Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 167 posts

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#141

Post by moldbug »

intended wrote: post #135
moldbug wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spontaneous remission, while it happens, is not a significant confounding factor in pancreatic cancer. See above for comments on statistics.

But in your sample size of 1, and later in sample sizes of all cancer suffering billionaires (lets also add in close family) a single confounding factor means that the resulting data is useless, and will only result in a wild goose chase for years to come. Basically - any single chaotic factor outside the narrowly defined boundaries you have mentioned, will bork your entire system. While this means that we've reached…

Basically - any single chaotic factor outside the narrowly defined boundaries you have mentioned, will bork your entire system.

Sure. If you're stupid. Science isn't for the stupid. There is a common if implicit belief that systematic methods will allow the dull, or worse the dishonest, to advance the frontiers of knowledge. No - the rules of science need to be made for those both brilliant and honest. Everyone else has plenty of other games they can play.

Aristotle had a nice word for the intellectual quality it takes to learn from sample sizes of 1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#142

Post by ErrantX »

moldbug wrote: post #139
ErrantX wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, long-term effects of OTC non-cancer drugs aren't investigated for shit. I'm permanently achlorhydric from permanently solving my GERD with daily omeprazole. As recommended by actual doctors. What the hell is the effect of taking omeprazole for a decade? Who the hell knows? Omeprazole has been about for nearly quarter of a century; and is fairly well understood - hell I can walk down to my local d…

Omeprazole has been about for nearly quarter of a century; and is fairly well understood - hell I can walk down to my local drug store and pick up a load from the shelves. You say this like it follows. I can too. I can read the label as well, which says to take it for no more than 28 days "without the advice of a doctor." Presumably this is the period for which it's been studied. The idea of doing a double-blind stud…

Presumably this is the period for which it's been studied.

So, without perfect information - I decide.

The thing about the modern world is that you can make informed choices - information is only a Google away.

For example; my specific knowledge of that particular drug is not high. But this morning I found out:

- The drug is well researched as being tolerated in the short to medium term

- There is concern that long term use may increase the risk of intestinal or stomach cancers (based on mouse studies)

- So far the longest term test has been 6 years (somewhat longer than your 28 days theory).

In fact, 28 days is a standard recommended limit for drugs available over the counter. It is fairly hard to do damage to yourself, with those sorts of drugs, in that time - but after that you really need the advice of a doctor who understands all of the risks involved. Again, this detail is available online with a little searching.

There is a long list of other side effects, risks and theories that are studied - mostly based on 5 year studies from what I can tell - and the current view is that those risks are pretty low.

What you've proven, here, is that you've not made an informed choice, because you appear unaware of the actual long term concerns. You've not weighed risks; you've weighed one obvious risk that you understand (and I presume the doctor told you about). That is only the very tip of the iceberg.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#143

Post by chmars »

A major reason is probably nuclear pollution. Nuclear tests have been replaced by radioactive waste and the results of many small and large incidents in nuclear facilities. An accident like Fukushima pollutes the whole planet, not just Japan and some parts of the Pacific. It would be much easier to fight such major reasons for cancer instead of trying to cure cancer.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#144

Post by intended »

moldbug wrote: post #141
intended wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in your sample size of 1, and later in sample sizes of all cancer suffering billionaires (lets also add in close family) a single confounding factor means that the resulting data is useless, and will only result in a wild goose chase for years to come. Basically - any single chaotic factor outside the narrowly defined boundaries you have mentioned, will bork your entire system. While this means that we've reached…

Basically - any single chaotic factor outside the narrowly defined boundaries you have mentioned, will bork your entire system. Sure. If you're stupid. Science isn't for the stupid. There is a common if implicit belief that systematic methods will allow the dull, or worse the dishonest, to advance the frontiers of knowledge. No - the rules of science need to be made for those both brilliant and honest. Everyone else…

?

> There is a common if implicit belief that systematic methods will allow the dull, or worse the dishonest, to advance the frontiers of knowledge.

Ok, I'm taken aback by that - people actually think that people who are dull and dishonest become scientists? I mean I can understand that they become - frauds -. But scientists? Well maybe not in my country, but perhaps where you live.

Anyway thats just plain daft - the smartest become scientists.

>No - the rules of science need to be made for those both brilliant and honest. Everyone else has plenty of other games they can play.

Well, aren't the rules of science the scientific method? Which anyone can use?

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#146

Post by krollew »

I think that there is no widely known cure for cancer not because nobody know one but because currently used cancer therapies are much more profitable. For example there is something like Gerson's Therapy, I've never heard that someone proved it wrong. Why it's not used widely? Because there is no money to earn, there are just fresh vegetables so noone want to prove it right.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#147

Post by Gatsky »

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…

You are ranting about your own confabulated view of cancer research.

Crizotinib is a case in point. It is a small molecule that works very well for lung cancer, but only if a patient's cancer has a particular chromosomal fusion. This drug went from being a 'candidate' molecule to having gold standard data and FDA approval in 5 years. No fantasies about billionaires required.

The way you conceptualise a cancer patient's plight is also insulting and grotesque. They are not nihilists willing to try anything, who we can gladly sacrifice in our pursuit of cure. They have family and friends, and they really want to go their granddaughter's wedding next month and if you harm them with loosely justified bullshit science, you haven't helped anyone.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#148

Post by kamjam »

refurb wrote: post #95
jimmyvanhalen wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't know DCA doesn't work that well because they are not spending money on R&D. I agree they can get a use patent on DCA, as a matter of fact the researcher from University of Alberta already has a use patent on DCA as a cure for cancer. interesting info on BG-12. thanks.

Big drug companies are CONSTANTLY exploring new areas, trust me, they looked into DCA and found it wanting. I can't personally attest to the amount of R&D dollars spent by pharma on R&D, but it has been EXTENSIVELY studied, just checked out pubmed (gov't funded research). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=dichloroacetate If DCA were an effective agent, they would have handed the U of A a handsome check for that…

I have a question. There are loads of cancer charities, such as Cancer Research UK, . Does donating to these make any difference in progressing the research for a cure/treatement or does it not make any serious dent compared to the big pharmas?

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#149

Post by crusso »

tsotha wrote: post #101

Good God, this article is depressing. I used to think we'd have some therapies to at least suppress new growth in my lifetime. If I'm understanding what he's written they don't even have a game plan for an effective treatment.

That was my first thought too. I've always thought of cancer as being beatable in ways that bacteria and viruses aren't since the latter get the benefit of evolution. It makes a lot of sense that rapid evolution is exactly why cancer has been so difficult to tackle.

The good news is that:

1. Cancer survival rates have improved over the past and are continuing to improve; so we're still moving forward. 2. I have a lot of hope in the power of technology to come to our rescue. a. Sequencing has to get to a point where it's done in minutes or seconds on a chip. b. Physicians' computer aids need to be Watson+. In order to be able to constantly categorize and target each mutation with a drug or suggestion for other treatment. c. Ideally, we need to get to the point where we can automate the synthesis of different types of drugs so that the cancer attacking system can customize treatments at the molecular level to dynamically attack cancers that are mutating.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#150

Post by polyfractal »

moldbug wrote: post #115
alexholehouse wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[There's a TL/DR at the bottom] Everyone's cancer is its own disease (if not several), so the researchers are fighting one disease (or several), instead of an infinite family of diseases. They are not trying to cure pancreatic cancer - they are trying to cure Steveoma. You're absolutely right that this is the mentality that future treatments need to take. In terms of treatment response, a liver tumour could have far…

You're absolutely right that this is the mentality that future treatments need to take. Yeah, and I'm sure our regulatory infrastructure will catch up sometime in the Obama administration. That is, the Malia Obama administration... If this time frame were possible this would be ideal, however, unfortunately each of these steps (if they are possible) takes significantly longer than an evening, and typically far longer…

>You're not going to tell me the actual chemical reactions are slow. It's all human labor.

I'm going to tell you that you are, in fact, wrong. Chemical reactions (pharmacodynamics) may be fast, but pharmacokinetics may very well be slow. There is a reason you have to take antibiotics for at least two weeks, or wait three months to see an effect from SSRIs.

These things literally take time. Not all processes are instant in your body, many take time for their physiological effects to be materialized.

Biology is biology and not everything is instant, no matter how much you wish it was.

>Then speed them up! You might have heard the story of Steve and Gorilla Glass:

This is such a naive comment I'm not really even sure how to address it. First, you can't just "hack" a molecule in a night.

Identifying the protein targets could be a lifetime's work. Identifying drug interactors is another big project, verifying efficacy takes time, synthesis takes time, verifying purity, determining best method of delivery to the patient, half life, dosage, interactions with other drugs, on and on and on. It all takes time.

Second, even supposing we can make a specific molecule overnight, the chance that molecule is going to kill your patient is really damn high. The human body does not get along well with most chemical compounds. There is a reason we have extended, long clinical safety trials. While you can make an argument they are too long, "overnight" is far, far too fast.

You'll never know if you cured your patient's cancer when he drops dead tomorrow from your sulpho-cholorinated-methyl-mercury superdrug cocktail that you synthesized last night.

Post reply on HN