Why Curing Cancer is Impossible

This. This isn't actually quite as farfetched as people seem to think. The point is, while we can't fix the cause of cancer, we sure as hell can stop it before it causes problems.

You can't get rid of the cause of *insert any ailment here* (Don't even mention the viruses that we actually have all but eliminated). But you can stop them before they cause problems. You can treat them. That is what the doctors and researchers look for. While you may not be able to keep cancer cells from being created, it is possible to devise a way to kill them before they start to proliferate.

*edit* After reading further, I'm not even going to bother. OP is a self-righteous idiot (at least by my definition of not being able to accept another's point with any sort of consideration, logic, or even objectiveness. Clearly falling prey to the classic human issues belief persistence, overconfidence, and what seems to be like a good helping of intellectual disability as well), and arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what you do, he'll shit on the board and strut about like he won. (Also, saying homo sapiens sapiens a lot doesn't make you sound smart, and sure as hell doesn't give you ethos. It makes you sound like a tool. Binomial nomenclature isn't hard, and seriously, throwing in Latin just to try and sound smart by using big words doesn't work. Another thing: religion and science don't mix, like nonpolar compounds and polar compounds (Oh loook at me, I'm smart hero durp). Come back when you learn some semblance of rhetoric, or at least some god damn science.) I'm out.

I don't know why you are suddenly being so hostile and inamiable. All I did was mention "malignant mutations", which is quite standard terminology.



"Science and religion don't mix"

The pompous fool is supposed to be whom, exactly? The fellow who "doesn't accept the opinions of others"? Sounds to me like that's you, buddy. Not me. Who the devil are you to claim that "science and religion don't mix"? What gall!

I also like how you mistake my ultimate goal in life of spreading knowledge as being haughty. Classic. And you aren't the first person to make such an incorrect analysis either, so don't feel too proud of yourself.

And...

1. We are talking about a scientific subject, therefore I use the official SPECIES NAMES for the SPECIES that I am discussing. Trust me, I don't even like Latin; I'm an Anglo-Saxon linguistic purist for God's sake!

2. Claiming that I'm somehow "intelectually disabled" is a laughable insult. It should also be noted that this is not Incoherent Babbling, so your insults are of naught use anyways. It "just makes you look like a tool".

Finally, if you had bothered to actually read the thread, you would have noticed that I have accepted the possibility of the validity of some others' theories. I've even agreed with a few!

So get your head out of your rear, and stop judging people when you know nothing about them, friend. Maybe then you'll actually be a decent invidual.

Science is not a matter of opnions, only objective facts.

---

Also...


Aw my bad but your :


is rather comic when confronted with actually cured from cancer ex-patients and lot of scientist and epidemiologic data. It is not a matter of hope but only data and objective facts.

Moreover that :


What a bunch of useless superlatives and wrong/false ideas. The same as saying you don't know about what you're speaking.

There's not a piece of science in something like that, only believes.

You may want the appearance of science but there is not the content.

Many facts only come to be markedly affirmed as being such when theories are put to the test.

In regard to people being "cured", we can't claim that for certain. Cancer can reveal itself to be within their bodies again at any point in time.

How is "all cancers" useless to this discussion? When I say "cancer can't be cured", I am not referring to one cancer. I am referring to cancer as a whole; every possible cancer that could come into being.

It is useless. You can word as much as you can, your content is not scientist.

[size=10]Once again, « ignorance is a "bliss" » ?[/h]

Whatever, dude.

I don't know why you are suddenly being so hostile and inamiable. All I did was mention "malignant mutations", which is quite standard terminology.



Yeah, it's AP week, I'm tired and really grumpy. You can basically disregard everything I say until further notice. It us still my own personal opinion, to whic I am entirely entitled, that religion and science don't mix. AP tests make me stupid, and thus I apologize for my abrasiveness. (Only fifteen more days then I'll graduate)

No biggie, man. We all go through those kinds of things.

Good luck on those tests! :)

tests are done, on the homeward stretch, hallelujah.

Not sure if this has been covered, but even if we found a cure, it's not like the government would just freely hand it out. These diseases (and human dumbassery) are the only reason we haven't over populated the planet. Plus the government would only allow the public to have it if the future of the country depended upon it. The government is constantly losing power and they want to retain power through secrets, such as the whole NSA spying on ya shit thing last year.

The only reason cancer is so hard to cure is because there are more people living of cancer than that there are cancer patients. Those people that are living of cancer will do any thing in their power to stop any effective cure. That would be the entire medical world so to speak of. Most cancerous treatments have been found to be completely useless in fact they doing more damage than the cancer itself.

I also believe cancer is a sort of food deficiency, people with a more natural diet suffer less from cancer than people who eat less natural. The fact is, there are constantly cells in your body turning cancerous but most of them get destroyed by your first line of defense, your immune system. Your second line of defense is a substance you get from food called Laetrile, this does not cure cancer, it only protects you from it. And our drinking water is polluted with all kinds of garbage and our processed foods are just chemical garbage with some actual nutritional stuff mixed in somewhere.

Point is, as long as the world is being runned by money, no cure will be found for any of the most lucrative of diseases.

Governments have viewed the world as being overpopulated since ancient Rome... Human ingenuity can create efficiency.

But larger numbers of people are harder to control.

=D



Well, since I only pay attention to my local news (i.e. the news of the New England region of the northeastern United States) I'm not sure that I'm familiar with that, but...

I had heard something about the federal government spying on fellows through their mobile phone conversations and the like some time ago.

Is that what you are referring to?



I absolutely agree with you that our waters are being extremely polluted, and I don't doubt that such pollutants are contributing to the rise in cancer these days.

I have the strange feeling that you become euphoric and enlightened when you think about your own "intelligence".

No. Not really.

Considering I can't ever seem to distinguish "affect" and "effect" (except in derivative words like "affection"), often mispell "dependent", often accidentally write "draft" instead of "draught", sometimes use "lain" (past tense of lie) where "laid" (past tense of lay) should be, along with plenty of other things, I can't really be all that haughty now can I?

Now, I too have a strange feeling at the moment. I have a strange feeling that you assume bad faith even when it's not really warranted. Am I right?

You're making some pretty massive leaps with some pretty wild assumptions.

1. My religious beliefs are irrelevant. What is relevant however is the holding back of science over superstitious fear of someone genetically engineered not having a soul and similar non-observable concerns which are unfounded scientifically. There are other similar ethical connections to this as well which also hold us back. One's personal theological beliefs should not be forced on everyone by affecting scientific policies and outright banning entire subsets of tools and sciences out of such beliefs. Genetic modifications are banned outright in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration.

Genetic engineering could be used on human zygotes to alter the genes of a fetus affected by genetic diseases and yet we're held back by ridiculousness, "ethical dilemmas." People fear that parents could change their child's genes for aesthetic reasons or to endow their child with atheletic prowess or intelligence. Personally I have to ask what the hell is wrong with more beautiful, intelligent, atheletic children? People fear that if some people have it done it would create a new elite class of humans and everyone would be forced to undergo engineering just to stay competitive. It's this fear that is holding back our entire species. Just imagine how far we would move forward as a species if an entire generation of children were born with the intellect of Albert Einstein, the atheletic prowess of Olympic gold metalists, and beauty even surpassing today's supermodels.

In regards to religion: I am not worried about religion as the problem will sort itself out in time. The problem with religion is that it’s often given a god of the gaps argument. If both you and a team of physicists agree that something cannot be explained so then they go ahead and agree “Well okay, you’re right. It must be god.” then what happens is in 10 years when it can be proved then they have they have to go back and say that it wasn’t. And in this way, god is simply an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

I generally don't like discussing religion (no good can come of it) but I'll just come right out and admit that religious fundamentalists are stupid.
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
IQ vs. Religiosity
Study: Again, Christian Conservatives Linked To Lower IQ
Another study links intelligence to lack of religiosity…
Inoculations Against Religiosity: Intelligence and Education
Religiosity and Intelligence

One of those above studies essentially states that lower intelligence correlates with religiosity because the blind acceptance required by fundamentalism is a result of a lack of critical analysis:


2. I'm going to give you a quote: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."-Ronald Reagan

The concept given here is freedom but it can be applied to humanity itself. We are never more than one generation away from extinction. Through war or plague or some horrible disaster we could easily destroy ourselves. Our world and our species must be fought for, protected, and handed down to future generations for them to do the same.

3. "We?" Who is "we?" Our current political systems are absurd jokes. Elections by popularity contests, and we wonder why our representatives are a bunch of incompetent lazy dullards... We don't have systems of Democracy, we have systems of Mediocracy. Majoritarian consensus is unable to provide a reasonable platform for intelligent decision making for the purpose of solving problems permanently. Institutions of democracy become more concerned with appealing to popular consensus through emotive issues than they are in making long-term critical decisions, especially those that may involve issues not immediately relevant to the electorate. Political mandate is something far too important to simply leave to popularity. Critical decision making required for government cannot be based on criteria of emotive or popular decision making. We should use a system designed to select for intelligence and compassion as the primary factors for governance. While having a democratic electoral apparatus it should differ from liberal democracy in that candidates for office and the body electorate should meet certain minimal criterion of problem-solving or creative intelligence. Figures such as 50% above the mean for an electoral candidate and 10% above the mean for an elector should suffice.

---

The biggest problem with our entire social ideology is the ridiculous notion of equality. All men are not created equal. Some are born swifter afoot, some with greater beauty, some are born into poverty, others are born sick and feeble. Both in birth and upbringing, in sheer scope of ability, every human is inherently different. Yes, that is why people discriminate against one another which is why there is struggle, competition, and the unfaltering march of progress. Inequality is not wrong - equality is. Evolution must be continuous. We mustn't stagnate so that the lowest common denominator doesn't feel left behind.

You might think to call me a bit of a Social Darwinist in that I believe the biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest should be applied to social policy but that would be wrong. I strongly believe in eugenics and genetic engineering to improve our species. Having said that, I also don't think the rich should grow richer and more powerful while the poor grow poorer and weaker. From an economic standpoint I'm more of a Communist or Socialist.

Personally I've always found it a bit odd that the two terms are used in such a negative light in Western countries, no doubt stemming from the Cold War where they likely meant something akin to traitor. Even a Capitalist state needs some form of socialism though: Medicare, universal healthcare, and welfare are all socialism and they're some of the most important facets of our society.

One of the biggest confusions is that people often forget that Democracy is a system of government while Communism & Socialism are economic policies. It's just unfortunate coincidence that most Communist states end up ran by crazy Dictators.

A working system of course would need globalization to actually function as you couldn't exactly use some concept like from the "we are the 99%" movement for the redistribution of wealth of those with the top 1% of wealth that made a surplus of $506,000 annually if they can just move to another country and avoid it.

We have executives making $XXm+ a year, atheletes making $XXXm+ a year, celebrities and music artists making $Xm+ a year… these are clearly not the most important members of society, but rather just the top end of consumption. But the problem with a pure capitalistic state, in my opinion, is that without caps on wealth then the wealth of a nation just stagnates in the coffers of a small percentage of the wealthy while the rest of the nation state suffers.

I'd say if your income is more than x% than the average annual income then any excess wealth will then be redistributed back into the population, in large part going to fund socialist programs (healthcare, welfare, education), but the remainder redistributed. It could be done through taxes, where the wealthy get a very severe tax beyond a certain income, and the redistribution is done for others via a tax credit in a proportional equal amount depending on their reported income after the socialist programs. It would be, basically, a more extreme version of our current system… just with caps and limiting of economic loopholes. I mean if you made $500,000 annually, I don’t think anyone would be able to say you were bad off… but you wouldn’t be so far above the rest of the population that you controlled a majority stake in the entire economy.

Curing cancer might not be impossible. I found an article about the effects of concentrated hemp oil, and there have been cases where the usage of it has significantly reduced the size of tumors from various types of cancer. I'm a little skeptical, but I think the testimonies justify that more research should be done.