3 ms·

>To claim a cure, we would need to know the cause to which the cure applies. Then we would need to prove the cure worked. We don't know these things about cance

by tsotha 14y ago

>To claim a cure, we would need to know the cause to which the cure applies. Then we would need to prove the cure worked. We don't know these things about cancer -- out methods treat symptoms, not causes. Oh? We're treating symptoms? So your contention is if I remove (by some artifice) every cancer cell from someone's body they may still relapse? Really? That's an extraordinary claim for which I have a hard time believing you'd find any support at all in the medical community. You're still evading the point. What the oncologist tells a particular person about his prognosis is completely irrelevant to my point. Let me set up a thought experiment for you. Let's say I have three cups an some number of balls between zero and three. When your back is turned I may or may not put a ball under any or all of the cups. Then you turn back around. Of course you don't know if the cups have balls under them. Your argument is because you don't know whether or not a cup has a ball under it, then it doesn't. I assert that a cup can have a ball under it even if you don't know the ball is there, and you claim I've invented a religion.

lutusp 14y ago
> So your contention is if I remove (by some artifice) every cancer cell from someone's body they may still relapse? Yes, if the person has a predisposition to cancer. The evidence? They got cancer in the first place. The counterargument would have to be that they were born with cancerous cells in place, waiting to be activated. But if cancer doesn't depend on cells, but a genetic factor, then yes -- even if you remove every cancerous cell, the person can relapse. And there is plenty of evidence for genetic factors. I emphasize this doesn't mean we know which factors, or how they work, only that we can see a correlation with genetics. And correlations without known cause-effect relationships make poor science. > That's an extraordinary claim for which I have a hard time believing you'd find any support at all in the medical community. You aren't bothering to read what I've posted. Shall I post more quotes that prove my point, or are you willing to learn this topic on your own? http://www.ehow.com/way_5673148_difference-between-cancer-remission-cure.html http://www.ehow.com/way_5673148_difference-between-cancer-re... "Cancer patients often mistake cancer remission as a cure, but this is not so. Remission is the period of time when the treatment is effective and the cancer is under control. There are two types of remission--partial and complete. The time frame can vary from weeks to even years, depending on the type of treatment and the stage of the cancer." http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/blogs/life-with-cancer/2006/11/being-cured-vs-being-in-remiss.html http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/blogs/life-with-cancer... "The whole “never being cured” thing is tough to swallow when you’re first diagnosed ... Sure, we may have to take these medicines for the rest of our lives, but if they’re keeping us alive and not harming us, who cares?"
- tsotha 14y ago
  >Yes, if the person has a predisposition to cancer. The evidence? They got cancer in the first place. It's odd you can make that assumption and then breezily mention the correlation/causality problem in the very next paragraph. Just because a person gets cancer there's not necessarily any reason to believe they're predisposed to it. We know a wide range of environmental factors cause genetic damage. >You aren't bothering to read what I've posted. I can tell based on the snippets you're posting they're not relevant to the conversation. You keep making the same tangential point over and over. Yes, okay, I understand an oncologist won't ever tell you your cancer is cured.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > You keep making the same tangential point over and over. So the scientific standing of cancer research is "tangential"? Your claim has been that scientists know that people are sometimes cured of cancer. This is false -- only religious zealots believe that. Scientists know better. > Just because a person gets cancer there's not necessarily any reason to believe they're predisposed to it. Dubious for an individual, true for a population. But I can see there's no point to this -- you don't have the required scientific background or appreciation for statistics.

by tsotha 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago

> So your contention is if I remove (by some artifice) every cancer cell from someone's body they may still relapse? Yes, if the person has a predisposition to cancer. The evidence? They got cancer in the first place. The counterargument would have to be that they were born with cancerous cells in place, waiting to be activated. But if cancer doesn't depend on cells, but a genetic factor, then yes -- even if you remove every cancerous cell, the person can relapse. And there is plenty of evidence for genetic factors. I emphasize this doesn't mean we know which factors, or how they work, only that we can see a correlation with genetics. And correlations without known cause-effect relationships make poor science. > That's an extraordinary claim for which I have a hard time believing you'd find any support at all in the medical community. You aren't bothering to read what I've posted. Shall I post more quotes that prove my point, or are you willing to learn this topic on your own? http://www.ehow.com/way_5673148_difference-between-cancer-remission-cure.html http://www.ehow.com/way_5673148_difference-between-cancer-re... "Cancer patients often mistake cancer remission as a cure, but this is not so. Remission is the period of time when the treatment is effective and the cancer is under control. There are two types of remission--partial and complete. The time frame can vary from weeks to even years, depending on the type of treatment and the stage of the cancer." http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/blogs/life-with-cancer/2006/11/being-cured-vs-being-in-remiss.html http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/blogs/life-with-cancer... "The whole “never being cured” thing is tough to swallow when you’re first diagnosed ... Sure, we may have to take these medicines for the rest of our lives, but if they’re keeping us alive and not harming us, who cares?"

tsotha 14y ago
>Yes, if the person has a predisposition to cancer. The evidence? They got cancer in the first place. It's odd you can make that assumption and then breezily mention the correlation/causality problem in the very next paragraph. Just because a person gets cancer there's not necessarily any reason to believe they're predisposed to it. We know a wide range of environmental factors cause genetic damage. >You aren't bothering to read what I've posted. I can tell based on the snippets you're posting they're not relevant to the conversation. You keep making the same tangential point over and over. Yes, okay, I understand an oncologist won't ever tell you your cancer is cured.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > You keep making the same tangential point over and over. So the scientific standing of cancer research is "tangential"? Your claim has been that scientists know that people are sometimes cured of cancer. This is false -- only religious zealots believe that. Scientists know better. > Just because a person gets cancer there's not necessarily any reason to believe they're predisposed to it. Dubious for an individual, true for a population. But I can see there's no point to this -- you don't have the required scientific background or appreciation for statistics.