|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:03 am
xBowserxChanx you do realize that through the course of human history, once we've eradicated one major disease another one wipes out half our population right? This one isn't a virus or anything though, this one is a defect in our own genes that causes cells to malfunction. The problem with curing most diseases is that we try to eradicate them, instead of making ourselves stronger against them. @ cookie. Cancer cells don't lose there telomeres. Telomere decay causes aging, not cancer. If we could find out how to get cancer cells to decay like normal ones they would prolly die from reproducing so fast. Making our telomeres not decay would make cancer worse. We can only stop aging after we stop cancer. Because being eternally young would suck with eternally young cancer too. Long story short, we need to trade with cancer.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:10 am
I've always thought of cancer to be synonymous with drawn out death. gonk
So we pretty much found out specifically how cancer spreads? :D That's great! Seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:21 am
Owwin xBowserxChanx you do realize that through the course of human history, once we've eradicated one major disease another one wipes out half our population right? This one isn't a virus or anything though, this one is a defect in our own genes that causes cells to malfunction. The problem with curing most diseases is that we try to eradicate them, instead of making ourselves stronger against them. @ cookie. Cancer cells don't lose there telomeres. Telomere decay causes aging, not cancer. If we could find out how to get cancer cells to decay like normal ones they would prolly die from reproducing so fast. Making our telomeres not decay would make cancer worse. We can only stop aging after we stop cancer. Because being eternally young would suck with eternally young cancer too. Long story short, we need to trade with cancer. I know all that. If we were to find the gene that allows for the production of telomerase, we could shut down cancer cells easily, as well as keep ourselves younger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:26 am
Wantcookie Owwin xBowserxChanx you do realize that through the course of human history, once we've eradicated one major disease another one wipes out half our population right? This one isn't a virus or anything though, this one is a defect in our own genes that causes cells to malfunction. The problem with curing most diseases is that we try to eradicate them, instead of making ourselves stronger against them. @ cookie. Cancer cells don't lose there telomeres. Telomere decay causes aging, not cancer. If we could find out how to get cancer cells to decay like normal ones they would prolly die from reproducing so fast. Making our telomeres not decay would make cancer worse. We can only stop aging after we stop cancer. Because being eternally young would suck with eternally young cancer too. Long story short, we need to trade with cancer. I know all that. If we were to find the gene that allows for the production of telomerase, we could shut down cancer cells easily, as well as keep ourselves younger. Oh well hell yeah then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:49 pm
That's amazing. This should have been all over the news, seriously.
I don't think that we're going to find a cure as fast as we should though, because of all the suits up there "running" the charities. They're gonna be riding that gravy train for as long as humanly possible, sadly.
Also, once I read that nanotechnology could eventually have itty-bitty lazers tracking down and shooting up the cancer cells. pew pew.
@Cookie: s**t, I'd go for everlasting youth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:45 am
GrowingDandelion That's amazing. This should have been all over the news, seriously. I don't think that we're going to find a cure as fast as we should though, because of all the suits up there "running" the charities. They're gonna be riding that gravy train for as long as humanly possible, sadly. Also, once I read that nanotechnology could eventually have itty-bitty lazers tracking down and shooting up the cancer cells. pew pew. @Cookie: s**t, I'd go for everlasting youth. Nah, this shouldn't be all over the news. If that happens, then people are going to expect a cure by tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:20 pm
We've succeeded at giving cancer a firm, swift kick to the v****a.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:01 pm
Orphie GrowingDandelion That's amazing. This should have been all over the news, seriously. I don't think that we're going to find a cure as fast as we should though, because of all the suits up there "running" the charities. They're gonna be riding that gravy train for as long as humanly possible, sadly. Also, once I read that nanotechnology could eventually have itty-bitty lazers tracking down and shooting up the cancer cells. pew pew. @Cookie: s**t, I'd go for everlasting youth. Nah, this shouldn't be all over the news. If that happens, then people are going to expect a cure by tomorrow. In other words, it's not big news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:15 pm
Owwin Wantcookie Owwin xBowserxChanx you do realize that through the course of human history, once we've eradicated one major disease another one wipes out half our population right? This one isn't a virus or anything though, this one is a defect in our own genes that causes cells to malfunction. The problem with curing most diseases is that we try to eradicate them, instead of making ourselves stronger against them. @ cookie. Cancer cells don't lose there telomeres. Telomere decay causes aging, not cancer. If we could find out how to get cancer cells to decay like normal ones they would prolly die from reproducing so fast. Making our telomeres not decay would make cancer worse. We can only stop aging after we stop cancer. Because being eternally young would suck with eternally young cancer too. Long story short, we need to trade with cancer. I know all that. If we were to find the gene that allows for the production of telomerase, we could shut down cancer cells easily, as well as keep ourselves younger. Oh well hell yeah then. Of course then there's ethics you run into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:17 pm
Holy s**t, that's awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:27 pm
Nomega Owwin Wantcookie Owwin xBowserxChanx you do realize that through the course of human history, once we've eradicated one major disease another one wipes out half our population right? This one isn't a virus or anything though, this one is a defect in our own genes that causes cells to malfunction. The problem with curing most diseases is that we try to eradicate them, instead of making ourselves stronger against them. @ cookie. Cancer cells don't lose there telomeres. Telomere decay causes aging, not cancer. If we could find out how to get cancer cells to decay like normal ones they would prolly die from reproducing so fast. Making our telomeres not decay would make cancer worse. We can only stop aging after we stop cancer. Because being eternally young would suck with eternally young cancer too. Long story short, we need to trade with cancer. I know all that. If we were to find the gene that allows for the production of telomerase, we could shut down cancer cells easily, as well as keep ourselves younger. Oh well hell yeah then. Of course then there's ethics you run into. i found the gene that produces time lets destroy it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:25 pm
Waynebrizzle Orphie GrowingDandelion That's amazing. This should have been all over the news, seriously. I don't think that we're going to find a cure as fast as we should though, because of all the suits up there "running" the charities. They're gonna be riding that gravy train for as long as humanly possible, sadly. Also, once I read that nanotechnology could eventually have itty-bitty lazers tracking down and shooting up the cancer cells. pew pew. @Cookie: sh*t, I'd go for everlasting youth. Nah, this shouldn't be all over the news. If that happens, then people are going to expect a cure by tomorrow. In other words, it's not big news. IT'S A SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH! THAT'S TOTALLY NEWS!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:48 pm
Waynebrizzle Nomega Owwin Wantcookie Owwin xBowserxChanx you do realize that through the course of human history, once we've eradicated one major disease another one wipes out half our population right? This one isn't a virus or anything though, this one is a defect in our own genes that causes cells to malfunction. The problem with curing most diseases is that we try to eradicate them, instead of making ourselves stronger against them. @ cookie. Cancer cells don't lose there telomeres. Telomere decay causes aging, not cancer. If we could find out how to get cancer cells to decay like normal ones they would prolly die from reproducing so fast. Making our telomeres not decay would make cancer worse. We can only stop aging after we stop cancer. Because being eternally young would suck with eternally young cancer too. Long story short, we need to trade with cancer. I know all that. If we were to find the gene that allows for the production of telomerase, we could shut down cancer cells easily, as well as keep ourselves younger. Oh well hell yeah then. Of course then there's ethics you run into. i found the gene that produces time lets destroy it I'll grab the death laser.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:49 pm
Nomega Owwin Wantcookie Owwin xBowserxChanx you do realize that through the course of human history, once we've eradicated one major disease another one wipes out half our population right? This one isn't a virus or anything though, this one is a defect in our own genes that causes cells to malfunction. The problem with curing most diseases is that we try to eradicate them, instead of making ourselves stronger against them. @ cookie. Cancer cells don't lose there telomeres. Telomere decay causes aging, not cancer. If we could find out how to get cancer cells to decay like normal ones they would prolly die from reproducing so fast. Making our telomeres not decay would make cancer worse. We can only stop aging after we stop cancer. Because being eternally young would suck with eternally young cancer too. Long story short, we need to trade with cancer. I know all that. If we were to find the gene that allows for the production of telomerase, we could shut down cancer cells easily, as well as keep ourselves younger. Oh well hell yeah then. Of course then there's ethics you run into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:00 pm
GrowingDandelion Waynebrizzle Orphie GrowingDandelion That's amazing. This should have been all over the news, seriously. I don't think that we're going to find a cure as fast as we should though, because of all the suits up there "running" the charities. They're gonna be riding that gravy train for as long as humanly possible, sadly. Also, once I read that nanotechnology could eventually have itty-bitty lazers tracking down and shooting up the cancer cells. pew pew. @Cookie: sh*t, I'd go for everlasting youth. Nah, this shouldn't be all over the news. If that happens, then people are going to expect a cure by tomorrow. In other words, it's not big news. IT'S A SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH! THAT'S TOTALLY NEWS! I'd consider it progress, but not really a breakthrough. Not until we see some practical application with this discovery, at least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
