We’re secretly winning the war on cancer

Personal experiences with treatment

• Multiple commenters describe dramatic responses to modern therapies: rapid tumor shrinkage within hours of targeted infusions, long remissions from CAR‑T and clinical trials, and relatively tolerable chemo regimens like R‑CHOP compared with older treatments.
• MD Anderson is repeatedly cited as an example of cutting‑edge care, particularly for rare blood cancers and lymphomas.
• Others share losses (parents, spouses, young relatives with glioblastoma or aggressive breast/ovarian cancers), stressing that “winning” doesn’t match their lived experience.

Therapeutic advances

• Strong enthusiasm for immunotherapy: checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., PD‑1 drugs), CAR‑T, and related approaches are seen as genuine breakthroughs, especially for certain blood cancers and multiple myeloma.
• Novel modalities like tumor‑treating fields (electric‑field helmets for glioblastoma) and ferroptosis‑based strategies are highlighted as promising, with evidence of improved survival in select settings.
• Commenters note better molecular profiling of tumors and more precise subtyping as quiet but major progress.

Limits and hard cases

• Several argue most patients still get “slash, burn, poison” (surgery, radiation, classic chemo), with only incremental gains for many solid tumors; prostate cancer is cited as an area with mostly marginal improvements.
• Glioblastoma is repeatedly mentioned as an example where progress is slow and outcomes remain grim.
• Pain, toxicity, and chronicity (e.g., lifelong oral drugs for some blood cancers) remain major burdens.

Prevention, environment, and risk factors

• Many see the big mortality drop since ~1990 as largely driven by reduced smoking, regulation of carcinogens, and broader environmental/occupational protections.
• Debate over “Cancer Alley” and refinery regions: some claim excess cancer is just socioeconomic confounding; others argue pollution and poverty are causally entangled and can’t be “adjusted away.”
• Rising early‑onset colorectal cancer concerns drive strong calls for colonoscopy or stool tests starting by 40–45; obesity, diet, plastics, PFAS, and broader lifestyle changes are all proposed as contributors, with no consensus.

Screening and diagnostics

• Commenters emphasize that early detection is as important as better drugs; colonoscopy can prevent cancer via polyp removal, while FOBT/FIT are low‑risk, accessible options.
• CT/MRI/PET access is highly variable: some report same‑day imaging, others weeks to months of delays, often due to insurance pre‑approval rather than machine capacity.

Access, cost, and health systems

• Many stories hinge on excellent employer insurance covering six‑figure drugs; chronic therapies can list at ~$180k/year.
• High costs motivate talk of emigrating to countries with public healthcare, but others note such systems may restrict immigration of people with expensive conditions.
• US insurance bureaucracy (pre‑auths, denials, “do you really want this scan?” letters) is widely criticized as delaying care and adding stress.
• European commenters note that advanced immunotherapies are often provided at no out‑of‑pocket cost within public systems.

Politics and research climate

• One subthread argues that specific US administrations have harmed cancer progress via cuts to NIH/FDA‑related efforts, hostility to higher education and immigration, and anti‑vaccine or anti‑mRNA rhetoric.
• Others are fatigued by politicization but concede that funding and regulatory policy directly affect cancer research and access.

Alternative and fringe treatments

• A few repeatedly promote fenbendazole/ivermectin as “overlooked miracle” cancer drugs, linking to papers and non‑mainstream sites.
• Several push back hard, calling associated rhetoric conspiratorial and stressing that credible treatments should rest on strong, depoliticized clinical data; overall efficacy of these agents in humans remains unclear in the discussion.

Other diseases and comparisons

• Some contrast cancer progress with slower movement on type 1 diabetes, though others note big gains in T1D life expectancy and emerging regenerative approaches.
• One commenter reminds that as deaths from other causes fall and populations age, absolute cancer cases can rise even while age‑adjusted mortality drops.

Role of AI and data

• Machine learning (more than “gen AI” specifically) is cited as already useful in imaging—finding early cancers radiologists miss—and seen as crucial for sifting massive research datasets.

Are “we” winning?

• Optimistic view: age‑adjusted death rates are falling sharply despite aging populations; specific cancers once nearly hopeless now have strong 5‑year survival; thousands of patients each month benefit from targeted and immunotherapies.
• Skeptical view: incidence remains high or rising; many common cancers have only modest survival gains; access is uneven and often tied to wealth or geography; treatments remain brutal for many.
• Several conclude that progress is real and accelerating, especially in some subtypes, but “winning the war on cancer” is premature and unevenly distributed.