Mrna cure for cancer
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (78)
sorted by:
There are people who believe cancers are related to virii
Grok: The theory that cancer is caused by a viral infection suggests that certain viruses may trigger or contribute to the development of specific cancers by altering cellular processes. While not all cancers are viral, some viruses are known to play a role in oncogenesis. Here's a concise overview based on current knowledge:
Oncoviruses: Certain viruses, like Human Papillomavirus (HPV), Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV), Hepatitis B and C (HBV/HCV), and Human T-cell Lymphotropic Virus (HTLV-1), are linked to cancers. For example, HPV is strongly associated with cervical cancer, EBV with lymphomas, and HBV/HCV with liver cancer. These viruses can integrate into host DNA, disrupt tumor suppressor genes (e.g., p53 or Rb), or cause chronic inflammation, leading to uncontrolled cell growth.
Mechanism: Viruses may promote cancer by:
Evidence:
Limitations of the Theory: Not all cancers are linked to viruses. Most cancers arise from a combination of genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors (e.g., smoking, UV exposure, or random mutations). Only about 10-15% of global cancer cases are estimated to be virus-associated.
Historical Context: The idea dates back to the early 20th century when researchers like Francis Peyton Rous discovered the Rous sarcoma virus, which causes tumors in chickens, earning a Nobel Prize in 1966. This sparked interest in viral oncogenesis, though the broader "cancer is a virus" theory oversimplifies the disease.
Current View: Cancer is multifactorial, and while viruses are a significant cause in some cases, they are not a universal explanation. Research continues into other potential viral links (e.g., possible associations with breast or prostate cancer), but no definitive evidence supports a singular viral cause for all cancers
If we wanted a chat bot's "thoughts", we'd have asked it ourselves.
It's an effective way to consolidate multiple pages of information and put it into a quickly digestible form. It's nothing more than a search engine. I could have posted links but then troglodytes like you would complain about having to click links.
The statement I quoted is wrong. There is a viral element for some cancers. You can choose to ignore the grok.
If you were interested in proving the poster wrong, you could have just mentioned that HPV is linked to certain cancers. It's true and commonly known. If they doubted it, they can check for themselves.
Instead you posted AI spam that we're going to completely ignore.
The funny part is you and it are still completely wrong. Gizortnik said that cancers aren't viruses. You said "cancers are related to virii." You changed the claim to give an answer, that wasn't even your own, that didn't refute anything he said.
ALSO "virii" is not not the plural of virus. Even in Latin, it wouldn't be virii.
Here, in case this helps you:
Copilot:
If you actually wanted to contradict him, you'd want to focus on prophalactic vs. therapeutic vaccines, because vaccines aren't specifically preventative and aren't specifically for viruses.
Whilst we're tightening grammar and spelling; it's prophylactic.
No shade on you or the rest of your points, just that typo slapped me in the face and I couldn't help myself.
Thanks for the tips
Take your hallucinations and fuck right off.
You sound vaccinated
Mudblood projection on your part I'm sure.
Yes, I've heard that argument, but let's be clear that that's not what this person is saying because he's an idiot.