Not really, no. It’s only really cancer once the cells multiply uncontrollably. Yes, sometimes cells don’t properly perform apoptosis, but there are other mechanisms that will target and kill those precancerous cells. Only once those other mechanisms fail does it become true cancer.
Besides, even if this test did come back positive, they’d still have to identify a tumor and monitor. If you have a teeny-tiny benign tumor that isn’t hurting anything, the best course of action is to just leave it alone and monitor. Any surgical procedure risks spillage, which is basically human-induced metastasis.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
on 14 Jun 03:28
collapse
That makes sense if I’m understanding you correctly. You might have cancerous cells, but it’s not actually cancer.
Right. Like you might walk by someone with a cold, and inhale a small number of their virus particles. But your immune system can handle that. If you spend a lot of time with them face-to-face, the virus gets a foothold (because of inhaling more viruses, this part isn’t a perfect metaphor) and starts multiplying, it can overwhelm the first line of defense and become an infection.
The article says they’re detecting DNA shedding of genetic mutations. I think one example of this could be cancer caused by HPV should shed DNA that they could identify.
It’s probably different but that’s what I’m thinking from that line
Why should the world benefit from our taxpayer funded research? I want my taxes spent on training Americans so as to let the world watch (for free) fast running and swimming.
Am still waiting for a skipping event in the Olympics.
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 14 Jun 05:49
collapse
The world isn’t benefitting from your research, you benefit from the world’s research based off your own research, on and on it goes and we all get smarter and know more and strive towards bettering our condition, curing our ills and minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness for all.
At least in my opinion it’s why scientific research while a truly neutral morally activity and generally done as an end unto itself - from a broadly humanist standpoint - is worth pursuing, even when the immediate benefits aren’t seen by the shortsighted.
Trump also got the covid vaccine invented, produced, and distributed. It was probably the greatest thing he ever did but now he doesn’t even want to be associated with it. Alas. His lunacy knows no bounds.
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
on 14 Jun 07:21
collapse
Good point. On the other hand, Canada didn’t fare any better even without firing its pandemic response team. I suspect project warp speed would have been welcomed either way, even if it was more important in this timeline.
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
on 14 Jun 16:27
collapse
If everyone gets tested yearly until they die, this could total as much as most cancer treatments and suffering combined and it would probably still be better for everyone if nobody has to go through that anymore.
Bit misleading. Tumour-associated antigens can very easily be detected very early. Problem is, these are only associated with cancer, and provide a very high rate of false positives
They’re better used as a stepping stone for further testing, or just seeing how advanced a cancer is
That is to say, I’m assuming that’s what this is about, as i didnt rwad the article. It’s the first thing I thought of when I heard “cancer in bloodstream”, as the other options tend to be a bit more bleak
Edit: they’re talking about cancer “shedding genetic material”, which I hate how general they’re being. Probably talking about proto oncogenes from dead tumour debris, but seems different to what I was expecting
threaded - newest
I thought cancer comes a goes all the time, wouldn’t that give a lot of people false positives and a start to the cascade of healthcare?
Not really, no. It’s only really cancer once the cells multiply uncontrollably. Yes, sometimes cells don’t properly perform apoptosis, but there are other mechanisms that will target and kill those precancerous cells. Only once those other mechanisms fail does it become true cancer.
Besides, even if this test did come back positive, they’d still have to identify a tumor and monitor. If you have a teeny-tiny benign tumor that isn’t hurting anything, the best course of action is to just leave it alone and monitor. Any surgical procedure risks spillage, which is basically human-induced metastasis.
That makes sense if I’m understanding you correctly. You might have cancerous cells, but it’s not actually cancer.
Right. Like you might walk by someone with a cold, and inhale a small number of their virus particles. But your immune system can handle that. If you spend a lot of time with them face-to-face, the virus gets a foothold (because of inhaling more viruses, this part isn’t a perfect metaphor) and starts multiplying, it can overwhelm the first line of defense and become an infection.
The article says they’re detecting DNA shedding of genetic mutations. I think one example of this could be cancer caused by HPV should shed DNA that they could identify.
It’s probably different but that’s what I’m thinking from that line
Look up extra-cellular vesicles. This is where the magic is.
What? This BETTER not be US funded Research! I DONT want MY Tax Dollars going to THIS when there’s SAD BILLIONAIRES still out there!
-LITERALLY everyone who Voted for Trump!
Why should the world benefit from our taxpayer funded research? I want my taxes spent on training Americans so as to let the world watch (for free) fast running and swimming.
Am still waiting for a skipping event in the Olympics.
The world isn’t benefitting from your research, you benefit from the world’s research based off your own research, on and on it goes and we all get smarter and know more and strive towards bettering our condition, curing our ills and minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness for all.
At least in my opinion it’s why scientific research while a truly neutral morally activity and generally done as an end unto itself - from a broadly humanist standpoint - is worth pursuing, even when the immediate benefits aren’t seen by the shortsighted.
Even if we were the only country researching…
I have heard GOP politicians saying something like “why should we fund a cure for a disease and everyone else benefits without spending a cent?”
Why doesn’t their national pride on the world stage extend beyond sport?
Because that wouldn’t make as much money.
Olympic gold medals don’t make money. It is for national pride. Even hosting the games does not always make money.
Actually I am Aussie. 12 years ago it was calculated that each gold medal costs us AU$12m (so about US$11m in today’s money). It embarrasses me.
smh.com.au/…/they-kill-us-for-their-sport-william…
I am no fan of Eurovision but it is good value for national pride:
Eurovision is funded by participating broadcasters and this contribution is a total of €6.2 million (£5.2 million), combined.
dailystar.co.uk/…/who-funds-eurovision-song-conte…
Only 6M €? For an event of that size that feels a lot cheaper than I would have thought.
Don’t forget that there is also income from advertising and ticket sales.
Trump also got the covid vaccine invented, produced, and distributed. It was probably the greatest thing he ever did but now he doesn’t even want to be associated with it. Alas. His lunacy knows no bounds.
Yes and no, warp speed only needed to exist in the form it did because Trump had fired the existing pandemic response team.
Good point. On the other hand, Canada didn’t fare any better even without firing its pandemic response team. I suspect project warp speed would have been welcomed either way, even if it was more important in this timeline.
“Canada’s per capita case rate has generally been less than half that of the US"
A million americans died of COVID (yes, some of them would have died without); but half a million would still be very bad.
Can someone clarify which blood test was used? I want to get tested every two years.
just go to an oncologist and get screened
source: i did cancer
Yes but, is it profitable?
Someone has to ask the real world questions
If everyone gets tested yearly until they die, this could total as much as most cancer treatments and suffering combined and it would probably still be better for everyone if nobody has to go through that anymore.
Bit misleading. Tumour-associated antigens can very easily be detected very early. Problem is, these are only associated with cancer, and provide a very high rate of false positives
They’re better used as a stepping stone for further testing, or just seeing how advanced a cancer is
That is to say, I’m assuming that’s what this is about, as i didnt rwad the article. It’s the first thing I thought of when I heard “cancer in bloodstream”, as the other options tend to be a bit more bleak
Edit: they’re talking about cancer “shedding genetic material”, which I hate how general they’re being. Probably talking about proto oncogenes from dead tumour debris, but seems different to what I was expecting