I'm just going to respond to a few of these: >>Response: Cancer has never been conquerable. Chemotherapy increased survival rates. This is a reference to the

I'm just going to respond to a few of these: >>Response: Cancer has never been conquerable. Chemotherapy increased survival rates. This is a reference to the confidence early researchers had, as a result of the rapid pace of progress. Your literal reading of it is disingenuous. >>Response: True, but misleading. Critical question: What treatment is being replaced? When nothing else worked, you might as well try something. An article is limited in the number of caveats it can include. It's pretty harsh to describe a pertinent fact: that human experimentation came much earlier 70 years ago, which in turn resulted in some rapid advances in cancer treatment, as "misleading", because it didn't outline every other contributing factor to the change. Also, there are cancers today that are 100% fatal. We don't see the rapid time from discovery to human use for drugs used for this class of cancer. >>Response: Among other things, if you just run a study and then try to find some benefit, you will ALWAYS find some benefit. This is hyperbole, and in any case, doesn't negate the point about the rising costs of doing human studies. So you start your comment with: >>Ways this article misuses statistics and history (lies): And all I see is you misreading the points made, or disagreeing with the implications of the points made. If you're going to accuse people of lying, you have a moral responsibility to be more rigorous with your arguments.