The Cancer Industry: Hype versus Reality
johnhorgan.org
johnhorgan.org
The distant ancestors of our cells were single cell organisms. The default behavior of single cell organisms is to replicate basically whenever possible. Therefore our cells likely have a replication inhibition mechanism. Cancer is what happens when a cell’s replication inhibition mechanism breaks (or rather, when the code to produce the mechanism becomes corrupted).
It feels like we should be pouring money into identifying the replication inhibition mechanism in our genome and figuring out ways to reinforce it. To start we could find the mechanism in the simplest multi cell organisms, since they must have a similar mechanism and it may in fact turn out to be very similar to our own (i.e. we could get lucky).
Is this sort of research happening? It doesn’t sound easy, of course, but I haven’t heard of anything like it underway.
That is an hypothesis. Not fact.
1) Not prescribing hormones to post-menopausal women has caused a drastic reduction in breast cancer.
2) HPV vaccines are going to cause cervical cancers to drop like a rock.
I can go on about other things, but we're definitely winning against cancer overall. And there are a lot more preventative things like these that are in the pipe.
Now, if you want argue that our treatments once you get diagnosed with cancer still suck, I'm far more sympathtic. Chemotherapy is still hell unless you luck out and have one of the magic receptors.
However, simply being a gadfly is insufficient. You also need to propose how to improve the situation. And this article shows absolutely nothing on that front.
HRT was supposed to (among other things) reduce breast cancer incidence.
Stopping a bad anti-cancer intervention is a hollow victory in the war against cancer.
> 2) HPV vaccines are going to cause cervical cancers to drop like a rock.
That's the theory and hope. Has it been actually observed yet?
Shouldn't we wait with the victory parade until the actual victory?
"among other things" wasn't a small group.
HRT was suppposed to stave off osteoporosis, many forms of heart disease, help with obesity and diabetes, and ameliorate lots of menopause symptoms (hot flashes, brain fogs, etc.).
The fact that it made breast cancer worse overrode all of those.
> That's the theory and hope. Has it been actually observed yet?
Like, duh.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
She had her treatment in Europe, so contrary to the article's claims, she did not go bankrupt. In fact she did not have to pay much more than a small administrative fee (~150$).
She had missed the mass national child vaccination campaign against HPV by just a couple of years, and so never got vaccinated.
If you are a parent, please, look into if vaccinating your child (both sexes benefit for the vaccination) against HPV is possible. If you are not yet sexually active, please look into getting a vaccine for your self.
It is one of the only actual preventitive cures for a specific cancer type we have, and we do not celebrate that fact nearly enough.
1. Most of the data cited stops around 2010, ignoring the huge progress that checkpoint inhibitors and cell therapies have made in many cancers.
2. Mixed up issues of treatment progress and treatment access. Treatment progress is a fact, but can be missed if patients don’t have access.
Access in the US is essentially a political issue - states with Medicaid expansion, for example, have better overall access than those that don’t. Also, in general, changing Medical practice is slow, even once a therapy is approved.
The narrative that we have only poor treatment options that don’t advance misses the true progress that has been made, and let’s those responsible, ie insurance companies and politicians off the hook.