We've cured cancer in mice many times, but in humans the disease often comes back despite some extremely targeted and successful therapies. I'm sure more is in the works and thanks to tools like alpha-fold quantum leaps in cancer treatment can be expected every 5-10 yrs.
I would absolutely love to be wrong, but I've just gotten my hopes too many times and known too many people who have died from cancer.
To be clear, I am very much not blaming the scientists for this. I'm confident that the work that they are doing is very cool and challenging. I blame science reporting for always feeling like every headline has to suggest that every discovery is going to completely change the world.
It's worth noting that semaglutide, which is "completely changing the world" of weight loss was initially heavily researched in the 80s and 90s. Some 40-50 years later... it is as big a deal as papers probably described it at the time.
So if this NEAT1 is a big deal, it might not save our parents, but it might save our kids.
I'm 34 right now. Nearly everyone dies of cancer or heart disease, and my family doesn't have any history with heart disease but it does have a history of cancer in their late 60's and early 70's, so it's probably cancer that will kill me.
If I can hold on until I'm 74, that's about 40 years from now, maybe I'll benefit from it. That would be pretty cool.
Well considering a lot of cancers can be the result of genetics and environment than simply eliminating once is clearly never going to be a full strategy.
The root cause of cancer is aging. Cancer incidence increases exponentially with age, suggesting that cellular breakdown and weakened immune surveillance are the primary drivers. While environmental factors play a role, they are secondary. Consider the extremely low incidence of cancer in individuals under 40.
> While environmental factors play a role, they are secondary.
> Sweet. I'm off to get a pack of Marlboro's then.
No need to satirize the GP. "Secondary" does not mean "irrelevant".
It is unfortunately true that just by growing to be 80, regardles of how clean you eat and drink and breathe, your chances of developing any cancer are higher than by being a young moderate smoker. Aging is the primary factor in oncology and the vast majority of cancer patients are elderly.
Has cancer changed or has the environment?
Almost certainly the environment. But there is still something like twenty elderly cancer patients for one young.
That's just sarcasm not satirization. I choose that because he seemed to imply that my point was to be entirely ignored because of this data. Which I thought was particularly thin and easily seen through.
Aging is the primary factor in oncology and the vast majority of cancer patients are elderly.
Okay. I'll spare you the sarcasm. What does this have to do with the strategy involved in eliminating cancer? Particularly for those where treatment is intended to prevent early death? To me it seems like this is completely irrelevant to this point.
But there is still something like twenty elderly cancer patients for one young.
I understand the data. Do you understand that the one young cancer patient does not want or need to hear this?
Thank you for respecting the rules of local debate.
"Do you understand that the one young cancer patient does not want or need to hear this?"
Well ... is this not actually sarcasm?
What made you think that I am either stupid or callous enough not to care about young cancer patients and their fear and need for support and treatment?
Comments
We've cured cancer in mice many times, but in humans the disease often comes back despite some extremely targeted and successful therapies. I'm sure more is in the works and thanks to tools like alpha-fold quantum leaps in cancer treatment can be expected every 5-10 yrs.
Quantum leaps are what we already have: tiny and oscillating all over the place
I would absolutely love to be wrong, but I've just gotten my hopes too many times and known too many people who have died from cancer.
To be clear, I am very much not blaming the scientists for this. I'm confident that the work that they are doing is very cool and challenging. I blame science reporting for always feeling like every headline has to suggest that every discovery is going to completely change the world.
It's worth noting that semaglutide, which is "completely changing the world" of weight loss was initially heavily researched in the 80s and 90s. Some 40-50 years later... it is as big a deal as papers probably described it at the time.
So if this NEAT1 is a big deal, it might not save our parents, but it might save our kids.
I think that's probably reasonable.
I'm 34 right now. Nearly everyone dies of cancer or heart disease, and my family doesn't have any history with heart disease but it does have a history of cancer in their late 60's and early 70's, so it's probably cancer that will kill me.
If I can hold on until I'm 74, that's about 40 years from now, maybe I'll benefit from it. That would be pretty cool.
Well considering a lot of cancers can be the result of genetics and environment than simply eliminating once is clearly never going to be a full strategy.
The root cause of cancer is aging. Cancer incidence increases exponentially with age, suggesting that cellular breakdown and weakened immune surveillance are the primary drivers. While environmental factors play a role, they are secondary. Consider the extremely low incidence of cancer in individuals under 40.
https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2023/06/cancer-r...
Sweet. I'm off to get a pack of Marlboro's then.
The problem with that methodology is that a single patient could be counted in those statistics multiple times as they age and relapse.
Also your link points out the rates in younger people are increasing. Has cancer changed or has the environment?
No need to satirize the GP. "Secondary" does not mean "irrelevant".
It is unfortunately true that just by growing to be 80, regardles of how clean you eat and drink and breathe, your chances of developing any cancer are higher than by being a young moderate smoker. Aging is the primary factor in oncology and the vast majority of cancer patients are elderly.
Almost certainly the environment. But there is still something like twenty elderly cancer patients for one young.
That's just sarcasm not satirization. I choose that because he seemed to imply that my point was to be entirely ignored because of this data. Which I thought was particularly thin and easily seen through.
Okay. I'll spare you the sarcasm. What does this have to do with the strategy involved in eliminating cancer? Particularly for those where treatment is intended to prevent early death? To me it seems like this is completely irrelevant to this point.
I understand the data. Do you understand that the one young cancer patient does not want or need to hear this?
"Okay. I'll spare you the sarcasm."
Thank you for respecting the rules of local debate.
"Do you understand that the one young cancer patient does not want or need to hear this?"
Well ... is this not actually sarcasm?
What made you think that I am either stupid or callous enough not to care about young cancer patients and their fear and need for support and treatment?