> and with few exceptions

Those few exceptions have been monumental in how they've changed cancer treatment. Skin cancer has been particularly well treated with immunotherapy, but other cancers have also benefited from the exact same research and drugs (as it turns out, the specific mutations the immunotherapies like Keytruda target express in other cancers). The reason skin cancer gets so much attention is because it's one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated cancers. (Colon is more common, I believe, but it often doesn't get detected. Get your colonoscopies folks).

It has moved fast enough that I've heard from multiple oncologists that the all 5 year survivability numbers are dated because the treatments are newer than the studies.

We've come a LONG way in a very short period in terms of cancer treatment. It still sucks, but not as much as it once did.

> Individualized immune cancer therapy has been touted as the next big thing for half a century. It's nothing new, and with few exceptions, such as skin cancer, has failed to yield much. scientists, for decades, have tired to harness the immune system to attackcancer and it almost never works.

"Almost never" is doing a lot of work. You may be aware that most drugs fail over the course of development and human trials?

Anyway, checkpoint inhibitor therapy is a massive boon to oncology and was only brought into widespread use over the past 15 years.

Every cancer is different. Immunotherapy is highly effective, even curative, for some cancers. For my cancer, chemotherapy is curative, while other cancer's just shrug chemotherapy off like it's nothing.

Having a plethora of drugs and treatments is vital because cancer is not "one thing". Each type of cancer will respond better to some treatments than others.

Personalized mRNA vaccines are in fact, extremely new, and only made possible by recent advances across multiple fields. This comment reveals a total lack of basic understanding on this topic.