The Promise and the Limits of Cancer Vaccines: Between Scientific Hope and Biological Reality

I received this information about a Russian cancer vaccine sent to us through my WhatsApp chat group. It was sent to us by Ir. CK Cheong.

Let me quote what he sent to me - or rather to all of us in the WhatsApp. 

“the nightmare scenario for the US is here... Russia, not China, has developed a vaccine for cancer  China is preparing to approve Russia’s groundbreaking cancer vaccine, a development that could disrupt the $2.6 trillion Western oncology market. This vaccine, designed to target and train the immune system to attack cancer cells, represents a major shift from traditional treatments like chemotherapy and radiation. If widely adopted, it could transform how cancer is prevented and treated around the world. The economic implications are massive. Western pharmaceutical companies have long dominated cancer care with treatments generating billions in revenue annually. A safe and effective vaccine from Russia, endorsed and distributed by China, could challenge this dominance, making accessible, cost-effective cancer care available on a global scale and shifting the balance of the industry.”

 https://x.com/NextScience/status/2020145805877977296

Thank you Ir. CK Cheong for the above link. 

Let me explain  what I know about immunotherapy and cancer vaccines.

I shall follow up on this article with two more detailed research  papers  on the same subject - one I wrote on my own, the other together with a cancer immunologist. This would be of great interest to doctors and cancer patients alike if there are other options than the traditional chemotherapy. 

Let me deal with this one first. 

In recent weeks, a message circulating on social media and WhatsApp groups has generated considerable excitement. It claims that Russia has developed a groundbreaking “cancer vaccine” that could potentially disrupt the global oncology industry and even threaten the dominance of Western pharmaceutical companies. According to these reports, China is preparing to approve this vaccine, and if successful, it could transform cancer treatment worldwide by replacing conventional modalities such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy with a single, powerful immunological solution.

At first glance, such claims are understandably captivating. Cancer remains one of humanity’s greatest medical challenges, and any genuine breakthrough naturally inspires hope. However, a careful scientific analysis reveals that the reality is far more remote  and considerably less sensational, than the headlines suggest.

 It may be possible to train the immune system to recognize and attack cancer cells. This approach, known as immunotherapy, is a validated and active area of global cancer research. Russian researchers are currently developing a personalized mRNA-based therapeutic vaccine, which they claim could theoretically be adapted for many types of cancer. However, it is not a "universal" one-size-fits-all shot. While early pre-clinical animal trials showed promising results such as a 60–80% reduction in tumor size since human clinical trials are still in early stages or just beginning. The Russian claim refers to an experimental, personalized mRNA-based vaccine named Enteromix (or similar, details are limited) that is currently in early-stage clinical trials. The vaccine is designed to be personalized, using a patient's unique tumor profile (neoantigens) to create a tailored mRNA sequence that instructs the body's cells to produce proteins that the immune system will recognize as a threat and attack. This is a promising approach in personalized medicine. Russian officials have reported promising results from preclinical studies and early Phase 1 human trials, including significant tumor size reduction and a 100% immune response in some participants, with no serious side effects. Let me explain in technical details how it may work: The vaccine is therapeutic (designed to treat existing tumors) rather than preventive (designed to stop cancer before it starts). Its mechanism is based on the following process: 

 

1.             Tumor Passport Creation: Doctors extract a sample of a patient's tumor and use Artificial Intelligence (AI) to analyze its unique genetic profile.

 

2.             Neoantigen Identification: The AI identifies neoantigens, specific proteins or mutations found only on the cancer cells and not on healthy tissue.

 

3.             mRNA Synthesis: In about a week, scientists synthesize a custom mRNA sequence that carries the "blueprints" for these neoantigens.

 

4.             Immune Instruction: Once injected (typically via lipid nanoparticles), the mRNA instructs the patient’s own cells to produce these cancer-specific proteins.

 

5.             Targeted Attack: The immune system (specifically T-cells) recognizes these produced proteins as foreign threats and "learns" to hunt and destroy any original cancer cells that display them.

 

Current Development Status Target Cancers: Initial human trials, which began or are slated for late 2024 to 2025, focus on melanoma and small cell lung cancer. 

Technology Name: 

Some reports refer to a specific platform called Enteromix, while others highlight the broader mRNA work by the Gamaleya National Research Center (the developers of the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine). 

The Russian government has announced that once approved, the vaccine will be provided free of charge to Russian citizens under the national healthcare system. 

Let me explain the caution. International experts emphasize that while the tech is groundbreaking, the "100% success" claims reported by some state media are based on very small-scale or pre-clinical data and have not yet been verified through large-scale, peer-reviewed human trials. 

 

There are  other cancer vaccines too not just the Russian one currently in development, such as those from Moderna or BioNTech? However, as far as I know international medical experts emphasize that these are early-stage results based on small sample sizes. The claims of "100% success" or being "ready for use" are considered exaggerated by the global scientific community, which requires larger, independent, peer-reviewed Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials to confirm safety and effectiveness before any wide-scale approval. 

The Promise and the Limits of Cancer Vaccines: Between Scientific Hope and Biological Reality

Immunotherapy: A Real and Rapidly Advancing Field

The core scientific principle behind these claims is not fiction. It is rooted in a legitimate and rapidly expanding discipline known as cancer immunotherapy, an approach that seeks to train the body’s own immune system to recognize and destroy malignant cells.

Unlike traditional treatments that directly target tumors with drugs or radiation, immunotherapy works indirectly by enhancing immune surveillance, particularly through T-cells. This concept has already yielded successful therapies, including immune checkpoint inhibitors and CAR-T cell therapy, which have revolutionized the management of certain cancers.

The Russian initiative belongs to this same scientific lineage.

The Russian mRNA Vaccine: What Is Actually Being Developed?

Russian researchers, particularly those associated with the Gamaleya National Research Center (the institute behind the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine), are developing an experimental, personalized mRNA-based therapeutic cancer vaccine. Some reports refer to the platform as Enteromix, though technical details remain limited and largely unpublished in peer-reviewed international journals.

Importantly, this is not a universal cancer vaccine. It is not designed to prevent cancer in healthy individuals, nor is it a one-size-fits-all cure. Rather, it is a personalized therapeutic vaccine, tailored specifically to each patient’s tumor.

How Such a Vaccine May Work (In Theory) Here are two links for the diagrams

National Cancer Institute – Cancer Vaccines Explained

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/types/immunotherapy/cancer-vaccines

Or even more refined:

A visual illustration of this process is available at the U.S. National Cancer Institute website:

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/types/immunotherapy/cancer-vaccines

The proposed mechanism is scientifically elegant and consistent with current research trends:

Tumor Profiling
A biopsy of the patient’s tumor is genetically sequenced, often with the aid of artificial intelligence.

 Neoantigen Discovery

Unique cancer-specific mutations (neoantigens) are identified, molecular signatures absent in normal cells.

Custom mRNA Design
Scientists synthesize a bespoke mRNA sequence encoding these neoantigens.

Immune Training
The mRNA is delivered into the body using lipid nanoparticles, instructing the patient’s own cells to produce these tumor antigens.

Targeted Immune Attack
T-cells are activated and trained to recognize and destroy cancer cells displaying those antigens.

In essence, the body becomes its own personalized cancer-fighting factory.

Current Evidence: Promising, but Preliminary

According to Russian sources, early pre-clinical studies in animals have demonstrated tumor reductions of up to 60–80%. Small Phase 1 human trials, mainly involving melanoma and small-cell lung cancer, have reportedly shown strong immune activation with minimal side effects.

However, from a scientific standpoint, these results remain exploratory rather than definitive. Phase 1 trials are designed primarily to assess safety, not effectiveness. Claims of “100% success” or “complete cures” are based on very small samples and lack independent international verification.

Without large-scale, randomized Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials published in reputable journals, such claims cannot be regarded as established medical evidence.

 Not a Russian Monopoly: A Global Scientific Effort

It is also crucial to recognize that Russia is not alone in this field. Similar personalized mRNA cancer vaccines are under development by major biotechnology companies, including Moderna and BioNTech. These programs follow nearly identical scientific principles and are likewise in early or mid-stage clinical trials.

Thus, what we are witnessing is not a geopolitical revolution in medicine, but rather a global convergence of scientific innovation driven by advances in genomics, immunology, and artificial intelligence.

 Scientific Hope Versus Biological Reality

The scientific foundations of cancer immunotherapy are solid and inspiring. There is no doubt that personalized vaccines will play an increasingly important role in oncology in the coming decades.

Yet it is equally important to remain realistic.

Cancer is not a single disease, but a vast family of genetically unstable, adaptive biological processes. Tumors evolve, mutate, and evade immune detection. What works spectacularly in one patient may fail entirely in another. The immune system itself is constrained by tolerance mechanisms designed to prevent autoimmunity.

From a broader biological and philosophical perspective, it may also be argued that complete freedom from disease is neither biologically nor existentially consistent with human life. Aging, degeneration, and mortality are deeply embedded in the fabric of living systems. Nature appears to prioritize reproduction, variation, and renewal over indefinite survival.

In that sense, medicine may continue to delay death, reduce suffering, and improve quality of life, but not abolish mortality itself.

My feeling is the Russian mRNA cancer vaccine represents a promising scientific experiment, not a proven cure. Its underlying principles are shared by leading research programs worldwide, and its early results, while encouraging, remain far from conclusive.

The true value of this development lies not in sensational headlines or economic speculation, but in its contribution to a growing body of knowledge that may one day transform cancer into a manageable, chronic condition rather than a fatal diagnosis.

Until then, cautious optimism, guided by rigorous science rather than political or commercial enthusiasm, remains the most intellectually honest stance.

To understand how a personalized cancer vaccine may work, it is helpful to imagine the immune system as a highly trained security force whose main problem is not weakness, but mis-identification. Cancer cells originate from our own tissues, so they often appear “normal” and escape immune detection.

The purpose of a cancer vaccine is therefore not to kill cancer directly, but to teach the immune system what the enemy looks like.

Step 1: Studying the Enemy (Tumor Profiling)

A small sample of the patient’s tumor is first removed through biopsy or surgery. This sample contains millions of cancer cells, each carrying genetic mutations that differ from normal cells.

Using advanced genetic sequencing (often assisted by artificial intelligence), scientists analyze these cancer cells in great detail to identify their unique molecular features.

Step 2: Finding the Cancer’s Fingerprints (Neoantigens)

Among all these mutations, researchers look for neoantigens,  abnormal proteins that exist only on cancer cells and not on healthy tissues.

These neoantigens act like fingerprints or facial features of the cancer. They are the most reliable markers that allow the immune system to distinguish malignant cells from normal ones.

Step 3: Writing the Immune “Instruction Manual” (mRNA Design)

Once the neoantigens are identified, scientists design a customized strand of messenger RNA (mRNA) that contains the genetic instructions for producing those exact cancer-specific proteins.

This mRNA is essentially a biological message that says:
“Here is what the cancer looks like. Learn this.”

Step 4: Teaching the Body (mRNA Injection)

The mRNA is injected into the patient, usually enclosed within microscopic lipid particles that protect it and help it enter cells.

Inside the body, normal cells temporarily read this mRNA and produce harmless copies of the cancer-specific proteins.

Importantly, no cancer is created — only the signature proteins of cancer are displayed.

Step 5: Immune Training (T-cell Activation)

The immune system now sees these abnormal proteins and recognizes them as foreign.

This activates specialized immune cells, especially T-lymphocytes, which begin to memorize these cancer signatures.

In effect, the immune system undergoes a form of vaccination training, similar to how it learns to recognize viruses.

Step 6: The Targeted Attack

Once trained, these T-cells circulate throughout the body searching for any real cancer cells displaying the same neoantigens.

When found, they bind to them and destroy them through immune mechanisms.

Thus, the immune system becomes a precision-guided internal weapon, capable of seeking out and eliminating cancer cells while sparing healthy tissues.

 

Why This Approach Is So Powerful (In Theory)

This method has three major advantages:

1.  Extreme specificity

Only cancer cells are targeted, minimizing damage to normal organs.

2. Personalization

Each vaccine is custom-built for each patient’s tumor.

3. Biological amplification

Once trained, the immune system can continue working long after the injection. In principle, this is one of the most intelligent and elegant strategies ever conceived in oncology.

 

Why It Still Faces Major Limitations

Despite its beauty, several biological challenges remain:

 Cancer mutates rapidly and may change its “appearance.”

Some tumours suppress immune activity.

Not all cancers present strong neoantigens.

Immune exhaustion may occur in advanced disease.

This is why to my personal understanding,  such vaccines work brilliantly in some patients and poorly in others, and why universal success remains unlikely.

A Deeper Reflection

In philosophical terms - a spiritual area I am always interested in - not just in medicine and science only -  this technology to me does not “defeat nature.”
It merely cooperates with nature, by enhancing the body’s existing defensive intelligence.

Medicine here is not creating immortality, but borrowing time from entropy,  delaying decline, reducing suffering, and improving quality of life, while remaining subject to the deeper biological laws of aging and mortality.

Having written and explained all that, my feeling is, I think the scientific principle is sound and part of a global effort in immunotherapy research, but the specific Russian vaccine's claims require further independent validation through rigorous, large-scale clinical trials. 

Let me conclude by saying I think we cannot be too confident about this Russian vaccine or any other vaccines against cancer because Nature too has its purpose to fight back in that we cannot remain here free from any disease, including cancer for us to continue to live here in this world forever. 

See my explanation here:

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2026/02/why-must-it-be-necessary-for-us-to-age.html?m=1  

Some references (for further reading)

1.  Sahin U., Türeci Ö. Personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Science, 2018.

2. Waldman A.D. et al. A guide to cancer immunotherapy: from T cell basic science to clinical practice. Nature Reviews Immunology, 2020.

3. Ott P.A. et al. An immunogenic personal neoantigen vaccine for patients with melanoma. Nature, 2017.

4. Moderna Oncology Pipeline – mRNA Cancer Vaccines.

BioNTech Individualized Neoantigen Therapies (iNeST Program).

 

The Man Who Smoked for 65 Years and Lived to Tell the Tale : My CNY Greeting to Readers

 

 Today, Thursday, 19 February, 2026 we are on the 3^rd Day of Chinese New Year 2026 . This article is my CNY greeting for longevity and good health to all my readers who cares to read and take care for the Year of the Horse. I also wish to take this opportunity to thank the numerous WhatsApp friends who sent me their CNY greetings - far too many for me to thank them in return individually. 

Let me tell you a story for all on this 3rd Day of CNY of: The Man Who Smoked for 65 Years and Lived to Tell the Tale — A Reflection on Biology, Chance, and Misplaced Confidence

On the first day of Chinese New Year 2026, amid the festive atmosphere at Tropicana Golf & Country Resort Club House I met an 83-year-old Malay gentleman who came with his daughter who is a close friend of Betty Kuok's sister - Shirley Siew. His story startled me. We were among hundreds of guests hosted by Madam Betty Kuok, wife of the nephew of Robert Kuok, Malaysia’s most prominent billionaire. The occasion was celebratory; the conversation, however, turned unexpectedly clinical.

The gentleman told me he had smoked continuously for 65 years. Not intermittently, not socially — but daily, consistently, without interruption. Yet, according to him, he had never suffered from any major illness. He proudly declared to me  that he had scolded both his wife and his doctors whenever they urged him to quit smoking. More astonishingly, he claimed that all his smoking friends died within one or two years after stopping on advice from their doctors, whereas he alone survived by continuing to smoke.

When he once attempted to quit, he said his heart rate increased, his blood pressure rose, and his appetite surged uncontrollably. He attributed his longevity not only to continued smoking but to his daily intake of 1,000 mg of vitamin C and garlic, which he believed protected him from harm.

At first hearing, his account seemed to defy decades of medical evidence. But on deeper reflection, what he described about quitting smoking is not entirely inaccurate , though the interpretation is flawed.

Nicotine is a stimulant. It activates nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the brain, increasing catecholamine release, adrenaline and noradrenaline, thereby elevating heart rate and constricting blood vessels. Chronic smokers, however, develop neuroadaptation. Their nervous systems recalibrate around constant nicotine exposure. Receptor numbers increase, and baseline physiology subtly adjusts.

When such a person abruptly stops smoking, the body does not immediately relax. Instead, it enters withdrawal. Anxiety, irritability, restlessness, and transient increases in heart rate and blood pressure occur. What he perceived as “worsening health” was in fact acute withdrawal stress , a temporary sympathetic rebound. Studies show that within 20 minutes of cessation, heart rate begins to decline. Within 24 hours, carbon monoxide levels fall, improving oxygen delivery. Within weeks, vascular function measurably improves (U.S. Surgeon General Report, 2020).

The appetite surge he described is also physiologically grounded. Nicotine suppresses appetite and increases resting metabolic rate by approximately 7–15%. When nicotine is withdrawn, metabolism returns to baseline, taste and smell improve, and food becomes more rewarding. Weight gain after cessation is common, averaging 4–5 kg, yet the cardiovascular benefit of quitting far outweighs the modest risk of weight gain (NEJM, 2018).

But the more profound question remains: why did he outlive his friends who stopped smoking?

Several explanations are possible.

First, survivorship bias. We tend to hear from the survivors, not the majority who succumbed earlier. The vast epidemiological evidence is unequivocal: smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by about 25-fold in heavy smokers and doubles to triples cardiovascular mortality risk (British Doctors Study; Doll et al., BMJ 2004). The fact that he survived does not invalidate the risk; it simply means he belongs to a statistical minority.

Second, genetic resilience. Not all smokers are equally vulnerable. Genetic polymorphisms affecting detoxification enzymes (such as CYP450 variants), inflammatory pathways, and DNA repair mechanisms may confer partial protection. Some individuals metabolize carcinogens differently. Others mount less intense inflammatory responses.

Third, competing risks and timing. At 83, he may indeed have avoided clinically overt disease, but smoking-related pathologies are often silent for decades, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, vascular stiffness, subclinical atherosclerosis. Many smokers feel “healthy” until a sudden event occurs.

Fourth, reverse causation in his anecdote about friends who died after quitting. It is common for individuals to quit smoking because they are already ill. A smoker may stop due to early symptoms of cancer or heart disease. When death follows, it appears that quitting caused the decline, when in fact underlying disease prompted the cessation. This phenomenon is well recognized in epidemiology.

As for vitamin C and garlic, the story becomes more questionable 

Smoking depletes vitamin C because of increased oxidative stress. Vitamin C is an antioxidant capable of neutralizing reactive oxygen species generated by tobacco smoke. Indeed, smokers often have lower plasma vitamin C levels and may require slightly higher intake than non-smokers. However, the recommended intake for adults is generally 75–90 mg per day; even the UK recommends 40 mg. The classic Sheffield experiment during World War II demonstrated that as little as 10 mg daily not only prevented scurvy, but cured scurvy. While modern analyses suggest higher amounts may support optimal tissue repair, 1,000 mg daily exceeds physiological saturation. The body tightly regulates vitamin C absorption; excess is excreted in urine. High doses may cause gastrointestinal upset and increase kidney stone risk in susceptible individuals. Rebound scurvy (or the rebound effect) occurs when the body, having adapted to high-dose vitamin C, experiences a rapid and severe drop in systemic levels after that high dosage is abruptly stopped. This sudden termination can cause vitamin C levels to plummet below even the original baseline, potentially leading to acute deficiency symptoms.

Garlic contains allicin and sulphur compounds with mild anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Some observational studies, including research from China, suggest a possible association between raw garlic consumption and reduced lung cancer risk. Animal studies show protective effects against smoke-induced oxidative damage in organs. However, no high-quality human data demonstrate that garlic neutralizes the carcinogenic burden of tobacco. At best, these substances modestly mitigate oxidative stress; they do not counteract DNA mutations caused by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and nitrosamines in cigarette smoke.

In truth, his survival likely reflects a combination of favourable genetics, chance, perhaps lower cumulative pack-years than assumed, and the complex variability of human biology. Smoking is a powerful risk factor, but it is not a deterministic death sentence for every individual. Medicine speaks in probabilities, not certainties.

The larger lesson is philosophical. Humans often interpret isolated survival as proof of invulnerability. Yet public health rests not on anecdotes but on population-level evidence. For every 83-year-old smoker who celebrates Chinese New Year in apparent vigour, countless others succumb silently to lung cancer, myocardial infarction, stroke, or emphysema.

Quitting smoking, even at advanced age, reduces mortality risk. Studies show that cessation at age 65 still adds measurable years of life expectancy. The cardiovascular system begins recovering almost immediately, cancer risk declines progressively over years.

The gentleman’s story is fascinating, even inspiring in its defiance, but it does not overturn biology. It reminds us instead of the variability of the human organism and the danger of drawing universal conclusions from individual experience. Withdrawal symptoms are temporary physiological recalibrations, not evidence that smoking is protective. The body, even at 83, still seeks equilibrium and healing when toxins are removed.

In the end, he may have outlived his friends not because he continued smoking — but despite it.

 And that distinction makes all the difference.

 

References for further reading

 

1. Doll R, Peto R, Boreham J, Sutherland I. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years’ observations on male British doctors. BMJ. 2004.

2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking — 50 Years of Progress. Surgeon General’s Report, 2014 & 2020 update.

3. Aubin HJ et al. Weight gain in smokers after quitting cigarettes: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2012.

4. Lykkesfeldt J et al. Smoking and vitamin C status. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000.

5. Jin ZY et al. Raw garlic consumption

and lung cancer risk. Cancer Prev Res. 

2013.

Teach Us, Lord, to Number Our Days A Meditation on Time, Wisdom, and Eternal Purpose

I wrote an article here on the brevity of life that evoked 2 kindly comments that I don’t really deserve.

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=brevity+of+human

Encouraged by the kind words of caring readers, let me share my simple and humble extended feeling  for my gentle readers on how we need to live with wisdom during  our short stay in this world.

 I  remember when I was just around 15 - 17 years old I used to attend gospel meetings where we - ritually like in some religions -  sang this hymn -  

"Teach Us, Lord, to Number Our Days"

I did not have much understanding then what I sang. 

Today, I am much more matured to enable me to pour out the spiritual small voice within me - for this essay to be written  what this means to my life - perhaps (maybe) also to some.  

A Meditation on Time, Wisdom, and Eternal Purpose

“Teach us to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom.”
— Psalm 90:12

This quiet but profound prayer from Psalm 90 captures one of the deepest truths of human existence: our lives are brief, yet our choices carry eternal weight. To “number our days” does not mean simply counting how many years we have lived, but learning to live with awareness, humility, and spiritual clarity. It is a prayer for perspective, for the grace to see life as it truly is, not as we wish it to be.

Psalm 90, traditionally attributed to Moses, sets before us a striking contrast between the eternity of God and the fragility of man. God is described as existing from everlasting to everlasting, while human life is portrayed as fleeting, like grass that flourishes in the morning and withers by evening. In these verses, Moses gently but firmly reminds us that time is not on our side, and that even our longest years pass quickly and quietly:

“Oh, the days of all our years are seventy,
Or, if due to strength, they eighty be;
Yet what’s their pride and boast?
Toil and sorrow and woe.
All soon will fade;
And we, too, fly away.”

There is a sobering honesty in these words. They strip away the illusion that we are in control or that we have endless opportunities ahead of us. Life, even at its best, is short. And yet most of us live as though it will never end. I lost my son in July last year (2025) at the age of 46 while enjoying his hobby cycling up a hill with his group of friends.

  We plan as if time is unlimited, pursue wealth as if it can satisfy the soul, and chase reputation as if it can outlive death. But the moment we enter the grave; all these things are instantly released. They remain behind, while we move on alone into eternity.

To number our days, therefore, is first to accept life’s brevity and moral seriousness. The psalmist does not shy away from acknowledging human sin and weakness:

“Thou hast set our iniquities,
Lord, before Thy face;
E’en our secret hidden sins,
Light of Thy countenance traced.
For in Thine o’erflowing wrath
Have our days wholly gone by;
And our years come to an end
Like a whispered sigh.”

These lines remind us that nothing is hidden from God. Our lives unfold under His gaze, and time itself is shaped by both our actions and His mercy. Yet this awareness is not meant to drive us into fear or despair, but into wisdom. When we truly realize how fragile we are, how temporary our achievements, and how limited our time, we begin to ask deeper questions. Not how much we can accumulate, but how faithfully we are living. Not how admired we are by others, but how we are with God.

This is where the biblical idea of wisdom becomes central. Wisdom in Scripture is not the same as knowledge. Knowledge is information we acquire; wisdom is truth that transforms the way we live. The story of King Solomon illustrates this beautifully. When God invited him to ask for anything, Solomon did not request wealth, power, long life, or fame. He asked for wisdom. And because he chose wisely, God granted him not only wisdom, but also knowledge, understanding, and prosperity as added gifts.

This teaches us something deeply relevant to modern life. We invest enormous effort in education, professional titles, and intellectual universities accomplishments. These are valuable in their place, but they cannot teach us how to die peacefully, how to forgive sincerely, how to suffer meaningfully, or how to live humbly. University knowledge can sharpen the mind, but only divine wisdom can shape the soul. When we seek wisdom first, all other forms of knowledge become secondary blessings rather than life’s central pursuit.

To number our days also means learning to live intentionally. It calls us away from mindless busyness and empty striving and invites us into purposeful living. Every day becomes a gift to be stewarded, not wasted. Time is no longer something to kill, but something to consecrate. We begin to see life not merely as something to enjoy or endure, but as something to offer back to God.

This is why the psalmist prays, “Teach us then to number our days, heart of wisdom to obtain.” Wisdom does not come, or may not come automatically with age. Many grow older but not wiser. Wisdom grows only through daily dependence on God, through the quiet recognition that our strength is limited, our plans uncertain, and our future ultimately in His hands.

Such dependence reshapes even our understanding of satisfaction. We stop seeking fulfilment primarily in possessions, achievements, or applause, and begin to seek it in God Himself:

“Satisfy us, Lord, in the morn
With lovingkindness outpoured,
That a joyful ringing shout may arise
All the days of our life.”

This is a remarkable prayer. It does not ask for abundance of wealth, but for abundance of love. It does not seek external success, but internal peace. And even in suffering, the prayer does not collapse into bitterness:

“Lord, according to all the days
That we afflictions have faced,
And to the years wherein evil we’ve seen,
Make us glad in Thee.”

Here we find the deepest expression of spiritual maturity ,  not the absence of pain, but joy rooted in God despite pain. A life that is numbered wisely does not escape hardship, but it finds meaning within it.

Ultimately, to gain a heart of wisdom is to realize that life is not an end in itself, but a preparation for eternity. Success is no longer measured by fame or fortune, but by faithfulness. What we become matters more than what we possess. Time becomes sacred, not disposable. God becomes central, not peripheral. Most people today live out their lives without a single gratitude even to someone they know and have been a great help to them during their difficult journey in life. They don't even say a simple word of gratitude or give thanks to a friend whom they know and can see, let alone to God. Most take life for granted they will live forever, and that tomorrow is always there for them.  

“Teach us to number our days” is therefore not a morbid request, but a liberating one. It frees us from the illusion of permanence and invites us into a deeper way of living. It teaches us to live ready to die, and in doing so, to finally learn how to live well.

When we reach the final day of our lives, what will matter is not how much we earned, how many titles we held, or how admired we were. What will matter is whether we walked with God, loved sincerely, lived wisely, and prepared our souls.

To number our days is, in the end, to exchange the shallow security of this world for the quiet confidence of eternity.

On this note, kindly grant me this wish to you and all kind readers - A Very Blessed Chinese New Year – Tuesday, 17, 2026

Take Care! 

jb lim 

Why Must It be Necessary for Us to Age and Die?

 

 Dr. Lawrence Ong, a former doctor colleague of mine in a WhatsApp chat was sharing with us by asking me a question why must we all die? He sought  my comment why can't we live forever? 

 

Thank you, Dr. Lawrence, for sharing  your interesting question soliciting my views. 

Let me handle this question with care from all perspective I know -  biological, social, economics to spiritual. 

Here are my views - Why Must We Age and Die? 

Title: 

Biological Necessity, Evolutionary Logic, and the Meaning of Mortality

 

Abstract

Aging and death are often experienced as biological injustices and existential tragedies, unwanted intrusions into conscious life. Yet when viewed through the combined lenses of evolutionary biology, molecular science, thermodynamics, and philosophy, aging reveals itself not as an error of nature, but as an intrinsic consequence of how life itself is organized. Far from being mere failures of repair, aging and death emerge as structural features of living systems: products of genetic trade-offs, energetic limitations, molecular imperfection, and the relentless arrow of time. Mortality, in this deeper sense, is not simply the end of life, but one of the fundamental conditions that make biological renewal, adaptation, and meaning possible.

First

Aging as an Evolutionary Consequence, Not a Design Error

Natural selection does not shape organisms for immortality. It shapes them for successful reproduction within a finite world. Evolution “cares” about survival only insofar as survival leads to the passing on of genes. Once reproduction has occurred, the selective pressure to preserve the body indefinitely declines dramatically.

This explains a profound asymmetry in biology: organisms are exquisitely robust in youth yet increasingly fragile with age. Traits that cause harm only in later life are weakly opposed by evolution, because their effects fall outside the critical window of reproduction. Aging, therefore, is not directly selected for, but it is permitted. And in evolution, what is permitted becomes inevitable.

In this sense, aging is not a design flaw. It is a tolerated consequence of a system optimized for reproduction rather than permanence.

Second

Genetic Trade-offs: The Price of Early Success

Life is built on compromise. Many of the same genes that confer strength, fertility, and resilience in youth carry hidden costs that manifest only later. This principle, known as antagonistic pleiotropy, reveals a central truth: biological traits are rarely purely beneficial. They are negotiated settlements between immediate survival and long-term deterioration.

The very pathways that stimulate growth and cell division in early life increase the risk of cancer in old age. Inflammation that protects against infection in youth becomes the seed of chronic disease later. These are not biological mistakes; they are the price paid for early success.

Closely related is the disposable soma theory, which proposes that organisms possess limited energy. Evolution consistently favors investing this energy in reproduction rather than in perfect cellular maintenance. The body, therefore, is not engineered for eternity. It is engineered to last long enough.

Third

Cellular Aging and the Accumulation of Damage

At the deepest level, aging is the slow triumph of damage over repair.

Each time a cell divides, its telomeres, the protective caps at the ends of chromosomes shorten. When they reach a critical length, the cell can no longer divide and enters senescence or programmed death. This protects against cancer yet contributes inexorably to tissue aging.

Meanwhile, normal metabolism continuously generates free radicals, those highly reactive molecules produced especially within mitochondria during energy production. These molecules are not foreign enemies; they are unavoidable by-products of being alive.

Over time, free radicals damage DNA, proteins, and lipid membranes. Mitochondrial DNA, poorly protected and highly exposed, accumulates mutations, reducing energy production and generating even more free radicals in a vicious cycle. The cell slowly becomes less efficient, more unstable, and more inflammatory.

Aging, therefore, is not caused by a single mechanism. It is the cumulative effect of countless microscopic imperfections, magnified relentlessly by time.

Even our best repair systems operate under the constraints of thermodynamics. Absolute fidelity is physically impossible. Life can delay entropy, but it cannot defeat it.

Fourth

Why Evolution Requires Not Only the Young, but the New

It is tempting to imagine that if organisms could remain youthful indefinitely, evolution would still proceed. But this is a misconception.

Evolution depends not merely on survival, but on generational turnover. Each new generation introduces novel genetic combinations, new solutions tested against changing environments, emerging pathogens, and shifting ecosystems.

If older individuals dominated indefinitely, even in perfect health, they would genetically anchor the species to past conditions. Innovation would slow. Adaptation would weaken. Immortality, paradoxically, would make life more fragile, not more resilient.

Death does not merely make room for the young. It makes room for the new.

Fifth

Ecological and Population Constraints

Life unfolds within finite ecosystems. Resources are limited. Mortality regulates population size and prevents ecological collapse.

Without aging and death, competition would intensify endlessly. Younger individuals would be denied opportunities to mature and reproduce. Social and biological systems would lose balance and resilience.

In this sense, death is not merely an individual event. It is a population-level stabilizer, an ecological necessity.

Sixth

Entropy and the Arrow of Time

From a physical standpoint, aging reflects the second law of thermodynamics. All ordered systems require constant energy input to resist disorder. Living organisms are extraordinarily ordered systems, perpetually fighting entropy.

Yet entropy always wins in the long run.

Aging is simply the biological expression of the arrow of time. Immortality would require perfect error correction in a universe where perfection is forbidden by physical law. Thus, aging is not merely biological, it is cosmological.

Seventh

Mortality, Suffering, and the Human Condition

Beyond molecules and genes lies the human experience.

Aging brings not only biological decline, but social, psychological, and economic challenges: chronic disease, frailty, sensory loss, cognitive decline, loneliness, financial insecurity, and social invisibility. These are not abstract concepts; they are lived realities.

And here we arrive at the deepest question:

Should we seek to abolish aging altogether?

To fully “medicalize” aging, to treat it solely as a disease to be cured, risks erasing a fundamental dimension of what it means to be human. While extending healthy life is a noble goal, the pursuit of absolute longevity raises profound ethical dilemmas.

An indefinitely extended lifespan would reshape society in troubling ways:
fewer young people, slower turnover of leadership, concentration of power in increasingly older generations, and diminished space for new minds, new genes, and new ideas.

It may be that what benefits the individual conflicts with what sustains the species.

In this light, the death of the individual may be biologically necessary for the health of humanity itself.

For instance, South Korean doctors and medical students began a massive, prolonged walkout in February 2024 to protest the government’s plan to significantly increase the number of medical school admissions. As of February 2026, the initial 18-month strike (February 2024–late 2025) has officially ended, but the conflict is ongoing with new, slightly modified proposals, and the medical community remains heavily critical. 

Various reasons were given by the doctors why they disagree with their government proposal to train more younger doctors – but we shall not go into them. But  I think this would be a disadvantage to the whole country and to the older doctors too when they too must grow old and die. Without younger and more creative doctors to replace them, the whole future generations of Koreans who need health care will suffer. But they are medical doctors - tens of thousands of them on long-hauled strike throughout their country. Though they are doctors they cannot think with wisdom the consequences of their action on their society, except their own field of medicine. In biological evolution we label this as self-preservation, and selfishness,  not altruism 

Aging and death arise from the very forces that make life possible: evolution, energy limitation, molecular imperfection, entropy, and environmental changes. They are not arbitrary punishment, nor signs of biological incompetence. They are the cost of adaptability, diversity, and progress.   

 

Evolution does not invest in eternal individuals.
It invests in enduring lineages.
Not in permanence, but in renewal.

Seen this way, aging and death are not merely endings.
They are the hidden mechanisms by which life continues.

Or, to put it more gently:

We do not die because life has failed.
We die because life must move forward.

And perhaps that, dear readers,  is the deepest and most humbling truth of all.

By the way the oldest person that ever lived was Jeanne Calment of France who was born on February 21, 1875, and died on August 4, 1997, at the age of 122 years and 164 days, other than Methuselah as the oldest person mentioned in the Bible, reported to have lived to the age of 969. According to the Book of Genesis, he was the son of Enoch, grandfather of Noah, and died just before the great flood. 

Despite their exceptional longevity, they too finally died. 

See also this slide presentation here:

 https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2024/04/reasons-for or-life-spans.html

 

See also here 

 

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2024/04/reasons-for-life-spans.html?m=1

 

For Further Reading

 

1. Medawar, P. B. An Unsolved Problem of Biology. H.K. Lewis, 1952.

2. Williams, G. C. “Pleiotropy, Natural Selection, and the Evolution of Senescence.” Evolution, 1957.

3. Kirkwood, T. B. L. “Evolution of Aging.” Nature, 1977.

4. López-Otín, C. et al. “The Hallmarks of Aging.” Cell, 2013.

5. Harman, D. “The Free Radical Theory of Aging.” Journal of Gerontology, 1956.

6. Rose, M. R. Evolutionary Biology of Aging. Oxford University Press, 1991.

7. Asimov, I. “The Immortal Bard” and essays on biology and time, various collections.