Why Curing Cancer is Impossible

I continue to hear complaints to medical professionals and scientists as to why they don't "work on a cure for cancer." This constant nagging irks my intellectual side to no end, due to the simple fact that curing cancer is impossible.

Thou seeth, it is common knowledge that a cancerous tumour is formed by an improper duplication of DNA within cells. (If for some reason you don't comprehend, think of the process like making multiple copies of a document, only that you have to reinsert the document into the machine each time you make a copy. If it isn't the inevitable ink running low and causing parts of the text to not be properly duplicated, then the paper might jam, or perhaps the person inserting the paper puts it in lopsided. The point is, if you are making 1,000,000 copies, chances are something will go awry.)

Therefore, it is possible for a healthy, safe and unstressed person to suddenly find themselves harbouring a cancerous tumour. It is unlikely, but it most certainly can occur.

Furthermore, the reason behind certain things increasing the chance of a cancer is quite elementary as well. A "tan," for bisen, is the remains of dead skin cells killed by the UV rays of the sun or artificial tanning service. If one constantly kills cells via constant tanning, they will need to have more duplications of those cells made more often. Ergo, the chance of an error to be present in the new cells is more likely.

Some argue that it would be possible to develop something to cause the body to be more alert for certain kinds of mutations. Indeed, such a thing can be created, but I ask you this: Is it reasonable to think that every single possible error in cell reproduction could be accounted for in such a thing? No. It couldn't.(To compare to something more people might be aware of: Pesticides kill bugs. Pesticides are generally effective. However, some bugs have developed mutations that render the pesticide harmless to them. The same would be true in the case of cell duplication errors.)

It is also illogical to think that new things could be developed for every new mutation. That would be like relying on a spaceship launch's counter effect of creating new water due to the chemical reaction of the launch as one's sole source of water production. It's impossible to perfect, and it is a waste of valuable resources.

Thusly, curing cancer is impossible and a waste of valuable resources and time.

People telling others to look for the "cure to cancer" is just a metaphor for "use time and money wisely"

Of course there is no cure to cancer. Although Cancer is technically a disease, it isn't caused by any outside forces (as in viruses, bacteria, animals, etc).

We can pour money into research on how to treat cancer, which many already do. I'm pretty sure most doctors who recieve that money know about this already.

Hence why they don't attempt to actually look for a nonexistant cure. My problem is with the general populace and why they don't understand this.

There is a cure for cancer. It was developed at the universty of edmonton, in canada. There has also been a cure for HIV, Aids, tumors, lukemia, and many other ailments that people seem to get.

They don't get media coverage and never will for a very simple reason. There's no money to be made in curing people. The huge drug companies put all their money in the medication and not the cure. You can make billions off of the suffering of people who will do anything and take any amount of random pills just to get rid of pain with a vain hope of living. They would never allow you to know of a cure cancer cause that would stop billions of dollars in sales.

Any papers or anything to prove that this university found a cure for cancer ? Also if any of these cures came out or to the for front of society and gained coverage how would such a thing work if lets say it targeted tumors with in the breast ? Doesn't Bayer have a patient on the Brica21 gene I believe that gives them control over any cancer causing drug that can cure it etc ? What about the whole patiening of genes that I believe has seemingly passed not to long ago with Monsanto vs that farmer or that gene company in Australia ? Sort puts a effective stop on developing or bringing out a cure that can help/save people when you can get sued or have a huge ass legal battle that could destroy your life etc.


Note I know Wikipedia is a bad reference but I'm lazy right now to fine the actual act/law/bill whatever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assurance_Provision



Then there is the shit thats going on in Australia

http://rt.com/news/australia-genes-patent-law-368/

Your ire shouldn't be aimed at the general populace, but rather the people that use so many resources to keep them as blind sheep. Your problem is with the governing powers of your country and the world, with misappropriation of funds and an educational budget that is likely a small fraction of your country's military budget. Those are where the real problems lie, and where solutions to ignorance can become a reality.

Also, I'd just like to throw this technological and entirely possible scenario out there as a "cure", or I should rather say proactive solution for dealing with cancer.

A.I. nanites that continuously comb your system and eliminate non-functional and damaged cells that aren't picked up by your body's regular maintainers.

A cure doesnt need to prevent like your are putting it. So techniques that can detect cancer when its still a few cells instead of millions can be very effective and should be researched. Advanced organ transplantation is also an option (take at the sick one and replace it with a new one). So the amount of cancer victims an still be drastically reduced. Also your argument of constantly adapting to a mutation being impossible is invalid, in fact they do it all the time for flu.

I'm far from being a scientist (even though I love and study a bit of Science on my own) but this seems like quite the ridiculous topic. A few years ago, so to speak, traveling through the skies was impossible, now it's common. What if people back then said "We don't have wings, therefore, it's impossible". And considering that many people can treat their cancer and live long lives, it seems like it is anything but impossible. It's not living in Pluto, we do have something on it.

Overall, this is counter-intuitive to everything Science represents.

While curing cancer may be a waste of time or money, what's wrong with trying? I'd rather spend my tax money on trying to find the cure for cancer than bullets and missiles for war.

What if we changed the saying from "curing cancer" to "making cancer more treatable"?

The reason why cancer and other diseases will never find a "Cure" is because some morally corrupt people have incentives to make sure a cure never sees the light of day. It's how bad car repair shops operate, why permanently fix a problem when you can ensure the customer will come back.

The reason polio was almost entirely cured was due to the fact that the creator of the vaccine decided not to make the formula exclusively owned by one company.

Open source curing and the allowance of generics in medication is the only way: yes, someone/group will profit, but at least make it available in many forms and at multiple cost levels.

All medicine become public after several years and can be produced by any company.

I've just proven that such is impossible.



That could work.



-facepalm-

Unlike the flu, this would be a 24/7 monitoring process. Furthermore, the near-infinite amount of mutations that can occur would make it a wasted effort. Unless you, sir, would like to spend all of your family's money on researching it for the rest of your family's existence (plus more). If you do, then go ahead.



That's like spending tax money on finding the Fountain of Youth. If you want to do it, go ahead.



I'd be fine with such.



What the heck? You clearly did not read through my opening post, because if you did, you wouldn't have made that comment. I am awestruck by the stupidity of that statement. First of all, cancer is due to an error that YOUR body made. How the devil do you propose that imperfect beings make a way to make themselves perfect? (hint: they can't.)



PROTIP: Cancer is not caused by an infectious agent. It is caused by YOUR dang body duplicating DNA incorrectly. You cannot "cure" cancer because you cannot make human beings perfect (as an imperfect being cannot make something that is perfect.) DON'T RESPOND TO THE TOPIC IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE ORIGINAL POST. (Geez, common sense isn't very common these days...)

So you just comment on a tiny example I mentioned instead of actually replying to the arguments I gave. Unless you got a degree in this field I think we are both unqualified to say what is possible and what is not in terms of mutation and prevention. However what certainly is possible is dealing with it by detecting it before it spreads, wich can be done if the research cheaper DNA tests

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid


yet it's being ignored

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/03/one-drug-to-shrink-all-tumors.html?ref=hp

Even science magazine had a write up where they found a way to shrink and cure tumors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op8gyqm5_lw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca5utSLxnGo


Impossible? Not according to science. Your lack of faith in science is disturbing.

But it's just as I said, if you watch the second video, there is no money in the cure.

Your only proof was mitochondria, which you have a completely wrong definition of what that is.

Mitochondia: An organelle found in large numbers in most cells, in which the biochemical processes of respiration and energy production occur.


Tell me more about how it is impossible, just as the einstien was told that relativity was impossible, that splitting the atom was impossible, that the wright brothers would never fly (that's impossible), that computers would always take up a full room, boats would never go under water, we would never send a man to the moon, nobody would ever cure polio.

Do I need to continue the list of things that people say are impossible? Cause saying anything is impossible just proves stupidity.

I don't disagree with this. However, we aren't talking about the money spent trying to treat cancer, we are talking about spending money on something very impractical and not possible by imperfect beings.



None of those things were a fault created within the human body itself. Homo sapiens sapiens have always been imperfect creatures. Nothing (save Yahweh and Yeshua/Jesus) is perfect. Furthermore, an imperfect creature can never perfect something; not ever. Polio has not been eradicated, only lessened (and even that is only in first world countries.) Smallpox was eradicated, but: 1. It still is existent due to scientists being adamant about possessing samples of it. 2. It already had a naturally existent "vaccine" (no, literally. A cure from a cow.) "cowpox." 3. It theoretically could be artificially mutated enough to be able to infect again.

I dont really think you are in a position to know how much money is spend on what kind of research. maybe if you spend half of your defense budget on better DNA tests you would have saved countless lives. Now tell me whats useless, paying money so lots of people can die in little efford or paying money so atleast a few more people can live.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you mind restating your question in a different manner?

Basically, I think you over state the amount of wasted money on this research. Neither of us really knows anything really specific about this research. And even if its not super efficient, look at how much money America spends on defence. Money spend of defence increases killing eficienty by a lot so if you spend that money on research of cancer you would save lots of lives (even if its not highly efficient).