3 ms·

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 unle

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
  The only trait that differs from a benign tumor and a cancerous tumor is that the cancerous tumor can spread. Therefore a benign tumor is much closer related to a cancerous tumor that to leukemia.
- dkersten 11y ago
  Fair point.

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
The only trait that differs from a benign tumor and a cancerous tumor is that the cancerous tumor can spread. Therefore a benign tumor is much closer related to a cancerous tumor that to leukemia.
dkersten 11y ago
Fair point.