5 ms·
Journalism and poor science education are the primary culprits. Medical researchers find and publish results. The journalists sensationalize those results becau
by taylodl 4y ago
Journalism and poor science education are the primary culprits. Medical researchers find and publish results. The journalists sensationalize those results because the headlines sell. People don't understand the path from medical research to medical regimen and the checkpoints involved. Much of the research may be shown to have marginal efficacy in practice, may have side effects that are more harmful than beneficial and so on. The path from the research lab to your oncologist's practice often takes over a decade - if it ever makes it. That's how medical science works.
As others have noted, at least the pipeline isn't drying up. Lots of researchers are investigating many different aspects of cancer treatment and all are moving the needle ever so slowly. Even so, over the past forty years we have moved the needle quite a bit.
- verisimi 4y agoYou think there is less cancer today than in the past?
- taylodl 4y agoThat isn't the relevant question. The relevant question is were you to get cancer today what would your prognosis be versus what it would have been forty years ago? Some cancers from forty years ago that were essentially death sentences are successfully treated today with minimal impact to quality of life. Obviously that's not the case for all cancers, but it is for many of the most common cancers - which has been our focus. My point is year-over-year the progress has been slow and there's always reports of "breakthroughs" in cancer treatment. But if you look at the bigger picture you can see we've made serious strides in cancer treatment.