Hacker News Reader

Comment by gus_massa | Hacker News Reader

> Maybe curing cancer in the 2020s is way harder than going to the moon in the 1960s. I have no idea. But it doesn’t sound like we’re even trying to cure cancer.

Yep, that's the problem. After 1969, a moonshot means two things:

1) It's hard, very hard.

2) It's possible in a short time frame.

Curing cancer is hard. Check.

It's not possible in a short time frame. They are just lying. They call it a moonshot to sound cool.

Curing cancer in 10 years is like promising to open a hotel in all planets and all major moons in the solar system. And curing cancer is perhaps harder.

On the other hand there have been a lot of small improvements. I know someone that got like 10 years on no cancer grow with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormonal_therapy_(oncology) . It's not a cure, but 10 more years is a good step.

View on HN

> It's not possible in a short time frame.

This is not true. Cancer is wide, it's not "one thing" but lets talk real world.

We have saved millions with hardcore anti-smoking campaigns. I don't agree with them, but they cured millions none the less.

Ozempic will cure millions of cancer if it works, which so far it seems to.

We can and do jump.

If we do as the article warns, be losers and pretend 'cancer' is a mysterious Satan and accept it's fate then we won't.

I agree that we can cure somo cancers. But a cure for all cancers is probably impossible.

Interestingly, those mammals that are highly resistant to cancer (such as bats or whales), tend to be resistant against all cancers at once, for decades.

Maybe a stronger immune system, such as the bats have - it is really incomparable to humans - can whack cancer cells reliably regardless of their particular genetic signature. Much like it can kill various germs without analyzing their DNA/RNA first.

You are conflating "curing" with "preventing through abstinence via social means". Both are good, but they're also very different.

> We have saved millions with hardcore anti-smoking campaigns. I don't agree with them, but they cured millions none the less.

Can you expand on that last bit? Why don’t you agree with them?

There is no financial incentive to cure cancer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25LUF8GmbFU

I've never understood this take. So you seriously think that if you developed a cure for cancer there isn't economic value there? If you ever find one i'll pay you a million dollars to be nice and take it off your hands

Under the current medical system a cure for cancer will mean financial problems for hospital systems, doctors, nurses, and the entire medical establishment.

Under the current medical system a cure for cancer would safe the medical industry billions of dollars a year.

If you can make random assertions, I can too.

Saving money doesn't put food on the table for hospital execs and doctors and medical staff. BILLABLES DO. Surgeries, pills, in-person care. What don't you understand?

You can make shit up all your want to justify your own position. Its made up.

It puts food on the table for pharmaceutical execs, and any hospital execs who offer a cure when their competitors dont

So i don't disagree with that, but i think you're way off on how a cure would play out.

a). it wouldn't be developed by "the medical community" but by a specific group of profit seeking people. They don't and won't care if they put other people out of work

b). I can't think of a single example where what you're talking about has been true. Every huge economic shift has had winners and losers but don't seem to be suppressed successfully right? maybe i'm missing some cases but just doesn't seem realistic

yes, but It would be a trillion dollar invention for whomever created it.

Inventors and researchers are motivated by their potential rewards, not second order consequences for other parties.

Hundreds of billions of dollars flow into oncology research trying to make improvements.

That did not seem to bother Gilead when they cured Hepatitis C and stole business from their competitors, who were only making ongoing treatments, by ruthlessly undercutting them so that Gilead would get tens to hundreds of billions of dollars for themselves and their shareholders instead of the executives and shareholders of their competitors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com