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

One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

news.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#21

Post by wwwtyro »

maxharris wrote: post #16
wwwtyro wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait - are you saying people could (were it legal) simply order this stuff from a company? Can you give me some kind of reference for this? If so, I could see people reaching out and finding others capable of placing the order.

Here's CD47, conjugated to a fluorophor (when you have a cell covered in a conjugated antibody, it fluoresces when exposed to laser light - this is done so that an instrument called a flow cytometer can identify cells). http://www.biolegend.com/percp-cy55-anti-human-cd47-4338.htm... Of course, to get CD47 depletion, you'd probably want an antibody that isn't conjugated (functional grade): http://www.ebioscience.com/r…

Perfect, thanks for all this.

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#22

Post by maxharris »

rubyrescue wrote: post #18
wwwtyro wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't without their downsides, but they remain better than the alternative on balance. That's not a credible claim. Tell that to either of the two people that left those comments. Sure, there's risks inherent with experimental drugs, but these people are dying or losing loved ones. They don't give a damn, and none of us has any right to stop them from taking those risks with their own persons . Their bodies are…

The history of snake-oil salesmen is well documented. http://www.authentichistory.com/1898-1913/2-progressivism/8-...

Why is it OK to lump honest physicians, researchers and patients in with snake oil salesmen and their victims?

Why is it morally acceptable to have laws intended to help the people that don't care to tell the difference? Those laws come at the expense of those who do care, who take the trouble to figure things out.

Why shouldn't we live in a free society where the best within us can make a difference, and take humanity forward?

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#23

Post by Retric »

maxharris wrote: post #22
rubyrescue wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The history of snake-oil salesmen is well documented. http://www.authentichistory.com/1898-1913/2-progressivism/8-...

Why is it OK to lump honest physicians, researchers and patients in with snake oil salesmen and their victims? Why is it morally acceptable to have laws intended to help the people that don't care to tell the difference? Those laws come at the expense of those who do care, who take the trouble to figure things out. Why shouldn't we live in a free society where the best within us can make a difference, and take humani…

Why is it OK to lump honest physicians, researchers and patients in with snake oil salesmen and their victims?

The best snake oil salesmen believe in their products. There are already exceptions for allowing people to take highly experimental procedures when there likely to die without them. However, there are plenty of cases where highly trained well meaning doctors caused massive suffering without benefit to their direct patents.

As a recent example of fringe medicine, a few athletes have injected themselves with stem cells. Not to mention the modern version of doping which often involves substances that are known to be harmful or medicine has little idea what the long term effects are.

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#24

Post by Symmetry »

roc wrote: post #12
maxharris wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has got to be a way to address this need. Yes, there is. Fight for the right of each individual to follow his best judgement in regard to all matters pertaining to his own life. (If someone doesn't know enough to make the call, he knows enough to choose a physician who can.) Right now, timely experimental treatments are basically outlawed. What good is it to say that there's an FDA procedure to get around the c…

The problem is that lay people have essentially no ability to distinguish between potential 'last shots'. And exemptions will invite snake-oil salesmen. It can be frustrating, but the rules weren't created in some blind bureaucratic power-grab. They're responses to actual problems that existed in their absence. They aren't without their downsides, but they remain better than the alternative on balance.

Yet somehow countries that regulate drugs merely by safety tend to produce better health outcomes than countries that regulate for safety and efficacy like the US FDA does. You're just asserting that the upsides outweigh the downsides, but every study I've seen that tries to measure things quantitatively comes to the opposite conclusion.

The gullible are already getting snake-oil in the form of herbal remedies and homeopathy.

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#25

Post by fghh45sdfhr3 »

roc wrote: post #12
maxharris wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has got to be a way to address this need. Yes, there is. Fight for the right of each individual to follow his best judgement in regard to all matters pertaining to his own life. (If someone doesn't know enough to make the call, he knows enough to choose a physician who can.) Right now, timely experimental treatments are basically outlawed. What good is it to say that there's an FDA procedure to get around the c…

The problem is that lay people have essentially no ability to distinguish between potential 'last shots'. And exemptions will invite snake-oil salesmen. It can be frustrating, but the rules weren't created in some blind bureaucratic power-grab. They're responses to actual problems that existed in their absence. They aren't without their downsides, but they remain better than the alternative on balance.

The problem is that lay people have essentially no ability to distinguish between potential 'last shots'. And exemptions will invite snake-oil salesmen.

So because some people will be duped, let's doom everyone to death.

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#26

Post by traughber »

It bothers me to continuously see articles with headlines like this. Just look at the comments—it gives false hope to patients and their families. As the author mentioned later in the article, there is a big difference between seeing cancer cells die in a petri dish or reduction in size of a transplanted tumor in mice and it being safe and effective in humans. I hope this succeeds, but it is a long way from a Phase 2/3 clinical trial.

Cancer research is too important to use misleading, link bait headlines to attract attention.

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#28

Post by roc »

maxharris wrote: post #22
rubyrescue wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The history of snake-oil salesmen is well documented. http://www.authentichistory.com/1898-1913/2-progressivism/8-...

Why is it OK to lump honest physicians, researchers and patients in with snake oil salesmen and their victims? Why is it morally acceptable to have laws intended to help the people that don't care to tell the difference? Those laws come at the expense of those who do care, who take the trouble to figure things out. Why shouldn't we live in a free society where the best within us can make a difference, and take humani…

> "Why shouldn't we live in a free society where the best within us can make a difference, and take humanity forward?"

Our free society lived with the alternative. And they collectively decided "the right to be defrauded is a false liberty, this is no the way forward, let us try another way."

And you know what? We've moved further forward, faster since these regulations were put into place. When people have trust that they're not being defrauded, they participate in the market to a far higher degree. When companies don't have to compete against charlatans, don't have to balance every dollar of research with a dollar of trying to educate the public about what is and what is not medically sound, they invest far more into their research efforts.

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#29

Post by maxharris »

Retric wrote: post #23
maxharris wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it OK to lump honest physicians, researchers and patients in with snake oil salesmen and their victims? Why is it morally acceptable to have laws intended to help the people that don't care to tell the difference? Those laws come at the expense of those who do care, who take the trouble to figure things out. Why shouldn't we live in a free society where the best within us can make a difference, and take humani…

Why is it OK to lump honest physicians, researchers and patients in with snake oil salesmen and their victims? The best snake oil salesmen believe in their products. There are already exceptions for allowing people to take highly experimental procedures when there likely to die without them. However, there are plenty of cases where highly trained well meaning doctors caused massive suffering without benefit to their…

So we should treat every physician, researcher and patient as guilty, incorrect or foolish until proven innocent, correct or wise?

However, there are plenty of cases where highly trained well meaning doctors caused massive suffering without benefit to their direct patents.

No one is omniscient. The ideal in medicine can't be something impossible (i.e., medicine that cures all ills and everyone, and never has any risks or side effects). No one knows how to do that (now and for the foreseeable future), and we shouldn't deny people the best chance they have at life to chase an impossibility.

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#30

Post by Turing_Machine »

roc wrote: post #28
maxharris wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it OK to lump honest physicians, researchers and patients in with snake oil salesmen and their victims? Why is it morally acceptable to have laws intended to help the people that don't care to tell the difference? Those laws come at the expense of those who do care, who take the trouble to figure things out. Why shouldn't we live in a free society where the best within us can make a difference, and take humani…

> "Why shouldn't we live in a free society where the best within us can make a difference, and take humanity forward?" Our free society lived with the alternative . And they collectively decided "the right to be defrauded is a false liberty, this is no the way forward, let us try another way." And you know what? We've moved further forward, faster since these regulations were put into place. When people have trust th…

I do not recognize "the collective's" right to make this decision for me.
Post reply on HN