跟读练习: Why Can’t We Cure Cancer Yet? - 通过视频学习英语口语

选择练习模式

每种模式都会打开全屏练习室。

243 句

如果句子过短或过长，请点击 Edit 进行调整。

We declared war on cancer in 1971.

Not metaphorically, literally.

The United States National Cancer Act was signed into law by

Richard Nixon with the explicit intention of doing to cancer what the space program had done to the moon landing problem.

Throw enough money, enough scientists, and enough national will at it until it surrendered.

The logic seemed sound.

We had just put humans on the moon.

Surely a disease was easier than that.

It has now been more than 50 years.

Cancer kills approximately 10 million people per year globally.

It is the second leading cause of death worldwide.

And while the treatments have improved,

meaningfully, genuinely improved, the word cure still doesn't appear in most conversations about most cancers without significant qualification attached to it.

So what happened?

Was the science wrong?

Were the researchers incompetent?

Did we simply not spend enough money?

Because the global cancer treatment industry is now worth hundreds of billions of dollars annually so it isn't obviously a resource problem?

Or is cancer something fundamentally different from the kind of problem that throwing resources at actually solves?

The answer is the last one.

And understanding why requires understanding what cancer actually is, which turns out to be one of the most important things most people have never been told clearly.

Here is the thing that changes everything when you really absorb it.

Cancer is your own cells.

Your own DNA.

A. Your own biology, running a program that your body itself wrote, using machinery that your body built, following rules that evolution installed.

It is not a pathogen, not a bacterium, not a virus that has entered your body from outside and is attacking your cells from a foreign position.

This is the fundamental reason why curing cancer is categorically harder than curing an infection.

When a bacterium enters your body, it is a foreign object with foreign proteins that your immune system can learn to recognize and attack.

The boundary between self and not-self is clear.

The target is identifiable.

The strategy, kill the foreign thing without killing the host, is at least conceptually straightforward.

Cancer collapses that boundary.

The target is you.

Specifically, it is a version of you that has stopped following the rules that keep the rest of you functional.

Killing cancer without killing the host is one of the hardest targeting problems in the history of medicine, because the thing you're trying to destroy is made of the same materials,

running on the same biochemistry, and protected by the same structures as everything you're trying to preserve.

This is why chemotherapy, the dominant cancer treatment for decades, works the way it does, and fails the way it does.

Chemotherapy drugs target rapidly dividing cells, which cancer cells are.

But rapidly dividing cells also include hair follicles, gut lining, bone marrow, and immune system cells.

The drug doesn't know the difference.

It targets the behavior, rapid division, and the identity problem is what makes cancer so persistently hard to solve.

Let's go deeper into the biology because this is where the real complexity lives and where most popular explanations stop short.

Your body contains roughly 37 trillion cells.

Every one of them carries a complete copy of your genome, about 3 billion base pairs of DNA.

Every time a cell divides, it has to copy all three billion of those base pairs.

And copying is imperfect.

Every cell division introduces somewhere between one and ten random mutations.

Your body performs trillions of cell divisions over your lifetime.

The math is not reassuring, but your body has defenses, multiple layers of them, tumor suppressor genes that apply breaks to the cell division process,

proofreading mechanisms that catch and correct copying errors,

apoptosis, programmed cell death, that kills cells that are too damaged to repair safely,

and the immune system, which patrols continuously for cells behaving abnormally and eliminates them before they can proliferate.

Cancer happens when enough of these defenses fail simultaneously.

A typical cancer cell carries hundreds of mutations, accumulated over years or decades, each one slightly loosening the constraints on cell behavior,

until a cell emerges that grows without limit, resists death signals, recruits blood vessels to feed itself, and eventually spreads to other tissues.

This is cancer as an evolutionary process.

And this framing, cancer as evolution happening inside your body, is the most important conceptual shift in cancer biology of the last 20 years.

Cancer cells compete with each other.

The mutations that help one cell grow faster than its neighbors get selected for, the same way beneficial mutations get selected for in populations of organisms.

The tumor is an ecosystem of competing cell populations,

each slightly different, each under selection pressure to outgrow the others and resist whatever the treatment is trying to do to them.

This is why cancer develops resistance to treatment.

When you hit a tumor with a drug, you kill the cells most vulnerable to that drug.

But some cells, by random mutation, happen to be slightly less vulnerable.

Those cells survive.

They reproduce.

The tumor that grows back is descended from the survivors, the ones that already had some resistance.

You have, through treatment, accidentally run a selection process for drug resistant cancer.

Evolution at work, inside a patient, during therapy.

This consequence of the underlying biology cannot be fully escaped without solving the evolutionary dynamics of the tumor.

Which is a much harder problem than simply finding a drug that kills cancer cells.

Now let's talk about why the phrase curing cancer is itself part of the problem.

Cancer is over 200 distinct diseases unified by the characteristic of uncontrolled cell growth but differing in their cell type of origin,

their genetic mutations, their growth patterns, their metastatic behavior, their response to treatment, and their prognosis.

Lung cancer and leukemia and breast cancer and glioblastoma and melanoma are different problems that share a broad category.

Treating them as variations on a single disease is like treating pneumonia

and tuberculosis and asthma as the same problem because they all affect the lungs.

Even within a single named cancer type, the variation is enormous.

Two patients with stage 3 lung cancer may have tumors with completely different genetic profiles,

different immune microenvironments, different metabolic characteristics, and different responses to the same treatment.

What works for one may fail completely for the other, because the specific cancer being treated is biologically different at the molecular level.

This is why clinical trials are so difficult, and why results that look promising in the lab so frequently fail to translate to patients.

The patient population is not uniform.

The disease is not uniform.

The drug

that works beautifully on a cell line in a dish may work on 30% of patients with a particular cancer type

and do nothing for the other 70%.

And the difference between those groups may not be obvious until after the trial.

Personalized medicine, tailoring treatment to the specific genetic profile of each patient's specific tumor, is the direction the field is moving,

and it has produced real results in specific cancer types.

But sequencing a tumor's genome, and identifying the actionable mutations, and designing a treatment that targets those specific mutations in that specific patient is expensive,

slow, and complicated by the fact that the tumor evolves during treatment, changing its genetic profile as it responds to selective pressure.

The target moves in real time.

Let's talk about the immune system, because this is where the most exciting recent progress has happened and where the complexity of the problem is most visible.

The immune system should be killing cancer.

It should be the body's primary defense against tumor development, detecting abnormal cells and eliminating them before they become established tumors.

And in fact, it does this continuously.

Most cancer cells are killed by the immune system before they ever become a tumor, you'd notice.

The cancers that become clinical problems are, by definition, the ones that have evaded immune detection.

100

Cancer cells evade it through a variety of mechanisms, many of which involve actively suppressing immune function in their local environment.

101

They express surface proteins that signal to immune cells not to attack.

102

They recruit immune cells into the tumor and reprogram them to suppress anti-tumor activity.

103

They create a local immunosuppressive environment that disables the very cells that should be destroying them.

104

Immunotherapy, the approach of reactivating the E, immune systems attack on cancer has produced some of the most dramatic results in cancer treatment in recent history.

105

Checkpoint inhibitors, which remove the molecular breaks that cancer cells apply to immune function have produced long-term remissions in patients with melanoma,

106

lung cancer, and other previously lethal cancers who had no other options.

107

Patients who would have died in months are alive years later, but checkpoint inhibitors work in approximately 20 to 40 percent of patients with responsive cancer types

108

and often don't work at all in others.

109

The tumors that don't respond have found other ways to suppress immune function that the checkpoint inhibitors don't address.

110

Some patients develop severe autoimmune side effects when the immune breaks are removed, because those breaks exist for a reason,

111

which is to prevent the immune system from attacking normal tissue.

112

The immune system is an extraordinarily complex system with multiple competing functions, evolved to balance aggression against foreign threats with tolerance of self-tissue.

113

Cancer exploits the tolerance mechanisms to hide.

114

that tolerance to attack cancer also risks attacking everything else.

115

The trade-off has no clean solution.

116

By the way, if you want to go even deeper into The Secret Lives of Ancient Humans, I just launched a full course called The Secret Lives of Ancient Humans.

117

Ten modules, three plus hours of content covering everything we never talk about on YouTube.

118

What they feared, how they they communicated, what hunted them, and much more, plus an exclusive PDF guide included.

119

Link in the description.

120

See you inside.

121

Now let's talk about metastasis, because this is where cancer becomes lethal and where treatment becomes most difficult.

122

The primary tumor, the original site of cancer, is rarely what kills.

123

Surgery can remove it.

124

Radiation can target it.

125

The problem is when cancer cells break away from the primary tumor, enter the bloodstream or lymphatic system,

126

travel to distant organs, and establish secondary tumors.

127

By the time metastasis is detected, it has usually already happened in multiple sites.

128

A patient whose cancer has spread to the liver, lungs, and bone simultaneously has three separate tumors to treat, each potentially with a different genetic profile,

129

each in a different tissue environment, each potentially developing resistance independently.

130

Cancer cells completing metastasis have to accomplish an extraordinary series of steps.

131

They detach from the primary tumor, survive in the hostile environment of the bloodstream, evade immune attack while circulating,

132

arrive at a distant organ, penetrate its tissue, survive in an entirely different microenvironment, and then reactivate growth.

133

Each step is a potential point of intervention.

134

None of them is easy to block without disrupting normal biological processes that use similar mechanisms.

135

And then there is dormancy.

136

Cancer cells can enter a metabolically quiet state, not dividing, invisible to treatments that target dividing cells and nearly invisible to imaging,

137

and remain dormant in distant tissues for years or decades before reactivating.

138

A patient declared cancer-free after treatment may harbor dormant cancer cells that reactivate years later under conditions not fully understood.

139

This is why oncologists use five-year survival rates, rather than the word cured.

140

The dormancy problem means that being cancer-free today does not guarantee being cancer-free in 10 years.

141

Let's talk about the gap between laboratory results and patient outcomes, because this is one of the most frustrating recurring patterns in cancer research,

142

and one that the public rarely sees clearly.

143

A drug works in a mouse.

144

Researchers publish the results.

145

Headlines Americans announce a potential breakthrough.

146

The drug enters human trials.

147

It fails.

148

This cycle has repeated hundreds of times across cancer research history, and its repetition is not evidence of incompetence or fraud.

149

It is evidence of a genuine biological gap between the experimental models used to test drugs and the actual human disease.

150

Mouse tumors are genetically uniform, implanted in immunocompromised animals in controlled laboratory conditions.

151

Human tumors are genetically heterogeneous, arising in immunologically complex individuals with distinct genetic backgrounds,

152

varied exposures, and decades of accumulated biological history.

153

A drug

154

that clears a tumor in a mouse is operating on a

155

fundamentally simpler biological system than the one it will encounter in a human patient.

156

The simplification that makes laboratory research tractable also makes it systematically misleading about what will happen in a real clinical setting.

157

This problem is known.

158

Researchers work to improve their models, better mouse models with more intact immune systems, organoids grown from patient tumor tissue, computational models of tumor evolution.

159

Progress is real.

160

The gap has not closed completely, and may never close completely, because the full complexity of a human patient cannot be replicated in any experimental system.

161

Let's talk about early detection, because this is the dimension of cancer control where where the potential for impact is highest

162

and where the science is advancing most rapidly in ways that don't always make headlines.

163

The single most powerful predictor of cancer survival is how early the disease is detected.

164

Stage 1 breast cancer has a 5-year survival rate above 90%.

165

Stage 4 breast cancer has a 5-year survival rate below 30%.

166

The biology of the cancer may be the same.

167

The outcome is determined largely by how much time the cancer had to grow and spread before it was found.

168

Liquid biopsy, the detection of cancer DNA shed by tumors into the bloodstream, represents one of the most promising current approaches to early detection.

169

A blood test that could detect cancer before symptoms appear, across multiple cancer types from a routine blood draw.

170

Several such tests are in clinical development and early deployment.

171

The challenge is sensitivity and specificity.

172

Detecting enough cancer signal to find early-stage tumors

173

while generating few enough false positives to be useful in screening populations where most people don't have cancer,

174

multi-cancer early detection tests are being evaluated in large clinical trials right now.

175

The results will take years to fully emerge because demonstrating

176

that a test improves outcomes requires following patients long enough to see whether early detection actually translates to lives saved.

177

But the direction is promising in ways that treatment alone has never been.

178

Finding cancer earlier does not cure it in the biological sense, but it dramatically changes the odds of the treatments we already have working well enough to matter.

179

Let's talk about money, because the economics of cancer treatment create incentive structures

180

that affect what gets researched and what gets developed in ways that are important and underappreciated.

181

Drug development is extraordinarily expensive.

182

A new cancer drug costs an estimated $2-3 billion to bring from early research through through clinical trials to approval.

183

This investment requires a return, which means pharmaceutical companies focus development efforts on drugs that can be sold at prices that justify the investment.

184

This creates a structural bias toward treatment rather than prevention.

185

A treatment can be sold repeatedly to a large market of patients.

186

Prevention is harder to monetize because the patient who doesn't get cancer doesn't know they were supposed to.

187

It also creates pressure toward drugs that extend survival by measurable periods, months or years, even when they don't cure.

188

A treatment that gives a patient six additional months of life is demonstrable and reimbursable.

189

A treatment that theoretically prevents recurrence in a patient already declared cancer-free is much harder to sell,

190

because demonstrating prevention requires following patients for decades to show the recurrence didn't happen.

191

Publicly funded research fills some of this gap,

192

but public research funding operates on grant cycles and publication incentives that create their own structural pressures toward incremental,

193

publishable results rather than high-risk work that might not produce results within the grant period.

194

The system around the science shapes what the science investigates and how fast it moves, independently of what the biology actually requires.

195

Now let's talk about what is actually working, because the picture is not uniformly bleak, and the progress deserves precise acknowledgement.

196

Childhood leukemia, once nearly universally fatal, is now curable in approximately 90% of cases.

197

Hodgkin lymphoma has been transformed from a death sentence to a highly treatable disease.

198

Certain types of breast cancer caught early have 5-year survival rates above 90%.

199

CAR T-cell therapy, a technique that engineers a patient's own immune cells to recognize and attack cancer,

200

has produced remarkable results in certain blood cancers, with some patients achieving complete remissions after every other treatment had failed.

201

The pattern in these successes is informative.

202

The cancers most successfully treated tend to be genetically simpler, more accessible, to the immune system or to circulating drugs,

203

and have identifiable genetic drivers that can be specifically targeted.

204

The cancers that remain most resistant tend to be genetically complex,

205

immunologically evasive, and anatomically difficult to access.

206

The progress is real.

207

The remaining problems are genuinely, deeply, biologically hard.

208

Both are true.

209

Let's talk about where the field is actually heading, because the next decade of cancer research looks different from the previous five decades, and the difference matters.

210

Artificial intelligence is changing the speed at which researchers can analyze the enormous datasets that modern cancer biology generates.

211

A human researcher cannot simultaneously hold in mind the mutational profiles of 10,000 tumors, the treatment responses of those patients,

212

the genetic backgrounds of the individuals involved and the thousands of potential drug interactions relevant to those profiles.

213

Computational systems can, at least partially, and are producing genuine insights about cancer subtypes,

214

treatment response prediction, and drug target identification that would not have emerged from human analysis alone.

215

MRNA technology, which became widely known through COVID vaccines, has potential applications in cancer treatment that researchers have been exploring for years.

216

The same platform that can instruct cells to produce a viral protein can potentially instruct immune cells to recognize cancer-specific proteins,

217

producing personalized cancer vaccines tailored to the specific mutational profile of each patient's tumor.

218

Early trials in melanoma and pancreatic cancer have shown promise.

219

The convergence of better biological understanding, better computational tools, better early detection,

220

and better immunological approaches is producing a different landscape than the one that existed when Nixon signed the National Cancer Act.

221

Progress is not a straight line, and will not be, but the direction is real.

222

And this is ultimately the answer to the question in the title.

223

We cannot cure cancer yet because cancer is one of the hardest problems that biology poses to medicine.

224

A moving target built from the body's own machinery, evolving under treatment, distributed across 200 distinct diseases each with its own biology,

225

operating through mechanisms intertwined with the normal cellular processes that keep us alive.

226

Every drug that kills cancer cells risks killing normal cells.

227

Every immune activation risks autoimmunity.

228

Every targeted therapy produces resistance.

229

Every success in one cancer type reveals the unique complexity of the next.

230

Cancer will not be defeated by a single cure.

231

The biology makes that impossible.

232

What will happen, what is already happening,

233

is that specific cancers will be understood and controlled one by one through the specific biology of each disease.

234

Childhood leukemia first, then Hodgkin lymphoma, then certain breast cancers.

235

The list will grow.

236

It will grow slowly by the standards of news cycles and quickly by the standards of how medicine has historically moved.

237

The war Nixon declared was never really one war.

238

It was 200 separate wars fought simultaneously against enemies that keep changing their tactics.

239

Some of those wars are already won.

240

Others are being won now.

241

Others will take longer than any of us would like.

242

But the people fighting them are not losing.

243

They are learning, and in medicine, learning and winning are eventually the same thing.

下载应用

流利口语所需的一切

AI 发音评分逐句打分

音标练习掌握每个音

词汇学习建立你的词库

词汇游戏边玩边学

扫码

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

FOR YOU

本课的词汇与口语要点

这节 C1 级别的口语课以视频“Why Can’t We Cure Cancer Yet?”为素材。视频中反复出现的词有：cancer, cell, tumor, treatment, patient。这段视频共有 243 个句子、3321 个单词可供跟读。讲话部分时长为 21:48。说话人语速自然，每分钟约 152 个词，接近日常对话。只有 77% 的单词属于英语最常用的 3,000 词，词汇难度较高。

视频中的重点词汇

视频中最难的 15 个单词，附发音和释义：

单词	发音	释义
tumor 名词	/tuː.məɹ/	腫瘤 /肿瘤, 瘤子
mutation 名词	/mjuˈteɪʃən/	突變 /突变, 變種 /变种
researcher 名词	/ˈɹiˌsɝ.t͡ʃɚ/	研究員 /研究员, 研究者
complexity 名词	/kəmˈplɛk.sɪ.ti/	複雜性 /复杂性
detect 动词	/dɪˈtɛkt/	察覺 /察觉, 發覺 /发觉
bloodstream 名词	/ˈblʌd.stɹɪim/	血液, 血流
checkpoint 名词	/ˈt͡ʃɛkˌpɔɪnt/	檢查站 /检查站
leukemia 名词	/luːˈkiːmi.ə/	白血病, 血癌
melanoma 名词	/mɛləˈnoʊmə/	黑色素瘤
tolerance 名词	/ˈtɑ.lə.ɹəns/	寬容 /宽容
accumulate 动词	/əˈkjuːmjʊˌleɪt/	積累 /积累
bacterium 名词	/bækˈtɪəɹ.ɪəm/	細菌 /细菌
circulate 动词	/ˈsɝ.kjʊˌleɪt/	环绕
dormancy 名词	/ˈdɔː.mən.si/	休止
dormant 形容词	/ˈdɔːmənt/	睡眠狀態的 /睡眠状态的, 休眠

视频中的语法

说话人最常用的结构，并附上视频中的原话：

结构	视频中的用法
现在完成时 have/has + 过去分词 — 过去发生但与现在仍有关联的事	has now been · have improved · have never been told
被动语态 be + 过去分词 — 强调发生了什么，而不是谁做的	was signed · been told · is made
定语从句 who / which + 从句 — 补充说明人或事物	ones that have · return, which means

需要注意的发音

说话人用了 15 次缩略和弱读形式，例如 don't, doesn't, you're。请按听到的简短形式来说。

“th” 音: chemotherapy /ˌkiːməʊˈθɛɹəpi/, lethal /ˈliː.θəl/
“sh” 和 “zh” 音: mutation /mjuˈteɪʃən/, detection /dɪˈtɛk.ʃən/, computational /ˌkɑmpjʊˈteɪʃənəl/, remission /ɹəˈmɪʃ(ə)n/, evolutionary /ˌiː.vəˈluː.ʃən.ɛɹ.i/
长单词——注意重音位置: genetically /d͡ʒəˈneɾɪkli/, complexity /kəmˈplɛk.sɪ.ti/, inhibitor /ɪnˈhɪbɪtɚ/, leukemia /luːˈkiːmi.ə/, melanoma /mɛləˈnoʊmə/

中文母语者容易读错的音：

/v/ — 不要读成 /w/，上齿轻触下唇: evade /ɪˈveɪd/, evolutionary /ˌiː.vəˈluː.ʃən.ɛɹ.i/, vaccine /vækˈsin/, invisible /ɪnˈvɪzəb(ə)l/
词尾辅音 — 要读清楚，后面不要加元音: detect /dɪˈtɛkt/, checkpoint /ˈt͡ʃɛkˌpɔɪnt/, metastasis /məˈtæstəsəs/, tolerance /ˈtɑ.lə.ɹəns/, accumulate /əˈkjuːmjʊˌleɪt/
/r/ 和 /l/ 的区别: bloodstream /ˈblʌd.stɹɪim/, tolerance /ˈtɑ.lə.ɹəns/, evolutionary /ˌiː.vəˈluː.ʃən.ɛɹ.i/

如何用这段视频练习

先完整听一遍视频，不要开口，记下不认识的单词。
先用 0.75 倍速逐句跟读，熟练之后再回到正常速度。
录下自己的声音并与原声对比，特别注意 tumor, mutation, researcher 这类单词。

什么是跟读法？

跟读法 (Shadowing) 是一种有科学依据的语言学习技巧，最初开发用于专业口译员的培训，并由多语言者Alexander Arguelles博士普及。这个方法简单而强大：您在听英语母语原声的同时立即大声重复——就像是一个延迟1-2秒紧跟说话者的影子。与被动听力或语法练习不同，跟读法强迫您的大脑和口腔肌肉同时处理并模仿真实的讲话模式。研究表明它能显着提高发音准确性，语调，节奏，连读，听力理解和口语流利度——使其成为雅思口语备考和真实英语交流最有效的方法之一。

影子跟读法: 阅读完整分步指南 →

跟读练习: Why Can’t We Cure Cancer Yet? - 通过视频学习英语口语

选择练习模式

下载应用

推荐视频

The Reason Why Cancer is so Hard to Beat

We've Been Using The Wrong Science In Court For 50 years

The Nucleus: Crash Course Chemistry #1

Personalised Cancer Care - Prof Mark Middleton

SUMMARIZE SPOKEN TEXT - DNA & RNA

What Happens When Science Clashes with the Public?: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #7

Why The War on Drugs Is a Huge Failure

Essentials: Understanding & Healing the Mind | Dr. Karl Deisseroth

Unit 1 Louis Pasteur Learn English via Listening Level 3

We're Not Ready for Biocomputing

The Nearest Worlds to Earth Are Dead. Why Aren't We?

Introduction to the immune system