>> I won't forget who did this, and who backed them. Perhaps not the biggest words when they do not care about a soul outside their bubble, and consider all scientists to be pond scum to be swept away and destroyed.

> source?

Personal correspondence with my black, broken, heart.

Replying to your previous message since it's grayed out and responding is not possible.

>I have never been more pessimistic about the future of cancer treatment. >We had a great run over the past few decades.

I doubt that - barring few cancers I hear that most of the so called progress is primarily because early detection - resulting in artificially bolstering the 'survival' rate.

> IMHO, were customized therapeutic vaccines to target the unique mixture of mutations in a tumor

I doubt that. Cancer is a _systemic_ disease akin to ageing ( infact one could argue that cancer is one of the symptoms of aging ). While some conventional techniques may show short term promise, I doubt if it will ever be a long term solution. Long term solutions may involve similar intervention that will also work in stopping ageing.

The article and I agree that treatments have been improving. Certainly detection is improving results too, but that can't explain all the improvements we are seeing.

As far as your "systemic" comment, sure there is greater risk of cancer with aging due to the accumulation of mutations and dysregulation. But that's why customized treatments show so much promise. What I described is not a "conventional" treatment, I was talking about custom treatments designed for each cancer.