Renton 22456 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 If you want to look it up, it was the July edition of JCO last year. The theory has been around for a while ( http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/con.../interview/688/ ) but i'm not a cellular biologist so cant really get into the details. Its all about genetic mutation in organ cells, so since the DNA sequence is laid out in the stem cell, then thats where the cancer must come from. Things have moved on in the last few years but i've only been studying it for 2 so am no expert in any sense of the word. You still up for a beer pre / post QPR match btw? Should be mate, I'll be going straight from work but will need to get some food before ko. Just give me a PM/text/call when you've sussed your plans. I'll tell you one thing I felt about the molecular biology of cancer when I studied it, even though it's really a physical science, it is pretty abstract to visualise from a human perspective. Take that diagram you posted for instance, how do you contextualise that? I couldn't tbh, which is why I left the field. Mind boggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22456 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Renton you seem to be both over and under-estimating the proportion of deaths due to cancer. What I was getting at is that a fair proportion (not sure of exact figures) of deaths are down to cancer of some form. Some will probably be due to "modern" life but I still think its a "natural" killer of all animal life that to some extent we weren't supposed to conquer from an evolutionary pov. I also think cancer is now getting more people who have just survived to a decent age and aren't that unhealthy - my Mam died of lung cancer but my view was that as she was 82 it wasn't the absolute tragedy it would have been if she had been 42 (not diminishing the personal loss of course). However there are atill many other killers out there which would still be around if the magic cancer pill was found. Obviously you and Chez no more than I do but I don't see how "fixing" DNA so it never allowed cells to become cancerous wouldn't help in the defence of viruses or bacteria so "immortality" to me would have to involve some use of a super-efficient immune system (probably via nanobots) to be possible. I agree with this NJS, apart from the nano stuff. Cancer and aging are intrinsically linked, but cancer is not an inevitable consequence of aging (although as you have noted age greatly increases the likelihood). In a nutshell cancer occurs when the DNA segment that controls the cell cycle is damaged - the cell forgets it's own mortality and goes rampant, spreading uncontrollably. As it is essentially a part of you it's difficult for either your immune system or drugs to do anything against it without killing the host (you). (Sorry if that seems patronising btw, I expect you know this). But imagine if we could harness cancer's immortality but control it? There's every reason to think it could be done imo, why not? I'm thinking of manipulating stem cells and telomerase modification here, but I'm sure there are many other possibilities. Other causes of aging and death should be reversible too. Cardiovascular disease kills more people than cancer, for instance. Autopsies have shown that atherosclerosis starts occurring virtually from day one of our lives. Pretty sure there must be a way to stop that (drugs like statins already help). As for viruses/bacteria, why fear them? If you stop the genetic component of aging, your immune system won't age in any case. Plus, because these pathogens are not made of 'you', they are a piece of piss to target through drug therapy, relatively speaking. Maybe we won't become immortal, but I can see humans easily living to three figures and beyond in the future, perhaps hundreds of years, with or without 'nanobots (which I'm skeptical about). Too late for either of us though probably, natch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4447 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 As for viruses/bacteria, why fear them? If you stop the genetic component of aging, your immune system won't age in any case. Plus, because these pathogens are not made of 'you', they are a piece of piss to target through drug therapy, relatively speaking. Maybe we won't become immortal, but I can see humans easily living to three figures and beyond in the future, perhaps hundreds of years, with or without 'nanobots (which I'm skeptical about). Too late for either of us though probably, natch. I'm a huge House fan and can't help thinking that there are so many pathogens out there just waiting for their chance (I know it's dramatic licence and the cases are one in a million but still....) I also think it's well within the stupidity boundary of the human race to release viruses (either deliberately or accidentally) which could seriously threaten the species - as I've said before maybe not a bad thing from a quality of life for the surviving humans but still a pisser for most of us. As you say really good stuff is probably too late for us but I would that that illustrates the ethical side of these advances - I wouldn't mind a life that lasted longer but progressed at a slower rate but wouldn't want to live another 60 years as a 60 year old if you see what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Does anyone actually know anyone whose died of aids? Seems a waste of money to me. Good AIDS or bad AIDS? Sorry, but that post didn't deserve a sensible response. Or an apology come to think of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Does anyone actually know anyone whose died of aids? Seems a waste of money to me. Good AIDS or bad AIDS? Sorry, but that post didn't deserve a sensible response. Or an apology come to think of it. Head in the sand reply Alex. Seriously, its been rammed down everyones throat from the early 80's yet I have never heard first, second or third hand of anyones who has died from it. Dont doubt people die, but does it really justify the attention it gets. How is it a head in the sand reply btw? It was a pisstake. If anything, yours is a head in the sand stance. I think the millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa suffering from the disease justify the research alone. I don't think it actual does get much coverage though in the west, does it? When was the last time you saw a campaign about the risks etc.? So I think the comment about it being rammed down our throats is patter. Your speciality tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4447 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I think the point that the scenario first raised in the 80 when it arose and the ad campaign that went with it in the UK has proved to be greatly exaggerated is a fair one which can be made even knowing the wider worldwide picture. Having said that the number of people including some I know who still don't have safe sex (for a multitude of other reasons than AIDS) is still terrifying - if it had been as "easy" to catch as suggested, the death toll would have been immense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Does anyone actually know anyone whose died of aids? Seems a waste of money to me. Good AIDS or bad AIDS? Sorry, but that post didn't deserve a sensible response. Or an apology come to think of it. Head in the sand reply Alex. Seriously, its been rammed down everyones throat from the early 80's yet I have never heard first, second or third hand of anyones who has died from it. Dont doubt people die, but does it really justify the attention it gets. How is it a head in the sand reply btw? It was a pisstake. If anything, yours is a head in the sand stance. I think the millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa suffering from the disease justify the research alone. I don't think it actual does get much coverage though in the west, does it? When was the last time you saw a campaign about the risks etc.? So I think the comment about it being rammed down our throats is patter. Your speciality tbh. :spit: Unlike your speciality of .... Not starting threads Stating the fucking obvious And Nitpicking to the fucking extreme :spit: :spit: Finished debating this I take it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I think the point that the scenario first raised in the 80 when it arose and the ad campaign that went with it in the UK has proved to be greatly exaggerated is a fair one which can be made even knowing the wider worldwide picture. Having said that the number of people including some I know who still don't have safe sex (for a multitude of other reasons than AIDS) is still terrifying - if it had been as "easy" to catch as suggested, the death toll would have been immense. I thought his point was money spent on the disease is a waste of money because it's not very common in the UK. No one would deny the fears in the 80s never actually came true in this country or the west in general. It was a big deal in certain communities where the risk was higher though - i.e. people injecting drugs / gay men and to a degree you could probably argue that the campaign has been a success in those areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2207 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I think the point that the scenario first raised in the 80 when it arose and the ad campaign that went with it in the UK has proved to be greatly exaggerated is a fair one which can be made even knowing the wider worldwide picture. Having said that the number of people including some I know who still don't have safe sex (for a multitude of other reasons than AIDS) is still terrifying - if it had been as "easy" to catch as suggested, the death toll would have been immense. And we would all know several people with AIDS as we probably all do with cancer. I knew someone with AIDS in the UK. He nearly died in hospital from pneumonia several years ago. Still going strong but we've fallen out of touch now. The treatment for AIDS seems to have improved people's life expectancy and quality of life quite dramatically in recent years. I'm guessing he didn't think the money spent on developing those drugs was wasted but the question wouldn't have occurred to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22456 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I think the point that the scenario first raised in the 80 when it arose and the ad campaign that went with it in the UK has proved to be greatly exaggerated is a fair one which can be made even knowing the wider worldwide picture. Having said that the number of people including some I know who still don't have safe sex (for a multitude of other reasons than AIDS) is still terrifying - if it had been as "easy" to catch as suggested, the death toll would have been immense. In the 1980s little was known about HIV AIDs (including how infectious it was), but the potential for catastrophe was certainly there, hence the massive educational campaign. That probably had a huge impact in stopping the spread of the disease in the early days, although it's not possible to prove it. It seems like a classic case of the government being damned if they do and damned if they don't though, what would your opinion have been if they had done nothing and half the population had become infected? Fortunately for people in the Western world the invention of antiretroviral drugs means it is no longer a death sentence. Still, I'm struggling to think of many other infectious diseases that have such a terrible impact on your life. As for knowing people personally with HIV, then no, I don't, then again they would hardly advertise it would they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4447 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 That probably had a huge impact in stopping the spread of the disease in the early days, although it's not possible to prove it. It seems like a classic case of the government being damned if they do and damned if they don't though, what would your opinion have been if they had done nothing and half the population had become infected? Possibly - though sounding a bit un-PC I think implying that it was going to be so much of a danger for the vast majority of heteros may have been a bit much (although I concede that it was a lot of guesswork). I suppose its more of a criticism of people rather than the campaign in that even if they had deliberately exagerrated straight infection rates with the intention of scaring people into safer lifestyles I'm not convinced it worked. I think STD infection rates prove that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22456 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 That probably had a huge impact in stopping the spread of the disease in the early days, although it's not possible to prove it. It seems like a classic case of the government being damned if they do and damned if they don't though, what would your opinion have been if they had done nothing and half the population had become infected? Possibly - though sounding a bit un-PC I think implying that it was going to be so much of a danger for the vast majority of heteros may have been a bit much (although I concede that it was a lot of guesswork). I suppose its more of a criticism of people rather than the campaign in that even if they had deliberately exagerrated straight infection rates with the intention of scaring people into safer lifestyles I'm not convinced it worked. I think STD infection rates prove that. There's no control group to compare it with though, maybe people would have been more promiscuous if the campaign had not taken place. I certainly get the impression that people were more promiscuous in the 1960s and 70s though, unfortunately I was too young to benefit. The message has worn off now and hence the gradual increase in STIs. But with the possible exception of chlamydia, most are still quite uncommon compared with historical levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 They'll be inventing a general flu vaccine next!!11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 47153 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Are the results of this study statistically significant for a vaccine. I mean what is the likelihood that with two groups of this size and no treatment of any kind, that you would end up with the same number of people in each group contracting HIV? Because surely you have to factor that in before you can make any claims about the effectiveness of the vaccine. And a difference of 20 odd in people actually getting infected doesn't seem that unlikely in groups of this size, even if no vaccine/placebo was introduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22456 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Are the results of this study statistically significant for a vaccine. I mean what is the likelihood that with two groups of this size and no treatment of any kind, that you would end up with the same number of people in each group contracting HIV? Because surely you have to factor that in before you can make any claims about the effectiveness of the vaccine. And a difference of 20 odd in people actually getting infected doesn't seem that unlikely in groups of this size, even if no vaccine/placebo was introduced. I think they might have thought of that. They'll have statisticians on the cases, it's probably significant to p = 0.05, meaning there's a 95% the result was not due to chance alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 47153 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Attributing the whole of the difference to the vaccine seems like bollocks to me Renty baby. Stick that in your correlation coeffcient and smoke it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22456 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Attributing the whole of the difference to the vaccine seems like bollocks to me Renty baby. Stick that in your correlation coeffcient and smoke it. I'll let the EBM community know that the randomized controlled trial methodology is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Quick calll Karl Popper, modern science is under attack by an accountant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 47153 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 They've done it wrong. That's all I'm prepared to say. I'll leave it up to "modern science" to work out how to fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Quick calll Karl Popper, modern science is under attack by an accountant! Never underestimate the accountants (or the tea ladies). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Why does Parky have two accounts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinofbeans 91 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 thought the bigwigs had cured some forms of cancer but the drug companies have vetoed it on the grounds it would put some of them out of business. cost of delaying death and all that... (i can't remember where i heard this from btw). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 thought the bigwigs had cured some forms of cancer but the drug companies have vetoed it on the grounds it would put some of them out of business. cost of delaying death and all that... (i can't remember where i heard this from btw). You can get rid of a tumour so that absolutely no cancer cells are observable in the body. If detected early in Breast, surgery and chemo will more than likely destroy it. In the worse case, or if the cancer is located where you cant feel lumps (the kidney for example), it will metastasise, meaning it will spread to other organs (through the lymphatic system). In this case, genetic science is at the frontier of its understanding. If you look at post 16 in this thread, you'll see a simplified sketch of the microcellular process that leads to cancer. Except not really, that diagram sort of shows you what's meant to happen. Biological and genetic variety (the very stuff of evolution) means that this microcellular world is the most complex system we are able to study. With the US spending trillions on healthcare, there is no incentive to veto any cure for cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 thought the bigwigs had cured some forms of cancer but the drug companies have vetoed it on the grounds it would put some of them out of business. cost of delaying death and all that... (i can't remember where i heard this from btw). You can get rid of a tumour so that absolutely no cancer cells are observable in the body. If detected early in Breast, surgery and chemo will more than likely destroy it. In the worse case, or if the cancer is located where you cant feel lumps (the kidney for example), it will metastasise, meaning it will spread to other organs (through the lymphatic system). In this case, genetic science is at the frontier of its understanding. If you look at post 16 in this thread, you'll see a simplified sketch of the microcellular process that leads to cancer. Except not really, that diagram sort of shows you what's meant to happen. Biological and genetic variety (the very stuff of evolution) means that this microcellular world is the most complex system we are able to study. With the US spending trillions on healthcare, there is no incentive to veto any cure for cancer. Real estate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8279656.stm 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