Cancer is scientific, right? Then, how much more money do we

Well people throw money at it like it is the ticket to heaven and it's not a matter of funds, it's a matter of time.

Cancer is incurable. It's like saying: 'how much money do we need to stop evolution?'. Cancer will always happen no matter what you do, it's related to the probability of something going very wrong in your cells and this will always be > 0 because of entropy.

>>8281322
Sure, however, op must also mean treatment and not cure. Whilst the development of cancer is a part of biological evolution, once it has developed, there must be a way to combat the spread and eliminate the cancer cells.

you just have to solve protein folding

>>8281322
Bitch, you haven't heard of the Q continuum?

They cured cancer alright..

One of the chief obstacles is that alot of treatments are experimental only, so they are fuck off expensive. also people mix and match experimental drugs together in short periods of time, with any possible data gained becoming irrelevant because it could have been drug x or drug y or a combination of drug y and drug z with drug x doing nothing. since different companies own the patents for each different drug then the chances of "shared research" are practically zero. almost all the accepted treatments have been tested out by their lonesome over time. to test out human trials you have to have the human on 1 treatment over a certain period of time. then you have to replicate it over and over. since experimental drugs are expensive most people can't afford them, so the testing pool is limited.

>>8281220
You can't treat all cancer right now.
It's not just a matter of money, there's a minimum of time as well.

My guess for a 50-year plan to cure most cancers would be in the tens to hundreds of trillions.

>>8281220
You cant cure cancer because as long as you have cells cancer will always be possible.

>>8281338
this, and it will take ENORMOUS amounts of computing power to build a shitty incomplete database that might or might not help you.

Also, there's a buttload of different types of cancer. Just because a treatment shows some promise against one kind of cancer doesn't mean it will do shit against others.

>>8281220
If you are thinking about cancer in terms of finding a "cure" for it, then you don't understand how cancer even works.

Cures already exist. It can be as simple as cutting it out of the body depending on where the cancer is and how early it was detected.

>>8281220
Within 20 years most cancers will be chronic conditions instead of fatal illnesses

a lot of cancers are really hard to treat with drugs because the causative mutations are in proteins that it's impossible to target in a cancer-specific manner. lots of people are trying to track down treatment proteins in other parts of the pathway but they're all moving targets, often with the same issues as the causative mutation

>>8281220
>Cancer is scientific, right?
Wrong.
Cancer is an affliction
that appears in many
different forms, for
which Science has only
a small number of
counter-measures.
Lrnn2science fgt pls

>>8281437
really? why do I doubt this? and also, distributed computing tricks and trickettes.

>>8281220
oh this is /biz/ thread, very much so, indeed.