31–40 of 47 posts
The issue with ADCs is you're putting a really giant homing system on a tiny warhead. How many molecules of X does it take to kill a cell? There is one really good warhead candidate, but un?fortunately it's illegal to research
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Wow, this looks exactly like a sign of a mental illness and/or a bad LLM.
That narrative can be boiled down to: Profit in patient treatments produces perverse effects.
It's an alignment problem, where profit aligns to treatment over cures (a metaphor is the overreach of SaaS solutions when more static software could do).
The issue with ADCs is you're putting a really giant homing system on a tiny warhead. How many molecules of X does it take to kill a cell? There is one really good warhead candidate, but un?fortunately it's illegal to research
What candidate are you referring to?
Probably enough info for you to figure it out if you're smart. Don't wind up in jail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What candidate are you referring to?
Nope. Don't want to be on surveillance lists, even with an anon account. Was researched in the 80s, before we knew enough about the antibody side to make a good go of it. then dropped for obvious reasons (it didn't work which makes sense in retrospect given the crude conjugation strategy plus the restrictedness of the warhead side). That's all I'll say. Probably enough info for you to figure it out if you're smart. D…
I remember reading somewhere that doctors are experimenting with (or wanting to) some of these more modern treatments first. Right now they're all "exhaust your other options, and then try the new stuff as a weapon of last resort". The more modern treatments could be more effective if we try them first instead of waiting, but we just don't have the data. Anyone have a source on this half-recollected fact of mine? I c…
A loved one is moving through this pathway now. Its has you said: try all the established drugs first, even if they aren't directly indicated for the cancer diagnosis of the patient, then move on to the more modern and specific treatments once the established medicines have failed.
One problem with that approach is, once the patient has reached the point of several failed treatments, the cancer has possibly become advanced and the patient is worn down by the earlier interventions. In my observation, this confluence makes the newer medicines simultaneously harder for the patient to tolerate but also appear less effective than might've been the case at earlier stages of the disease.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. Don't want to be on surveillance lists, even with an anon account. Was researched in the 80s, before we knew enough about the antibody side to make a good go of it. then dropped for obvious reasons (it didn't work which makes sense in retrospect given the crude conjugation strategy plus the restrictedness of the warhead side). That's all I'll say. Probably enough info for you to figure it out if you're smart. D…
Are you referring to monoclonal antibodies? For which a Nobel Prize was awarded in 2018, and research has continued since the 80s?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you referring to monoclonal antibodies? For which a Nobel Prize was awarded in 2018, and research has continued since the 80s?
No, that's the "homing system" side of this analogy. GP is talking about some sort of poison (chemo), but I don't know which one or what the paranoia is about.
Tools we need (large scale):
- how can we identify when the cancer mutates, what part of the ADC is it rejecting? This information is valuable.
- how do we assign different payloads? Can this be scaled? Do new payload/antibody delivery systems need to go through the FDA each time? How do we streamline this to add a wider net to catch cancer mutations?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, this looks exactly like a sign of a mental illness and/or a bad LLM.
Or it looks like someone suffering from the effects of healthcare treatment of loved relatives, looking for connections and a narrative that fits what happened to a tragic event. Within that cynical diatribe lies a narrative that resonates with some. That narrative can be boiled down to: Profit in patient treatments produces perverse effects. It's an alignment problem, where profit aligns to treatment over cures (a m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What candidate are you referring to?
Nope. Don't want to be on surveillance lists, even with an anon account. Was researched in the 80s, before we knew enough about the antibody side to make a good go of it. then dropped for obvious reasons (it didn't work which makes sense in retrospect given the crude conjugation strategy plus the restrictedness of the warhead side). That's all I'll say. Probably enough info for you to figure it out if you're smart. D…
Just say what it is you're referring to, or don't mention it at all.