When Will We Have A Cure For Cancer?

[Obika]

Please, we have had a cure for YEARS. Just never published. And it likely will never be published until our entire system is changed and basic human intentions are changed.

Look at how much money goes into chemo and the like. Surgery. Doctors are making bank off cancer, and once there's a cure all that money goes bye bye.

A terrible And sad truth, I want a cure for it as bad as the next guy; I've lost family and friends to it. But the fact is people are greedy and aren't going to give up their paychecks for the greater good of mankind, those that do disappear. I met a guy that said he had a cure for it. Then he gave my dad an evelope with an address and said that if he didn't come out of the building within three hours he was dead and that my dad was to send the package. Something straight out of Hollywood but I swear to god it is true, and the dude was never heard from again.

Bottom line: people suck worse than cancer itself.

[Cogent Dream]

Obika

Please, we have had a cure for YEARS. Just never published. And it likely will never be published until our entire system is changed and basic human intentions are changed.

Look at how much money goes into chemo and the like. Surgery. Doctors are making bank off cancer, and once there's a cure all that money goes bye bye.

A terrible And sad truth, I want a cure for it as bad as the next guy; I've lost family and friends to it. But the fact is people are greedy and aren't going to give up their paychecks for the greater good of mankind, those that do disappear. I met a guy that said he had a cure for it. Then he gave my dad an evelope with an address and said that if he didn't come out of the building within three hours he was dead and that my dad was to send the package. Something straight out of Hollywood but I swear to god it is true, and the dude was never heard from again.

Bottom line: people suck worse than cancer itself.

Worst conspiracy theory ever.

[Obika]

Cogent Dream

Obika

Please, we have had a cure for YEARS. Just never published. And it likely will never be published until our entire system is changed and basic human intentions are changed.

Look at how much money goes into chemo and the like. Surgery. Doctors are making bank off cancer, and once there's a cure all that money goes bye bye.

A terrible And sad truth, I want a cure for it as bad as the next guy; I've lost family and friends to it. But the fact is people are greedy and aren't going to give up their paychecks for the greater good of mankind, those that do disappear. I met a guy that said he had a cure for it. Then he gave my dad an evelope with an address and said that if he didn't come out of the building within three hours he was dead and that my dad was to send the package. Something straight out of Hollywood but I swear to god it is true, and the dude was never heard from again.

Bottom line: people suck worse than cancer itself.

Worst conspiracy theory ever.

I thought so too until I had a first hand experience with it. So, -hefty shrug-

[GenOberst]

Obika

Cogent Dream

Obika

Please, we have had a cure for YEARS. Just never published. And it likely will never be published until our entire system is changed and basic human intentions are changed.

Look at how much money goes into chemo and the like. Surgery. Doctors are making bank off cancer, and once there's a cure all that money goes bye bye.

A terrible And sad truth, I want a cure for it as bad as the next guy; I've lost family and friends to it. But the fact is people are greedy and aren't going to give up their paychecks for the greater good of mankind, those that do disappear. I met a guy that said he had a cure for it. Then he gave my dad an evelope with an address and said that if he didn't come out of the building within three hours he was dead and that my dad was to send the package. Something straight out of Hollywood but I swear to god it is true, and the dude was never heard from again.

Bottom line: people suck worse than cancer itself.

Worst conspiracy theory ever.

I thought so too until I had a first hand experience with it. So, -hefty shrug-

And your first hand experience was...?

Even if there was a paper out there being suppressed, you really think no one else stumbled upon it? Science research isn't a bunch of people groping blindly in the dark for an answer. Research is the presentation of carefully thought out questions that get tested over and over and over. Those questions come out of literature research that spark ideas. And if no one has asked the question, and published a result based on that question, someone else is bound to ask the question and get results. It is so incredibly improbably that information like that is being suppressed, without more people out there fighting against the suppression of information.

Let me put it another way. Last year the US Government wanted the details for two experiments that detailed manipulation of H5N1 flu variant strains suppressed amid concerns for "biosecurity." Do you really think that other micro or virology or disease labs couldn't have come up with their own mutations to H5N1 to weaponize it? Research is a bunch of gradual steps leading to bigger discoveries. It's not a random collection of lightning in the bottle "Eureka!" moments.

[Obika]

GenOberst

Obika

I thought so too until I had a first hand experience with it. So, -hefty shrug-

And your first hand experience was...?

Even if there was a paper out there being suppressed, you really think no one else stumbled upon it? Science research isn't a bunch of people groping blindly in the dark for an answer. Research is the presentation of carefully thought out questions that get tested over and over and over. Those questions come out of literature research that spark ideas. And if no one has asked the question, and published a result based on that question, someone else is bound to ask the question and get results. It is so incredibly improbably that information like that is being suppressed, without more people out there fighting against the suppression of information.

Let me put it another way. Last year the US Government wanted the details for two experiments that detailed manipulation of H5N1 flu variant strains suppressed amid concerns for "biosecurity." Do you really think that other micro or virology or disease labs couldn't have come up with their own mutations to H5N1 to weaponize it? Research is a bunch of gradual steps leading to bigger discoveries. It's not a random collection of lightning in the bottle "Eureka!" moments.

Do you really feel the need to "put it another way"? I am perfectly capable of understanding what you are saying. I know how science works, I've studied it for quite sometime [albeit not in the biological aspect]. I am also aware of how politics work and there are very good reasons why I hate them. Science is the pursuit of true knowledge which is why I love it so much. Politics is, sadly, hardly ever about doing the right thing or using the truth to arrive at a conclusion. It's a messy, messy realm that never ceases to surprise me in the tricks and loopholes.

I'm not asking anyone to believe me since I have no direct proof other than a first-hand experience that I'll avoid detailing for my own sake. I am just stating that I strongly believe we already have the capabilities to deal with such things as cancer. Perhaps not the cure for every type there is out there, since it's constantly mutating, but the ability is there. Of course, like everything else in the working world, there are too many variables to know for certain one way or another at this point.

This is what I mean: "Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice"
I in NO way support what this article says nor do I say it comes from a relevant or reliable source, it is merely there to demonstrate my basic, bottom-line point: the cure can be there but due to politics and money it won't be "published."

I should specify by saying published I mean taken seriously and mass-marketed, not an actual published articles. I am sure there are thousands of those out there already.

[GenOberst]

Obika

GenOberst

Obika

I thought so too until I had a first hand experience with it. So, -hefty shrug-

And your first hand experience was...?

Even if there was a paper out there being suppressed, you really think no one else stumbled upon it? Science research isn't a bunch of people groping blindly in the dark for an answer. Research is the presentation of carefully thought out questions that get tested over and over and over. Those questions come out of literature research that spark ideas. And if no one has asked the question, and published a result based on that question, someone else is bound to ask the question and get results. It is so incredibly improbably that information like that is being suppressed, without more people out there fighting against the suppression of information.

Let me put it another way. Last year the US Government wanted the details for two experiments that detailed manipulation of H5N1 flu variant strains suppressed amid concerns for "biosecurity." Do you really think that other micro or virology or disease labs couldn't have come up with their own mutations to H5N1 to weaponize it? Research is a bunch of gradual steps leading to bigger discoveries. It's not a random collection of lightning in the bottle "Eureka!" moments.

Do you really feel the need to "put it another way"? I am perfectly capable of understanding what you are saying. I know how science works, I've studied it for quite sometime [albeit not in the biological aspect]. I am also aware of how politics work and there are very good reasons why I hate them. Science is the pursuit of true knowledge which is why I love it so much. Politics is, sadly, hardly ever about doing the right thing or using the truth to arrive at a conclusion. It's a messy, messy realm that never ceases to surprise me in the tricks and loopholes.

I'm not asking anyone to believe me since I have no direct proof other than a first-hand experience that I'll avoid detailing for my own sake. I am just stating that I strongly believe we already have the capabilities to deal with such things as cancer. Perhaps not the cure for every type there is out there, since it's constantly mutating, but the ability is there. Of course, like everything else in the working world, there are too many variables to know for certain one way or another at this point.

This is what I mean: "Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice"
I in NO way support what this article says nor do I say it comes from a relevant or reliable source, it is merely there to demonstrate my basic, bottom-line point: the cure can be there but due to politics and money it won't be "published."

I should specify by saying published I mean taken seriously and mass-marketed, not an actual published articles. I am sure there are thousands of those out there already.

Oh joy. DCA makes an appearance yet again on the Science and Tech forums. I believe I addressed DCA here. Towards the bottom of the first page. And I have a second response middle of the second pae. I even provide links to Orac (pseudonymous medical blogger who specializes in surgical oncology) and Dave Kroll (PhD in Pharmacology and Therapeutics, currently SciComm Director at the Nature Resource Center at NC Museum of Natural Sciences) and their blog articles addressing DCA. You could even do a search over at QuackWatch for DCA as well.

DCA didn't get suppressed because of money or politics. DCA was immediately discounted due to its toxicity in athymic rats. There are labs that are running controlled studies of DCA, still in athymic rats. Not a single one wants to advance to any other trial because they can't come up with safe protocols for human use. When the drug you're testing turns out more dangerous than the diagnosis, you move on to other ideas. You certainly keep in mind everything you learned with the previous drug, but you don't go "Let's send this to market right away!"

[Obika]

GenOberst

Obika

Do you really feel the need to "put it another way"? I am perfectly capable of understanding what you are saying. I know how science works, I've studied it for quite sometime [albeit not in the biological aspect]. I am also aware of how politics work and there are very good reasons why I hate them. Science is the pursuit of true knowledge which is why I love it so much. Politics is, sadly, hardly ever about doing the right thing or using the truth to arrive at a conclusion. It's a messy, messy realm that never ceases to surprise me in the tricks and loopholes.

I'm not asking anyone to believe me since I have no direct proof other than a first-hand experience that I'll avoid detailing for my own sake. I am just stating that I strongly believe we already have the capabilities to deal with such things as cancer. Perhaps not the cure for every type there is out there, since it's constantly mutating, but the ability is there. Of course, like everything else in the working world, there are too many variables to know for certain one way or another at this point.

This is what I mean: "Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice"
I in NO way support what this article says nor do I say it comes from a relevant or reliable source, it is merely there to demonstrate my basic, bottom-line point: the cure can be there but due to politics and money it won't be "published."

I should specify by saying published I mean taken seriously and mass-marketed, not an actual published articles. I am sure there are thousands of those out there already.

Oh joy. DCA makes an appearance yet again on the Science and Tech forums. I believe I addressed DCA here. Towards the bottom of the first page. And I have a second response middle of the second pae. I even provide links to Orac (pseudonymous medical blogger who specializes in surgical oncology) and Dave Kroll (PhD in Pharmacology and Therapeutics, currently SciComm Director at the Nature Resource Center at NC Museum of Natural Sciences) and their blog articles addressing DCA. You could even do a search over at QuackWatch for DCA as well.

DCA didn't get suppressed because of money or politics. DCA was immediately discounted due to its toxicity in athymic rats. There are labs that are running controlled studies of DCA, still in athymic rats. Not a single one wants to advance to any other trial because they can't come up with safe protocols for human use. When the drug you're testing turns out more dangerous than the diagnosis, you move on to other ideas. You certainly keep in mind everything you learned with the previous drug, but you don't go "Let's send this to market right away!"

I'm going to warn you now that I am running on 40+ hours of no sleep, so I may be a tinge... irrational/irritable/pissed off.

But did you even read what I said after you clicked the link? I'll repeat it, just in case.
"I in NO way support what this article says nor do I say it comes from a relevant or reliable source, it is merely there to demonstrate my basic, bottom-line point: the cure can be there but due to politics and money[[DCA being toxic doesn't fit in here]] it won't be "published.""

I am not a biologist, I have no intentions of becoming one, nor do I feel the need to pretend I have a ******** clue what all that hoopla is.

My point is that though there may be a cure [whatever it is, DCA or Holy Dog Piss] it isn't going to mass produced. At least for a considerable amount of time. I'm not saying that everyone in the medical industry is crooked and out for themselves, but enough people out there don't want to give up their paycheck that they get from surgeries, chemo, other treatments we currently have to write a persciption for a medication that they take for X amount of time.

"When the drug you're testing turns out more dangerous than the diagnosis, you move on to other ideas." Just going to say that this actually made me laugh, not sarcastically, I just find it humourous. Again, I'm not in all this sort of science [I'm a physics / astronomy / math brain], but just watching TV seems to contradict your point though I fully agree with you. Just , you know, "this treats your allergies but may cause TB." TB seems a tad bit more dangerous than sneezing. I know that they HAVE to say that all legally if it even hints at it, yada yada, blah-blah, but that's why it made me laugh.

[GenOberst]

Obika

GenOberst

Obika

Do you really feel the need to "put it another way"? I am perfectly capable of understanding what you are saying. I know how science works, I've studied it for quite sometime [albeit not in the biological aspect]. I am also aware of how politics work and there are very good reasons why I hate them. Science is the pursuit of true knowledge which is why I love it so much. Politics is, sadly, hardly ever about doing the right thing or using the truth to arrive at a conclusion. It's a messy, messy realm that never ceases to surprise me in the tricks and loopholes.

I'm not asking anyone to believe me since I have no direct proof other than a first-hand experience that I'll avoid detailing for my own sake. I am just stating that I strongly believe we already have the capabilities to deal with such things as cancer. Perhaps not the cure for every type there is out there, since it's constantly mutating, but the ability is there. Of course, like everything else in the working world, there are too many variables to know for certain one way or another at this point.

This is what I mean: "Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice"
I in NO way support what this article says nor do I say it comes from a relevant or reliable source, it is merely there to demonstrate my basic, bottom-line point: the cure can be there but due to politics and money it won't be "published."

I should specify by saying published I mean taken seriously and mass-marketed, not an actual published articles. I am sure there are thousands of those out there already.

Oh joy. DCA makes an appearance yet again on the Science and Tech forums. I believe I addressed DCA here. Towards the bottom of the first page. And I have a second response middle of the second pae. I even provide links to Orac (pseudonymous medical blogger who specializes in surgical oncology) and Dave Kroll (PhD in Pharmacology and Therapeutics, currently SciComm Director at the Nature Resource Center at NC Museum of Natural Sciences) and their blog articles addressing DCA. You could even do a search over at QuackWatch for DCA as well.

DCA didn't get suppressed because of money or politics. DCA was immediately discounted due to its toxicity in athymic rats. There are labs that are running controlled studies of DCA, still in athymic rats. Not a single one wants to advance to any other trial because they can't come up with safe protocols for human use. When the drug you're testing turns out more dangerous than the diagnosis, you move on to other ideas. You certainly keep in mind everything you learned with the previous drug, but you don't go "Let's send this to market right away!"

I'm going to warn you now that I am running on 40+ hours of no sleep, so I may be a tinge... irrational/irritable/pissed off.

But did you even read what I said after you clicked the link? I'll repeat it, just in case.
"I in NO way support what this article says nor do I say it comes from a relevant or reliable source, it is merely there to demonstrate my basic, bottom-line point: the cure can be there but due to politics and money[[DCA being toxic doesn't fit in here]] it won't be "published.""

I am not a biologist, I have no intentions of becoming one, nor do I feel the need to pretend I have a ******** clue what all that hoopla is.

My point is that though there may be a cure [whatever it is, DCA or Holy Dog Piss] it isn't going to mass produced. At least for a considerable amount of time. I'm not saying that everyone in the medical industry is crooked and out for themselves, but enough people out there don't want to give up their paycheck that they get from surgeries, chemo, other treatments we currently have to write a persciption for a medication that they take for X amount of time.

"When the drug you're testing turns out more dangerous than the diagnosis, you move on to other ideas." Just going to say that this actually made me laugh, not sarcastically, I just find it humourous. Again, I'm not in all this sort of science [I'm a physics / astronomy / math brain], but just watching TV seems to contradict your point though I fully agree with you. Just , you know, "this treats your allergies but may cause TB." TB seems a tad bit more dangerous than sneezing. I know that they HAVE to say that all legally if it even hints at it, yada yada, blah-blah, but that's why it made me laugh.

Actually, an allergy drug making you more susceptible to TB isn't unusual. Not by a long shot. Allergy meds work largely by either blocking histamine production/interaction or by blocking Immunoglobulin-E production/interaction. IgE is an antibody your body produces and is typically responsible or active in allergic responses. Drugs tailored to the IgE gateway can also interfere with other immunoglobulins. Which would lower your innate immune response. Lowered innate immune response means easier infection course. Easier infection course is, well, you get sick easier. TB could be one of the illnesses because you've possibly weakened your immune system. Even though IgE doesn't deal with viral/bacterial interactions, the IgE drugs could interfere somewhat with your other antibodies.

[Cogent Dream]

Obika

First of all, any scientist is going to tell you that "I met a guy who said so and so" isn't going to be sufficient evidence to prove anything so your first hand experience means squat.

Second of all, if your only argument is that the cure for cancer would never be published because of politics and money, you're dead wrong. High level researchers don't care as much about money as they do about recognition in the science community. Also, even if they did care, could you imagine the amount of money a patent on the cure for cancer would bring? Not only that, the macroeconomic benefit of extending the lives of employees in the workforce would benefit a country as a whole a lot more than some doctor pocketing a few more extra bucks.

My parents are both PhD nuclear physicists and the science courses I've done at university aren't specifically biology related. However, I do have a bachelor's degree in commerce and economics, so if you're going to argue about "reasons of money" I can tell you that you're dead wrong. Also, having personally met many of the leading senior scientists and researchers in my country, I can also tell you that if such a monumental discovery was made, it would be EVERYWHERE in the science community. Politicians cannot possibly silence the voices of a million widely respected scientists.

[Obika]

Cogent Dream

Obika

First of all, any scientist is going to tell you that "I met a guy who said so and so" isn't going to be sufficient evidence to prove anything so your first hand experience means squat.

Second of all, if your only argument is that the cure for cancer would never be published because of politics and money, you're dead wrong. High level researchers don't care as much about money as they do about recognition in the science community. Also, even if they did care, could you imagine the amount of money a patent on the cure for cancer would bring? Not only that, the macroeconomic benefit of extending the lives of employees in the workforce would benefit a country as a whole a lot more than some doctor pocketing a few more extra bucks.

My parents are both PhD nuclear physicists and the science courses I've done at university aren't specifically biology related. However, I do have a bachelor's degree in commerce and economics, so if you're going to argue about "reasons of money" I can tell you that you're dead wrong. Also, having personally met many of the leading senior scientists and researchers in my country, I can also tell you that if such a monumental discovery was made, it would be EVERYWHERE in the science community. Politicians cannot possibly silence the voices of a million widely respected scientists.

Oi, y'all don't like reading.

I don't see the point in defending myself, so y'all can go about with your beliefs and I'll go about with mine. This is not me telling you that you're wrong. Contrary, you make valid points. But I know things that you never will, just as you know things I never will. This leads to different view points.

I'd also like to say that even though I am of a scientific inclination, I look at things from all view points instead of rashly believing "facts." I live with the idea that even such basics as the laws of gravity may be changed at any given time for whatever reason. I'd recommend that others do that same, difficult as it may be. Leads to a lot of conflict, but even more respect in the long haul.

And I never said politics dealt with the politicians. It goes a lot further than that. A lot further.

[Cogent Dream]

Obika

Cogent Dream

Obika

First of all, any scientist is going to tell you that "I met a guy who said so and so" isn't going to be sufficient evidence to prove anything so your first hand experience means squat.

Second of all, if your only argument is that the cure for cancer would never be published because of politics and money, you're dead wrong. High level researchers don't care as much about money as they do about recognition in the science community. Also, even if they did care, could you imagine the amount of money a patent on the cure for cancer would bring? Not only that, the macroeconomic benefit of extending the lives of employees in the workforce would benefit a country as a whole a lot more than some doctor pocketing a few more extra bucks.

My parents are both PhD nuclear physicists and the science courses I've done at university aren't specifically biology related. However, I do have a bachelor's degree in commerce and economics, so if you're going to argue about "reasons of money" I can tell you that you're dead wrong. Also, having personally met many of the leading senior scientists and researchers in my country, I can also tell you that if such a monumental discovery was made, it would be EVERYWHERE in the science community. Politicians cannot possibly silence the voices of a million widely respected scientists.

Oi, y'all don't like reading.

I don't see the point in defending myself, so y'all can go about with your beliefs and I'll go about with mine. This is not me telling you that you're wrong. Contrary, you make valid points. But I know things that you never will, just as you know things I never will. This leads to different view points.

I'd also like to say that even though I am of a scientific inclination, I look at things from all view points instead of rashly believing "facts." I live with the idea that even such basics as the laws of gravity may be changed at any given time for whatever reason. I'd recommend that others do that same, difficult as it may be. Leads to a lot of conflict, but even more respect in the long haul.

And I never said politics dealt with the politicians. It goes a lot further than that. A lot further.

If you specifically say that "the cure for cancer will never be published because of money and politics" then obviously someone's going to prove you wrong. If you consciously ignore proof, you're living in a bubble.

Also, gravity has been in question for a long time in the science community. People are always challenging facts, but when they do, they do it with proper means and irrefutable evidence, rather than baseless conspiracy stories.

Why don't you put it this way? If you discovered the cure for cancer and could save the lives on millions of people, whilst earning money and fame for yourself at the same time, would you intentionally hide the cure?

[Obika]

Cogent Dream

If you specifically say that "the cure for cancer will never be published because of money and politics" then obviously someone's going to prove you wrong. If you consciously ignore proof, you're living in a bubble.

Also, gravity has been in question for a long time in the science community. People are always challenging facts, but when they do, they do it with proper means and irrefutable evidence, rather than baseless conspiracy stories.

Why don't you put it this way? If you discovered the cure for cancer and could save the lives on millions of people, whilst earning money and fame for yourself at the same time, would you intentionally hide the cure?

Seriously, these are just examples people. I know gravity has been in question for ages; I'm one of the people questioning it, scientifically. Specifically I'm working with gravitational lensing, but it all gets questioned and tested.

Again, I'm NOT saying it's one individual or one group holding it up. If I discovered the cure I'd be jumping up and down, publishing papers, and running to the nearest news station available. It's not like I'm saying I am against a cure, I'm all for it. I am saying that there is a lot more to the picture that's "invisible" to most people. Background work sort of thing. I've been blessed, or as I look at it, cursed enough to see some of this. That's my point.

[Cogent Dream]

Obika

Cogent Dream

If you specifically say that "the cure for cancer will never be published because of money and politics" then obviously someone's going to prove you wrong. If you consciously ignore proof, you're living in a bubble.

Also, gravity has been in question for a long time in the science community. People are always challenging facts, but when they do, they do it with proper means and irrefutable evidence, rather than baseless conspiracy stories.

Why don't you put it this way? If you discovered the cure for cancer and could save the lives on millions of people, whilst earning money and fame for yourself at the same time, would you intentionally hide the cure?

Seriously, these are just examples people. I know gravity has been in question for ages; I'm one of the people questioning it, scientifically. Specifically I'm working with gravitational lensing, but it all gets questioned and tested.

Again, I'm NOT saying it's one individual or one group holding it up. If I discovered the cure I'd be jumping up and down, publishing papers, and running to the nearest news station available. It's not like I'm saying I am against a cure, I'm all for it. I am saying that there is a lot more to the picture that's "invisible" to most people. Background work sort of thing. I've been blessed, or as I look at it, cursed enough to see some of this. That's my point.

I fail to see anything special here. There's always a lot more to every picture. That doesn't mean that if a cure for cancer existed, it would never become available (which is what you specifically said in your first post).

You're changing what you meant in your opening argument. Maybe you didn't say what you meant to, but based on what you said there, your argument is invalid.

[Obika]

Cogent Dream

I fail to see anything special here. There's always a lot more to every picture. That doesn't mean that if a cure for cancer existed, it would never become available (which is what you specifically said in your first post).

You're changing what you meant in your opening argument. Maybe you didn't say what you meant to, but based on what you said there, your argument is invalid.

Never is an irrationally long time, so I change my argument to "a very long time."
It is not invalidated.

But my argument and your argument don't matter. You may be right and I may be wrong, vice-versa, or we may both be wrong. Us throwing words at one another isn't helping the case in anyway, so I see no point in it continuing.

[Stoic Passion]

Vannak

Ryu Kei Shou Kawazu

Vannak

Cancer isn't really a single disease that you take a pill for and get cured. It's a wide variety of different types of abnormal cell growths. A "cure" is unlikely. A good library of different treatments and save options for different people is a better goal.

all cancer is cancer and therefore there can be something to counteract all cancers based on their similarities they have.

That's just simply not true, at least with foreseeable technology.

Cancers can arise from a variety of different genetic and environmental causes, a one shot cure for cancer is like a one shot cure for mental diseases, auto immune diseases or anything else.

Cancer is a personal disease, it's not like viral infections where the cause is a simple set of proteins where you find the drug to kill it and it works.

Saying all cancer is cancer and thus we can find a cure by what they have in common is like saying children is children and one day we'll have the perfect method to raise children because of their similarities.

What if we create self replicating nanobots that can constantly change and redesign themselves and police the body for an ever increasing amount of conditions based on an ever increasing amounts of data within some kind of micro quantum computers and these nanobots operate out of a personal server implanted into your body or kept on a person at all times and that server is connected to the internet which feeds new programming updates all the time which creates a cycle of ever improving efficacy somewhat akin to evolution? The risks of foul play may seem high but I can imagine a sort of technological singularity like that implanted inside every human being alive that works to merge us with the collective consciousness of all humanity or even other races in a semi-psychologically unified mental merging of humanity that allows us to access updates and mods to our bodies and minds as we see fit while of course society would need some kind of mechanism to police a planet filled with interconnected immortal super beings that retain the concept of free will or at least free will is it will be understood in the future if it isn't already known now (I don't know s**t). I probably left out a mountain of possibilities due to my lack of knowlage about every damn thing that makes up everything.