This makes me angry..

In an article on a promising new approach to curing cancer, based on a chance observation of a mouse that was immune to cancer, there's a quote: "if Cui had been trained as an immunologist, he would have thrown out the mouse right then".

It's as if Flemming had seen fungus killing the staph bacteria in his petri dishes, and been upset that it ruined his experiment. I think that anyone who has lost someone to cancer would be angered by the thought that the *default* prevailing attitude among cancer researchers toward cancer research - which we've poured billions into over at least two generations of the "search for the cure" while many millions of lives were lost - is one that would dismiss *any* sign of a cure for cancer.

Haven't scientists been carefully studying heavy smokers who don't get lung cancer? Patients who get cancer and then "miraculously" go into remission after declining medical treatment? Why should this come as a surprise?

It even seems likely that there have been a number of cancer victims who would have "miraculously" recovered from cancer on their own, if they had not been made worse by "cancer treatments" that depleted their white blood cells. Sure, the percentage is probably tiny - but multiply that by the millions of cancer deaths over the past 30-40 years, and I have to wonder if we wouldn't have been better off spending 5 years identifying and studying such people without trying to cure anyone with our stone knives and radiation treatments.

It's as if the researchers are so in love with their quest to understand cancer, that they forget what motivates and pays for it. As if they fear that they might look naive and foolish to their collegues, if they looked into anything that "looks too good to be true", simply because *usually* those things are not true. Maybe it's time to replace cancer scientists with cancer engineers - people who will focus laser sharp on CURING cancer.

It makes me doubt even more those who dismiss Aubrey de Grey's ideas on life extension because he's merely a "computer scientist" (typically more of an engineer than scientist). Sure it sounds way too good to be true - so we should ignore his ideas, block funding, disregard as "not serious" anyone who gives his ideas any credence?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Could a Minimum Income Cryptocurrency Nuke Bitcoin?

Proposed Presidential Vision and Plan for NASA

Cellular Mars Bio-bubbles