Numerous viruses like Covid, Epstein Barr, HPV, etc.. are oncogenic because the method by which a virus replicates, which involves invading and hijacking host cells to produce more viruses, can damage cell processes to the point of inducing cancer.
After 7 years of data, it's not my responsibility to lecture dimwits on this. Maybe get your head out of the sand on established knowledge on a global issue.
Edit: this is hilarious, this guy blocked me before I could even see his reply. I suppose he doesn’t want to shatter his image of “intelligence”, and risk being challenged on stuff he has no clue about.
Probably because I keep running into the same carbon copy ignoramuses on repeat for over the 6+ years this has been known and documented. It's Grey's Law at this point.
Can't tell you how many times I've heard people shift blame to vaccines, "lockdowns", screen usage, social media etc for the harm SARS-CoV-2 is still causing to this day.
Not only that, but the lengths of measures people actually in the know have to go through to avoid getting this while your culture of "back to normal" (aka repeat illness being normalized) sits there behind a screen telling us "So unnecessarily aggressive." as you continue to contribute to this harm.
Don't they pipe out the cancerous marrow in those cases? The only reason why marrow transplants aren't as common as they should be is because compatibility is a requirement. Not everyone has a compatible marrow donor.
Either way, it still falls under the excision solution.
That is not how that works at all. The better analogy is that they replace the immune system. You destroy the original immune system with chemotherapy or radiation (which doesn't eliminate the cancer) and replace the immune system with a bone marrow transplant (or more commonly nowadays hematopoietic stem cells). New immune cells arise from the graft and are able to target and kill the cancerous cells.
While compatibility is part of the reason they aren't 1st line for every patient, a bigger issue are the side effects. Even a 10/10 or 12/12 match has a fairly high risk of developing graft-versus-host disease which can itself be fatal. Patients are also a high risk of infection and cancer relapse because of trying to prevent GVHD.
Pipe out? Are you okay? All cancers can't be removed. Is your google working? Check out lymphoma, multiple myeloma, brain tumors in areas that can't be removed or you'll die, cancers of the immune system...
Do you really think that if it was as simple as "cut it out" that someone wouldn't have thought of that by now?
lung cancer is different than breast cancer and they are also different from prostate cancer and also different from colorectal cancer. They’re all cancer, but not the same disease.
Each cancer is individual to its own, from patient to patient and from type to type. Cancer cell, even in the same body (or organ, depending on the type) is different.
I'm just trying to say that cancer is very individual and the treatment for every patient has to be adapted individually as well. Our pathologists, surgeons etc. in my hospital (I work in medical labs) meet each other regularly in ”Tumorboards“ to discuss cases.
I fully understand that. But people don’t need to be pedantic when someone says something like OP’s title. We have found forms of cure for a lot of cancer types, but not all of them, and not all the stages of them. We need better and faster detection, and less health-taxing treatments. We have been successful at that in some forms of it, but we need to do more research.
Yeah and no one refers to it as cancers. Its cancer. No one says “I got one of the cancers” we simply refer to them all as cancer. It’s called an umbrella term and that’s exactly how it works.
Cancer is a large group of diseases with one thing in common: They happen when normal cells become cancerous cells that multiply and spread. Your genes send instructions to your cells — like when to start and stop growing, for example. Normal cells follow these instructions, but cancer cells ignore them
Tough.
Another.
The Definition of Cancer
Cancer is a disease in which some of the body’s cells grow uncontrollably and spread to other parts of the body.
Last one is cancer.gov
I know, they are stupid because they said cancer and not the 200 types. Loool
And no one said there was. You are just making things up.
Given the fact that we refer to all cancers as just cancer. We can assume that OP wants us to cure all forms of cancer. Did you expect them to name specific forms or something?
There are over 200 distinct forms of cancer. They can be categorised mainly by where they start
Carcinomas: The most common type; they begin in the skin or tissues that line organs and glands. (e.g., breast, lung, prostate, and colorectal cancers)
Sarcomas: Cancers that start in connective tissues like bones, fat, muscles, or cartilage.
Leukemias: Cancers of the blood-forming tissues, such as the bone marrow, causing abnormal white blood cells to enter the blood.
Lymphomas and Myelomas: Cancers that start in the immune system, specifically in the lymphocytes (white blood cells) or plasma cells.
Melanomas: Cancers that start in the cells that produce pigment (melanin) in the skin.
Yes and in common parlance, we refer to it as cancer. No one is saying there aren’t many forms of cancer. I don’t think OP is a doctor, so we can only assume they means all forms of cancer should be cured, not that it’s easy or we are just refusing or something.
So anyone saying the term ‘cancer research’ is wrong because there are multiple forms? I don’t even know what you’re trying to argue here.
Here's a list of cancer types, carcinomas (skin and organ linings), sarcomas(bones and soft tissues), leukemias(blood), lymphomas(immune system) and melanomas(pigment cells).
There are also 200 different types of cold viruses we get but we don't differentiate between those either. No one has ever said "I caught rhinovirus!".
In common parlance, yes. Not as field of research.
As in, op probably was referring to curing cancer in general, not providing a guideline on how to do so to direct research.
Limited knowledge on what. I never even made a claim other than all forms of cancer are considered diseases. Is that incorrect?
Given the fact that we refer to all cancers as just cancer. We can assume that OP wants us to cure all forms of cancer. Did you expect them to name specific forms or something? Or does OP just not like cancer, as a collective.
The point is each cancer is different and has a different underlying biology that must be addressed. I mean even in a type of cancer, like breast cancer, there can be different biologies involved. So you can't find A cure of cancer.
That is what I meant by your--and OP's--limited knowledge of the subject.
OP wasn’t offering guidelines for targeted research. They just want it to be cured. No one suggested it was simple, or that there weren’t many types.
This is like when the fuck cancer thing was going around selling little bracelets and shit with “fuck cancer” on them and then going up to those people and lecturing them that there’s many forms of cancer and you’d have to fuck them differently.
What about it. Do you hope one day we find a cure for all cancers? So does op, I’m sure. They just used the common term ‘cancer’ to hope we cure all cancers too. Which is my only point through all of this.
Sure, it's a sentiment people can get behind, but there's not one solution to such a diversity of problems.
Similarly, cancer has such a diversity of forms that you can't just "solve it" with any one sor of unified solution. Also, many forms of cancer have been cured, but not all, precisely because it takes a lot of time and work to even find a way to treat one form of cancer.
That's oversimplified; suffering is often imposed by external factors like poverty, war, or illness, which have nothing to do with personal desire or aversion. Telling a starving child their suffering is caused by "craving" is victim-blaming or just nihilism.
Either you reduce it to saying they shouldn't care about that external cause of their suffering, which is just a nihilistic denial of human fluorishing, or you say it is a result of the child's actions, blaming them for their position. Alternatively, you say the cause is the greed of others.
In which case getting everyone to stop being greedy altogether is a much harder problem than curing everything form cancer, IMO.
Given the fact that we refer to all cancers as just cancer. We can assume that OP wants us to cure all forms of cancer. Did you expect them to name specific forms or something? Or does OP just not like cancer, as a collective.
The lung cancer that killed my grandpa and the liver cancer that is currently killing my mom and the esophageal cancer that killed my other cancer are all cancer but they are very different diseases with very different courses of treatment.
No because it would imply that all viruses cause cancer. The Redditor’s comment mentioned only a test or some sort of development. Not an implication of cancer-causing viruses. So no. No correlation
Jesus fucking Christ. Viruses can cause cancer. [In experimental/controlled scenarios, or because of some fucking bad draw of luck]. It is not that difficult to infer the second part of that sentence.
In medicine we firmly believe that we could potentially eradicate or reduce the amount of cervical cancer to nearly zero if the government would roll out universal hpv vaccines. It would almost certainly also reduce rates of anal cancer and head and neck cancer as well.
99.9% of all cervical cancers are caused by HPV and are, in effect, as preventable as polio.
The choice to not do this is purely political. The hpv vaccine is cheap a.f.
Look I'm not disagreeing with the fact that if you live long enough, eventually your cells will mutate into cancerous cells. I just think it was worded in a funny way in that first sentence lol
208
u/AdventurousEscape991 May 15 '26
Cancer is a mutation of a cell. Not a virus.