But think of the relative simplicity and efficacy (specificity to tumor cells) compared to mucking about with radiation or small differences in oncological internal biochemistry.
>>But think of the relative simplicity and efficacy (specificity to tumor cells) compared to mucking about with radiation or small differences in oncological internal biochemistry.
I thought the article showed brilliance and was incredibly exciting with potential. I’ll pass it along to friends to whom I shove such things. But that happens all the time.
I had some mini-strokes and was on the surgical cart about to get my aorta roto-rooted and the surgeon came by to discuss what he’d do. I went out of my mind with the brilliance and simplicity of the innovation he’d come up with. You immediately had trouble understanding why this approach had not been used before and it just took a flash of mind for this man to have realized the possibilities.
I LOVE THAT SORT OF THING. And it happens a lot. Thank goodness for future inventions and minds that think out of the box. After all, the research money is in making diddles on whatever the current soup d’jour of the research world is.
The cancer treatment industry is huge. If patients keep needing treatments rather than get cured, there is very like a $$ incentive.
There are financial incentives for holding back cure, i.e., the flow of money for research in finding a cure. I would not be surprised to learn that such holding back has been done.
Raising money for cancer research has become a racket. Look at the Susan Komen Foundation, for example.