101–110 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For leukemia, there are a lot of promising new treatments and clinical trials. For metastatic solid-state tumors, much less. We're still in the dark ages of cancer treatment.
FYI: your comment is a unique result for “metastatic solid-state tumors”[1], so much much less? [1] https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=%22metastatic+solid-state+...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Normally, I would not comment on this. You say that now. I am close to someone looking at this now after holding that exact view for a lifetime, what I see them actually doing is delaying and delaying and confronting that, even on their darker days when they are thinking hard about doing it, the logistics of zero-risk-of-survival suicide are pretty terrible. It's sobering to watch because I, too, hold the view you la…
I wonder if that is due to the lack of good options for the ending life? I currently feel like I would like to go on my own terms when the time comes, but none of the options available look very appealing! (and many of them can come with legal trouble for anyone who helps).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I met a researcher once who was doing what appeared to be groundbreaking research on cancer care. He had this beautiful, tear-jerker story about losing his wife that cast a rosy, altruistic hue on his research. When he was asked what the device would cost, he cheerily replied "whatever the market will bear." That's always stuck with me -- the problem with American healthcare is the American interpretation of capitali…
> That's always stuck with me -- the problem with American healthcare is the American interpretation of capitalism. What should it cost instead? > Dude was living off of government research grants. Let's imagine his work comes to fruition. The drug is expensive but efficacious - is this not a good thing? Should the government have not helped fund this drug because now it's expensive? The alternative is a world withou…
No, the government should set a reasonable price for the product they funded. A high enough price to fund manufacturing, a low enough price to ensure that people who need the treatment have ready access to it. If the upper bound on price is too low for universal access, that's what subsidies are for.
Instead, we have free money to bootstrap extractive capitalists, at cost and detriment to people who need care.
Some napkin math: Given rectal cancer's rate of survival of 67%, and the small size of the study (18 people), you should see similar results due to random chance every 1350th study. A cursory search on clinicaltrials.gov and I can find 7131 cancer studies started in 2021 alone. It's therefore not unreasonable for this one to be just a random fluke.
This napkin math ignores some very significant circumstances. People who suffer from rectal cancer usually undergo surgery to remove the primary tumor. But those trial patients weren't operated on, their treatment was non-invasive. How many rectal cancer sufferers who never undergo a surgery survive? I would bet that it is a lot less than 67 per cent.
After reading it, my suspicion was confirmed. Yet another mab. Very powerful, but expensive to scale and synthesise. I guess poor people will have to just suck it up and die. We don't have the tech yet to make these cost effective. Big pharma loves this natural barrier of entry though. Also, don't expect this stuff to be available anytime soon. FDA process is pretty slow, and sometimes political. Maybe if it were eff…
I definitely hope that we can come with a cheap method of -mab production. I am almost sure we one day will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For leukemia, there are a lot of promising new treatments and clinical trials. For metastatic solid-state tumors, much less. We're still in the dark ages of cancer treatment.
FYI: your comment is a unique result for “metastatic solid-state tumors”[1], so much much less? [1] https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=%22metastatic+solid-state+...
Some napkin math: Given rectal cancer's rate of survival of 67%, and the small size of the study (18 people), you should see similar results due to random chance every 1350th study. A cursory search on clinicaltrials.gov and I can find 7131 cancer studies started in 2021 alone. It's therefore not unreasonable for this one to be just a random fluke.
Fascinating, this drug (molecule) somehow “unmasks” the cancer cells, allowing the body’s natural immune system to target and destroy them. How does a molecule do that!? Enters the blood stream, is absorbed by the cancer cell, and then…? Blocks some enzyme?
Some varieties of cancer cells release a PD-1 ligand that turns off T cells when they get close to the cancer. So the cancer can "hide" from the immune system.
This monoclonal antibody blocks PD-1 on T cells, turning them into unstoppable murderers. The hope is that they preferentially murder the cancer cells. Wikipedia says that ~5% of patients get dangerous side effects from blocking T cell PD-1, probably because the unstoppable T cells attack healthy kidney or liver tissue. But for people with specific types of cancer, the hope is that turning the T cells loose will kill the cancer first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly this happens for procedures that should be cheap, and nursing homes are also a huge issue. But in the current discussion it's not clear to me that something like a heart transplant should be cheap. Development of a novel treatment can be very expensive and sometimes involves scarce resources.
In most developed countries heart transplants are literally free. That's what proper healthcare system is for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's unethical is a system that completely drains a person's wealth for getting sick.
Certainly this happens for procedures that should be cheap, and nursing homes are also a huge issue. But in the current discussion it's not clear to me that something like a heart transplant should be cheap. Development of a novel treatment can be very expensive and sometimes involves scarce resources.
One of those cases where US individualism and utter lack of social thinking (completely unrelated to socialism/communism but many simpler folks fail to distinguish that) screws up needful parts of society