Why haven't we cured cancer yet? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#121

Post by siganakis » Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 12:19 AM UTC

Craiggybear wrote: post #5

Because, like AI, molecular biology is complicated and there are no quick hacks . Some things are meant to take time and be right. First time. Survival rates are spectacularly better than they were fifteen or twenty years ago and they are getting better all the time. Also there is no one type of lung cancer, brain tumour or bladder or bowel cancer either. There are many different types. Half the battle is identifying…

Cancer survival rates are a mixed bag with many barely moving at all. The statistics below are based on that for Victoria, Australia (population of about 5.5m).

5 year survival rates for the following cancers has barely changed at all since 1985: Pancreatic, Larynx, Lung, Mesothelioma, Ovarian, Cervix, Central Nervous System.

Although the following cancers have seen much better improvement:

Pharynx, Colorectal, Stomach, Oesophagus, Gallbladder, Breast, Prostate, Kidney, Thyroid, HL, NHL, MM, ALL (basically all the blood cancers).

Overall the 5 year survival rates for cancers have improved from 47% to 64% now. Definitely better, but unfortunately not "spectacularly better".

Of course, these are survival rates, so do not reflect improvements in public health that prevent people from getting cancer (e.g. survival rates for lung cancer have have actually decreased, but less people are acquiring it due to reductions in smoking meaning deaths have reduced by about 50%).

http://www.cancervic.org.au/downloads/cec/cancer-in-vic/CCV-...

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#122

Post by ximeng » Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 12:41 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #32

Fascinating paper on returns on cancer research out of the NBER argues that for about $300 billion in cancer research expenditures from 1988 to 2000 the US created 23 million life-years worth, in aggregate, about $1.9 trillion [1]. That comes to about a 52% smoothed return. Pretty good given that the S&P 500 grew at about 14.6% over the same period (though if similarly smoothed yielded about 42%). [1] http://www.nber…

Is there some way to make a fund investing in research with returns based on the effectiveness of the results?

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#123

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 12:44 AM UTC

ximeng wrote: post #122

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #32

Fascinating paper on returns on cancer research out of the NBER argues that for about $300 billion in cancer research expenditures from 1988 to 2000 the US created 23 million life-years worth, in aggregate, about $1.9 trillion [1]. That comes to about a 52% smoothed return. Pretty good given that the S&P 500 grew at about 14.6% over the same period (though if similarly smoothed yielded about 42%). [1] http://www.nber…

Is there some way to make a fund investing in research with returns based on the effectiveness of the results?

If you could find a counter-party to enter into a swap with you can base it on anything. But given that it would be virtually impossible to hedge you would have the odds severely stacked against.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#124

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 12:44 AM UTC

ximeng wrote: post #122

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #32

Fascinating paper on returns on cancer research out of the NBER argues that for about $300 billion in cancer research expenditures from 1988 to 2000 the US created 23 million life-years worth, in aggregate, about $1.9 trillion [1]. That comes to about a 52% smoothed return. Pretty good given that the S&P 500 grew at about 14.6% over the same period (though if similarly smoothed yielded about 42%). [1] http://www.nber…

Is there some way to make a fund investing in research with returns based on the effectiveness of the results?

[deleted]

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#125

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 12:44 AM UTC

ximeng wrote: post #122

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #32

Fascinating paper on returns on cancer research out of the NBER argues that for about $300 billion in cancer research expenditures from 1988 to 2000 the US created 23 million life-years worth, in aggregate, about $1.9 trillion [1]. That comes to about a 52% smoothed return. Pretty good given that the S&P 500 grew at about 14.6% over the same period (though if similarly smoothed yielded about 42%). [1] http://www.nber…

Is there some way to make a fund investing in research with returns based on the effectiveness of the results?

[deleted]

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#126

Post by nl » Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 1:23 AM UTC

jimmyvanhalen wrote: post #50

micro_cam wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All this genetic diversity seems daunting at first but I think it is also indicative of something that gives me great hope. Cancer isn't like a virus or pathogen that has evolved to avoid it our immune systems and treatments as it passes from individual. It is a degenerative state of the same system that produces healthy cells and fertile humans. It is genetically very diverse. Part of this is because cancers cells o…

Here's something interesting about a common chemical compound called Dichloroacetic acid (DCA). Big pharma is ignoring it since it can't be patented (because it's so common). Cancer cells change the way they metabolize oxygen in a way that promotes their survival. In laboratory studies of isolated cancer cells grown in tissue culture, DCA restores the original metabolism, and promotes their self-destruction. This has…

DCA is an unfortunate example of the pattern where people look for a radical cure covered up by conspiracy when infact it is little more than a mildly interesting drug with little evidence supporting its use.

So far as the conspiracy theory goes, to quote the same Wikipedia article:

The use of this compound as an anti-cancer agent has been patented.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#127

Post by nl » Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 2:19 AM UTC

elchief wrote: post #31

We haven't cured a lot of things. Well, we've cured lots of small things, but few of the doozies. A baldness cure has been ten years away for the last thirty years. No cure for blindness, AIDS, lost limbs. Remember the blue denim dye that killed cancer? What happened to it? If something is "ten years away", it means we simply don't know how to do it, we are just hoping for someone else to come up with the tech to sol…

No cure for blindness, AIDS, lost limbs

Well...

I think you are unduly pessimistic. Medical progress is slow compared to IT, but 100 years ago we didn't even have antibiotics. Now we have defeated smallpox and polio ("few of the doozies"?!?), and we make progress in other areas.

We can cure (some of the most common forms of) blindness[1]

We can't cure AIDS, but anti-retroviral drugs can stop HIV infection from becoming AIDS[2].

We can't regrown limbs, but we can regrow ears[3].

Even cancer is slowly being fought back[4]. 20 years ago no one thought the HPV vaccine was possible, and yet now it will protect the ~11,000 US women per year who would previously been diagnosed with cervical cancer.

[1] http://www.cureblindness.org/

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS#Antiviral_therapy

[3] http://www.army.mil/article/73085/Regenerative_medicine_stri..., http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353884,00.html

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_vaccine

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#128

Post by Game_Ender » Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 2:35 AM UTC

ErrantX wrote: post #113

moldbug wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just how difficult it is to judge effectiveness of treatments and preventions in even extremely controlled studies. Translation: "just how difficult it is to be absolutely absolutely absolutely * 10^7 sure we're not selling quack medicine." The treatment of Steveoma is effective if Steve gets better. If not, it isn't. The sample size is 1 by definition. Obviously, if Steve gets better and he's taking 30 drugs, no one…

I understand where your ideas come from, I wish they were true. But sadly they are misinformed on many levels, and the root of the problem is you are playing a statistical game where reality will win. - There are not enough Billionaires to meet your needs, statistically you'll need quite a few to find any decent cures. Especially with 30 teams in play on each case; figuring out "what worked" is a bad numbers game in…

I am going to echo Jach comments a bit. Millions of people are dying from cancer, and will die at the pace of current research. The argument is that if you turn up the pace, you will kill more people but in the longer term you may save a lot more. Instead of decades from idea to human trial you push into a few years.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#129

Post by wissler » Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 4:08 AM UTC

moldbug wrote: post #98

alexholehouse wrote: post #73

One angle I feel is often missed in the whole cancer discussion is that it's a multidimensional problem. 1) Developing drugs which can damage cancer cells selectively. Like selecting a few needles in a haystack, cancer cells typically "look" the same as healthy cells, which makes selectively destroying them very difficult. Some cancers (such as CML) have a specific driver mutant proteins which allows for a pinpoint a…

I'm going to be a heretic and argue that the problem with cancer research is institutional, not biological. The biological problem is clearly very hard, but the institutional problem is impossible. You might or might not be familiar with the term "OODA loop," originally developed by fighter pilots: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop If the war on cancer was a dogfight, you'd need an order from the President every…

Yes you are a heretic and yes you are exactly right and yes you will be mocked/derided for it.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#130

Post by kamaal » Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 4:16 AM UTC

siculars wrote: post #2

... Because PhD's can barely feed themselves. ... Because the "smart" people work on Wall Street/for consulting firms. ... Because Facebook acquired Instagram.

Necessity is the mother of all innovations.

Nobody feels the need for a cure for cancer until they actually get cancer, and until then its always US and THEM. People take photos and share them all the time. So Facebook sells. So Instagram sells for a $1 billion.

Unfortunately we don't act until we are forced to.