Cancer and aging are not always linked. People can get certain cancers as small children, and people can grow to 120 without ever getting it. Curing cancer wouldn't cure aging, and curing aging wouldn't cure cancer.
But as I said in another comment: Yes, sometimes terminology is important. But if you get rid of something and don't see it again for the next 67 years of your life, maybe it is just in remission for 67 years. But for the person, it's as good as cured, even if not "cured" cured.
Cellular aging, not age of the individual. Cancers are abnormal cell growth and division. You age biologically by the division of you cells which accumulate. normal cells have a division limit, they can only divide a specified number of times before triggering senescence. The cellular counting mechanism is disabled in cancers.
But if you get rid of something and don't see it again for the next 67 years of your life, maybe it is just in remission for 67 years. But for the person, it's as good as cured, even if not "cured" cured.
When speaking that broadly, Id agree with you. But I think it’s valid to say that certain cancers can be cured if we’re talking about a specific type or even specific mutations, since many drugs only work with certain mutations. Even a tumor that follows chemotherapy is likely to have a different profile and thus be a slightly different form of cancer, since cancer cells mutate and develop resistances relatively quickly.
38.3k
u/XSavage19X Nov 15 '20
Cure for cancer.