[newscracker]

> The only way to beat cancer, really, is to die from something else first.

That was a short and pointed article.

More so after I read a short comic strip on PHD Comics about cancer [1], I can't help but think that "beating cancer" is a very tough (and impossible) goal for the ones suffering from it and the ones looking for better management or reduction of it.

That shining light of optimism after remission is tinged with a hint that a recurrence is just a little while away, and could possibly be the end of life. I also wonder if what happens before death is more painful than the heartbreak that death eventually brings.

[1]: http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1162

[Mahn]

> [1]: http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1162

So, forgive me if I'm being naive because I don't really have professional experience in the field of cancer research, but this comic makes it sound like a cure for cancer is impossible because it would have to deal with million different forms and shapes that it can take, but, theoretically, wouldn't it be possible to attack the root problem instead, and find a way to biologically enhance our dna replication "algorithm" to prevent mutations in the first place? Surely it's better to prevent the mutations in the first place than find a cure for them, since then it's a single problem.

[newscracker]

I'm nowhere close to having much knowledge about cancer either, so anything I say is as a lay person. This comic made sense when considering how many cancers are "treated" and what people go through when they have cancer and undergo treatment. Of course, not all types (or targets) of cancers are the same, and we do have better outcomes for some and possibly no hope for others. I've also read in the past that with our current technology, we can detect cancers only when they become significantly big, by which time it's usually kind of serious for the person.

The root cause solution is very likely going to be through some sort of genetic engineering (which is again quite complex). Preventing (bad) mutations requires (in my ignorant opinion) observation over a longer period of time after we find that there's a mutation. This would also need a lot of study and knowledge to be collected across races, genders, ages, etc. In summary, I think we have very less knowledge/information and need a lot more information, time and effort to get to solutions that would work for any human on the planet.

[wyqydsyq]

Curing it with traditional chemical medicine is impossible, sure.

I think you're right in that the best place to look for a cure is the root cause. If we could modify our genetics to prevent unregulated growth, or train/augment our immune systems to better recognize cancer cells, then our bodies would be capable of preventing it all on their own since as I understand it, most types of cancer are essentially caused by your immune system failing to recognize malignant growths.

There's also researchers [1] looking into the viability of utilizing nanorobotics to fight cancer (among other diseases that are incurable or require invasive surgery) - essentially you'd inject millions of nanobots into your bloodstream, which would circulate through your body, killing any cells which grow unregulated, and then exit through your urine when you're all clear.

[1] http://www.nextbigfuture.com./2015/05/pfizer-partnering-with...

[hughperkins]

Chemistry is pretty fudgy, dirty, hazy; and your dna doesnt have ECC.

[disease]

There is already a method that prevents such mutations: old age.