Possible cure to all cancers??????

S

sargentlard

Save the whales motherfucker
Valued Senior Member
If we can't seem to detect cancer growth in alloted time for it too be eradicated with no chance of ever reviving in the host. Than why doesn't science focus more on the cancer cells ability to start angiogenesis. If i remember correctly cancer cells feed off and spread their influence through their ability to activate angiogenesis in the host to feed their grubby little needs. Why not focus on making that ability defunct in these cells...at least a out of control cancer will weaken off significantly and may permanantely go into remission. I know that many other factors get involved in the process of a cancer spreading but this might a possible alternate to curing cancers. Cut of the gravy train and you stop the invader. I believe this has been tested on rabbits where infected cells were placed on the rabbits cornea....where there are no blood veins....a few days later the eye became swollen with many new blood veins taking over the cornea proving that cancer cells contains chemicals that trick the host into starting angiogenesis.

I may be blowing hot air here but be gentle:( seeing as how i am only curious and it is my first time here. Thank you and post any ideas or opinions you guys have.
 
The main problem with your suggestion is this: cancer cells are still recognized by the body as our own cells, and are, for all intents and purposes, still specialized. This means that treatments that have to target these cells specifically are very difficult.
 
Hmmm you're quite right...well because they are the cells of the host...just "cells gone bad".....Ok so what about Cancer in the late stages??? i believe those cells are a lot easier to diagnose than early stage cancer growth cells...Any suggestions on that???..Could angiogenesis targeting drugs help diagnose cancer in the later stages.
 
Diagnose or cure? And what do you mean exactly by late stages? They are easier to diagnose because they are larger and more abundant when the cancer is farther along. Also, if the original tumour was in the liver, and began metastasizing, then there would be tumours of liver cells elsewhere in the body. The tumour doesn't lose its specialization.
 
HMMM..you're clearing up a lot. So this technique may not work for cancers of all sorts but it does seem like a interesting road to follow.
 
sargentlard,

But there is a lot of focus on angiogenesis! You read magazines like Nature and Scientific American there were several articles recently about the revolution of anti-angiogenesis drugs on cancer. Even so stopping angiogenesis only prevent the cancer from growing, other drugs and/or therapies are needed to finish the cancer off. There will never be a universal cure for cancer but combined treatments are getting successively better. At this rate most cancers will have the same fatality rate of the flu by 2030.
 
These are brilliant posts from everyone - priceless

Thank you sargentlard for starting this :)
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Even so stopping angiogenesis only prevent the cancer from growing, other drugs and/or therapies are needed to finish the cancer off.
Click to expand...
Do cancer cells present any threat if they are not multiplying? Or is it just that the growth is stopped/slowed only while drugs are being taken?
 
best idea

why not just make a virus that attacks cancer cells. are bodies may not be able to detect cancer cells and destroy them, btu a hungry virus is sure to find it.
 
I think most research today is focused on treating cancer with biotechnology, such as gene therapy. The idea is to genetically engineer a virus to insert its DNA into cancer cells, instructing them to destroy themselves or something similar.
 
Does anyone know the main difference between cancer cells, and our own cells?
Click to expand...

The difference is dependent on the cancer cell type. Many of these differences have been targeted with drugs for example a common form of breast cancer has an over abundance of a receptor on is surfaces this is being targeted with specialized antibiotics. All cancers though are under constant high-speed replication and that makes them weaker to common cancer treatments (Radiation, chemotherapies, ect). Because all cancer are different and on many cases are even different on an individual level modern drugs and treatment as effective as they are, are very specialized to a specific cancer type. This is why there will never be a magic bullet against all cancers (aside for the day of bio/nanorobotic devices that can hunt cancer down and fix all ailments and make life spans in the thousands of years, but that’s a very different subject that we won’t see tell were very old and past retirement)
 
To summarize what WellCookedFetus has said, cancer cells are mutations.

Chemical agents harmful to a cell's DNA (aka teratogens) such as radiation, antibiotics, alcohol, tobacco, narcotics, and other drugs can affect a body's cells by destroying part of their DNA, which renders most damaged cells useless and they usually die. However, if only one cell damaged by these teratogens survives, chances are that it would no longer be able to perform its usual tasks, but will replicate as quickly as possible, creating a tumour.

That tumor is what is dangerous, for when it grows to become a big tumor it interferes with other organs such as the heart or liver. Cancerous cells can also travel in the blood, which means it can begin from one place in your body and kill you somewhere else.

That pretty much summarizes all I know about cancer.
 
That tumor is what is dangerous, for when it grows to become a big tumor it interferes with other organs such as the heart or liver. Cancerous cells can also travel in the blood, which means it can begin from one place in your body and kill you somewhere else.
Click to expand...


That is what happened to Bob Marley.....:(


Do cancer cells present any threat if they are not multiplying? Or is it just that the growth is stopped/slowed only while drugs are being taken?
Click to expand...


Well if their ability of angiogenesis is stopped then they don't have a food source. I believe they still present a threat if they are not multiplying anymore but are still there. I believe it is the latter of what you said.

Thank you sargentlard for starting this
Click to expand...

You're quite welcome...thanks PBS for that excellent program on Angiogenesis.
 
why not just make a virus that attacks cancer cells. are bodies may not be able to detect cancer cells and destroy them
Click to expand...
Viruses need certain receptor sites on the cell's surface to attach to before entering. Cancer cells don't gain new receptor sites that a virus can be specific for, which means that it won't be able to differentiate between normal cells and cancerous ones. This is the same problem as sargentlard's original suggestion. This is being researched like Alien Mastermind said, but it is far from being a successful means of treatment due to the aforementioned problem.
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Also our immune system would attack the virus.
Click to expand...
That is the least of problems. A virus can nowadays be modified to be ignored by the immune system, I believe. Think how people made biological weapons. The immune system is not impenetrable, as SARS recently showed.
 
Almost seems like some people are supposed to get terminal diseases and to try and render them obsolete would be defying nature and wrong.
Or maybe it just seems like that to me:( probably
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top