> It's just kind of unbelievable that cancer remains so elusive
One of the problems with cancer is that it's really an umbrella term that covers a huge variety of problems to solve. There are many, many ways for the normal cell lifecycle to get disrupted, and they will all respond differently to different treatments. I'm not sure if a single technology will ever appear to allow all cancers to be treated.
This is a _ridiculously_ charitable interpretation. These comments were immediately following other presenters talking about success in sterilising surfaces in hospitals etc.
"bringing the [powerful surface-sterilising UV] light inside the body" and "injection inside or a cleaning [of, again, powerful surface disinfectant]" is a five-year-old's idea of how stuff works.
And "oh it wouldn't be through injections, almost a cleansing and sterilization of an area" - what does that even _mean_? Clearly just backtracking once people started making fun of how dumb the original statement is.
One of the problems with cancer is that it's really an umbrella term that covers a huge variety of problems to solve. There are many, many ways for the normal cell lifecycle to get disrupted, and they will all respond differently to different treatments. I'm not sure if a single technology will ever appear to allow all cancers to be treated.