Comments on: In a First, Researchers Decode a Cancer Patient’s Genome

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 04:05:29 +0000

Also to David, more people on EARTH die from diarrhea than cancer. In first world nations, such diseases aren’t as rampant and aren’t a very big issue. Cancer, however, has always been one of those that’s out of our control due to the lack of solid treatment methods. It still isn’t the biggest source of death, but it is probably the one we know the least about and therefore should do the most research on.
Yes, it may seem selfish to focus so inwardly, but lets imagine this on a smaller scale; you have a fish tank and your friend has a fish tank. You look at their fish tank, always concerned about their fish, then your fish die. It’s self preservation, and as cruel as it may seem, if everyone looked at everyone else’s problems, we would probably all die out.

By: cosmic cowboy

cosmic cowboy — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 10:14:27 +0000

David, you say the drug companies make money by telling us we should fear cancer more than we should. hey ! your not one of those conspiracy guys are you? you don’t think there is a cure for cancer but it’s being kept from us because there is more money in the treatment, do you? here in the U.S.A. we treat our health as a commodity. thus the profit motive. thus the corporations. do you think that a drug company would carefully word something to make it sound better than it really is? I do also. other corporations with stellar performances: tobacco companies selling poison, grudgingly displaying the warning lables larger and larger over the years. GM’s mathmatics: expense to change gas tank design or settle the wrongfull death cases.they choose settlements and it saved them money!Ford:the same calculations.drug companies are behaving as expected.mabey we should not treat our health-care as a commodity.how about that?

By: cosmic cowboy

cosmic cowboy — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 08:42:43 +0000

David:{more people die from diarrhea than from cancer}. seems like apples and oranges. people will fight what ails them. I sense a bitterness or fustration in what you wrote. few would blame you. all the countries[excluding those barred or opting-out] come together in what is known as the “united nations” and in the last fifty years one would think that among all that representation there would be enough humanity to address and satisfy us all regarding diarrhea,malaria,nutrition….[if we reallocated half our spending on cancer to the...] this is sheepish! a common condition in this country. you seem to have availed yourself to the idea that what we are spending on cancer is the limit.let’s edit some ear-marks or other pork and spend twenty times what we currently do.let’s then hold the UN accountable.your last sentence requries aseperate reply!

By: cosmic cowboy

cosmic cowboy — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:32:06 +0000

DAVID,I find your comments interesting. will comment later. check it out. must run.

By: David

David — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:24:37 +0000

More people die from diarrhea than from cancer, yet cancer sees more money in terms of research, prevention, and treatment. If we reallocated half our spending on cancer to the prevention and treatment of other diseases, we would save many more lives. In developed nations we are lucky that cancer and Alzheimer’s disease are problems. It just means we’re not dying young from diarrhea or malaria. The drug companies make money by telling us we should fear cancer more than we really should.

By: cosmic cowboy

cosmic cowboy — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:23:26 +0000

medicine is “practiced”. drugs have been effective in slowing the spread of cancer cells “have they not?” people are alive today because of cancer cells being slowed or put into remission with the use of treatment and drugs. it seems to be the way of nature. predator and prey. you either defeat the predator or you are prey. as you say, promotion of “good cell genes” to fight cancer trigger genes seems a more humane way of dealing with cancer, however, drugs are probably effective in giving these good cell genes a leg up in this fight. it seems logical to me that if cancer is elimated some other predatory issue aganist the human body will arise. medicine “drugs and treatment” probably will never reach the garden of eden. you know? the place in bibical history where predation did not exist. surely some research is being done with the profit motive in mind. whatever the reason “thank you” whoever and wherever you are.

By: DR

DR — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:48:59 +0000

What ever the signal is to “grow,grow, grow”. Like anything else,Cancer trigger/signal cells can be destroyed with “heat”, “starved” of nutrients, or killed with “drought”. Throwing more and more drugs at it, does not seem like the commonsense approach, to solving this problem, as we have been throwing drugs at this problem for well over 50 years, to no real effect. We use chemicals, to kill weeds but over time, they still come back, and spread, unless you use those chemicals over and over again. Promoting good cell genes, to fight the cancer “trigger”genes,seems like a more human way to solve the trigger gene problem. I would hope that “drug money” is not the only solution to this crisis. Finding the gene trigger is the key. But once that is discovered, it is up to scientists to find a way to kill these specific “triggers”. I realize drugs can be “specific”, but even these seem to always have side effects that can become deadly,”to healthy cells”, over time. After over 50 years of throwing drugs at this problem, we stil have hardly “Cured Cancer”…