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

301–310 of 330 posts

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

#301

Post by hateful »

laurencerowe wrote: post #250
bluGill wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you are albino (which is a large set of other problems) being in the sun all day will develop enough of a tan that you won't sunburn. There might be a problem in spring, but by summer time most people will have spent enough time outdoors that they wouldn't sunburn. I've always been the lightest person in town (a tie in Stockholm) and I can spend all day outside without any sunscreen and I won't burn on the par…

As someone from Britain with Scottish ancestry I don’t really tan at all. The melanin in my skin clumps in freckles, severely limiting its effectiveness at blocking UV. I can spend time outside in a t-shirt during the long summer evenings in Britain/Scandinavia but will burn during the midday sun. Living in California now the sun is stronger for longer so I just cover up. San Francisco is at a southern European latit…

The same thing happens to me - I call it a low-res tan because it's all pixelated.

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

#302

Post by tasty_freeze »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #285
tasty_freeze wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got the covid shot and every booster. I have no qualms about mRNA messing me up, and I think it was a tremendous life saver. As stated, there was also a ton of misinformation floating around, and people believed that misinformation. The thing is most of those people made rational objections. The problem is their reasoning was based on false information. They didn't see it as being anti social as they thought the dr…

> The thing is most of those people made rational objections. The problem is their reasoning was based on false information. This is how Typhoid Mary understood her status: > It did not take Mary long to react to this suggestion. She seized a carving fork and advanced in my direction. ... Mallon's refusal was based on her belief that she was not infected. ... To stop her struggles, he had to sit on her chest for the…

> her "rational objections" were not be-all and end-all of the situation.

I hope this is not what you think my position is.

If you want to change someone's mind, you need to understand it. If someone believes false information, and if they are driven my emotion due to everything they've heard, then giving them a bullet list of facts will not change their mind 95% of the time.

You've probably heard of the term "steel manning" when arguing with someone. If you cannot state the other person's argument in a way that they agree with, then you are just talking past each other. If you can state their position as well or better than they can, now you in a better position to change their mind.

If your goal isn't to change their mind, then go ahead, just keep calling them stupid and making no progress with them.

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

#303

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #302
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing is most of those people made rational objections. The problem is their reasoning was based on false information. This is how Typhoid Mary understood her status: > It did not take Mary long to react to this suggestion. She seized a carving fork and advanced in my direction. ... Mallon's refusal was based on her belief that she was not infected. ... To stop her struggles, he had to sit on her chest for the…

> her "rational objections" were not be-all and end-all of the situation. I hope this is not what you think my position is. If you want to change someone's mind, you need to understand it. If someone believes false information, and if they are driven my emotion due to everything they've heard, then giving them a bullet list of facts will not change their mind 95% of the time. You've probably heard of the term "steel…

Given a population of people, you should aim to change some peoples minds. Indeed in a democracy it is important to get a majority or plurality in agreement.

But you cannot hope to change everyone's minds, and so that should not be a goal. A system that depends on that won't work. Typhoid Mary is a counterexample.

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

#304

Post by estearum »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #299
estearum wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No there actually is in general and it's the same exact way in which there's generally good guidance for medicating your children: they're called evidence-backed guidelines. The contexts in which drugs make sense is captured by the clinical guidelines. And sure, it is arguably questionable whether there was ever a net benefit to an average young kid to get a COVID vaccine. However that is a distinct claim from "it ne…

This is the "nobody got fired for buying IBM" argument. It works in a world where you have trustworthy institutions and its safe to just outsource your decision-making to the authorities. Your interpretation of events might be that a collective of all well meaning people just got it wrong, and that's your right. A lot of people ended up with different conclusions, like the machine did what it does and made a lot of m…

Not really. It's the "making decisions based on best-available evidence is good, even if every once in a while it leads you astray."

You're more than welcome to read the evidence they use to create their policies. If you have evidence that is of higher quality than that which "the authorities" are using, then you should depend on that!

But... you almost certainly don't have higher quality evidence than they do. That's the fundamental problem.

If you think that you do, then you too could actually make a fuckton of money with that information. But again: you don't have superior information.

I don't think people even got it wrong. They got it correct with the information available, and they for the most part got it right even in retrospect.

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

#305

Post by internetter »

root-parent wrote: post #297
internetter wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the stock is up 150% because if Moderna has indeed cured cancer, the stock is worth many magnitudes more than that. It's presumably based on the probability this report is indeed as promising as it is at face value. If Moderna had announced "we are 100% sure cancer is cured" the stock would've gone up much more

Nobody is talking about curing cancer here. These are patients who had melanoma surgically removed, and IF the unpublished data of phase 3 turn out to be true... you are looking at having improved survival rates after 2 to 3 years on 5 to 10% plus of the patients. That is ALL this still unknown announcement MIGHT mean.

I was being hyperbolic, but reading the comment back it doesn't really come across that way.

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

#306

Post by pfdietz »

DaSHacka wrote: post #295
pfdietz wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is. Are there other bald-faced lies I should be focusing on instead? The vaccine wasn't "forced on everyone". Pointing to specific people for whom it was forced isn't "everyone". Nor does the existence of people supporting mandatory COVID vaccines imply "vaccines were forced on everyone".

Well in that case, yeah sorry requiring it to participate to civilized society to any significant degree is essentially no different than flat out forcing it upon people. If the alternative is living in the woods not being able to go outside, that is obviously not a realistic compromise.

Also a thing that didn't happen.

Do you have an allergy to the truth or something? Or maybe a difficulty distinguishing your paranoid delusions from reality.

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

#307

Post by kstrauser »

giglamesh wrote: post #300
kstrauser wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a counterexample, my bestie is "brown as a paper bag", and he was convinced he couldn't get a sunburn, up until he did. Unrelated, he also swore he couldn't get poison ivy, until he literally rolled in it to prove it to me. I found the aftermath more amusing than he did.

Sensitivity to poison ivy can change over time. Your friend may have been correct about his past experience. https://www.fs.usda.gov/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/htm07672313/index....

It was explained to me that there are people who react to it, and people who don’t react to it yet.

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

#308

Post by [deleted] »

DaSHacka wrote: post #279
searine wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about protecting each other, basic empathy. Doing the bare minimum to and taking miniscule risk to protect the lives of people around you. Sorry that's hard to understand.

It is 'hard to understand' if you get harmed in the process. Hence the jokes about 'doing it for grandma', or 'screwing yourself over with lifelong complications for someone who's already 80.'

[deleted]

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

#309

Post by ifyoubuildit »

estearum wrote: post #304
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the "nobody got fired for buying IBM" argument. It works in a world where you have trustworthy institutions and its safe to just outsource your decision-making to the authorities. Your interpretation of events might be that a collective of all well meaning people just got it wrong, and that's your right. A lot of people ended up with different conclusions, like the machine did what it does and made a lot of m…

Not really. It's the "making decisions based on best-available evidence is good, even if every once in a while it leads you astray." You're more than welcome to read the evidence they use to create their policies. If you have evidence that is of higher quality than that which "the authorities" are using, then you should depend on that! But... you almost certainly don't have higher quality evidence than they do. That'…

I did read a lot of evidence available at the time. It's why I opted to skip the vaccine for myself given that I had already recovered shortly before the shots were available. That decision was very at odds with authoritative guidance at the time. You'd think I was a damn leper, yet that decision seems to have held up pretty well.

I also frequently tested before any gatherings, and avoided contact when I had any kinds of symptoms, test or not. I saw plenty of people figure they had gotten the shots so why not go out with the sniffles?

"Best information" and what was blasted out of the TV or considered "common sense" at the time I think have quite a bit of daylight between them.

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

#310

Post by estearum »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #309
estearum wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. It's the "making decisions based on best-available evidence is good, even if every once in a while it leads you astray." You're more than welcome to read the evidence they use to create their policies. If you have evidence that is of higher quality than that which "the authorities" are using, then you should depend on that! But... you almost certainly don't have higher quality evidence than they do. That'…

I did read a lot of evidence available at the time. It's why I opted to skip the vaccine for myself given that I had already recovered shortly before the shots were available. That decision was very at odds with authoritative guidance at the time. You'd think I was a damn leper, yet that decision seems to have held up pretty well. I also frequently tested before any gatherings, and avoided contact when I had any kind…

That's just not true.

Here's the authoritative guidance on the rollout: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/103787/cdc_103787_DS1.pdf

What gives you the idea that a low-risk person opting not to get the vaccine is "at odds with authoritative guidance?" Yes, I would bet that it made you feel like a leper, but that's because people (correctly) think that it signals something about your attitude toward the rest of society. Not sure that can be pinned on public health authorities. People who hold open the door to the cold are assholes and frequently treated as such.

Here's the guidance on whether vaccinated people with sniffles should go out in public: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/105629

Answer: no. Go get tested, and if positive, don't gather.

Yes, agreed that people were listening primarily to a game of telephone and vibes and not actually reading any of the linked PDFs or listening to the actual words spoken by actual public health officials firsthand, and then they (like you are now) were confused about what the actual guidance said.

Post reply on HN