was sent there for a reason,that reason was to fix the damage and if you stop it doing its task you will just get more tumours trying to finish the job. But what if we could somehow control these cancers and use them to cure diseases by stopping them going out of control.

( The video explains it a lot better then i can so post your opions based on the video and not my attempt to explain it )

Anyways i thought it was intersting and would share it with you guys.

http://www.ted.com/talks/eva_vertes_looks_to_the_future_of_medicine.html

Manics · 5 Dec 2009 at 06:32

What a stupid bint...

Tumours don't travel, they grow. They start from a mutated cell (a cancerous cell). The mutation is bad news 'cos that mess will kill you. Sure, the individual cells travel

She looks about 14 years old. I hope she's not getting any funding. Obviously not since it was filmed in 2005 and has come to nothing.

Ziggy · 5 Dec 2009 at 06:34

Was expecting a mattheman/Teki type link but then saw it was TED. They're a well-respected site aren't they?

sanaxe1 · 5 Dec 2009 at 06:47

Ziggy said:
Was expecting a mattheman/Teki type link but then saw it was TED. They're a well-respected site aren't they?

Yes its basicaly a conferance where the smart people get together and discuss things. Just look at the speakers list.

footman · 5 Dec 2009 at 07:17

Manics said:
What a stupid bint...
Tumours don't travel, they grow

Eh? I suppose you have heard about metastases?
edit: I've just seen that you say cells do travel
You seem very angry with this girl. Sure, a lot of what she says is factually incorrect IE no heart cancer, this is untrue.
source:
http://www.montefiore.org/healthlibrary/centers/cancer/cardisar/
and no cancer of skeletal muscle, also wrong
source:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/cri/content/cri_2_4_1x_what_is_sarcoma_38.asp

Her views on cancer stem cells are interesting, mainly because she seems to be at variance with more established researchers in that field.
source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUK9Pby928Y
So, she doesn't know everything but then she was only 19 when that talk was delivered and only barely into her education on the subject.
What is interesting to me is that someone of that age can already start to think laterally on the subject.

Robdav · 5 Dec 2009 at 08:12

if you take what this women is saying and apply it to my situation....

my prostate cancer was caused by damage to my prostate... and therefore my fathers prostate cancer was also caused by damage to his prostate ... and both my grandfathers prostate cancer was caused by damage to their prostates?

I don't think so do you?

gurusan · 5 Dec 2009 at 08:13

Sounds totally retarded to me.

sanaxe1 · 5 Dec 2009 at 08:15

Robdav said:
if you take what this women is saying and apply it to my situation....

my prostate cancer was caused by damage to my prostate... and therefore my fathers prostate cancer was also caused by damage to his prostate ... and both my grandfathers prostate cancer was caused by damage to their prostates?

I don't think so do you?

You have hereditary problems with your prostate , somethings up with it. Body trys to fix this by sending cancer , cancer goes rogue.

Django x2 · 5 Dec 2009 at 08:21

What about anal cancer? I fear this is something I may face in latter life if my ass, this morning, is anything to go by.

Tefal · 5 Dec 2009 at 08:32

sanaxe1 said:
You have hereditary problems with your prostate , somethings up with it. Body trys to fix this by sending cancer , cancer goes rogue.

how exactly was the cancer supposed to solve the problem in the first place?

growing a big lump of useless cells doesn't seem like the best of methods to fix something.

footman · 5 Dec 2009 at 08:33

Lucero said:
What about anal cancer? I fear this is something I may face in latter life if my ass, this morning, is anything to go by.

If your being serious go to your doctor. If your being flippant then go somewhere else.

footman · 5 Dec 2009 at 08:35

sanaxe1 said:
Body trys to fix this by sending cancer , cancer goes rogue.

You must supply an authoritative source for this.

Manics · 5 Dec 2009 at 08:36

Small wonder cancer remains uncured when you have mornic idiots taking up funding so that they can present us with headline grabbing nonsense such as;

"the body sends a cancerous cell to fix things"
"if you eat steak three times a month you are 10% more likely to get stomach cancer"
"if you ride a bike 10 miles a month, you are at an increased risk of bone cancer"

Researchers undertake these useless studies to get funding to keep their labs open, it's that simple. Though my father died of prostate cancer a few years ago, I would never donate anything to Cancer Research as long as they continue to barf money away on total rubbish.

People get cancer. Dogs get cancer. Guess what? Even fish get cancer. Through evolution fish evolve to fly high in the sky, to go to the moon, they became you.
Do you really think through all these billions of years nothing realised that using a cancerous cell as a "cure all" was actually kinda a bad idea?!

By the way prostate cancer is not hereditary! (I hope

)

Tefal · 5 Dec 2009 at 08:36

footman said:
If your being serious go to your doctor. If your being flippant then go somewhere else.

Sounds like somebody has anal cancer!

AtreuS · 5 Dec 2009 at 08:55

There could be some truth in her thoughts, im not qualified to say its bullpoo, and i suspect very few people here are qualified enough to make definative comments. If her ideas are total pap then im quite sure her peers will make sure everyone knows it in time

chiLLZ · 5 Dec 2009 at 09:19

She is a researcher, she is supposed to question the established consensus.

interesting video, I hope she does get funding, it sounds like she has some interesting ideas and is prepared to conduct research with a questioning mind. Much of what she says makes sense and is in tune with some recent news articles about how malignant cells migrate to other parts of the body and form tumors. and how cells that grow to repair damaged parts of the body can sometimes mutate into cancer. People know that methods to destroy cancer cells also destroy normal cells, cancer is not something that invaded the body like a virus its been created by the body by mutation, the logical research would be to find out why and how to keep cells from mutatating into cancer. from there may be a way of manipulating these cells into something that could be used to repair or replace damaged cells by placing them at specific locations . Her speech was not very structured and I dont think some things that she was trying to say came accross very well. She is not stupid at all, a studant from prinston and cancer researcher who is obviously passionate about the subject and thinks outside of the box.

kylew · 5 Dec 2009 at 10:13

People get so angry when the "norm" is questioned. :rolleyes:

Richie · 5 Dec 2009 at 10:39

Dont have a view on this but I think ppl on here discounting it totally is silly.... Unless, of course, we have some cancer specialists in here.

With the small amount of knowledge and understanding we have surrounding cancer, how can we say with any certainty that she is definitively wrong ??

Not saying she is right/wrong or otherwise but I sure aint arrogant enough to discount it totally.... Same thing happened about the Earth being round/flat many moon ago....

kylew · 5 Dec 2009 at 10:49

Richie said:
Dont have a view on this but I think ppl on here discounting it totally is silly.... Unless, of course, we have some cancer specialists in here.

Of course, there are loads of keyboard warriors on here, a lot of them seem to not be able to handle opinions that are different from the standard popular belief.

With the small amount of knowledge and understanding we have surrounding cancer, how can we say with any certainty that she is definitively wrong ??

We can't, again, people seem to get angry when people suggest the current thoughts on cancer are possibly wrong, why they think that I can only speculate to, but I think it's got something to do with them thinking people are almost "taking away" from the seriousness of cancer.

Who cares about the "details" of cancer? Surely everyone should care more so about the end result, as in, a cure that will save a lot of people.

If we realise the current thoughts are wrong, no big deal, correct them and let's hope it leads to a break through.

Not saying she is right/wrong or otherwise but I sure aint arrogant enough to discount it totally.... Same thing happened about the Earth being round/flat many moon ago....

That's just a huge misconception, it was never a popular belief that the world was flat.