Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Superfusion

  1. Apparently the development of cancer is very similar to embryonic development . I wonder if it is part of the cost of evolution. Perhaps if cells were never able to reproduce under uncontrolled conditions there would never have existed the possibility of controlled reproduction?



    According to what i know the evolution process proceeded because of natural selection. They change because they are forced to change their way of living in order to adapt to the enviorment. Or not to adapt to the enviorment but just because it lives in a specific enviorment. (i.e A popular theory is that apes lived in trees in certain areas but when grass arrived many of the tree's disappeared and the apes had to adapt to the new enviorment by learning to stand on its two back legs in order to hunt for food correctly. Over huge swats of time they begin to be born in that fashion.)


    Or from a mutation in a species, And if this mutation is beneficial it is more likely that the mutated version will survive. When that mutated version survives it reproduces more. When that happens there are more offspring with the same beneficial mutation. They will then reproduce more than the kind it mutated from. So on and so on. After this happens a very very high amount of times you end up with something completely different.

  2. The point is separate manifestations of identically appearing, malignant, uncontrolled cell division (e.g. melanoma) can be caused by two completely unrelated cellular malfunctions. Exposure to the same trigger (e.g. UV radiation) can cause two, completely independent cellular malfunctions (e.g. regulatory malfunction vs nonsynonymous point mutation). While SYMPTOMS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symptom) for these two distinct, independent maladies may be identical and TREATMENT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapy) may be the same, the CURE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cure) will be totally different.


    I know you're openly stating you're not an expert which is fine - but in order to discuss cancer CURES I think you need to become aware of a few basic definitions and how disease prevention and treatment differ from curing said disease.





    and how they relate to how cancer works




    So, back to my original point - when you're discussing a cure for cancer, you're actually talking about millions of cures for millions of different cell level malfunctions which ultimately result in uncontrolled cellular division. Whilst there may be common methods for preventing cancer or treating the symptoms of cancer and both of these are critically important in managing the disease they aren't curing it per se.


    Now another set of definitions:

    disease management: http://encyclopedia....nt+%28health%29

    disease eradication: http://medical-dicti...com/eradication


    Because cancer is a malfunction of your own body which can be caused by quite literally millions of environmental, genetic and combinations of environmental and genetic factors, it cannot be eradicated, vaccinated against or controlled in the same sense as a disease caused by a pathogen, like smallpox, influenza and polio. The chances of there being a "cancer free world" or expecting a universal cure are slim to none.


    What we CAN improve and refine are the management and control of cancer. Many ailments which used to be lethal to humans have become trivial (at least in the developed world) due to effective management and treatment (http://medical-dicti...Disease+Control).


    So my point is that rather than asking "How do we cure cancer?" and awaiting an extremely unlikely medical "silver bullet" miracle we should be asking "How do we better manage cancer with prevention, detection and treatment methods?"


    I see, the purpose of this thread still remains the same though. Our ideas for curing/treating different types of cancers can be discussed here. As well as better and alternative treatments to the ones we currently have. I will get myself higher education on the subject so i can more accurately give my ideas. As should others.

  3. My (and the comics) point is that no, they aren't. "Cancer" describes a myriad of cellular malfunctions, ranging from regulatory failure, replication failure, translation failures damaged DNA, etc and so on. There is no common "cause" and as such it is extremely likely that there is no common cure.


    I said "causes" not cause, I am speaking for the common CAUSES. And those causes can be brought up from a million other things like radiation exposure, bad health habbits and many other things that can cause it to go wrong.


    Cheap and ubiquitous technologies for monitoring the body and identifying cancer in the earliest possible stages.


    One scenario: Near-future technologies capable of routinely monitoring blood, urine, and other things in a completely non-invasive way and without the need for patient cooperation. I imagine a common personal gadget of the future that will monitor the general health of the user (heart, liver, neurology, and so on) and upload their real-time data to a cloud where it will periodically be examined by a computer system analogous to IBM Watson capable of identifying possible risks far beyond the capacity of a human doctor.


    In this way cancer would be drastically reduced - perhaps virtually eliminated in prosperous societies - by early intervention and prevention. Basically perpetual screening combined with analysis of one's genome, history, etc. by an AI computer system. I'm hoping for something like this anyway. Oh, and then there would be an array of possible interventions much as is currently the case. The main difference is that cancer would never get off the ground. I imagine many, if not most, cancer deaths are related to timing of the diagnosis.


    Yeah that would be something cool to have sometime in the future. That one would be perhaps a little farther into the future. Lets continue flowing out our ideas.

  4. Some of the holes are part of our normal cellular processes. Plug them, we die. Getting rid of water would be.. hum.. getting rid of your body? I sense an analogy fail here somewhere.


    Also accomplish these goals in an effective manner. If we just plugged the holes whatever it takes of course we would die. But the analogy is equal to this.


    A. Prevent cancer from forming.

    B. Destroy it before it kills the person.


    And achieve these goals best possible. Maybe it is impossible to completely prevent cancer from forming. I do not have expertee's in the subject. But i already know chances can be lowered. But the goal is to do this in any form that works without hurting any of the goals i have listed above.

  5. The huge technical challenge is getting more energy out than you put in. If you waive that requirement, it's much easier to accomplish.



    While my objective was not to breakeven in energy production when i built my fusor, It was only to complete the feat and collect the education picked up along the way. But hearing that enough i guess i will do easy backyard experiments instead. But yes, This is the dilemma when it comes to nuclear power. If we can achieve better than break even it would revolutionize energy because this can be done repeatedly and is a renewable source of energy. As long as hydrogen exist i believe we will be capable of producing such energy. If hydrogen did cease to exist for some reason then we would die from any of the following.


    A. Die from lack of water unless we found a way to break free of needing water.

    B. Die from lack of sunlight and energy being produced because the sun wouldnt have fuel.

    C. Many other things that would end the universe as we know it with lack of hydrogen.


    So as long as the universe as we know it exist this source of energy would be reliable considering we could produce positive net energy from the reaction.

  6. There are lots of "causes" too.


    Indeed. As mentioned in the link given and i lightly brushed on that in the opening of the thread. What we want to do is


    A. Plug these holes

    B. Get rid of the water before it sinks the ship.


    We want to accomplish one if not both of these goals without causing harm to the patient that is nearly just as deadly as the cancer itself. If it is possible do it in a way that will cause the patient no harm whatsoever to life after being cured. Or if not a cure after treatment.

  7. "cancer" is an overarching term for a whole suite of cell replication malfunctions. As summed up well by PhD comics, what you're actually trying to do is find a million cures for a million disorders which fall under the general definition of what we call "cancer".




    That is indeed true that is what this thread is about. But OVERALL the causes of cancer are generally the same. (Without expertees in the subject)

  8. It wasn't posted as an attack, it's a fact. It directly interferes with the basic instinct to survive in the afflicted. Some die from handling poisonous snakes because they believe their faith will protect them, it doesn't. Some die from drinking poison because they believe their faith will protect them, it doesn't. There are those in the path of danger with the warning to evacuate or evade the approaching danger but they stand their ground and pray believing their faith will protect them, it doesn't. Some walk on fire in a manner that gets them injured because they believe faith will protect them, it doesn't. For all of these people faith interferes with their ability to reason rationally and directly overrides the basic instinct to survive. For these people it is certainly a mental disorder.


    It is not their faith that they believe directly will protect them, They believe that their god will. And that is not promised and snake handling is a very small branch from christianity and there is a reason why. They go in knowing there are dangers they arent fools. They know they arent invisible and can be killed.

  9. "Inclusive fitness: The expansion of the concept of the fitness of a genotype to include benefits accrued to relatives of an individual since relatives share parts of their genomes."




    Click the wiki links.


    Ok apparently i do not understand, How would it increase their fitness by being that way or doing so?



    Im gonna head off for now we can continue this later.

  10. This topic did not last very long at all......... Anyway yeah robotics are pretty interesting. We are evolving them and now using unmanned drones for spy plane intelligence, No telling what they got that we dont know.

  11. Based on what we know about cancer so far what can we use as real treatments for cancer/cancers? We know that a "crazed" cell does not get eliminated and begins to reproduce/spread among the area and in malignant cases infects tissue of an organ. We also know that better hygene/health habits such as eating and exercise can reduce your chances for this "crazed" cell from appearing in the first place. Other than our current western treatments lets try and see what we can produce outside of that to slow down, stop or prevent it from happening in the first place.


    Here is the wikipedia link for more information.


    Oh yes and other links to more information are much appreciated.

  12. But what you find there is why is it advangeous? If they maintain homosexuality they cannot effectively produce. With everything known people desire to do so. Maybe not just to reproduce but what you use to do so attracts people.

  13. There is a lot of research into this and it is part of regular screening of gender dysphoric individuals.


    It is? Nothing is found in the research? I believe in your case the testosterone is flowing to the brain but it persist? Perhaps its the latter and your brain simply does not react to the testosterone.


    Humans are very sensitive and have very sensitive brains. Homosexuality is something i have never seen in other animals. I guess with the higher intelligence comes the bigger sensitivity.

  14. But couldn't I just make up anything and then point out that you can't disprove it? Are all ideas that can't be falsified valid? Of course not. Prove that Zeus doesn't exist. You can't. So is the Zeus hypothesis automatically worthy of consideration? He has ancient documents that talk about him just like Jesus or Yahweh.


    Correct, Just because it cant be falsified it is not valid, The point is that it cannot be falsified. The difference in the writings and records of Zeus are that they are much older and less reliable because they were the only civilization in the area keeping records in the early days of zeus.


    In the end this conversation will end nowhere so lets just stop it now. Because of the dig i mentioned before and lets move on to something else for now.

  15. The slavery issue though i have never heard of it i guess if you say so it existed. And he did not say that he would return during the lifetime of his disciples. You either heard incorrectly or such is a lie. You can find that in the New Testament for yourself. Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Which tells me that your slavery information may also be invalid.

  16. Superfusion, by now you must know that to make a positive assertion you must back it up with evidence, not baseless claims, claims oh yeah, what happened to the unicorns? Noah's Ark is still out there twisting in the wind as well.




    Again, why did Jesus support slavery and why did he lie about his return? His stance on slavery was and is immoral and he lied about his return.


    He lied about his return? Can you please show me the evidence of such? Again, Unicorns are worldly, And my back up for my statement about their being no evidence doing the case of no God as much a service as it does us is based in common sense. If no evidence exist that he does exist. We can still say that no evidence exist that he does not. Because no evidence exist you cannot make a case in either direction and that is where faith plays.

  17. First of all, lack of proof of god is not proof of gods existence anymore than lack of proof of the existence of centaurs means there are centaurs, in the lack of any evidence of centaurs the only reasonable way to go is there are no centaurs or unicorns which the bible does say exist btw.


    My lack of proof just means i see no reason to believe in a god or gods and lack of positive proof the default position is there are no gods. Evidence would change my mind but telling me i have to have faith is a cop out and again why is your god real and all the others are not?


    And why did Jesus lie?


    Mistake, This is not the same case as centaurs, centaurs are worldly. God is something you cannot see. Centaurs are visible. Centaurs live in the world. God lives in heaven. Do we live in heaven? No. You cannot make a worldly comparison to something supernatural. In the case of lack of proof, It pulls both ways. It does you no more a service then it does us.


    Jesus died as punishment for all of our sins. Our future ones and our past ones. When you die you are again baptized in the holy spirit, Which really clenses your soul and makes you capable to be in heaven forever and shed your sins. Based on what i know someone that makes the trip to hell drowns in them forever. But i cannot tell you who goes to hell and who does not and why. Not my choice.

  18. No, God demanded these things happen, either you don't know your own bible or you are being dishonest.




    This is just preaching and it is against the rules here.






    Again, even if Jesus was real, and there is no evidence he was other than stories written decades if not centuries after his supposed death, he still supported slavery and the laws of the old testament.


    Why is god so shy these days? Why hasn't the sun been stopped in the sky to aid people who were fighting on his side? Why no miracles? And why is your religion better than any other? There are other religions than the ones based on Abraham. Why is Krishna not god, come on man do you really think there are no other holy books about completely different gods or pantheons of gods? Why is yours true and theirs are not? The people who worship those gods have just as much faith as you do in yours and why is your interpretation of your own god any better than anyone else's?


    Oh yes, one... well two more things, why did Jesus lie about his second coming and people have thought they were in the end times since the beginning, it's a common delusion of the religious fanatics?


    I honestly don't know where the illusion came from that we are living in the end times. To keep the faith of weaker christians? I'm not gonna look out the window waiting for the apocalypse to happen. Nor am i scared of it. We can only know when it will happen when it actually happens. As for him causing such events he indeed does cause them. But this is not for us to ask. As i intended to say last night there is a dig.

    The only proof atheist have that god does not exist is that there is no proof that he does.

    And the only "solid" proof christians have that he does is that the only existing proof he does not is the lack of proof that he does.


    (FYI) If the conversation continues ill move it to another thread moderator iodine.

  19. I will say this one more time, adults should never be sexually involved with children, childish sex games are just that for children and no adults should ever been involved, an adult sexualizing a child always results in some harm, if not physical then mental harm that results in a twisted view of what sex is, often poor self esteem and an inability to function as an adult sexually. I was sexualized as a child, i know intimately what it does to you, how it affects your self worth your self esteem and your own sense of what to expect from partners in adult sex. It totally fucked me up and prevented me from having the confidence to go to university. If you are thinking of doing it don't! If you are doing it stop and turn your self in so you and the child can get counciling, there is no excuse for it...


    I would say that i 100% agree with you here. It can ruin it later and many other things later. Not to mention the damage it can cause outside your sex-life. Having confidence is key in success all over life.

  20. Ok, that is fine.


    Getting back to my first question:


    So the body does not match the brain regarding gender. On what basis have you determined that the brain is at fault and not the body? How have you determined that it is a mental illness and not a body illness?


    In other words, from a scientific perspective, how did you determine that in a MTF transgender person, that the brain was wrong to think of itself as female? Couldn't the brain be correct in thinking of itself as female, but the body did not develop as expected? There are obviously many cases of bodies not developing to plan.


    The reason I ask is because labelling someone as mentally ill without evidence would probably be considered reckless.


    Whats strange is reguardless of the person wanting to be a man/woman the body still pumps testosterone/estrogen but it has pretty much no effect on their behavior. Perhaps the problem lies somewhere in there? Perhaps the body receives testosterone/estrogen impulses but the brain never does. Or the brain does but it ignores them. In which case the person makes the choice just based on what they see in the genders. Actually an interesting topic to try and dig into.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.