• crapwittyname
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I mean thanks, but I don’t think you’ve got that right. It’s a runaway mutation. Stopping all runaway mutations is hypothetically possible.
    Saying it’s impossible is loser talk.

    • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      “Stopping all runaway mutations is hypothetically possible”

      Yeah and putting a dyson sphere around the sun is “hypothetically possible” but what you’re suggesting is that we take into account every aspect and detail of a cell, every possible change it’s “programmed” to do, account for it, then create a medicine that can target every single one of those possible changes regardless of the person and their unique parameters, and both revert them to “factory settings” while also not interrupting the ones that have no mutated changes.

      Right now we have “bombs” to hit generalized areas and hope for the best, CRISPR is trying to act as more guided munitions and we’ve seen good progress, but a cure would be a 100% accurate bullet that inflicts no casualties and kills the target every time flawlessly, and that is such a scientifically advanced concept it sounds like magic.

      • crapwittyname
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        A certain Arthur C Clarke quote springs to mind.
        I feel like neither of us are really qualified to go that much further in the discussion. The sources I’ve read (reputable peer reviewed, or resumes of) tell me that the cure is hypothetically possible, there are things which link all cancers together, including telomere properties and behaviour. Improving our knowledge of these areas is critical when aiming for the cure. In a perfect world, there would be enough funding for this, and more scientists could choose that path. The fact that it’s not a viable career because of financial concerns has been lamented to me by two researchers, in person. These are my friends and they’re incredibly knowledgeable and I believe them. You don’t have to, but you’ll have to do better than this to convince me they’re wrong.

        • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          By your own admission you’re wrong. It’s a theory. There is no proven evidence that suggests it’s possible outside of the fact we have no evidence that suggests it’s impossible. You might be right (some day) but right now you’re wrong, there’s nothing that says you could be correct, and your entire premise is based off the idea that some day in the distance future it could come to fruition which is the case for just about every single thing we’ve imagined but have yet to create. Convincing you that you’re wrong is irrelevant, I’m trying to convince the one person besides us that reads this that you’re wrong.

          • crapwittyname
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            By your own admission you’re wrong.

            No! I’ve not admitted I’m wrong. I will be glad to if it turns out to be so.
            The whole point of R&D is to discover and develop new things which weren’t possible yesterday. Your argument seems to be that because we don’t know how to do something right now, it’s impossible. There are endless examples of people in history saying some technology we now take for granted was impossible.