4 ms·

If you are interested in more of the history behind the different cancer treatments that we have today, "The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer" is

If you are interested in more of the history behind the different cancer treatments that we have today, "The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer" is a fantastic book about it. Probably my favourite book of all time, a lot of parallels with the themes in this article about prevention being a huge contributor, and how recently we've had some success in very targeted cancer drugs.

oezi 5y ago
I can strongly second this. It is an amazing pop sci book. It tours history, it has the medical drama, it digs deep where other books just skimp the surface. You come away in awe of the ingenuity of this disease. Great book.
gregwebs 5y ago
If someone wants a different take on why cancer treatment has progressed very slowly, there is "Cancer, Incorporated" by Ralph Moss.
- refurb 5y ago
  Sounds like a conspiratorial book that blames the very companies that have created drugs that keep cancer patients alive.
- GhostVII 5y ago
  Treatment has progressed slowly because it turns out that it is extremely hard to find drugs that kill cancer cells and not regular cells, given that they are almost identical. It's not some big conspiracy, there is an incredible amount of money being spent on trying to find and develop these drugs. I'm sure there are some instances where drugs to treat very rare cancers were not entered into trials because the company didn't think it was profitable - the book actually lays out one of the examples of this. But that isn't really relevant to the overall fight against cancer. The reality is that we have limited resources to develop and test new drugs, and how profitable a new cancer drug will be is a somewhat reasonable proxy for how important it is to develop.
  - gregwebs 5y ago
    You might try reading the book before arguing against a straw man of it. With respect to drugs we have a big issue that we have a fundamentally flawed system where we only fund proper studies for drugs with patents. There are many cancer treatments with much more promising data behind them than the latest drug company drug. But these treatments can never get a large clinical trial funded to really prove that they work since there is no way to pay for the study.
    - chefkoch 5y ago
      Do you have an example for this?
      - gregwebs 5y ago
        In the mentioned book some examples that are given are Coley's toxins (a 100 year old treatment) that is highly effective for some patients. You can download a report on a particular cancer at mossreports.com and there are many pages detailing complementary treatments and the level of evidence for each of them. For example the supplements with the best evidence behind them for helping to treat most cancers are EGCg, Curcumin, Genistein, Resrevatrol, and Sulforaphane.

oezi 5y ago

I can strongly second this. It is an amazing pop sci book. It tours history, it has the medical drama, it digs deep where other books just skimp the surface. You come away in awe of the ingenuity of this disease. Great book.

gregwebs 5y ago

If someone wants a different take on why cancer treatment has progressed very slowly, there is "Cancer, Incorporated" by Ralph Moss.

refurb 5y ago
Sounds like a conspiratorial book that blames the very companies that have created drugs that keep cancer patients alive.
GhostVII 5y ago
Treatment has progressed slowly because it turns out that it is extremely hard to find drugs that kill cancer cells and not regular cells, given that they are almost identical. It's not some big conspiracy, there is an incredible amount of money being spent on trying to find and develop these drugs. I'm sure there are some instances where drugs to treat very rare cancers were not entered into trials because the company didn't think it was profitable - the book actually lays out one of the examples of this. But that isn't really relevant to the overall fight against cancer. The reality is that we have limited resources to develop and test new drugs, and how profitable a new cancer drug will be is a somewhat reasonable proxy for how important it is to develop.
- gregwebs 5y ago
  You might try reading the book before arguing against a straw man of it. With respect to drugs we have a big issue that we have a fundamentally flawed system where we only fund proper studies for drugs with patents. There are many cancer treatments with much more promising data behind them than the latest drug company drug. But these treatments can never get a large clinical trial funded to really prove that they work since there is no way to pay for the study.
  - chefkoch 5y ago
    Do you have an example for this?
    - gregwebs 5y ago
      In the mentioned book some examples that are given are Coley's toxins (a 100 year old treatment) that is highly effective for some patients. You can download a report on a particular cancer at mossreports.com and there are many pages detailing complementary treatments and the level of evidence for each of them. For example the supplements with the best evidence behind them for helping to treat most cancers are EGCg, Curcumin, Genistein, Resrevatrol, and Sulforaphane.