Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

med.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 188 posts

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#91

Post by abakker »

baldfat wrote: post #66
jcims wrote: post #55

Writing this from a squeaky recliner set beside my wife’s bed in the oncology department of a local research hospital. Three weeks ago she had a radical hysterectomy and partial lymphadenectomy to treat stage IIIc ovarian cancer, and we’re back to try to aid her in her recovery to prepare for chemotherapy. Chemo should start next week, but we are hoping to also participate in a clinical trial for atezolizumab. This i…

So sorry to hear your story. Cancer just plan old sucks. It has impacted my family and one of my adopted children. My mom had pancreatic cancer (The deadliest of cancers) in 2017 and she is absolutely fine and cancer free a year later. Numbers don't mean anything to the individual and don't look them up is always my recommendation. As a non-medically trained support member I have gotten pretty good in talking with th…

I can attest from my own interactions that your point number 2 is spot on. My father died of cancer back in 2006, and while I don't attribute his death to this cause directly, miscommunication delayed treatment. Don't expect physicians to call each other, don't expect them to think about you much in their rare off hours. They're human, tired, and busy. Any connection you can make by concentrating on it is one they don't have to make instead.

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#92

Post by edgesrazor »

jcims wrote: post #55

Writing this from a squeaky recliner set beside my wife’s bed in the oncology department of a local research hospital. Three weeks ago she had a radical hysterectomy and partial lymphadenectomy to treat stage IIIc ovarian cancer, and we’re back to try to aid her in her recovery to prepare for chemotherapy. Chemo should start next week, but we are hoping to also participate in a clinical trial for atezolizumab. This i…

Wishing you both all the best.

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#93

Post by tossaway1 »

mamon wrote: post #60
afarrell wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conflating public domain with public knowledge risks a meaningful error. To patent something requires that you make it publicly knowable , but this knowledge would not be usable by other companies. well... you can write a patent that is so obfuscated that the public cannot learn from it...

>> well... you can write a patent that is so obfuscated that the public cannot learn from it... In such case the patent office should reject your patent claim as patent laws usually require that the description of the invention being patented should be understandable to professionals of relevant domain, who should be able to replicate it based solely on that description.

I assune you can patent part of an overall process (certainly that's the case in virtually all software patents), which could be a way to prevent others from replicating your process without explaining the whole thing, no?

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#94

Post by rossdavidh »

rplnt wrote: post #41
danieltillett wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug companies don't pick up treatments that are in the public domain. No patent, no pay.

There's plenty of drugs that are made by multiple companies. It might not make sense for a very specific drug which sees low use, but I think it's viable to produce a drug that might be beneficial to virtually anyone even if you don't have exclusivity.

The issue is who is going to pay for the extensive testing required to get from lab to hospital. That takes years, and lot of organizational skill, and a lot of money. If a drug has gone off-patent, all that is already done, so many companies will be glad to manufacture it. But for new treatments, somebody has to push it through clinical trials, with the (quite substantial) risk that something which looked good in the lab fails to work in larger studies, or has unforeseen side effects.

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#95

Post by acrive »

afarrell wrote: post #59
acrive wrote: post #49

I'm happy when solutions for cancer are found. A little less when the way is genetic engineering. From my ignorance I imagine the genetics like a big complex self programming software and the genetic engineering a way to change little variables in a wide enviroment. In other words: Butterlfy effect, you're welcome.

If applied to an individual person, how does this present any risks of ecological damage? Alternately, does this concentrate control of the food supply into the hands of people who might decide to starve some population out of greed/apathy/prejudice?

What are we talking about?

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#96

Post by cryoshon »

jcims wrote: post #55

Writing this from a squeaky recliner set beside my wife’s bed in the oncology department of a local research hospital. Three weeks ago she had a radical hysterectomy and partial lymphadenectomy to treat stage IIIc ovarian cancer, and we’re back to try to aid her in her recovery to prepare for chemotherapy. Chemo should start next week, but we are hoping to also participate in a clinical trial for atezolizumab. This i…

as a former scientist in immunotherapy/immunooncology research: we are going to win against cancer.

and very importantly for you and your wife, many of us consider the PD-1 therapies as the biggest battles and biggest victories that we've ever won against cancer. it is extremely difficult to overstate how powerful the anti-PD-1/L1 biologics are.

and it's also extremely hard to overstate how much research scientists in the field live and breathe and toil to harness nature. you have a care staff of perhaps a dozen at the hospital, but just remember that there are tens of thousands of people working day and night to find better therapies and cures.

nature is always throwing us curveballs, and in the words of rich feynman, "she's never gonna let us relax." but we'll figure it out, and win. in the meantime, that clinical trial you mentioned is investigating the true power of our biggest achievement to date.

it isn't ethical to push your wife into the trial, so i'll just say this: if i had serious cancer, i'd find more than one anti-PD-1/L1 trial to try to enroll in simultaneously. that way if i got excluded from one because i didn't meet the criteria, i have a next step in hand without thinking about it any more. if by chance i got into more than one, i'd withdraw from the others (obviously). just my two cents.

good luck.

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#97

Post by matte_black »

josu wrote: post #78
shadowtree wrote: post #72

If they’re at mice this is, at best, 10 years away from getting approved for humans. Immuno-Oncology is the hot new shit, a huge wave of biotech startups is betting everything on it. Celgene bought Juno for 11bn recently, Gilead bought Kite for 12bn. Puts tech startups into perspective :) Tres commas...

>10 years away from getting approved for humans. Isn't there a fast-track for experimental treatments for late stage cancer?

Not sure, but in the United States there may soon be easier access for any person with a terminal illness to get access to any experimental treatment if they so desire, even treatments that are in early stages with no human trials yet.

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#98

Post by ams6110 »

cup-of-tea wrote: post #82

Obviously not as important as the main cause but I wonder if a similar thing could be used to treat warts. I had a wart once and successfully got rid of it by applying a trick I read on the internet which is putting a little square of duct tape on it. Surprisingly it really worked. The Wikipedia page used to list the method with dubious citations and said that one theory for why it worked was that the duct tape stimu…

There may be something to it, as most folk remedies do have an unscientific history of successes, but it definitely doesn't work on all warts or for all people.

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#99

Post by cryoshon »

Odenwaelder wrote: post #18
0wing wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but can it be done with minimal side effect? Curing cancer with a bullet works too but the host suffers some adverse side effects.

I'd be careful calling the immune approach easy. Triggering a systemic immune response can also kill you very quickly.

all things considered, it's probably far more dangerous than chemo in the sense that it could kill you or seriously and permanently injure you with your first dose depending on your phenotype. at least chemo is a slower process.

but immunotherapies don't kill most people, thankfully. there are also many ways that you could assay the patient to see how they might react to immunotherapy, but i dont know whether these are done clinically or not.

Post reply on HN