Live data from Hacker News

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

innovativegenomics.org

191–200 of 239 posts

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

#191
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You say my claim is not true then proceed to acknowledge it is true. To be clear about the fact: about 1/4 of all countries have a life expectancy >80, and as you said, more than a dozen in mid-80s.

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

#193
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Utilitarianism can justify that kind of policy/behavior. It makes economical sense, with your free the burden of society it free resources so people be more productive, afford things, live happier lifes (at least on the material sense), have children.

Though I don't subscribe to utilitarianism or the notion that the value of an human being can be reduced to its economical aspects. It's not my moral compass.

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

#194

The idea of using CRISPR/Cas to detect tumor-specific mutations that aren't necessarily oncogenic and then kill the cell is not a new one [0, 1, 2]. However, previous studies used Cas9, which just damages the DNA at the target site; this uses Cas12a2, which is far more destructive because it shreds the chromatin in the cell once activated by detecting the target sequence. As with any cancer treatment, it's likely the…

Surely a far simpler way to evolve resistance would be a trivial mutation in the p53 transcript that the guide RNA is looking for.

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

#196

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…

It's difficult to do that because we don't even really know how many cancers there are.

Cancer is best understood as a family of tens of thousands of diseases. They're a whole range of different genetic changes that can happen which result in similar categories of symptoms and consequences. They can also be incredibly complex, such as being the result of hundreds of stacking genetic defects acquired over a lifetime. There can be a thousand varieties of one specific type of lung cancer, and they might all react differently. Some of our solutions might work on a lot of them, but others might only work on a handful. And we're at the beginning of figuring all this out.

CRISPR may eventually allow us to genetically profile a cancer and design highly targeted medications to cure them, but we don't know yet how well it will work. It may only work on a portion of them. It may have worse outcomes than chemotherapy or radiation. It's nice to think that we're going to find a magic solution to the entire problem, but things almost never work that way. I think we're going to be able to resolve a wide range of issues, but I don't think it will really cure cancer as a whole.

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

#197
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

It is always interesting to point out to people claiming it would be better to not cure people that over half of the people in the room would be dead by the age of 5. That likely includes them.

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

#198
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not as great as you might think, despite all the stories you see like this one. That's because most of the stories are in cells (this one) or mice. The big success story, about 20 years old now, is testicular cancer. You can have metastatic testicular cancer with tumors all over your body (like Lance Armstrong had) and they can cure it. They use platinum based chemotherapy and it's not really well understood why…

I wouldn't understate advances in Melanoma treatment. Immunotherapies have absolutely changed the game in that space. It's not a curable cancer (few are) but it's far more treatable.

Dr. Richard Scolyer was at the forefront of this, and died only recently after a long battle against brain cancer at 59. His open letter is well worth the read.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-08/professor-richard-sco...

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

#199
post #146

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…

It's not as great as you might think, despite all the stories you see like this one. That's because most of the stories are in cells (this one) or mice. The big success story, about 20 years old now, is testicular cancer. You can have metastatic testicular cancer with tumors all over your body (like Lance Armstrong had) and they can cure it. They use platinum based chemotherapy and it's not really well understood why…

They are starting to ship this out across the country. My uncle has pancreatic cancer and is hoping to get a shipment in the next two months. Apparently you discontinue chemo while on it because it’s so unnecessary at that point.
Post reply on HN