Thread: Why is the CURE for cancer surpressed?! Why are we killing people with kemo?!

Back on topic?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Cancer is always the same, doesn't mutate, isn't infectious and can be diagnosed very soon and fairly certainly.

Bolded parts are not true at all.

1. There are many different types and subtypes of cancer. It can even be argued that there are as many types of cancer as there are cancer patients. However, many of them share common characteristics, that's why they are grouped according to their tissue of origin, whether they are hereditary or sporadic, etc.

Different cancer patients with cancer of the same type react differently to the same chemoterapeutics.
Chemoterapy, if not altered, can become less or not effective with time, because cancer cells mutate.
Some types of cancer can be treated with almost 100% success rate, while others have very low rate of survival even with all available therapies.

Because of all this it is possible that there will never be something called "cure for cancer" because there is no single disease called "cancer".

2. Cancer cells accumulate mutations at very high rates. Cancer phenomenon can be seen as a microevolutionary process (replication+ mutation+ selection)
Tumors usually consist of mixed populations of malignant cells, some of which are drug-sensitive while others are drug-resistant.
Metastases are genetically different from the solid tumors they originated from. Mutations are what made them invade other tissues.

Hell, if it wasn't for mutations there would never be any problems with cancer as it would never form. I might be wrong about the exact number, but I think I read somewhere that at least 6 separate mutation events are needed for normal cell -> benign tumor -> malignant tumor conversion. Most of those mutations will occur in genes responisible for genetic repair and stability, meaning that mutation frequency in cancer will be much higher than in normal cells.

Chemotherapy, if not chosen correctly, can cause cancer to mutate even faster. Example: MNNG kills normal cells and cancer cells capable of certain type of DNA repair (mismatch repair) but causes cancer cells that are mismatch repait deficient to mutate.

Why thank you snake charmer, so basically a "cure" for cancer would be when we learn how to stop these mutations from happening. Not a cure in the typical sense of taking some meds and fighting the infection, instead perhaps we should be trying to figure out how to prevent these mutations.

Or more importantly what is it that we are eating, breathing, etc that is causing this?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Why thank you snake charmer, so basically a "cure" for cancer would be when we learn how to stop these mutations from happening. Not a cure in the typical sense of taking some meds and fighting the infection, instead perhaps we should be trying to figure out how to prevent these mutations.

Or more importantly what is it that we are eating, breathing, etc that is causing this?

As talked about in the movie which I posted, regular consumption of hemp oil would be a preventative measure because the cancer would be killed before there would be any sign of it...

I really don't know how you could prevent mutations happening...

Some organisms have enzymes which scan sections of DNA and remove any obvious problems, but I don't see how you could recognise a cancer-causing gene if it were just a subtle base substitution or something. That would require the enzyme to have comprehension of what the whole gene was supposed to be, which is impossible.

I believe that SnakeCharmer hit the nail on the head in saying that there will never be a singular "cure for cancer," per se, since it's really a class of diseases with many different causes. This was also the view of my genetics professor.

Originally Posted by Xei

I really don't know how you could prevent mutations happening...

Some organisms have enzymes which scan sections of DNA and remove any obvious problems, but I don't see how you could recognise a cancer-causing gene if it were just a subtle base substitution or something. That would require the enzyme to have comprehension of what the whole gene was supposed to be, which is impossible.

Strictly speaking, all organisms exhibit some form of DNA repair, although the available mechanisms vary somewhat. The problem is that these repair mechanisms are fallible.

Also, repair of single base substitutions (i.e., point mutations) is not only possible, but common (in organisms that possess this mechanism anyway, which include humans): see mismatch repair.

Note: I'm drunk right now and english is my second language so parts of my reply might not make sense right now

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Why thank you snake charmer, so basically a "cure" for cancer would be when we learn how to stop these mutations from happening. Not a cure in the typical sense of taking some meds and fighting the infection, instead perhaps we should be trying to figure out how to prevent these mutations.

Or more importantly what is it that we are eating, breathing, etc that is causing this?

The tricky thing is: mutations occur without anything 'bad' causing them. There is a basic mutation frequency for every organism. You have to remember that without genetic change (mutation) there would be no life as we know it. Genetic system of every organism has to find a balance between genetic stability and genetic change (change is needed for adaptation to changing environment).

You don't need an environmental factor for mutations, mutations occur spontaneously during DNA replication. Just imagine copying 3 billion base pairs without making mistakes, and you need to copy that amount of DNA for every cell division. Just calculate how many divisions you need to form a human being of approx. 10^13 cells, and how many more you need to maintain this organism for 6-7 decades. Also, adenosine, cytosine and guanine (3 out of 4 DNA bases) go through a spontaneous chemical change(deamination) all over our genome thousands of times in one day.
It's surprising we don't get cancer more often.

Average human life expectancy has gone from 30 to 75-80 years (these figures vary in different coutries) and cancer is something that is a normal consequence of increasing average age. 150 years ago most people haven't lived long enough to get cancer. Cancer may be the price we're paying for longer lives.

Originally Posted by Xei

Some organisms have enzymes which scan sections of DNA and remove any obvious problems, but I don't see how you could recognise a cancer-causing gene if it were just a subtle base substitution or something.

You are right, DNA repair enzymes can only repair damage before it becomes fixed in DNA. They can detect chemical alterations to normal DNA structure. However, once damaged DNA is replicated or erroneously repaired, it becomes fixed as a mutation. Mutation is a change in DNA sequence, but it is still chemically identical to normal DNA. A cell has no way of knowing that the resulting protein will be deficient.

Strictly speaking, all organisms exhibit some form of DNA repair, although the available mechanisms vary somewhat. The problem is that these repair mechanisms are fallible.

Also, repair of single base substitutions (i.e., point mutations) is not only possible, but common (in organisms that possess this mechanism anyway, which include humans): see mismatch repair.

I think you're talking about something different; A pairing with G or T with C. I'm talking about a base pair substitution, which would be chemically identical to any other DNA strand.

You are right, DNA repair enzymes can only repair damage before it becomes fixed in DNA. They can detect chemical alterations to normal DNA structure. However, once damaged DNA is replicated or erroneously repaired, it becomes fixed as a mutation. Mutation is a change in DNA sequence, but it is still chemically identical to normal DNA. A cell has no way of knowing that the resulting protein will be deficient.

That's what I thought.

The only way I can think of that being possible was if you got two other strands from isolated cells in the body and compared all three together; which seems completely impossible anyway.

Originally Posted by Xei

I think you're talking about something different; A pairing with G or T with C. I'm talking about a base pair substitution, which would be chemically identical to any other DNA strand.

Yes indeed; upon further inspection, I completely misunderstood what you were referring to.

Nah my fault, I meant base-pair not base. I didn't really register that there was such a thing as a single base sub.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

Back on topic?

Bolded parts are not true at all.

1. There are many different types and subtypes of cancer. It can even be argued that there are as many types of cancer as there are cancer patients. However, many of them share common characteristics, that's why they are grouped according to their tissue of origin, whether they are hereditary or sporadic, etc.

Different cancer patients with cancer of the same type react differently to the same chemoterapeutics.
Chemoterapy, if not altered, can become less or not effective with time, because cancer cells mutate.
Some types of cancer can be treated with almost 100% success rate, while others have very low rate of survival even with all available therapies.

Because of all this it is possible that there will never be something called "cure for cancer" because there is no single disease called "cancer".

2. Cancer cells accumulate mutations at very high rates. Cancer phenomenon can be seen as a microevolutionary process (replication+ mutation+ selection)
Tumors usually consist of mixed populations of malignant cells, some of which are drug-sensitive while others are drug-resistant.
Metastases are genetically different from the solid tumors they originated from. Mutations are what made them invade other tissues.

Hell, if it wasn't for mutations there would never be any problems with cancer as it would never form. I might be wrong about the exact number, but I think I read somewhere that at least 6 separate mutation events are needed for normal cell -> benign tumor -> malignant tumor conversion. Most of those mutations will occur in genes responisible for genetic repair and stability, meaning that mutation frequency in cancer will be much higher than in normal cells.

Chemotherapy, if not chosen correctly, can cause cancer to mutate even faster. Example: MNNG kills normal cells and cancer cells capable of certain type of DNA repair (mismatch repair) but causes cancer cells that are mismatch repait deficient to mutate.

I actually meant that cancer doesn't undergo evolution. Just because you developed a more resistant form of cancer due to continuous treatment, it doesn't mean people around you, or even your children, will also develop the resistant cancer.

In fact, cancer-generating genes are affected by natural selection, and these are an evolutionary disadvantage, so cancer is actually wiped out by natural selection.

Finally, cancer isn't even close to mutation like virus does.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

In fact, cancer-generating genes are affected by natural selection, and these are an evolutionary disadvantage, so cancer is actually wiped out by natural selection.

So exactly how long is it going to take for cancer to be "wiped out by natural selection?" It's been about 200,000 years so far (for humans that is), and it doesn't look like it's on course to happen any time soon.

The idea of a "cancer-generating gene" is extremely misleading. There are of course certain genes that are implicated in many forms of cancer, but certainly their primary function is not to cause cancer. For example, the p53 gene is involved in more than half of all cancers - but this is because the p53 gene functions as a "tumor suppressor," and cancers arise from abnormalities in the p53 gene. Clearly this is a beneficial gene which would be favored by natural selection.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Finally, cancer isn't even close to mutation like virus does.

Alright... I'm not sure where you're going with this, but would you care to expand on this point a little bit?

Here is a guy with a PHD talking about it for you skeptics. Also when he talks about "hemp oil" in this video he is talking about hemp seed oil, NOT the oil that is used to treat cancer.

He explains how it kills cancer too for those who wanted to know that.


Oh yeah at the end he talks about how cannaboids can reduce free radicals, so it IS a preventive measure.

Originally Posted by DuB

So exactly how long is it going to take for cancer to be "wiped out by natural selection?" It's been about 200,000 years so far (for humans that is), and it doesn't look like it's on course to happen any time soon.

It depends a lot on many variables: primarily, the lethality of it. A gene that causes obligatory brain-death doesn't survive a single generation. Cancer, on the other hand, affects mostly people of or older than the age of reproduction; it's also related to risk factors, and finally medicine can slow down or completely inhibit natural selection, by curing diseases before they manage to kill the individual. Some species, like rats, have actually worked round cancer, by increasing fertility, and therefore reproducing as much as possible before cancer breaks in (which is almost a rule for rats - not sure about specific statistics, but the nearly absolute majority die naturally of cancer).

What I'm saying isn't that cancer will be excluded, especially not in the long-living species humans are. But it was already selected before - you don't hear about so many deaths caused by tumour in pre-modern ages. Thing is, cancer was already selected to be minimal, but exposure to the risk factors (everyone talks about those nowadays) is what made cancer rates grow. I don't even have to mention that a consumist society (and, therefore, capitalism) is perhaps the most prominent risk factor for cancer - industrialised products, radiation, radio waves, carbohydrate and fat intake, lack of exercise, etc etc. It becomes really logical if you get the big picture.

The idea of a "cancer-generating gene" is extremely misleading. There are of course certain genes that are implicated in many forms of cancer, but certainly their primary function is not to cause cancer. For example, the p53 gene is involved in more than half of all cancers - but this is because the p53 gene functions as a "tumor suppressor," and cancers arise from abnormalities in the p53 gene. Clearly this is a beneficial gene which would be favored by natural selection.

Alright... I'm not sure where you're going with this, but would you care to expand on this point a little bit?

Not a cancer-generating gene, but cancer-tendency genes. Several types of cancer are known to be somehow hereditary - probably the majority of them.

And you have a wrong picture about the 953. I'm no specialist, but the way you put it, a normally-functional p53 would actually suppress tumours - which means, a defective p53 is the cause of higher cancer rates. In fact the p53 only shows we have already been naturally selected to resist cancer, and developed tools to fight it. When someone lacks that tool, they are more prone to cancer. But as I said, natural selection is nearly non-existent nowadays, so I doubt that lineages with problematic or lacking p53 would be extinguished.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Not a cancer-generating gene, but cancer-tendency genes.

Okay, but that's a lot different from talking about a "cancer-generating" gene. I just wanted to point out the problems in asserting a "cancer-generating" gene.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

And you have a wrong picture about the 953. I'm no specialist, but the way you put it, a normally-functional p53 would actually suppress tumours - which means, a defective p53 is the cause of higher cancer rates. In fact the p53 only shows we have already been naturally selected to resist cancer, and developed tools to fight it. When someone lacks that tool, they are more prone to cancer. But as I said, natural selection is nearly non-existent nowadays, so I doubt that lineages with problematic or lacking p53 would be extinguished.

I put it that way intentionally, because that is the case. wiki

I don't see how the rest of what you said runs counter to this fact? You seem not to buy into it, but the rest of the paragraph goes on to speculate on how p53's anti-mutation functions may have been selected for... am I missing something?

My point was that cancer may not be related to a cancer-prone gene, but a lack of a cancer-inhibiting gene. I aimed for it to add up with I had previously said about natural selection of the cancer factor. Sorry if I didn't explain it so clearly. ;(

@ Bennington:

Just forgot to say this earlier:

If you are so mad about natural selection among humans, why not abolish medicine? I look forward to reading your arguments.

(PS: sorry for double-post)

Originally Posted by Kromoh

What I'm saying isn't that cancer will be excluded, especially not in the long-living species humans are. But it was already selected before - you don't hear about so many deaths caused by tumour in pre-modern ages. Thing is, cancer was already selected to be minimal, but exposure to the risk factors (everyone talks about those nowadays) is what made cancer rates grow.. I don't even have to mention that a consumist society (and, therefore, capitalism) is perhaps the most prominent risk factor for cancer - industrialised products, radiation, radio waves, carbohydrate and fat intake, lack of exercise, etc etc. It becomes really logical if you get the big picture.

It becomes logical if you remember that before vaccination and antibiotics were discovered most people would die at very young age from bacterial or viral infections and wouldn't have time to get cancer.
Of course all the factors you mention play a role, but cancer is mostly a disease of old age.

I'm not sure about natural selection weeding out cancer on its own, but there are ideas of genetically modifying humans by adding more copies of p53 in the genome. The problem is that this goes against ethical and legal norms in most countries.

You know Snake, I think that a tumour-fighting gene only shows traces of cancer-related natural selection. Let's not forget that humans didn't go from apes into capitalists overnight - there was a good period without medicine and still relatively long life expectancy.


Also, for someone who goes as far as wanting to study implantation of chloroplasts in humans, I certainly see no problem in genetic modification to prevent cancer. But of course, only if it is proven to work, and have no side effect. One day, vaccines will become genetic. But I hardly see this as the final cure for cancer.

I'm pretty sure that natural selection selects for cancers actually. Otherwise you get loads of mutated chromosomes building up in the population, which is detrimental to the species.

I certainly see no problem in genetic modification to prevent cancer.

How far do you take philosophy then? Transhumanism? Should we all become machines; they don't get cancer?

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm pretty sure that natural selection selects for cancers actually. Otherwise you get loads of mutated chromosomes building up in the population, which is detrimental to the species.

Makes zero sense. Please expand that. Mutation is actually highly desirable in an environment that is constantly changing.

How far do you take philosophy then? Transhumanism? Should we all become machines; they don't get cancer?

I think that technology and science are also characteristics that give us evolutionary advantage, and should be treated as so. I have no idea of what ideology this falls into, but I'm in for thinking of humans as a single, cooperative species, not as a bunch of competing groups.

A build up of mutations is definitely not good for an organism. Very few mutations are actually good.

Originally Posted by Xei

A build up of mutations is definitely not good for an organism. Very few mutations are actually good.

You definitely haven't studied natural selection, have you?


To illustrate what I mean: somatic cells have several tools to correct mutations, but germinative cells actually have tools to facilitate mutations and recombinations. Mutations are what give birth to new characteristics, which are selected by the medium. It may sound weird, but nature works on a trial-and-error system. Who decides which mutations are good or not isn't the individual, but the environment. Typical example: melanin is beneficial in tropical zones, but damaging in cold zones. Evolution is not about making a species more advanced - there is no "better" in nature. Evolution is about making a species more adapted (to the ambient and period they live in).

Thanks for trying to explain natural selection to me, but I'm not twelve.

Melanin is the result of entire proteins. As such it is the result of millions of years' worth of guided mutations.

Single random mutations in an organism are a completely different matter. Most of them, if they make any difference at all, will simply cause the protein to cease working properly or cease working entirely, obviously likely to the serious detriment of the organism.

Originally Posted by Xei

Single random mutations in an organism are a completely different matter. Most of them, if they make any difference at all, will simply cause the protein to cease working properly or cease working entirely, obviously likely to the serious detriment of the organism.

As I said, it's a trial and error system. Species that don't mutate die on the first adversity. Simple as that.


...so arrogant, but so bad at understanding.