Comment by fizixer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by fizixer | Hacker News Reader

Great. But we need to tackle it at multiple levels, specifically prevention and not just treatment.

Furthermore, we need to develop a way of sustainable organ and blood availability. The only way I can see this happening is through synthetic/artificial means. What Organovo is doing is a good start, but they still need the matrix from an existing organ.

Here is what I see as ideal:

- Around the time a baby is born (before or after, or both), some stem cells, DNA samples etc are collected.

- We need a tech for storing those samples for decades, not years. Including a tech for "feeding" and growing them in a sustainable manner.

- Then we need to have a way to differentiate organs out of them.

- And be able to store working organs for decades, not years.

- And a tech to artificially grow, maintain, and store blood.

- And inject that person's immune system culture into those stored samples and organs on recurring basis. So that they are up-to-date with that person's immune system.

That means, if and when a person has organ failure, or is in need of blood, (s)he has the stuff ready from his/her own stash. No dependence on one another.

It's crazy and super-moonshot? yes. But it's a very realistic way forward. And it's a holy grail worth working towards.

Having cloned organs ready for transplant won't extend life as much as you think. A lot of this doesn't mean much if you can't replace a faulty circulatory system, which will inevitably cause organs to fail even if they are brand new.

Unfortunately, a circulatory system is practically impossible to replace. It would cost tens of millions of dollars and you'd have to already be in great shape to survive the very long recovery time. And then you do all this, only to die eventually, all the same.

I'm going by the assumption that, aside from genetic reasons, a circulatory system can in principle be kept in good shape through diet and exercise.

I think the first step is to focus on things that we don't have a solution for. Having good diet and exercise is a fairly comprehensive solution, no matter how hard it might be to maintain a lifelong strict regimen (as long as you're able to have such a regimen, your chances of the circulatory system going bad are slim to none).

In the case of organ failure, we don't even have anything other than reliance on organ availability from others.

For your first 2 bullet points, the technology and providers exist already, and it's somewhat of a big business. For my kids, we used ViaCord. The collection of the Umbilical cord blood cost us about $4k per child, and the storage is supposed to work for at least 20 years (most likely they don't claim more because they don't have the history to prove it, not because the cells will somehow denaturate at the 20y point).

[1] https://www.viacord.com/why-bank/benefits-of-cord-blood/?gcl...

That may help in some cases, but cancer specifically represents a broad class of diseases and treatment isn't always that simple. Blood-based cancers and later stages (having spread to multiple parts of the body) become more challenging to treat. Additionally, the disease can mutate even with a patient so you might need different treatments depending on how your disease has changed.

This country (USA) can’t even agree to provide free universal vaccinations for children, how would they ever cover something like that for the masses? What you describe sounds like it would cost millions per person.

That sounded preposterous to me so I looked it up. I think it leans towards being false. Obamacare seems to require plans to cover them without copay, and if you don’t have health insurance, the CDC provides a free program to get vaccinations for kids.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/index.html

Bring 18 or under and uninsured is enough to qualify. To your credit, public awareness of this may not be everywhere.

Requiring people to buy something (insurance) and covering the cost only if their income is below a given level is not the same as providing it directly to everyone.

That’s not what this says? Either you have insurance and it must be covered or you don’t have insurance and it’s available for free through this program. Income is not a variable here.

In my hometown Columbus, Ohio, the county health department will provide free vaccinations if the parent states they are unable to pay anything. I don't know how common that is, but I don't generally consider our county or city governments to be particularly generous.

>prevention and not just treatment.

Unfortunately, this conflicts with "the economy".

Many of us are getting paid to produce cancer-causing products, such as:

* processed foods (most of the things you buy in a supermarket)

* most shampoos, cosmetics, soaps, detergents, cleaning products, etc.

* paraffin candles

* cigarettes and alcohol

* components of all these products and the byproducts of their production

* not to mention shit done on industrial scale

* the air, if you live in a populated area

* and so on.

If you really want to reduce your and your family's chances of getting cancer, you're doing your research and doing a lot of work to move away from the mainstream (which is still stuck in 1950's level of knowledge) on these habits, but most people are not, and just blindly trust the government and oversight bodies to protect them because it's "easier" and "cheaper" and "they wouldn't allow it to be sold if it was harmful". Years later: Surprise!

I'm thinking of ways to start groups of aquaponics to grow local and toxin free. Spending more time in the green is good, eating simple and fresh too.

The ~power of mainstream is high, it's not super easy to swim across the flow

No, it is not easy at all. And even in educated circles, your opinions will be in the minority, and cognitive dissonance will work against you too.

People hate finding out that they're wrong, and nobody wants to admit that they've been poisoning themselves and their family for decades.

It's either that or cancer, though...

I think it's more fear of doubt than being wrong. I'm sure if you come with a ready made solution they won't resist nearly as much.

Unfortunately, there is no easy solution at this time...

> most shampoos, cosmetics, soaps, detergents, cleaning products, etc.

Cosmetics are a bit of a black box, but what carcinogens are supposed to appear in soaps, shampoos, detergents, or most common cleaners?

Here is just one small example:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945593/

If you look at the ingredients of your average shampoo bottle, google each one, click the Wikipedia link, you will find many more.

Many of them will also have a number in the hazmat rhombus, which is also not a good thing.

Detergents and cleaners are just as much of a black box, if not more, as cosmetics, and the largest source of indoor air pollution.

> Many of them will also have a number in the hazmat rhombus, which is also not a good thing.

That doesn't mean they're carcinogenic, or even that they're especially harmful.

Even if by "a number in the hazmat rhombus" you specifically mean a number in the health square of the NFPA 704 [1] diamond, the health hazard of a substance is assessed based on the danger of exposure to a concentrated, pure form of that substance. Acetic acid rates a 3 out of 4 on that scale, for instance, because glacial acetic acid is quite corrosive -- but that doesn't mean that vinegar is dangerous.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFPA_704

That link you posted almost completely contradicts you. Here are a few choice bits:

> triclosan’s ability to behave as an estrogen antagonist also suggests that its presence in the body alongside estradiol may actually lower risk for cancer development [22,23]. However, whether triclosan raises or lowers risk of cancer through estrogen-related pathways, and possible effect modification by estradiol, have not been examined in human studies.

> Together, the results of these in vitro studies suggest that FAS inhibitors, such as triclosan, may be an effective inhibitor of cancer growth, though no study has examined whether triclosan reduces cancer growth or incidence in humans, or what co-factors may potentiate any effect.

> the results of animal studies to date have been mixed, showing null, inverse, and positive associations.

> Both short and long-term studies have examined triclosan following oral and dermal exposure, showing rapid excretion from the body and no evidence of toxicity, irritation, or thyroid hormone disruption

> [studies] have not addressed experimental findings that suggest triclosan’s estrogenicity may function to either stimulate or inhibit human estrogen-dependent cancer cell growth.

Basically, a bit of speculation regarding triclocan's estrogenicity, one positive animal result with apparently no human application, and a handful of weak evidence showing that it just might actually decrease cancers.

Detergent formulations, such as for dishes and laundry, are simple and entirely uncontroversial with regard to health and safety.

Except for parabens, I'm unaware of any ingredients in cosmetic soaps or shampoos that are plausibly suspected of even faint carcinogenic activity. I'm happy to consider any contradictory evidence you may have.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com