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

CRISPR tech selectively shreds cancer cells, including "undruggable" cancers

innovativegenomics.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 239 posts

Re: CRISPR tech selectively shreds cancer cells, including "undruggable" cancers

#181

Post by golem14 »

zevets wrote: post #154
himata4113 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess then a graph of deaths from disagnosed cancer at various stages would be just as awe inspiring. I'd settle for that as well.

https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cance... Page 2 has the figure. Getting people to not smoke has been the most effective treatment in our lifetime. Public health is a really big deal, and RFK et al are a disaster for the nation.

Well, depending on how cynical you are. I'm sure there are those that are happy to let the 'senecent' people die of cancer and have a younger population and healthier population pyramid.

Getting older, I'm not subscribing to that, but it sometimes feels like the RFKjr -style interventions are calculated. Then again, this theory makes zero sense when dismantling herd status for measles (I don't think 'natural measles survivors' are genetically 'better' than the rest of us)

Re: CRISPR tech selectively shreds cancer cells, including "undruggable" cancers

#182

Post by yelling_cat »

dmbrThnYou wrote: post #90
red_admiral wrote: post #85

For the state of new cancer-killing drugs and bottlenecks getting them approved, see also the top few posts on https://www.writingruxandrabio.com/archive The post on AI and and cures for cancer is https://www.writingruxandrabio.com/p/a-response-to-dario-amo... .

That's a good article with a good point. As a caregiver impatiently waiting for Daraxonrasib, I can at least acknowledge that the institutional machinery is going as fast as it can. I've litterally witnessed a trial patient in the first cohort of a drug (that went no further) be rushed from infusion to the hospital; the trial process cannot be sped up from its current state without endangering lives.

> As a caregiver impatiently waiting for Daraxonrasib

Same here. Are you and your care recipient familiar with the Optune Pax device that the FDA approved in February?

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr...

My father's been using it since April. It's a little cumbersome and only improves overall survival rates by about two months over chemo alone, but we're hoping that it helps him remain relatively healthy until Daraxonrasib becomes available.

Re: CRISPR tech selectively shreds cancer cells, including "undruggable" cancers

#183

Post by est31 »

In order to kill all cancer cells in the body, it probably needs to be delivered to every single cell in the organism, and scan the nucleus of that cell. Viruses usually don't infect every single cell, just a small percentage.

So one needs to figure out a delivery method that is efficient enough, and that doesn't elicit an immune response. But I guess one can analyze the cancer in the lab and figure out which receptors it expresses, and then bind to those? We could have a toolkit of different delivery methods, tailored for each patient's cancer.

Re: CRISPR tech selectively shreds cancer cells, including "undruggable" cancers

#184

Post by flexagoon »

himata4113 wrote: post #129

Does anyone know a website where I can see/read of how many cancers (and their variants) we've effectively solved, have drugs to negate their effects, have experimental drugs for and uncurable cancers? I think that graph would be awe inspiring looking at the past decade of advancements. What's more crazy is that we're slowly going from millenia, to decades, to likely years in the near future from being presented a bi…

Not exactly what you're looking for, but OWID has a bunch of great visualizations about cancer, including ones that really show the progress we've made (and how much we've yet to make!)

https://ourworldindata.org/cancer

Re: CRISPR tech selectively shreds cancer cells, including "undruggable" cancers

#186

Post by [deleted] »

est31 wrote: post #183

In order to kill all cancer cells in the body, it probably needs to be delivered to every single cell in the organism, and scan the nucleus of that cell. Viruses usually don't infect every single cell, just a small percentage. So one needs to figure out a delivery method that is efficient enough, and that doesn't elicit an immune response. But I guess one can analyze the cancer in the lab and figure out which recepto…

[deleted]

Re: CRISPR tech selectively shreds cancer cells, including "undruggable" cancers

#187

Post by aroman »

dreambuffer wrote: post #185
supertroop wrote: post #123

Yes! I have a genetic disease that will take me out in my 70s and I’m really hoping CRISPR gets to it before I do!

I don't mean to sound insensitive, but don't most people die around age 70-80?

Life expectancy in many countries is mid 80s.

Re: CRISPR tech selectively shreds cancer cells, including "undruggable" cancers

#188

Post by dreambuffer »

aroman wrote: post #187
dreambuffer wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean to sound insensitive, but don't most people die around age 70-80?

Life expectancy in many countries is mid 80s.

That doesn't seem to be true, the global expectancy is 73 and only a dozen of the wealthiest countries are mid 80s. I wouldn't be worried about dying at 70, but maybe I'm built of tougher stuff.

Re: CRISPR tech selectively shreds cancer cells, including "undruggable" cancers

#189

Post by parodysbird »

himata4113 wrote: post #158
zevets wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cance... Page 2 has the figure. Getting people to not smoke has been the most effective treatment in our lifetime. Public health is a really big deal, and RFK et al are a disaster for the nation.

Oh wow, not as impressive as I thought, but I guess we are looking at broad categories rather than specific types and variants. But overall the trend is down on ever cancer since around a decade ago. Was expecting a sharper drop around 1-2 decades ago, but things just take time when it comes to experimenting with human lives. Will be interesting to revisit this in another decade when a lot of the treatments finally l…

Unfortunately, we actually don't make the kind of general widely applicable gains in treatment that people believe we have. We're not in a much different place for major cancers than we were 30 years ago, and I don't see much value in assuming we will just suddenly improve.

Re: CRISPR tech selectively shreds cancer cells, including "undruggable" cancers

#190

Post by bbor »

golem14 wrote: post #181
zevets wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cance... Page 2 has the figure. Getting people to not smoke has been the most effective treatment in our lifetime. Public health is a really big deal, and RFK et al are a disaster for the nation.

Well, depending on how cynical you are. I'm sure there are those that are happy to let the 'senecent' people die of cancer and have a younger population and healthier population pyramid. Getting older, I'm not subscribing to that, but it sometimes feels like the RFKjr -style interventions are calculated. Then again, this theory makes zero sense when dismantling herd status for measles (I don't think 'natural measles…

Wow, I’ve joked about the prospect so frequently that realizing it has a real Twitter subculture hit me hard. Describing people like that… it’s akin to derisively referring to “the dysfunctional” part of society, to pick on my own disability. The parallels to the Nazi’s ableism are pretty hard to ignore :(

But on a lighter note: is there any belief more certain to spoil?? My god. Don’t underestimate the moral worth of futureYou, folks. I guess delighting in their assured regret is a bit of a guilty pleasure, but it helps!

RE:RFK, I think you’re indeed overestimating their intentionality. They intuitively feel that measles wouldn’t affect them because they’re stronger, and would do their best to dance around that belief if pressed beyond their comfort zone of cherry-picked facts.

But really, they’d much prefer to just not think about that part altogether IMO; ‘MAHA’ is much more about hypernaturalism & tradwives than it is about public health. This is all just annoying scaffolding to them.

Post reply on HN