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

A Pointless Cancer ‘Moonshot’

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: A Pointless Cancer ‘Moonshot’

#31

Post by DrScump »

waterphone wrote: post #6
ams6110 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you have insurance? It's mandatory now.

Not the OP, but I don't have insurance because I can't afford it. Furthermore, attempts to use Healthcare.gov to try and even start an application process did and continue to fail because I don't have a credit history and therefore do not exist in their system and hit a roadblock. I cannot sign up for Medicaid in my state either for the same reason. And while it may be technically mandatory, I have so far fallen belo…

You don't need to have a credit history to get Medicaid. Heck, a complete lack of one may work in your favor.

In CA, you don't even have to be here legally to get Medicaid (MediCal) now.

Re: A Pointless Cancer ‘Moonshot’

#32

Post by reasonattlm »

DrScump wrote: post #29
reasonattlm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

E.g.: http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=6572 "These rodents are protected from cancer because their tissues are very rich with high molecular weight hyaluronan (HMW-HA)."

No, they are protected from cancer because naked mole rats never get cancer , to our knowledge. HMW-HA is a correlation that has not been proven to be effective for preventing cancer elsewhere. Remember, such claims used to be made about shark cartilage, too.

Read a little deeper. This is a part of the investigations into the way in which p16 works in naked mole rats. If it isn't HWM-HA then it is something in its chain of relationships.

"When HMW-HA was removed, the cells became susceptible to tumors, confirming that the chemical did play a role in making naked mole rats cancer-proof. [The] team also identified the gene, named HAS2, responsible for making HMW-HA in the naked mole rat. Surprisingly, the naked mole rat gene was different from HAS2 in all other animals. In addition naked mole rats were very slow at recycling HMW-HA, which contributed to the accumulation of the chemical in the animals' tissues. [Previously researchers] showed that the p16 gene in naked mole rats stopped the proliferation of cells when too many of them crowd together. In their latest work, the two biologists identified HMW-HA as the chemical that activates the anti-cancer response of the p16 gene."

Re: A Pointless Cancer ‘Moonshot’

#33

Post by DrScump »

reasonattlm wrote: post #32
DrScump wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they are protected from cancer because naked mole rats never get cancer , to our knowledge. HMW-HA is a correlation that has not been proven to be effective for preventing cancer elsewhere. Remember, such claims used to be made about shark cartilage, too.

Read a little deeper. This is a part of the investigations into the way in which p16 works in naked mole rats. If it isn't HWM-HA then it is something in its chain of relationships. "When HMW-HA was removed, the cells became susceptible to tumors, confirming that the chemical did play a role in making naked mole rats cancer-proof. [The] team also identified the gene, named HAS2, responsible for making HMW-HA in the n…

I read the study, not just the article. (Perhaps you missed "elsewhere" in my statement above.)

Again, there are many steps before such a claim could be made, let alone before having a safe and effective "cure" using it. You can't just genetically engineer humans to manufacture and maintain large amounts of HWM-HA in their bloodstreams.

Re: A Pointless Cancer ‘Moonshot’

#34

Post by waterphone »

DrScump wrote: post #31
waterphone wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP, but I don't have insurance because I can't afford it. Furthermore, attempts to use Healthcare.gov to try and even start an application process did and continue to fail because I don't have a credit history and therefore do not exist in their system and hit a roadblock. I cannot sign up for Medicaid in my state either for the same reason. And while it may be technically mandatory, I have so far fallen belo…

You don't need to have a credit history to get Medicaid. Heck, a complete lack of one may work in your favor. In CA, you don't even have to be here legally to get Medicaid (MediCal) now.

In Arizona, a credit history is part of their verification process, same as Healthcare.gov. Because I don't have a credit history, I don't exist in the system and therefore any application attempt fails at the "cannot verify your identity" stage and offers no path for recourse.

Edit: Not directly related to the main topic, but Amazon Payments also uses Experian—same as Arizona medicaid and Healthcare.gov—for identity verification, and if you don't have a credit history you get permabanned without explanation from continuing to use Amazon Payments. After asking them why several times, they block you from contacting their support again. Worst customer experience I've ever had with a major company, especially Amazon which is usually quite fantastic to deal with as a customer.

Re: A Pointless Cancer ‘Moonshot’

#35

Post by 97s »

yaakov34 wrote: post #15

I am going to go against the grain of the usual sympathetic responses to this type of articles, and I am going to say that this is a case of pernicious and pointless casuistry. Apparently, this now passes for some kind of deep thought on the human condition. Well of course any medical treatment for anything just leads to more medical treatment in the future; that's not a profound statement, not as long as people are…

I totally agree. I was diagnosed with Leukemia(AML) at age 24. I am 31 now. I had cancer 2 times, both times 20 years before it would have killed me, but because of all the research I get to be alive, I have a son and a wife and a family who I impact every day. Sure I understand I am more prone to getting more cancers down the road, but having the road to go down is way better than a dead end at age 24. Keep the moonshot going baby.

Re: A Pointless Cancer ‘Moonshot’

#36

Post by ams6110 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #19
yaakov34 wrote: post #15

I am going to go against the grain of the usual sympathetic responses to this type of articles, and I am going to say that this is a case of pernicious and pointless casuistry. Apparently, this now passes for some kind of deep thought on the human condition. Well of course any medical treatment for anything just leads to more medical treatment in the future; that's not a profound statement, not as long as people are…

A while ago I was reading a harrowing description of life in the 1930s. One of the author's memories was the sound of a neighbour in a nearby house screaming - and screaming, and screaming - in unbearable pain while dying of cancer. We've definitely moved on since then. Moonshot or no, anything that helps make that experience less likely has to be a good thing.

Possible I guess, but we had morphine in the '30s and probably a lot easier to get than today.

Re: A Pointless Cancer ‘Moonshot’

#37

Post by thetruthseeker1 »

I am not cynical about humans living longer etc as this article seems to claim. However I am cynical about the approach of calling everything a moonshot. For Moonshot, there were clearly measure-able goals before you were able to land on moon in say 10 yrs. Now in Cancer research or any research is not executed in the same paradigm as planning a voyage to moon.

Yeah my point maybe a minor one, but I dislike the dumbing down of things or appealing to past glory.

Re: A Pointless Cancer ‘Moonshot’

#39

Post by rue »

openasocket wrote: post #9

It is entirely possible that we can completely cure cancer. Not just a treatment, but actually prevent anyone from ever getting cancer in the first place. It would be super duper difficult, but we know it is possible because of the naked mole rat. Naked mole rats are essentially immune to cancer (I say essentially because this February scientists dicovered two individuals that had cancer, the only two documented case…

If we can reliably cure it (let’s say immunotherapy advances or whatever), it might not be worth the risk of side effects from preventive manipulation.
Post reply on HN