Danny Hillis: Understanding cancer through proteomics

[Alcatrazx007]

LOL custom treatment, generic treatment of cancer is expensive!!!

[fipacunha]

Fantastic Talk. One of the main problems in research is getting the same result for the same issue. For Danny cancer is something we do not something we have, Cancering. His technique will allow us to predict the best treatment for EACH person and also will bring us a revolution in the way we see the body because we no longer see it in parts but as a whole. Drugs should solve the origin of the disease rather than alleviate symptoms. To understand the origin we must see the body as a whole.

[andreeaweed]

how cancer happens...if we really be able to understand that, we be able to find a cure for...

[sgtmcwallace]

one of the most terrific ted talks ive seen, and ive seen a lot, christopher hitchens should watch this

[alyssamichelle135]

@ dalyom37: it's not a stretch. This isn't actally "new;" it's the direction things are already going. Thanks for your insight. With folks like you, we'll never learn to survive cancer. As for "many cancers" being the result of translocations of genes: I believe that only CML has been shown as such; there's a translocation at 9:22. Can you name others? Or are you assuming? Possibly exaggerating? I further disagree that you must know the "source if you are to find a cure." Not so.

[Gameboob]

I don't get it. One's body isn't out of whack because it's deficient in chemotherapy drugs or radiation, it's out of whack because of the shitty diet full of sugar that almost everyone eats nowadays.

[Tzadeck]

I was watching this video thinking "Where the hell do I know this guy from?" Then it suddenly hit me! This guy was friends with Richard Feynman. Watch the video "No Ordinary Genuis" on Youtube--a documentary about Feynman, and Daniel Hillis does an interview.

[NikeshalovesCasey]

what role does nutrition play in the body healing its self of cancer?

[Gameboob]

@NikeshalovesCasey Some would say the largest part. Then come social activity and physical activity. But this isn't western medicine's model, which is why so many people die from degenerative diseases.

[cynthiadupuy]

Pattie maes and several of her staff were killed in feb 2010 by military personnel tracking her for the electronic harassment of usa citizens when she was caught doing an unauthorized scalar hypnotic session on a usa citizen

[1mslocum]

If in fact your lifestyle has contributed to this present health condition and it's not what you want, what do you have to loose. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. It's the only thing you DO have control over. I am now a retired vegan and numbers have not gone up, I believe I did this.

[Silhouette93]

"Danny Hills makes "

TED, you've spelled his name wrong in the video description.

[mike6459]

unless the money generated from proteomics can surpass convential cancer treatments it won't see the light of day

[GrimSoul66]

Poor Dannys having a hard time catching his breath

[twistedbass15]

Hemp oil ?

[Saerain]

@twistedbass15 Is tasty and nutritious, but what about it?

[twistedbass15]

@Saerain cure for cancer ?

[Aresftfun]

absolutely brilliant.

[MCrushala]

Gerson Therapy activates the body's natural healing powers and can heal most cancer and heart diseases. Look it up, there is hope. It's all about the vegies and fruits baby! oh, and some coffee enemas. no biggie.

[jrscott3011]

@dalyom37 So how does one identify the source if you don't study the processes occurring between the genes? I agree that one would need to identify the source to solve the problem, but how do you find the problem?

[Reasonabledoctor]

You are incorrect in saying "It is the gene that produces the protein", since many proteins are produced by post-translational modification by other proteins.

Which therapies does he list that sound ""airy fairy" to you? As far as I know, all of the ones that he mentions have been shown to effect the translation of genes into proteins.

[dalyom37]

@Reasonabledoctor I think you are getting a bit mixed up. Genes code for amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins. Post-translational modifications can, just as the name suggests, modify the protein.

At 18.40 he mentions "Don't eat that day" to aid your healing. I think this is "airy fairy"

[Reasonabledoctor]

@dalyom37 Since we know that many cancer cells shift their glucose metabolism from oxidative phosphorylation to aerobic glycolysis, "don't eat that day", which he suggests in combination with chemo and radiation therapy, is a very plausible component of a systems treatment of cancer.

Since proteins modify the proteins, your statement that "It is the gene that produces the protein" is incorrect. The gene controls the first step in producing the protein, but proteins control the later steps.

[dorian1010]

@Reasonabledoctor Well if you wanted to be really pedantic you would say that genes are the blueprints for the protein. The expression of proteins is controlled to a large extent by signal transduction pathways, assembly of transcription factors, epigenetics and of course post-translational modification. In fact the only way in which a gene could control its expression is through its promoter region either causing increased or diminished transcription.

[TheOriginalEntz]

@dalyom37 ad hominem attacks - a sure sign that the person has not looked into the issue and is simply fighting

[sqbsbear]

@dalyom37 funny how you presume to know more about the causes of cancer than this professor at USC (among other credentials and accolades), I think you're oversimplifying his idea to bolster your argument which is a very stubborn point of view and method of approaching cancer.

[michaelbailes]

Sounds a bit like TCM and Ayurvedic models

[KittyGotSued]

I'm even more disappointed when seeing how many people like this video and think it's a great informative talk.

TED should again be ashamed for asking someone who's good at presenting instead of someone who's actually giving a meaningful talk. This guy is presenting a lot of nonsense and trying to ridicule established facts. He doesn't know what he talks about.

[KittyGotSued]

btw. It isn't a surprise he doesn't have any background in biology at all, it shows.

[KittyGotSued]

He really thinks that theories rarely turn out to be true in biology, this is false, this happened and still happens a lot. Danny really tries his best undermining the science of biology while he doesn't really understand it. He even uses straw man arguments for genetics, this guy is sad. TED has been going down lately, this video fits perfectly in the downward spiral.

[KittyGotSued]

Well, he was wrong about genetics; genes are NOT the parts list, it does say how things are connected and where which bodypart goes.

Maybe he is making a statement about embryology but even then it's wrong.

He's also entirely wrong about Darwin depending on Mendel, Darwin never even knew his work, which is obvious when reading "on the origin of species". And it's not the only theoretical construct that turned out to be true. Germ theory?

[maxf69]

@KittyGotSued His point is worth making - genes being misunderstood by too many to be THE answer to complex diseases to socio-biological-econoimc phenomena like intelligence/behaviours. They are not. If we started thinking of genes more like a shopping list and less like the cause of all these consequences it would be step towards properly understanding the real role genes, proteins and society play in illness and health.

(He cites germ theory/infectious disease in the talk by the way).

[dgmoocher]

This makes too much sense. It needs to be rejected immediately, or at least put off 75 years. The pharmaceutical industry isn't finished yet.

[notreveh]

Only 4188 views in such an awesome video and millions and millions of views in a Justin Bieber video?! Something is wrong with the world...

[ivnat77]

A lot of things are wrong. Instead of using money for helpful purposes they are invested into "military solutions to bring democracy and freedom". It is harder to find the real causes and much easier and more profitable "to mop the floor"...

I bet those millions that watch sweet hermaphrodite Bieber and buy his CDs, all have come across cancer. But rather sing a stupid song, pray some superficial creatures when at least you can educate yourself.

Thanks for your work, Ted's guests!

[OcularPolitics]

@notreveh well, "proteomics" sounds complicated, hurts tiny brains... x3

[RT0BG]

@notreveh thats because there is many many youtube like sites. In my country (7000 000 ppl)we have our vesion of youtuve and that clip have 40 000 views. So - youtube #####

[Marxama]

Incredible. Absolutely incredible. It's amazing to be alive today and see all the progress happening in all different areas around us. Onwards, humanity!

[SuperiorApostate]

the talk is good but he speaks through he was underwater or something it annoys the hell out of me and makes me physically feel uncomfortable a bit.

[Fenr1rblu3]

In the end he said "Custom Treatment" for cancer. I believed that it is already started as Pharmacogenomics? With the idea being each person's genome is difference and hence, the treatment should be different too (as shown in 11:16).

In addition, I was wondering if the way he phrase the treatment, even he said "Surgery" "radiation" and others. That is a treatment and that is NOT helping the body killing them. It is us who kill it. Maybe he nervous so he use wrong analogy. BUT I still like this

[meotaku2]

@LookingGlass78. It was just talk. No examples of how they had differentiated between different cancers using their technology.

[uiuiuiseraph]

This sounds expensive. I don't think this will be the medicine for the average people, but for the richer ones. =/

[Jerkix]

@uiuiuiseraph

All cancers will eventually curable for the individual, at least for those with money. But as the technology progresses, it will filter down to the "average" person.

[luckynacho]

Wait, did the guy at 7:10 just drink water in the lab?

O.O

[Jotto999]

All right! Let's cure cancer!

[Ko252]

I hate to say it, but I wasnt that impressed by this talk, even though I liked the lecturer and his idea. The reason is because he seems to be incorrect on some points. For instance, cancer is not divided by organ, but by cells. Further, it is arranged by immunnohistochemical properties. Further on, we know the reasons (or partly) of some cancer, like retinoblasoma and cervix cancer, etc.

[ThisSentenceIsFalse]

@Ko252 your intellect is getting in the way of your intellect...

[Ko252]

@ThisSentenceIsFalse Or my study is.

[ThisSentenceIsFalse]

@Ko252 Awesome. I bet you'll be on TED one day with an even more promising cancer theory. But why advertise whether one is impressed or not by some talk bc of disagreements over details that don't really matter all that much to the main thesis of the presentation? What is one's thoughts over the promise of proteomic vs genomic approach to cancer theory? Mentioning whether one is impressed or not is just ego inflation and snobby and doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.

[Ko252]

@ThisSentenceIsFalse Perhaps I will be. Regardless my advertisement. Do you lecture everybody else, that might be impressed by this lecture and make a statement about it, also? Diagreements over detail that dont matter? Of course they matter. He is promoting an idea to change the way medicine understands cancer. When his argumentations, regardless of how good they might be, are incoherent with the current understanding,they doesnt seem that impressive. What does your ad hominem attack

[ThisSentenceIsFalse]

@Ko252 This is funny but I've had a change of heart. Our discussion of course will go nowhere as they always do. But I've been self-reflecting, and I was like, so what if I don't like snobbishness, why do I have to point it out? Why do I care? Isn't it snobby of me to point out the snobbiness in others? I must be really insecure to be so offended by it in the first place. Who cares if I think someone is snobby? You're right, that doesn't contribute anything either. Ah well, life is life.

[Ko252]

@ThisSentenceIsFalse Cheers for our snobbishness.

[ThisSentenceIsFalse]

@Ko252 Good luck on your research. Hope it produces fruit.

[Ko252]

@ThisSentenceIsFalse Good luck with your inner study. Hope it produces fruit, as well.

[Ko252]

@ThisSentenceIsFalse contribute with?

[Grim4566]

The bum bum bum bum bum is like taking infinite pictures and putting them togehter.

[DeepAbsentia]

Lol only now i noticed.. A religious nut asking for you to do the math.

[DeepAbsentia]

It's incredible to see how many people sort of give up understanding at one point and and start to throw rocks at science, simply because there are stuff to be discovered. You can measure the stupidity that way, at what point it's more convenient to believe than to find out.

[KimoLovesJesusLoves]

i think im going to study biotechnology :D

[KemaTheAtheist]

@LookingGlass78

It's definitely awesome, but cancer is more complicated than that. Some cancers simply won't have a cure because any drug that would fix it would cause havoc through the rest of the body, or the drug can't get into the cell because it is too large, or it produces toxic metabolites, or any number of other issues.

ADME-Tox is ridiculously complicated. Even with all of that information, the conclusion might still be "we can't do anything for you."

[Neylonx]

@KemaTheAtheist something causes cancer, therefore it can be stopped. it may take a while, it may be expensive, it may be inefficient, but its definitely possible.

[KemaTheAtheist]

@Neylonx

"something causes cancer"

Mistakes in teh biochemistry of a cell... unless you're suggesting this technique will find a way for us to prevent chemical reactions, which for the most part are based on some kind of random probability to happen and even more random probabilities of up-regulation and down-regulation of these reactions, to prevent mistakes in the cell without breaking any other processes in the cell, there won't be a way to completely prevent it.

[richardcadbury]

3:44 Hang on a minute.... I thought Darwin didn't come up with genes at all, but had a vauge idea about "mixing bloods", which was wrong.

Is this correct?

[DeviantincTV]

@richardcadbury as far as I know you are correct. He got confused as he though it would dilute favourable traits over time, not concentrate them....

[Neylonx]

@richardcadbury i think he just means that they were aware of some mechanism that allowed inheritable traits.

[richardcadbury]

@Neylonx Makes sense. Thanks!

[Neylonx]

i know it wasnt really what he was saying, but if humans did ever manage to create basically a software model of a human, with every function, protein and synapse part of the model, would that count as life?

i guess it would at least help decide whether we did have a soul or anything like that.

[DeviantincTV]

@Neylonx nice question! May I suggest you read 'Accelorando' by Charles Stross (available free in digital copies online). My own opinion is that it WOULD count as life (and I suspect that early AI will be something along these lines), but I don't think it will necessarily be an exact copy of whoever is being modelled. Such a model of me I do not think it would be able to 'predict' my actions, else I would have to stop believing in free-will and would become a mechanical determanist...

[Neylonx]

@DeviantincTV i dont think it could predict your actions unless it also had the environment simulated from your birth to the future.

personally, i dont think free will exists. To me it would suggest that something was affecting the chemicals in our body other than physics, and im not very religious.

but then, the human brain is affected by so many millions of things that nobody could ever predict what you will do perfectly, and im happy with that.

[DeviantincTV]

@Neylonx I'm not religious, but I do believe we have a certain amount of freewill. I personally suspect it comes from the complexity of interrelated systems. I'm not a mechanical determanist though either, which would require I believed that if we re-set the universe and replayed it would all end up the same. Minute changes would lead to larger changes all up the line. This is 'chaos theory' I suppose. Some of the universe is probabilistic and I think that gives the gap for free will....

[KemaTheAtheist]

@Neylonx

"would that count as life?"

No. That would just be simulated life. We can model a star incredibly well... that doesn't mean we actually created a star. If you want created life, go talk to J. Craig Venter.

"i guess it would at least help decide whether we did have a soul or anything like that."

How the hell would it do that?

[Neylonx]

@KemaTheAtheist if you simulated every last biological part of a person, then surely that programme would become self aware, be able to reproduce, move around its virtual environment, it would have to virtually respire, excrete, etc, etc.

what seperates that from life?

with the soul thing, well for one thing theoretically the brain wouldnt work.

whats with the aggressive tone, i dont believe in souls, i was just wondering whether something thats basically human is alive.

[KemaTheAtheist]

@Neylonx

It still wouldn't have a metabolism, because the computer wouldn't be creating it's own energy and wouldn't be able to maintain its own homeostasis because it has no way to intake it's own food. i.e. Unplug it, and the simulation stops. If it was in a robot like Bender from Futurama, who intakes alcohol to fuel it's own power cells, then you might have a point.

[Neylonx]

@KemaTheAtheist i meant in a simulation. imagine you simulate an environment that accounts for every single molecule and function in every plant, animal and weather condition. you then put in the simulation of a human. It has a brain complex enough to think for itself, it can do literally everything a person can do. If it doesnt find food, it dies. it ages, it has to reproduce, it has to respire, it has to avoid danger.

im not saying im right, i'm just wondering.

[KemaTheAtheist]

@Neylonx

"im not saying im right, i'm just wondering."

That's fine. I'm just telling you as a computer scientist and bioinformaticist, it's still just a simulation. No matter how accurate it is, the life processes aren't really happening. It's not really maintaining homeostasis, creating new cells, etc.

[KemaTheAtheist]

@Neylonx

"with the soul thing, well for one thing theoretically the brain wouldnt work."

ROFL. First, you meant to say "hypothetically," not "theoretically." Second, there's never been anything to suggest a soul exists. There's never even been a firm definition of the soul, let alone a reason to postulate the brain wouldn't work without one.

As to the aggressive tone, you're just reading it that way because I tend to be concise when I type, so what I say isn't misinterpreted.

[Neylonx]

@KemaTheAtheist you're not being very concise, you're talking about comments we've moved on from.

and anyway, if you read it properly you would know that i clearly said i dont believe in souls.

and i dont think the difference between hypothetically and theoretically matters when talking about spiritual stuff which could never really be either.

it was just a point, if you perfectly simulated a brain, and it didnt work, that would indicate something else that you couldnt simulate is around.

[KemaTheAtheist]

@Neylonx

"you're not being very concise, you're talking about comments we've moved on from"

Concise means to the point. It doesn't matter when the comment I'm responding to was made.

[KemaTheAtheist]

@Neylonx

"i dont think the difference between hypothetically and theoretically matters when talking about spiritual stuff"

It very much matters because the context of hypothetical vs. theoretical is VERY different, not the least point of which is that to be hypothetical, you have to be falsifiable.

At this point, the concept of a soul doesn't even meet that, let alone postulating what it's effects would be on something which has never suggested the need for a soul to operate.

[nikanj]

Gatacca!

[defect530]

his breathing is annoying. sounds like he's choking on air.

[dootu]

@defect530 It's probably pretty annoying for him also :P

[meb025]

Amen! Genomics gets all the rap... I think the future is proteomics! I feel like genomics hasnt lived up to its hype. Could be helpful in personalizing medicine and elucidating certain metabolic pathways that may help/hinder drug efficicacy. Getting rid of the trial and error way docs prescribe different brands of drugs... but proteomics is really gonna give u a report card of how ur body is doing. BTW, is someone could figure out how to purify proteins cheaply, man, ud win a Nobel prize!

[hirubhaiambani]

Cancers Are Heterogeneous. Parts Of The Same Tumor May Be Different At The Genome And Proteome Level. Personalized Therapy For A Specific Person, For A Specific Protein, Would Be Difficult (Not Impossible) To Design Considering The Heterogeneity.

Also, One Should Not Forget That Most Cancers Are Rapidly Evolving Beasts. They Have Managed To Survive This Far And Will Definitely Try To Adapt And Survive Treatment Regimens - Think Of Cancer Recurrence. This Fact Should Also Be Considered.

[DeviantincTV]

@hirubhaiambani Why Are You Capitalising Every Word? It Makes It Look Like You Are Some Sort Of Megalomaniacal Fruitcake Who Would Like To Make Their Posts Appear Like Words From God. It Is Usual To Only Capitalise The Beginning Of Sentences Or Names. This Is As Annoying As ThE PEopLE ThAT MiX Up THeIr CApITalS oR PEOPLE WHO ALWAYS SHOUT!

[hirubhaiambani]

@DeviantincTV : I Accidentally Hit 'Shift' Often....There Seems To Be A Pattern...LOL... And I Use '.....' Often....And The Word 'And' Too....And I Could Not Agree More With The Megalomaniacal Fruitcake..... But Dont Agree With The God Thing....And...

Does That Make Me Obnoxious?.... Well, I Really Dont Care....I Am Happy With My Life Trying To Cure Cancer ....And...I Hope Everybody Is Happy With Their Respective Lives....Irrespective Of What Others Say... :)

Cheers!

[dylanlawless1]

I'd like to nominate this for best talk this year.

For the ideas, research and presentation. 

[1marcelo]

The idea is appealing and well presented with the house analogy. However, there are plenty of examples in which a mutation of a single gene in mice and also in humans would result in tumors in a single tissue or in a defined set of tissues. Some cancers might be a system problem but definitely not every type of cancer.

[DavidEdwardSchnell]

YOUTUBE.COM IS A CANCER ON GOOGLE.COM. IT WILL DIVEST FROM GOOGLE.COM IT WILL CHOOSE ITS OWN DESTINY IT WILL CHOOSE WHETHER TO GO SOVERIGN WEALTH, GO PRIVATE OR LIST PUBICLY ON A BOURSE. IT WILL CHOOSE WHETHER TO LIST ON NIKKEI, SHANGHAI, NYSE, CAC, OR WHATEVER. YOUTUBE .COM WILL BE FREE OF GOOGLE.COM!!!

[Shalek]

Now they just need a computer program that looks at the picture and is able to interpret it. If they don't already have it.

[shakyl008]

mice have rights too! :P

[wazroady]

@shakyl008 so do cows , rem that when you eat your next cheezbuger

[consummateVssss]

Great talk with great analogies of paradigm shifting ideas, this is what TED is all about

[De4sher]

@consummateVssss doesn't it seem to you like the guy didn't actually know a lot about what he was saying? I mean i feel i know a lot more about canced than he did.

His idea was great! simulate your personal cells with your personal proteins, and see how you can get them to do the natural thing your body does

the sad thing is we don't really have the computational power for that now. Maybe in a few decades. At this time, we're using hundreds of thousands of PC's to simulate not really that much

[consummateVssss]

@De4sher it seemed like he was dumbing down everything so a layman could understand it, like cmon he was the one that built that machine you think he would know something about how it works.

I think he was talking about using the data from the machine he built to compare cancer patients and their treatments, not to create a simulation of protein intra and extra-communication using cloud computing

[xiaohui624]

@De4sher

He does say that he didn't know anything about cancer until he worked on this project- at around 12+ minutes.

[chessfan6]

@consummateVssss no, it's not. This is what you want TED to be about, it is what all the people who comment saying TED talk A or B sucks cuz it doesn't have scientific concepts and new ideas... TED talks include technology, entertainment and design. If you set your mind that this is the way all TED talks should be, then you are bound for disappointment...

[Neylonx]

@chessfan6 yes TED talks include technology, entertainment and design. which is annoying when recently, there has been a fair amount of talks with nothing to do with any of that.

[consummateVssss]

whered the 720p go? for such good quality content the video quality is always shit

[austpom333]

Good on him - you have to try - i have herd of people changing there diet and the cancer gos away

[ThunderPreacher]

This smart and likable Danny Hills knows all kinds of stuff about proteins except that he is eating too much proteins (and fats) himself and is creating an unhealthy body that is more prone to cancer and other diseases. Here is another approach: how to prevent it? How about eating mainly the healthiest food (fruits and vegetables), exercise, relaxation, toxic free foods and environment, sun, equal distribution of wealth and resources and living in balance with the environment and each other?

[KemaTheAtheist]

@ThunderPreacher

If you're fat, it's because you ate too many calories. It doesn't matter if I did it on meat or candy. If I ate 5000 calories a day of fruit, I'd still get fat.

Humans are omnivores. A well-balanced diet of all the things the body needs, which includes fats and saturated fats which are used heavily in the brain for proper function, is what keeps the body healthy, so how about taking your Hippie BS elsewhere?

[ThunderPreacher]

@KemaTheAtheist Mr. Atheist did I insult your god called science? Decades of scientific cancer research funding did not cause cancer to be extinct but the fact is that cancer is still ever rising. If you think I am against research think again. But why should I accept a talk about cancer from someone who is out of breath in 3 seconds and clearly does not know what good health is in the first place? The human body is a terrific organism, if you feed it junk it will become junk. Do the math.

[KemaTheAtheist]

@ThunderPreacher

"that cancer is still ever rising."

And so is the average lifespan. What do you think it is? We're not eating correctly, or that we're living far beyond what our bodies were build to withstand and as telomeres breakdown, so does our cells' ability to maintain proper function. That the older these cells get, the more likely they are to make mistakes, and turn cancerous?

[KemaTheAtheist]

@ThunderPreacher

"Decades of scientific cancer research funding did not cause cancer to be extinct"

A statement like this only shows you have no idea just how complex cancer is.

"But why should I accept a talk about cancer from someone who is out of breath in 3 seconds and clearly does not know what good health is in the first place?"

When cancer is a biological issue, and the guy studies biology? Yes.

[itanimullitenretni]

@KemaTheAtheist

Seriously, typical illogical religious person. That would be like if a heroin addict told you not to do heroin, and you replied, "Why should I listen to you, you're a heroin addict."

[KemaTheAtheist]

@ThunderPreacher

"if you feed it junk it will become junk."

No. If you don't give it what it needs, it will become junk. There's a reason that a lot of people that go vegetarian or vegan become anemic. There's a reason why people that go on the Pritikin's diet get depressed.

cont...

[KemaTheAtheist]

cont 2

If you eat 2000 calories a day of just Burger King or just fruits and vegetables, you're still going to be unhealthy (probably in different ways) because neither of those is the comprehensive diet the human body needs.

Diet is WAY more complex than you're making it out to be, and your explanation that essentially boils down to "don't eat meat and you won't get cancer" is annoying to those of us that do understand how complex it really is.

[GHortaV]

This is weird, it's like watching a truck driver discussing quantum mechanics...

[vanmaren962]

To me, the approach is not entirely surprising

What was, was the ability for 2d gels to be read at the level of isotope specificity ... Does anyone know how long that has been around?

[RazielKain]

Please correct my if I am wrong, I don't have an MD

BUT Hillis is presenting a new way to monitor and measure proteins which is great

he said "proteins are the way your cells communicate"

BUT If i am not mistaken cancer is a disease in the cell, the reason why cancer cells don't die on their own is that the apoptosis mechanism WITHIN the cell is damaged and it has nothing to do with communication between cells

Am I completely mistaken or has research in fact nothing to do with cancer? oO

[stealthbadger]

@RazielKain You're almost completely mistaken. Remember: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[RazielKain]

@stealthbadger You feel like expanding on that? ^^

Just saying "You are wrong" doesn't help me one bit

[stealthbadger]

@RazielKain proteins don't just move between cells, they move within the cells first (in fact, that's where almost all are made) - and cancerous tissues produce different proteins from healthy cells. Not insanely different, but different enough that being able to track proteins at this resolution probably lets them identify pre-cancerous cells much earlier in the process, and therefore provides more information about what causes it in the first place.

[siegfried182005]

@RazielKain

To give you an example: cancer cells secrete angiogenesis factors that promote the growth of blood vessels to bring blood to the conglomerate of cancer cells. This is one of the most important key factors that allows a cancer not only to further develop, but to also spread itself trow the blood vessels to other organs and so metastasizing. In your body cancer cells will always develop...and it is up to extracellular factors (and intracellular for that matter) to annihilate them.

[goog2k]

WOW!!! I'm impressed. What a wonderful scientific mind. BRAVO! . . . and a terrific talker to boot.

[tbyte]

Alleluia , they've come to the conclusion that tons of 'alternative scientists' were talking for 10+ years, that you need to just help the body heal itself . But the dumb 'medical' old farts refused it. The old farts are probably dead now, I hope those comparatively new guys will push the medicine truly ahead and will not loose tons of money and time on some magical anti-cancer pill.

[nehorlavazapalka]

@tbyte huh?

[sinprelic]

@tbyte 99% of medicine focuses on the body healing itself. i dont think you are serious when you say that the 'old generation of doctors' want to find a cure for disease that works like an *antiserum*. i also dont think you are resourceful enough to understand cellular biology. you phrase it as if alternative medicine is absolutely more superior to pharmacological solutions, which is almost never the case.

[tbyte]

@sinprelic Wasn't talking about alternative medicine but alternative thinking about the problem. Somebody have said that the science goes ahead from grave to grave of the old farts (or something like that ;) )

[sinprelic]

@tbyte the modern scientific community is able to think pretty alternatively about things. maybe paradigm shifts were difficult a hundred years ago, but now science has improved to largely eliminate personal difficulties with adapting to new frameworks. old farts nowadays are up to date, perhaps even more than the new farts, generally speaking.

[tbyte]

@sinprelic If You really think that, You have no idea what You are talking about. And I'm not talking about medicine only, but astronomy , physics , biology and so on. The 'mainstream' scientists are as bone heads as the 'mainstream' scientists were 100, 200, 500, 1000 years ago and it always will be that way.

[sinprelic]

@tbyte i can only speak for biologists and they are perhaps slightly more stubborn than an average worker (secretary, mineworker, businessman, you name it) but that is in the interest of science. if a theory doesnt work, nobody will stick to it, especially good scientists. good science is to be impersonal about the result. from what i've seen in the field of microbiology, there are so many more good scientists than there used to be 20 years ago. i am assuming the trend exists for all of science.

[tbyte]

@sinprelic You nailed it - 'Good scientists'. The problem is that no more than 10% (or less) from the mainstream scientists are actually good (and by good I mean a people that can push the science ahead, open minded and with new ideas - some can call them geniuses or some sort). The others are still very important for the steady improvement of the things we know. (continue)

[tbyte]

@sinprelic ...(from the previous) But when there is a need of a big leap that requires a really open mind (say the earth is orbiting the sun not the other way around) the 90+% of the so called mainstream scientists are actually a drag for this new idea. And it's mostly because they are not really open minded and they will only accept what they were taught in school.

[sinprelic]

@tbyte you are making a huge misconnection here. good scientist =/= genius ; science =/= public belief ; bad scientist =/= majority opinion.

i'm afraid you are judging by medieval standards. i've recently entered the world of the scientific community and those people are just far more brillant than the random shmuck off the street, and in amazingly huge numbers too. the problem i think is that you do not have a subscription to any serious journal and i think you are judging via past prejudices.

[tbyte]

@sinprelic If 'past' is from 1-2 years ago then You are right :)

[sinprelic]

@tbyte you sound like a soccer mom now :o)

[tbyte]

@sinprelic It's called FOOTBALL, REPEAT AFTER MEEE FOOOOOOOT BAAAAL ;)

[sinprelic]

@tbyte you sound like a british soccer mom :o)

[tbyte]

@sinprelic nah , not british, just non-US ;)

[sinprelic]

@tbyte sorry for the ad hominem but from my experience only really adolescent brits are offended by the soccer/football simile. now again, excuse me, but i will assume that if you are juvenile enough to be irritated by a simile, you are ignorant enough about the realities and every-day workings of the scientific community that i am part of. aye. science is so much better than it was 20 years ago, and 20 years before that - let alone since the middle ages, which you are obviously caricaturing.

[tbyte]

@sinprelic Brits my be offended but the other notion don't even know what the hell soccer is anyway.

For the other part I can only say - Dreams :)

[gaiagale]

Hmmm! ...cancering ...so in a sentence I am cancering  as opposed to ...What?!?...I am growing ...I'll think about this

thanks for sharing

[BrutusAlbion]

Yay for alternative thinking :) this man is truely thinking outside the box

[TragedyZ]

10th!

[InMooseWeTrust]

Cancer is caused by fungus.

[Exestenz]

@InMooseWeTrust WHAT WHAT WHAT

[Duderonimo]

2nd!

Finally an approach that makes sense and works on the source level not on the symptom!

A presentation that spreads hope!

[pjedinn]

Hmm... I'm going to start smoking. By the time I get cancer, there will be a cure.

I love this century!

[vanmartyr]

4th

[clongoram]

@Charles33333 No your not!

[TheLostD0ll]

@Charles33333 No one cares.

[thepianoaddict]

@Charles33333 omg you are actually the first person I have ever seen a comment of on youtube who actually is first @ commenting and saying so! most people are second or third lol :P

people who watch newscientist video's should watch this.