4 ms·

I’m not sure I agree. We now have techniques like immunotherapy for some cancers. Cancer rates still continue to fall. We have a drug now that you can take so

I’m not sure I agree. We now have techniques like immunotherapy for some cancers. Cancer rates still continue to fall. We have a drug now that you can take so you won’t catch HIV, as well as another drug for HIV+ that keeps it at bay. We haven’t found a cure-all. Rather, now we have a lot more treatment options nowadays depending on your specific cancer or illness.

andkenneth 2y ago
And as always, when problems get solved, other problems get revealed. We didn't even really know about cancer until life expectancies got to the point where dying in your 30s is a tragedy instead of being fairly normal.
- xp84 2y ago
  I don’t think dying in your 30s has been normal in the Western world anytime In the last 500 years. Remember all those life expectancy mean statistics were heavily dragged down by the huge infant mortality stats. If your comment was more talking about the Stone Age or something, I apologize for misinterpreting :)
  - radicalbyte 2y ago
    Infant and mother mortality stats.
- anonym29 2y ago
  The idea that most people more than ~120 years ago died in their 30s or 40s is a popular misconception. LEAB (Life expectancy at birth) used to be in the mid-30s, but this was largely due to a bimodal distribution of deaths: a large number dying during childbirth, infancy, or early childhood, and a lot at more typical old age (60-70, still a bit lower than is common in much of the west today, but you get the idea). If you made it past puberty, there were pretty good odds of you making it to old age.
  - mlyle 2y ago
    Aside from infant morality, don't forget the massive death load from things like accidental death, famine, and maternal mortality. E.g. from Wikipedia, female life expectancy from age 15 in Britain in the 1400-1500s century was 33 years (so reaching 48 years of age).
    - thomassmith65 2y ago
      ...and also bubonic plague.
  - dahart 2y ago
    100%. I carried this misconception after high school and college and was surprised to learn it’s completely wrong. There’s a name for the old-age end of the bimodal distribution: longevity. Longevity is the natural lifespan of people who don’t die of any early mortality factors. Most people who have the misconception are accidentally conflating life expectancy with longevity. A few unscrupulous peddlers of false hope, like Ray Kurzweil for example, intentionally conflate life expectancy with longevity to reinforce the misconception. As I was learning about longevity I started talking to my anthropologist brother about it, and he was like, oh yeah, people who don’t die from war or disease or infection have always lived to be about 80 years old for all of known history. He mentioned there’s plenty of written evidence from, e.g. Socrates’ day, and also lots of human remains that support it from ten thousand years ago.
    - wbl 2y ago
      Well we have a lot less disease and infection now!
      - dahart 2y ago
        This is why life expectancy has gone up, while longevity has mostly remained unchanged (for at least thousands of years). Longevity represents the best we can do, and life expectancy can’t exceed longevity. Life expectancy will asymptotically approach longevity as medicine improves.
- jezzamon 2y ago
  Cancer was first documented around 3000 BC, and has been studied for a long time. https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.25553 https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr...
d_tr 2y ago
Cancer mRNA vaccines for solid tumors are administered to real patients in clinical trials right now.
- hanniabu 2y ago
  So you'd rather she them before you get cancer?
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    As far as I understand it these immunotherapies are tailor-made to the very specific cancer and its genetics that a patient has, which is also why the stuff is so darn expensive. So you can't have a vaccine until you already have the cancer.
    - hanniabu 2y ago
      Thanks, also I'm amazed you understood with the auto correct. I couldn't figure out what I asked until I saw your response and remembered lol

andkenneth 2y ago

And as always, when problems get solved, other problems get revealed. We didn't even really know about cancer until life expectancies got to the point where dying in your 30s is a tragedy instead of being fairly normal.

xp84 2y ago
I don’t think dying in your 30s has been normal in the Western world anytime In the last 500 years. Remember all those life expectancy mean statistics were heavily dragged down by the huge infant mortality stats. If your comment was more talking about the Stone Age or something, I apologize for misinterpreting :)
- radicalbyte 2y ago
  Infant and mother mortality stats.
anonym29 2y ago
The idea that most people more than ~120 years ago died in their 30s or 40s is a popular misconception. LEAB (Life expectancy at birth) used to be in the mid-30s, but this was largely due to a bimodal distribution of deaths: a large number dying during childbirth, infancy, or early childhood, and a lot at more typical old age (60-70, still a bit lower than is common in much of the west today, but you get the idea). If you made it past puberty, there were pretty good odds of you making it to old age.
- mlyle 2y ago
  Aside from infant morality, don't forget the massive death load from things like accidental death, famine, and maternal mortality. E.g. from Wikipedia, female life expectancy from age 15 in Britain in the 1400-1500s century was 33 years (so reaching 48 years of age).
  - thomassmith65 2y ago
    ...and also bubonic plague.
- dahart 2y ago
  100%. I carried this misconception after high school and college and was surprised to learn it’s completely wrong. There’s a name for the old-age end of the bimodal distribution: longevity. Longevity is the natural lifespan of people who don’t die of any early mortality factors. Most people who have the misconception are accidentally conflating life expectancy with longevity. A few unscrupulous peddlers of false hope, like Ray Kurzweil for example, intentionally conflate life expectancy with longevity to reinforce the misconception. As I was learning about longevity I started talking to my anthropologist brother about it, and he was like, oh yeah, people who don’t die from war or disease or infection have always lived to be about 80 years old for all of known history. He mentioned there’s plenty of written evidence from, e.g. Socrates’ day, and also lots of human remains that support it from ten thousand years ago.
  - wbl 2y ago
    Well we have a lot less disease and infection now!
    - dahart 2y ago
      This is why life expectancy has gone up, while longevity has mostly remained unchanged (for at least thousands of years). Longevity represents the best we can do, and life expectancy can’t exceed longevity. Life expectancy will asymptotically approach longevity as medicine improves.
jezzamon 2y ago
Cancer was first documented around 3000 BC, and has been studied for a long time. https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.25553 https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr...

d_tr 2y ago

Cancer mRNA vaccines for solid tumors are administered to real patients in clinical trials right now.

hanniabu 2y ago
So you'd rather she them before you get cancer?
- mschuster91 2y ago
  As far as I understand it these immunotherapies are tailor-made to the very specific cancer and its genetics that a patient has, which is also why the stuff is so darn expensive. So you can't have a vaccine until you already have the cancer.
  - hanniabu 2y ago
    Thanks, also I'm amazed you understood with the auto correct. I couldn't figure out what I asked until I saw your response and remembered lol