|
Hey Bill:
An interesting idea! I would like to politely disagree with you on a unified theory of cancer. The trend is that oncologists and researchers are breaking cancer into smaller and smaller sub-groups. For example in the 60's there was 'cancer'. As time went on, cancer became localized and the treatments became varied based on the location of the cancer. Breast cancer was treated one way and stomach cancer treated another (and not very successfully, I might add). Similarity and differences between different types of cancer weren't recognized.
As, an example, today, breast cancer which is ER-/PR-/Her2 Neu+++ is treated very different from ER-/PR+/Her2 Neu+++. Science is getting much better about differentiating between different kinds of cancer, which is making treatment more targeted and therefore more effective.
I feel that as we gain more and more information about the different types of cancer, we are finding that they can have very different origins. Breast cancers can be based on hormonal factors while cervical cancers are based on a viral infection. They are both called cancer but they don't have a lot to do with each other except for what the end results look like.
Anyways, it seems like the science of cancer is pushing away from some unified theory but to a splintering into specifics types of cancers.
Of course, I could be all wrong. There may be some DNA sequence or some common DNA error which links all cancers together. Only time will tell.
Lee
|