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

Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 330 posts

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#71

Post by anonymars »

Noaidi wrote: post #55
anonymars wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article: " two forms of rare melanoma are not caused by exposure to the sun.." > Most skin cancers are not a big deal, and even Melanomas can vanish on their own PSA: don't take medical advice from internet comments

[flagged]

Your reading comprehension is way off. The article says "Each year in Australia, up to 420 people are diagnosed with acral or mucosal melanomas. They affect people of all ethnic backgrounds, and are the most common forms of melanoma in people with very dark skin."

That is a discussion of specific subtypes of melanoma. You've turned that into a general statement about melanoma:

> not all skin cancers are caused by sun exposure, and this is more true for Melenoma which occur both more frequently in darker skinned people and in place where there is little sun exposure.

These are "Two rare ... forms of melanoma" not "melanoma as a whole." The article does not say melanoma as a whole is more frequent in darker-skinned people and in places with little sun exposure. Those two subtypes are.

Let's also quote from https://wasatchdermatology.com/blogs/basal-cell-vs-squamous-...

> BCC ... can cause significant local tissue damage if left untreated. Most cases are linked to chronic sun exposure, especially in fair-skinned individuals.

> While it often remains localized at first, SCC can invade deeper tissues and, in some cases, metastasize to lymph nodes or other organs. Risk factors include cumulative sun exposure, a history of sunburns, and immunosuppression.

> While not all skin cancers can be prevented, effective sun protection and healthy habits can greatly reduce your risk for basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma.

That does not support "most skin cancers are not a big deal"

> Melanomas can vanish on their own

Your link does not support that statement https://www.nature.com/articles/s41379-021-00870-2

"Whilst some studies reported an association with improved survival ... others did not find any significant association, and some even reported worse outcomes in patients whose tumors showed regression"

You seem to have read this as "melanoma just goes away and the problem is gone" rather than "the primary tumor can recede, and in that case survival odds are somewhat better by a few percentage points (but actually worse for Stage III patients!)"

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#72

Post by attila-lendvai »

nyanmatt wrote: post #52
bhaak wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the reasons for the hate of the COVID vaccine?

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer, based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

heh, touché! :)

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#73

Post by estearum »

jambalaya8 wrote: post #56
lern_too_spel wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's more, they found that myocarditis risk was higher in the unvaccinated population after infection. This information didn't get to the so-called "skeptics," who willfully ignored data that didn't fit their conspiracy theory. https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-...

I also get a kick out of people only looking for side effects they think of as side effects, since they are what people think of as side effects for completely different types of technologies.

What?

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#74

Post by ricardobayes »

amluto wrote: post #57

Substantially better link: https://www.merck.com/news/merck-and-moderna-announce-phase-... Still no actual Phase 3 data presented.

Yes, however the trial succeeded. But by "how much", is not yet released. This trial was not against placebo, but the already existing, and effective Keytruda treatment.

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#75

Post by loeg »

consumer451 wrote: post #20
Jyaif wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh nice. If it goes up another 100% I may not lose money on this stock anymore.

I mean, this appears to be validation of mRNA in general, right?

I mean, the question is almost always about whether it's economical or not, right? Whether you can find diseases it's efficacious to treat with this mechanism, and prove it (trials are expensive).

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#77

Post by rob74 »

grokcodec wrote: post #64

In other news, your barber thinks you need a haircut. Until there is a proven net overall health benefit to this therapy, I wouldn't waste much ink on it. Also, can someone please tell me how one controls the dose for an mRNA therapy ?

If you actually had melanoma (a very aggressive type of skin cancer) you would be glad for one more chance of maybe still being alive a few years from now.

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#79

Post by CamelCaseName »

anotherpaul wrote: post #68
amluto wrote: post #57

Substantially better link: https://www.merck.com/news/merck-and-moderna-announce-phase-... Still no actual Phase 3 data presented.

This content is geo/IP fenced

Hope this helps:

https://archive.ph/SQQ97

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#80

Post by Argonaut998 »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #43
estearum wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They also left the public in the dark about the risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis, especially in young males, many of whom experienced permanent heart tissue damage. Not true. This was correctly disclosed in the trial results as a super super super tail risk. Once they realized that the (minuscule) risk could be even further mitigated by simply spacing out the booster schedule, they adjusted that (Feb 2022). N…

What's more, they found that myocarditis risk was higher in the unvaccinated population after infection. This information didn't get to the so-called "skeptics," who willfully ignored data that didn't fit their conspiracy theory. https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-...

>In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91–99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12–18]).

From your own study you linked. The first comment I ever posted on HN was regarding a similar study where there was no control group whatsoever for unvaccinated people.

I can’t get over the sunk cost reaction to this vaccine. No one who was not immunocompromised should have ever taken it. Period.

And this is just regarding your study.

Remember how the AstraZeneca vaccine (it was called the “Oxford vaccine” before that bad PR) was taken off the market instantly after reports of blood clots.

One can go on endlessly.

Post reply on HN