just wondering.
Could government funding for stem cell research help to find better cancer treatments?
Stem cell research could absolutely help improve cancer treatments, and because a large portion of medical research is government funded, government funding of stem cell research is critical.
Believe it or not, cancer cells actually have quite a bit in common with stem cells. As you probably already know, stem cells are undifferentiated cells, meaning they aren't any particular type of tissue, they're just cells that can turn into specific types. They basically look like generic cells. Skin cells are flat, neurons are long and kind of tree-like, but stem cells are just kind of blob-like. They look something like the pictures of generic cells you might have seen in biology textbooks (the ones where the show all the organelles, and the cell is just kind of a generic blog with no specialized structures). They can also keep dividing indefinitely, unlikely differentiated cells that can only divide so many times before the cell line just dies. They also tend to divide more quickly than normal cells, particularly if the produce cells that are in constant demand (for example, stem cells in the bone marrow produce blood cells, which constantly need to be replaced, and stem cells in the hair follicles produce hair cells, and hair is always growing).
Cancer cells are normal somatic cells that have, in a sense, undifferentiated. A cancer cell might have started out as a skin cell, but by the time it's in something that would be considered a tumor, it's barely recognizable as a skin cell, and is more of a generic blob. It can also keep dividing indefinitely.
Because cancer cells are so similar to stem cells, cancer treatments tend to destroy stem cells along with cancer cells. The reason that a patient's hair typically falls out during chemo is that the chemicals used to kill the cancer cells also kill the stem cells in the hair follicles. More problematic are the stem cells in the bone marrow. Those ones produce both red and white blood cells, which are pretty darned important. Cancer patients will often develop anemia (from too few red blood cells), and weakened immune systems (from too few white blood cells) during chemo, and may even need a bone marrow transplant.
Improved understanding of the physiological differences between stem cells and cancer cells would allow researchers to design cancer treatments that don't attack cancer cells. Also, improved understanding of the mechanisms of differentiation might lead to a better understanding of exactly what goes wrong in cancer cells (since they basically differentiated in reverse), which might lead to the ability to reverse the damage to the cell that caused it to become cancerous in the first place.
Reply:abc
Reply:i believe there is a cure for cancer. my wife has ovarian cancer that has spread to all of her major organs. the surgeon opened her up and closed her right back up. he said he would do more damage trying to remove it. he said try chemo and see if that will shrink it enough to remove it, but there is very little hope. so I've researched this ALOT and I've bought everything from b-17 (which i started taking and my sciatic nerve quit hurting and my blood pressure is more normal than it's ever been) to ozone generator and everything in between. my wife refuses to try them but I've bought them.
my mother (skin cancer) and my brother in law (hip,lymph,lung and brain) were all having surgery on the same day at the same time at different hospitals. my brother in law was having a hole drilled into his hip to scrape out the cancer and to put bone cement in so his hip wouldn't break. when they checked the cancer cells that had been removed they were all dead!! he was drinking this nasty tea that you make from a tree bark from south America. he isn't doing very good now. I'm sure it's spread too far. but back to my thoughts on a cure. HAS ANYONE EVER HEARD OF A HIGH RANKING PUBLIC OFFICIAL EVER DYING FROM CANCER? if you have please post it. it's like the deadly aids virus the last time i seen magic Johnson on TV he looked very healthy to me
Reply:You bet. There's already a world of new discoveries thanks to it.
One of the most exciting things I've read about cancer research for the future is this, nano-technology:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/medicine/d8...
I'll paste one part of it here:
Today's best cancer treatments destroy tumor cells with about as much precision as an atomic bomb. Now researchers at Rice University are developing tumor-frying "nanoshells" that spare healthy tissue. The treatment, which begins clinical trials early next year, hinges on cancer-specific antibodies glued to nano-scale spheres of glass and gold. Here, a guided tour of how nanoshells will kill cancer inside the body.
(1) Each gold-coated nanoshell is about 10,000 times smaller than a white blood cell. To diagnose and treat cancer, a doctor injects thousands of them into the patient's bloodstream. Dispersed inside the body, the nanoshells seek out and bind to tumor cells via antibodies stuck to their surface. (2) Once roughly 20 nanoshells cover each tumor, a brief exposure to near-infrared light, which passes harmlessly through tissue, illuminates the shells. Next, doctors deliver a more intense near-infrared dose, heating only bound tumors. (3) Free-floating electrons on the outer gold shells concentrate the intensified near-infrared energy, heating each individual nanoshell and cooking the tumor--all during a single visit to the doctor's office.
You can read how stem cell research probably contributed to this too: (Click on View photos when you scroll down part way and read the articles on each page listed there...click on "next photo" to see each new discovery)
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/medicine/4b...
Reply:It certainly would.
Reply:appearently we are making little, but some progress in Canada, with only a 10'th of the funds and resurces available to the U.S. of A., imagine what the good 'ol U.S. of A. could do
Reply:We are stretched pretty thin right now with other pressing issues if you have noticed lately.
Research is going along privately with many product oriented projects TBA very soon..
Generally government dollars are not well spent unless there are refined projects that need acceleration..
loligo1@yahoo.com
Reply:The government takes so much money, and because it is such a large bureaucracy consequently cannot help but waste a lot of money, it is almost unconscionable that they not fund stem cell research, even if one believes the chance of it finding a cure are tiny.
("Freaking_moron", you are confusing "petroleum" with organic chemistry. Atoms arranged differently behave differently. If you drink H2O2 you will probably die, if you DON'T drink H2O you will definitely die! if you visit the site for the FSM {search 'FSM' on google} you will see there is also a perfect correlation between global temperatures and pirates, so by your logic, the "cure" for global warming would be to have more pirates!)
Reply:Anything a Government can do towards finding a cure for all cancers is commendable and should be supported with vigor.
However i do not believe that a Government is capable of balancing the Country's treasury fairly and just.... I look around myself, and find all nations, warring with each other over trivial matters such as Gas/Oil which have nearly been depleted... Unwillingness to look after our environment, for the sake of economics.... One country is well on its way, to decide the course of everybody´s fate on this planet for the better part of a 100 years, now, and look where it brought them... trillions into debt, interfering in Nations politics on other continents, as if they have been ordered to do so by UN Council, which is as far from the truth as Santa Claus really existing.. Any research on the cure of cancer should be widely supported by us all, even if it means, having to fund some of it ourselves by donating to the cause.... eh, when it is a priority in your personal view.....
Reply:It is very possible, many believe that stem cell research could help find cures to cancer and many other deadly diseases.
Reply:I don't think so. They don't WANT a cure for it. Every day they make decisions that will help keep cancer going forever.
I feel strongly that our food is the biggest problem with the rise in cancer. FD%26amp;C food colors are made out of petroleum, artificial flavors are usually derived from petroleum. BHT, BHA, TBHQ are petroleum based and one is actually used TO PROMOTE the GROWTH of TUMORS in lab animals. And we put this stuff in our food supply?! I don't care what the FDA says, these things were not meant to be consumed and processed by our bodies. Why do they say not to sniff gas fumes, but it's ok to eat things made from petroleum. It's a contradiction and it's killing us. We don't need bright blue food, or Red#40 added to our salmon so it looks more "natural".
Many of these things came onto market in the late 60's, early 70's and that is when the rise of many of our health problems started. Why do we have so many kids with ADD, ADHD, OCD, birth defects, cancer, etc? We have poisoned ourselves and most don't realize it!
Help us wage a war on the food industry while you are fighting for a cure. People with cancer really don't need BHT in their food to make their cancer grow.
Martial Arts Shoes
Monday, April 26, 2010
It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats?
it makes no sense, what kind of research?
It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats?
So we get rid of the researchers...or the rats????
Reply:So...who cares?
Reply:kill them both and god can sort them out!!!!!
hahahahahahahahahahaha
It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats?
So we get rid of the researchers...or the rats????
Reply:So...who cares?
Reply:kill them both and god can sort them out!!!!!
hahahahahahahahahahaha
What is stem cell research,can it cure cancer or other bad diseases?
so if i can why do we use it
What is stem cell research,can it cure cancer or other bad diseases?
Stem cell transplants (in lieu of bone marrow transplants) are used all the time (in the US, and Federally funded) to treat leukemias, lymphomas, and other auto immune disorders.
The cells either come from the peripheal blood stream of an adult, or the cord blood and placenta of a HEALTHY baby AFTER a HEALTHY birth. Baby nor mother are harmed in any way.
While they may be using embryonic for this transplant in research (I dont know), they are NOT using embryonic in actual transplants on humans.
While I dont know that anyone can actually officially say it is a cure, it shows promise that it could be.
I know several patients who have lived years in remission after transplant. I just went through transplant this summer. I am currently in remission, and it may be my only chance at long term remission, or 'cure'.
www.marrow.org has a lot of information about this type of transplant, the stems cells, and what diseases it can be used with. This is the National Marrow Donor's Program website.
I dont have links, but if you do a couple of google searches, you will find that embryonic stem cells are proving to be 'unstable'.
They are used for sure in research in the US, but I am not sure they are actually used in treatment. This research and treatment is NOT federally funded, but is legal.
Adult stem cells and babys cord blood and placenta is used in research and treatment every day, and IS federally funded (My transplant was paid for by your tax dollars - I have medicare)
I am not as well schooled on other types and uses, but improvements are being made day by day.
Reply:they take the cells from the cord I believe after birth and they are working everyday to find cures one day they will.
Reply:Stem cells can be used to cure many issues. Think of a stem cell as ultimately being a blank cell, one without the information of potential use of that cell being written into that cells "code" yet. Ultimately meaning, a stem cell can be used to create or heal organs by the devision and thus replication of the stem cells.
More complex information can be found on them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell
Reply:i agree with devon. not only do stem cells come from umbilical cords, but also from aborted fetus'. since its comes from fetus', thats why theres so much controversy on whether its morally correct or not.
What is stem cell research,can it cure cancer or other bad diseases?
Stem cell transplants (in lieu of bone marrow transplants) are used all the time (in the US, and Federally funded) to treat leukemias, lymphomas, and other auto immune disorders.
The cells either come from the peripheal blood stream of an adult, or the cord blood and placenta of a HEALTHY baby AFTER a HEALTHY birth. Baby nor mother are harmed in any way.
While they may be using embryonic for this transplant in research (I dont know), they are NOT using embryonic in actual transplants on humans.
While I dont know that anyone can actually officially say it is a cure, it shows promise that it could be.
I know several patients who have lived years in remission after transplant. I just went through transplant this summer. I am currently in remission, and it may be my only chance at long term remission, or 'cure'.
www.marrow.org has a lot of information about this type of transplant, the stems cells, and what diseases it can be used with. This is the National Marrow Donor's Program website.
I dont have links, but if you do a couple of google searches, you will find that embryonic stem cells are proving to be 'unstable'.
They are used for sure in research in the US, but I am not sure they are actually used in treatment. This research and treatment is NOT federally funded, but is legal.
Adult stem cells and babys cord blood and placenta is used in research and treatment every day, and IS federally funded (My transplant was paid for by your tax dollars - I have medicare)
I am not as well schooled on other types and uses, but improvements are being made day by day.
Reply:they take the cells from the cord I believe after birth and they are working everyday to find cures one day they will.
Reply:Stem cells can be used to cure many issues. Think of a stem cell as ultimately being a blank cell, one without the information of potential use of that cell being written into that cells "code" yet. Ultimately meaning, a stem cell can be used to create or heal organs by the devision and thus replication of the stem cells.
More complex information can be found on them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell
Reply:i agree with devon. not only do stem cells come from umbilical cords, but also from aborted fetus'. since its comes from fetus', thats why theres so much controversy on whether its morally correct or not.
Is it true that breakthrough medical research has proved that doing research on rats causes cancer in rats?
Yes and no. For example, some kinds of cancers that ONLY occur in rats have been found. It was widely believed that saccharin or cyclamates (I forget which one) caused cancer, but the fact was that rats digest, process and eliminate it differently than we do. When it is concentrated in their urine, it forms crystals, which it does not do in our urine because our urine contains a higher percentage of water. (A human with water levels in the urine as low as a rat's would already be dead of dehydration.)
The sharp-edge crystals in the rats' bladders repeatedly cut them and caused bleeding, required healing, and eventually led to a breakdown of the healing process, with uncontrolled cell growth and reproduction, called cancer-- because the bladders were continually being cut by the sharp-edged crystals and needing to be healed...! So it was not that the sweetener caused cancer. ANYTHING that crystallized in their urine like that would eventually have caused cancer.
The rats just couldn't tell us, that's all.
Stop medical experiments on mute animals-- experiment on PETA members, instead.
THOSE WORTHY OF OUR RESPECT WOULD VOLUNTEER.
11 DEC 06, 1851 hrs, GMT.
Is it true that breakthrough medical research has proved that doing research on rats causes cancer in rats?
this is probly a joke question(?)but--having had many rats and mice over the years,i can tell u that EVERY-and i do mean 100% of them-rodent that i ever had,died of cancer in its old age.u could see the tumours,and they'd have to be put down.in the wild,they are predated by almost everything-owls,foxes,u name it.they dont live long enough to develop the disease.but 3 year old mice and 5 yr old rats are extraordinarily prone to cancer in my opinion.ive often wondered if those tests are skewed-i mean,was it the diet they were fed.or the chemicals they ingested in the lab-or,like my pets,was it just that rodents are cancer prone to begin with??????
The sharp-edge crystals in the rats' bladders repeatedly cut them and caused bleeding, required healing, and eventually led to a breakdown of the healing process, with uncontrolled cell growth and reproduction, called cancer-- because the bladders were continually being cut by the sharp-edged crystals and needing to be healed...! So it was not that the sweetener caused cancer. ANYTHING that crystallized in their urine like that would eventually have caused cancer.
The rats just couldn't tell us, that's all.
Stop medical experiments on mute animals-- experiment on PETA members, instead.
THOSE WORTHY OF OUR RESPECT WOULD VOLUNTEER.
11 DEC 06, 1851 hrs, GMT.
Is it true that breakthrough medical research has proved that doing research on rats causes cancer in rats?
this is probly a joke question(?)but--having had many rats and mice over the years,i can tell u that EVERY-and i do mean 100% of them-rodent that i ever had,died of cancer in its old age.u could see the tumours,and they'd have to be put down.in the wild,they are predated by almost everything-owls,foxes,u name it.they dont live long enough to develop the disease.but 3 year old mice and 5 yr old rats are extraordinarily prone to cancer in my opinion.ive often wondered if those tests are skewed-i mean,was it the diet they were fed.or the chemicals they ingested in the lab-or,like my pets,was it just that rodents are cancer prone to begin with??????
Why is there so much time and money wasted on silly research?
There are so many organisations out there that a desparate for funds into legitimate and worthy causes like cancer research. Why do people and governments keep on pouring money into researching things with no benefit towards human or animal society
Why is there so much time and money wasted on silly research?
Research is kind of like a 100,000 (or more) piece puzzle. Without one piece, it's impossible to know where others go.
That shower curtain research, for example, could lead to more knowledge about the ways weather systems evolve in the atmosphere over tropical regions of Earth. Which could lead to more advanced hurricane prediction. Which could lead to better building codes. Which could lead to less damage following a major storm. Which could lead to less need for federal recovery assistance. Which could lead to more money for the federal education budget. Which could lead to lower tuition costs at universities. Which enables more kids to go to college and research shower curtain motion.
Reply:I don't see how much more they can research cancer.
They'd be better putting the money somewhere else imo.
Anyway, I agree with you though, there are studies being funded to see why nobody seems to like green jelly beans and all sorts of pathetic things like that. Try writing to them Report Abuse
Reply:Like the guy who researched why the shower curtain sucks inwards during a hot shower!! Also I get annoyed when celebrities have $6000 handbags and that is about the same cost for 3 months of chemo therapy for a small child. :(
Reply:why did you saying like that? exploring and researching in the past days gives you , your country, and medicines for your healthy life they can give more things to the humanbeings at least they dedicated their life to our well wish your spirit of research should come forward an inspiration should takes root in your soul and once you get some success in your research, it will really a serve to god money never come in this way without human being what you do with the money?
Reply:What exactly do you call silly research? How do we find newer and better things without it? People thought that space research was silly until it resulted in improving medical treatment, building materials, and water purification systems.
BIRD
Why is there so much time and money wasted on silly research?
Research is kind of like a 100,000 (or more) piece puzzle. Without one piece, it's impossible to know where others go.
That shower curtain research, for example, could lead to more knowledge about the ways weather systems evolve in the atmosphere over tropical regions of Earth. Which could lead to more advanced hurricane prediction. Which could lead to better building codes. Which could lead to less damage following a major storm. Which could lead to less need for federal recovery assistance. Which could lead to more money for the federal education budget. Which could lead to lower tuition costs at universities. Which enables more kids to go to college and research shower curtain motion.
Reply:I don't see how much more they can research cancer.
They'd be better putting the money somewhere else imo.
Anyway, I agree with you though, there are studies being funded to see why nobody seems to like green jelly beans and all sorts of pathetic things like that. Try writing to them Report Abuse
Reply:Like the guy who researched why the shower curtain sucks inwards during a hot shower!! Also I get annoyed when celebrities have $6000 handbags and that is about the same cost for 3 months of chemo therapy for a small child. :(
Reply:why did you saying like that? exploring and researching in the past days gives you , your country, and medicines for your healthy life they can give more things to the humanbeings at least they dedicated their life to our well wish your spirit of research should come forward an inspiration should takes root in your soul and once you get some success in your research, it will really a serve to god money never come in this way without human being what you do with the money?
Reply:What exactly do you call silly research? How do we find newer and better things without it? People thought that space research was silly until it resulted in improving medical treatment, building materials, and water purification systems.
BIRD
Im really confused about is artifical sweetner causes cancer?
i consume alot of artifical sweetner and an scared that it may cause cancer however ive researched it and everything points to no. does anyone have any evidence?
Im really confused about is artifical sweetner causes cancer?
Well, as anything . . moderation is the key. No clinical scientific evidence exists that artificial sweetners cause cancer in humans. However, some studies done years ago where rats were given high doses of Saccharin developed bladder cancer. Subsequent studies involving human beings have never been able to confirm that first finding. Data about Aspartame also shows no clear link between cancer and human beings.
You can read more about the various artificial sweetners and locate the relevant research studies done on each sweetner at the National Cancer Institute.
NCI: Artificial Sweetners and Cancer
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/facts...
FDA Statement about Aspartame
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tpaspart.h...
Reply:I dont think there is a link of artificial sweeteners causing cancer
Reply:Cancer may be caused by exposure to carcinogenic chemicals.
Many carcinogenic chemicals are known, and in all cases the degree of risk is associated with the quantity of the chemical absorbed by the body.
Artificial sweeteners were tested for carcinogenicity on laboratory animals by forcing the animals to consume huge amounts of the sweeteners.
It is possible, but highly unlikely that the sweetener will cause cancer in humans, though it did not caus cancer in laboratory animals. Also, even if it is mildly cancerous, it is not likely to do harm in the small amount you consume.
Life is a risky business, and you have to balance the risks from traffic, diseases, crimes, pollution, etc. with the risks from your food.
Im really confused about is artifical sweetner causes cancer?
Well, as anything . . moderation is the key. No clinical scientific evidence exists that artificial sweetners cause cancer in humans. However, some studies done years ago where rats were given high doses of Saccharin developed bladder cancer. Subsequent studies involving human beings have never been able to confirm that first finding. Data about Aspartame also shows no clear link between cancer and human beings.
You can read more about the various artificial sweetners and locate the relevant research studies done on each sweetner at the National Cancer Institute.
NCI: Artificial Sweetners and Cancer
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/facts...
FDA Statement about Aspartame
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tpaspart.h...
Reply:I dont think there is a link of artificial sweeteners causing cancer
Reply:Cancer may be caused by exposure to carcinogenic chemicals.
Many carcinogenic chemicals are known, and in all cases the degree of risk is associated with the quantity of the chemical absorbed by the body.
Artificial sweeteners were tested for carcinogenicity on laboratory animals by forcing the animals to consume huge amounts of the sweeteners.
It is possible, but highly unlikely that the sweetener will cause cancer in humans, though it did not caus cancer in laboratory animals. Also, even if it is mildly cancerous, it is not likely to do harm in the small amount you consume.
Life is a risky business, and you have to balance the risks from traffic, diseases, crimes, pollution, etc. with the risks from your food.
Cancer, MS, to Crohns: Disease research scams ?
Disease 'research' scam ?
On the one hand the 'specialist" tell the patient, 'you have a disease, no cause no cure..."and on the other hand an old country doctor says 'you have a bacterial infection'.
One gives you no treatment, merely hope if you join the association to find a cure for IBS, for Crohns, for MS, for Cancer....the other doctors gives you a simple cause and cure.
So why the difference ?
Cancer, MS, to Crohns: Disease research scams ?
I think you need to be in the medical section of YA. However, if you want to live healthier and better, switch to the Clever Diet:
http://chasclever.tripod.com.clever-diet...
And if you want to live forever, select the Jesus link--it's connected to heaven.
See the Bible code that proves Jesus is the Messiah at http://abiblecode.tripod.com
Blessings, Balaam
Reply:Yes, and one is quack. Cancer is NOT caused by a bacterial infection.
Reply:I found the story about the Canadian nurse.
http://www.cancer-solutions.net/DrGlumIn...
Reply:We've actually had the cure for cancer for decades. It's an herbal one. 98% effective.
Some Canadian nurse discovered it.
The medical business, like any other, is just after your money. They WANT you to be unhealthy, so cures like that are kept secret.
On the one hand the 'specialist" tell the patient, 'you have a disease, no cause no cure..."and on the other hand an old country doctor says 'you have a bacterial infection'.
One gives you no treatment, merely hope if you join the association to find a cure for IBS, for Crohns, for MS, for Cancer....the other doctors gives you a simple cause and cure.
So why the difference ?
Cancer, MS, to Crohns: Disease research scams ?
I think you need to be in the medical section of YA. However, if you want to live healthier and better, switch to the Clever Diet:
http://chasclever.tripod.com.clever-diet...
And if you want to live forever, select the Jesus link--it's connected to heaven.
See the Bible code that proves Jesus is the Messiah at http://abiblecode.tripod.com
Blessings, Balaam
Reply:Yes, and one is quack. Cancer is NOT caused by a bacterial infection.
Reply:I found the story about the Canadian nurse.
http://www.cancer-solutions.net/DrGlumIn...
Reply:We've actually had the cure for cancer for decades. It's an herbal one. 98% effective.
Some Canadian nurse discovered it.
The medical business, like any other, is just after your money. They WANT you to be unhealthy, so cures like that are kept secret.
Better to find cancer cure than fight in Iraq?
1500 people die of cancer daily. That is a 9/11 every two days. So in three days more people die of cancer than have died in Iraq. Plus, the youngest soldier to die in Iraq was 18 while youngest person to die of cancer was a newborn. So, it is better to put money into cancer research than to fight in Iraq which has never been a threat to us. This shows Bush is not a smart President. We can certainly keep America safe from terrorists without the Iraq war, but you cannot prevent people from getting cancer. 1/2 to 1/3 people will get cancer. Do the math. There is great research into cancer right now, but it will be delayed if funds are not available. The Iraq war is a loss cause and we need to get out and save lives. . Cancer cure is not a lost cause. Why should a baby, a teenager, a young adult, or even a 70 year old die of cancer because funds are not available for the cure? All these folks could then live to be 90 plus. You have to be a fool to not understand all this.
Better to find cancer cure than fight in Iraq?
I think with the war in Iraq U.S.A has spent billions of dollars on military. You are totally right. Saving lives at home is much better than oversees at least the research that is done to save the lives can be shared with others across the globe to save everyone who need it.
Reply:Amen to that. And the wonderful thing is, it would save Iraqi lives as well....
Reply:Have you considered the oil revenue that will be obtained from Iraq and the better life the people there will be having. (i am just being sarcastic to those who might be thinking this) i am scientist and for some reason the collective society does not like to fund research for saving dying people.
Reply:wow. if everyone thought like you we wont be in the war today. thank you for making my day.
Better to find cancer cure than fight in Iraq?
I think with the war in Iraq U.S.A has spent billions of dollars on military. You are totally right. Saving lives at home is much better than oversees at least the research that is done to save the lives can be shared with others across the globe to save everyone who need it.
Reply:Amen to that. And the wonderful thing is, it would save Iraqi lives as well....
Reply:Have you considered the oil revenue that will be obtained from Iraq and the better life the people there will be having. (i am just being sarcastic to those who might be thinking this) i am scientist and for some reason the collective society does not like to fund research for saving dying people.
Reply:wow. if everyone thought like you we wont be in the war today. thank you for making my day.
How can i find a research question in cancer studies?
CHOOSING A TOPIC
http://www.lib.duke.edu/libguide/choosin...
Good luck
Kevin, Liverpool, England.
skin itching
http://www.lib.duke.edu/libguide/choosin...
Good luck
Kevin, Liverpool, England.
skin itching
Do you think that the medical research and treatment INDUSTRY really want to find a cure for cancer or AIDS?
I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, and correct me if I’m wrong, but so many diseases were cured in the first half of the last century with so much less technology than we have today.
Do you think that the medical research and treatment INDUSTRY really want to find a cure for cancer or AIDS?
I think your absolutely correct, and i'm usually the first one to knock some sense into a goofy conspiracy theorist :)
Reply:Yes they want to find a cure.
I guess you didn't think that maybe the easy to cure diseases were cured first.
The easy things are always the first things. You may as well ask why it takes so long to build a modern 100+ story skyscraper when in the past they could build 5 story buildings in much shorter time.
Reply:No. The plan is to TREAT disease. Not CURE disease. No money in cures.
Reply:No.
Reply:Yes, they do. The individual scientist, and the company working on the cure would love to have his fame and fortune forever etched in history as the ones who cured whatever.
They would make more money curing it than they will treating it. Imagine if every person had to take the aids cure like a vaccine. Thats alot more doses than the small % of the population that gets infected. And if it was curable people would not try avoding it so they could treat more people and many more than once just like we do ghonorhea and syphyllus today.
The reason we had success with so many diseases in the past century, was that all those diseases were similar, and thus similarly treated. Most were bacteria, treated with antibiotics. Others were simple viruses and treated with vaccines. What is left are the diseases that attack the body differently and thus must have new types of cures.
Reply:No, there is no money in cures,,,and that is ALL they care about.!!!!!
Reply:No, it is not a conspirators theory at all, drug company's make billions off of sick people. I cannot speak of aids or cancer, never experienced it, however I can speak of diabetes's, If they found a cure for diabetes instead of treating it, they would lose billions. My drug bill alone is around $400 a month, multiply that by the 15 or 20 million people that are diagnosed in the U.S. and the many millions more globally and you can see why they never want to cure anything. It is another example of corporate greediness, but they have all the guns, the people have none and until it is not profitable they will continue to rape the people.
Reply:are you kidding me? DISEASES = DRUGS and DRUGS = MONEY. who'd want to give up a deal like that?
Reply:aids was a conspiracy to begin with dont even get me started!! the oklahoma city bombing years ago... they had the cure for aids in the basement. the cure for the same disease that they created!! initially the government created aids/hiv to stop homosexuality in the usa. but they failed! ahhhh u got me started to vent now... did u know that the princess diana died because she BLEED TO DEATH on the curb WAITING for medical attention?? she bleed out of a small vessel in the lung (pulmonary artery) over 2 hours!!!! they told her to "wait there princess!!" and thought she was just an intoxicated princess!! i'm in california, and the medical system here...we get ppl seriously injured in car accidents to the hosp and in the surgery room within one hour!!! if u get shot and you still alive... we will get u to operating room within an hour even if u go unconscious. ONE HOUR!! not sit there and bleed to death princess!!! ahhhhhh sorry lol
Do you think that the medical research and treatment INDUSTRY really want to find a cure for cancer or AIDS?
I think your absolutely correct, and i'm usually the first one to knock some sense into a goofy conspiracy theorist :)
Reply:Yes they want to find a cure.
I guess you didn't think that maybe the easy to cure diseases were cured first.
The easy things are always the first things. You may as well ask why it takes so long to build a modern 100+ story skyscraper when in the past they could build 5 story buildings in much shorter time.
Reply:No. The plan is to TREAT disease. Not CURE disease. No money in cures.
Reply:No.
Reply:Yes, they do. The individual scientist, and the company working on the cure would love to have his fame and fortune forever etched in history as the ones who cured whatever.
They would make more money curing it than they will treating it. Imagine if every person had to take the aids cure like a vaccine. Thats alot more doses than the small % of the population that gets infected. And if it was curable people would not try avoding it so they could treat more people and many more than once just like we do ghonorhea and syphyllus today.
The reason we had success with so many diseases in the past century, was that all those diseases were similar, and thus similarly treated. Most were bacteria, treated with antibiotics. Others were simple viruses and treated with vaccines. What is left are the diseases that attack the body differently and thus must have new types of cures.
Reply:No, there is no money in cures,,,and that is ALL they care about.!!!!!
Reply:No, it is not a conspirators theory at all, drug company's make billions off of sick people. I cannot speak of aids or cancer, never experienced it, however I can speak of diabetes's, If they found a cure for diabetes instead of treating it, they would lose billions. My drug bill alone is around $400 a month, multiply that by the 15 or 20 million people that are diagnosed in the U.S. and the many millions more globally and you can see why they never want to cure anything. It is another example of corporate greediness, but they have all the guns, the people have none and until it is not profitable they will continue to rape the people.
Reply:are you kidding me? DISEASES = DRUGS and DRUGS = MONEY. who'd want to give up a deal like that?
Reply:aids was a conspiracy to begin with dont even get me started!! the oklahoma city bombing years ago... they had the cure for aids in the basement. the cure for the same disease that they created!! initially the government created aids/hiv to stop homosexuality in the usa. but they failed! ahhhh u got me started to vent now... did u know that the princess diana died because she BLEED TO DEATH on the curb WAITING for medical attention?? she bleed out of a small vessel in the lung (pulmonary artery) over 2 hours!!!! they told her to "wait there princess!!" and thought she was just an intoxicated princess!! i'm in california, and the medical system here...we get ppl seriously injured in car accidents to the hosp and in the surgery room within one hour!!! if u get shot and you still alive... we will get u to operating room within an hour even if u go unconscious. ONE HOUR!! not sit there and bleed to death princess!!! ahhhhhh sorry lol
Research: Liver Cancer?
Can anyone tell me of the detailed personal effects of liver cancer on them?
Research: Liver Cancer?
I can tell you my mums experience with this desease. She firstly started with colon cancer and then spread to her liver. My mum always used to eat quite well but when she started chemo her appetite went completely. From the beginning she knew that her desease was terminal. She quickly started losing weight and eventually her abdomen started swelling due to her liver getting enlarged. Also she was always very sleepy and quite weak. She took vitamins and also she was prescribed some vitamin milkshakes as she was not eating properly. This type of cancer is usually terminal as normally it is a secondary cancer, this means that there is cancer in another place of the body. My mum was given 6 months to live but my mum survived a year and 5 months as her will to live was so strong. Sadly my mum lost her battle to cancer on the 27 May 2006.
Reply:my friend had liver cancer....its a dangerous form of cancer because even if the cancer is diagnosed early, its hard to cure because the liver isnt working. Or sometimes it isnt working 100%. He could barely eat. But, thats not completely true. We dont know for sure. Because he also had stomach cancer, and part of his stomach was cut out and stapled. So, he ate very little. After that, he didnt eat much. So, he took some vitamins for the liver, on recommendation from the doctors. As a matter of fact, it helped fight off the cancer. I think its vitamins that help strengthen the immune system or something like that. This is opposite of what doctors say and what universities say. They say that, cancer lives on the same things normal cells do. So, if we eat, we get stronger, and cancer does too. But, they never say that the body has its own natural ability to fight cancer. So, the stronger you become, the better chance of you fighting even strong cancer. He grew very very skinny. He was about 130 pounds. After a while, he was weighing like 90 pounds.
Research: Liver Cancer?
I can tell you my mums experience with this desease. She firstly started with colon cancer and then spread to her liver. My mum always used to eat quite well but when she started chemo her appetite went completely. From the beginning she knew that her desease was terminal. She quickly started losing weight and eventually her abdomen started swelling due to her liver getting enlarged. Also she was always very sleepy and quite weak. She took vitamins and also she was prescribed some vitamin milkshakes as she was not eating properly. This type of cancer is usually terminal as normally it is a secondary cancer, this means that there is cancer in another place of the body. My mum was given 6 months to live but my mum survived a year and 5 months as her will to live was so strong. Sadly my mum lost her battle to cancer on the 27 May 2006.
Reply:my friend had liver cancer....its a dangerous form of cancer because even if the cancer is diagnosed early, its hard to cure because the liver isnt working. Or sometimes it isnt working 100%. He could barely eat. But, thats not completely true. We dont know for sure. Because he also had stomach cancer, and part of his stomach was cut out and stapled. So, he ate very little. After that, he didnt eat much. So, he took some vitamins for the liver, on recommendation from the doctors. As a matter of fact, it helped fight off the cancer. I think its vitamins that help strengthen the immune system or something like that. This is opposite of what doctors say and what universities say. They say that, cancer lives on the same things normal cells do. So, if we eat, we get stronger, and cancer does too. But, they never say that the body has its own natural ability to fight cancer. So, the stronger you become, the better chance of you fighting even strong cancer. He grew very very skinny. He was about 130 pounds. After a while, he was weighing like 90 pounds.
How come a great deal of research on the causes of and possible cure for cancer focus on mitosis?
I agree with what The last guy said. 1 thing I don't agree with is the chemo therapy. I guess my little cousin was one of the unlucky one to get too much chemo. My advice is these days. Check your PH level? 7.35 or better cancer has a harder time surviving.
How come a great deal of research on the causes of and possible cure for cancer focus on mitosis?
Cells increase in number through mitosis. Chemotherapy works by stopping mitosis, but present medicines stop mitosis in all sorts of cells besides cancer cells. If there are enzymes or other chemicals needed for mitosis that are unique to cancer cells or at least a particular type of cell, then chemotherapy can be given in much higher doses without killing the patient.
Right now, chemotherapy targets too many non-cancer cells, so the drugs have to be stopped after a short exposure to let tissues heal from the chemotherapy. This requires a series of chemotherapy treatments over many weeks or months, and it prevents the docs from giving enough medicine to kill the cancers cells in a single dose.
Reply:check out this research group........http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/
Reply:cancer has to do with cells escaping the reproduction check points and continually growing. this occurs in mitosis, where cells reproduce. cancer = reproduction error in mitosis
How come a great deal of research on the causes of and possible cure for cancer focus on mitosis?
Cells increase in number through mitosis. Chemotherapy works by stopping mitosis, but present medicines stop mitosis in all sorts of cells besides cancer cells. If there are enzymes or other chemicals needed for mitosis that are unique to cancer cells or at least a particular type of cell, then chemotherapy can be given in much higher doses without killing the patient.
Right now, chemotherapy targets too many non-cancer cells, so the drugs have to be stopped after a short exposure to let tissues heal from the chemotherapy. This requires a series of chemotherapy treatments over many weeks or months, and it prevents the docs from giving enough medicine to kill the cancers cells in a single dose.
Reply:check out this research group........http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/
Reply:cancer has to do with cells escaping the reproduction check points and continually growing. this occurs in mitosis, where cells reproduce. cancer = reproduction error in mitosis
Need help with a topic for a research paper. cancer.?
interesting ways of getting cancer, such as tanning beds, or microwaves.
Need help with a topic for a research paper. cancer.?
How about thyroid cancer. It can be caused by environmental exposure to radioactive iodine. Check www.thyca.org for a lot of info. and links. It is the ONLY cancer that is on the rise. The other types of cancer are declining.
Reply:WIkipedia the free online encyclopedia has about everything you can search for. Just go to http://www.wikipedia.org/ and look up cancer. that simple.
Reply:chemical spraying in Orchards. We live across the dirt rd from one my daughter got leukaemia, I'm not saying that is the cause because my other 2 children are healthy, but maybe she had a predisposition to it from when i was pregnant ( i did smoke but very little, didn't smoke with other children) and the chemicals triggered something in her DNA to change. Lets hope one day we know so we can protect our children
adult teeth
Need help with a topic for a research paper. cancer.?
How about thyroid cancer. It can be caused by environmental exposure to radioactive iodine. Check www.thyca.org for a lot of info. and links. It is the ONLY cancer that is on the rise. The other types of cancer are declining.
Reply:WIkipedia the free online encyclopedia has about everything you can search for. Just go to http://www.wikipedia.org/ and look up cancer. that simple.
Reply:chemical spraying in Orchards. We live across the dirt rd from one my daughter got leukaemia, I'm not saying that is the cause because my other 2 children are healthy, but maybe she had a predisposition to it from when i was pregnant ( i did smoke but very little, didn't smoke with other children) and the chemicals triggered something in her DNA to change. Lets hope one day we know so we can protect our children
adult teeth
Cancer, MS, to Crohns: Disease research scams ?
Disease 'research' scam ?
On the one hand the 'specialist" tell the patient, 'you have a disease, no cause no cure..."and on the other hand an old country doctor says 'you have a bacterial infection'.
One gives you no treatment, merely hope if you join the association to find a cure for IBS, for Crohns, for MS, for Cancer....the other doctor gives you a simple cause and cure.
So why the difference ?
Is the North American system of medicine all about keeping you sick, and treating you with drugs...?
Cancer, MS, to Crohns: Disease research scams ?
I don't think it really works that way. Yes the drug makers and docs are greedy and over charge for meds. They do it because they know we will pay. They exploit it. But they have done what every good business wants to do. They have made their products a nessesity and are making money.
I also think that we are realizing that there are diseases behind the symptoms. Like in your example, instead of simply only treating the infection, we are looking at WHY there was an infection.
Many docs due try to convince patients to participate in trials, but if there were no trials there would be no new meds. And the patient can always so no. Even after they sign up they can change their mind.
I think NA medicine is about finding out everything we can about the diseases we face.
People keep saying that there is a cure for cancer and its something so easy and inexpensive and the drug makers dont want us to know. I would like for some of those people to get cancer and then follow their own proposed treatment. And if it really were true, they wouldnt hide it from us. They would pull it off al over the counter sales and make it the most expensive treatment ever.
Our medical community is greedy, but they are not liars.
On the one hand the 'specialist" tell the patient, 'you have a disease, no cause no cure..."and on the other hand an old country doctor says 'you have a bacterial infection'.
One gives you no treatment, merely hope if you join the association to find a cure for IBS, for Crohns, for MS, for Cancer....the other doctor gives you a simple cause and cure.
So why the difference ?
Is the North American system of medicine all about keeping you sick, and treating you with drugs...?
Cancer, MS, to Crohns: Disease research scams ?
I don't think it really works that way. Yes the drug makers and docs are greedy and over charge for meds. They do it because they know we will pay. They exploit it. But they have done what every good business wants to do. They have made their products a nessesity and are making money.
I also think that we are realizing that there are diseases behind the symptoms. Like in your example, instead of simply only treating the infection, we are looking at WHY there was an infection.
Many docs due try to convince patients to participate in trials, but if there were no trials there would be no new meds. And the patient can always so no. Even after they sign up they can change their mind.
I think NA medicine is about finding out everything we can about the diseases we face.
People keep saying that there is a cure for cancer and its something so easy and inexpensive and the drug makers dont want us to know. I would like for some of those people to get cancer and then follow their own proposed treatment. And if it really were true, they wouldnt hide it from us. They would pull it off al over the counter sales and make it the most expensive treatment ever.
Our medical community is greedy, but they are not liars.
How many women will be wearing prostate cancer ribbons for Father's Day?
On Mother's Day, many men wore pink ribbons to support the fight and research against breast cancer. Many men marched in breast cancer research funding walks and parades. In fact, the Major League Baseball players (all men) used pink bats and wore pink armbands in the games on Mother's Day to support this very same cause.
Now, how many women will be wearing prostate cancer ribbons for Father's Day?
Let me take an educated guess based on previous patterns, and say: "nowhere near as many men that wore breast cancer awareness ribbons."
Further evidence that women today are far more sexist than men.
Let me also state that there is roughly the same amount of reported cases of prostate cancer per year as there is breast cancer cases (slightly over 200,000 for each) -- the number difference between the two diseases only being a few thousand.
Prostate Cancer Ribbon Pin: http://www.phoenix5.org/advocacy/prostat...
How many women will be wearing prostate cancer ribbons for Father's Day?
My cause is autism, which affects four times as many boys as girls. But my heart goes out to men suffering from prostate cancer; my beloved grandfather died of it a few years back.
Reply:Just because it has a ribbon doesn't mean that people are as aware of it as they are things such as AIDS and Breast Cancer. They are "advertised" every which way you look. Television, magazines, and even food and clothing products. Maybe if it got put out there more this wouldn't be an issue. Someone needs to take it and run like they did with these others. They are all tragic and it is sad that some diseases don't appear as important as others. I would wear one if I had it.
Reply:Prostate cancer is a serious problem and increasing awareness of it will help fund further research.
I don't think it's fair to make a connection between women not wearing these ribbons and women being sexist, though. This blue ribbon campaign has not been established long, and now that there is a ribbon for so many different causes, people are not paying as much attention to them.
If you believe women are sexist, fine, but you will have to find some other evidence to convince me.
Reply:Problem is that men have been hiding prostrate cancer and act like testicular cancer does not exists. That women only have these problem and that a men and his balls and masculinity are exempt from all diseases. Sad thing is that men do not live as long as women, because women realize their weaknesses and men do not.
Reply:If there was a ribbon for this, you can bet I would be wearing itl! I love my Dad.
Reply:The whole point of your post is to try %26amp; prove women are more sexist....which you haven't done. You can't measure that by who's wearing ribbons %26amp; who isn't.
But you've already made up your mind so why bother asking?
Reply:I don't wear ribbons for anything or buy Chinese-manufactured "Support Our Troops" ribbon magnets because they're pointless, hypocritical (why don't you just donate your money or time?), and irritating.
Reply:Sh*t, you're right! My dad just had his cancerous prostate removed last year, and here I am doing nothing to support further research. And, I totally agree with your point that women today are more sexist than men (I'm a woman, and I try not to be biased either way). Que Righteous! Kudos!!
Reply:prostate cancer is so scary for men....more the test then having it for most, but there is a blood test that can indicate if there is a reason to be concerned.....how many women will wear a ribbon I would guess fewer then men wearing breast cancer
Now, how many women will be wearing prostate cancer ribbons for Father's Day?
Let me take an educated guess based on previous patterns, and say: "nowhere near as many men that wore breast cancer awareness ribbons."
Further evidence that women today are far more sexist than men.
Let me also state that there is roughly the same amount of reported cases of prostate cancer per year as there is breast cancer cases (slightly over 200,000 for each) -- the number difference between the two diseases only being a few thousand.
Prostate Cancer Ribbon Pin: http://www.phoenix5.org/advocacy/prostat...
How many women will be wearing prostate cancer ribbons for Father's Day?
My cause is autism, which affects four times as many boys as girls. But my heart goes out to men suffering from prostate cancer; my beloved grandfather died of it a few years back.
Reply:Just because it has a ribbon doesn't mean that people are as aware of it as they are things such as AIDS and Breast Cancer. They are "advertised" every which way you look. Television, magazines, and even food and clothing products. Maybe if it got put out there more this wouldn't be an issue. Someone needs to take it and run like they did with these others. They are all tragic and it is sad that some diseases don't appear as important as others. I would wear one if I had it.
Reply:Prostate cancer is a serious problem and increasing awareness of it will help fund further research.
I don't think it's fair to make a connection between women not wearing these ribbons and women being sexist, though. This blue ribbon campaign has not been established long, and now that there is a ribbon for so many different causes, people are not paying as much attention to them.
If you believe women are sexist, fine, but you will have to find some other evidence to convince me.
Reply:Problem is that men have been hiding prostrate cancer and act like testicular cancer does not exists. That women only have these problem and that a men and his balls and masculinity are exempt from all diseases. Sad thing is that men do not live as long as women, because women realize their weaknesses and men do not.
Reply:If there was a ribbon for this, you can bet I would be wearing itl! I love my Dad.
Reply:The whole point of your post is to try %26amp; prove women are more sexist....which you haven't done. You can't measure that by who's wearing ribbons %26amp; who isn't.
But you've already made up your mind so why bother asking?
Reply:I don't wear ribbons for anything or buy Chinese-manufactured "Support Our Troops" ribbon magnets because they're pointless, hypocritical (why don't you just donate your money or time?), and irritating.
Reply:Sh*t, you're right! My dad just had his cancerous prostate removed last year, and here I am doing nothing to support further research. And, I totally agree with your point that women today are more sexist than men (I'm a woman, and I try not to be biased either way). Que Righteous! Kudos!!
Reply:prostate cancer is so scary for men....more the test then having it for most, but there is a blood test that can indicate if there is a reason to be concerned.....how many women will wear a ribbon I would guess fewer then men wearing breast cancer
Why is there never really a cure for cancer with all the billions of dollars that has been given to research?
"Cancer" is actually thousands of different diseases, each with a different set of causes that need to be defined so that more effective medications can be developed. Since cells are fantastically complex, each expressing tens of thousands of different proteins which then interact in a very dynamic fashion, determining what goes wrong in cancer cells is very challenging. Despite this, there have been terrific advances in the technology for investigating cancer and many effective treatments have been developed in the past two decades. Definitely progress would be faster if more money were devoted to this problem.
Implicit in your question is that too much money is being spent on cancer research with too little return. Just to keep things in perspective, the amount of money spent by the US government each YEAR on cancer research (~$5 billion dollars, see http://plan.cancer.gov/NCIBudgetRequest.... is close to what is spent each 2 WEEKs on the war in Iraq. In 2005, 1,300,000 Americans were diagnosed with cancer and over 500,000 died and cancer is now the #1 cause of death in the US for persons less than 85 years old (see http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/cont... The chances for each American developing cancer during their lifetime is approaching 50% (see http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2003/res... You decide whether it makes sense how your tax money is being spent and if too much is being spent on cancer research.
Why is there never really a cure for cancer with all the billions of dollars that has been given to research?
Some cancer research has made great strides, people's survival rate has increased significantly in the last decade. However, certain cancers manage to evade cures because of their rate of growth and lack of symptoms. Remember slow growing cancers are the worst because of the fewer cycles of reproduction they go through which means less opportunity to destroy it. Also cancers that act systemically, which attack all systems are harder to treat as well because it is every where. Don't stop supporting the different research programs because they do make head way it just a very hard tedious battle.
Reply:Now listen. People will tell you that it is due to the drug companies, medical professionals, population control (good god people!!!) Cancer is not a wham-bam-thank you mam sort of issue. There is not one kind of cancer cell, there is not one kind of way to get it, and there is not one way to treat it. If there is cell in your body, there may be a trigger to make it malignant. Some cancers react better to Chemotherapy, some to Radiation, some to surgery. We have made incredible strides in the cancer fight, but we are still trying to figure out these diseases.
I work every week with cancer patients and their fight. Don't say that we are not fighting. I dare you to walk in my shoes for a week and then say there is no fight. We will win.
Another reason for not being able to cure all cancers right now is that the cure sometimes is just as lethal to the body as the cancer is. You are trying to maintain the healthy cells in the body while at the same time kill the cells that have become malignant. These cells have come from the healthy cells to begin with. Now do you see the issue? There will be a cure for cancer. It will start with one and work its way down.
Reply:honestly? Because they're making more money TREATING people with the disease.
Reply:It's because cancer moves to fast for us. More and more people are being effected with cancer, and billions of dollars doesn't even begin to cover it. Also, most of the money is used to keep cancer patients alive, so there's no time to waste finding a cure. Note: When people first evolved, cancer wasn't around. Something the human race did must have caused cancer to harm the lives of millions.
Reply:Bluntly... this is big complex science and it is costly and time-consuming.
Reply:Several Reasons.
First, it isn't like changing a flat tire.The average doctor can't even begin to understand the complexity of all the different types of cancer.
Second,they are finding effective treatments for certain types of cancer.
Lastly, never give up hope for the cure to be found,an entire sector of medicine is devoted to solving this terrible group of diseases.
Reply:Why is there never a cure for anything!?
Because the medical industry is in the back pocket of the pharmaceutical industry and their goal is to keep people taking the drugs for life.
Reply:because the money passes through so many hands before it gets to a lab, where the real magic happens
Reply:the medical industry is like your local crack dealer. there's no money in the cure. it's the drugs and "treatment" that make the big bucks. the two things that make the world go round are money and information.
Reply:WE MOST LIKELY HAVE A LOT OF CURES FOR A LOT OF DISEASES BUT THE DRUG COMPANIES WON'T ALLOW THEM BECAUSE IF THEY DID THEY WOULD LOSE MONEY AND A LOT OF THE DRUG COMPANIES WOULD GO OUT OF BUSINESS PEOPLE BEING ILL IS A BUSINESS AND THEY WANT TO MAKE MONEY AND THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE WE ARE CASH COWS THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT OUR LIVES ONLY THE ALMIGHTY GREEN DOLLAR
Reply:The government, If people didn't die from Cancer the world would be overpopulated. This is the Governments way of population control. And they are making money off of it. Sad but true.
Reply:Becase there's billions of dollars being spent on research.There's far more money to be made by doing research then in finding a cure.Unfortunate but it seems to be true.
Reply:You know what, that's a good question, I guess process is slow now-a-days for Research, it's called Trial and Error, in which we have to learn from our mistakes and see where we went wrong.
Reply:Because The FDA will not approve it due to the fact their being paid billions by the drug companies.Good Luck!
Reply:Why did it take thousands of years of scientific research to finally understand DNA or the human genome?
Science is a step-wise pursuit; money doesnt "make discoveries happen" or answer questions.
Reply:It take a long time to research something like that. It takes lots of people and time and that is expensive.
Reply:Read the cancer testimonials on my page and the information
on my blog roll.
Reply:This more then likely is not true but what I believe.
I think that there have been a couple cures for cancer but nothing that ever became public only because there are three things that keep the population down in the world. War, Famine, and Disease. Well with advances in War Technology it limits the amounts of casualties alot compared to the casualties in WWII. The concept of famine is also wiped out due to technology. So if we where do eliminate the number 1 killer what would be left. No disease means over population. Its hard to accept but its true.
Reply:Every malignancy is a different problem. Some are caused by environmental factors, others by chemicals at work and some by viruses. Also, the viruses change and what works one time may not later. The idea that anyone is concealing a cure to make money is absurd, and indicates an unappealing cynicism.
Reply:Hard to find a cure when you have no real idea why cancer occurs in the first place.
And let's face it, the industry makes alot of money on the treatment of cancers.
Implicit in your question is that too much money is being spent on cancer research with too little return. Just to keep things in perspective, the amount of money spent by the US government each YEAR on cancer research (~$5 billion dollars, see http://plan.cancer.gov/NCIBudgetRequest.... is close to what is spent each 2 WEEKs on the war in Iraq. In 2005, 1,300,000 Americans were diagnosed with cancer and over 500,000 died and cancer is now the #1 cause of death in the US for persons less than 85 years old (see http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/cont... The chances for each American developing cancer during their lifetime is approaching 50% (see http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2003/res... You decide whether it makes sense how your tax money is being spent and if too much is being spent on cancer research.
Why is there never really a cure for cancer with all the billions of dollars that has been given to research?
Some cancer research has made great strides, people's survival rate has increased significantly in the last decade. However, certain cancers manage to evade cures because of their rate of growth and lack of symptoms. Remember slow growing cancers are the worst because of the fewer cycles of reproduction they go through which means less opportunity to destroy it. Also cancers that act systemically, which attack all systems are harder to treat as well because it is every where. Don't stop supporting the different research programs because they do make head way it just a very hard tedious battle.
Reply:Now listen. People will tell you that it is due to the drug companies, medical professionals, population control (good god people!!!) Cancer is not a wham-bam-thank you mam sort of issue. There is not one kind of cancer cell, there is not one kind of way to get it, and there is not one way to treat it. If there is cell in your body, there may be a trigger to make it malignant. Some cancers react better to Chemotherapy, some to Radiation, some to surgery. We have made incredible strides in the cancer fight, but we are still trying to figure out these diseases.
I work every week with cancer patients and their fight. Don't say that we are not fighting. I dare you to walk in my shoes for a week and then say there is no fight. We will win.
Another reason for not being able to cure all cancers right now is that the cure sometimes is just as lethal to the body as the cancer is. You are trying to maintain the healthy cells in the body while at the same time kill the cells that have become malignant. These cells have come from the healthy cells to begin with. Now do you see the issue? There will be a cure for cancer. It will start with one and work its way down.
Reply:honestly? Because they're making more money TREATING people with the disease.
Reply:It's because cancer moves to fast for us. More and more people are being effected with cancer, and billions of dollars doesn't even begin to cover it. Also, most of the money is used to keep cancer patients alive, so there's no time to waste finding a cure. Note: When people first evolved, cancer wasn't around. Something the human race did must have caused cancer to harm the lives of millions.
Reply:Bluntly... this is big complex science and it is costly and time-consuming.
Reply:Several Reasons.
First, it isn't like changing a flat tire.The average doctor can't even begin to understand the complexity of all the different types of cancer.
Second,they are finding effective treatments for certain types of cancer.
Lastly, never give up hope for the cure to be found,an entire sector of medicine is devoted to solving this terrible group of diseases.
Reply:Why is there never a cure for anything!?
Because the medical industry is in the back pocket of the pharmaceutical industry and their goal is to keep people taking the drugs for life.
Reply:because the money passes through so many hands before it gets to a lab, where the real magic happens
Reply:the medical industry is like your local crack dealer. there's no money in the cure. it's the drugs and "treatment" that make the big bucks. the two things that make the world go round are money and information.
Reply:WE MOST LIKELY HAVE A LOT OF CURES FOR A LOT OF DISEASES BUT THE DRUG COMPANIES WON'T ALLOW THEM BECAUSE IF THEY DID THEY WOULD LOSE MONEY AND A LOT OF THE DRUG COMPANIES WOULD GO OUT OF BUSINESS PEOPLE BEING ILL IS A BUSINESS AND THEY WANT TO MAKE MONEY AND THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE WE ARE CASH COWS THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT OUR LIVES ONLY THE ALMIGHTY GREEN DOLLAR
Reply:The government, If people didn't die from Cancer the world would be overpopulated. This is the Governments way of population control. And they are making money off of it. Sad but true.
Reply:Becase there's billions of dollars being spent on research.There's far more money to be made by doing research then in finding a cure.Unfortunate but it seems to be true.
Reply:You know what, that's a good question, I guess process is slow now-a-days for Research, it's called Trial and Error, in which we have to learn from our mistakes and see where we went wrong.
Reply:Because The FDA will not approve it due to the fact their being paid billions by the drug companies.Good Luck!
Reply:Why did it take thousands of years of scientific research to finally understand DNA or the human genome?
Science is a step-wise pursuit; money doesnt "make discoveries happen" or answer questions.
Reply:It take a long time to research something like that. It takes lots of people and time and that is expensive.
Reply:Read the cancer testimonials on my page and the information
on my blog roll.
Reply:This more then likely is not true but what I believe.
I think that there have been a couple cures for cancer but nothing that ever became public only because there are three things that keep the population down in the world. War, Famine, and Disease. Well with advances in War Technology it limits the amounts of casualties alot compared to the casualties in WWII. The concept of famine is also wiped out due to technology. So if we where do eliminate the number 1 killer what would be left. No disease means over population. Its hard to accept but its true.
Reply:Every malignancy is a different problem. Some are caused by environmental factors, others by chemicals at work and some by viruses. Also, the viruses change and what works one time may not later. The idea that anyone is concealing a cure to make money is absurd, and indicates an unappealing cynicism.
Reply:Hard to find a cure when you have no real idea why cancer occurs in the first place.
And let's face it, the industry makes alot of money on the treatment of cancers.
Did you know that research has proved that freezing or heating in plastic causes cancer?
yes, it was in the john hopkins medical review,back in april, it due to the chemicals used to produce the plastic an it blending into the food as it is heated they suggest that we use corning ware or glass to reheat food.
Did you know that research has proved that freezing or heating in plastic causes cancer?
Yes
Reply:no i had no idea
Reply:Don't sweat it life is net loss
Reply:Anything can cause cancer.
hotels reviews
Did you know that research has proved that freezing or heating in plastic causes cancer?
Yes
Reply:no i had no idea
Reply:Don't sweat it life is net loss
Reply:Anything can cause cancer.
hotels reviews
A lot of scientists worldwide are doing research on cancer, but why still people suffer from this desease?
Thats a tough question. Medicine is science, and science is rarely exact. While millions of ppl suffer through cancer today, if you look at what we can treat today, compared to say 20 years ago, we've come a long way. Thousands of ppl are alive today that just 20 years ago, heck even 10 years ago some ppl would be dead that are alive today.
When it comes to things like the art of medicine, you often have to look at how far we've come, not how far we need to go.
A lot of scientists worldwide are doing research on cancer, but why still people suffer from this desease?
Mutation is part of the issue. The sheer number of different kinds, another. Many are being cured. Many are being discoverd early enough.
I survived, after drastic surgery.
Reply:coz they hav not yet found medicine
they r doing lots and lots of research
Reply:I agree with Rufus
Reply:Cancer is certainly not "nature's way of punishing". It is difficult to "cure" because it is our own cells that are the problem. Every cell in our body is programed to eventually die. This is called "Apoptosis". Cancer cells, through hundreds of different mechanisms miss the cue to kill themselves and regulate their growth. So how to you kill all of the bad cells in your body, and only the bad cells? We have come a long way, and will go a lot further, but it will take time.
Reply:Cancer is nature`s way of disapproving human actions.
Breast cancer occurs in women who do not nurse babies or nurse only one or two babies for very short periods.
Lung cancer --in those who insult lungs for very long periods
Cancer body of uterus--occurs in those who do not bear children
Stomach cancer--occurs in those who take gastric irritants as a habit
Research generally fails as it is nature that rebels against insults.
And drug companies do not concede defeat
Reply:Because we are all born with the gene. Either it develops or it doesn't. And there are so many forms of cancer and different stages of aggression. It's very difficult to cure it. It's like trying to beat the clock. They will find a cure. But there's also many people out there, like myself, who get stupid and pick up a nasty addicting habit - smoking. I'm trying to quit. It's not easy, but I'm determined to beat this addiction.
Reply:Cancer research makes to much money for everyone involved so there will never be a cure.
Reply:The drug companies in the US have been trying to delevop a new drug for cancer to increase their profits. The drug companies don't actually want a way to cure or prevent cancer as their only goals are to increase their profits.
However, that being said there are some doctors and researchers who don't get paid from a drug company that are truely and sincerelly are looking for a true cure and not a new drug. They haven't been successful yet in part because they are limited in the amount of funds they can work with since a big drug company isn't supporting them with money.
When it comes to things like the art of medicine, you often have to look at how far we've come, not how far we need to go.
A lot of scientists worldwide are doing research on cancer, but why still people suffer from this desease?
Mutation is part of the issue. The sheer number of different kinds, another. Many are being cured. Many are being discoverd early enough.
I survived, after drastic surgery.
Reply:coz they hav not yet found medicine
they r doing lots and lots of research
Reply:I agree with Rufus
Reply:Cancer is certainly not "nature's way of punishing". It is difficult to "cure" because it is our own cells that are the problem. Every cell in our body is programed to eventually die. This is called "Apoptosis". Cancer cells, through hundreds of different mechanisms miss the cue to kill themselves and regulate their growth. So how to you kill all of the bad cells in your body, and only the bad cells? We have come a long way, and will go a lot further, but it will take time.
Reply:Cancer is nature`s way of disapproving human actions.
Breast cancer occurs in women who do not nurse babies or nurse only one or two babies for very short periods.
Lung cancer --in those who insult lungs for very long periods
Cancer body of uterus--occurs in those who do not bear children
Stomach cancer--occurs in those who take gastric irritants as a habit
Research generally fails as it is nature that rebels against insults.
And drug companies do not concede defeat
Reply:Because we are all born with the gene. Either it develops or it doesn't. And there are so many forms of cancer and different stages of aggression. It's very difficult to cure it. It's like trying to beat the clock. They will find a cure. But there's also many people out there, like myself, who get stupid and pick up a nasty addicting habit - smoking. I'm trying to quit. It's not easy, but I'm determined to beat this addiction.
Reply:Cancer research makes to much money for everyone involved so there will never be a cure.
Reply:The drug companies in the US have been trying to delevop a new drug for cancer to increase their profits. The drug companies don't actually want a way to cure or prevent cancer as their only goals are to increase their profits.
However, that being said there are some doctors and researchers who don't get paid from a drug company that are truely and sincerelly are looking for a true cure and not a new drug. They haven't been successful yet in part because they are limited in the amount of funds they can work with since a big drug company isn't supporting them with money.
Research on cancer?
im doing this project and me and my group chose cancer so were comparing two types of cancer i chose leukemia for 1 what other typeof cancer can i compare to leukemia?? help please
Research on cancer?
You can compare Lymphoma (Hodgkins or Non-Hodgins Disease) which develops as cancer in Lymph Nodes. Similarly Sarcoma (osteosarcoma) can also be compared. Osteo means Bone related and bone, and sourronding tissues and muscles IS is called Osteosarcoma.
I have given you a short account and this will be helpful for you to select the type of cancer for your project. Please carry on for the welfare of cancer patients-
Reply:chloroma, or granulocytic sarcoma
Reply:Lung cancer is the worst cancer you can have and a person with Leukemia can develop lung cancer. Once anyone develops lung cancer you only have a 5% chance to live up to five years.
Reply:you know what there are more diff types of cancer and if i where you Will choose breast cancer to compare with the leukaemia...its because breast cancer can be cured by getting out your breast while a leukaemia cannot be threatened by cutting or putting out something,,its cured by Kim therapy..
Reply:You could choose to compare teen and young adult cancers . . they are not the same as an adult cancer. Young people tend to have cancers that affect the muscles, joints, tendons, bones . . the primitive cells associated with childhood. Teen and young adult cancers are among the most underreported cancers . . no one knows much about them . . there is little research being conducted and this age group is at the greatest risk. Cancer is the number one disease related killer for young adults.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id...
Choose either a Lymphoma (Hodgkins or Non-Hodgins Disease) which is a cancer of the lymph nodes or a Sarcoma (osteosarcoma, Ewing's sarcoma)which is a cancer of the bones or soft tissue (fat, muscles).
Reply:depending on what you want the comparison to prove or disprove, you could choose a cancer that is similar to leukemia like lymphoma or one that is completely different. you could choose to compare the life expectancy or the rate of how many people will be diagnosed with leukemia versus how many will be diagnosed with other forms of cancer. personally i would compare the funding available for more common cancers like breast cancer to the funding available for leukemias and lymphomas. the more common the cancer the more funding available, which leaves out so many forms and so many people.
Reply:The closest thing I can think of that is close to Leukemia is Hodgkin's Lymphoma or Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Go to the Leukemia-Lymphoma site on the web, it has great information.
Reply:Breast canser, colon cancer, bone cancer,
Research on cancer?
You can compare Lymphoma (Hodgkins or Non-Hodgins Disease) which develops as cancer in Lymph Nodes. Similarly Sarcoma (osteosarcoma) can also be compared. Osteo means Bone related and bone, and sourronding tissues and muscles IS is called Osteosarcoma.
I have given you a short account and this will be helpful for you to select the type of cancer for your project. Please carry on for the welfare of cancer patients-
Reply:chloroma, or granulocytic sarcoma
Reply:Lung cancer is the worst cancer you can have and a person with Leukemia can develop lung cancer. Once anyone develops lung cancer you only have a 5% chance to live up to five years.
Reply:you know what there are more diff types of cancer and if i where you Will choose breast cancer to compare with the leukaemia...its because breast cancer can be cured by getting out your breast while a leukaemia cannot be threatened by cutting or putting out something,,its cured by Kim therapy..
Reply:You could choose to compare teen and young adult cancers . . they are not the same as an adult cancer. Young people tend to have cancers that affect the muscles, joints, tendons, bones . . the primitive cells associated with childhood. Teen and young adult cancers are among the most underreported cancers . . no one knows much about them . . there is little research being conducted and this age group is at the greatest risk. Cancer is the number one disease related killer for young adults.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id...
Choose either a Lymphoma (Hodgkins or Non-Hodgins Disease) which is a cancer of the lymph nodes or a Sarcoma (osteosarcoma, Ewing's sarcoma)which is a cancer of the bones or soft tissue (fat, muscles).
Reply:depending on what you want the comparison to prove or disprove, you could choose a cancer that is similar to leukemia like lymphoma or one that is completely different. you could choose to compare the life expectancy or the rate of how many people will be diagnosed with leukemia versus how many will be diagnosed with other forms of cancer. personally i would compare the funding available for more common cancers like breast cancer to the funding available for leukemias and lymphomas. the more common the cancer the more funding available, which leaves out so many forms and so many people.
Reply:The closest thing I can think of that is close to Leukemia is Hodgkin's Lymphoma or Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Go to the Leukemia-Lymphoma site on the web, it has great information.
Reply:Breast canser, colon cancer, bone cancer,
What do you know about breast cancer?
I'm doing a research on breast cancer for school and so far I haven't came up with anything. I need to know it's symptoms. When does a girl knows she has breast cancer, stuff like that. Also can she do something about it? is it guarantee that people die of breast cancer? I need to know if a person sees the cancer and what it ressembles. Please and thank you.
What do you know about breast cancer?
There are some internet sites that can help you with your research. My favorite is http://www.susanlovemd.com/
Dr. Love has written and researched extensively on breast cancer. Her book Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book, is also a good source for everything you may or may not want to know about the workings of the human breast. I provided me with a lot of excellent information in my quest for answers about treatment when I had breast cancer.
Did you know that men can also get breast cancer?
Breast cancer isn't always fatal. My sister is a 14 year survivor. My aunt has had it twice in 9 years. I met a man when when we were doing chemotherapy who had it.
Breast cancer often starts out as a small lump felt during self exam, but can also be diagnosed earlier (before it can be felt) by mammogram, untrasound or MRI. In my case, it didn't show up on a mammogram that was taken 3 months prior and by the time I had surgery it was 2 centimeters and they also found lymphnodes that were malignant. That was 3 years ago and I'm doing fine. If you want to ask some more questions, please contact me.
Reply:i did not have symptoms,was detected thru mammogram,no you will not die if detected soon enough,chemotherapy,radiation,mastectomy
Reply:I don't know a lot about breast cancer, except how to do the monthly exams for it and some people do survive.
I suggest going to a doctors office that specialize in breast cancer treatment. They can tell you where to do for your research and there will most likely be pamphlets in the waiting area you could use for basic information. Also, try medical websites like WebMd.
What do you know about breast cancer?
There are some internet sites that can help you with your research. My favorite is http://www.susanlovemd.com/
Dr. Love has written and researched extensively on breast cancer. Her book Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book, is also a good source for everything you may or may not want to know about the workings of the human breast. I provided me with a lot of excellent information in my quest for answers about treatment when I had breast cancer.
Did you know that men can also get breast cancer?
Breast cancer isn't always fatal. My sister is a 14 year survivor. My aunt has had it twice in 9 years. I met a man when when we were doing chemotherapy who had it.
Breast cancer often starts out as a small lump felt during self exam, but can also be diagnosed earlier (before it can be felt) by mammogram, untrasound or MRI. In my case, it didn't show up on a mammogram that was taken 3 months prior and by the time I had surgery it was 2 centimeters and they also found lymphnodes that were malignant. That was 3 years ago and I'm doing fine. If you want to ask some more questions, please contact me.
Reply:i did not have symptoms,was detected thru mammogram,no you will not die if detected soon enough,chemotherapy,radiation,mastectomy
Reply:I don't know a lot about breast cancer, except how to do the monthly exams for it and some people do survive.
I suggest going to a doctors office that specialize in breast cancer treatment. They can tell you where to do for your research and there will most likely be pamphlets in the waiting area you could use for basic information. Also, try medical websites like WebMd.
Are you for or against using stem cell research for a cure for cancer and why?
The reason I am asking this is because I am writing a research paper for college on the topic. I am a Catholic and also conservative (normally against stem cell research) but my mother had cancer when I was younger so of course if she didn't have to go through what she did I should love the idea. I was just wondering other people's opinions as a sort of "poll" type-source, unscholarly of course.
Are you for or against using stem cell research for a cure for cancer and why?
Catholic, against embryonic stem cell research, for imbilical cord stem cell research.
Reply:I am for the use of stem cell research. We can cure so many diseases with it. Plus it is not like people are getting pregnant JUST to abort and give the fetus away. I saw on the news that everyday, in North America, 20,000 aborted fetuses are tossed in the trashed everyday. I say we use those ones, who will be dumped either way, and do the research. I do not support abortions just for the purpose of it.
Reply:What type of stem cells are you talking about? There are incredible things being done with adult stem cells, and also amniotic stem cells (growing a heart valve, for instance, for babies born with weakened heart valves). Absolutely yes on those.
Fetal cells, I'm still not decided on that one.
Reply:I'm for the use of embryonic stem cells. They offer the most potential for finding cures for the most serious diseases and illnesses.
I'm for the use of any research which has a hope of curing said diseases.
The ridiculous thing is the apparent logical disconnect of people when embryonic stem cells are mentioned. These people have no problem with invitro fertilization, in which potentially dozens of perfectly good eggs are destroyed or discarded if it means that a couple can give birth to their own baby. But if scientists want to use refrigerated embryos that would otherwise be discarded as biological waste to do stem cell research, everyone screams 'Oh noes! They want to kill babies!!'
Shake your head people.
Reply:There are different kinds of stem cell research. I presume you're talking about embryonic stem cell research, which I support whole-heartedly as someone diagnosed with Rheumatoid Arthritis at the age of 25 (for those of you not familiar with that, it's a chronic illness and the reason you see all the little old ladies with the knobby, deformed hands).
I think every avenue available to us should be explored. I'm not saying we should be harvesting and creating embryos for use in stem cell research, but there are thousands of eggs left over from in vitro fertilization that will simply be discarded. If the "parents" of those eggs want to donate them to science, why shouldn't they be allowed to? It's their genetic material. People are allowed to donate their bodies to science once they die (my dad plans to do this), so why shouldn't a man and woman, if they're in agreement, be allowed to donate genetic material that will otherwise go in the trash can?
Reply:Stem Cell research --- fine
Embryonic Stem Cell research ----No way.
I am a Catholic.
Reply:I don't think You'll find many people who are against the use of stem cells. what is controversial is the origin of the stem cells used . currently the easiest and least expensive method of obtaining them is from a fetus . there are Other methods being researched but the quality and expense at which they are obtained is debated .
as for myself I would say that the current methods should be acceptable as far as research goes into treatment but only for research not for "production " . for that there needs to be further research into producing other means of producing stem cells.
Reply:Stem cells for treatment for cancer is a while off. Notice though that embryonic stem cells, for therapeutic use, are more effective than adult stem-cells, hence why they're at the centre of the debate currently.
That said, there was a medical trial in Europe where a man's substantia nigra ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantia_... ) wasn't producing enough dopamine, causing Parkinson's. Using embryonic stem-cells, they regenerated 80% of the mans substantia nigra and 'cured' his Parkinson's on his left side. That's where the research is headed and has more immediate promise.
And that's why it's so important to get as much research out there as possible.
baby teeth
Are you for or against using stem cell research for a cure for cancer and why?
Catholic, against embryonic stem cell research, for imbilical cord stem cell research.
Reply:I am for the use of stem cell research. We can cure so many diseases with it. Plus it is not like people are getting pregnant JUST to abort and give the fetus away. I saw on the news that everyday, in North America, 20,000 aborted fetuses are tossed in the trashed everyday. I say we use those ones, who will be dumped either way, and do the research. I do not support abortions just for the purpose of it.
Reply:What type of stem cells are you talking about? There are incredible things being done with adult stem cells, and also amniotic stem cells (growing a heart valve, for instance, for babies born with weakened heart valves). Absolutely yes on those.
Fetal cells, I'm still not decided on that one.
Reply:I'm for the use of embryonic stem cells. They offer the most potential for finding cures for the most serious diseases and illnesses.
I'm for the use of any research which has a hope of curing said diseases.
The ridiculous thing is the apparent logical disconnect of people when embryonic stem cells are mentioned. These people have no problem with invitro fertilization, in which potentially dozens of perfectly good eggs are destroyed or discarded if it means that a couple can give birth to their own baby. But if scientists want to use refrigerated embryos that would otherwise be discarded as biological waste to do stem cell research, everyone screams 'Oh noes! They want to kill babies!!'
Shake your head people.
Reply:There are different kinds of stem cell research. I presume you're talking about embryonic stem cell research, which I support whole-heartedly as someone diagnosed with Rheumatoid Arthritis at the age of 25 (for those of you not familiar with that, it's a chronic illness and the reason you see all the little old ladies with the knobby, deformed hands).
I think every avenue available to us should be explored. I'm not saying we should be harvesting and creating embryos for use in stem cell research, but there are thousands of eggs left over from in vitro fertilization that will simply be discarded. If the "parents" of those eggs want to donate them to science, why shouldn't they be allowed to? It's their genetic material. People are allowed to donate their bodies to science once they die (my dad plans to do this), so why shouldn't a man and woman, if they're in agreement, be allowed to donate genetic material that will otherwise go in the trash can?
Reply:Stem Cell research --- fine
Embryonic Stem Cell research ----No way.
I am a Catholic.
Reply:I don't think You'll find many people who are against the use of stem cells. what is controversial is the origin of the stem cells used . currently the easiest and least expensive method of obtaining them is from a fetus . there are Other methods being researched but the quality and expense at which they are obtained is debated .
as for myself I would say that the current methods should be acceptable as far as research goes into treatment but only for research not for "production " . for that there needs to be further research into producing other means of producing stem cells.
Reply:Stem cells for treatment for cancer is a while off. Notice though that embryonic stem cells, for therapeutic use, are more effective than adult stem-cells, hence why they're at the centre of the debate currently.
That said, there was a medical trial in Europe where a man's substantia nigra ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantia_... ) wasn't producing enough dopamine, causing Parkinson's. Using embryonic stem-cells, they regenerated 80% of the mans substantia nigra and 'cured' his Parkinson's on his left side. That's where the research is headed and has more immediate promise.
And that's why it's so important to get as much research out there as possible.
baby teeth
Isn't it about time SOMEONE finds a cure for PANCREATIC CANCER!! A wonderful person 56 is dying right now!!
Is the cancer research for pancreatic and all other horrible cancers a racket for researchers, drug companies and doctors to make money? WHAT IS GOING ON HERE!
Isn't it about time SOMEONE finds a cure for PANCREATIC CANCER!! A wonderful person 56 is dying right now!!
I am sorry about your loved one it is very hard to watch someone you love die and there is nothing you can do about it. Two years ago this month I lost a dear sweet caring doctor I work with to pancreatic cancer. We all felt helpless, because we were.
The problem with pancreatic cancer isn’t that we do not have a cure, we do, its surgery. The problem is we do not have a screening exam to catch it early enough to do the surgery.
Cancer is not a money making racket. I live in Los Angeles County where we have had so many hospitals close it is now commonplace for people to wait over 40 hours in the ER to get a room. Hospitals do not close because they are making money.
I am able to make a living because of cancer but that doesn’t mean I want people to continue to suffer from it. If a cure were found tomorrow I would be the happiest person in the unemployment line.
Reply:I'm so sorry you're losing somebody to cancer. I have lost many family members and friends to it, as well as having had it myself, so I truly understand your anger.
But as Inverse says, many wonderful people of all ages die of every sort of cancer.
No, cancer research isn't a racket; cancer costs governments huge amounts of money that would be saved if there was a cure. I live in the UK. I've had surgery chemotherapy, radiotherapy and hormone therapy. I didn't pay a penny for it, because we have a National Health Service - the state pays for our health care, including cancer care. Cancer treatments cost our government billions; if they could have cured me by giving me a once and for all cure , they would have. As it is, I could be back with a recurrence at any time to cost them many thousands more.
Any drug company discovering a cancer cure would make more money than they could have so far dreamed of making.
Scientists, doctors and researchers develop cancer at the same rate as the rest of the population, as do their families - they want cures as much as anyone. Doctors went into medicine to help people not kill them.
Reply:Wonderful people of all ages are dying from every kind of cancer. And dedicated researchers are studying all these cancers, doing everything in their power to find cures for each type of cancer.
Best thing is to fight, fight, fight the cancer, hope you can live long enough for a new treatment to emerge to help you beat the disease.
It takes many years for every promising new treatment to make it into the hospitals. And most promising new treatments never make it ... they just don't perform as the researchers hope. But the gift these scientists give us, is that the next day, they go back to work trying again to find another new treatment. They are some real heroes in my book.
Reply:My mom died from pancreatic cancer. The funding for it is extrememly limited. If you want to help, go to www.pancan.org. I wish that pancreatic cancer got half of the "publicity" that breast cancer did. The statistics are scary... every year 32,000 people are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Within one year of their diagnosis 31,000 people die from it. I'm very sorry for what you are going through. I know EXACTLY how you feel.
Reply:I lost my mom in 2004 to pancreatic cancer. She was only 53.
Don't waste your time with American Cancer Society,.. they are the biggest black hole of cancer research money known to mankind. They do NOTHING.
I went directly to the advocacy/research/lobby group for pancreatic cancer: the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network.
They gave us more information and access to resources in 10 minutes than we did in 3 days of weeding through the cancer society's website.
http://www.pancan.org
Reply:Agreed!! My grandma was only 70 when she died of pancreatic cancer last October. Grr! Some people even hope there is no cure to be found because the research creates jobs and blah blah blah, I don't care! Someone needs to get their *** in gear and find a cure!
Reply:Isn't it about time that cures are found for everything that ails us so none of us wonderful people ever have to die?
Isn't it about time SOMEONE finds a cure for PANCREATIC CANCER!! A wonderful person 56 is dying right now!!
I am sorry about your loved one it is very hard to watch someone you love die and there is nothing you can do about it. Two years ago this month I lost a dear sweet caring doctor I work with to pancreatic cancer. We all felt helpless, because we were.
The problem with pancreatic cancer isn’t that we do not have a cure, we do, its surgery. The problem is we do not have a screening exam to catch it early enough to do the surgery.
Cancer is not a money making racket. I live in Los Angeles County where we have had so many hospitals close it is now commonplace for people to wait over 40 hours in the ER to get a room. Hospitals do not close because they are making money.
I am able to make a living because of cancer but that doesn’t mean I want people to continue to suffer from it. If a cure were found tomorrow I would be the happiest person in the unemployment line.
Reply:I'm so sorry you're losing somebody to cancer. I have lost many family members and friends to it, as well as having had it myself, so I truly understand your anger.
But as Inverse says, many wonderful people of all ages die of every sort of cancer.
No, cancer research isn't a racket; cancer costs governments huge amounts of money that would be saved if there was a cure. I live in the UK. I've had surgery chemotherapy, radiotherapy and hormone therapy. I didn't pay a penny for it, because we have a National Health Service - the state pays for our health care, including cancer care. Cancer treatments cost our government billions; if they could have cured me by giving me a once and for all cure , they would have. As it is, I could be back with a recurrence at any time to cost them many thousands more.
Any drug company discovering a cancer cure would make more money than they could have so far dreamed of making.
Scientists, doctors and researchers develop cancer at the same rate as the rest of the population, as do their families - they want cures as much as anyone. Doctors went into medicine to help people not kill them.
Reply:Wonderful people of all ages are dying from every kind of cancer. And dedicated researchers are studying all these cancers, doing everything in their power to find cures for each type of cancer.
Best thing is to fight, fight, fight the cancer, hope you can live long enough for a new treatment to emerge to help you beat the disease.
It takes many years for every promising new treatment to make it into the hospitals. And most promising new treatments never make it ... they just don't perform as the researchers hope. But the gift these scientists give us, is that the next day, they go back to work trying again to find another new treatment. They are some real heroes in my book.
Reply:My mom died from pancreatic cancer. The funding for it is extrememly limited. If you want to help, go to www.pancan.org. I wish that pancreatic cancer got half of the "publicity" that breast cancer did. The statistics are scary... every year 32,000 people are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Within one year of their diagnosis 31,000 people die from it. I'm very sorry for what you are going through. I know EXACTLY how you feel.
Reply:I lost my mom in 2004 to pancreatic cancer. She was only 53.
Don't waste your time with American Cancer Society,.. they are the biggest black hole of cancer research money known to mankind. They do NOTHING.
I went directly to the advocacy/research/lobby group for pancreatic cancer: the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network.
They gave us more information and access to resources in 10 minutes than we did in 3 days of weeding through the cancer society's website.
http://www.pancan.org
Reply:Agreed!! My grandma was only 70 when she died of pancreatic cancer last October. Grr! Some people even hope there is no cure to be found because the research creates jobs and blah blah blah, I don't care! Someone needs to get their *** in gear and find a cure!
Reply:Isn't it about time that cures are found for everything that ails us so none of us wonderful people ever have to die?
Christians: How many of you donate money to medical research?
For whatever research, it doesn't matter. I've donated money to cancer research for years whenever the letter comes in the mail. How about you?
Christians: How many of you donate money to medical research?
No, not my calling, I do what I can for my church, and to feed the hungry of the world and that is about All I have to give.
Reply:Many do just that within their tax declaration.
I don't know whether it can be done in the USA.
Reply:I do. I have neurofibromatosis. I donate and receive a newsletter.
Reply:I'll donate to the Cancer Society or the Alzheimer's Society. I know I wouldn't support anything having to do with embryonic stem cell research.
Reply:Sorry to burst your bubble, partner. No matter what cause you donate money to, less than 10% of it goes for what it is meant for. Over 85% goes to what they all term "administrative costs". What this means, of course, is that it goes to line the pockets of the top dogs in that particular organization. Sorry pal, you are getting ripped off. Medical research, pharmaceutical research and development have all the funds that they need, and then some. I give my 10% to the kingdom of God, and from there it goes to actually help people. It may only happen locally, in my town, or for missions away from here, but at least it goes for what it was intended for.
Reply:It's a scam, just programs to make even more money with our corrupted health system and give us a false sence of hope.
You know most of the money raised for "fighting" a disease, is used to keep the organazation running.
Reply:Man, that Catholic Crusader guy is getting on my nerves.
Reply:I do. My passion lies with helping feed, clothe, and educate children all over the world though, so that's where I donate the most money personally. Everyone has something different they feel called/compelled to help. I think it's great that you've found yours. :)
%26lt;%26lt;No one has faith in what God can do!%26gt;%26gt; What does that even mean, dude? I have faith in what God can do, and I love the idea of God using the medical field as an avenue for healing (especially since that sometimes means using people who don't even believe in a higher power. Anyway, that's just my own opinion. Your statement just doesn't make sense. If no one has faith in what God can do, then there wouldn't be any believers.
Reply:In all my research, I confess I cannot give to medical research because I am convinced that cures already exist for virtually every disease so far. And I believe that there are people so greedy out there to keep us from knowing all the truth concerning these things.
Reply:Why don't you include Jews, Muslims, or Hindus in this question? Who are you: The IRS? What is the point of this post?
Reply:None, I do the will of God. If someone has cancer, i go and lay hands on that person and by the power of God and the faith of man, that person shall be healed. No one has faith in what God can do!
http://www.fcflighthouse.com/healing%20S...
http://www.mylordmysavior.com
Christians: How many of you donate money to medical research?
No, not my calling, I do what I can for my church, and to feed the hungry of the world and that is about All I have to give.
Reply:Many do just that within their tax declaration.
I don't know whether it can be done in the USA.
Reply:I do. I have neurofibromatosis. I donate and receive a newsletter.
Reply:I'll donate to the Cancer Society or the Alzheimer's Society. I know I wouldn't support anything having to do with embryonic stem cell research.
Reply:Sorry to burst your bubble, partner. No matter what cause you donate money to, less than 10% of it goes for what it is meant for. Over 85% goes to what they all term "administrative costs". What this means, of course, is that it goes to line the pockets of the top dogs in that particular organization. Sorry pal, you are getting ripped off. Medical research, pharmaceutical research and development have all the funds that they need, and then some. I give my 10% to the kingdom of God, and from there it goes to actually help people. It may only happen locally, in my town, or for missions away from here, but at least it goes for what it was intended for.
Reply:It's a scam, just programs to make even more money with our corrupted health system and give us a false sence of hope.
You know most of the money raised for "fighting" a disease, is used to keep the organazation running.
Reply:Man, that Catholic Crusader guy is getting on my nerves.
Reply:I do. My passion lies with helping feed, clothe, and educate children all over the world though, so that's where I donate the most money personally. Everyone has something different they feel called/compelled to help. I think it's great that you've found yours. :)
%26lt;%26lt;No one has faith in what God can do!%26gt;%26gt; What does that even mean, dude? I have faith in what God can do, and I love the idea of God using the medical field as an avenue for healing (especially since that sometimes means using people who don't even believe in a higher power. Anyway, that's just my own opinion. Your statement just doesn't make sense. If no one has faith in what God can do, then there wouldn't be any believers.
Reply:In all my research, I confess I cannot give to medical research because I am convinced that cures already exist for virtually every disease so far. And I believe that there are people so greedy out there to keep us from knowing all the truth concerning these things.
Reply:Why don't you include Jews, Muslims, or Hindus in this question? Who are you: The IRS? What is the point of this post?
Reply:None, I do the will of God. If someone has cancer, i go and lay hands on that person and by the power of God and the faith of man, that person shall be healed. No one has faith in what God can do!
http://www.fcflighthouse.com/healing%20S...
http://www.mylordmysavior.com
Is there any proven research that Mobile Phones and Wireless devices causes Cancer?
come on man, heres another one that believes everything he hears. but seriously it probable does. all those signals traveling through our brain and radiation, give it another 10-15 years and see how many people have brain tumors.
Is there any proven research that Mobile Phones and Wireless devices causes Cancer?
no
Reply:The short answer is no. There's lots of inconclusive research on both sides. My opinion - look at it this way:
A microwave oven produces high power "radio waves" which cook food. A cell phone produces low power radio waves (albeit on a different frequency) and is arguably harmless.
Somewhere between two lies a threshold where the strength of the radio waves becomes harmful from a heating perspective. The debate rages about where that threshold is.
Cell phones do their best to minimize the power of the radio waves - they all turn themselves off when they're not really needed and turn down their power to the minimum required to keep your call alive.
I wouldn't worry about it.
Reply:Wireless devices use the Microwave band 30-300Ghz at low intensity that is relatively harmless unless you localize the transmissions for extended periods of time.
Reply:It not yet proven can causes cancer.. but it proven can boil eggs. U might be wondering if ur head like that egg.
Is there any proven research that Mobile Phones and Wireless devices causes Cancer?
no
Reply:The short answer is no. There's lots of inconclusive research on both sides. My opinion - look at it this way:
A microwave oven produces high power "radio waves" which cook food. A cell phone produces low power radio waves (albeit on a different frequency) and is arguably harmless.
Somewhere between two lies a threshold where the strength of the radio waves becomes harmful from a heating perspective. The debate rages about where that threshold is.
Cell phones do their best to minimize the power of the radio waves - they all turn themselves off when they're not really needed and turn down their power to the minimum required to keep your call alive.
I wouldn't worry about it.
Reply:Wireless devices use the Microwave band 30-300Ghz at low intensity that is relatively harmless unless you localize the transmissions for extended periods of time.
Reply:It not yet proven can causes cancer.. but it proven can boil eggs. U might be wondering if ur head like that egg.
Someone give me pros and cons -- dentistry with biomedical research?
I have my masters degree and have worked in research for 5 years. I am currently in dental school, but would like to continue biomedical research as well after I graduate (and while in school). Can anyone think of any pros and cons to combining dentistry with research (Oral cancer)?
Someone give me pros and cons -- dentistry with biomedical research?
You are so lucky. DO IT! I want to be a researcher more than ANYTHING. How do I go about doing it?
super nanny
Someone give me pros and cons -- dentistry with biomedical research?
You are so lucky. DO IT! I want to be a researcher more than ANYTHING. How do I go about doing it?
super nanny
How many women wore Prostate Cancer ribbons on Father's Day?
On Mother's Day, many men wore pink ribbons to support the fight and research against breast cancer. Many men marched in breast cancer research-funding walks and parades. Many men joined women in various charity drives for the support of breast cancer research. In fact, the Major League Baseball players (all men) used pink bats and wore pink armbands in the games that Mother's Day to support this very same cause.
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070...
Now, how many women wore prostate cancer ribbons for Father's Day?
*crickets*
Further evidence that women today are far more sexist than men.
Let me also state that there is roughly the same amount of reported cases of prostate cancer per year as there is breast cancer cases (slightly over 200,000 for each) -- the number difference between the two diseases only being a few thousand.
How many women wore Prostate Cancer ribbons on Father's Day?
Somehow I think you know your own answer. I think I have male intuition.
Seriously though, the women are not going to take up the fight for men in the numbers that men have for women. Women are just built selfish, not all but a good number. The proof is in the pudding, not just my word.
edit
Im sure there would have to be some, be it a small amount, of women that would of helped in some way. They should be acknowledged and thanked as they are fantastic humans
Reply:All cancer is bad. Breast, cervical, prostate, testicle and perhaps the worst skin and lung. Few men and women realize that statistically prostate cancer is the most common of all. More men would die of prostate cancer then women of breast cancer, except for the fact that men do not live that long. By the age of 35 there are more women then men. Men die of all other causes, injury, heart attacks, much more then women, so by the time of 65 or so when prostate diseases hit, many men are already dead. Sorry for the bad news but it is the truth, so all women and men should support all research for cancer, as it is the worst disease of all.
Reply:I wasn't even aware that there WERE prostate cancer ribbons, or that we were supposed to wear them on Father's Day.
It's pretty hard not to notice the light pink ribbons for breast cancer though. I don't mean that the ribbons themselves are particularly noticeable, just that the women who run breast cancer prevention organizations do a much better job of promoting breast cancer awareness events and such. I've seen plenty of billboards for breast cancer related issues, none for prostate cancer.
But I don't see why you're acting like this is womens' fault...if the men who run the organizations that deal with prostate cancer would be more PROACTIVE and vocal in making people more aware of the dangers of the disease, more people would care more about it. It's not like the government is giving the breast cancer people all this money...and it's not like the government is in charge of running the organizations. They're run by regular people who've found a cause they want to fight for and the money is largely from donations.
In short, I don't think men have a right to get all upset about society not paying as much attention to prostate cancer, when the people who are running the charities / awareness groups are apparently sitting on their asses. I'd have gladly worn a blue ribbon on Father's Day if I had even KNOWN this was going on.
Reply:Good for you. Did you actually wear a breast cancer ribbon on mother's day? Or are you just speaking out for the men who did(paying lip-service?)
I didn't wear a prostrate cancer ribbon on father's day, because-
1. I couldn't find them anywhere otherwise I would've bought one. Really, no-one was selling any in my area. If there was a march, I would've gladly joined.
2. I was helping my children spoil their father on fathers day.
I'm getting so tired of all that 'what about me?' victim stuff. Way to turn more and more women away from mens causes by putting us down. If you really want women to care, then perhaps instead of being negative, you could try stating the facts about the cause and promote it, so more people hear about it.
Yes I am tad annoyed. You want to do good for men right? Have more involvement by women or just not worry about it?
Am more than happy to become involved in mens issues, after all my 3 kids will grow up to be men one day and I want the best for them and for them to have their rights as well.
As for feminism, my biggest gripe is the pro-choice movement, because of the way women are being taken advantage of to make money and men have no say whatsoever. And mainly, that's what I'm ticked off about right now.
Reply:I wasn't aware there even were ribbons supporting prostate cancer, but I know now. There is no breast cancer in my family, but there is prostate cancer.
Obviously someone didn't do a very good job promoting the ribbons OR the research efforts that go into eliminating this disease. There ARE strong research and promotional efforts, aren't there?
*crickets*
And the ribbon lady is going to donate the proceeds from the sale of these ribbons to prostate cancer research, isn't she? She's not just doing it to make a buck, is she?
Reply:I most certainly did! My father passed away four years ago from prostate cancer. I am an avid supporter of research and treatment for all kinds of cancer.
Reply:no they don't give a damn. some would of had to of helped, but we're the ones that you throw on the frontline and other things. What would feminists care of us?
Reply:I don't wear ribbons period, but I did get that ribbon from my dad and I put on my rear view mirror.
Reply:Women don't care about men, dude. Only themselves. Men are considered expendable in our society today.
Reply:I don't wear ribbons — ever.
But, allow me to inquire, how many MLB players wore navy blue armbands on Father's Day?
Reply:Thank you for providing that link. I haven't seen a prostate cancer ribbon before, but if I see one now, I'll buy one.
Just a gripe about breast cancer charities.
I hate them.
They sexualize the disease. It's disgusting. The fvcking pink ribbons and the "save the ta-tas" shirts and how raising money for breast cancer is supposed to be "fun" and pink and frilly. Lots of people buy into it and participate in the fund-raisers, which is obviously a good thing, but I still despise sexist breast cancer charities.
If you want to spread awareness about prostate cancer, you don't need to turn it into a competition with breast cancer. Show us some stats, give us a sob story or two, and put the link to the ribbon, and we'll all be more than happy to support the cause.
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070...
Now, how many women wore prostate cancer ribbons for Father's Day?
*crickets*
Further evidence that women today are far more sexist than men.
Let me also state that there is roughly the same amount of reported cases of prostate cancer per year as there is breast cancer cases (slightly over 200,000 for each) -- the number difference between the two diseases only being a few thousand.
How many women wore Prostate Cancer ribbons on Father's Day?
Somehow I think you know your own answer. I think I have male intuition.
Seriously though, the women are not going to take up the fight for men in the numbers that men have for women. Women are just built selfish, not all but a good number. The proof is in the pudding, not just my word.
edit
Im sure there would have to be some, be it a small amount, of women that would of helped in some way. They should be acknowledged and thanked as they are fantastic humans
Reply:All cancer is bad. Breast, cervical, prostate, testicle and perhaps the worst skin and lung. Few men and women realize that statistically prostate cancer is the most common of all. More men would die of prostate cancer then women of breast cancer, except for the fact that men do not live that long. By the age of 35 there are more women then men. Men die of all other causes, injury, heart attacks, much more then women, so by the time of 65 or so when prostate diseases hit, many men are already dead. Sorry for the bad news but it is the truth, so all women and men should support all research for cancer, as it is the worst disease of all.
Reply:I wasn't even aware that there WERE prostate cancer ribbons, or that we were supposed to wear them on Father's Day.
It's pretty hard not to notice the light pink ribbons for breast cancer though. I don't mean that the ribbons themselves are particularly noticeable, just that the women who run breast cancer prevention organizations do a much better job of promoting breast cancer awareness events and such. I've seen plenty of billboards for breast cancer related issues, none for prostate cancer.
But I don't see why you're acting like this is womens' fault...if the men who run the organizations that deal with prostate cancer would be more PROACTIVE and vocal in making people more aware of the dangers of the disease, more people would care more about it. It's not like the government is giving the breast cancer people all this money...and it's not like the government is in charge of running the organizations. They're run by regular people who've found a cause they want to fight for and the money is largely from donations.
In short, I don't think men have a right to get all upset about society not paying as much attention to prostate cancer, when the people who are running the charities / awareness groups are apparently sitting on their asses. I'd have gladly worn a blue ribbon on Father's Day if I had even KNOWN this was going on.
Reply:Good for you. Did you actually wear a breast cancer ribbon on mother's day? Or are you just speaking out for the men who did(paying lip-service?)
I didn't wear a prostrate cancer ribbon on father's day, because-
1. I couldn't find them anywhere otherwise I would've bought one. Really, no-one was selling any in my area. If there was a march, I would've gladly joined.
2. I was helping my children spoil their father on fathers day.
I'm getting so tired of all that 'what about me?' victim stuff. Way to turn more and more women away from mens causes by putting us down. If you really want women to care, then perhaps instead of being negative, you could try stating the facts about the cause and promote it, so more people hear about it.
Yes I am tad annoyed. You want to do good for men right? Have more involvement by women or just not worry about it?
Am more than happy to become involved in mens issues, after all my 3 kids will grow up to be men one day and I want the best for them and for them to have their rights as well.
As for feminism, my biggest gripe is the pro-choice movement, because of the way women are being taken advantage of to make money and men have no say whatsoever. And mainly, that's what I'm ticked off about right now.
Reply:I wasn't aware there even were ribbons supporting prostate cancer, but I know now. There is no breast cancer in my family, but there is prostate cancer.
Obviously someone didn't do a very good job promoting the ribbons OR the research efforts that go into eliminating this disease. There ARE strong research and promotional efforts, aren't there?
*crickets*
And the ribbon lady is going to donate the proceeds from the sale of these ribbons to prostate cancer research, isn't she? She's not just doing it to make a buck, is she?
Reply:I most certainly did! My father passed away four years ago from prostate cancer. I am an avid supporter of research and treatment for all kinds of cancer.
Reply:no they don't give a damn. some would of had to of helped, but we're the ones that you throw on the frontline and other things. What would feminists care of us?
Reply:I don't wear ribbons period, but I did get that ribbon from my dad and I put on my rear view mirror.
Reply:Women don't care about men, dude. Only themselves. Men are considered expendable in our society today.
Reply:I don't wear ribbons — ever.
But, allow me to inquire, how many MLB players wore navy blue armbands on Father's Day?
Reply:Thank you for providing that link. I haven't seen a prostate cancer ribbon before, but if I see one now, I'll buy one.
Just a gripe about breast cancer charities.
I hate them.
They sexualize the disease. It's disgusting. The fvcking pink ribbons and the "save the ta-tas" shirts and how raising money for breast cancer is supposed to be "fun" and pink and frilly. Lots of people buy into it and participate in the fund-raisers, which is obviously a good thing, but I still despise sexist breast cancer charities.
If you want to spread awareness about prostate cancer, you don't need to turn it into a competition with breast cancer. Show us some stats, give us a sob story or two, and put the link to the ribbon, and we'll all be more than happy to support the cause.
Anyone know of a website i can research the cancer treatment drug tacatier(spelling?)?
just google it and see what comes up, different sites will be more informative than others
Anyone know of a website i can research the cancer treatment drug tacatier(spelling?)?
Try different websites like WebMD...the correct spelling is Taxotere...that will help you in your research...good luck!
Reply:http://www.drugs.com/taxotere.html
Anyone know of a website i can research the cancer treatment drug tacatier(spelling?)?
Try different websites like WebMD...the correct spelling is Taxotere...that will help you in your research...good luck!
Reply:http://www.drugs.com/taxotere.html
Is it possbile to have colon cancer at 16 years old?
After my last question, someone suggested that I might have colon cancer. I researched it and on About.com, I have 6 out of the 10 symptoms for it. I am a 16 year old male. Is it possible that I have colon cancer?
Is it possbile to have colon cancer at 16 years old?
It is highly unlikely as colon cancer is a very slow growing cancer, so generally is something that much much older people get. A lot of the same symptoms for colon cancer can also be from other types of illness and conditions, like irritable bowel syndrome which can cause either constipation or diarrhea, and a lot of gas and bloating, cramps and abdominal pain. (i have this condition) , also, there is colitis, which is a chronic condition of an inflamed colon, which causes similar symptoms.
Reply:As with any other cancer, you're always at risk. Check with a medical professional (such as a local proctologist) to make sure that it is or isn't colon cancer. I hope that helps.
Good luck!
Reply:Anything is posssible, however it's unlikly. See a Doctor at once.
Reply:anybody, any age, can get cancer, see your doctor.
Reply:sometimes symptoms are general. most people can have these symptoms or at least one of them. i would say go to the doctor to find out. and you can get cancer at any age.
Reply:Go to your family doctor and explain why you wish to be tested for colon cancer. The things you have to do prior to the test are NOT pleasant (just a warning!).
Is it possbile to have colon cancer at 16 years old?
It is highly unlikely as colon cancer is a very slow growing cancer, so generally is something that much much older people get. A lot of the same symptoms for colon cancer can also be from other types of illness and conditions, like irritable bowel syndrome which can cause either constipation or diarrhea, and a lot of gas and bloating, cramps and abdominal pain. (i have this condition) , also, there is colitis, which is a chronic condition of an inflamed colon, which causes similar symptoms.
Reply:As with any other cancer, you're always at risk. Check with a medical professional (such as a local proctologist) to make sure that it is or isn't colon cancer. I hope that helps.
Good luck!
Reply:Anything is posssible, however it's unlikly. See a Doctor at once.
Reply:anybody, any age, can get cancer, see your doctor.
Reply:sometimes symptoms are general. most people can have these symptoms or at least one of them. i would say go to the doctor to find out. and you can get cancer at any age.
Reply:Go to your family doctor and explain why you wish to be tested for colon cancer. The things you have to do prior to the test are NOT pleasant (just a warning!).
Does the spray on kind of deodorant cause cancer? If it does, what kind of cancer?
I've heard that certain types on deodorants and maybe their ingredients cause cancer. When I researched this topic, it said that it would only cause breast cancer. If thats not the only cancer it can cause, what other cancers can it cause?
Does the spray on kind of deodorant cause cancer? If it does, what kind of cancer?
The research I've read found that chemicals from certain aerosols had been found in breast cancers. That doesn't mean only breast cancer can be caused by aerosols, nor does it mean that aerosols necessarily cause cancer.
The study basically showed a statistical link between aerosols and cancer, which doesn't necessarily equate to aerosol use increasing your risk of cancer, it's at far too early a stage to be exactly sure.
For the moment if you're really concerned then stop using aerosols altogether, however until there're more definitive studies it's really all up in the air.
Reply:nope no cancer fron deoderant-period
Reply:I agree with the person who said it is due to the absorption of the aluminium, which is very toxic to the body. You put it right on top of your glands so it's fast absorbed by the body too. Wearing a bra makes it worse, because toxins can't be moved out through the lymph system and they end up killing cells, which is cancer. Any health food store has them without that. Go for one that has a good salt (sea salt or crystal salt), works awesome!
Reply:it may cause breast cancer. look at this site for more info. good luck!!
Reply:It depends on what kind of ingredients that your deodorant spray has...
Reply:The main concern is absorbing aluminum and the suspected links to Alzheimer's.
There is suspected cancer causing agents.
wisdom teeth
Does the spray on kind of deodorant cause cancer? If it does, what kind of cancer?
The research I've read found that chemicals from certain aerosols had been found in breast cancers. That doesn't mean only breast cancer can be caused by aerosols, nor does it mean that aerosols necessarily cause cancer.
The study basically showed a statistical link between aerosols and cancer, which doesn't necessarily equate to aerosol use increasing your risk of cancer, it's at far too early a stage to be exactly sure.
For the moment if you're really concerned then stop using aerosols altogether, however until there're more definitive studies it's really all up in the air.
Reply:nope no cancer fron deoderant-period
Reply:I agree with the person who said it is due to the absorption of the aluminium, which is very toxic to the body. You put it right on top of your glands so it's fast absorbed by the body too. Wearing a bra makes it worse, because toxins can't be moved out through the lymph system and they end up killing cells, which is cancer. Any health food store has them without that. Go for one that has a good salt (sea salt or crystal salt), works awesome!
Reply:it may cause breast cancer. look at this site for more info. good luck!!
Reply:It depends on what kind of ingredients that your deodorant spray has...
Reply:The main concern is absorbing aluminum and the suspected links to Alzheimer's.
There is suspected cancer causing agents.
wisdom teeth
Does DNA research like the cure for cancer involve Stem Cell research?
Yes you are right. Stem cell research has many useful ramifications.
I am writing a research paper on skin cancer and need a creative title... I need it fast! Thanks in advance!?
It is an 8th grade 4 page long paper (about 2 pages single spaced) about skin cancer. The main focus is about how the environment affects the probability of acquiring skin cancer...but if the title is just about skin cancer in general I think it could work. Thank yo so much in advance! Also if anyone has and idea for what picture I should put on my title page I would really appreciate it! Thank you all so much in advance!
I am writing a research paper on skin cancer and need a creative title... I need it fast! Thanks in advance!?
-"The Deadly Sun"
-"An Enviroment Against Us"
-"A Killer in Your Own Backyard" (or "An Unseen Killer in Your Own Backyard" or something like that)
-"Glamorous Death" (tanning is so "cool" and "glam" but it's deadly)
-"Dangerous Rays"
-"The Sun at It's Worst"
These titles might be a little intense, sorry if you don't like them!
Pictures? never heard of doing that but here are some:
http://ipcvision.com/page03/sun/sun-03bc...
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/sun_skyl...
search "sun" or "tanning" and you'll get some good picture on Google images or Yahoo images
best wishes,
Katie %26lt;3
Reply:Skin Cancer: The Cancer That Is Crawling Up Everybodies Skin
Or...
My Skin!!!!!! Oh My!!!!!!! It's Skin Cancer!!!!!!!!
Or...
Skin Cancer: The Villain
Reply:How about something like a play on words:
I CANCER-vive environmental influences (I CAN and SURVIVE, if you get the idea.)
It gives the positive idea that environmental influences to cancer development can be minimized or avoided altogether.
Reply:Beware... The Sun!
Put a picture of the sun ;)
Reply:Tan Or Burnt?
I am writing a research paper on skin cancer and need a creative title... I need it fast! Thanks in advance!?
-"The Deadly Sun"
-"An Enviroment Against Us"
-"A Killer in Your Own Backyard" (or "An Unseen Killer in Your Own Backyard" or something like that)
-"Glamorous Death" (tanning is so "cool" and "glam" but it's deadly)
-"Dangerous Rays"
-"The Sun at It's Worst"
These titles might be a little intense, sorry if you don't like them!
Pictures? never heard of doing that but here are some:
http://ipcvision.com/page03/sun/sun-03bc...
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/sun_skyl...
search "sun" or "tanning" and you'll get some good picture on Google images or Yahoo images
best wishes,
Katie %26lt;3
Reply:Skin Cancer: The Cancer That Is Crawling Up Everybodies Skin
Or...
My Skin!!!!!! Oh My!!!!!!! It's Skin Cancer!!!!!!!!
Or...
Skin Cancer: The Villain
Reply:How about something like a play on words:
I CANCER-vive environmental influences (I CAN and SURVIVE, if you get the idea.)
It gives the positive idea that environmental influences to cancer development can be minimized or avoided altogether.
Reply:Beware... The Sun!
Put a picture of the sun ;)
Reply:Tan Or Burnt?
What activities should i do for research on skin cancer?
i want some help regarding skin cancer
What activities should i do for research on skin cancer?
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/...
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/skinc...
Reply:http://www.cancer.org
What activities should i do for research on skin cancer?
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/...
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/skinc...
Reply:http://www.cancer.org
Why are Cancer drugs so expensive. The manufacturing process must be similar to other drugs.?
and there are all the cancer research charities to help with funding.
Why are Cancer drugs so expensive. The manufacturing process must be similar to other drugs.?
Because drug companies can.
Once they own a patent for a drug (ie. brand it), they're the only ones who can manufacture it and can therefore name their own price, without the fear of a competitor under-cutting them.
This year, a team at Imperial College found a way to bypass the legal patent on some medicines by altering the molecular structure of the drugs, then retaining the rights to new discoveries and not selling them to big companies. They urged other universities and charities to do the same.
Reply:because it takes lots of money to develop these drugs. Research, clinical trials, FDA approval process etc. Hundreds of millions. It really has nothing to do with the actual manufacturing process. Thats the easy part. Most cancer drugs come from plants. Its the years of research and trials that cost money.
I agree with the guy above as well. Legal costs also raise prices. Make a drug that gives 99 people a productive life and the 100ths family will sue because he died, when he would have died anyway. So, everyone else suffers.
Reply:because there is a shortage of pills you only have so much supplies to make the pills its kinda like gas theres less of it so the price goes up and also its so expensive because if it gives them the cure they will pay anything to get it
Reply:Devlopment for one drug is very expensive. Not just cancer drugs.
I have read that only 1 in about 15 drugs that a drug company decides to develop actually makes it to market. So, drug companies have to recoup their losses on the successful drug that made it.
Even so, I believe some (most) drug prices are too high. I simply base this on the executive compesation and stock prices of the major pharmaceutical corporations.
Some drugs have been out for over 25 years now. You would like the price would be much lower.
Reply:It can take decades of research to discover develop a single drug or treatment. In those decades, salaries of researchers (which are not that large I might add), equipment, supplies, facilities charges must be paid which can come to hundreds of thousands of dollars for just one lab. Multiply this by the thousands of labs all over the US alone that are researching the many forms of cancer as well as the origins or genomics of cancer and we're talking astronomical amounts of money.
Sometimes the research leads to cancer treatments, sometimes it leads to treatments for other illnesses, sometimes it leads nowhere and a researcher has to go back to square one.
Then once a drug or treatment is discovered, it must go through animal testing and then human clinical trials which can take years as well, all the while money is being spent to keep the tests and trials going.
Then finally, if a drug, after the trial stage is deemed to be a successful treatment, patents are registered to prevent anyone else from making exactly the same drug and to make sure any profits go to the right person. (a but unethical considering many people in the background are doctors and have taken the hippocratic oath of do no harm. a patent, could very well be doing harm to patients when a drug is desperately needed). The drug must then be manufactured or synthesized and the costs of the manufacturing are determined by how the raw materials for the drugs can be produced, what and where the raw materials come from (sometimes rare plants, etc) and how long it takes to make it and how many manufacturers have the facilities needed to make it.
Sometimes a pharmaceutical company must come up with a whole new way of production and modify or build new manufacturing space to do this.
All of the costs of the successful or failed research that led to the drug, and sometimes expenses from research in other areas by the same institution or manufacturer can be factored into the cost of one successful treatment.
Now yes, there are charities that help with the funding, but those charities get money from donors (who often don't donate a lot of money because they don't have the funding or because there are other causes that they support) and many of those charities grant money to patient treatment and care, research, drug development, public awareness, etc. The money has to be spread out so thinly over all these outlets that no one area gets very large amounts from any one organization.
And many drugs are expensive, not just Cancer drugs, because all new drugs have to go through this. Sometimes the process is faster, sometimes not.
Reply:Cancer drugs are expensive because people (you %26amp; me!) expect them to work and to NOT HURT ANYBODY. If you discovered a pill that cured 99 out of 100 people with cancer (but killed the 100th person), I would think you were a genius, but America would think you were EVIL, and would sue you out of business because Mr.100 died!
We place too high a value on the lives of individuals (particularly lawyers!), and not high enough a value of the lives of entire populations. That's why people die of cancer...
Reply:The pharmaceutical companies do this to recover the cost of the years of research and testing which went on before the drug was brought to the market. They will then of course add to this so that they can make a profit.
Reply:People who have cancer will pay anything if they know its going to cure them, that is probably what the manufactures feed off.
Eye pencil
Why are Cancer drugs so expensive. The manufacturing process must be similar to other drugs.?
Because drug companies can.
Once they own a patent for a drug (ie. brand it), they're the only ones who can manufacture it and can therefore name their own price, without the fear of a competitor under-cutting them.
This year, a team at Imperial College found a way to bypass the legal patent on some medicines by altering the molecular structure of the drugs, then retaining the rights to new discoveries and not selling them to big companies. They urged other universities and charities to do the same.
Reply:because it takes lots of money to develop these drugs. Research, clinical trials, FDA approval process etc. Hundreds of millions. It really has nothing to do with the actual manufacturing process. Thats the easy part. Most cancer drugs come from plants. Its the years of research and trials that cost money.
I agree with the guy above as well. Legal costs also raise prices. Make a drug that gives 99 people a productive life and the 100ths family will sue because he died, when he would have died anyway. So, everyone else suffers.
Reply:because there is a shortage of pills you only have so much supplies to make the pills its kinda like gas theres less of it so the price goes up and also its so expensive because if it gives them the cure they will pay anything to get it
Reply:Devlopment for one drug is very expensive. Not just cancer drugs.
I have read that only 1 in about 15 drugs that a drug company decides to develop actually makes it to market. So, drug companies have to recoup their losses on the successful drug that made it.
Even so, I believe some (most) drug prices are too high. I simply base this on the executive compesation and stock prices of the major pharmaceutical corporations.
Some drugs have been out for over 25 years now. You would like the price would be much lower.
Reply:It can take decades of research to discover develop a single drug or treatment. In those decades, salaries of researchers (which are not that large I might add), equipment, supplies, facilities charges must be paid which can come to hundreds of thousands of dollars for just one lab. Multiply this by the thousands of labs all over the US alone that are researching the many forms of cancer as well as the origins or genomics of cancer and we're talking astronomical amounts of money.
Sometimes the research leads to cancer treatments, sometimes it leads to treatments for other illnesses, sometimes it leads nowhere and a researcher has to go back to square one.
Then once a drug or treatment is discovered, it must go through animal testing and then human clinical trials which can take years as well, all the while money is being spent to keep the tests and trials going.
Then finally, if a drug, after the trial stage is deemed to be a successful treatment, patents are registered to prevent anyone else from making exactly the same drug and to make sure any profits go to the right person. (a but unethical considering many people in the background are doctors and have taken the hippocratic oath of do no harm. a patent, could very well be doing harm to patients when a drug is desperately needed). The drug must then be manufactured or synthesized and the costs of the manufacturing are determined by how the raw materials for the drugs can be produced, what and where the raw materials come from (sometimes rare plants, etc) and how long it takes to make it and how many manufacturers have the facilities needed to make it.
Sometimes a pharmaceutical company must come up with a whole new way of production and modify or build new manufacturing space to do this.
All of the costs of the successful or failed research that led to the drug, and sometimes expenses from research in other areas by the same institution or manufacturer can be factored into the cost of one successful treatment.
Now yes, there are charities that help with the funding, but those charities get money from donors (who often don't donate a lot of money because they don't have the funding or because there are other causes that they support) and many of those charities grant money to patient treatment and care, research, drug development, public awareness, etc. The money has to be spread out so thinly over all these outlets that no one area gets very large amounts from any one organization.
And many drugs are expensive, not just Cancer drugs, because all new drugs have to go through this. Sometimes the process is faster, sometimes not.
Reply:Cancer drugs are expensive because people (you %26amp; me!) expect them to work and to NOT HURT ANYBODY. If you discovered a pill that cured 99 out of 100 people with cancer (but killed the 100th person), I would think you were a genius, but America would think you were EVIL, and would sue you out of business because Mr.100 died!
We place too high a value on the lives of individuals (particularly lawyers!), and not high enough a value of the lives of entire populations. That's why people die of cancer...
Reply:The pharmaceutical companies do this to recover the cost of the years of research and testing which went on before the drug was brought to the market. They will then of course add to this so that they can make a profit.
Reply:People who have cancer will pay anything if they know its going to cure them, that is probably what the manufactures feed off.
Eye pencil
Who was the first person to identify cancer?
Who was the first scientist or doctor to identify cancer? What was his life like that led him/her to research and identify cancer? What did his/her research involve?
Who was the first person to identify cancer?
The origin of the word cancer is credited to the Greek physician Hippocrates (460-370 B.C.), considered the "Father of Medicine." Hippocrates used the terms carcinos and carcinoma to describe non-ulcer forming and ulcer-forming tumors. In Greek these words refer to a crab, most likely applied to the disease because the finger-like spreading projections from a cancer called to mind the shape of a crab. Carcinoma is the most common type of cancer.
See link for more info:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/conten...
Reply:It was smokey Jo from Mexico.
Reply:Cancer is actually an ancient disease and can be found in the fossilized bones of our early anscestors. In Egypt there are mummies who have been identified with bone cancer and cancers of the head and neck. The earliest written documentation is on papyrus in Egypt around 1600BC where they describe breast tumors and say that 'there is no cure'.
Cancer has a long history line with various people through the centuries identifying, treating, or researching the disease.
You can read about the History of Cancer on the American Cancer Society site which provides the timeline and informative details:
ACS: The History of Cancer
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/conten...
Who was the first person to identify cancer?
The origin of the word cancer is credited to the Greek physician Hippocrates (460-370 B.C.), considered the "Father of Medicine." Hippocrates used the terms carcinos and carcinoma to describe non-ulcer forming and ulcer-forming tumors. In Greek these words refer to a crab, most likely applied to the disease because the finger-like spreading projections from a cancer called to mind the shape of a crab. Carcinoma is the most common type of cancer.
See link for more info:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/conten...
Reply:It was smokey Jo from Mexico.
Reply:Cancer is actually an ancient disease and can be found in the fossilized bones of our early anscestors. In Egypt there are mummies who have been identified with bone cancer and cancers of the head and neck. The earliest written documentation is on papyrus in Egypt around 1600BC where they describe breast tumors and say that 'there is no cure'.
Cancer has a long history line with various people through the centuries identifying, treating, or researching the disease.
You can read about the History of Cancer on the American Cancer Society site which provides the timeline and informative details:
ACS: The History of Cancer
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/conten...
What are some tips for getting people to sign up for a cancer 10k run/ 2 mi walk? http://www.boorunforlife.com
My friend is organizing a 10k run and 2 mile walk on October 15, 2006 in Washington DC.
The event supports a dedicated cancer research program at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD that was created in honor of his dad.
Can you help? Please suggest some cheap ideas to help advertise the race and encourage people to sign up.
To sign up, go to:
http://www.boorunforlife.com
Thanks very much.
What are some tips for getting people to sign up for a cancer 10k run/ 2 mi walk? http://www.boorunforlife.com
add
make some add and make it in such a way that they would catch attention in a short period of time..
i will request the people watching my answers to go http://www.boorunforlife.com
The event supports a dedicated cancer research program at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD that was created in honor of his dad.
Can you help? Please suggest some cheap ideas to help advertise the race and encourage people to sign up.
To sign up, go to:
http://www.boorunforlife.com
Thanks very much.
What are some tips for getting people to sign up for a cancer 10k run/ 2 mi walk? http://www.boorunforlife.com
add
make some add and make it in such a way that they would catch attention in a short period of time..
i will request the people watching my answers to go http://www.boorunforlife.com
Are there any documented cases of ants getting cancer? Or any research to show that ants Don't get cancer?
Ant's don't get cancer. Cancer is a disease of (mostly) of old age and ants don't live long enough to get cancer.
Are there any documented cases of ants getting cancer? Or any research to show that ants Don't get cancer?
Surprisingly enough, with hundreds of thousands of human beings dying of cancer each year, few researchers choose to study insect cancer. Go figure.
Are there any documented cases of ants getting cancer? Or any research to show that ants Don't get cancer?
Surprisingly enough, with hundreds of thousands of human beings dying of cancer each year, few researchers choose to study insect cancer. Go figure.
3. Using electronic and/or print resources, find out about current research and breakthroughs in cancer and HI
haha please help me with my homework and dont lecture me or yeah too bad. im a bad egg thats all their is too it lol
3. Using electronic and/or print resources, find out about current research and breakthroughs in cancer and HI
Here I tell your a way to find scientific finding
Go to www.scirus.com
and type hadron therapy.
Hadron therapy is a new technique that offer a lot better tumor control and precision than conventional radiotherapy.
Good luck in findings those. (Ohh..not all articles in that website are free to read, u need to subscribe. But don't worry, there are a lot that are free of charge too.)
Reply:Try using a current year's medical encyclopedia. Try using a medical database. Go to your local library and ask the librarian for assistance in finding resources.
Reply:and HI to you.
Reply:whose a good boy? What a good boY!!!
shark tooth
3. Using electronic and/or print resources, find out about current research and breakthroughs in cancer and HI
Here I tell your a way to find scientific finding
Go to www.scirus.com
and type hadron therapy.
Hadron therapy is a new technique that offer a lot better tumor control and precision than conventional radiotherapy.
Good luck in findings those. (Ohh..not all articles in that website are free to read, u need to subscribe. But don't worry, there are a lot that are free of charge too.)
Reply:Try using a current year's medical encyclopedia. Try using a medical database. Go to your local library and ask the librarian for assistance in finding resources.
Reply:and HI to you.
Reply:whose a good boy? What a good boY!!!
shark tooth
What are the new technologies that are currently being tried in an effort to treat cancer?
I only know one - nanotechnology.
can someone give me another one (technology to treat/prevent cancer)?
for a research paper!
oh and please post the source!!
What are the new technologies that are currently being tried in an effort to treat cancer?
I looked at several different new technologies in use in cancer treatment, but almost all were in research phases. One that was not is something called Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), "an advanced mode of high-precision radiotherapy that utilizes computer-controlled x-ray accelerators to deliver precise radiation doses to a malignant tumor or specific areas within the tumor."
Take a look at the source below for further information.
Good luck with your research!
Reply:How about biotechnology and bioinformatics ?
Reply:Cell Culture Drug Resistance Testing (CCDRT) is a process where the specific cancer cells are grown in a lab and treated with various drugs to assess which treatment choice is best.
low carbohydrate diet is being used in brain cancers but could be useful in many cancers. most cancers only use glucose for energy while most body cells can use ketones. and fats. obviously the lower the glucose/starch in the diet the more medical monitring would be required.
Apoptosis is the natural suicide of cells that recognize that they are broken or cancerous. there are many mechanisms that control Apoptosis and some are in the mitochondria. some cancers avoid apoptosis by paralyzing the mitochondria. wake up the mitochondria and the cell will recognize it is cancer and commit suicide.
Anti angiogenesis is preventing the growth of new blood vessels. For a tumor to grow fast it needs blood supply. prevent new blood vessels from forming and you limit the growth rate of the tumor.
can someone give me another one (technology to treat/prevent cancer)?
for a research paper!
oh and please post the source!!
What are the new technologies that are currently being tried in an effort to treat cancer?
I looked at several different new technologies in use in cancer treatment, but almost all were in research phases. One that was not is something called Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), "an advanced mode of high-precision radiotherapy that utilizes computer-controlled x-ray accelerators to deliver precise radiation doses to a malignant tumor or specific areas within the tumor."
Take a look at the source below for further information.
Good luck with your research!
Reply:How about biotechnology and bioinformatics ?
Reply:Cell Culture Drug Resistance Testing (CCDRT) is a process where the specific cancer cells are grown in a lab and treated with various drugs to assess which treatment choice is best.
low carbohydrate diet is being used in brain cancers but could be useful in many cancers. most cancers only use glucose for energy while most body cells can use ketones. and fats. obviously the lower the glucose/starch in the diet the more medical monitring would be required.
Apoptosis is the natural suicide of cells that recognize that they are broken or cancerous. there are many mechanisms that control Apoptosis and some are in the mitochondria. some cancers avoid apoptosis by paralyzing the mitochondria. wake up the mitochondria and the cell will recognize it is cancer and commit suicide.
Anti angiogenesis is preventing the growth of new blood vessels. For a tumor to grow fast it needs blood supply. prevent new blood vessels from forming and you limit the growth rate of the tumor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)