2016

There's better return on investments for pharmaceuticals in developing long-term treatments that aren't cures; same reason we're relatively lacking in varieties of antibiotics.

>>7749311
2017
>>7749322
Fuck you.

>>7749311
2015

The standard answer is "there is no such thing as a cure for cancer because cancer us not one disease, it's many diseases." But really I don't see why there couldn't hypothetically be something that lets the body fight any type of cancer. Like, tiny robots or something. (Not near future obviously.)

There's also usually some "le evil corporate conspiracy" shitposting, as if the company that cured cancer wouldn't make is shareholders incredibly rich, and as if those evil corporate overlords didn't want to cure their own cance for some reason.

Many forms of cancer are already curable and treatble if detected at an early age.

>>7749343
This.

I also think the cure for cancer will not be sudden, but very gradual. We have already taken a disease that was a death sentence 30 years ago and made it survivable. There's so much research and money going into cancer it's ridiculous, but there's many different kinds of treatments. One of my professors is working with the biology department of developing a photoreactive compound that travels to cancer cells which can then be exposed to a certain wavelength of light to kill everything in the area. People are really thinking hard and outside the box to come to a conclusion. It's just a matter of time.

>>7749311
http://www.nature.com/news/simple-molecule-prevents-mole-rats-from-getting-cancer-1.13236

I saw that article too.
>19 June 2013
What's taking so fucking long? Is there even a possibility they'll get to human trials.

>>7749870
It's not taking that long. This shit takes years and human trials are usually treated pretty seriously. They're not going to finish the project in only two years.