I got a PhD in biochemistry 7 years ago. I'm now back in IT working as a sysadmin. If I didn't have that previous computer experience, I would be doing day labor right now. I am not kidding.
I've always thought it obvious that the proliferative capabilities of cancer cells resulted from leveraging ancient genes but I give the authors credit for stating it explicitly. However, I believe their conclusions that this improves hope for a cure are dead wrong, for the following reasons:
1. One billions years old is not very old biochemically. Most of the intracellular biochemical tricks are already old hat to the one-billion year old cell - they are not the gullible rubes you think they are.
2. You might expect cancer cells to be predictable because they fall back on early evolved mechanisms. Your expectations are just as likely to be wrong because proto-multicellular life could be a lot more mutable and adaptable than later, highly-constrained organisms. An analogy would be the greater speed and flexibility of older, smaller and simpler human cities and governments to form and adapt compared to the modern regulation-bound and bureaucratic ones.
In fact, if mutability itself turns out to be a 'tunable' property of ancient life, we can expect to be continually surprised by those 'primitive' cancer cells.
" Sunstein admits that 'some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true' Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors'"
is false. I read the linked pdf and banning websites is explicitly _not_ a part of Sunstein and Vermeule's policy recommendations (page 14, paragraph 3). RTFA before you make false and inflammatory statements.