Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fighting Cancer

hintjens.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 162 posts

Re: Fighting Cancer

#141

Post by ekianjo »

intrasight wrote: post #112
ekianjo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's really sad is that the state of progress in cancer treatment is extremely slow. This is massively false. There are great strides made for numerous cancers, while for some others (pancreatic, colorectal being among the worst) there are still not many good options. For pancreatic cancer the main issue is that it's very hard to detect in early stages and when you get the symptoms you are basically already in st…

If early detection can make a big difference, then clearly that is the low hanging fruit of cancer research.

It's not that they are not trying. There are numerous studies looking for bio-markers to detect the presence of cancer, but from what I remember, it does not yield good results.

Re: Fighting Cancer

#142

Post by hughperkins »

Mahn wrote: post #93
newscracker wrote: post #25

> The only way to beat cancer, really, is to die from something else first. That was a short and pointed article. More so after I read a short comic strip on PHD Comics about cancer [1], I can't help but think that "beating cancer" is a very tough (and impossible) goal for the ones suffering from it and the ones looking for better management or reduction of it. That shining light of optimism after remission is tinged…

> [1]: http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1162 So, forgive me if I'm being naive because I don't really have professional experience in the field of cancer research, but this comic makes it sound like a cure for cancer is impossible because it would have to deal with million different forms and shapes that it can take, but, theoretically, wouldn't it be possible to attack the root problem instead, and find a way to bi…

Chemistry is pretty fudgy, dirty, hazy; and your dna doesnt have ECC.

Re: Fighting Cancer

#143

Post by trhway »

X86BSD wrote: post #106
darod wrote: post #74

I found out I had colorectal cancer 4 years ago at 33. It was a shock because I go to the gym 4-5 times a week and taught brazilian jiu jitsu nightly. There no living right or living wrong prescription that will spare you. It can catch anyone at any time just like the author states. Aside from dealing with the disease, one of the biggest issues I found was disbursing information and managing the emotions of my friend…

THIS. First I am very sorry to hear about your condition. I sincerely wish you all the best in dealing with the scourge of cancer. Second, I can't backup your statement enough. Cancer is not related to diet or exercise, not one bit. Steve jobs got it and he lived on a vegetarian diet and lived a pretty zen lifestyle at home. Not a human, but my dog who was an inside dog rarely went out except to do her business, and…

>matters not one bit how you eat

may be in the narrow defined "normal" case. As a generic blanket statement - if you read what they put in many types of dog/cat food you will change your mind. Vets we talked to (we lost our cat to lymphoma several years ago) blamed the current high rate (one went as far as saying "epidemics") of internal organ cancers and the cancers like lymphomas among dogs and cats to all that poisonous staff that goes into the dog/cat food.

Re: Fighting Cancer

#144

Post by frign »

This guy is a sheep of the medical system and has already given up just because his treatment stopped working as the doctors told him.

Our society and food make us sick, our doctors keep us sick. Why trust them with cancer?

Re: Fighting Cancer

#145

Post by voltagex_ »

frign wrote: post #144

This guy is a sheep of the medical system and has already given up just because his treatment stopped working as the doctors told him. Our society and food make us sick, our doctors keep us sick. Why trust them with cancer?

.

Re: Fighting Cancer

#146

Post by voltagex_ »

ChristopherE wrote: post #45
PieterH wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was hesitant to write this, as I did. It's not a call for passive acceptance. There are a lot of moments when we patients need to prod and push our doctors and nurses. The machine tends to be slow and can miss important things. The patient has to provide feedback ("the pain is worse") and has to insist on the machine listening. Yet given that, it seems highly risky to me to even be open to the notion that I can sec…

I agree with all of these sentiments but I would add a few from our own experience (not particularly terminal illness, but that's likely coming soon with my wife's mass in her lung that we still can't get diagnosed) but with the medical machine in general. We have several special and medical needs children so we're constantly dealing with doctors and hospitals. I think it's important to do your own research on differ…

>I often wonder why people do that? Sometimes it's the patients (or parents of patients if minor) but it seems to me that it's almost always friends or relatives that try to hook you up with pipe dreams and fantasies. Why is it so difficult for people to accept our realities?

Lack of education and a (worrying) growing mistrust in science and the scientific method.

Re: Fighting Cancer

#147

Post by DanBC »

voltagex_ wrote: post #145
frign wrote: post #144

This guy is a sheep of the medical system and has already given up just because his treatment stopped working as the doctors told him. Our society and food make us sick, our doctors keep us sick. Why trust them with cancer?

.

You can flag (and you can downvote) the obvious trolls.

Re: Fighting Cancer

#149

Post by wyqydsyq »

Mahn wrote: post #93
newscracker wrote: post #25

> The only way to beat cancer, really, is to die from something else first. That was a short and pointed article. More so after I read a short comic strip on PHD Comics about cancer [1], I can't help but think that "beating cancer" is a very tough (and impossible) goal for the ones suffering from it and the ones looking for better management or reduction of it. That shining light of optimism after remission is tinged…

> [1]: http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1162 So, forgive me if I'm being naive because I don't really have professional experience in the field of cancer research, but this comic makes it sound like a cure for cancer is impossible because it would have to deal with million different forms and shapes that it can take, but, theoretically, wouldn't it be possible to attack the root problem instead, and find a way to bi…

Curing it with traditional chemical medicine is impossible, sure.

I think you're right in that the best place to look for a cure is the root cause. If we could modify our genetics to prevent unregulated growth, or train/augment our immune systems to better recognize cancer cells, then our bodies would be capable of preventing it all on their own since as I understand it, most types of cancer are essentially caused by your immune system failing to recognize malignant growths.

There's also researchers [1] looking into the viability of utilizing nanorobotics to fight cancer (among other diseases that are incurable or require invasive surgery) - essentially you'd inject millions of nanobots into your bloodstream, which would circulate through your body, killing any cells which grow unregulated, and then exit through your urine when you're all clear.

[1] http://www.nextbigfuture.com./2015/05/pfizer-partnering-with...

Re: Fighting Cancer

#150

Post by [deleted] »

arisAlexis wrote: post #131
rabidrat wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all of us want to live again in some unknown future without any sense of continuity or surviving relationships. Death is ultimately inevitable, even if a miracle like cryonics could postpone it the first time. The author's entire point is that we should accept this inevitability, not try to avoid it by any psychological means we can conjure. Only then can we respond appropriately.

If we manage to make cryonics work what tells you that people you know will not do it in the future or technology didn't make them live much (much) longer than expected? Why accept something as fact when there is an above zero chance that you can live longer?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN