3 ms·

Sure, but people who commonly tout it's "not one disease" miss the broader point of the common nature of the disease(s).

by nkozyra 11y ago

VeejayRampay 11y ago
Yeah, it feels like they're not different diseases at all, merely different dialects of the same disease (my words, a tad hand-wavey). I understand the need to be precise about the wording and the willingness to not let people get their hopes up too much, but I feel that this "a bunch of different diseases" concept is introducing a whole slew of misconceptions in the mix as well.
- niels_olson 11y ago
  Cancer is one disease like infectious disease is one disease. Some things we thought were different are now seen as similar (BRAF V600E, for example), but the genes and proteins involved are usually radically different, one to the next. If anything, it's striking that our morphological classifications have withstood genetic scrutiny at all.
  - nkozyra 11y ago
    Except that infectious diseases have innumerable, dissonant final effects on the body. Cancers all basically do the same thing to different parts of the body. Which is why the notion of cutting the symptom (uncontrolled, mutated, undying cells) can be considered.
dkersten 11y ago
Cancer is a type or classification of diseases. There are many cancerous diseases. It could very well be that they're related, but we shouldn't assume that unless proven. However, looking for similarities and patterns is a good thing nonetheless. The classification of "being a cancer" does imply (rightly) that there are similarities. The question is if this helps us in treating the cause or not. I feel that perhaps saying "cancerous diseases" is clearer than saying "cancers".
- xg15 11y ago
  I'm an absolute layman, so I'm more curious here whether I am wrong: So far I've always understood that, however different a cancer may develop, all kinds of cancers have roughly the same cause: Some event corrupts a cell's DNA such that: a) The corruption cannot be repaired; b) The cell still survives; c) The mechanisms that normally regulate cell division are impaired, causing the cell to continually divide. d) The daughter cells also have DNA corruptions with the same properties. Of course, depending on the nature of the DNA corruption and on what cells were corrupted, the resulting illnesses may be vastly different, as well as the strategies to combat them. But couldn't you at least look for ways to prevent cancer universally if you somehow address this common cause?
  - belenos46 11y ago
    Well, sort of, but no. The thing is, your given (some event corrupts the cell's DNA) needs to be examined. Let's agree that some event corrupts the cell's DNA as you suggest, and then follow up with some questions. 1) Where in the enormous strand was it corrupted? 1a) Was it one place, or several? 2) What corrupted it? 2a) Again, was it one cause, or five different causes, three of which we don't know about and can't currently track? 3) Does the mechanism of action (the thing that caused the mutation) change the way a specific pathology progresses, even if it's a similar mutation in the same area? (yes) So that's sort of the problem with cancer research. They're not trying to solve a single problem with a bunch of different presentations, they're trying to solve a fuckton of problems with a similar number of presentations, some of which are similar even though they have different roots.
- Retra 11y ago
  >I feel that perhaps saying "cancerous diseases" is clearer than saying "cancers". I would argue that it's not. People use 'cancerous' as an adjective describing things that aren't cancer all the time. Of course, if you're only using 'cancerous' to refer to cancers (I.e., in the context of pathology,) then just call them cancers.
  - baldfat 11y ago

Sure, but people who commonly tout it's "not one disease" miss the broader point of the common nature of the disease(s).

by nkozyra 11y ago

Sure, but people who commonly tout it's "not one disease" miss the broader point of the common nature of the disease(s).

VeejayRampay 11y ago

Yeah, it feels like they're not different diseases at all, merely different dialects of the same disease (my words, a tad hand-wavey). I understand the need to be precise about the wording and the willingness to not let people get their hopes up too much, but I feel that this "a bunch of different diseases" concept is introducing a whole slew of misconceptions in the mix as well.

niels_olson 11y ago
Cancer is one disease like infectious disease is one disease. Some things we thought were different are now seen as similar (BRAF V600E, for example), but the genes and proteins involved are usually radically different, one to the next. If anything, it's striking that our morphological classifications have withstood genetic scrutiny at all.
- nkozyra 11y ago
  Except that infectious diseases have innumerable, dissonant final effects on the body. Cancers all basically do the same thing to different parts of the body. Which is why the notion of cutting the symptom (uncontrolled, mutated, undying cells) can be considered.

dkersten 11y ago

Cancer is a type or classification of diseases. There are many cancerous diseases. It could very well be that they're related, but we shouldn't assume that unless proven. However, looking for similarities and patterns is a good thing nonetheless. The classification of "being a cancer" does imply (rightly) that there are similarities. The question is if this helps us in treating the cause or not. I feel that perhaps saying "cancerous diseases" is clearer than saying "cancers".

xg15 11y ago
I'm an absolute layman, so I'm more curious here whether I am wrong: So far I've always understood that, however different a cancer may develop, all kinds of cancers have roughly the same cause: Some event corrupts a cell's DNA such that: a) The corruption cannot be repaired; b) The cell still survives; c) The mechanisms that normally regulate cell division are impaired, causing the cell to continually divide. d) The daughter cells also have DNA corruptions with the same properties. Of course, depending on the nature of the DNA corruption and on what cells were corrupted, the resulting illnesses may be vastly different, as well as the strategies to combat them. But couldn't you at least look for ways to prevent cancer universally if you somehow address this common cause?
- belenos46 11y ago
  Well, sort of, but no. The thing is, your given (some event corrupts the cell's DNA) needs to be examined. Let's agree that some event corrupts the cell's DNA as you suggest, and then follow up with some questions. 1) Where in the enormous strand was it corrupted? 1a) Was it one place, or several? 2) What corrupted it? 2a) Again, was it one cause, or five different causes, three of which we don't know about and can't currently track? 3) Does the mechanism of action (the thing that caused the mutation) change the way a specific pathology progresses, even if it's a similar mutation in the same area? (yes) So that's sort of the problem with cancer research. They're not trying to solve a single problem with a bunch of different presentations, they're trying to solve a fuckton of problems with a similar number of presentations, some of which are similar even though they have different roots.
Retra 11y ago
>I feel that perhaps saying "cancerous diseases" is clearer than saying "cancers". I would argue that it's not. People use 'cancerous' as an adjective describing things that aren't cancer all the time. Of course, if you're only using 'cancerous' to refer to cancers (I.e., in the context of pathology,) then just call them cancers.
- baldfat 11y ago