• Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
    link
    fedilink
    173 months ago

    So something I’ve always wondered is if it would be possible for a “stable” form of cancer to eventually metastasize an entire person, and then that person just becomes a walking living tumor but is entirely stable.

    • @kerrigan778
      link
      133 months ago

      Cancer is by definition not stable, if it’s stable it’s just tissue.

    • KairosOP
      link
      fedilink
      103 months ago

      I think that’s like asking if a fire can burn down an entire house but end up remodling it. Isn’t cancer defined by its destructive traits?

      • @AngryCommieKender
        link
        6
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I mean, not exactly. Cancer currently kills us because it figured out a version of immortality that will currently outperform your cells.

        It is theoretically possible for our cells to mutate in such a way that they have the specific genes that certain jellyfish have, allowing them to become “immortal” by not continuing ad infinatum, and instead having the cell “rebirth” itself like the legendary Phoenix.

        Rather than what cancer currently does, which seems to be, a cell forgets how to die and starts replicating its mutated form out of control.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          53 months ago

          I wouldn’t say ‘outperform’… Cell death is a deliberate and desirable feature. Without it, we’d be unable to repair damage.

          • @AngryCommieKender
            link
            33 months ago

            I was using outperform in the evolutionary sense. As in they stick around