Cure for cancer, bitches

[garbon]

I don't see anything in here about a cure for bitches.

divorce.

I'm not even married.

[fhdz]

With your years and years of experience in pharmacology I am sure to trust your expert opinion.

With luminaries such as Merithyn and yourself lined up against it, Fate's critique looks thin indeed.

Every scientific breakthrough is "impossible"...until it isn't.

[fhdz]

It is absolutely ludicrous to think there will be a single cure for all cancers as the author purports.

With your years and years of experience in pharmacology I am sure to trust your expert opinion.

It does seem odd to suggest there would be one cure. Given that at the most basic cancers all involve cells growing uncontrollably in a way that harms the body - why would it make sense to assume there would be a drug that could stop such growth in all types of cells?

It doesn't make sense to "assume" it at all. It makes a lot more sense to keep testing and see if it works or doesn't work.

[garbon]

It is absolutely ludicrous to think there will be a single cure for all cancers as the author purports.

With your years and years of experience in pharmacology I am sure to trust your expert opinion.

It does seem odd to suggest there would be one cure. Given that at the most basic cancers all involve cells growing uncontrollably in a way that harms the body - why would it make sense to assume there would be a drug that could stop such growth in all types of cells?

It doesn't make sense to "assume" it at all. It makes a lot more sense to keep testing and see if it works or doesn't work.

Actually I do think it makes sense to assume there won't be one superdrug that stops all types of cancers. Probably better to funnel that money towards stopping particular types of cancers given that the root causes and the sorts of mechanisms of actions you need for various types varies wildly.  Thinking about cancer as one disease that can be cure with one medicine probably isn't very helpful.

[garbon]

Also, pharma companies routinely test their cancer drugs on other types of cancer cells. They a big incentive as a new indication lets them extend the patent.

[fhdz]

It is absolutely ludicrous to think there will be a single cure for all cancers as the author purports.

With your years and years of experience in pharmacology I am sure to trust your expert opinion.

It does seem odd to suggest there would be one cure. Given that at the most basic cancers all involve cells growing uncontrollably in a way that harms the body - why would it make sense to assume there would be a drug that could stop such growth in all types of cells?

It doesn't make sense to "assume" it at all. It makes a lot more sense to keep testing and see if it works or doesn't work.

Actually I do think it makes sense to assume there won't be one superdrug that stops all types of cancers. Probably better to funnel that money towards stopping particular types of cancers given that the root causes and the sorts of mechanisms of actions you need for various types varies wildly.  Thinking about cancer as one disease that can be cure with one medicine probably isn't very helpful.

I would say testing a lung cancer medicine and finding that it also works on brain tumors would be very helpful indeed.

And really - if we were talking about some drug with proven results in rolling back - let's take a random number - 5 different kinds of cancer, would we honestly be having some stupid conversation about how "this one doesn't cure all of them, it's no good"? Would we still be calling it a superdrug? We would - most of us would, anyway, unless Fate and other keen predictors of the future decide to opt out - and we would be quite right to do so.

The instant it's tested on a number of patients with lung cancer (for example) and it's determined that it has no beneficial effect no one will be talking about it as a cure-all. However it advances research in a number of directions and, more importantly, helps people who fucking happen to have brain tumors. What could possibly be "wrong" with that?

[garbon]

I would say testing a lung cancer medicine and finding that it also works on brain tumors would be very helpful indeed.

And really - if we were talking about some drug with proven results in rolling back - let's take a random number - 5 different kinds of cancer, would we honestly be having some stupid conversation about how "this one doesn't cure all of them, it's no good"?

The instant it's tested on a number of patients with lung cancer (for example) and it's determined that it has no beneficial effect no one will be talking about it as a cure-all. However it advances research in a number of directions and, more importantly, helps people who fucking happen to have brain tumors. What could possibly be "wrong" with that?

There's nothing wrong with testing a drug on a different type of cancer - and as I said that does actually routinely take place.

Of course, there could be something unethical with testing a cancer drug on a type of cancer (in a person) when you've know reason to believe it'd work.

[fhdz]

I would say testing a lung cancer medicine and finding that it also works on brain tumors would be very helpful indeed.

And really - if we were talking about some drug with proven results in rolling back - let's take a random number - 5 different kinds of cancer, would we honestly be having some stupid conversation about how "this one doesn't cure all of them, it's no good"?

The instant it's tested on a number of patients with lung cancer (for example) and it's determined that it has no beneficial effect no one will be talking about it as a cure-all. However it advances research in a number of directions and, more importantly, helps people who fucking happen to have brain tumors. What could possibly be "wrong" with that?

There's nothing wrong with testing a drug on a different type of cancer - and as I said that does actually routinely take place.

Of course, there could be something unethical with testing a cancer drug on a type of cancer (in a person) when you've know reason to believe it'd work.

If you test a drug on a human's lung cancer because it has succeeded in reducing lung cancer in non-humans, you might test the same drug on a human's brain cancer if that drug has succeeded in reducing brain cancer in the same batch of non-humans.

I mean - I assume that's how it works, because I assume we're talking about the scientific method here, right?

[garbon]

I'm still not really sure I'm understanding your attitude. I've already said that testing of cancer agents on different tumor types occurs...so the sticking point appears to be whether or not one thinks it useful to think there will be a drug that can cure all cancer types or whether drugs should be developed with particular cancers in mind and then tested to see what additional effects they might have. Is that fair?

[Ed Anger]

Anybody do 'listen to your body' yet?

[fhdz]

I'm still not really sure I'm understanding your attitude. I've already said that testing of cancer agents on different tumor types occurs...so the sticking point appears to be whether or not one thinks it useful to think there will be a drug that can cure all cancer types or whether drugs should be developed with particular cancers in mind and then tested to see what additional effects they might have. Is that fair?

My issue was with Fate's prognostication. I think scientists developing cancer drugs should proceed in whatever way makes the most scientific sense and is most humane.

[Razgovory]

Anybody do 'listen to your body' yet?

I was considering it.  Working out how do run the best joke about Fate not studying to be a Holistic doctor.

[merithyn]

With your years and years of experience in pharmacology I am sure to trust your expert opinion.

With luminaries such as Merithyn and yourself lined up against it, Fate's critique looks thin indeed.

I don't remember saying that Fate's critique was thin. The fact that I dislike the say he shared it doesn't mean that I disagree with him. But hey, don't let that get in the way.

[Jacob]

I'm not even married.

 

[Jacob]

I don't remember saying that Fate's critique was thin. The fact that I dislike the say he shared it doesn't mean that I disagree with him. But hey, don't let that get in the way.

Okay

That said, if you're just being snarky because you think he's got an attitude problem that's way more defensible than Fahdiz's "lol one drug to cure them all!" But there isn't really anything wrong with picking on bad science reporting, especially about cancer.

Seems there's a new "cure for cancer!" article in circulation every 3-6 months.