It is time--WAY past time--

[Blue_Roses]

for a cure for cancer. I remember asking my mother thirty years ago, "what is cancer," and there was no cure then. I know much money has gone into the research of this disease, but most of that has been private donations. I was watching an oncologist speak about this disease and he said that while there has been much done in the advancement of treatment, the government needs to step up and fund the research more.

It's time for a cure.

[Horse with no Name]

1. The cure lies in stem cells

So therein lies your answer.

[bryant69]

2. Please source your contention that Stem Cells contain the cure for Cancer

And if you aren't a Doctor or Scientist, please don't cite yourself as a source.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Tyler Durden]

4. Here we go again.

Aren't you bored with being a literalist? I don't know why I'm asking you: you're a little to provocative for no damned good reason for me. I have better things to get angry about.

[Horse with no Name]

7. He's been this way forever

"Some say" it's charming.
I have my own words for it.:eyes:

[Horse with no Name]

6. Please get over yourself

Where did I "cite" myself as a source?:eyes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/health/21canc.html?ex=1298178000&en=6de257099a800e66&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11689955
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2004/11_22_04.html
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-05-086.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=63474
>>>snip
Cancer Is A Stem Cell Issue
Main Category: Cancer / Oncology News
Article Date: 23 Feb 2007 - 22:00 PDT
| email this article | printer friendly | view or write opinions |
Article Also Appears In

* Stem Cell Research

There is an urgent reason to study stem cells: stem cells are at the heart of some, if not all, cancers. Mounting evidence implicates a clutch of rogue stem cells brandishing 'epigenetic' marks as the main culprits in cancer. Wiping out tumours for good, some biologists believe, depends on uprooting these wayward stem cells.

A team in the Netherlands has uncovered a key protein that could stop these stem cells from becoming malignant. "This is a hot topic in the cancer field," Maarten van Lohuizen of The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam told participants at a EuroSTELLS workshop, held in Montpellier, France, . "To be successful in cancer therapy you need to target these stem cells: they are intrinsically resistant to chemotherapy."

Polycomb proteins have emerged as key players in cancer pathogenesis. They are powerful epigenetic regulators that normally silence genes without altering the cell's DNA. Compounds that regulate polycomb could result in novel anticancer drugs that shrink malignant tissue, and prevent cancer recurrence, a common problem with most chemotherapies.

That tumours and stem cells have much in common has been known for many years. Both self-renew and both spawn many different types of cells. But only recently, new techniques have enabled biologists to identify stem cells buried in tumours.

[bryant69]

12. Thank you for the sources if not the abuse

I asked a question; I'll look these articles over.

As for the rest of you and T.D.'s comments, I don't give a shit what either of you or anybody else thinks of me; I take it as read at this point that I'm not well liked around here. But since I didn't come here to be liked, I'm pretty ok with that.

Bryant

[Horse with no Name]

13. You didn't "ask" a question

You made an obtuse point.
The article are readily available with a simple google if you were really interested in the first place.

[bryant69]

16. I guess I just assumed that if you were saying it ,

You had the articles at hand.

What "obtuse" point was I trying to make? I suspect you mean obscure, but I could be wrong.

Bryant

[Horse with no Name]

19. No. I meant OBTUSE.

Regardless, I am a nurse--not a "doctor or a scientist", but I am well read and keep up with the latest journals.
So, I never "cited myself as a source", however, my EXTENSIVE reading on the subject has formed my opinion of which I gave to the original op.
I didn't realize I would be requested to footnote my opinion with scientific journals.

[bryant69]

21. So you just naturally expect strangers to trust you on sight?

Interesting. Still if it works for you, I guess you must be a very likable person.

Bryant

[Horse with no Name]

23. Why would I CARE if you trusted me or not?

You give yourself WAYYY too much credit here dude.

[bryant69]

25. Than why did you provide the sources?

Why not just say something like "Anybody who counts already knows this" and call it a day.

Incidentally those sources are somewhat more nuanced than your one line definition would suggest.

Bryant

[Tyler Durden]

26. I have formed my opinion.

I think you're one of those folks that believes their being pointed or sharp in response marks them as a brilliant raconteur.

I don't mean to disabuse you of this, but you're mistaken. It only renders you unpleasant, like one of those who seizes on misspellings. You can remedy this quite easily if you care to. It might even upgrade the general level of discussion since you obviously aren't stupid.

[Tyler Durden]

22. How about just "nasty?"

"And if you aren't a Doctor or Scientist, please don't cite yourself as a source."

The last little war we had started just as rudely as I recall. Can't you just be civil? It's not very entertaining, or viewed as "edgy" if that's what you're going for.

You don't have to kiss ass, but lighten up for God's sake.

By the way:

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
ob·tuse (ŏb-tōōs', -tyōōs', əb-) Pronunciation Key
adj. ob·tus·er, ob·tus·est

1.
1. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
2. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.
3. Not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain.
4. Not sharp, pointed, or acute in form; blunt.
5. Having an obtuse angle: an obtuse triangle.
6. Botany. Having a blunt or rounded tip: an obtuse leaf.
2.
1. Not sharp, pointed, or acute in form; blunt.
2. Having an obtuse angle: an obtuse triangle.
3. Botany. Having a blunt or rounded tip: an obtuse leaf.

(IN THIS REGARD, I'D GO WITH FIRST DEFINITION, 2ND ACCEPTED: Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark. YOU OBVIOUSLY AREN'T STUPID, BUT YOU DO LACK SENSITIVITY.)



ob·tuse'ly adv., ob·tuse'ness n.
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
obtuse
1509, from M.Fr. obtus (fem. obtuse), from L. obtusus "blunted, dull," pp. of obtundere "to beat against, make dull," from ob "against" + tundere "to beat," from PIE *(s)tud- "to beat, strike, push, thrust" (cf. L. tudes "hammer," Skt. tudati "he thrusts"). Sense of "stupid" is first found 1509. The verb obtund (trans.) "to render dead, make dull" has occasionally been used, esp. in medical jargon, since c.1400.

[bryant69]

24. Sensitiveity? Fuck sentsitivity

Being nice doesn't get you anywhere and I'm not going to waste my time with it. You've started fights as regularly as I have Durden, hell look at your name. So don't lecture me on fucking sensetivity.

The only way to get people to like you is to agree with them; if you don't agree with them, all the sensitive language in the world isn't going to make them like you.

Bryant

[Tyler Durden]

27. LORD love a duck. I'm so very cowered.

I've been pissed on by PROS. You don't even rank.

Who hurt you? You write like someone who, like me, was the "Swirly" king of your high school. You don't have to play like one of the bullies (besides, you're not very good at it).

High School has been over for me since 1971, and I don't respond well to bullying attempts.

As to your "The only way to get people to like you is to agree with them; if you don't agree with them, all the sensitive language in the world isn't going to make them like you.", take some more psychology: it might help. You're not playing well in the DU sandbox.

PS: I note the "CHECK IT OUT" is missing. Why?

[bryant69]

29. I try to put the Check it out

only on the first post in a discussion; I don't want to seem like I'm over promoting myself.

I don't care about playing well so long as I don't get banned.

Bryant

[Tyler Durden]

32. Keep trying. One day you'll get it right.

Better posters than you have been banned for being perennially argumentative for no damned good reason.

Why don't you exercise that intellect in making some REAL points, instead of playing semantics? Then someone might just take you seriously, and you could still be nasty in the process.

[bryant69]

33. Go talk to Skinner and see what you can work up

You never know what's possible till you try.

If your opinion is that I'm not even trying to make real points, than I should think you'd be perfectly within your rights to do so. I think that the body of my participation here, regardless of who it offends from time to time, is strong enough to warrant my continued participation. But I could be wrong.

Good luck!

Bryant

[Tyler Durden]

34. Frankly, you're not worth the effort.

I've wasted way too much time on this as it is. My broken arm healing slowly limits my typing time, and you have taken up more than I'd planned.

Too bad you get off on you bad attitude; what a waste of gray matter.

Pearls before swine.

[bryant69]

35. When the going gets tough,

the tough decide they didn't really want those grapes after all.

Sorry about your arm.

Bryant

[Tyler Durden]

28. PS: read the book, watch the film....

Has very little to do with fighting.

[Bluerthanblue]

37. I like people that I don't agree with, and many people who think

my perspectives are 'strange' (at best) like me-

Bryant, if you believe you need to be harsh and cutting to "get anywhere" do you realize what 'getting somewhere' has cost You?

*'s arrogant, unpleasant attitudes and demeanor have poisoned our society. I've watched it happening, since the 's-election'and fallen victim myself on many occasions. We cannot control the way others act- but fortunately we can control our contact with them. When we imitate them, (even unconsciously) we are actually hurting ourselves, because we cannot get away from who we really are.

Please think about this?
Thanks

peace to all.
blu

[bdamomma]

8. and we have sick regime who does not believe in helping

people and fund these diseases. This goes from cancer to medical marijuana.

[sharp_stick]

3. The unfortunate thing about cancer

is that even though it has the same name, every cancer is very unique and it is formed by your own cells. It's difficult to find a cure that works with just one form the magic bullet that everyone would like to see is probably never going to be found.

[Bitwit1234]

5. If they were allowed to test.

I read an article that they were using stem cells to help grown new cells damaged by a heart attack. And it worked. So who knows what good things could come of it.

I think that mostly the reason they don't want these cures is the health industry is making too much money selling medicine.

[Bandit]

9. Can't do that, we need every penny for bombs and bullets..

GOP says there should be absolutely no money what-so-ever for any domestic programs especially in the health industry. All government money should go for war machinery and tax breaks...just saying.....

[tridim]

10. What ever happened to that story from a few months ago about a super-cheap pill that cures cancer?

Down the memory hole at the request of the big pharmaceutical companies?

[flvegan]

11. There's less money in curing it than there is in "treating" it.

To Big Pharma, at least.

[Bluerthanblue]

14. AGREED!! spend our national capital on healing rather than finding

better ways to kill our "enemies", and on creating new "enemies".

Our focus as a society is twisted and self destructive.
Time for a change. A real change.

peace,
blu

[dkofos]

15. I doubt we will get a cure as long as there are billions of dollars

in research grants. Some people have worked on cancer research for 30 years with nothing to show for it but a big house and fancy cars.

Maybe if the research were done in a govt. lab by scientists that truly want a cure instead of propping up university and hospital research
departments we might actually find a cure.

A never ending flow of cash seems to hamper the cause.

[n2doc]

17. Bullshit

Everyone I have met in the Research field is committed to their work. Way more so than most people in other areas. Take a look at the grant success rates for NIH and NSF before you spew crap about the "easy life" that researchers have.

[dkofos]

18. Whatever you are the exspert

[Tyler Durden]

31. Think you need to buddy up with Bryant69

I was at the National Naval Medical Center/National Institute of Health, Washington DC. That is where an unholy ton of the cancer research is being done, along with Johns Hopkins (Princeton), Mayo, and St. Jude's.

You're confusing Cancer research with Big Pharma. I saw most of my National Health Service 4 stripers living in not so great housing on the campus of Walter Reed, not in big houses with big cars.

[InvisibleTouch]

20. A high school biology teacher of mine...

...said over 20 years ago that he doubted we'd ever have a cure for cancer - it's been with us too long, too deeply entrenched in the genes. He held out more hope for AIDS.

And there's definitely something to the fact that there's more money to be made in treatment than cure, for Big Pharma. I don't doubt that the individual doctors and researchers who are working on the problem, have genuine and honest intentions - a lot of people go into research precisely because they've seen the suffering of someone close to them, and want to do something about it. But the big money fat cats who are controlling the purse strings, care only about lining their own wallets. As the song says so nicely, "God Money's not looking for the cure."

[Blue_Roses]

30. but that was 20 years ago...

research has done some interesting work. I am hopeful that one day there will be a cure, or at least a vaccine. If they've found a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, what's stopping them from finding one for breast cancer and other cancers...

[InvisibleTouch]

36. Honestly, I won't trust that cervical cancer vaccine...

...until it's been proven in a real-world setting. Maybe it's legit, and maybe the long-term damage will be worse than the disease, but only time will tell. I don't trust the source and its rush to market, let alone the big push to try and force it on us as mandatory.

You're right that my teacher's comment is two decades in the past, and there has been some progress, mostly in terms of better management of the disease - that is, to allow a fuller life during the time the patient has left. That's not to be discounted, but it still doesn't amount to a cure, all this time later.

[n2doc]

38. I think there has been progress

My Mom had cancer in the late 1960's, and had to undergo brutal radiation treatment, which eventually caused a recurrence and her death a couple of decades later. Chemo treatments are far more advanced than they were 20 years ago. Cancer, like HIV, is one tough disease to kill. But we are making progress. It is not a stretch to say that Breast Cancer victims like Elizabeth Edwards would have already died if they were stuck with the treatments we had in the 1980's.
The key is to push for more funding, not less, and by independent researchers rather than those funded by big Pharma. Right now NIH is only funding "safe" research, because the success rates have dropped to less than 10 percent of proposals funded. They are aware of the problem but can do nothing until the Congress and Administration devote more funds to research and less to killing people in other countries.