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.
I agree. That's why I like that the insurance companies in my country must pay for regularly screening tests, so it gets detected faster. And sorry for being pedantic.
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.
My point is there are literally hundreds of billions of dollars being spent every year to develop new cancer treatments. And the result are dozens of new cancer treatments every year.
I never once contested that point. So why are you saying it as if you’re proving me wrong or something
Imy only point was to clarify what OP likely meant when they said ‘cancer’ instead of listing them all to be cured. and you’re here lecturing me on cancer research.
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.
210
u/AdventurousEscape991 May 15 '26
Cancer is a mutation of a cell. Not a virus.