51–60 of 116 posts
I just wonder how we've not been able to make a drug to increase lean mass without negative effect on cardiovascular system
Aspirin, Creatine, l arginine, coq 10, ozempic
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It always surprises me how little effort we put into getting things from the lab to the people quicker. As soon as we have compelling data some discovery (medical or otherwise) might help lots of people, it should be almost a manhattan project type effort to get it into the hands of everyone worldwide asap.
They do fast track drugs if studies show overwhelming success, and it is no longer ethical to keep it from the control group.
My chance of living 5 years goes from 78% to 88% by taking an expensive pill everyday with side effects? That's not an amazing thing. If it was 78% to 95% with one or two pills, or a positive healthy lifestyle change, then that's something.
I'm going to push back and say this is garbage. The fact that this is being billed as "thrilling" and "incredibly positive" makes me want to puke. This is par for the course in the cancer industry.
I'm going to call this what it is: an advertisement for two crappy new lines of business. First, we have a new genetic testing business: "Not everyone diagnosed with lung cancer is tested for the EGFR mutation, which needs to change, Herbst said, given the study’s findings." Cha-ching!
Then, we have the actual new business of the pill. What are they going to charge, $50,000 a year?
Imagine if you could choose 2 options:
1. Take a pill everyday. Have side effects. Pay $250,000 2. Don't take a pill. No side effects. Keep the $250,000
If that was the choice I'd bet people in group #2 live longer.
This isn't science or medicine, this is advertising.
Pardon my bluntness, but sometimes anger is necessary to get people to wake up.
This is a great example of where cancer treatment is headed and why it's so hard - namely that cancer isn't one disease, it's many thousands of diseases. This is a drug that targets lung cancer (~12% of cancers) and only one type of lung cancer (non-small cell lung cancer, ~80% of cases). It targets a particular mutated gene that occurs in about 30% of that subtype. And then, about 50% of those patients respond. So d…
Just because this approach works doesn't mean this is the only approach out there. I sincerely believe that this thought has singlehandedly retarded progress towards more generic cancer treatments. Immune checkpoint inhibition is a clear proof that you could make one drug that could attack a wide swathe of cancers. Heck even chemo is proof of that. If this is the research you want to focus on, please go ahead. But do…
Do you mean this literally or figuratively? Isn't one of the serious problems with tumors that the mutation rate inside them goes through the roof? (And then they eventually figure out how to be metastatic?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do fast track drugs if studies show overwhelming success, and it is no longer ethical to keep it from the control group.
Other areas of medecine do do things in a rush - like an ambulance breaking the speed limit to maybe save one guy. Yet we wouldn't allow breaking the speed limit when delivering a new treatment to save thousands of lives.
> After five years, 88% of patients who took the daily pill after the removal of their tumour were still alive, compared with 78% of patients treated with a placebo. My chance of living 5 years goes from 78% to 88% by taking an expensive pill everyday with side effects? That's not an amazing thing. If it was 78% to 95% with one or two pills, or a positive healthy lifestyle change, then that's something. I'm going to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do fast track drugs if studies show overwhelming success, and it is no longer ethical to keep it from the control group.
Other areas of medecine do do things in a rush - like an ambulance breaking the speed limit to maybe save one guy. Yet we wouldn't allow breaking the speed limit when delivering a new treatment to save thousands of lives.
The data isn’t published yet (presumably this was shown during the ASCO conference this weekend) but this is a bit misleading and the results seem underwhelming. The DFS numbers are not new and known, the reason this is in the news as it’s the first report of OS numbers from the initial ADAURA trial. I can’t be definitive without seeing the data yet but: 1. Osimertinib is not that new, in the context of curative inte…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other areas of medecine do do things in a rush - like an ambulance breaking the speed limit to maybe save one guy. Yet we wouldn't allow breaking the speed limit when delivering a new treatment to save thousands of lives.
There are reasons why drug approval can be slow and conservative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal
For example 780,000 people died of polio between 1988 and today. Yet for all that time there has been a cheap, low risk, well tested, near 100% effective vaccine (many in fact). And polio is probably one of the better cases because governments and charities have been pushing it pretty hard.
This is a great example of where cancer treatment is headed and why it's so hard - namely that cancer isn't one disease, it's many thousands of diseases. This is a drug that targets lung cancer (~12% of cancers) and only one type of lung cancer (non-small cell lung cancer, ~80% of cases). It targets a particular mutated gene that occurs in about 30% of that subtype. And then, about 50% of those patients respond. So d…
"1.4% of all cancers" This actually seems large to me. Although that is suspiciously large. Looking at the numbers I think it should be much lower. A 51% reduction doesn't mean it helps 51% if the people. In this case it looks like about 10% of the people are effected given the 88% vs 78% survival rates, right? Maybe something like .28% of all cancer?