Cancer Science??

[Mojo]

Yes, what to do? Science couldn't yet achieve better option.

In each of those cases, science had a better option. If the people involved had sought proper treatment they would most likely have survived.

 

[Mojo]

Good evidances can be secondary to good/right thoughts, previously.

If the thoughts are contradicted by the evidence, they are neither good nor right.

 

[Mojo]

Our goal to care cancer can be:-

...

4. To try to try treat cancer naturally by our own defence response.

Seriously, Kumar, if someone has cancer it means that their "own defence response" has already failed. Trying to treat cancer using the "natural" quackery you support, or by doing nothing and relying on "own defence response", is a really good way to end up dead.

 

[Kumar]

Seriously, Kumar, if someone has cancer it means that their "own defence response" has already failed. Trying to treat cancer using the "natural" quackery you support, or by doing nothing and relying on "own defence response", is a really good way to end up dead.

As per current status, It is well known to all, nothing new & no one is taking chance. But we can try to know better.

 

[joobz]

That is true, but if we can understand the primary factors, we may take care for not to get cancer.

Yes. But this is a different issue.
treating cancer and avoiding cancer are not the same thing.

Yes, but if we can understand simpler means, we can avoid advese effects.

No. This isn't the case. Were you ignoring my statements?

Yes but there can be a common disorder prior to getting mutations(probably in our environmental factors--acid, base, water(mucus), temp., O2 concentration or in motions(contractions & relexations)>

We know of multiple paths to cancer development, which don't share a common prior state. So no.

I previously provided following link which also suggest that withholding of iron is a modality of our body defence--either to starve cancer cells indirectly expose cells to increased lactic acid. Low iron can be relevent to low O2 & increased generation of lactic acid.

Again. So?

 

[joobz]

As per my last post. Self defence process should also take care, survival along with handling diseases.

Our goal to care cancer can be:-

1. To avoid odd exposures.
2. To take care of changes in responsible environmental factors to mutaions.
3. To enhance DNA repair & appoptosis.
4. To try to try treat cancer naturally by our own defence response.
5. By modern medical interventions--may be a last option in view of that Cancer cells being our own cells(somewhat like disordered children due to our odds).

What does treat cancer Naturally mean?
What do you believe modern cancer therapy actually does? (Hint, consider carefully point 3).

Kumar, your knowledge of cancer biology seems to be decades out of date.

 

[joobz]

As per my last post. Self defence process should also take care, survival along with handling diseases.

Our goal to care cancer can be:-

1. To avoid odd exposures.
2. To take care of changes in responsible environmental factors to mutaions.
3. To enhance DNA repair & appoptosis.
4. To try to try treat cancer naturally by our own defence response.
5. By modern medical interventions--may be a last option in view of that Cancer cells being our own cells(somewhat like disordered children due to our odds).

1 and 2 is already being done.
3. Apoptosis IS the way many cancer treatments work
4. By this, I assume you mean potentiating the immune system to kill cancer. this is already being looked at. however, it isn't without risk. To do this, you must make the immune system recognize a feature of the cancer cell that is different from other cells, which may not exist. Also, you may accidentally program the immune system to attack healthy tissue. Just because you label this "natural" doesn't make it safe.
5. Modern interventions are all accounted for by numbers 1-4. In other words, you've made a false distinction.

 

[Mojo]

As per current status, It is well known to all, nothing new & no one is taking chance.

Nonsense. There are doctors and scientists working on new and better cancer treatments all the time.

 

[joobz]

As per current status, It is well known to all, nothing new & no one is taking chance. But we can try to know better.

I didn't catch this statement until Mojo just commented on this.

Did you not read my post on immunoproteosomal inhibitors? Do you believe that isn't something new?

 

[Kumar]

What does treat cancer Naturally mean?
What do you believe modern cancer therapy actually does? (Hint, consider carefully point 3).

Kumar, your knowledge of cancer biology seems to be decades out of date.

I meant, if we can do that by improving our own defence.

It kills directly or try to increase appoptosis. I dout about DNA repair.

Untill we could know about cancer fully, nothing should be outdated. Who know, what may come out?

 

[Kumar]

I didn't catch this statement until Mojo just commented on this.

Did you not read my post on immunoproteosomal inhibitors? Do you believe that isn't something new?

I meant about risk related to cancer, so most would not like to take chance.

Is it new understanding meant for better outcome & low toxicity?

 

[Kumar]

Yes. But this is a different issue.
treating cancer and avoiding cancer are not the same thing.



No. This isn't the case. Were you ignoring my statements?



We know of multiple paths to cancer development, which don't share a common prior state. So no.




Again. So?

Ok thanks. Btw, suppose we want to check changes in acid, base & water(mucous) balance to cancer patients. Which can be most relevant?

 

[joobz]

I meant, if we can do that by improving our own defence.

It kills directly or try to increase appoptosis. I dout about DNA repair.

Untill we could know about cancer fully, nothing should be outdated. Who know, what may come out?

The job is for the person making the claim to explain why it is relevant. I've given you the current standard* that must be met. If you can't meet that standard, your therapy isn't going to help anyone.
*A selective killing of cancer cells without killing healthy cells.

I meant about risk related to cancer, so most would not like to take chance.
Is it new understanding meant for better outcome & low toxicity?

Please rephrase your question. I don't know what you are asking.

Ok thanks. Btw, suppose we want to check changes in acid, base & water(mucous) balance to cancer patients. Which can be most relevant?

acid base are two sides of the same coin. Your question doesn't make any sense.

 

[Kumar]

The job is for the person making the claim to explain why it is relevant. I've given you the current standard* that must be met. If you can't meet that standard, your therapy isn't going to help anyone.
*A selective killing of cancer cells without killing healthy cells.

I think, it can be possible if our defence mechnisms can be manipulated.

Btw, how these can be relevant;-

1. To reduce cell adhesions.

2. To reverse vaso-relaxation in tumor area.

3. To make cells delicate--by increasing Na to move into cells.

Please rephrase your question. I don't know what you are asking.

acid base are two sides of the same coin. Your question doesn't make any sense.

You asked about immunoproteosomal inhibitors.I read about these and I think these are meant to improve outcome & reduce toxicity. However It is not relevant to these discussions.

 

[joobz]

I think, it can be possible if our defence mechnisms can be manipulated.

Btw, how these can be relevant;-

1. To reduce cell adhesions.

2. To reverse vaso-relaxation in tumor area.

3. To make cells delicate--by increasing Na to move into cells.

There doesn't seem to be a cohesive concept that you are presenting
1.) Why do you want to reduce cell adhesions?
2.) Why do you want to reverse vaso-relaxation? (Can you explain what you mean here)?
3.) using sodium to potentiate cells isn't the easy way to approach this.

You asked about immunoproteosomal inhibitors.I read about these and I think these are meant to improve outcome & reduce toxicity. However It is not relevant to these discussions.

It is relevant because you claimed " It is well known to all, nothing new & no one is taking chance". Medical science is more knowledgeably than you realize.

 

[Mojo]

I meant about risk related to cancer, so most would not like to take chance.

There is a whole branch of medical science (epidemiology) that is devoted to studying disease patterns and helping to identify risk factors for all sorts of diseases so that they can be avoided. Don't pretend that medicine isn't concerned with this sort of thing.

 

[joobz]

There is a whole branch of medical science (epidemiology) that is devoted to studying disease patterns and helping to identify risk factors for all sorts of diseases so that they can be avoided. Don't pretend that medicine isn't concerned with this sort of thing.

It's what I don't understand at all. everything Kumar is suggesting is things that medical science has considered already or is already considering. I am still allowing for the possibility that he is thinking of something that is novel, but so far all I see is a series of disjointed ideas mixed in with false impressions of medical science.

The biggest red flag I've seen is his brush off of "Well that's for later research" comment when asked about how to ensure specificity. That isn't for later research. that's for current research. It is where medical science is.

 

[Mojo]

It's what I don't understand at all. everything Kumar is suggesting is things that medical science has considered already or is already considering. I am still allowing for the possibility that he is thinking of something that is novel, but so far all I see is a series of disjointed ideas mixed in with false impressions of medical science.

The biggest red flag I've seen is his brush off of "Well that's for later research" comment when asked about how to ensure specificity. That isn't for later research. that's for current research. It is where medical science is.

You have to remember that as far as Kumar is concerned, medical science = bad.

 

[joobz]

You have to remember that as far as Kumar is concerned, medical science = bad.

If true, that is deeply depressing.

The difference between standard Medicine and CAM (Complementary and alternative medicine) is that standard medicine is proven effective.
If a CAM is found to be effective, it becomes part of standard medicine and is therefore Medicine.

The only reason something would remain a CAM is if it doesn't work.

 

[Mojo]

If a CAM is found to be effective, it becomes part of standard medicine and is therefore Medicine.

Kumar is worried about that as well. He is concerend that homoeopathy could get "hijecked" by medicine. He has even used it as an explanation for homoeopaths not demonstrating that homoeopathy works:

Burden to show live evidances is on homeopathy which areavailable in mass in homeopathic clinics(just survey) but burden to show its science is on you/scientific community because they want to see it from their eyes & also they are entrusted for this by giving most of public money & means. If they can't it is just your/their miss or weakness, if not just ignoring due to some commercial interests. Even if homeopaths know its science, why they will show & allow you to hijeck it alike other hijeckings.

The only reason something would remain a CAM is if it doesn't work.

Kumar would probably say something about "vested interests" here.