Most absolutely. Prevention, for any disease really, is key. Second to this is early prevention. It cannot be understated how important patient compliance and 'self' surveillance is. This is especially true for those with a family history of cancer. Perhaps another way is to take a more proactive approach. I've read that there is a growing idea, called chemoprevention, which touts that you can proactively supplement yourself to prevent and perhaps reverse tumors. Look into this if you all are interested; I know I will.

hmmm..iam not sure about this..but i heard about a laser cure method which concerning the laser shooting in order to distructing the diseased cells,..

Me and a friend was just talking about this the other day. We heard there was a test on a shark and how they injected the shark with something which cured the shark of cancer. Im not quite sure of the specifics but we were just amazed on how people come up with this type of stuff. I mean who would think that we could test a shark to slowly develop a theory to cure cancer.

Well in 1996 there was a cure for cancer created but 1 week after it was proven to b e a working cure the man dissapeared along with all of his research, same with a man named Nicoli Tesla who invented a free energy source called his "black box" from which he ran a car for a whole week without any gas tank or anything. The following weekend he dissapeared and his Labratory was burnt down by "unknown" arsenists.

can we please stop saying a 'cure for cancer' as if cancer is a singular disease with a singular solution...

the greatest minds in our world are in the midst of interpreting the explosion of genomic data that has come to past in th recent years. as taxpayers you should all encourage the scientific enterprise as I can't imagine any other way to combat cancer. when we have administrations, as we currently have in the US, who are more apt to throw a bible at someone who has cancer (rather than having science help him) it becomes exceedingly difficult to find therapies for cancer. the scientific enterprise in the united states is at a terrible plateu due to decreased funding... because all the money is going to Iraq. Because, apparently, terrorism kills more people everyday than cancer.... figure that one out...

I believe they cured this with labrats right ?

But then again, never sure how true it is (could have been coincidental, or that korean scientist case). Then again, how does it affect humans.
They may be able to cure it on for example the chimpanzee and still take 20 years before a good cure for humans is developped.

At least they're giving signs of progress. I think that's the important factor with these discoveries.

And yes Illini, most deaths or future threats are global warming and other natural causes such as illness. Yet a man with a moustache is deemed a larger threat; there was a good article on Digg about this a few days ago.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions

If only gay sex caused global warming
Why we're more scared of gay marriage and terrorism than a much deadlier threat.



Silly ain't it. Fears misplaced, thanks to for example the media. Influenza isn't sensational. 'Threats' like anthrax seem so, as it's human doing. Yet it's insignificant.

It really is just a matter of what is shown by the media. People don't want to hear about natural diseases because when you compare them to an intentional act of assassination (failed or not) they would rather hear the facts on the attempted murder. Who? Why? Where? When? What? How? They don't care about a million people who have a natural disease. But if you write it in the newspaper, broadcast on the news, or put it on the internet people are suddenly more interested because it is there and it is news. They'll still probably read about the human caused stuff though because they can then blame humanity for the evil and death in the world. Natural disaster is not human caused and cannot be blamed on humanity and therefore is not interesting.

What do you think?

I'm not a doctor and not an expert on cancer.

But I have heard some interesting opinions from other people who say they are informed on the subject. I will paraphrase:

Cancer lives in an acidic environment and if you were to make your body more alkeline it makes it harder for many types of cancer to survive. This is generally achieved through nutrition ... by eating raw foods ... and by not eating all the processed junk that comes in boxes etc.

I know it's a simplified explanation of what they said. But I have known people who have done this and it worked.

Well one of my science teachers once taught us about why cancer cells are so dangerous.

The reason is that they duplicate when the body doesn't want them to. The body can "tell" most cells not to duplicate, but the receptor for that message is protected on cancer cells. So the body can't send the "message" for the cells to stop reproducing.

I have heard of new medicines being tested that break the layer of protection on the receptor. This way, the body can control growth of cancer cells and repair damage without harmful treatment such as radiation and chemotherapy. Hopefully, this technology will work. My dad went through cancer of the trachea and it was horrible.

Will anyone tell me about this topic? whats this research about? i have heard that its a collection of Collection of tissue specimens? am i rite?