My take on cancer: diplomacy

APOTHEOSIS by Vasily  Vereshchagin

War or diplomacy 

What is easier: to start a war or to avoid it through diplomacy? What do you prefer? An uncertain ending with millions of lives lost or a diplomatic path of logic, perseverance, and compromise that saves millions of lives?




Wars start with pointing fingers

After a somewhat-preventable disaster strikes, the pointing of fingers starts. However, trying to identify the culprits does not reverse the consequences of any disaster. In the past 40 years, “pointing fingers”, followed by an announcement of a WAR ON CANCER, has been our  strategy against the dreaded disease. 

The prevalent notion has been that we can deal with cancer by identifying the mutations that contribute to the abnormal cell development. This great eureka moment goes like this:

“AH, IT IS THE MUTATION IN THE GENES X, Y, and/or Z that causes cancer.”

This realization is followed by the design of drugs against the mutant gene products X, Y or Z. Does it work? To be fair, the strategy works, sometimes... In most cases, however, the strategy is beneficial (profitable) for the drug company, but not for the patient. Why?

1. The approach is (frequently) this of management of the disease, but not cure.

2. Each cancer patient has a unique combination of gene mutations; therefore, we need to determine the precise mutation profile of each patient. Even if we do so, we may not have the targeted drugs to "attack" patient's unique mutation profile.

3. With time, cancer changes its mutation landscape. If at the start of the treatment, the identified mutations are X, Y, and Z, by the end of the treatment, there could be an abundance of cancer cells with mutations Z, W, and D. The outcome? The treatment regimen fails, the patient dies, the pharmaceutical company offering the treatment profits. Hopefully, the patient’s family is not financially broke.
 
What is wrong with our strategy of pointing fingers? First and foremost, TIMING.

Before any disaster strikes, and before we reach the stage of pointing fingers, there is a period, during which the potential for a disaster could be evaluated, and if high, could be addressed. 

Evaluating, addressing and preventing a disaster is the path of diplomacy:

prevention = diplomacy  

Cancer is not different from other disasters, including wars. There are risk factors that we can eliminate, and signals that we can detect BEFORE CANCER STRIKES. 

The same way WARS could be prevented by smart diplomats, CANCER can be prevented by smart leaders of the nation.  The researchers have already contributed to deciphering what causes CANCER, it is time for our leaders to implement the knowledge and prevent most of the cancer cases.

Although both WARS and CANCER have taken and will take millions of lives, they can also make some people filthy rich. Is this why we go for a war with CANCER, rather than employ some diplomacy with CANCER (i.e., with the well known sources of risk factors: the tobacco, food, agricultural industries and even our educational system that reinforces sedentary lifestyle)?