If this actually works
It will save billions of lives

I really hope this is true

It'll save "billions" of lives. Something like this won't just get released due to popular control. I've seen so many stories in the past 6 months about a cancer cure has been found, still haven't seen it on the news, just sites.

That "could" change the world?? It'll save the world in so many spots around the world. The world would be a better place to live in apart from wars as such. We wouldn't have to listen on the news the chart number rate that people have died from Cancer over the years.

Great if it is a cure, but it'll only be great to the worlds most powerful helping their longevity, the public will get a much worse quality version that will only decreases the amount of cancer cells in general, that way they worlds most powerful can continue to make their billions via cancer research charity's etc and still appear to be doing their bit to find the cure.

Ayo wrote If this actually works
It will save billions of lives

I really hope this is true

I honestly don't see this ever being released or used. It would be phenomenal to see this go to the doctors, but face it. The government makes to much money on there cancer "Treatments". The government doesn't give the slightest shit about the citizens of the U.S. All they want it there money.

My Opinion: I believe that the government already has a cure, and I also believe that they've had a cure for decades now and they just won't let it out. The government screws us in every way possible.

mink wrote

Ayo wrote If this actually works
It will save billions of lives

I really hope this is true

Why would Taylor dislike your comment? She is disagreeing with something that could save so many lives and something that would change the world.

I am genuinely confused why someone would dislike that.

I disliked the comment because for one, it won't save "billions" of lives. World population is Approximately 7 billion, correct?

With an easy Google search, you will find out that 7.6 million people die from cancer each year. (as of 2011)

Now, go back to what he said about it saving "billions" of lives. Billions is plural, so let's just say he mean't 2 billion lives.

2 billion divided by the 7.6 million deaths each year would be over 260 years. It would take 260 years for a cure of cancer to save "billions of lives".

The second reason that I disliked the comment is because there is never going to be a cure for 'cancer'.

Cancer is just a catchall phrase for dozens of different diseases that have the same endpoint uncontrolled growth of tissue driven by mutated cells. Each cancer is complex and different, and even within a tissue there are distinct forms of cancer different kinds of colon, breast, liver and brain cancers, for example, all driven by unique mutations and behaviors.

Some types of cancer might be cured thats happened already. But new pharmaceutical cures are rare. Over the next century, Id say the chance is very remote that we will find a single cure for cancer. Instead, treatments will become more refined and targeted, informed by the science and technologies that are available so that cancer can be managed much like other diseases, such as heart disease and diabetes. The plasticity, or ability to change, of cancer cells will require that these treatments be modified over time.

Trust me, I wish there was a cure for all the cancers known to exist. However, that's not how it is.

You don't cure cancer, you fight it.

TayIor wrote

mink wrote

Ayo wrote If this actually works
It will save billions of lives

I really hope this is true

Why would Taylor dislike your comment? She is disagreeing with something that could save so many lives and something that would change the world.

I am genuinely confused why someone would dislike that.

I disliked the comment because for one, it won't save "billions" of lives. World population is Approximately 7 billion, correct?

With an easy Google search, you will find out that 7.6 million people die from cancer each year. (as of 2011)

Click to View Content

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Now, go back to what he said about it saving "billions" of lives. Billions is plural, so let's just say he mean't 2 billion lives.

2 billion divided by the 7.6 million deaths each year would be over 260 years. It would take 260 years for a cure of cancer to save "billions of lives".

The second reason that I disliked the comment is because there is never going to be a cure for 'cancer'.

Cancer is just a catchall phrase for dozens of different diseases that have the same endpoint uncontrolled growth of tissue driven by mutated cells. Each cancer is complex and different, and even within a tissue there are distinct forms of cancer different kinds of colon, breast, liver and brain cancers, for example, all driven by unique mutations and behaviors.

Some types of cancer might be cured thats happened already. But new pharmaceutical cures are rare. Over the next century, Id say the chance is very remote that we will find a single cure for cancer. Instead, treatments will become more refined and targeted, informed by the science and technologies that are available so that cancer can be managed much like other diseases, such as heart disease and diabetes. The plasticity, or ability to change, of cancer cells will require that these treatments be modified over time.

Trust me, I wish there was a cure for all the cancers known to exist. However, that's not how it is.

You don't cure cancer, you fight it.

If you would've read the entire article or even some of it, you would see they have tried it with multiple types of cancers and it liquefies the cells of each cancer trend tried.

"liquefies the cells of each cancer trend tried."

"trend"....
Trends change. Cancer cells are mutations and change.

Please do not tell me how much of the article I actually read when you clearly cannot even justify what it is that you are saying. This shouldn't even be in the News Forum, honestly should be in the Conspiracy Forum.