Why Curing Cancer is Impossible

2045 is silly optimistic and seems unlikely at best. Though just by combining the roster of people they have on board + the $$$ they have is quiet impressive. If nothing else something useful will definitely come out of it, even if that something is not nearly what they are trying to achieve.

This. It won't be a total waste of time. I'm looking forward to see what they discover/create on the human brain, it always was an interesting topic for me.

But still, if it's to play with theories and possibilities, nano bodies still looks easier than curing cancer/death. ._.

LMFAO!

i can't believe you guys are still falling for his shenanigans. he's not looking for a discussion. he makes a statement, and that's the end of his cognitive functions. no amount of logic, reason, or empirical evidence will change his feeble mind.


he boycotts all products from california because he once got some produce with a spider on it. does that sound like someone who is even remotely rational?

By definition, something that is cured will not persist in the body.



That could work, but you'd have to be more specific as to how we would manage to do all of that in successful manner.



... ... ...

Did I somehow miss your rebuttal, or...?



I'm pretty sure I've only "come down hard" on those who have clearly not read the original post and/or present no rebuttal to said opening post.



Hmm... this is an interesting claim. The only issue I have with it, though, is the fact that you have presented no evidence to back up your claim.

You say that I am not looking for a discussion, yet contained within this very topic are sub-discussions that I've been having with people.

Lampoonery and slander will get you nowhere quite swiftly.

Somehow I get the feeling that you do not understand the difference between curing and preventing it.

What would bring you to that sort of conclusion?

I have not once stated that I had any issues with funding attempts to create better methods of prevention in regard to cancer.

And this proves it. Your whole argument deals more with preventing cancer from (re-)appearing than curing it, should it appear. Even if completely curing cancer might be difficult or impossible at this time, it's much more probable to achieve this than to prevent it from ever happening.

You've got me intrigued now.

Care to elaborate?

Your argument deals with causes of cancer (mutations and their causes, e.g. UV rays). You argue that cancer can not be cured because of these reasons can not be avoided. This only means that it can not necessarily be prevented, it does say nothing about the possibility of removing or replacing the mutated cancerous cells.

To quote my first post:



In other words, even if we were to look at it from a post-acquisition perspective, cancer still has too many variables for a human being to account for.

It is this, I believe, that you refer to in your first reply:



To this, I ask you the following:

1. Are you implying that we may reach a point in time where we would be able to account for all of the (only slightly) sub-infinite number of possible mutations? If so, how do you propose this would be done?

2. While logically the likelihood of curing a maladial affliction is greater than the likelihood of halting its acquisition in some instances, why do you feel that such would be applicable to cancer?

All that is needed for a cure is a method to remove the mutated cells. While the technology to do so may not exist today (and there may be other methods I have not thought of myself), the mutated cells can be identified by comparing their DNA to either the patient's normal DNA or mutated DNA acquired from the tumor, and removed after that. Basically, the cure does not have to account for all possible mutations, it only needs to be modifiable based on the case at hand. Preventing naturally occurring mutations which may not all be hazardous and in some cases even beneficial would be much harder to accomplish and not necessarily even a good idea from an evolutionary standpoint.

That's a sound argument, I suppose. Without explaining how we would surpass natural human limitations, however, it's hard to put such a claim to serious thought.



... I like your idea.

How would we make this (to put in better terms for this case) "antidote", modifiable?

Reminds me of this part of an old skit I saw on MadTv when it was still good:

SS Mitchel: And you cured cancer.
President: How the hell did I cure cancer?
SS Mitchel: You took 9 of the richest guys in the world, and gave them all cancer. Within 6 months we had 9 different cures.


Seems to me there probably isn't enough of an incentive to cure cancer, let alone have it released to the public without exorbitant fees for the current "treatments"

Oh look! Another person who has decided to pay no attention to the opening post.

Hiya doin' there, pal?

I'm doing mighty fine here with my hot piping cup of english tea, gladly awaiting the time of transhumanism, when the biological anomalies become horror stories of the past. In any case, I see you are very avid in wanting to cure this great malady, yet are disparaging any methods of prevention by arguing semantics. I can see you are trying very hard to encourage us to think outside the box and I commend your efforts but I truly wonder, what the point will be? Surely if one is eventually able to cure this, wouldn't another malady simply take it's place and continue this cycle? And it is certainly not impossible, just improbable within our current time. Eventually we'll figure this out, just like how we put a man on the moon or we might simply just abandon these inefficient biological bodies for a much more efficient one, eliminating the source of the issue itself. So relax, don't over think it, and wait for it to happen. God knows you're contributing to solving this issue by posting about it on a pornographic website.

Curing cancer is not impossible, but extremly hard. That is because to end it you have to kill all of the cancer cells. We can do that but it also has the side effect of killing all of the healthy cells. Scientist need to find a way to target only the mutated cancer cells.

I think that some kind of "world-effort" is missing. Researches should be more easily covered and publicized. Just smalls labs and some big ones are not enough...

As well there a TED video about a boy in Canada who created a device to identify any kind of cancer. IDK the situation now, but is pretty promising.

...You sound like the coffee scene from Earthbound.

In any case, nature runs on the concept of "survival of the fittest." Nonetheless, your fraining is interesting. Might you elaborate further on your topic of questioning: "Human beings might shift themselves over to a nonorganic, immortal body." Please, I frain thee; do elaborate.



No, no no. You cannot refute my claim by just repeating what I've already addressed previously. "Scientist [sic] need to find a way to target only the mutated cancer cells" is not a rebuttal. You need to actually put forth a possible method in which they could "find a way to target only the mutated cancer cells."



I'm don't know why I even bother to address this statement. You have both failed to address my opening post, and have also not given a rebuttal to my initial claim.

There are treatments that have 'cured cancer' in a way. Many people have beaten cancer and live normal lives. As far as a definite cure like some kind of medicine you could take to cure it, I don't see it happening. If you catch cancer early on it can most definitely be treated.