5 ms·

You aren't wrong, but by that logic are we ever really cured? I mean you "kill" cancer: But yet cancerous cells likely remain either in the general area of the

You aren't wrong, but by that logic are we ever really cured? I mean you "kill" cancer: But yet cancerous cells likely remain either in the general area of the tumour or in your blood stream. You get "cured" of a deadly disease, but many continue to remain in your body for sometimes the remainder of your life.

netrus 14y ago
Yeah, but cancer is not infectious. People will always develop cancer, but we could potentially get to a point where nobody has HIV anymore, if we can prevent the virus from spreading.
- geuis 14y ago
  Not disagreeing with you since as far as I know, there are no human cancers that are contagious. There are at least 2 mammalian cancers I know of, and possibly more, that are contagious. One is a disease wiping out Tasmanian devils. Another is a sexually transmitted cancer among dogs. Its thousands of years old and shows up as small tumors around the genital regions of affected animals. There was a TED talk describing this in some detail. Don't have the time to search for a link at the moment, but you can probably find it.
  - jeza 14y ago
    Well there's human papilloma virus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus) which can result in the development of cervical cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical_cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical_cancer).
    - tsotha 14y ago
      There are probably all sorts of viruses that can cause cancer. But that's not the same thing as actual infectious cancer cells.
  - waterhouse 14y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_transmissible_venereal_tumor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_transmissible_venereal_t... Heh--according to the article, there are 3 transmissible cancers, and you named 2 of them. ... Wow, I find this kind of astonishing. The tumor cells are themselves the infectious agents, and the tumors that form are not genetically related to the host dog. Although the genome of CTVT is derived from a canid (probably a dog, wolf or coyote), it is now essentially living as a unicellular, asexually reproducing (but sexually transmitted) pathogen. Sequence analysis of the genome suggests it diverged from canids over 6,000 years ago; possibly much earlier. However, the most recent common ancestor of extant tumors is more recent: it probably originated 200 to 2,500 years ago. Very interesting. Thank you for mentioning it.
- jekdoce 14y ago
  Leukemia can be caused by a virus (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/142595.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/142595.php) The virus is transmitted through the same ways as HIV.
  - svachalek 14y ago
    I think this and HPV count as contagious carcinogens, rather than contagious cancers.
nkozyra 14y ago
Well there's a specific reason they don't say you're "cured" of cancer. They use the word remission. Which honestly sounds more appropriate here as well.
- tsotha 14y ago
  You can certainly be cured of cancer. The problem is there isn't really any way to know for sure.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > You can certainly be cured of cancer. Oncologists never use the word "cure". They know better -- unless they're frauds, they say you're is remission. > The problem is there isn't really any way to know for sure. And that's why.
    - tsotha 14y ago
      That's just semantics. Of course they don't want to give you false hope, but that's not the same thing as saying you can't be cured.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > That's just semantics. It's more than semantics. The reason is that we cannot declare a cure until we fully understand cancer's genesis. And we don't. > ... but that's not the same thing as saying you can't be cured. That's exactly what it means -- no one is ever "cured" of cancer. All cancer victims remain at higher recurrence risk than those who have never had cancer. It's not semantics.
        tsotha 14y ago
        >That's exactly what it means -- no one is ever "cured" of cancer. All cancer victims remain at higher recurrence risk than those who have never had cancer. That's simply not true, with one caveat[1]. As a population, of course, it's true. Of course because you can't know whether or not you're cured you can't dismiss the possibility your cancer will return. But that doesn't mean it's actually a possibility in your specific case. If you happen to be one of those lucky people who had a cancer that didn't metastasize, and they got all of it (every last malignant cell), you are not going relapse. There's nothing to relapse. That's why I say this is semantics. You're talking about what we know and what we have to assume for the purposes of treatment. I'm talking about what is, even if we don't know it. [1] The caveat being that chemotherapy increases the risk you'll develop a cancer you would not otherwise have developed. But not the same cancer - a new one. So you can't correctly call it a relapse.
sukuriant 14y ago
The specific thing about HIV is that it's an STD. You can still give it to other people, so it's not 100% safe to continue life as you had before. If you're having sex, it can't be unprotected, even with your significant other. If you're bleeding, you still need to cover the wound as absolutely fast as possible so other people don't get one of the terrors of our lifetime. You're not cured, you're just protected. Cured would mean there was no chance of you sharing HIV with someone else afterward. The terror of HIV suggests, to me, a different term to use.

netrus 14y ago

Yeah, but cancer is not infectious. People will always develop cancer, but we could potentially get to a point where nobody has HIV anymore, if we can prevent the virus from spreading.

geuis 14y ago
Not disagreeing with you since as far as I know, there are no human cancers that are contagious. There are at least 2 mammalian cancers I know of, and possibly more, that are contagious. One is a disease wiping out Tasmanian devils. Another is a sexually transmitted cancer among dogs. Its thousands of years old and shows up as small tumors around the genital regions of affected animals. There was a TED talk describing this in some detail. Don't have the time to search for a link at the moment, but you can probably find it.
- jeza 14y ago
  Well there's human papilloma virus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus) which can result in the development of cervical cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical_cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical_cancer).
  - tsotha 14y ago
    There are probably all sorts of viruses that can cause cancer. But that's not the same thing as actual infectious cancer cells.
- waterhouse 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_transmissible_venereal_tumor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_transmissible_venereal_t... Heh--according to the article, there are 3 transmissible cancers, and you named 2 of them. ... Wow, I find this kind of astonishing. The tumor cells are themselves the infectious agents, and the tumors that form are not genetically related to the host dog. Although the genome of CTVT is derived from a canid (probably a dog, wolf or coyote), it is now essentially living as a unicellular, asexually reproducing (but sexually transmitted) pathogen. Sequence analysis of the genome suggests it diverged from canids over 6,000 years ago; possibly much earlier. However, the most recent common ancestor of extant tumors is more recent: it probably originated 200 to 2,500 years ago. Very interesting. Thank you for mentioning it.
jekdoce 14y ago
Leukemia can be caused by a virus (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/142595.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/142595.php) The virus is transmitted through the same ways as HIV.
- svachalek 14y ago
  I think this and HPV count as contagious carcinogens, rather than contagious cancers.

nkozyra 14y ago

Well there's a specific reason they don't say you're "cured" of cancer. They use the word remission. Which honestly sounds more appropriate here as well.

tsotha 14y ago
You can certainly be cured of cancer. The problem is there isn't really any way to know for sure.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > You can certainly be cured of cancer. Oncologists never use the word "cure". They know better -- unless they're frauds, they say you're is remission. > The problem is there isn't really any way to know for sure. And that's why.
  - tsotha 14y ago
    That's just semantics. Of course they don't want to give you false hope, but that's not the same thing as saying you can't be cured.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > That's just semantics. It's more than semantics. The reason is that we cannot declare a cure until we fully understand cancer's genesis. And we don't. > ... but that's not the same thing as saying you can't be cured. That's exactly what it means -- no one is ever "cured" of cancer. All cancer victims remain at higher recurrence risk than those who have never had cancer. It's not semantics.
      - tsotha 14y ago
        >That's exactly what it means -- no one is ever "cured" of cancer. All cancer victims remain at higher recurrence risk than those who have never had cancer. That's simply not true, with one caveat[1]. As a population, of course, it's true. Of course because you can't know whether or not you're cured you can't dismiss the possibility your cancer will return. But that doesn't mean it's actually a possibility in your specific case. If you happen to be one of those lucky people who had a cancer that didn't metastasize, and they got all of it (every last malignant cell), you are not going relapse. There's nothing to relapse. That's why I say this is semantics. You're talking about what we know and what we have to assume for the purposes of treatment. I'm talking about what is, even if we don't know it. [1] The caveat being that chemotherapy increases the risk you'll develop a cancer you would not otherwise have developed. But not the same cancer - a new one. So you can't correctly call it a relapse.

sukuriant 14y ago

The specific thing about HIV is that it's an STD. You can still give it to other people, so it's not 100% safe to continue life as you had before. If you're having sex, it can't be unprotected, even with your significant other. If you're bleeding, you still need to cover the wound as absolutely fast as possible so other people don't get one of the terrors of our lifetime. You're not cured, you're just protected. Cured would mean there was no chance of you sharing HIV with someone else afterward. The terror of HIV suggests, to me, a different term to use.