101–110 of 115 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's still lightning fast by any measure. Being able to turn your tools to a new problem rapidly is a credit to you and the tools.
Science is why we can have nice things. It's a shame in most Western governments, those in power don't understand that.
> The scientist who won the race to deliver the first widely used coronavirus vaccine says people can rest assured the shots are safe, Ok. But did anyone expect her to say anything else? This is obviously a (slightly?) veiled pitch for backers, more funding, and perhaps some regulatory freedom. It's unfortunate that the media can't resist the temptation to pitch this as news. It's not. It's interesting. There's certa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're trying to do a cancer vaccine, not treatment for those afflicted with cancer already
It is a treatment for people with cancer. The mRNA cancer vaccine they're developing is for people who already have cancer. It's targeted based on the specific tumour the patient has, and basically primes the immune system to attack the cancer cells. They can't even develop the vaccine until the patient has the cancer it's fighting against.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, thanks! $20k is lower than I expected! I guess when they add in the other costs it will be a fair bit higher, but still.
Yeah $20,000 seems very cheap for such a treatment. Also there are biohackers who synthesize their own insulin and even COVID-19 vaccines and test it on themselves. Their work may cause them more harm than good, but it's their bodies and they're free to experiment on it however they choose. When somebody has a terminal illness and is facing imminent death the risk calculus is very different where even taking the barg…
Not sure if it good or bad...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would a corporation risk loosing customers by eradicating a disease? What would shareholders say? Is it even legal? "chronic condition" sounds like a guaranteed profit for many years. Curing/preventing disease is a bad business.
We need to stop tolerating these kind of tinfoil conspiration theories. It does not even make economical sense. If you are the first to come up with a cure for that disease you will make huge profit compare to the rest of the industry. Especially if the cure involves coming up with a vaccine or a personalized treatment. Thats like the sustainable subscription wet dream of software companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a large proof of concept on the safe use of mRNA. Sure, any given implementation might be harmful, but this is (so far) showing that it is not in itself a harmful process. And there'll be mountains of cash poured into mRNA research now, so if cancer treatment is a viable path, there's a reasonable chance of some success here. But it won't be a cure-all. We use "cancer" as if it were a single disease, but it's re…
"proof of concept on the safe use of mRNA." Until about a year ago, potential treatments took 5-10 years of safety testing before general population use. This stuff takes time for things like antibody-dependent enhancement to be found. What we do know is those who are obese have bad outcomes to C19. I am not obese, got it a couple months ago, and recovered with just home rest. Now I test positive for the antibodies.
That is such a blatant over simplification that it comes right up to the border of trolling, perhaps a bit over that border. It is incorrect on a level that practically defies any potential for a response due both to the impracticality of detailing here just how wrong it is, and the fact that a person who makes that sort of comment is unlikely to respond to anything argument that contradicts such a simplistic view of things.
I'll at least address your reference to ADE by pointing out there might be a theoretical possibility there, things have worked out just fine in other illnesses even when know it can be an issue in-- for example-- measles, and yet a vaccine still knocked that out of general circulation a while ago until falsified research helped spark the anti-vaxxer movement and it gradually crept back in to un-vaccinated pockets of the population. Further, ERD simply does not take 5-10 years to detect.
Congratulations on not being obese, and surviving Covid, but no one is debating the fact that most people don't die from it, so you've missed the mark significantly by using your own experience to justify your simplified view of the situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a treatment for people with cancer. The mRNA cancer vaccine they're developing is for people who already have cancer. It's targeted based on the specific tumour the patient has, and basically primes the immune system to attack the cancer cells. They can't even develop the vaccine until the patient has the cancer it's fighting against.
How does this work? In the case of Covid, I understand (for some value of "understand") how they can make the cells create virus proteins, which then train the immune system without an actual infection to be ready for when the real virus strikes. But if someone already has cancer cells, wouldn't all the proteins to train against already be in the body in the first place?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, my point is that "if (race == whatever)" is completely nonsensical from an mRNA perspective. There's no way for mRNA to scan the rest of your DNA sequence to make an if/else determination. mRNA is just gonna execute once its in the body. > Or how about some biological ransomware? Yeah, that's called a poison and antidote / antitoxin. You don't need mRNA for that. Poison someone's food, and as they lie dying,…
Also, one would have to define "race" in genomic terms. Good luck to the person attempting to do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need to stop tolerating these kind of tinfoil conspiration theories. It does not even make economical sense. If you are the first to come up with a cure for that disease you will make huge profit compare to the rest of the industry. Especially if the cure involves coming up with a vaccine or a personalized treatment. Thats like the sustainable subscription wet dream of software companies.
Yeah, let's ignore facts. Let's ignore bankruptcies due to medical bills. Let's ignore $600 EpiPen -- never happened. Let's ignore that it may be cheaper to fly to another country for medical treatment, etc. It is all tinfoil conspiracy theories.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, let's ignore facts. Let's ignore bankruptcies due to medical bills. Let's ignore $600 EpiPen -- never happened. Let's ignore that it may be cheaper to fly to another country for medical treatment, etc. It is all tinfoil conspiracy theories.
Facts? What does a shitty US health care system have to do with "corporations not developing cure for HIV to avoid losing profit" kind of theories.
There is an incentive to sell drugs for chronic conditions. Curing these conditions would cut into the profits for selling drugs for chronic conditions -- I hope it should be hard to misunderstood -- it is just a simple math (lifetime customer for chronic condition vs. a single purchase for the cure).