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

241–250 of 330 posts

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

#241

Post by Noaidi »

anonymars wrote: post #219
Noaidi wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5-year relative survival rates for melanoma skin cancer is 95%. That is all that matters. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/melanoma-skin-cancer/det... The study data is not out yet, I thought it was, so I will wait untiul it is to comment further. But saying in the press that: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-20/melanoma-drug-cancer-... "Melanoma is one of the deadliest forms of skin cancer, with more than 330,…

Question for you: what is the goal of these comments? What is it would you like people to do or think differently after reading what you've written? I'll go first: my hope is that someone who has read what I've written will be more likely to take seriously something suspicious they see on their skin rather than ignore it as unimportant, and be more inclined to take seriously protection from sun exposure when possible

My goal is to 1) not reward these companies by over inflating phase 3 clinical trial outcomes and 2) to not fear a skin cancer diagnosis and 3) not live your life in a bubble while polluting the world with sunscreen.

Sun exposure does not cause skin cancer. It only increases the risk of skin cancer in some people. Look at the ROI on people's behavior and it makes no sense. Are we actually causing more damage by using all this sunscreen and the plastic bottles it comes in and lowering everyone's vitamin D levels?

Sunscreen was widely used in the 70's and skin cancer rates keep going up. It's useless.

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

#242

Post by pazimzadeh »

foco_tubi wrote: post #171
bluGill wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Black people who spend all their time indoors or covered up will get sunburned if they go outside. If that black person gradually increases their sun exposure they can (in a few weeks) reach the point where they can be outside without sunscreen and they will not get sun burned. Note that I'm making no claims on how natural sunburn resistant affects skin cancer.

Increased melanin provides some protection against burns, but it doesn’t make you immune. There’s also the aspect of UV damage without burns, which is still harmful and is not affected by melanin levels.

that's his point. anyone can get sunburned, and almost anyone can prevent sunburn through gradual exposure. except albinos, who are especially susceptible.

melanin is also not the only factor in preventing sunburn/cancer. there are many repair pathways and genes, which are present to differing levels in various populations.

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

#243

Post by phs318u »

qlte wrote: post #134
ViktorRay wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I think you’re looking at this wrong. They thought too much sun was bad for you because back then tanned skin was considering a mark of being poor and pale skin was a mark of being wealthy since rich people didn’t have to work outside. They also had puritanical Victorian notions of modesty and covering up. There was no knowledge linking sun exposure to cancer or negative health effects. People in the past indeed w…

Or rather, linked to completely wrong negative health effects that were just “common knowledge” thus requiring no actual evidence like: People with light skin should always wear a hat that fully covers the head/face in tropical/equatorial climates (okay, good so far) or else the powerful sun rays will penetrate the skull (?) causing brain damage that will make you go insane (!?!?) Victorians may have inadvertently pr…

Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Dogs_and_Englishmen_(song)

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

#244

Post by matsemann »

senordevnyc wrote: post #130
Insanity wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1. Also, just to call out, it doesn't need to be _warm_ for you to need sunblock. Even when it's cooler / cloudier out there you can still get skin damage. Look for UV rating rather than temperature. Conversely, it being hot doesn't imply high-UV either.

I’ve always wondered about this. I have fair skin, and I tend to burn somewhat easily in very sunny environments like the beach. However, I’ve never gotten so much as a whisper of sunburn / suntan / anything on an actually cloudy day where sun wasn’t hitting me directly. Is the damage a different type that’s imperceptible? Or is this a public health comms strategy where they assume people will see a single cloud in t…

Or your behavior is different on a cloudy day? More covered in clothes, not sitting still in the sun at the beach all day etc.

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

#245

Post by pazimzadeh »

hibikir wrote: post #112
wincy wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s funny is before the 50s and 60s everyone knew you should cover up and women wore bonnets. That too much sun was bad for you. Laura Ingalls Wilder of Little House fame (I mention this a lot as I read these to my children as an adult, and they’re a fascinating look at 1880s America) has lots of places where her mother says “put on your bonnet! Don’t get too much sun!”. We act like people in the past were ignoran…

We developed creams that stopped sunburn, but were still great at getting you cancer. A lot of the ads from 70s and 80s talked about how they stopped UVB but let the tanning UVA through! So yes, they didn't burn, but the long term cancer rates exploded, along with all the skin aging. So it's not that they ignored the all knowledge. I blame most of it on the rather detrimental tech advancement. Like cigarettes with fi…

technically UVB is much more tanning than UVA. UVA tans for a short amount of time. UVA penetrates much deeper into the skin though and has few benefits (UVB stimulates Vitamin D synthesis).

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

#246

Post by pazimzadeh »

raverbashing wrote: post #166
wincy wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s funny is before the 50s and 60s everyone knew you should cover up and women wore bonnets. That too much sun was bad for you. Laura Ingalls Wilder of Little House fame (I mention this a lot as I read these to my children as an adult, and they’re a fascinating look at 1880s America) has lots of places where her mother says “put on your bonnet! Don’t get too much sun!”. We act like people in the past were ignoran…

Everybody who's not been raised in a bubble knows the sun burns It's only recently that we had space for completely retarded ideas like "staying in the sun doesn't hurt you" or "sunscreen causes cancer"

the idea that any amount of sun is bad for you is what is retarded

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-48477-4

https://imgur.com/a/site-specific-melanoma-risk-by-occupatio...

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

#248

Post by pazimzadeh »

jimnotgym wrote: post #221
GenerWork wrote: post #4

This is great news! I think people forget how anti-skin cancer protocols even as simple as applying suntan lotion weren't as popular as recent as 50-60 years ago. Lots of "sun children" of the 50s and 60s are now feeling the repercussions of only applying baby oil and are getting hit with lots of melanoma.

My mother always covered up and always made us kids cover up. She still died of melanoma. Sun may increase the risk, but sun cream doesn't make it impossible. Cancer has no friends. Well done to the drug researchers. I have my fingers crossed someone else gets to avoid this

skin grows/regenerates at a rapid pace, which means mutations (mistakes in DNA replication) are naturally likely to happen there than in slow-growing tissue. skin cells and the immune system are constantly self-surveying and nipping these in the buds, under normal conditions. but there are things that can affect this process.

a recent study of 2 million people in ontario showed that both high-sun and low-sun exposed people had higher risk of melanoma than people with moderate exposure.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-48477-4

https://imgur.com/a/site-specific-melanoma-risk-by-occupatio...

a possible explanation is that UV light stimulates repair pathways within the skin, which boosts the baseline level of repair.

Enhancement of UVB-induced DNA damage repair after a chronic low-dose UVB pre-stimulation

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S15687...

another explanation is that as much as you can try to cover up, occasionally you may slip up, and going from extreme low-exposure to intense sun is especially bad, because your repair pathways are not primed, skin is untanned, etc..

in conclusion, extreme low or high sun exposure is bad. at the beginning of the summer you should gradually exposure yourself, and then exposure yourself daily but not overly, for the rest of the year.

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

#249

Post by pazimzadeh »

shpx wrote: post #233
jimnotgym wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mother always covered up and always made us kids cover up. She still died of melanoma. Sun may increase the risk, but sun cream doesn't make it impossible. Cancer has no friends. Well done to the drug researchers. I have my fingers crossed someone else gets to avoid this

There's also the effect that sunscreen makes you spend more time in the sun than if you didn't use sunscreen because you think you're "protected".

there is also that anything that blocks UV (sunscreen, windows, etc) by definition blocks UVB first and then UVA, and UVA is the one that penetrates most deeply and has few benefits

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

#250

Post by laurencerowe »

bluGill wrote: post #139
SoftTalker wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure a bad sunburn sucked back then as much as now, and was something one tried to avoid.

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 latitude. It’s a lot worse in the tropics.

Post reply on HN