Thread: The cure for cancer.

When people breed with each other their genes combine and form a new child that has genes from his father and his mother.
That way that child will have a better surviving chance than his father and his mother because he has a better genetic makeup.

What if that father and that mother that made that child have cancer or one of them has cancer.
And that the mother will get pregnant.
I think that maybe in the process of making a baby in the body of the mother.
There will happen something within the foetus.
It will adapt to the cancer while it is still a foetus.

This is just a theory and maybe it is nonsense and you will laugh it and think that it is foolish.
I hope that you won't call it nonsense and laugh at it and think that it is foolish.

I hope that you will give this theory a chance.
Even if the chance that you give it is very very small.


The next questions is if it is ethical to do experiments like these.
But i am not the correct person to decide that.

What do you mean adapt to the cancer? As in become immune? That wouldn't happen.
Not all cancer is hereditary. Just because the parents have it does not guarantee the children will have it too.

Cancer starts with damage in the body. Then maybe there is a chance that it will also spread to the sperm of the father.
And when the father and mother make love and the mother gets pregnant. Then the foetus that must become a baby will adapt to the cancer.
In the proces of becoming a full grown baby. Scientists have not unraveled completely what happens in the foetus to make it become a full grown baby.
They know that the foetus is like a soup of stemm cells etc... Maybe that chaos in the foetus of stemcells etc.. is strong enough.
that it cannot only creates bones and tissue but also adapt or create antibodies against cancer.

It is just a thought, maybe i am having now a stupid thought.
Then hopefully this theory is still amusing to you.
Then at least it was not a waste of your time. (readers)

Or maybe if you say that cancer and sperm can't combine. just like oil and water.
Then maybe you can wait after the mother gets pregnant and the foetus starts to take shape.
And then spread some cancer cells in the early foetus.
Then maybe that will start a chain reaction in the foetus while it is still developing in becoming a full grown baby.

Then when the baby is immume or has a stronger immumity to cancer.
Then you can take some of the blood of the baby and grow that blood in a lab.
Then you can put it in people, that genes or bacteria or whatever that makes the baby more immume against cancer.

This is all very speculative. The immune system does play a role in cancer and intrauterine conditions can also affect epigenetics, changing future cancer risk.
Why don't you study up on cancer and the immune system and come back with a more informed hypothesis?

Originally Posted by moker

When people breed with each other their genes combine and form a new child that has genes from his father and his mother.
That way that child will have a better surviving chance than his father and his mother because he has a better genetic makeup.

Untrue- the child inherits a random combination of genes from each parent. There is no rule which says that the child will have a better survival or reproductive chance than either parent.

Cancer is triggered by virus, inflamation, oxidation, carcinogen, and/or radiation damage.
It causes cell to multiply uncontrollably, leading to a condition called: "Cancer".
Susceptibility to cancer is inherited, but you can reduce possibility of getting cancer by avoiding the trigger.

Info:
"Carcinogen" is a substance that caused cancer: such as benzene and cigarette,
and certain virus can trigger cancer: such as HPV,
and inflammation can also trigger cancer; for unknown reason,
and radiation can indeed cause cancer by altering DNA: such as sunbathing,
and oxidation is unavoidable: such as breathing.

But our body already had immunity to cancer, except that it is reduced in family with cancer history.
Usually the body will fight cancer by itself and usually win.

The reasons for disallowing the use of this medicine:

1.It 's very cheap to produce and hence companies will not make serious money selling it.

The cancer may be reduced to a 2.Since of simple curable diseases, physicians of many experts and even large hospitals will go bankrupt.

This is the "system" that does not leave this incredible invention to save the lives of millions of people

]When people breed with each other their genes combine and form a new child that has genes from his father and his mother.
That way that child will have a better surviving chance than his father and his mother because he has a better genetic makeup.

The child will have a different genetic makeup, not a better one.

What if that father and that mother that made that child have cancer or one of them has cancer.
And that the mother will get pregnant.
I think that maybe in the process of making a baby in the body of the mother.
There will happen something within the foetus.
It will adapt to the cancer while it is still a foetus.

It cannot, because a baby doesn't have a immunosystem, and there is no transfer of information of this kind from the mother's somatic cell line to the fetus.

This is just a theory and maybe it is nonsense and you will laugh it and think that it is foolish.
I hope that you won't call it nonsense and laugh at it and think that it is foolish.

There is a chain of logic, unfortunately it is not based on current knowledge.




The next questions is if it is ethical to do experiments like these.

Of course. You can just do experiments with mice.

The reasons for disallowing the use of this medicine:

1.It 's very cheap to produce and hence companies will not make serious money selling it.

The cancer may be reduced to a 2.Since of simple curable diseases, physicians of many experts and even large hospitals will go bankrupt.

This is the "system" that does not leave this incredible invention to save the lives of millions of people

With the note that 'this' medicine doesn't exist, I have the same pet theory that researchers are not looking for cheap cures, nor is the pharmaceutical industry.

They both have a vested interest.

Cancer researchers exist because they research cancer. They are usually looking at stuff that will never have any practical application. For instance, a famous local cancer group researchers a cancer that is particularly rare. Naturally, nobody will ever produce a cure because the rarity makes it impossible for it to be profitable.
Pharmaceutical companies can only exist when they make money.

Originally Posted by msafwan

Susceptibility to cancer is inherited, but you can reduce possibility of getting cancer by avoiding the trigger.

actually for some cancers it is a 100% probability that the offspring will get them. They are not the most common ones, but they exist.

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

Naturally, nobody will ever produce a cure because the rarity makes it impossible for it to be profitable.
Pharmaceutical companies can only exist when they make money.

^ This is true, unfortunately.


As some people have mentioned, not all cancers are hereditary. Some may be genetic but not necessarily "inherited"; cancer-causing mutations can appear later in life.

There are many cancers that are hereditary but remember that "cancer" is a wide umbrella. There are many cancers that are inherited, most of which are caused by different genes. It's hard to particularly say that you have the cure for "cancer" because there are so many different types that function in different ways.

You also need to remember that the foetus will receive random genes from its mother and father; many inherited cancers do not have a 100% inherited probability.

Originally Posted by Cheesepole

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

Naturally, nobody will ever produce a cure because the rarity makes it impossible for it to be profitable.
Pharmaceutical companies can only exist when they make money.

^ This is true, unfortunately. .

Facepalm.

Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in making money. That means providing substances that people will BUY. the best way to ensure that people will use a company's pharmaceuticals is to produce one that works. This conspiracy bullshit is just that, bullshit. What happens if a cure is found for a terminal illness? The value of that cure goes up. The pharmaceutical companies make more. What happens if people start surviving cancer? They live longer, which means they will have future times where they will need to purchase pharmaceuticals.

That said, there will never be a cure for cancer. Cancer is, essentially, an error in your cells programming. The immune system reacts to chemical cues. If the nature of the damage does not produce the cues that let the immune system know that there is a problem with those cells, cancer will form. If you make the immune system react to more cues, you risk autoimmune diseases. You can't cure cancer without knowing which mutations are causing the uncontrolled growth and correcting those errors and there are many genetic pathways that produce those effects. You can't predict which mutations are going to happen and when. So you are looking for a moving target, something that changes from case to case. All we can do is form treatments after cancer has formed and limit the kinds of genetic damage we take that eventually results in cancer. For cancer, there is no such thing as immunity.

Eric, what you are saying is definitely true. However, when looking at especially rare illnesses, it may not be a particularly profitable investment because not many people would need to buy that certain medication.

I definitely agree that there is no real preventative measure for cancer. Cures would come after the illness has developed, unless my definition of "cure" is incorrect.

hey dude i lost my loving mom few months ago due to tis f.....king disease....find the real cause of it..

Originally Posted by aswin13693

hey dude i lost my loving mom few months ago due to tis f.....king disease....find the real cause of it..

My condolences
My father's currently battling cancer.

We can hope that one day, it won't be as much of a "death sentence" as it is considered today. As medicine advances, I am sure that new treatments will develop and eventually, we may come close to a complete understanding of cancers.

may your father get cured soon dude....i pray for that too.what you do?

Originally Posted by Cheesepole

Eric, what you are saying is definitely true. However, when looking at especially rare illnesses, it may not be a particularly profitable investment because not many people would need to buy that certain medication.

Sure. This pharma-conspiracy crud is in a thread about cancer. There is no shortage of people interested in the treatments developed for cancer.

On the other hand, researching illnesses often lead to the understanding of the underlying issues that cause them, which lead to insight on whole areas of illnesses and novel ways to treat people. It is still a net gain in the eyes of big pharma to research many avenues and get their fingers into any small market that conveniently falls under new technologies and drugs that people need.

Knowledge is power, and it benefits us all. If there is any evil to see in big pharma, it is how much profit they seek to gain at the expense of the illness of others. They are not charities. If there is market viability for them to charge more for a particular treatment, and people will still buy (supply and demand), they will.

Originally Posted by aswin13693

hey dude i lost my loving mom few months ago due to tis f.....king disease....find the real cause of it..

My condolences.

We know the cause of cancer. Damage to genetic material. This can not be prevented or reversed, other than killing those cells. Those cells are still a part of the individual, no different from the other cells except a lack of controls on their growth. That's it.

Totally agreed, Eric. Research into illnesses leads to more gain than loss, generally.

All life forms grow and become better through evolution.
And most of the strength to evolve is in the phase when a life form is developing from a foetus into a baby.
The same principle is for example also for butterflies when going from being a bug into a cocon into a butterfly with wings.
And the same is for humans that are in the foetus phase and become a baby.

You can say that the genetics of a human body is like writing software to solve problems to increase the chance for surviving.
I mentioned that most of the strength to evolve and grow to become better is in the foetus phase.
Because then you have most of the stemm cells in your body.
And the older you get the worse you get into evolving and that is why you get physically older.

So now you take some damaged cells from a person and put then in a foetus that is becoming a baby.
You do this through a injection needle.
I told earlier that the foetus is like a computer that is writing software to solve problems.
And that a person is on his/her strongest when in the foetus phase.
Then the foetus will have very much strength to try to solve the cancer problem.
It will try and try and try until it has written a genetic software for the cancer problem.

Originally Posted by moker

All life forms grow and become better through evolution.
And most of the strength to evolve is in the phase when a life form is developing from a foetus into a baby.
The same principle is for example also for butterflies when going from being a bug into a cocon into a butterfly with wings.
And the same is for humans that are in the foetus phase and become a baby.

You can say that the genetics of a human body is like writing software to solve problems to increase the chance for surviving.
I mentioned that most of the strength to evolve and grow to become better is in the foetus phase.
Because then you have most of the stemm cells in your body.
And the older you get the worse you get into evolving and that is why you get physically older.

So now you take some damaged cells from a person and put then in a foetus that is becoming a baby.
You do this through a injection needle.
I told earlier that the foetus is like a computer that is writing software to solve problems.
And that a person is on his/her strongest when in the foetus phase.
Then the foetus will have very much strength to try to solve the cancer problem.
It will try and try and try until it has written a genetic software for the cancer problem.

You're pretty far off base on your understanding of evolution and human development. I'd suggest you do some research on both.

Originally Posted by moker

All life forms grow and become better through evolution.
And most of the strength to evolve is in the phase when a life form is developing from a foetus into a baby.
The same principle is for example also for butterflies when going from being a bug into a cocon into a butterfly with wings.
And the same is for humans that are in the foetus phase and become a baby.

You can say that the genetics of a human body is like writing software to solve problems to increase the chance for surviving.
I mentioned that most of the strength to evolve and grow to become better is in the foetus phase.
Because then you have most of the stemm cells in your body.
And the older you get the worse you get into evolving and that is why you get physically older.

So now you take some damaged cells from a person and put then in a foetus that is becoming a baby.
You do this through a injection needle.
I told earlier that the foetus is like a computer that is writing software to solve problems.
And that a person is on his/her strongest when in the foetus phase.
Then the foetus will have very much strength to try to solve the cancer problem.
It will try and try and try until it has written a genetic software for the cancer problem.

I'm afraid that is not how it works.

There are several problems with this idea.

There is no way to repair the DNA in a cell. That cell either dies, or continues to live with the mutation. For a;; intents and purposes, not fetuses, nor anything else possesses a mechanism for "repairing" mutated DNA back to its original sequence. How would such mechanisms know what the original sequence was? How would evolution even happen if there was some mechanism that reversed mutations?

Our immune system attacks anything it recognizes as foreign material. It is complicated to explain how the immune system works, but in general, when you put cells of another individual inside someone else, the immune system kills those cells. There have to be special circumstances for people to be recipients of organs from organ donors.

The whole problem with cancer is that the body DOESN'T recognize that there is anything wrong with those cells. When the body does, it's plan of action is to kill those cells. But the body can't tell, and so the damaged cells continue to operate out-of-control.

Cells to not improvise genetic sequences. The genes a cell has are the only tools it will have.

Fetuses are not the strongest time in a persons life. Fetuses are the most vulnerable in just about every way you look at it.

TheBiologista suggests you work on your understanding of evolution and human development. I will give you an even more specific suggestion. Specifically seek a better understanding of cellular biology.

Originally Posted by moker

All life forms grow and become better through evolution.
And most of the strength to evolve is in the phase when a life form is developing from a foetus into a baby.
The same principle is for example also for butterflies when going from being a bug into a cocon into a butterfly with wings.
And the same is for humans that are in the foetus phase and become a baby.

You can say that the genetics of a human body is like writing software to solve problems to increase the chance for surviving.
I mentioned that most of the strength to evolve and grow to become better is in the foetus phase.
Because then you have most of the stemm cells in your body.
And the older you get the worse you get into evolving and that is why you get physically older.

So now you take some damaged cells from a person and put then in a foetus that is becoming a baby.
You do this through a injection needle.
I told earlier that the foetus is like a computer that is writing software to solve problems.
And that a person is on his/her strongest when in the foetus phase.
Then the foetus will have very much strength to try to solve the cancer problem.
It will try and try and try until it has written a genetic software for the cancer problem.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. Once the sperm and egg have joined the genetic data for that person is set. It can't be changed after that. The phrase "strength to evolve" is totally meaningless. Individuals do not evolve. Species change as a result of random mutation and natural selection and changes in the environment. Individuals only live and reproduce or they die.

Even if you could somhow induce an immune response to a particual cancer cell by intraducing it into the body, what you would have is a immune reaction to that particular cell, not to cancer. If the body did not reject the cancerous cell you would have given your test subject an infection of cells from another individual. Worst case, the subject would die. But most likely would be rejection of the foreign cells by the host body, not because they were cancerous but because they were foreign.

The word "malignant" also means 'intense hatred' .. in my own experience with cancer the more I hated the worse my cancer flared. I had to abandon a lawsuit, accept a loss, find forgiveness for the evil done against me. That was 15 years ago .. I lead a relatively healthy life, have not had surgery or chemo or radiation and perhaps the cancer is gone.

perhaps? you have not checked back to verify that it is?

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

The word "malignant" also means 'intense hatred' .. in my own experience with cancer the more I hated the worse my cancer flared. I had to abandon a lawsuit, accept a loss, find forgiveness for the evil done against me. That was 15 years ago .. I lead a relatively healthy life, have not had surgery or chemo or radiation and perhaps the cancer is gone.

'Hate' is not a biological mechanism. The variants of a word's meaning does not have any bearing on the scientific or medical use of that word. It might be that stress was having an effect, but cancer does not just go away because you calm down and eat your veggies. You really, REALLY need to get reexamined to assess your cancer condition.

My aunt was recently given 6- 12 months to live. She has terminal cancer. The reason why it is untreatable is because it wasn't treated soon enough. I suggest you find out what your condition is now. Immediately. And have the appropriate treatment, if necessary. Your family will not be happy to see you die early because you didn't take a serious health issue seriously enough.

I would also be interested in knowing how you were originally diagnosed with cancer. What was that situation? What was tested? What kind of cancer?

Originally Posted by ericv00

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

The word "malignant" also means 'intense hatred' .. in my own experience with cancer the more I hated the worse my cancer flared. I had to abandon a lawsuit, accept a loss, find forgiveness for the evil done against me. That was 15 years ago .. I lead a relatively healthy life, have not had surgery or chemo or radiation and perhaps the cancer is gone.

'Hate' is not a biological mechanism. The variants of a word's meaning does not have any bearing on the scientific or medical use of that word. It might be that stress was having an effect, but cancer does not just go away because you calm down and eat your veggies. You really, REALLY need to get reexamined to assess your cancer condition.

My aunt was recently given 6- 12 months to live. She has terminal cancer. The reason why it is untreatable is because it wasn't treated soon enough. I suggest you find out what your condition is now. Immediately. And have the appropriate treatment, if necessary. Your family will not be happy to see you die early because you didn't take a serious health issue seriously enough.

Hate is not a biological mechanism, but it is well known in medical science that the mind affects the body.
Anger Affects the Mind, Body, and Soul
How the Mind Affects the Health
Centre for Medical Humanities : Mind/Body/Affect - Durham University
How the mind affects the body physically? - Yahoo!7 Answers

To answer all qestions put to me: I had an inserted ultrasound which showed two cancers in the prostate. Two urologists said it could be nothing but cancer, so I declined the biopsy as literature indicates biopsies can release cancer cells into the bloodstream, as well as cause infections.
What Are the Dangers of a Prostate Biopsy? | eHow.com
Ask.com - What's Your Question?

I can't understand why biopsies are even done as insertable ultrasound tests show the cancers clearly, except perhaps to determine if the cancer is raging or growing slowly (there are two types of prostate cancer, rapid growth and slow growth) .. growth of cancer can also be shown by the ultrasounds. Prostate surgeries often leave men incontinent, often having to carry a urine bag strapped to the leg. Most prostate cancers do not kill, as men with it die mostly from other causes like heart failure, pneumonia or other cancers in old age. The risks are simply too great, the benefits too small.

Cancers can simply go away .. there are documented cases of spontaneous remissions.
Spontaneous remission | Ask.com | Ask.com

I monitor my own condition by my general health and by the swelling and pain or no swelling and absence of pain in the prostate area, by self monitoring, family history and research I was 99.9 percent certain I had the cancer before I went for my first examination. I did give in to the urging of a GP and had another ultra sound done, but it was not the insertable type and the image was too poor for evaluation.

I am absolutely not saying that malignant hatred causes every malignancy, but I am 100% sure that it can either cause cancers or contribute heavily to onset and development. To any cancer patient I would recommend they abandon all negative emotions, undergo psychotherapy, believe in a merciful God combined with prayer, abandon excesses in diet and living, including excess of exercise which stresses the body. These things have worked and continue to work for me. I go on solo canoe expeditions of up to 10 weeks, but don't overly stress myself physically while doing so.

Yoga is the best solution to prevent from the cancer. This is the most simple and easy exercise and every one can it without any hesitation.

Originally Posted by Shelley1

Yoga is the best solution to prevent from the cancer. This is the most simple and easy exercise and every one can it without any hesitation.

As this is a science forum, I have to say it: got any evidence for that?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Shelley1

Yoga is the best solution to prevent from the cancer. This is the most simple and easy exercise and every one can it without any hesitation.

As this is a science forum, I have to say it: got any evidence for that?

I am on the fence about considering Shelley a real poster or someone playing around.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

I am absolutely not saying that malignant hatred causes every malignancy, but I am 100% sure that it can either cause cancers or contribute heavily to onset and development. To any cancer patient I would recommend they abandon all negative emotions, undergo psychotherapy, believe in a merciful God combined with prayer, abandon excesses in diet and living, including excess of exercise which stresses the body. These things have worked and continue to work for me. I go on solo canoe expeditions of up to 10 weeks, but don't overly stress myself physically while doing so.

Bullshit unless you can provide some tangible, measurable mechanism to this effect you speak of. "Worked" for you does not mean anything given the evidence (or lack of) that you have provided. You have not shown that anything has "worked". The only thing that is apparent is that your cancer has not progressed. This is not exactly an odd occurrence.

What is the chemical pathway from hate to cancer? How does this work? What are the mechanical components of hatred?

I have as much grounds to say that sex "works" for keeping me from having chickenpox, because I had chickenpox as a kid, but now that I am a sexual adult, I haven't ever had it again. I've been on extended hikes of up to 28 miles a day, but don't go too long without intercourse. Because of this, I am 100% sure that unfulfilled sexual desire can cause or contribute to chickenpox.

You see, these are just whimsical words thrown together. Unless you have some objective way of showing a link between emotional states and cellular damage, you might as well be talking about space-faring whale people using quantum fluctuations to trick your cells into repairing themselves.

Stress puts an additional strain on your system, this is true, but it does not cause cancers. This is about system resources. Stress uses up resources. It might make some symptoms worse, but it is not the reason behind the symptoms. Being happy-touchy-feely-lubby-dubby doesn't fix problems in your system. Reducing stress may be JUST enough of a bump to your system resources to give your immune system a boost in fighting an infection or virus or some such issue, but it doesn't miraculously fix damaged genetic material, and sweet thoughts are not what does the fighting with regards to invaders such as bacteria and viruses.

Originally Posted by Shelley1

Yoga is the best solution to prevent from the cancer. This is the most simple and easy exercise and every one can it without any hesitation.

Yogurt DOES taste good, especially if it has fruit in it. I'm sure it's good for the stomach, too.

Originally Posted by ericv00

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

I am absolutely not saying that malignant hatred causes every malignancy, but I am 100% sure that it can either cause cancers or contribute heavily to onset and development. To any cancer patient I would recommend they abandon all negative emotions, undergo psychotherapy, believe in a merciful God combined with prayer, abandon excesses in diet and living, including excess of exercise which stresses the body. These things have worked and continue to work for me. I go on solo canoe expeditions of up to 10 weeks, but don't overly stress myself physically while doing so.

Bullshit unless you can provide some tangible, measurable mechanism to this effect you speak of. "Worked" for you does not mean anything given the evidence (or lack of) that you have provided. You have not shown that anything has "worked". The only thing that is apparent is that your cancer has not progressed. This is not exactly an odd occurrence.

What is the chemical pathway from hate to cancer? How does this work? What are the mechanical components of hatred?

I have as much grounds to say that sex "works" for keeping me from having chickenpox, because I had chickenpox as a kid, but now that I am a sexual adult, I haven't ever had it again. I've been on extended hikes of up to 28 miles a day, but don't go too long without intercourse. Because of this, I am 100% sure that unfulfilled sexual desire can cause or contribute to chickenpox.

You see, these are just whimsical words thrown together. Unless you have some objective way of showing a link between emotional states and cellular damage, you might as well be talking about space-faring whale people using quantum fluctuations to trick your cells into repairing themselves.

Stress puts an additional strain on your system, this is true, but it does not cause cancers. This is about system resources. Stress uses up resources. It might make some symptoms worse, but it is not the reason behind the symptoms. Being happy-touchy-feely-lubby-dubby doesn't fix problems in your system. Reducing stress may be JUST enough of a bump to your system resources to give your immune system a boost in fighting an infection or virus or some such issue, but it doesn't miraculously fix damaged genetic material, and sweet thoughts are not what does the fighting with regards to invaders such as bacteria and viruses.

Eric, all I have to say is, if you ever get cancer you might want to recall what I posted.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Eric, all I have to say is, if you ever get cancer you might want to recall what I posted.

If I get cancer, I'll recall my knowledge of cancer as well as the accumulated scientific knowledge of cancer to determine my best options.

I see you have no mechanism to this stuff of yours.

My Theory:

take the genes of a shark (which make it immune to cancer) and incert to egg of woman or sperm of man (or both) and experiment on them.

is it possible?? I am not a scientific person. It just came in my mind

Originally Posted by precious

I am not a scientific person.

Not to be mean, but this is obvious. I would suggest to you that the people who have devoted their lives to the biological sciences probably have a better grasp of what the issues and solutions are with regards to cancer, and that you should let them work on the problem with their extensive knowledge.

BTW, sharks can and do get cancer. You ought to check your sources of information. They are faulty.

Originally Posted by ericv00

Originally Posted by precious

I am not a scientific person.

Not to be mean, but this is obvious. I would suggest to you that the people who have devoted their lives to the biological sciences probably have a better grasp of what the issues and solutions are with regards to cancer, and that you should let them work on the problem with their extensive knowledge.

BTW, sharks can and do get cancer. You ought to check your sources of information. They are faulty.

I have heared that sharks are 100% immune to cancer. if you are saying opposite then kindly you should provide me some data or any link. i have provided an established fact. kindly support you statement.

I dont take offence you can call me an ordinary man.
Thanx

Originally Posted by precious

Originally Posted by ericv00

Originally Posted by precious

I am not a scientific person.

Not to be mean, but this is obvious. I would suggest to you that the people who have devoted their lives to the biological sciences probably have a better grasp of what the issues and solutions are with regards to cancer, and that you should let them work on the problem with their extensive knowledge.

BTW, sharks can and do get cancer. You ought to check your sources of information. They are faulty.

I have heared that sharks are 100% immune to cancer. if you are saying opposite then kindly you should provide me some data or any link. i have provided an established fact. kindly support you statement.

I dont take offence you can call me an ordinary man.
Thanx

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because I have no data on the cancer rate of pigmy elephants doesn't mean they can't get cancer.

Perhaps you can show me a study done for the specific purpose of determining cancer rates of sharks. If you can't, YOUR statement is unsupported, and that is kind of the point.

This is the problem. I know how cancer works. You do not seem to. I know that there is nothing preventative with regards to the CAUSE of cancer, so to say that a creature does not get cancer is bogus. But I will humor your request and seek out papers on the subject. The better question is, will you learn from the experiences you are having here? You can't make claims unsupported, out-of-the-blue, without knowledge on the subject in question.

Well, well, well...

[h=1]Shark Cartilage, Cancer and the Growing Threat of Pseudoscience[/h]

• Gary K. Ostrander ¹ ,
• Keith C. Cheng ² ,
• Jeffrey C. Wolf ³ , and
• Marilyn J. Wolfe ³

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/co.../23/8485.short

That was fast.

Originally Posted by precious

i have provided an established fact.

I would appreciate it if you would not lie in the future.

Also, learn about a subject before you present it as fact.

Originally Posted by precious

I have heared that sharks are 100% immune to cancer. if you are saying opposite then kindly you should provide me some data or any link. i have provided an established fact. kindly support you statement.

No, you have provided an unsupported assertion which, it turns out, is a myth.

Mythbusting 101: Sharks will cure cancer | Science Sushi, Scientific American Blog Network

Originally Posted by ericv00

Originally Posted by precious

i have provided an established fact.

I would appreciate it if you would not lie in the future.

Also, learn about a subject before you present it as fact.

point noted with humble thanx.

Todays science will be a lie for tomorrow's scientists.

@Strange
Thanx

The shark thing was never much more then a mis understood mem from what I know. Thus "lies" is a very strong and incorrect word to use, and "Scientists" are not the correct group to blame.

i think that when one person is in a cancer then the child also adapt the cancer.because if the father have a full body cancer then there must be in a child have a cancer and mother will also adapt a cancer because germs of a cancer are also enter in a mother.

Originally Posted by einfopedia

i think that when one person is in a cancer then the child also adapt the cancer.because if the father have a full body cancer then there must be in a child have a cancer and mother will also adapt a cancer because germs of a cancer are also enter in a mother.

Cancer is a systemic failure of our body to fight cancerous growth. We don't adapt to cancer... instead we LOOSE our ability to fight cancer because we are sick. It is a misconception to believe that you need to get cancer to be immune/adapt to it (normal people already immune to cancer).

Originally Posted by msafwan

Originally Posted by einfopedia

i think that when one person is in a cancer then the child also adapt the cancer.because if the father have a full body cancer then there must be in a child have a cancer and mother will also adapt a cancer because germs of a cancer are also enter in a mother.

Cancer is a systemic failure of our body to fight cancerous growth. We don't adapt to cancer... instead we LOOSE our ability to fight cancer because we are sick. It is a misconception to believe that you need to get cancer to be immune/adapt to it (normal people already immune to cancer).

Immune might not be the best word here. Heh.


It's been a long time since I'd been to this site!

Originally Posted by moker

When people breed with each other their genes combine and form a new child that has genes from his father and his mother.
That way that child will have a better surviving chance than his father and his mother because he has a better genetic makeup.

What if that father and that mother that made that child have cancer or one of them has cancer.
And that the mother will get pregnant.
I think that maybe in the process of making a baby in the body of the mother.
There will happen something within the foetus.
It will adapt to the cancer while it is still a foetus.

This is just a theory and maybe it is nonsense and you will laugh it and think that it is foolish.
I hope that you won't call it nonsense and laugh at it and think that it is foolish.

I hope that you will give this theory a chance.
Even if the chance that you give it is very very small.


The next questions is if it is ethical to do experiments like these.
But i am not the correct person to decide that.

1st, not all cancers are hereditary, some can occur spontaniously
2nd, not all cancers are caused by genetic defects, some occur in protein imbalance, and then the deletion of certain genes during multiplication, the cause is in this case not genetic.
3rd, not all cancers are affected just one cause, some are an addition of multiple causes. Like a hereditary mutation in a TNF (tumor necrosis factor), or a cell proliferation factor. That would still function fine, but then, a toxin enters the cell, and causes the last straw to break this camel's back.
4th, there will never be a cure for all cancer. as of there are so many different kinds. The chemicals used to fight cancer do however kill cancerous cells, they also kill healthy cells. Even then, these chemicals are known to be cancerous themselves, and might create new problems.
5th, There still is some hope, in trying to protect the human cells better, implementing another failsafe, and the use of focussing microwave radiation to cook the effected cells.
6th, in the far far future, nanobots will be used to kill off cells that carry a specific marker, kinda star trekky.. Tumor cells have a different appearance then healthy cells, usually, so they can be fought this way.

Hmm, did i miss somethings?

Say whatever you say, don't put down the hope. You might have good knowledge but not so good social skills.
The one who posted such knows.

To say there will be a cure to cancer is to say "I don't understand what cancer is."

We will develop new and better treatments, but there is no such thing as a cure for cancer. Much like there is no such thing as a cure for plane crashes. There will never be something you can take that will prevent you from getting cancer. Cancer is not like scurvy. Cancer is not like chickenpox.

You may not like that fact. You might not like that there is no hope for a cure. But wishful thinking and pretending that these facts aren't true will not do anyone any good. It only wastes time and confuses the unknowledgeable.

Though, some cancers can be prevented.... Don't forget mentioning that... About 60% of the current kinds of cancers can be prevented by monitoring health, retroviral shots and simply don't smoke/drink/do drugs.

HPV (human papyloma virus) causes cervical cancer, and is now vaccinable.. so don't say there is no cure possible.. as i wasn't saying that.

There will just never be a total cure for all kinds. Cells proliferate, and there will always be errors in DNA...