3 ms·
My unfounded $0.02 is that the best way to beat cancer is the same as the best way to beat HIV: multidrug targeted molecular therapy to prevent resistance. This
by carbocation 14y ago
My unfounded $0.02 is that the best way to beat cancer is the same as the best way to beat HIV: multidrug targeted molecular therapy to prevent resistance. This is currently mostly a pipe dream as our targeted molecular therapies are few.
Early detection is useful if you can treat appropriately. Early detection of HIV (where 'early' means no AIDS-defining illness) is an example here. Early detection is a tool, but it's not the point. It's the debates, but not the election.
Again, I am not a cancer biologist but the parallels have long struck me. The goal IMHO is to make cancer a typical chronic disease that you live with but can tolerate for decades. Perhaps I am not dreaming big enough, but I think this would be a huge stepping stone. If you can cure a cancer already, of course, by all means do so.
- jhuckestein 14y agoThe problem with cancer is that, much like with the HIV virus, the immune system is fooled into thinking the cancerous cells are part of the human body. From what I hear researchers are optimistic that any such disease can soon (i.e. within the next 20 years) be cured by injecting blood-cell sized nanobots that can reliably target the foreign cells or viruses in your body and kill them (and, unlike chemotherapy, don't destroy the good parts, too). I think the chronic disease is just a crutch that'll soon be obsolete.
- jamesjporter 14y agoCancerous cells are part of your body — they've just mutated such that they don't respond to signals that tell them to die or slow their rate of replication. The reason your immune system doesn't recognize them is because they are literally part of you. This is why specifically targeted cancer cures are so hard: there's almost nothing that distinguishes cancer cells from normal cells.