141–150 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So don't let people sell the drugs at a profit, at early stages.
Ding ding ding this is the way. Sell at cost. Real cost, like cost of making. NOT a cost that includes R&S amortized across the batch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't quite as bad as the garden variety "in mice" studies: > The combination therapy also led to significant regression in genetically engineered mouse tumours and in human cancer tissues grown in lab mice, known as patient-derived tumour xenografts (PDX).
PDX is a double edged sword. Human tumors are engrafted into mice with no immune system. Immune-cancer interface is incredibly important, yet completely lacking in these models. Consider that some of the greatest cancer drugs ever work specifically on the immune system (e.g. checkpoint inhibitors like Keytruda).
Recently YouTube again started recommending to me channels of people who died of cancer. I looked at a clip of a man just a few years my senior where he was describing the symptoms that in his view should have made him go see a doctor earlier, because maybe then his pancreatic cancer wouldn't have been fatal. Truth be told they wouldn't raise any red flags if I had them. Only thing that I'm doing differently is havin…
Tumor markers? Did one once because it was a cheap add on to my annual medical. Which then led to a rather more expensive MRI (lucky for me it wasn't cancer). Genuinely curious if those tests have helped anyone here as a preventative measure.
It's funny how many years of "X found to be effective in fighting cancer" stories have filtered through HN and then you never hear about it again. The research at treating mouse cancer has been making great strides--people cancer still has a long way to go though.
Also, there’s a tendency on HN for commenters (mostly software engineers) to think that they are smarter than the scientists who work on this stuff day in, day out. Let me tell you, you, random HN reader are not smarter than random biomedical scientists.
> Clinical implications: While more research will be needed before trials in humans can begin Why? Seriously, think about it. Most people with pancreatic cancer have nothing to lose and many of them have just weeks or months to live. Daraxonrasib, Afatinib, and SD36 are molecules that can already be purchased in bulk, and what's the worst that can happen? Our society's morbid, irrational fear of quack medicine causes…
Further there is the potential for a false negative. If they don't understand enough about how the drug would work in humans, they may trial inappropriate doses or delivery methods. If those don't help or make things worse, it could be mistaken for the drug being ineffective and lead to the whole line of inquiry being abandoned. Then not only do you die, but countless others are potentially harmed by an effective version not being developed.
Finally, cancer treatments aren't just for the terminal. Drugs which primarily help during the early stages by necessity need to be trialed on people who still have a chance, maybe even a decent one, going with other, well established treatment options.
Guys, these are a dime a dozen and you never hear about them again.
All like 6 stories from this site on hn are some cancer cure that went nowhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Our society's morbid, irrational fear of quack medicine It is not an irrational fear. Brandolini's Law applies: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it." The only way to prevent quackery is to cut it off hard before it gets started. Wakefield demonstrated the disaster that happens when you don't. (And if you have been reading this site for very…
Even if I grant that argument, what I've described isn't even quackery. It is legitimate medical research and experimentation, and what doctors in olden times would call a "heroic" intervention -- but, sadly, now this sort of thing has become collateral damage in the war between medicine and quackery. And patients are the ones who die and suffer because of it.
There will always be more malevolent actors looking to take advantage of people than there are benevolent actors able to protect them. Standard rules and laws are an attempt to at least protect the majority of the people the majority of the time. Like anything, rules are never perfect, and you have to weigh the limitations against with the benefits.
As someone who has literally trawled the cancer trial databases for people, lack of trials is not the main problem--finding the appropriate trials, on the other hand, is terribly difficult.
If you really want to help people, apply AI to help common people search all the public cancer trial filings to connect up the patients and the doctors. That would do far more good, far faster than changing laws and rules around last ditch experimental treatments. You won't become rich, but you'll help medical science a lot, and you might even save a life here or there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you imagine the political/religious push-back were you to do that?! Growth of single human organs or organ tissue is easier, cheaper and less fraught with political peril.
As someone whose mother died to pancan, I could really care less on any of the brainwashed old farts in their churches or parliaments. None of that matters to me or the people suffering from cancers, it’s al Knut a selfish obstruction attaching religion to the research material
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ding ding ding this is the way. Sell at cost. Real cost, like cost of making. NOT a cost that includes R&S amortized across the batch.
Not even cost plus? Not sure how that works, from the viewpoint of economic incentives.