Five Ideas That Matter

Cancer is perhaps the most emotional word we know, after death. And cancer has long been an issue where differing views of data vie for supremacy. It has become next to impossible to mediate cancer knowledge in an open environment.

The boon of scientific thinking, though, historically, has been its openness. In fact the mythical pillars of science are things like: Copernicus suffered for providing an open explanation of natural phenomena….

Here’s some thinking around cancer and a possible way forward.

The science of cancer cure is institutionally dominant in cancer knowledge and therapy. Alternative “cures” to cancer suffer what might be called the Copernican block. Any suggestion that there is a potential to cure cancer from a non-medical science perspective is institutionally blocked.

Why we should care about this is that medical science both routinely blocks suggestions of alternatives and at the same time adopts alternatives. So for example clinical trials involving bone strengthening drugs to limit Vitamin D3 helps calcium absorption, should therefore strengthen bones, and make cancer invasion more difficult.

Given that people are acquiring some cancers earlier in life than the previous norm and that such a high proportion of people succumb to cancer a more liberated thought environment could be good.

There are great initiatives like ABC2 fighting brain cancer. Is it right that they limit pubic participation to donation?

Is there something in the metaverse that would be a better use of collective opinion?

Official viewpoints are moving somewhat in that direction. In the UK NHS there are now attempts to text mine cancer experiences through a cancer commissioning toolkit (CCT):

“The main impetus behind the CCT was the need to help cancer networks and primary care trusts commission cancer services more effectively, addressing the government’s vision for ‘World Class Commissioning’” (Commissioning is the NHS term for planning and purchasing healthcare).

Of course this covers only official sources of cancer knowledge – these are, however, surprisingly disjointed. Cancer patients may be surprised, happy or dismayed to know that protocols for, for example, breast cancer chemotherapy are now 30 years old. Yes, that says the knowledge stemming from them should be stable but it also says there is not much new in there.

Where to start a metatrend in cancer knowledge? The use of collective wisdom to propagate knowledge about cancer resources is already underway.

The public appetite for alternatives to conventional or medical science treatments is strong without necessarily being right. What might surprise doctors though is that the demand for this type of knowledge is fairly constant, neither declining significantly nor rising significantly over time.

Articulate interest in alternative cures is in fact going down. Using three syllable words like “alternative” and “therapy” show the most distinct downward trends in search interest. In the absense of the much feared hysteria around bogus “alternative cures” perhaps now is a good time to start a debate around how the public can help?