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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Safer Molecular Manufacturing Through Nanoblocks

(Copied here for 'safe-keeping', from the CRN Taskforce on Nanotechnology) Those responsible for the safety of a nation — leaders and military and police forces — might be hard pressed to deal with a world in which any weapon or dangerous device could be manufactured in large quantities at the press of a button, at the same time that economic and social norms are being overthrown by rapid change. We can expect that — by default — authorities will want molecular manufacturing (MM) to be tightly restricted — kept out of private hands, and limited to the few nations that initially have it. That approach might provide some added security — or it might simply create such incredible pent-up demand that any barriers and restrictions are quickly overcome by black markets, intellectual property piracy, rogue-nation programs to duplicate MM, etc. This essay attempts to chart a middle path for the early years of MM availability — one that allows most of the benefits of MM to be wide
Read more

Proposed Presidential Vision and Plan for NASA

Proposed Presidential Vision and Five Point Plan for re-directing NASA to more sensible, efficient and far-sighted human-in-space operations : 1) Challenge NASA with a new PLAN FOR SPACE - to begin delivering robots, supplies and equipment to the moon within TWO YEARS. The robots should be simple but dextrous, durable and repairable - in order to carry out a mission of long-term exploration, research and development focused on establishing industrial production capabilities on the moon. Since the moon is relatively close, the robots will be directly (though remotely) controlled by human operators on Earth. Controlling the robots will be tedious and slow, due to radio communication delays between Earth and the moon. But one remote controlled robot, operated in 24-7 shifts, should be able to accomplish at least as much per day as one space-suited human, and keep at it for years (with repairs), at roughly 1/100th the cost of a "manned" program and with no peril to human lif
Read more

Pods and Self-driving Carriages

I'm not convinced we'll only want to rent self-driving taxis.  There are benefits to having a car with personal space: leaving things in your car such as a sweater for when a restaurant puts the AC too high, or storing packages purchased in different stores while out shopping, or simply having confidence that if you accidentally leave something in the car it'll still be there when you go back.  But there's a possible compromise.  Design for separable carriage and passenger/cargo pods.  Your personal pop sits along the street or in a garage.  You order a shared carriage, then sit in your pod to relax and listen to tunes, or start working.  In a few minutes a generic taxi-carriage comes along, slides under the pod to pick it up, and drives off with you.  There would be security features so no one else can order a carriage to pick up your pod from the street (i.e. steal it).   You could order a carriage with better range for long trips - more flexibility than a normal car.
Read more