JFKvsNixon Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 There is going to be a massive shift in how we target illness such as cancer in the future thanks to the Human Genome Project, with everybody's genes being tested at birth. Then the medics will know what illness your are susceptible to so they target their screening much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cressida Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) It was on this morning's news that they had managed to stop the cancer spreading http://www.britishskinfoundation.org.uk/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=c7KEuhDyEAA%3D&tabid=172 Edited June 9, 2015 by cressida Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 A lot of people pay in to cancer research charities, which is great. However, I feel there is one legitimate concern... When a cure is found; will there be some large pharmaceutical corporation, that will somehow end up owning the cure, and selling it; so that it's only accessible to the wealthy? I generally refuse to support charities that use professional door knockers to try to convince you to sign up to a direct debit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 That's right, but it is likley that one day most if not all will be preventable. Isn't "if not all will be preventable" saying that we could prevent all cancer at some point in the future. ---------- Post added 09-06-2015 at 10:14 ---------- I haven't said we will one day prevent all cancer, we also won't detect all cancer or cure all cancer, but it will one day be possible to do all three. So you haven't said we'll be able to do it. But one day (you've now said), we will be able to do all three, which includes the thing you hadn't said ---------- Post added 09-06-2015 at 10:15 ---------- There is going to be a massive shift in how we target illness such as cancer in the future thanks to the Human Genome Project, with everybody's genes being tested at birth. Then the medics will know what illness your are susceptible to so they target their screening much better. Everyone is susceptible to cancer, and given that it's a corruption of your DNA testing at birth isn't going to identify that you'll get lung cancer from breathing in car fumes, or skin cancer at 55 trigger by getting sunburned one time too many in you late teens. ---------- Post added 09-06-2015 at 10:16 ---------- It was on this morning's news that they had managed to stop the cancer spreading http://www.britishskinfoundation.org.uk/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=c7KEuhDyEAA%3D&tabid=172 Skin cancer specifically. But still great news and another step forwards to treating 1 type of cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) Everyone is susceptible to cancer, and given that it's a corruption of your DNA testing at birth isn't going to identify that you'll get lung cancer from breathing in car fumes, or skin cancer at 55 trigger by getting sunburned one time too many in you late teens. Cancers are influenced by your genes, for example currently they are checking the genes of ladies looking for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, if there’s a fault or mutation in one of them, the risk of breast cancer is high. Some ladies with these genes are choosing have prophylactic breast and ovarian surgery. I am not saying that there will be a test that will say these are the illnesses that you will get, just at some stage it'll be possible to predict what illnesses that you are genetically susceptible too. Edited June 9, 2015 by JFKvsNixon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Isn't "if not all will be preventable" saying that we could prevent all cancer at some point in the future. So you haven't said we'll be able to do it. But one day (you've now said), we will be able to do all three, which includes the thing you hadn't said It's a knock-out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) Isn't "if not all will be preventable" saying that we could prevent all cancer at some point in the future. So you haven't said we'll be able to do it. But one day (you've now said), we will be able to do all three, which includes the thing you hadn't said Could and will don't mean the same, and something being preventable doesn't mean it will be prevented, just because something is possible, doesn't mean it will actually be done. Smoking related lung cancer is preventable, yet people still get smoking related lung cancer because they choose to smoke. Edited June 9, 2015 by loraward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Cancers are influenced by your genes, for example currently they are checking the genes of ladies looking for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, if there’s a fault or mutation in one of them, the risk of breast cancer is high. Some ladies with these genes are choosing have prophylactic breast and ovarian surgery. Yep, there are existing 'faulty' gene sequences that make you more susceptible to certain cancers. I am not saying that there will be a test that will say these are the illnesses that you will get, just at some stage it'll be possible to predict what illnesses that you are genetically susceptible too. There are plenty of others that are entirely unpredictable and entirely environment based. ---------- Post added 09-06-2015 at 14:46 ---------- Could and will don't mean the same, and something being preventable doesn't mean it will be prevented. If it's possible for us to do it, why wouldn't we do it? Anyway, my point has, and continues to be, that all cancer will not be preventable. It isn't possible to prevent random ionisation events that cause DNA damage. People will always get cancer. What will improve is our early detection of it and ability to treat it effectively. There is no reason that in the future cancer will not be entirely and routinely survivable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Yes And I've already posted a thread and my invaluable thoughts on this topic - but was mortified to find that they were all deleted One can but try! No, you tried to tell us that there was a diet that would cure cancer, which was reported multiple times over as misrepresentation because although there are lots of diets which can reduce the risk of getting cancer, there is NO good clinical proof that any diet will stop a cancer that you already have from growing, let alone reducing the size or danger of an existing tumour. Such claims are dangerous because someone who has cancer has even a short delay while they decide whether to take conventional treatment or change diets, that can be fatal for them, and to post that you are judging people for taking the conventional treatment is deeply offensive to those who are fighting the fight of their lives already and who really don't need judging too. As loads of people have pointed out, there is no such thing as one cure for cancer, because there is no such thing as just one 'cancer'. There are hundreds of different tumours, each of which take their own treatment and each of which needs to be researched in depth to discover that treatment. Stop lumping it all together and then judging people for having an opinion which is different to yours. I for one do not appreciate being judged for spending 18 years fighting a tumour that you believe I could have just got rid of by changing my diet. If it regrouped and came back repeatedly despite surgery, radiotherapy, hormone treatment and chemo then I fail to see how changing my diet could have done any better. And breathe.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 If it's possible for us to do it, why wouldn't we do it? Because some people don't want to do it. Anyway, my point has, and continues to be, that all cancer will not be preventable. It isn't possible to prevent random ionisation events that cause DNA damage. People will always get cancer. What will improve is our early detection of it and ability to treat it effectively. There is no reason that in the future cancer will not be entirely and routinely survivable. But it will be possible to stop random ionisation causing DNA damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now