5 ms·

Disclaimer: I am not an expert and basically just some random internet person. I've read several recently-published books on cancer, including "The Emperor of a

Disclaimer: I am not an expert and basically just some random internet person. I've read several recently-published books on cancer, including "The Emperor of all Maladies," (http://amzn.to/xr2Mx1 http://amzn.to/xr2Mx1) which I highly recommend. We keep thinking we have a lock on curing cancer, but it continues to be very elusive. As I understand it, using automation to "debug" individual cancers is scalable. That is, reading a cancer, adapting to it, and creating a vaccine is something that can be done with increasing levels of detail as automation increases. So if they only show a 1% improvement, it's a strategy definitely worth continuing. This is very much like the hacker who keeps playing around with a broken method until it works -- only it's all automated. It very well may be that we "learn" how to contain/control many cancers without having a traditional understanding of them at all. Fascinating approach, and much different from previous forays. Watch this space. Given the history, my money says it's still going to be a long, hard slog -- perhaps decades, but still, a promising approach.

loceng 15y ago
I would hope we eventually start to put money towards prevention to reduce cancer to begin with. Prevention will always be less cost and less suffering.
- darkmethod 15y ago
  Roswell Park employees also man the phones for the NYS Smokers Quitline. http://www.nysmokefree.com/ http://www.nysmokefree.com/ An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
- freehunter 15y ago
  Trouble is, preventing cancer is hard when we don't even know what causes cancer. Obviously smoking is a big one and people have been working hard to great success to eliminate it. How about cooked vegetables? Raw vegetables? Processed sugar? Burnt pieces of meat? Cell phones/wifi? Sunlight? Artificial light? The reason it seems like everything causes cancer is because everyone is at risk for cancer. Living is a cancer risk. A lot of people don't die from cancer because they don't live long enough, but prevention will never happen. Cancer is inevitable.
  - grhino 15y ago
    Yep, my understanding is that DNA damage is unavoidable and will eventually lead to cancer. The repair mechanisms for DNA are eventually outdone by the damage mechanisms. Improving the efficacy of the repair mechanisms for DNA could end up being a fruitful approach, but I'm not sure where the state of the art is on improving DNA repair.
  - tremendo 15y ago
    > A lot of people don't die from cancer because they don't live long enough, but prevention will never happen. Cancer is inevitable. Except of course for all those that do live long enough, I don't think the centenarians and beyond die of cancer http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/7/862.short http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/7/862... From what I can see at FastStats http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/selections.php?series=age http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/selections.php?series=age incidence does go up with age, but there's still plenty of cancers that happen at relatively young ages, and if you look at the trend, going back to 1975 which is not that much really, you can see a marked increase towards 1990 and then a stabilization, which to me suggests it's quite likely that environmental and lifestyle factors do come in play, as similar trends occur in other health related issues (metabolic syndrome). Markedly lower Vit-D levels, our increased consumption of n-6 poly-unsaturated fatty acids and processed foods, all likely play a role. I short, I agree with gp in that there is surely a bigger payoff in prevention, but that doesn't mean that cures wouldn't be welcome too. I can't agree that cancer is inevitable. Edited to add links, formatting.
    - freehunter 15y ago
      >Except of course for all those that do live long enough, I don't think the centenarians and beyond die of cancer There are people immune to AIDS as well. These are the outliers. Just because people die of disease before they get cancer doesn't mean they wouldn't have gotten cancer otherwise. >it's quite likely that environmental and lifestyle factors do come in play Yes, I accepted that in my post. There are ways to increase your risk of cancer. My opinion was that there is never a statistically relevant zero risk for cancer. Prevention of cancer will never completely stop cancer from forming unless we know and can avoid all possible risk factors of cancer (impossible). Prevention is a good step, but finding a way to reverse cancer is the only way to keep people from dying from it.
- nazgulnarsil 15y ago
  this is the most pervasive myth in health care. standard economic analysis shows this is wrong and that we would save significant money with more people using emergency room care vs preventative care.
  - losvedir 15y ago
    Wait, really? That's surprising to me. A very cursory search seemed to indicate that prevention is better. Do you have sources? I'm interested.
    - nazgulnarsil 15y ago
      quick ref: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/prevention-cost.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/prevention-cost.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/10/preventive-heal.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/10/preventive-heal.html I'll look for some underlying data once I get out of class. AFAIK the problem isn't necessarily "best practices prevention" per se but the fact that we massively over-consume health care because of bad incentives.
      - tremendo 15y ago
        But of course as one of your links points out: The term "preventive medicine" no longer means what it used to: keeping people well by promoting healthy habits, like exercising, eating a balanced diet and not smoking. To their credit, both candidates ardently support that approach. But the medical model for prevention has become less about health promotion and more about early diagnosis. I'm pretty sure the original comment you replied to assumes the same meaning, that of promoting healthy behavior _before_ you become ill, not the newer and distorted meaning of "early detection".
        nazgulnarsil 15y ago
        IME experience people usually mean the actual preventative medicine and not promoting healthy lifestyles. Otherwise it wouldnt be such a big deal for how much of GDP is spent on medicine.
nwj 15y ago
I'd also highly recommend "The Emperor of all Maladies." Even if you have only a passing interest in the topic of cancer, it's consistently surprising and interesting.
bdg 15y ago
> This is very much like the hacker who keeps playing around with a broken method until it works There's a huge downside to that: "Lets see if drop tables works... oops." I'm not sure if this thinking is only something from mixed metaphors or is applicable to what they're doing.
- lukev 15y ago
  Then a bunch of mice die, and we move on to the next iteration.

loceng 15y ago

I would hope we eventually start to put money towards prevention to reduce cancer to begin with. Prevention will always be less cost and less suffering.

darkmethod 15y ago
Roswell Park employees also man the phones for the NYS Smokers Quitline. http://www.nysmokefree.com/ http://www.nysmokefree.com/ An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
freehunter 15y ago
Trouble is, preventing cancer is hard when we don't even know what causes cancer. Obviously smoking is a big one and people have been working hard to great success to eliminate it. How about cooked vegetables? Raw vegetables? Processed sugar? Burnt pieces of meat? Cell phones/wifi? Sunlight? Artificial light? The reason it seems like everything causes cancer is because everyone is at risk for cancer. Living is a cancer risk. A lot of people don't die from cancer because they don't live long enough, but prevention will never happen. Cancer is inevitable.
- grhino 15y ago
  Yep, my understanding is that DNA damage is unavoidable and will eventually lead to cancer. The repair mechanisms for DNA are eventually outdone by the damage mechanisms. Improving the efficacy of the repair mechanisms for DNA could end up being a fruitful approach, but I'm not sure where the state of the art is on improving DNA repair.
- tremendo 15y ago
  > A lot of people don't die from cancer because they don't live long enough, but prevention will never happen. Cancer is inevitable. Except of course for all those that do live long enough, I don't think the centenarians and beyond die of cancer http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/7/862.short http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/7/862... From what I can see at FastStats http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/selections.php?series=age http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/selections.php?series=age incidence does go up with age, but there's still plenty of cancers that happen at relatively young ages, and if you look at the trend, going back to 1975 which is not that much really, you can see a marked increase towards 1990 and then a stabilization, which to me suggests it's quite likely that environmental and lifestyle factors do come in play, as similar trends occur in other health related issues (metabolic syndrome). Markedly lower Vit-D levels, our increased consumption of n-6 poly-unsaturated fatty acids and processed foods, all likely play a role. I short, I agree with gp in that there is surely a bigger payoff in prevention, but that doesn't mean that cures wouldn't be welcome too. I can't agree that cancer is inevitable. Edited to add links, formatting.
  - freehunter 15y ago
    >Except of course for all those that do live long enough, I don't think the centenarians and beyond die of cancer There are people immune to AIDS as well. These are the outliers. Just because people die of disease before they get cancer doesn't mean they wouldn't have gotten cancer otherwise. >it's quite likely that environmental and lifestyle factors do come in play Yes, I accepted that in my post. There are ways to increase your risk of cancer. My opinion was that there is never a statistically relevant zero risk for cancer. Prevention of cancer will never completely stop cancer from forming unless we know and can avoid all possible risk factors of cancer (impossible). Prevention is a good step, but finding a way to reverse cancer is the only way to keep people from dying from it.
nazgulnarsil 15y ago
this is the most pervasive myth in health care. standard economic analysis shows this is wrong and that we would save significant money with more people using emergency room care vs preventative care.
- losvedir 15y ago
  Wait, really? That's surprising to me. A very cursory search seemed to indicate that prevention is better. Do you have sources? I'm interested.
  - nazgulnarsil 15y ago
    quick ref: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/prevention-cost.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/prevention-cost.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/10/preventive-heal.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/10/preventive-heal.html I'll look for some underlying data once I get out of class. AFAIK the problem isn't necessarily "best practices prevention" per se but the fact that we massively over-consume health care because of bad incentives.
    - tremendo 15y ago
      But of course as one of your links points out: The term "preventive medicine" no longer means what it used to: keeping people well by promoting healthy habits, like exercising, eating a balanced diet and not smoking. To their credit, both candidates ardently support that approach. But the medical model for prevention has become less about health promotion and more about early diagnosis. I'm pretty sure the original comment you replied to assumes the same meaning, that of promoting healthy behavior _before_ you become ill, not the newer and distorted meaning of "early detection".
      - nazgulnarsil 15y ago
        IME experience people usually mean the actual preventative medicine and not promoting healthy lifestyles. Otherwise it wouldnt be such a big deal for how much of GDP is spent on medicine.

nwj 15y ago

I'd also highly recommend "The Emperor of all Maladies." Even if you have only a passing interest in the topic of cancer, it's consistently surprising and interesting.

bdg 15y ago

> This is very much like the hacker who keeps playing around with a broken method until it works There's a huge downside to that: "Lets see if drop tables works... oops." I'm not sure if this thinking is only something from mixed metaphors or is applicable to what they're doing.

lukev 15y ago
Then a bunch of mice die, and we move on to the next iteration.