Cancer cure hypothesis

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Selfexprt.SJ, Apr 16, 2018.


Can you disprove it?

Poll closed Apr 23, 2018.
  1. Yes

  2. No

    0 vote(s)
  3. It Needs to be tested

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bells Staff Member

    It would be helpful to you (and others) if you took the time to understand how current protocols work in treating different types of cancers before coming out with a "cure hypothesis".

    Each type of cancer is essentially treated differently. Chemo drugs are different for different forms of cancers. For example, my mother was diagnosed with a brain lymphoma the size of a lemon in January. She would have had 2 months left if it was not diagnosed. She was treated with large doses of methotrexate (given by way of an infusion) and other forms of chemo drugs that work with lymphomas (the names of which escape me at present), along with various forms of immunotherapy, and it is then flushed out of her system over a 5 day period. On top of that, she is given small doses of steroids to treat the tumor itself, mostly to stop it growing. Now, they could have given her large doses of steroids and the tumor would have disappeared within a matter of weeks, but it would not have treated the lymphoma. After 3 rounds, the lemon sized tumor was virtually gone, and it can barely be seen on the scan. Unfortunately, given its location, it cannot be surgically removed, so they have to treat it to make it go away.

    My father had bowel cancer, that was treated with a different chemo protocol (Fluorouracil), he had surgery and radiation that essentially cured the cancer. During a routine scan while in remission, they found a primary lung cancer, a small nodule. That was resected surgically. It came back last year and he is undergoing a different chemo treatment (Abraxane) - different from what he had for his bowel cancer.

    Surgery is often necessary to remove the cancerous tissue, usually after chemo and radiation (if radiation is deemed necessary), and usually if the tumor or cancer does not disappear from the treatment. It is not a one size fits all glove, but is often a necessary form of treatment for various forms of cancers.

    Radiation is not hit and miss, but directed treatment at the tumor or cancer.

    Stem cell therapy is more often than not, life saving therapy that has proven to be very successful in either curing or giving the patient many more years, particularly if it is caught early.

    It is not that Billvon took an extreme stance on what you said. It is that he has knowledge and understanding of this subject and you have proven a high level of ignorance on what current protocols actually do and how they work, while touting a cure. You'll excuse us for being skeptical.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Your lack of knowledge about the body shows

    Big mistake

    Can I assume most of your "research" reading was magazines promoting healthy lifestyles? full of ads for miracle powders - vitamins which work wonders - and my favourite - how to detoxify your body by flushing out your colon?

    Your motive is admirable your execution amateurish sorry

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Those treatments ARE the rule. They are what mainstream medicine does to treat cancer. They are used because they are often effective.
    Cancer surgery isn't "cut it out and replace." The rest may be over your head, but it is worthwhile to attempt to learn them.
    Would you want a doctor who "tried to figure the problem" from a position of ignorance and who didn't understand what the conventional cures (and their success rates) were?

    "Well Mr. Expert, I've never treated any cancer patients before, but it seems to me that if we freeze you you'll get better. After all, cancer has a high metabolic rate, so freezing you must help."
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Sounds like the kind of thing my mother's former doctor would say, who for the past year, told her that all her symptoms were just stress and she just needed more exercise...
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Sure, but that would be a drop in pH as a result of the anaerobic metabolism of the cancer cells. So I don't follow how attempting to alter pH (which I gather is impossible in the body anyway, because it would play hell with the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation) could have any therapeutic or protective value.
  9. Selfexprt.SJ Registered Member

    i don't read lifestyles magazines, I look at exactly what cancer appears to be.

    What Is cancer? From a non-lab perspective, it's a very short list of things.

    They say tumor, but that from a literal thought is only growth, and abnormal. When you ask a doctor, what is a tumor, he doesn't have too much detail to add, other than what he has to say about the idea causing the tumor, and the ideas related to that specific tumor type.

    So, a number of doctors say when you say, without cancer or any other name, what's a tumor. The answer is, it's a growth.

    Now isolate a growth. It is growing, it is abnormal, and it has a reason for being there no matter what the reason is.

    Now isolate what we know about cancer. It spreads, it has fatal effects, and some spread faster, slower, or even halt.

    We also know what it is made of, though personally I haven't bothered asking the exact 'material' or 'organism type'.

    We also know that it can grow in a wide variety of places throughout a body.

    This is all common knowledge, but not useless.

    Based on that, you can determine something is feeding it, since I've heard it is techniqually alive, or assumed so since it grows and spreads.

    But what if the body feeds it? What if it is eating the very same way that particular body part eats?

    Is that totally stupid to think simply because we haven't proven it does?

    Because to grow, something needs food, that is an operating assumption which is almost universal to every thing ever.
    (Don't forget supernovas aren't hitting that stage after dinner, nobody seems to be adding material to a star that I'm aware of).

    But if you operate on solely that ignorant opinion, you forget that disease spreads. Death can spread.

    I'm merely pointing out a solution to a possibility which I believe hasnt ever been a thought.

    What if cancer is appearing because something (I pointed out an obvious opinion on the topic) isn't being fed to the cells.

    Does oxygen force along the cell creation process? Can a cell continue like a motor without oil if the literal driving force continues? Like a heart pumping with no blood?
  10. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    You're so ignorant, you don't know what you don't know.
  11. Selfexprt.SJ Registered Member

    I haven't seen you point out a scientific proven fact that says my theory isn't even possible, or hasn't been a thought.

    If it was in a link, I don't click links to avoid viruses when the link is person posted. I don't exactly like fixing my computer.

    Though, since I couldn't find my hypothesis, I thought I'd point out that there isn't any obvious problem with exploring something like a "there are X people not taking care of themselves properly" which with teens and elders not being doctors, and not all having high paying jobs, and people generally living far from perfect lifestyles, etc etc etc, why is it so ridiculous to think someone can go to the doctor, find cancer, and decide to start taking care of themselves. Shouldn't a cure be guaranteed? What is stopping the current treatment from being perfect?

    If it's not working 100% of the time, then there are factors. There is no, 'woops this one is a dud' in scientific formula
  12. Selfexprt.SJ Registered Member

    And If me sharing a thought of mine then pointing out ways it could be right when people tell me it's wrong makes me ignorant, then what exactly are you for simply reading and (possibly researching or testing) but then telling me there's no possible way my way will work, when you haven't said anything that can't be explained otherwise in my theory. here I have been told things like (you don't even know it has blood vessels) but, My theory posted here doesn't leave that as impossible, and actually leaves the thought of it being possible. I may not be a university graduate, but you're telling me that my knowledge isn't valid and I haven't read anything here that makes it impossible. Some of you posted links and actually said 'This can agree with that' (not in those words)
  13. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    I don't doubt that your intentions are good, but this is not how you do science. It's not up to us to prove you wrong. It's up to you to show an understanding of the subject at the very least. And to prove your hypothesis with data. It's not even a theory. You're wasting your time making uninformed guesses when you could be making yourself less ignorant. What business do you have pretending to be a doctor when you haven't even graduated from university? Do you think cancer is a subject as simple as fixing a car? You disrespect the work it takes to learn biology.
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2018
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Yes, cancer is a collection of cells that metabolize just the way normal cells do, feeding off the body's resources. That much is true. What;s different is that their growth is, for some reason unchecked.

    The fact that they are very much like regular cells is the very reason why they are so hard to stop. All our treatments are almost as lethal to healthy cells as they are to cancerous cells.

    Why do you assume that cancer can be "cured" by a healthy lifestyle? There's really no reason to think that cancer is not a normal part of the metabolism of aging. We used to die long before most cancers kicked in. Now we are curing the things that kill us. The body did not evolve to live to 50 or 70 or 90. Evolution is mostly done with us by the time we've stopped breeding. Evolutionarily, to live after that is to take precious resources from the young.

    That's not to suggest we shouldn't try to cure it - we don't like dying because we want to live forever - only to frame it in the sense that living so long and so healthy is not really part of the body's normal habit. Cancer is part of the body's 'expiration date' process.

    But simply eating healthy will not make it go away.
  15. Selfexprt.SJ Registered Member

    Well, isn't it hard to find a cure when you ignore a possibility? How many are being ignored? I have no idea, but it doesn't sound very open minded
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Because there are an infinite number of things that are "possible" cures, if you start from scratch. Pixie dust, mystic yoga and supernova remnants are just a few.

    The way to distinguish between "it isn't not possible" and "it's worth pursuing" is to get educated in biology and cancer. And those are not simple subjects.
  17. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    So you think you are actually making a contribution to science? It's as if I went into an operating room and started handing the surgeon tools I thought they needed. It happens all the time here, and it's always baffling.
  18. Selfexprt.SJ Registered Member

    Maybe the cell creation is unchecked because the body only regulates some of the process, and other things continue faster when the regulated thing isn't there. Thought of because if it counts oxygen but not protein, it could have an adverse effect (example).

    And yes, why does cancer get cured by a healthy lifestyle?

    Well, I'm operating on a basis of feeding cells. One thought.

    Why does it affect young and old? Clearly it's something we can cure, it's been done. But what starts it?

    I had a thought, and couldn't prove it wrong, so I shared it.

    Ps isn't the reason they don't take opinions from everyone is because there are too many possibilities that are ridiculous when someone doesn't think? Well we are in a day and age where these things can be weeded out effortlessly unless thought was put in. I put in thought, so maybe I'm an exception to the "explaining why every possibility is wrong is ridiculous cause they wouldnt even understand it"

    And why would the regulated thing slow it down? Because it moves, but there's a slow down regulation instead of a speed up one. A very basic concept.
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Just as I suppose it would not be very open-minded if NASA were to reject a proposal to go to Mars by flying carpet, right?
  20. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Hey, how do you know he didn't accidently discover a flying carpet!
    exchemist likes this.
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    More like started handing the surgeon bits of things you made yourself in your basement. "Try this! I call it a spumcorer."
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Cancer does NOT get cured by a healthy lifestyle, you steaming nit. My wife had a healthy lifestyle and that did not stop her dying of cancer 18 months ago. Stop talking shit. Lots of us here have both personal experience of cancer AND have some knowledge of science. You seem to have neither.
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    SE.SJ: your enthusiasm is laudable. If you are interested in researching cures for cancer, you would do well to get an education, so that your ideas are not wild shots into the dark, and you ideas will get some traction by others in the field.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page