comment: >
  
  Except that a patentable total cure for even a single type of cancer would be insanely profitable for a company. You could sell a course of the drug for one million dollars, when costs you a dollar to produce, and you know what? People would pay. They may scream, yell, riot even, but they would pay. There would be sob stories all over the news about kids dying, but they would pay.
  It's completely heartless, but that's what those companies do.
  And that's ignoring that a huge amount of cancer research is state-sponsored, they have a stake in ensuring that it actually gets cured, and they have the ability to bypass patents in the interest of the public well-being. If there was a cure for cancer, you wouldn't have to worry about some company locking it away, instead there would be some government agency or public university getting rich off it, while the politicians who scramble to feebly take credit. 
  What actually happens is that these drugs fall to the scientific process. Sure this initial study shows promise, but now it has to be replicated independently. And again. And then move up gradually to the next level of studies. And those have to be replicated. And so on and so on and so on. Each replication is a likely source of failure. Each step up in study level is a likely source of failure. Each increase in study size will likely result in failure. You know what doesn't generate headlines that drive headlines? Study failures. Nobody wants to read about how a hypothesized miracle pediatric cancer drug actually makes kids arms fall off and their face start to shrink. So you will read about how a miracle drug passed its first initial study in something like 5 mice in a group of 10 of them, in an article that hypes you up so you keep scrolling past their ads.
context: This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 74%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  Israeli scientists are aiming to produce the world's first preventative drug designed to stop tumors causing secondary cancer, and say the active ingredient has shown more than 90 percent effectiveness in mice.
  The effectiveness rate reported means mice with breast cancer that received the peptide were at least 90% less likely to develop secondary tumors than the control group.
  Previous research shows that 12% of patients with a breast cancer diagnosis go on to develop metastatic disease, for which the five-year survival rate is 26%. Chemotherapy is used to kill as many cancer cells as possible, but it doesn't prevent any cells that get left behind from becoming active.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: cancer^#1 cells^#2 develop^#3 prevent^#4 tumors^#5 >
  
  TIL mice have boobs >
  
  I mean, they are Mammals. >
  
  I have nipples, Greg. Can you milk me? >
  
  I haven't seen that movie in soooo long. Wonder if I would still find it hilarious so many years later >
  
  Modern science has made laboratory test mice indestructible. >
  
  I for one welcome our new mice overlords. It'll be a nice change of pace. >
  
  A mice change >
  
  I’m actually going to go ahead and say many of them are being used. Most things that are claimed to be “cures for cancer” are usually treatments for a certain type of cancer or a certain behavior of cancer, and so when they get finished and deployed they’re big but it’s not like we cured cancer. For instance this article is about stopping cancer from metastasizing which would be huge but wouldn’t cure cancer. >
  
  
  For instance this article is about stopping cancer from metastasizing which would be huge but wouldn’t cure cancer. 
  
  The potential for metastasis is literally what sets apart benign tumors from cancerous ones. >
  
  Can you share a source because I’ve always understood metastatic cancer as cancer that has moved from one area to the body to another, also called stage 4 cancer.
  I would love to read and learn more. >
  
  Metastasis == Spreading
  Yours is just a more specific usage of the word >
  
  The person he replied to didn't say spreading though, he said that 'metastasis' is what separates cancer from (benign) tumors.
  Is that true? Because I am pretty confident it isn't. Because as he says, metastasis is stage 4. >
  
  Metastatic cancer = cancer that has spread 
  Cancerous tumor = a tumor with the potential to spread (metastisize), if it hasn't already
  Benign tumor = a tumor without the potential to spread
  Source = trust me bro I'm paying a lot of money for medical school >
  
  Think of all the mice they will save! >
  
  There's an XKCD comic that sums it up.
  
  When you see a claim that a common drug or vitamin "kills cancer cells in a petri dish," keep in mind: so does a handgun. >
  
  One of my favorite comics of all time.
  I could easily claim “I can cure any disease…so long as you don’t care about the outcome of the patient” >
  
  
  "scientist did note though, that the remaining 10% turned into sociopathic rage-fueled murder-fuckers that wouldnt stop in their murderous rampage until slamed in the head with a hammer" >
  
  
  murder-fuckers
  
  Not dying a virgin, nice. >
  
  "In mice" is very different from "in a petri dish". It has its own caveats (things that work on mice don't always work on people), but that's a different point from what that particular comic is making. >
  
  Napalm will indeed stop cancer from spreading in vivo. >
  
  Every time I see a headline like this I think of fark.com, which still exists TIL.
  The ironic "still no cure for cancer". >
  
  Hooray for the mice. Scientists really need to start working on figuring out human cancer. >
  
  Do you think that scientists aren’t knowledgeable on how to conduct medical research? They aren’t doing this for no reason. >
  
  It seems like nowadays scientists are just trying to cure mouse diseases. >
  
  You're not entirely wrong, the mouse model is very limited; but it's still a very useful stepping stone towards the possibility of human applicable therapies. >
  
  Maybe the scientist mice are working on the human cancer. >
  
  They're too distracted by the Vogons. >
  
  I still think we really, really need to wait for McConnell and Trump to die before we make huge breakthroughs in medical technology.
  I do not want to be ruled by obscenely rich 300 year olds who have become lizard people in all but appearance. >
  
  I'm sorry man but Trump isn't the last bad person. About 385,000 babies are born each day according to the UN.  New "Trump"s and "McConnell"s are on the way! >
  
  They've been saying shit like this for decades. We discovered this, we discovered that. It will never reach the public, cancer is way too profitable.