why havent we cured cancer yet?

Answer 1

Why is it up to our Government to find a cure?
We haven't because cancers are different from each-other.
If you find a cure for one kind it doesn't mean it will cure all of them.
Yes some can be cured.
But it's not so much a cure as it kills the tissue that's infected.

Joe_Floggs: You lying @$$hole, Reagan never asked that.
He died way before the decision on stem cell research.
Reagan Jr. asked that stem cell research be done, before and after his fathers death.

Answer 2

Cancer is a multi-use word. There are many types of cancer and each one reacts differently.
Apparently for cancer to appear there need to be about 200 seperate mutations in the human body to create the right situation for cancer to develop. It is far more complex than was first thought.
Chemotherapy is a blanket therapy which attacks any rapid growth cells. That is why chemotherapy patients lose their hair because hair contains cells which grow rapidly and therefore are attacked by the treatment.
Once researchers have finally discovered exactly what causes all the various types of cancer, it might then be possible to do something about it. Find the cause and you're half-way to the cure.

Answer 3

There is definately an element of government/corporate iressesponsiblity out there. When reagan was dieing of Alzheimers, he asked George Bush to reconsider his stance on stem cell research (since it was possible route to curing the brain disorder). Something I believe he was against in some way until he became ill.

Curing disease isn't profitable for many cures which partly explains the millions of pseudo drugs which help you get through the disease. Not since the polio vaccine has there been a large disease cure - AIDS, CANCER, PARKINSONS and more are yet to meet their match

However, the problem is also one of science. The reason why death from disease has fallen so much is mainly due to the fact that we have been able to coax our bodies to defend themselves better through vaccines and various other treatments. There breakthroughs came in the late 19th and early 20th century. The politcal climate was also different back then but I won't delve into this. My point here is that curing a disease once it's inside the body is a much more difficult thing to do than preventing it. Take cancer for example. Cancer is a very difficult case because we're not dealing with a foreign agent here. Cancer is when your body tissue replicates out of control because of some sort dna mutation. Cancer cells are somewhat different to normal cells which is where chemo and radiotheraphy come in. But other than that it's incredibly difficult to isolate these cells and destroy them,

Isolation is the key. How do you isolate a specific entity? Antibioitcs simply worked by destroying bacteria since the antibody was effectively poison to them and not to human tissue. But it's not selective to specific organisms. For example good bacteria in your stomach is also destroyed when you take antibiotics and so you have to be carefull what you eat after taking them.

Currently technology looks at the different protein patterns found on virii and bacterial diseases. They're like fingerprints. The next step is to usually find a substance which binds to that specific protein structure. When you literally have billions of different compounds, some toxic to humans, it's very difficult to find one substance which is both safe for humans and is specific to the disease. Oxford university currently have a screensaver which tries to 'create' copounds which might 'fit' the protein patterns, i highly recommend you download it and help the effort.

I hope what i've said goes a little towards why it's dificult to find cures, and it;s not all down to conspiracy

Answer 4

The real reason is because the treatments for cancer that come close are still too dangerous to the human body. They can not sell a cure for cancer if the cure is deadly as well.

Answer 5

I hate to answer this question due to the scale of people who suffer with this disease, the last thing anyone with the condition wants to read is a bunch of cynical people making negative comments.

Leaps and bounds have been made over the past couple of decades, and survival rates are much higher than they were when i was born.

The human body is very complex and we are not all the same, so it wouldn't be a "one cure for all" anyway.

I sincerely hope that everything that can be done is being done, and that cures and advances are not witheld from sufferers for the sake of lining someones pocket.

Good luck to everyone who suffers or has suffered with this dreadful disease, and don't let the b*st*rd get you down!

Answer 6

There are way too many forms of cancer to have cured all .. we have now some amazing medicines that work wonders and often do cure .. however ... Many are way too expensive for the average person to fund ... even here in the UK .. the NHS are deciding who can have these drugs and who cant ... the DRUG LOTTERY .. very very sad .

Answer 7

The government holds the patent on it, that way they control the population.If they released the patent to cure the cancer, too many people would be out of a job, politics

Answer 8

this like asking why we havent cured aids or poverty. why havent we cured ppl with addictions. It isnt all abpiut the cure, honestly, who wants to live foprever. It is natures way, survival of the fitus.

Answer 9

the main effective reason is that it is an extremely complicated subject. categories of maximum cancers have diverse mechanisms. Even the same form of maximum cancers may well be diverse in 2 human beings. there purely isn't one scientific look after maximum cancers, any further than there will be one scientific look after all viruses. it is to not say that there have not been extensive strides, although. There are cancers that have been deadly 50 years in the past that are treatable today. some sorts of maximum cancers *are* curable by way of surgical operation, chemotherapy, and radiation scientific care. usual, the survival expenditures have long gone way up. I agree, although, that spending priorities in this u . s . are screwed up. we are spending money on wars that are putting our u . s . in greater effective danger quite than making us safer. we are giving tax cuts to the extremely-wealthy and companies, and putting the load on the little human beings. we are spending money on a number of of pointless initiatives at the same time as neglecting infrastructure, practise, and technological know-how. those scientific issues are extremely complicated, and there are distinctive committed scientists accessible engaged on them suited now. that is not some thing which may well be solved by potential of throwing money at it... although that ought to easily help issues alongside.

Answer 10

much more profitable to provide a drug to keep you going & when that one stops working prescribe another, then another etc. where's the profit in finding a cure!!!