Maybe there was a cure for human cancer, but it didn't work at all in mice.

In the long run, using mice to test human medicines will result in selection pressure for humans whose physiology more and more closely resembles mice.

they use a lot of other things… including living human cancer cells in a petri dish
- So we will become cancer
- I believe the vast majority of cultivated human cells are cancerous cells anyway.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks
i love this idea let's become mice
- they are widely known to be the smartest creatures on earth, followed by dolphins, and then us
- No, we will become monke
That's not how evolution works though
- Assuming that
  human phenotypic traits that correlate more closely with mouse traits have more-predictable outcomes with mouse-tested medicine, and
  more-predictable medical outcomes correlate with higher survival and reproductive rates,
  can’t you plug that straight into the Price equation?
No! We will be crab! Everything becomes crab!
Mice live 9 months in the wild, and have a resting heart rate of 500-700 bpm. That's a lot of cardio.

(not mice), but Fancy Rats are extremely susceptible to tumors. It sucks. More rats I've owned have died of either cancer or respiratory illnesses than old age.

Bonus shot of my boy Finn:

I love him
He has a kind face.
- You say that but he always wears a leather jacket and carries a flickknife with him when he goes outside!!
- Like he works in French restaurant.

Cancer isn’t one thing.

The whole concept of “curing cancer” is such a trope. Cancer is a condition, and it annoys the fuck out of me that people treat it as one disease like measles or the flu.
- There are some unifying theories of cancer that do kinda make it into one thing: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2015.00043
  I.e. the Warburg effect, and damaged mitochondria being st the root of all cancers.
  In your example the flu is not just one thing either, it's a group of viruses that broadly have the same symptoms

Just like with antibiotics. When Penicilin was originally tested, they happened to test it on just the right animals. One kind of standard lab animals would have just died from that stuff.

Or it was too cheap to duplicate so there was no profit in it…

Cheap to duplicate is great for them. That means larger profit margins.
Even when we find a single drug that effortlessly cures every type of cancer and costs $1 to peoduce it will be patented by some giant company and sold to highest bidders.
There’s more profit in causing and treating cancer than curing it. Can’t weaken those revenue streams just so some poor people can go on living. If they were worth saving then they wouldn’t have been born better.
- Dead people make short term profit. Alive people make long term profit.

I mean, there are like dozens of different types of cancers, so we probably have missed some of them.

imo, there's no single "cure" for cancer, because it's not a single disease
- Not sure why you've replied it to my comment which already states there are dozens of cancers and therefore dozens of cures for the dozens of cancers
- There is debate on that. There is a mitochondrial model of cancer that unifies cancer into a single mechanic. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2015.00043
  This is different from the common somatic mutation theory which views cancer as a bad generic mutation of human DNA

Or it worked too well on mice and stopped regular cells from dividing.

We know a bunch of ways to kill cancer cells. Unfortunately, we usually want to avoid killing the non-cancerous ones, which is considerably harder to do.
- reminds me of trump's suggestion of using bleach to treat people with covid
- Now now, you can't be picky! And really with the outcome being the same, there's no reason to bicker.

There are preventative measures but they’re all based on the rich not poisoning everyone for profit.

The crazy thing is we actually do have things that work in humans but not in mice. Mice are omnivores and are very different in terms of optimal energy state. They tend to run in glucose more easily than on fat and their whole biology is built to be small and fast, with short life spans.

Checking how DNA repair works in an animal which lives for maybe 2 years is great for understanding DNA repair in short lived organisms, but we have tk repair damage for 50 times as long. It is just so much more complex and requires such different tools when you switch from maybe 2 years to maybe 80 years, it really isn't sane to assume it will all carry over.

Now for an accute toxin, say tobacco, sure, some things work just fine. There is not a huge difference between humans and mice when subjected to cyanide or arsenic. Being crushed by a falling piano is going to kill both of us. But a chronic poison? That will take decades to kill? That is very different. We can shed cells in a different way to how they can. We have more mass to store things. We have more energy storage. We have bigger kidneys with more opportunities for filtering. We are different.

When we enter ketosis we have some fairly significant cancer responses. When we maintain fasting for 5+ days we have a fairly large bump in autophagy, a state where the body kills off and recycles damaged cells. This state can cause some types of cancer to be more obvious to our immune systems and allow the tumor to be attacked. In some cases otherwise inoperable tumors can be removed after shrinking them through fasting. This does not replicate in mice. So yes, some treatments (not cures because that doesn't really apply) do work in humans and not in mice.

The strongest risk factor of human cancer is age. Wild mice live 6-9 months.
- Yep, and surviving longer increases cancer rates. Cancer used to be a death sentence, now it is far less so. Many cancers which were a short time from death at diagnosis are now routine to remove or fix. Others that were soon fatal have 5 year survival over 90%, and some are even higher.
  We haven't cured cancer just like we haven't cured industrial accidents, but honestly, so few people are eaten by hungry machines and left disfigured that it is likely you know less than a handful. Not cured but reduced to a much more manageable level.
When we maintain fasting for 5+ days we have a fairly large bump in autophagy, a state where the body kills off and recycles damaged cells. This state can cause some types of cancer to be more obvious to our immune systems and allow the tumor to be attacked. In some cases otherwise inoperable tumors can be removed after shrinking them through fasting.
Cancer cells can't metabolize fat, when your fasting and in ketosis your body is only supplying fat and the cancer has nothing to eat (mostly, there is some glucose produced as a baseline)
I.E. fasting slows down the cancer energy rate so that the immune system can start catching up.
This is why the press-pulse cancer protocol uses deep ketosis and fasting in addition to supreasing the bodies glucose production. I.e. never adding external sugar into the body at all during treatment.

Cancer can't be cured because it isn't 1 thing. And animal testing regardless of the benefit humans may receive is morally wrong.

And animal testing regardless of the benefit humans may receive is morally wrong.
You can say whatever you want, but just because you feel it really hard doesnt mean it will be convincing to other people.
In this particular case, I think animal testing is moral as fuck, because why in the fuck would I possibly value animal lives even close to that of a human or myself.
- Why do you matter more than any other animal?
There are many types of cancer with very high remission rates after treatment.
- Treatment isn't a cure.
So what, we just test things in a dish and then hope it works in a complex organism? Because the other alternative is human testing.
- We do like every other animal on the planet and die.

Otoh, mice have never been healthier.

Nobody tell him what happens to the mice afterwards.
- They go live on a farm to live out the rest of their happy mousey days.
  As fertilizer.

Also who is out there making sure all of these incredible discoveries are accessible to mice more broadly, outside the labs?

This IS happening, right?

I wonder if we could one day grow miniature human bodies (not conscious ones) to use for these tests. Mice are a lot different to humans.

This is one of the reasons why animal testing is not worth the torture the animals go through

I don't think that follows logically...
- The fact that we are not the animals they test on so they can never guarantee it'll react to humans the same way it does to the animals? That doesn't follow logically?