It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Cure' is found for skin cancer, claim scientists

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AccessDenied
 


Prove what wrong? It's unclear as to what you are referring to.




posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AccessDenied

Yes, people do go on to beat some forms of it, and still lead productive lives..but they are classed as in remission, and constantly monitored for a return of the disease.
There in lies the hook...


Nope, totally incorrect. The current standard of care regarding follow-ups post-chemotherapy/radiation/other cancer treatments is monthly check for the first 6 months or so (depending on performance and recovery), followed by a tapered system. The monthly checks are lengthened to every 3 months, then 6 months, and about 5 years after the initial remission status,no more follow-ups are needed. Some types of cancer are even less, most notably breast cancer, which is usually a 3-year follow up plan.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I want to explain my self after reading the posts.


I'm no nay'sayer.

I'm only saying what they say is wrong. A vaccine is not a cure.
It prevents you from being cured in the future.

Of course if the basics are wrong. They do not seem to understand what they are talking about.

A cure for any type of cancer is of cours great news.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Some vaccines can be given post-infection, namely, the HPV and flu vaccines. These pathogens are so nasty because the body has a hard time picking up an antigen to mount a response against, but the vaccine allows the body easy access to the antigen, thus promoting an immune response.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by AccessDenied

Yes, people do go on to beat some forms of it, and still lead productive lives..but they are classed as in remission, and constantly monitored for a return of the disease.
There in lies the hook...


Nope, totally incorrect. The current standard of care regarding follow-ups post-chemotherapy/radiation/other cancer treatments is monthly check for the first 6 months or so (depending on performance and recovery), followed by a tapered system. The monthly checks are lengthened to every 3 months, then 6 months, and about 5 years after the initial remission status,no more follow-ups are needed. Some types of cancer are even less, most notably breast cancer, which is usually a 3-year follow up plan.

Iam well aware of it..lived it..and did I not say constantly monitored? meaning follow ups? Even after 5 years..there are those who still get a yearly once over.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by AccessDenied
 


Prove what wrong? It's unclear as to what you are referring to.

Unclear how?

Next you imply cause and effect with no proof. Then you appear to imply that these causes are possibly purposeful.



Second point- prove me wrong.

Prove to me that there is no cause between our environment and cancer. Prove to me that man made chemicals put into our food, water, and air are not causing our cells to replicate out of control.
Prove to me that the depletion of the ozone layer (man made effect) is not causing a rise in the instance of melanoma in the first place..thus creating the populace to beg for a cure.
Age old..CREATE PROBLEM- SUPPLY SOLUTION trick.
Funny how the rise of cancer victims has come about along with our so called "progress"..don't you think?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


HPV ? Isn't it the vaccin that prevents the infection by a bacteria which causes cancer later in life ?

And flu vaccines. I'don't know. The people I know that get them are usually sick or sicker then the ones that don't

For any healthy person I think it is stupid.

The article is about cancer. which is not really a dissease at all.
It's a malfunction of a normal proces in the body.

So a vaccin would be useless IMO. You can however prevent something that can cause cancer. However I think it's open for debate that the causes they give us are really the causes that cause cancer.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 




For any healthy person I think it is stupid.


You don't have to take the vaccines, but as we saw this past flu season with H1N1 there were many deaths of people that appeared to be normal and healthy.

Instead of stupid you might say something more on target such, "I looked at the risks and decided not to get a vaccination. " I don't think the dead who didn't get the vaccine should be labeled as stupid for avoiding it.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I'm sorry I forgot to add common flu with the stupid comment. It was supposed to be there.

As for last years flu.

Actualy everything about that flu. The outbreak, the media hype, the assumptions, hard evidence, events in Europe and at , by or near big pharma industries, adjuvents, reactions, speculation, attitude, results and more, all scream out loud. CONSPIRACY !!

Yet nothing actualy happened. I think it was a test. A very succesfull test actualy. The 34 million vaccins ordered by the Dutch government are all payed for. That means two vaccine shots for every Dutch citizen with a vaccine which was not tested yet. If it was thy knew this was gonna happen. ( Even worse. ) Long time effects are an unknown.

A for the vaccine takers . Why ? You're gonna die anyway. For alot of Young Americans vaccined and all this happened already in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I think the vaccine market is corrupted by capitalism and greed. It creates fear and big bucks with it. Stop fearing and enjoy life it could be over tomorow .



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Interesting opinions, but nothing of substance there.

When someone I know gets the flu they wish they'd gotten the vaccine. Too late then. You're a mess for 2 weeks or so. Buck up and tough it out.

The problem with the flu is that the virulence is unknown. The exact strain is unknown. It changes from year to year leading to such weird comments as untested. It's a best effort isn't it?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


HPV is a virus (human papilloma virus) which can lead to genital (and anal) warts, as well as cervical cancer, yes. As for the flu vaccine, some level of sickness is likely to occur in some portion of the population with that type of vaccine. I was just giving an example of vaccines that can be give post-exposure.

As for cancers, vaccines are intrinsically useful. While, yes, cancer is the result of a normal process going awry, the *causes* of this problem can be external, such as viruses (HPV, for example), teratogenic chemicals/drugs, UV light, and even just random deleterious mutations we pick up in the course of day-to-day life.

This vaccine in particular (if it's the form I'm more familiar with) is OncoVex, which uses a recombinant genetics/viral approach to target markers specific to cancer cells, destroy those cells, and leave normal cells unharmed. You can see how this would be a very, very powerful treatment for meleanome.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Originally posted by stereologist




When someone I know gets the flu they wish they'd gotten the vaccine. Too late then. You're a mess for 2 weeks or so. Buck up and tough it out.


Then I
think that someone is an idiot... Being sick isn't fun but it's part of life and it makes feeling healthy just better.




The problem with the flu is that the virulence is unknown. The exact strain is unknown. It changes from year to year leading to such weird comments as untested. It's a best effort isn't it?


Yes I know \\I believe we were talking about the Mexican flu virus. Apparently a whole different flu all together.
Don't think I'm talking crap here. The IDC and Dutch government officials admitted this and even called for a test group.

I'm not saying it is bad to give a vaccine because it is still not tested or anything. I think it's ludicrous to apply such a vaccine with a big unknown in it, to an entire population. We do not mate with another sex because it's fun. But because it spreads and mixes up our genes. To ensure our survival in case of an epidemic.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by AccessDenied
 


With an increasing population repeat customers are not necessary for business.

Next you imply cause and effect with no proof. Then you appear to imply that these causes are possibly purposeful.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
(linked with permission from thread author)



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 



HPV is a virus (human papilloma virus) which can lead to genital (and anal) warts, as well as cervical cancer, yes. As for the flu vaccine, some level of sickness is likely to occur in some portion of the population with that type of vaccine. I was just giving an example of vaccines that can be give post-exposure.


You said anal warts on pupose didn't you ?
I did see your examples .


As for cancers, vaccines are intrinsically useful. While, yes, cancer is the result of a normal process going awry, the *causes* of this problem can be external, such as viruses (HPV, for example), teratogenic chemicals/drugs, UV light, and even just random deleterious mutations we pick up in the course of day-to-day life.


This vaccine in particular (if it's the form I'm more familiar with) is OncoVex, which uses a recombinant genetics/viral approach to target markers specific to cancer cells, destroy those cells, and leave normal cells unharmed. You can see how this would be a very, very powerful treatment for meleanome.


This marker does it show if a sell is cancerous and attack it or does it attack cells likely to get cancer ?

Your explanation still resambles a cure but in no way a vaccine. IMO



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Hi again Sinter,

Yep, I added anal warts in for a very specific purpose. It's been shown that men who have sex with men benefit greatly from the same HPV vaccine we give women for genital warts. Same virus, same pathogenesis, just a different area. I thought it was a neat use of an existing technology, personally.

As for the OncoVex being a "cure" versus a "vaccine", I think it is one and the same. It is a vaccine in the sense that anything given as a prophylactic injection is, in a sense, a vaccine (though, to be fair, "vaccine" should only apply historically to small pox vaccines, and the name is derived from "vacca", Latin for "cow", since cow pox was used in the original small pox vaccines). It is also a cure, in the sense that it has been shown to eliminate pre-existing cancers of some types.

And yes, the marker is specific for cancers. There are certain markers which the cell will only express in cancerous situations, namely, receptors with small conformational mutations that normal cells wouldn't express. That's the cornerstone of this new OncoVex technology.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I actually saw a special about these types of new vaccines on Discovery HD. This "vaccine" seems brilliant and promising. It's also a promising start in micro medicines.

Basically in more laments terms, what this vaccine is; a "virus" to the cancerous tumors. The "virus" is genetically modified, and put through the bloodstream or muscle mass to attach itself and reproduce in cancerous tumors and ultimately destroying only cancer cells from the inside out. The virus is "shaped" to attach itself to specific "cancer receptors" on tumorous cells which have a different shape from healthy cells..so the vaccine cannot latch itself to the healthy ones at all.

But this vaccine is very much in preliminary stages at this point...but looking very bright for the future in healing research.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join