Which answer best explains why it is unlikely that there will be a single cure for cancer?

Answer 1

The direct answer to the question is "We don't know."

Some argue that there are cures for most cancers, but they have not been made public, though others argue that any 'cures" are simply not effective and do not cure cancer at all.

Some claim the problem with there being no cures for cancer is an economic issue; that the supposed cures involving herbs, diet, etc. are not supported by the established medical community, so money is not made available to do the proper studies, while money is made available to study drugs that are patentable. A few go so far as to make accusations that cures for cancer that are not pharmaceutical drugs, radiation, or surgery are suppressed, though those are just that: accusations which are vehemently denied.

In all fairness to both views, cancer is not an easy disease to treat, and what works for one person may not work for another. It is also possible that cancer needs to be treated using a combination of approaches, but that the division between the established medical community and the alternative community prevents them from working together.

Whatever the reasons, there are some cancers for which chemotherapy drugs are very effective, while they are not effective for other types of cancer. There are also accounts of people being healed of cancer using other methods.

Answer 2

Cancer is a family of diseases with a complex and variable molecular basis.

Answer 3

No, because cancer is not a single disease it is many different diseases with different causes but similar types of symptoms.