PSA about cancer

Those of you who have been to the front page have probably seen this post by now

A lot of people seem to have their jimmies rustled over this image. Gladly, many of you who saw this post agreed with the OP, lapotat, that the girl's message is completely incorrect. Yet, there were a few who actually agreed with what the girl taped to her face. Let's take a few minutes to learn a few things about cancer and cancer medication.

My lab

Regarding my qualifications to teach anything about cancer and cancer medication. I am currently researching taxanes and taxoids, cancer medication used primarily against breast, ovarian, and lung cancer, at my university. I am an undergraduate student, going into my third year. I have two and a half years of laboratory experience and research under my belt, which may not seem like a lot compared to experts but it's more than most students my age.

I am obviously not an expert, but I am well-informed.

Cancer pathway

Let me first state it bluntly: there is no cure-all for cancer.

There are, instead, hundreds of types of treatments for cancer that have five main categories: Cell cycle, Replicative Lifespan, Apoptosis, Change in Gene Expression, and Mobilization of Resources. Major medication on the market today work in those five categories to kill off cancer cells, but they also come at the risk of attacking healthy cells (as seen by the side effects).

These medications work in ways such as stopping the mutated cells from going through mitosis (cell cycle) and lowering the number of times the mutated cells can go through mitosis (replicative lifespan).

Anyone who wishes to read more into the map:
http://www.nature.com/nrc/poster/subpathways/index.html

Cancer

Cancer is the rapid and uncontrolled division of mutated cells. These cells can be any part of your body, from your brain to your heart. Any and every cell in your body can become cancerous if it has been mutated correctly. Since every cell can become cancerous, every type of cancer is unique in its own way. Cancer may be divided into the major organs it affects and given general names such as breast or pancreatic cancer, but going into specifics no two cancers are the same. Every cell affected and the progression of the cancer is different. This is why the idea single pill cure-all is wrong.

Most people assume a cure-all to be a drug that you can take once and the cancer will go away. That's simply not possible. You have to take into consideration that our bodies are highly unique to each individual. TheBlackShakes makes a good comparison: "The idea of there being a single cancer cure is like there being a single part you can replace that will fix anything wrong with your car." To expand on his metaphor, we are all unique cars. Vaccinations can be considered tune-ups that all cars can receive while fuel is food. Cancer would be a broken part, as stated before. Just because we can change the affected part in one car doesn't mean we can use that same new part in a different car. You wouldn't put the same carburetor you'd put in a Toyota into a Benz, right?

But this doesn't mean each medication is unique to each cancer patienet. Just as you some car models have engines with interchangable parts between the models, there are medications that can be used on a wide range of cancers.

"Corporations are hiding the cure. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!"

No.

The fat cats that sit on their comfy leather seats with chilled cup holders are not forcing doctors, researchers, and medical staff to hide a cure. There is no cure. But let's take this into the realm of what ifs.

Let's get a few things clear before the what ifs though: drug development and distribution takes a lot of both time and money. A $1 cure is simply not possible. There are hundreds of expenditures that come with drug development and distribution.

For those who would like to view costs and survival rates of cancers in 2010 vs projected costs and survival rates of cancers in 2020:
http://costprojections.cancer.gov/annual.costs.html

What if there was a cure?

Drug Development Costs: This is one of the few steps in creating taxols, a cancer medication, specifically paciltaxel. Does it look simple to you? Most likely, no. Synthesis is a complicated process and there are a number of ways to screw up the synthesis process. To add on to that, the percent yield for your product is almost never 100%. so after each reaction, the amount of product you have goes lower and lower.

For example, 49's starting material, 10-Deacetylbaccatin (10DAB), from it's natural source is ~$250 per 5mg. A synthesized 10DAB is ~$100 per gram. Additionally most of these drugs must be kept in a dry system (no water vapor), kept under nitrogen, making transport difficult.

The material to synthesize the drug is expensive, hiring people who know what they're doing is expensive, transporting the materials safely is expensive, thus making the actual drug itself expensive. A $1 cure would mean that the availability of the cure-all would be similar to a bottle of water.

Now what if there was a cure that worked 100% of the time and was easy to make, but companies decided to sell it for an outrageous price. If that was the case, then it's up the people to bring the problem up to their governments for allowing such prices and it is in no way the fault of the scientists who found/made the cure. If this actually happens, talk to your local and state politicians and voice your concerns, not put your views on scotch tape then put it to your face.

What if there was a cure (whether it's cheap or expensive, simple or difficult to synthesize) and the fat cats are just hiding it because they're mean? Once again, not possible. If this was an actual case, then there would be news of hundreds of researchers being laid off for no apparent reason, bringing suspicion to the company.
No cancer researcher is doing their job for the sake of profit. They're working to put themselves out of a job by finding a cure, not attempting to swim in Scrooge McDuckian vault.

What if there was a cure, they killed off all the scientists who knew about it and their families, then hid the cure from everyone keeping the secret amongst the few elite and powerful?
For the sake of reaching the whole range of audience who go on Imgur, this situation can exist--if you're in a 60's spy movie or part of the Kingsman.

What would be a cure-all?

TheEntireScottishNavy put it nicely: "The potential for a cure for cancer, of any type, would advance medical knowledge of cellular biology by a massive margin because if such a cure, especially in the genetic realm of medicine, were found...the potential for human modification would be possible"

The cure-all would be the ability to rewrite the genetic code, specifically in human. We don't have the ability nor will we have it for decades considering the difficulty of changing our genetic code safely.

What about homeopathic/dietary cures?

Dr. Cox is right, there is no significant cure for cancer either homeopathic or dietary and you might as well just save the bell pepper for Stir Fryday. Anyone who states that they have a cure that is homeopathic or dietary is most likely lying.

There is currently no significant data or research that shows that homeopathic cures have an effect on cancer. Dietary changes do not cure cancer, they only lower your risk for cancer. There are numerous studies that show that a dietary restriction and/or change can lower your risk for cancer, so eat healthy!

http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/7/1/42.abstract
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/3/4/506.full
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0053607

If anyone has any other questions, there are numerous sites where you can read up on cancer research, but please remember to look at acredited sites with sources or relevant data. You are also free to send me any question. I'm always happy to answer people's questions.