We now have a cure for cancer
 

But who cares?

Link

I don't think I have to go further. You already know the ending to this tale. It involves no one seeing value in a cure, merely the treatment. But it is out there. It's curable. Human society can move on and find a final cure for AIDS.

The original research is located at the bottom of the article.

Updates

Looks like the piece is more sensationalist. Right now they're still testing, and I didn't notice that it was three years old. Speaking of which, why is most of the data on cancer stuff from ~ 2007? There has got to be a way for a quicker time schedule on research!

There is one.
A German man was cured of AIDS (or HIV. I think it was AIDS).

Problem. The doctors who cured him don't know how they did it.
It probably involves a bone-marrow transplant, but that's the only thing the doctors can say for certain. That it probably involved the bone-marrow transplant.

You can see where the problem lies. But it IS curable, unless the German ended up being a mutant. (and I don't mean X-Men style.)

EDIT: As for the cure for cancer... I'll wait and see, but if it turns out true... well.

It is important to remember that any time anyone does anything that might conceivably be linked to somebody betting better from cancer, the media will immediately pick it up and start shouting "HOLY SHIT CANCER IS CURED FOREVER."

I mean, especially if it's like "GUYS IT WAS REALLY SIMPLE, HOW EXCITING IS THAT, ALSO IT'S CHEAP SO EVERYONE CAN GET IT, CANCER IS GONE FOREVER DON'T WORRY."

On the time schedule:

No. No there isn't.

When you deal with something important you do it properly. You don't skip testing phases, you don't skip mouse trials, you don't skip preliminary human trials and you especially don't skip the double-blind. Why?

To make sure it actually works.

A similar example is the Zamboni procedure. It might work; it might not work. It might be a placebo. It might work for a tiny subset of the population. It might not work for a tiny subset of the population.

But we don't know. And now people are risking their time, their money, and their lives on a procedure that only has anecdotal evidence.

You do the testing, or your drug is worthless.

EDIT: And Melfice, that isn't a final cure for AIDS for the same reason. If you don't know why and can't replicate it, that isn't useful. Interesting, certainly, but not useful.

I got a bottle of dichloroacetate in my lab. Send cancer patents to me. I'll do it £20 a pop.

Comments on that article are top quality. Especially Dr Bob, esq. who is a Doctor and a Lawyer!
Also Doctor House who is trying to establish whether the treatment causes lupus.

thing that makes me skeptical is that it cures all cancer. While what it is in the sense of autocannibalistic cells is the same for all types, there are slight differances in the different types. Some specific cancers have been cured in the past, so I am hesitant to believe there is one thing for all cancers ever.

not to say I don't believe such a thing could exist. Penicillin is perhaps an even more amazing wonder drug and it exists. Just I want it to be fully confirmed before I hit McBarrelpants' dichloroacetate black market. I find false cures more damaging then no cure

I updated my second post. You all should read it before saying this is the cure for cancer. Sorry, got pulled in by the article before doing a background check. >_<

If you follow up even just one of the links in the article you'll quickly find that the vast majority of it is falsely understood or entirely fabricated, and for my part, the spelling is just about the only party of it I'd trust even halfway. I don't know what's my favourite part yet, claiming "researchers cured cancer last week" and linking to a press release (not original research) from 2007, or calling mitochondria a cell, not that these are the only :wtf: parts by a long shot.