Live data from Hacker News

New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

news.keckmedicine.org

41–50 of 167 posts

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#41
post #7

[flagged]

could people stop posting the same thing over and over again? its been said a million times and all of the upvotes were handed out repeating the same karma-farming copy isn't even mid at this point try reddit

Sorry you don't like the discussion.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#42
post #7

[flagged]

I know I may get some flack for this. But IMO, you shouldn't make waves when you are a VISA guest in another country. It's just a bad idea all around. There's every reason to actively avoid getting politically involved. While I realize that US higher education is particularly motivated towards activism, protests and the like. Historically accepting even foreign nationals in such activity. It's still just a bad idea f…

What the heck? In the US, free speech is guaranteed in the constitution. Of course people can make waves! The idea that people should just go along with things and not make their voices heard is completely unamerican.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#43
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That absolutely is a controversial opinion. The prohibition against government reprisal for speech acts is the first thing in the Bill of Rights! That’s one of the genuinely exceptional things about the U.S., or at least it was until we broke it.

A lot of privileges/rights are limited to citizens in the US in different ways. Why would any government welcome a subversive, foreign influence? Should it be any surprise that the result is similar to what happens when a spy is caught?

The first amendment is NOT limited to citizens in the US. It just isn't. Why would it be? Free speech, free press, and freedom of religion applies to everybody.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#44

To be clear, here is the rest of what the article title should be... > ...for individuals with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer whose cancer had previously resisted treatment

Only those patients were admitted to the trial, so the effectiveness of the treatment on later-stage muscle-invasive disease is unknown. That it's scoped to patients who are BCG-unresponsive ("previously resisted treatment") makes the breakthrough more significant, not less.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#45
post #7

[flagged]

This is a thread about what appears to be a very significant breakthrough in a major human cancer, and a majority of the comments on it are litigating a political point --- one I agree with you about, for what it's worth --- that doesn't pertain directly to the story and has been hashed out about 7 dozen times on the site this year already.

When you write comments like this, you are literally begging people to take the other side of your argument, which will inevitably have less to do with the technical details of why TB treatments are first-line therapies for bladder cancer and more to do with the First Amendment and visa protections. It's a way of having exactly the same tedious argument on every story, no matter what the story is about.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Why would companies pay for basic research? They used to get that research for free. 2) Very few schools have endowments that are large enough to support current faculty research costs; even Harvard can only support all research off their endowment for about a year. 3) Endowments are now taxed, so they will have even less available for research.

1) Because ROI on that investment is still positive, even if it used to be “free”. 2) Endowments aren’t the only way to fund research, and not all research is equally valuable. Some is probably negative value, given the replication crisis. 3) Investment income from the endowment is taxed at a maximum of 8%. If that’s enough to break the US university research machine, I’m not sure it was ever working in the first pla…

The cumulative ROI for basic research is positive, but I don't think that is true for many individual research efforts, which is what a company is more likely to support. An individual company seems much less likely to benefit enough from an aggregate pool of research that they will actually contribute. Look at the state of open source software with respect to company investment in maintainers.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of privileges/rights are limited to citizens in the US in different ways. Why would any government welcome a subversive, foreign influence? Should it be any surprise that the result is similar to what happens when a spy is caught?

The first amendment is NOT limited to citizens in the US. It just isn't. Why would it be? Free speech, free press, and freedom of religion applies to everybody.

And what happens to spies caught in the US? Again, why would you expect something significantly different for a subversive foreign adversary in the nation on a Visa?

"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences."

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultimately that's one reason why the US got the atomic bomb and not the Nazis. Ironic.

Realistically speaking, Germany was never on track to produce atomic weapons before their war economy was obliterated by the allies. The program was not taken seriously or had proper investment. The war machine was already severely starved of resources prior to their even more significant land losses in 1944. I honestly can’t even think of an alternate (realistic) timeline where they achieve a delivery system for ato…

The delivery system would have been mostly irrelevant if they'd gotten the bomb on time. Having even one functional nuke at any time at all before or just shortly after June 6th 1944 and dropping it on London or even around the Normandy beachhead (well within German reach even in 1944) would have pretty much killed the D-Day landings stone dead immediately, and that was something they certainly plausibly could have done if it had been taken seriously by the leadership early enough. The V-Weapons program alone cost MUCH more than the Manhattan Project, for example, and it was (despite being technically incredible for its time) a total waste of resources under the circumstances.

The Germans also spent so much money on so many absurd things that had they simply directed it more precisely to the bomb at an earlier time, cost at least wouldn't have been a limitation. Even as things stand historically, they created a number of completely cutting-edge weapons despite all the catastrophic problems you describe, so much so that the US, USSR and UK all spent years after the war, largely cribbing off what the Nazis' R&D had already developed to some extent.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#49

I really wish this was available earlier, because I just lost a family member to bladder cancer yesterday morning. :(

Very sorry for your loss. An uncle had bladder cancer about 15 years ago, and while he survived, it began a very steep decline that led to his passing in 2022.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#50
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do cancers have a tendency to come back with better drug resistance if it's not fully eliminated? at least a resistance to the drug that got rid of it the previous time?

Emphatically so, yes

Return customers generate more profit.
Post reply on HN