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

311–320 of 330 posts

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

#311

Post by ifyoubuildit »

estearum wrote: post #310
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I misspoke, right at rollout when supplies were short, they did say you could wait. Once they had enough to sell, everyone who didn't jump in line was a grandma killer.

> 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. ... People who hold open the door to the cold are assholes and frequently treated as such.

This is asinine. There was never any indication in the data that a previously recovered person posed any kind of heightened threat to anyone else, and by testing and isolating like I was, I was doing likely the best you could possibly do for the folks around me.

Also, I made the choice with my doctor's agreement.

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

#312

Post by estearum »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #311
estearum wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I misspoke, right at rollout when supplies were short, they did say you could wait. Once they had enough to sell, everyone who didn't jump in line was a grandma killer. > 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. ... People who hold open the door to the cold are assholes and frequently trea…

> There was never any indication in the data that a previously recovered person posed any kind of heightened threat to anyone else

Nope, also not true.

There actually was plenty of evidence of exactly this even by August 2021: https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20210806/cdc-...

Then found again in October: https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20211029/covi...

> by testing and isolating like I was, I was doing likely the best you could possibly do for the folks around me.

Short of vaccination yes, you were. But also people have no way to actually trust anything you say, whereas even saying that you aren't vaccinated (again, correctly) indicates quite a lot about some combination of your information, selfishness, or care for others.

For example, if you had gone around thinking or saying "I'm not vaccinated because prior infection protections me (and therefore you)" you would have been wrong. That's why people's alarm bells go off when you go around saying that you're not vaccinated.

This entire conversation is a validation of their heuristics. You're acting like public health authorities said X and then they didn't, or acting like there's no evidence of Y when there is, and then saying "see I didn't get vaccinated!" is exactly what everyone was cuing into: this is almost certainly either a confused or selfish person, or both.

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

#313

Post by hummuscience »

pfdietz wrote: post #164
hummuscience wrote: post #131

My father is currently dying of malignant melanoma with brain metastasis... I wish this treatment was available a few years ago.

Immune therapy didn't help? Darn.

Sadly it didn't. And it also lead to extreme bleeding in the brain metastasis that we had to stop it. Switched to BRAF/MEK inhibitors and that looked good for a few months until it didn't anymore.

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

#314

Post by hummuscience »

exolymph wrote: post #155
hummuscience wrote: post #131

My father is currently dying of malignant melanoma with brain metastasis... I wish this treatment was available a few years ago.

That is devastating. How are you doing?

Coping. It's been a long process. When I saw his first diagnosis (he was diagnosed very late) I read the papers and knew that his chances are slim.

It's hard seeing him like this. 63 years old. Going from completely functioning to non-verbal in 3 months fucks you up

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

#315

Post by ifyoubuildit »

estearum wrote: post #312
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I misspoke, right at rollout when supplies were short, they did say you could wait. Once they had enough to sell, everyone who didn't jump in line was a grandma killer. > 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. ... People who hold open the door to the cold are assholes and frequently trea…

> There was never any indication in the data that a previously recovered person posed any kind of heightened threat to anyone else Nope, also not true. There actually was plenty of evidence of exactly this even by August 2021: https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20210806/cdc-... Then found again in October: https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20211029/covi... > by testing and isolating like I wa…

You might consider reading the actual Kentucky study (as I did at the time) and looking at the limitations. This and the one in October are exactly the kind of shit that would get published and then reports like your link would way overstate what they were actually capable of showing.

Eventually things calmed down enough that studies could actually be published showing the efficacy of a prior infection without risking careers.

You're misunderstanding btw, I didn't go around telling anyone but my closest friends and family. I wasnt about to out myself as a heretic when the likely biggest propaganda campaign in history was going on (pandemic of the unvaccinated, etc). It was mostly in hn threads on studies like the ones you posted where I would say anything about it.

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

#316

Post by estearum »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #315
estearum wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was never any indication in the data that a previously recovered person posed any kind of heightened threat to anyone else Nope, also not true. There actually was plenty of evidence of exactly this even by August 2021: https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20210806/cdc-... Then found again in October: https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20211029/covi... > by testing and isolating like I wa…

You might consider reading the actual Kentucky study (as I did at the time) and looking at the limitations. This and the one in October are exactly the kind of shit that would get published and then reports like your link would way overstate what they were actually capable of showing. Eventually things calmed down enough that studies could actually be published showing the efficacy of a prior infection without riskin…

So why did you claim to be treated like a leper?

And yes, all studies have limitations, especially observational studies done in the middle of an emergency.

Here's your claim: "There was never any indication in the data that a previously recovered person posed any kind of heightened threat to anyone else"

That is quite obviously false.

If you believe there was superior data available at the time, please share it. Otherwise, yes that is exactly what the data showed (imperfect as all data is).

> Eventually things calmed down enough that studies could actually be published showing the efficacy of a prior infection without risking careers.

Like which studies? (Not that more recent studies could've possibly time-traveled to inform your decision-making in the past, of course).

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

#317

Post by ifyoubuildit »

estearum wrote: post #316
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might consider reading the actual Kentucky study (as I did at the time) and looking at the limitations. This and the one in October are exactly the kind of shit that would get published and then reports like your link would way overstate what they were actually capable of showing. Eventually things calmed down enough that studies could actually be published showing the efficacy of a prior infection without riskin…

So why did you claim to be treated like a leper? And yes, all studies have limitations, especially observational studies done in the middle of an emergency. Here's your claim: "There was never any indication in the data that a previously recovered person posed any kind of heightened threat to anyone else" That is quite obviously false. If you believe there was superior data available at the time, please share it. Oth…

A reasonable prior (which my doctor ascribed to) was that immunity after recovery from an infection with a coronavirus would be pretty durable and effective, and you can find plenty of reporting to support the effectiveness early on.

To believe otherwise would take some solid evidence, and maybe the Kentucky study is enough to convince you, but it was not enough to convince me (or apparently my doctor, though we didn't talk about that).

It even said this: Finally, this is a retrospective study design using data from a single state during a 2-month period; therefore, these findings cannot be used to infer causation.

So maybe "any indication" was too strong. How about any convincing indication?

Meanwhile you had things like this demonstrating that prior infection was pretty damn protective as early as late 2020: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034545

There were others as well, I was following this very closely because it seemed pretty important to not be wrong, and all of the messaging was very insistent.

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

#318

Post by HedonicEscal8r »

pessimizer wrote: post #170
HedonicEscal8r wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but OP said that in response to a comment attributing melanoma to sun exposure, in a conversation where nobody had brought up SCC or BCC. It's still a misleading comment, in my opinion.

> Yes, but OP said that in response to a comment attributing melanoma to sun exposure, in a conversation where nobody had brought up SCC or BCC. In a thread about a trial for a melanoma drug, which has nothing to do with the discussion of sunscreen. Sunscreen was brought up because it is a culture-war topic, the fact that melanomas are not as associated with sun exposure was brought up as the standard opposite-side r…

You're confusing me with u/addisonl. Please check usernames before accusing people of trying to "silence the other side."

To quote a blog post I wrote on why we can be confident sun exposure causes cancer: "Green et al. (2011) conducted a 10-year study (n=1621) in Nambour, a town in Queensland, Australia. Participants were randomly assigned to daily or discretionary sunscreen application. After 10 years, 11 melanomas were found in the daily group and 22 in the discretionary group."

But you should read the full post for more context on why we have much better data than randomized controlled trials, and why correlation studies on this subject are nearly useless due to the impossibility of finding reliable proxy variables: https://hedonicescalator.substack.com/p/contra-byrnes-on-uv-...

Saying "some of the ingredients in US sunscreens are themselves associated with cancer" is meaningless without more specificity. As the meme goes, this HackerNews comment is known to the state of California to cause cancer: the bar for something to be "associated with cancer" is incredibly low. Are there any particular chemicals or chemical classes you were worried about?

And I will remind you that, in contrast, we are 100% sure that sunlight causes cancer. We know exactly what kinds of DNA damage it creates (chiefly cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers, which I discuss in my blog post) and we can find cancer-causing mutations in melanoma samples directly downstream of that damage (C->T mutations, for example, ones that disable the key p53 tumor suppressor gene). We know how this shit works! Are there some sunscreen formulas that might be dangerous? Possibly, I don't have them all memorized, but the solution is to find a different brand... not to instead expose yourself to one of the best-studied carcinogens around.

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

#319

Post by DaSHacka »

pfdietz wrote: post #306
DaSHacka wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In my state there were multiple instances of the police literally being called to people just hanging out outdoors.

It's hilarious you try to deny our lived history, we have a thing called memory.

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

#320

Post by jambalaya8 »

tomhow wrote: post #252
jambalaya8 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Good to know proposing proper safety research, longitudinal studies, and testing of completely novel technologies before they are emcouraged to be administered into the populace of the entire worldwide human population is considered in such a way.
Post reply on HN