There is a huge world of difference between "curing cancer" and "reducing rate of growth of tumor cells and reducing uptake of chemotherapy toxins in healthy cells".
To be fair, there is no "cure" for any disease. Either you heal from it or you don't. So, any net gain could be considered a "cure" from a layman's perspective.
This needless critique of the meaning of the word "cure" doesn't really advance our discussion much except to allow a definition of the word that supposes "laymen" like me think the net gain from an iron lung "cures" polio.
I would argue that "slowing growth of cancer" (to a few of my friends with cancer) is a cure. As long as the trend continues until the cancer is gone. There is no cure that makes cancer disappear instantly. (surgery isn't a cure)
If you don't have anyone in your life fighting cancer, maybe you can't appreciate how "cure" and "slowing cancer" are synonymous to those in the middle of dealing with it.
"Slowing the growth" of cancer doesn't shrink the cancer, the cancer is still growing. Slower. It buys time. But it's not a cure. Maybe I can appreciate it, because it took my grandmother away from me. The one my parents named me after.
I am very sorry for your friends and others going through it.
I certainly don't mean it to be personal. (sorry, not my intentions)
Cancer doesn't stop growing until it first slows down. I think this is simple logic.
Slowing the growth of cancer with only a change in eating habits (not even the food contents) is almost magically/ridiculously simple. And it's sad that it's not main stream method for helping cancer patients. (I know it's not a cure, but if it helps even a little, it's useful)
