Curing cancer leads to 3 more years (1 Viewer)

[rascal]

There are no drugs or weakening in this hypothetical. If cancer were cured by a magic wand with no side effects, average life expectancy in the U.S. would go up by only three years.

It’s mainly because most people already die without getting cancer, and the people who do die of cancer are often kind of old and often in poor health anyway, even aside from the cancer.

And where did this hypothetical come from, because it's not in the op.

 

[huthut]

By the way, I personally know four cancer researchers, two of whom are at the number one cancer hospital in the country.  I can tell you unequivocally that they are actually trying to cure cancer, not preserve the status quo. So much so that they’ve forgone far more lucrative jobs in the medical profession to dedicate their lives and careers to this goal. 

Some cancer researchers might even be reading this thread right now.

 

[bucksoh]

If you believe that pharameceutical companies are affirmatively not wanting to find a cure for cancer, the key is supporting non-pharmaceutical funding of cancer research. I have a way for you to get involved if you’re interested. 

Interested.  Pm is fine.

 

[CurlyNight]

By the way, I personally know four cancer researchers, two of whom are at the number one cancer hospital in the country.  I can tell you unequivocally that they are actually trying to cure cancer, not preserve the status quo. So much so that they’ve forgone far more lucrative jobs in the medical profession to dedicate their lives and careers to this goal. 

While finding the cure for all cancers is the goal, I would love to see better and less harsh treatments. Chemo and radiation are horrible and can leave long lasting ####ty side effects. For many of us it doesn't end there. With breast cancer, many of us take either Tamoxifen or an Aromatase Inhibitor to hopefully help prevent recurrence or mets. Many like me suffer ####ty side effects from that and there is no way to tell if it's working. We could be on this for 5, 10 years or more depending on our individual profile and still recur or progress.

There are 28 different types of breast cancer. 1 in 8 people get it. 30% of all early stages (I - IIIa) will progress. 

Immunotherapy is in the works and is used for some types of lung cancers. Much better than the traditional chemo. It's a ways away for breast cancer, but that seems to be the next up and coming treatment for breast cancer.

 

[bigbottom]

While finding the cure for all cancers is the goal, I would love to see better and less harsh treatments. Chemo and radiation are horrible and can leave long lasting ####ty side effects. For many of us it doesn't end there. With breast cancer, many of us take either Tamoxifen or an Aromatase Inhibitor to hopefully help prevent recurrence or mets. Many like me suffer ####ty side effects from that and there is no way to tell if it's working. We could be on this for 5, 10 years or more depending on our individual profile and still recur or progress.

There are 28 different types of breast cancer. 1 in 8 people get it. 30% of all early stages (I - IIIa) will progress. 

Immunotherapy is in the works and is used for some types of lung cancers. Much better than the traditional chemo. It's a ways away for breast cancer, but that seems to be the next up and coming treatment for breast cancer.

Agreed.  When I use the term "cure," that includes researching more effective treatments that cause fewer side effects such as secondary cancers.

 

[bigbottom]

There are no drugs or weakening in this hypothetical. If cancer were cured by a magic wand with no side effects, average life expectancy in the U.S. would go up by only three years.

It’s mainly because most people already die without getting cancer, and the people who do die of cancer are often kind of old and often in poor health anyway, even aside from the cancer.

Interesting.  You say "only" three years.  My reaction was, wow, three whole years!

 

[beer 30]

Meh, if i get cancer I'll donate my extra 3 years to someone. I'm a giver

 

[jrt103]

By the way, I personally know four cancer researchers, two of whom are at the number one cancer hospital in the country.  I can tell you unequivocally that they are actually trying to cure cancer, not preserve the status quo. So much so that they’ve forgone far more lucrative jobs in the medical profession to dedicate their lives and careers to this goal. 

I wish these people got paid millions instead of actors/athletes 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Interesting.  You say "only" three years.  My reaction was, wow, three whole years!

It's a lot in absolute terms. I don't think it's a lot compared to the potential effects of certain other factors, like better diet and exercise.

 

[eoMMan]

Cure for lymphoma?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/08/cancer-vaccine-shows-promise-in-human-trial-of-lymphoma-patients.html

 

[Doug B]

So how would you spend money to further health? 

I think research into slowing down the aging process would make a big difference. If you cure cancer, you eliminate deaths from cancer. If you make a dent in aging, you delay deaths from all causes positively corrrelated with aging

Anti-cancer measures and anti-aging measures will probably have a lot in common. Both would have the common goal of having the naturally-occuring "worn out" dying cells of the body replaced by properly "formed" new cells, as generally happens in young people.

IOW, research into cell division -- most especially how to optimize, or even control it -- can potentially teach us how to mitigate both cancer and aging.

 

[MTskibum]

My grandma, 88, was diagnosed with Non-hodgkins Lymphoma last year. She is alive and doing well today, they mostly have her on a maintenance chemo so it does not spread as quickly.

I believe the 3 years originally posted.

 

[Doug B]

This. Find a way to slow down cellular aging. 

It's OK if cells age ... just so long as their replacements can be virtually guaranteed to be faithful copies, as they generally are in children. 

 

[Doug B]

Cancer sucks. Luckily, science is awesome. Can't come soon enough but the tech keeps coming...

https://www.inverse.com/article/41881-can-nanobots-treat-tumors

This is another avenue. Nanobots could help facilitate proper cell divisions, cull out cell-division mistakes, etc. The downside: it looks like we'll be waiting a long time for this technology to bear fruit.

 

[Doug B]

When I use the term "cure," that includes researching more effective treatments that cause fewer side effects such as secondary cancers.

From what little I understand, it is thought that cancer will never be "cured" by vaccine like smallpox or polio. Rather, cancer will be instead "successfully treated" by perfected mechanisms controlling cell division and cell replacement in the body. It would be something not delivered by pill or vaccine, but instead something that would likely have to be steadily implemented and maintained over long periods of time.