• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

cancer researcher said cancer mortality rate will be about 5% in 20 ye


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 04 May 2010 - 05:27 PM


but there is no article cause it's a researcher who was in our university today ;) she is very optimistic that in about 20 years, most mortality from cancer will be eliminated. she is mostly worried about brain cancer and some other aggressive cancers, but she believes all cancer rates will be improved dramatically.

cool :) I know it's not that amazing that just a woman from our university says that, but well, she is there in research for like 10 years now and knows quite a bit, so I thought I should share :)

#2 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 04 May 2010 - 06:13 PM

but there is no article cause it's a researcher who was in our university today ;) she is very optimistic that in about 20 years, most mortality from cancer will be eliminated. she is mostly worried about brain cancer and some other aggressive cancers, but she believes all cancer rates will be improved dramatically.

cool :) I know it's not that amazing that just a woman from our university says that, but well, she is there in research for like 10 years now and knows quite a bit, so I thought I should share :)


Sounds good, but still I wouldn't jump around, regularly there appears some novel aproach to treating cancer ( like the guy who produced cancer immune rats some time ago by messing with their blood cells I guess, I remember it bluntly ) and after awhile it seems to dissapear somewhere along the way. Like you wrote in one of your past posts, I am also frustrated that in medical science for some time now it looks like we keep rediscovering things that we already knew how to do, altough I realise it's not that simple of course. But good news anyway.

Edited by chris w, 04 May 2010 - 06:14 PM.


To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#3 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 04 May 2010 - 06:35 PM

Nice. I know just a fraction of what she knows about cancer but this rate of improvement against cancer in just 20 years seems extremely unlikely. I wonder where she gets all that optimism from...

#4 ken_akiba

  • Guest
  • 199 posts
  • -1
  • Location:USA for now but a Japanese national

Posted 04 May 2010 - 07:22 PM

I wouldn't hold my breath for it since Arthur C. Clark's 2001 has not yet arrived and will not arrive any time soon.

#5 Luna

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 04 May 2010 - 07:44 PM

I wouldn't hold my breath for it since Arthur C. Clark's 2001 has not yet arrived and will not arrive any time soon.


who?

#6 ken_akiba

  • Guest
  • 199 posts
  • -1
  • Location:USA for now but a Japanese national

Posted 04 May 2010 - 07:48 PM

Arthur C. Clark is a scientist and SF writer (My post above is not to be taken seriously) :-)

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#7 chrwe

  • Guest,
  • 223 posts
  • 24
  • Location:Germany

Posted 05 May 2010 - 04:43 AM

optimism is good, but this seems extremely unlikely

#8 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 05 May 2010 - 05:57 AM

20 years is 2030. Considering the pace of biological knowledge accumulation, this sounds possible. Researchers and academics probably tend to underestimate the difficulty of translating ideas into working medicine though. Might be a tight squeeze. I hope she's right. BTW, what's the cancer death rate today? Is this defined as number of people dying of cancer/number of people with a diagnosis of any type of cancer? If it includes trivial skin cancers, then 5% might not be that hard.

Edited by niner, 05 May 2010 - 05:58 AM.


#9 Luna

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 05 May 2010 - 06:21 AM

http://info.cancerre...tats/mortality/

http://www.who.int/m...heets/fs297/en/

#10 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,085 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 05 May 2010 - 07:01 AM

Promises and predictions about curing cancer come along as often as the sun rises (maybe more often). Scientists and researchers have been over-optimistic for years, but that is the way progress happens. After a certain level of understanding, people can see the future, they project optimism and then in a few years are slapped in the face with reality (ie, cancer is a tough disease to crack). Now that cancer (and aging and disease) is becoming more of an "information" science, I would tend to think progress would happen more rapidly (aka, Kurzweil's exponential theory). Barring societal collapse, 2030 seems reasonable to me (for cancer - as we know it today - to be nearly eliminated).

#11 Luna

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 05 May 2010 - 08:11 AM

Well Mind, I hope so. Reading this thread it seems to give a double edge on people's opinion. It's not rare to find here how people estimate that by 2030 we will reach LEV, yet suddenly people seem to feel like "20 years, they said that already.. blah.. don't get excited".

I wonder what it means if the same people here can't seem to project the same opinion always, does it mean we are hoping then being slapped on the face with reality? does it mean there is no real chance for LEV? or does it mean we're just not smart enough to say anything and are being led blind by articles that way and this way, actual progress (that we see and not just hear of) this and that way and simply can't take a stance?

I think it brings quite a bit of pessimism to how I view the future, there is simply no real path drawn to us. Nothing but speculations of doom or bloom, as easy for success as to failure and dying/death.

#12 bacopa

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 05 May 2010 - 08:47 AM

Obviously with all that we are just starting to know about the genome and cancer and their complex relationship those numbers sound a extremely optimistic. But at the same time exponential growth in computing and understanding of the genome through this, obviously bioinformatics is now allowing this to happen.

With organ printing just around the corner, I would say there is great hope for much BETTER cancer therapies that will increase the insulting famed "5 year survival rate" we keep hearing so much about, as if after those 5 years it suddenly becomes "ok" to drop dead from your cancer.

I have been going through cancer paranoia ever since I began my recovery from my bout with an unseeminly hard chemical imbalance that rendered me useless for about 3 years, smoking cigarettes as the mental and physical toll this took on me was...I can't even describe.

I refer back to this because now I have extreme cancer paranoia, and sobbed today uncontrollably when I realized my mother who passed away from cancer at 65 years of age dealt with 3 different cancers in her short life, beating the first two, and had an aggressive strain of a seemingly sporadic/non-inheritable cancer that killed her. She probably would have led a full life, fully beating the first two cancers; breast, and thyroid, both which are becoming much more treatable, especially for Thyroid.

I loathe cancer, naturally, as I do death itself. And the pathologies of cancer and mechanisms for which some are inherited through families only compounds the issue. Then there are environmental, lifestyle, and gene mutations, the latter of which any of us could be susceptible to. I'm slow to learn of the complex nature of this beast, but let's just say I'm now meeting with a genetics counselor at the esteemed Dana Farber Institute in Boston, Ma. to best assist me with any preventative measures I can hope to take.

I'm going to go through my families history of cancer, which for the exception of my mom is virtually null. That gives me lots of hope, but at the same time I see millions succumbing to it and this obviously devastates me.

I remember going skiing at Cannon Mt. in New Hampshire, thinking of cancer all day, and randomly meeting woman who told me she's living with breast cancer and that each genetic code for each individual, because it's so, unique and different from the next person's, makes it so difficult for oncologists to treat cancer. Of course with the oncoming of gene therapy and, to my limited understanding, the ability one day soon to tailor cancer treatment based solely on that individuals genetic variations/characteristics, we hopefully will have this technology up and running within the next ten to 20 years, and at least allow for cancer patients to survive much longer, whilst living chronically with their disease, unless we find a real cure. There was a recent study where they eliminated all cancer tumors in mice within a 10 day time frame, through creating aggressive DNA cells through proteins in vitro, I think, that rendered the mice completely cancer free!

And this type of promising research in mice could happen in humans too, as in the granulocyte study, which I don't know where that's at right now.

So that naturally contradicts the many claims by oncologists and other cancer researchers that we can never cure cancer, at least not in most of our lifetimes. I remain optimistic that we may not even have to get to the level of tailored cancer treatment such talked about, and instead, wipe the beast out entirely through an entirely novel method. I know Aubrey has talked about curing cancer and he seems to be way ahead of other biogerontolgists and oncologists in his unique vision for an engineering approach, which I can barely understand.

Preventative measures like the idea of taking myo inositol, simple inositol powders that have shown to be chemopreventative for lung cancer in most cases, even in one human trial could pave the way for even better research in cancer prevention. Now there was a study showing Metformin reduced tumor growth in mice by a whopping 50%!

Your professor may be considering some of these findings, but probably is really getting at the bigger picture where we are really understanding just so much more, that I am still in the dark about.

Edited by dfowler, 05 May 2010 - 09:24 AM.


#13 ihatesnow

  • Guest
  • 776 posts
  • 251
  • Location:rochester new york

Posted 05 May 2010 - 12:11 PM

Obviously with all that we are just starting to know about the genome and cancer and their complex relationship those numbers sound a extremely optimistic. But at the same time exponential growth in computing and understanding of the genome through this, obviously bioinformatics is now allowing this to happen.

With organ printing just around the corner, I would say there is great hope for much BETTER cancer therapies that will increase the insulting famed "5 year survival rate" we keep hearing so much about, as if after those 5 years it suddenly becomes "ok" to drop dead from your cancer.

I have been going through cancer paranoia ever since I began my recovery from my bout with an unseeminly hard chemical imbalance that rendered me useless for about 3 years, smoking cigarettes as the mental and physical toll this took on me was...I can't even describe.

I refer back to this because now I have extreme cancer paranoia, and sobbed today uncontrollably when I realized my mother who passed away from cancer at 65 years of age dealt with 3 different cancers in her short life, beating the first two, and had an aggressive strain of a seemingly sporadic/non-inheritable cancer that killed her. She probably would have led a full life, fully beating the first two cancers; breast, and thyroid, both which are becoming much more treatable, especially for Thyroid.

I loathe cancer, naturally, as I do death itself. And the pathologies of cancer and mechanisms for which some are inherited through families only compounds the issue. Then there are environmental, lifestyle, and gene mutations, the latter of which any of us could be susceptible to. I'm slow to learn of the complex nature of this beast, but let's just say I'm now meeting with a genetics counselor at the esteemed Dana Farber Institute in Boston, Ma. to best assist me with any preventative measures I can hope to take.

I'm going to go through my families history of cancer, which for the exception of my mom is virtually null. That gives me lots of hope, but at the same time I see millions succumbing to it and this obviously devastates me.

I remember going skiing at Cannon Mt. in New Hampshire, thinking of cancer all day, and randomly meeting woman who told me she's living with breast cancer and that each genetic code for each individual, because it's so, unique and different from the next person's, makes it so difficult for oncologists to treat cancer. Of course with the oncoming of gene therapy and, to my limited understanding, the ability one day soon to tailor cancer treatment based solely on that individuals genetic variations/characteristics, we hopefully will have this technology up and running within the next ten to 20 years, and at least allow for cancer patients to survive much longer, whilst living chronically with their disease, unless we find a real cure. There was a recent study where they eliminated all cancer tumors in mice within a 10 day time frame, through creating aggressive DNA cells through proteins in vitro, I think, that rendered the mice completely cancer free!

And this type of promising research in mice could happen in humans too, as in the granulocyte study, which I don't know where that's at right now.

So that naturally contradicts the many claims by oncologists and other cancer researchers that we can never cure cancer, at least not in most of our lifetimes. I remain optimistic that we may not even have to get to the level of tailored cancer treatment such talked about, and instead, wipe the beast out entirely through an entirely novel method. I know Aubrey has talked about curing cancer and he seems to be way ahead of other biogerontolgists and oncologists in his unique vision for an engineering approach, which I can barely understand.

Preventative measures like the idea of taking myo inositol, simple inositol powders that have shown to be chemopreventative for lung cancer in most cases, even in one human trial could pave the way for even better research in cancer prevention. Now there was a study showing Metformin reduced tumor growth in mice by a whopping 50%!

Your professor may be considering some of these findings, but probably is really getting at the bigger picture where we are really understanding just so much more, that I am still in the dark about.



http://www.foxnews.c...,592124,00.html


have you seen this research group? http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/

Edited by ihatesnow, 05 May 2010 - 12:17 PM.


#14 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 05 May 2010 - 09:18 PM

Well Mind, I hope so. Reading this thread it seems to give a double edge on people's opinion. It's not rare to find here how people estimate that by 2030 we will reach LEV, yet suddenly people seem to feel like "20 years, they said that already.. blah.. don't get excited".

Luna, it's like someone once said "Hope for the best, expect the worst". On one hand we have guys like Kurzweil saying that we can basically throw a big party right now, because in 20 years we will have the first immortals and on the other one - individuals who claim that in 100 years from now we will just have cooller cars.

Perhaps the basic hurdle is not the factual science in the end, altough it's still a daunting task ( but think of Apollo program for example ), but making sufficient ammount of people see clearly what we all could become, and how wonderful this would be, they need to be brave enough to dream that dream first, and want it. Right now they are just busy making day to day buck and striving to find some happiness in these barbarically short lives, and I will be the last one to critisize them for that, a blind man is not guilty of being blind. It seems that there is a great mass of feelling not worthy enough in the back of humanity's collective head, feeling that it is right as things stand today, where we are just disposable, because that's what inevitable death makes of all of us.

I am still too young to have seen the real Progress in action, except the Web maybe, and this gives me hope, but then again just seeing the light in the end of the tunnel never means that you will reach it.

Edited by chris w, 05 May 2010 - 09:26 PM.


#15 Luna

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 06 May 2010 - 06:23 AM

Well Mind, I hope so. Reading this thread it seems to give a double edge on people's opinion. It's not rare to find here how people estimate that by 2030 we will reach LEV, yet suddenly people seem to feel like "20 years, they said that already.. blah.. don't get excited".

Luna, it's like someone once said "Hope for the best, expect the worst". On one hand we have guys like Kurzweil saying that we can basically throw a big party right now, because in 20 years we will have the first immortals and on the other one - individuals who claim that in 100 years from now we will just have cooller cars.

Perhaps the basic hurdle is not the factual science in the end, altough it's still a daunting task ( but think of Apollo program for example ), but making sufficient ammount of people see clearly what we all could become, and how wonderful this would be, they need to be brave enough to dream that dream first, and want it. Right now they are just busy making day to day buck and striving to find some happiness in these barbarically short lives, and I will be the last one to critisize them for that, a blind man is not guilty of being blind. It seems that there is a great mass of feelling not worthy enough in the back of humanity's collective head, feeling that it is right as things stand today, where we are just disposable, because that's what inevitable death makes of all of us.

I am still too young to have seen the real Progress in action, except the Web maybe, and this gives me hope, but then again just seeing the light in the end of the tunnel never means that you will reach it.


I was actually talking about the positions of imminst's members and not the outside community.

How old are you btw? Me, being 21, some people seem to tell me "if I was at your age, I'd be so confident in my success, you should be grateful", yet, even though I can probably quite easily survive the next 50 years and more, I don't feel optimistic.

Edit: My boyfriend on the other hand, says "look at the current rate of progress, it's not a question, it's a fact". And a lot of other people at my age seems to see it the same way as he does.. maybe it's a guy thing, maybe I am just pessimistic. Lately I am trying not to think of this subject much. First base myself, then re-think the next step. Questioning the future had been only a distraction and a wall for me. Step by step, less worry when doing different steps.

Edited by Luna, 06 May 2010 - 06:26 AM.


#16 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 06 May 2010 - 03:13 PM

Glorious 25, and I definitely not feel like I can be confident about anything concerning life extension. Sure, we stand a chance, but would stand a much better one by being one of the little brats that don't even really know about death yet. Last summer a distant cousin of mine ( 24 then ) started feeling pain in his groin, 2 weeks later he was gone, testicular cancer, so I try not to occupy myself that much with what might happen in 40 years or so ( altough it's always tempting of course ).

And I don't think it's really a guy or girl think, because when talking to people I see both sexes equally unreceptive to the task that we discuss here ( appart from geeks maybe, who are ussually lone males :|o ). It looks like people born and raised in certain civilisation are most often unable to see its technical achievements for what they are, they just take them for granted, as everyday gadgets. No one seems to be in awe of airplanes or computers, yet when you think of it objectively - just how freakin amazing that is, when you can buy yourself a ticket and FLY in a steel box to other end of the planet. Probably people not as far as from XIX century when having seen today's world, would think that each one of us is some kind of a powerful magician or worlock, being able to do all those things we are, so rapid progress is an undeniable fact, your boyfriend is very right, but the exact pace is always dependent on so many things, that I try not to be overly optimistic as long as it's not yet something totally in my face that couldn't be ignored.

Edited by chris w, 06 May 2010 - 03:24 PM.


#17 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 06 May 2010 - 03:46 PM

Well Mind, I hope so. Reading this thread it seems to give a double edge on people's opinion. It's not rare to find here how people estimate that by 2030 we will reach LEV, yet suddenly people seem to feel like "20 years, they said that already.. blah.. don't get excited".

Luna, it's like someone once said "Hope for the best, expect the worst". On one hand we have guys like Kurzweil saying that we can basically throw a big party right now, because in 20 years we will have the first immortals and on the other one - individuals who claim that in 100 years from now we will just have cooller cars.

Perhaps the basic hurdle is not the factual science in the end, altough it's still a daunting task ( but think of Apollo program for example ), but making sufficient ammount of people see clearly what we all could become, and how wonderful this would be, they need to be brave enough to dream that dream first, and want it. Right now they are just busy making day to day buck and striving to find some happiness in these barbarically short lives, and I will be the last one to critisize them for that, a blind man is not guilty of being blind. It seems that there is a great mass of feelling not worthy enough in the back of humanity's collective head, feeling that it is right as things stand today, where we are just disposable, because that's what inevitable death makes of all of us.

I am still too young to have seen the real Progress in action, except the Web maybe, and this gives me hope, but then again just seeing the light in the end of the tunnel never means that you will reach it.


Well said, Chris. I especially agree with, "a blind man is not guilty of being blind." Unfortunately, many people have yet to hear and envision the progress we are making, as well as where that progress could take us. That's why it's so crucial to tell the people you know about the powerful potential of future technologies. ^_^

#18 Luna

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 06 May 2010 - 04:04 PM

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me through this orb of magic, Dear Warlock Chris ^^

So if you're saying that you are trying not to be overly optimistic, does it mean that usually, you are quite certain of the future being positive for us (I mean us, not humanity) in respect to our goal?

#19 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 06 May 2010 - 04:55 PM

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me through this orb of magic, Dear Warlock Chris ^^

So if you're saying that you are trying not to be overly optimistic, does it mean that usually, you are quite certain of the future being positive for us (I mean us, not humanity) in respect to our goal?

The magical orb rocks doesn't it :|o ?

Hmm, I guess generally I am as it seems LE is not only possible, but even inevitable. First, guess it's safe to assume that radical life extension is totally doable, it doesn't violate any physical law or anything, probably in terms of, let's say, The Highest Science, it would be something like perhaps "medium hard", whereas distant space travel "hard", time travel "mega ultra hard, if at all possible", you get what I mean.

Second, people want it in fact, no matter if they know it or not, no matter what they say. Us and deathists as well, trust me, they are also immortalists who just realised it's impossible for them to attain it ( meaning that they think it is impossible ), so now they go on saying the ussuall bla bla about how much they "would so totally not want to live forever, boring, tiring, oh, and the crowded world, watching Bay Watch and working for eternity ? common !" just to keep themsleves going on in sanity. Wanting to be immortal is inherent to being human, only most of them are affraid to admit this directly, because it seems hubristic. In religion I think it's the other way around than usually thought. People don't believe in god/gods creators of the universe and law givers who will grant them living forever somewhere in the end for being good believers. They want to live forever in the first place, but seeing that it was not possible for them, they needed to create an idea of entity who would be powerfull enough to defy the law of nature and give them the greatest possible gift. In some way immortality is the only thing humanity thinks about.

Like someone here said in a different thread, even indirect, seemingly unconnected bits and pieces of progress are all leading us to the final destination, everything that makes us more wealthy, more whatever, takes us one step closer, it's only hard to see clearly how many steps we need to make. For now I do what I can, exercise, sip green tea, all that. At times I think "Chris, you idiot, why would you be the lucky one, what's so special about you ?" but then again comes the thought, that there is also nothing that would be working against mine and everybody else's chances, we don't have an opponent, Nature is a silent, thoughtless monolith, it cannot defent itself from us wanting to rip away its deepest secrets, this is our advantage in all this, we are the smart ones.

Edited by chris w, 06 May 2010 - 05:07 PM.


#20 Luna

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 06 May 2010 - 05:42 PM

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me through this orb of magic, Dear Warlock Chris ^^

So if you're saying that you are trying not to be overly optimistic, does it mean that usually, you are quite certain of the future being positive for us (I mean us, not humanity) in respect to our goal?

The magical orb rocks doesn't it :|o ?

Hmm, I guess generally I am as it seems LE is not only possible, but even inevitable.


Oh wow! this is exactly what my boyfriend says.. sorry I had to reply to that, I need to read the rest :)

#21 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 06 May 2010 - 11:34 PM

Unfortunately, many people have yet to hear and envision the progress we are making, as well as where that progress could take us. That's why it's so crucial to tell the people you know about the powerful potential of future technologies. ^_^


And believe me Elus I try to spread the good gospel among friends that I consider potentially receptive, I guess it's kind of a nice sign that in the last several of months I met three different people who were aware of Kurzweil and De Grey ( and I don't leave in a very futurist crazed country, more of a ... pastist crazed actually ), and generally ok with the concept of living a lot longer, AI and nano. Sometimes I guess the trouble is, that many people when hearing about those things consider them a really cool idea, but just one of many they heard somewhere in their lives, whereas they should be thinking of it as the coolest fking thing on Mother Earth ;) )

Edited by chris w, 06 May 2010 - 11:47 PM.


#22 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 07 May 2010 - 02:51 AM

Like someone here said in a different thread, even indirect, seemingly unconnected bits and pieces of progress are all leading us to the final destination, everything that makes us more wealthy, more whatever, takes us one step closer, it's only hard to see clearly how many steps we need to make. For now I do what I can, exercise, sip green tea, all that. At times I think "Chris, you idiot, why would you be the lucky one, what's so special about you ?" but then again comes the thought, that there is also nothing that would be working against mine and everybody else's chances, we don't have an opponent, Nature is a silent, thoughtless monolith, it cannot defent itself from us wanting to rip away its deepest secrets, this is our advantage in all this, we are the smart ones.

Very nicely put, as always. Thanks, Chris.

To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#23 Berserker

  • Guest
  • 60 posts
  • 0

Posted 02 June 2010 - 10:23 AM

I hope she is right, because i read this in a Spanish newspaper:

"Las muertes por cáncer en el mundo crecerán un 72% en los próximos 20 años"

http://www.20minutos...cancer/creceran
/

This means that deaths caused by cancer are going to increase 72% in the next 20 years...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users