Live data from Hacker News

One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

news.sciencemag.org

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#61
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"lay people have essentially no ability to distinguish between potential 'last shots'" I'm sure you mean well, but this type of thinking really bothers me. For example, many of us here on HN, possess the critical reasoning skills to determine snake oil from a credible research lab. Given that there are almost no practicing oncologists present, we'd all likely qualify as lay people. However the central issue is a med…

> For example, many of us here on HN, possess the critical reasoning skills to determine snake oil from a credible research lab. Given that there are almost no practicing oncologists present, we'd all likely qualify as lay people. Ah, how did we miss such an obvious fact! Of course we computer scientists are naturally smarter than all the other laypeople.

Snark aside, we are somewhat in agreement.

I tend to dislike elitist thinking (or though I'm still guilty of it at times), not for moral reasons, but simply because empiricism, in my admittedly subjective opinion, is routinely lauded over common sense in nerdy communities (HN, slashdot, SO etc), and is often a form of bias. Having a bias doesn't mean one is wrong necessarily, but it can be problematic too, especially if one lacks cognizance of said bias.

For example, my gf is the furthest thing from a computer scientist, but is routinely more observant socially and can spot bullshitting better than I in certain contexts (among other superior cognitive skills).

However in the past I've tried to pick too many battles in one post, and that makes it difficult for someone to upvote, as they may agree with some, or one point, but not another and creates a mixed cognitive dissonance. Hence I didn't want to launch into a large foray of intellectual elitism.

Hence the aim was, for the most part was to try to leave epistemological disputes (how do we know what we know, who knows what etc, do all groups have equally justified beliefs?), out of the debate and focus on the regulatory side of things and empowering the individual to be allowed follow their own life and death decisions.

That said, perhaps I could have left the opening paragraph off altogether in retrospect.

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#62
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"lay people have essentially no ability to distinguish between potential 'last shots'" I'm sure you mean well, but this type of thinking really bothers me. For example, many of us here on HN, possess the critical reasoning skills to determine snake oil from a credible research lab. Given that there are almost no practicing oncologists present, we'd all likely qualify as lay people. However the central issue is a med…

>For example, many of us here on HN, possess the critical reasoning skills to determine snake oil from a credible research lab. Given that there are almost no practicing oncologists present, we'd all likely qualify as "lay people". The fact that you think critical reasoning can help discriminate between a quack and someone selling real medicine indicates you don't have the ability to make that distinction. The truth…

"no one has the ability to make the distinction between a quack and real medicine" (paraphrasing OP)

What utter nonsense. If someone presented you with a homeopathic dropper [1] saying it would cure cancer vs a new gold nanoparticle experimental therapy [2], "no one" would be able to tell the difference?

While the new treatment may turn out to have issues (no one was suggesting experiments were risk free), to imply it's indistinguishable from quackery, is false.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

[2] http://bjr.birjournals.org/content/85/1010/101.full.pdf

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#63
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ho…

Rhetorical tip: If you seek a dysphemism for alternative therapies of which you disapprove, "snake oil" is a poor choice, given that that substance is a rich source of omega-3, the same fatty acid that so many physicians now recommend to their patients. Snake oil's nutritional profile may well account for its value to practitioners of Chinese medicine.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=snake-oil-s...

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#64
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And yet by participating in this society you are directly supporting their ability to make such decisions, whether they side with or against you on a given issue. If you actively pursue one of the many methods available to effect change, you can only do so via the same channels that allowed others to set up the status quo. Even securing a constitutional amendment against such laws would just underscore the right and…

"The only way to secure your victory would be to end representative democracy."

That would be why I prefer a constitutional republic to a democracy.

Edit: to be more specific, a constitutional republic that pays actual attention to the Tenth Amendment.

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#65
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet by participating in this society you are directly supporting their ability to make such decisions, whether they side with or against you on a given issue. If you actively pursue one of the many methods available to effect change, you can only do so via the same channels that allowed others to set up the status quo. Even securing a constitutional amendment against such laws would just underscore the right and…

"The only way to secure your victory would be to end representative democracy." That would be why I prefer a constitutional republic to a democracy. Edit: to be more specific, a constitutional republic that pays actual attention to the Tenth Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you see anything in the Constitution that grants the federal government the right to tell me what medications I choose to take?

I don't.

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#66
post #57
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine these people are desperate enough to find other means to acquire an antibody that blocks CD47. I wonder what quasi- or il- legal means are available to them? Care to speculate? Edit: perhaps a set of crowd-sourced, extremely explicit instructions about how to manufacture, purify, and test such antibodies would be a start. With such a set of instructions, they might be able to find experts to help them under…

Strong word of warning! These antibodies are not human, but most likely mouse. They will illicit a strong immune response, since they are foreign to the human immune system. Furthermore, antibodies can be directed against many different locations on their target molecule (epitopes), CD47 in this case, and therefore it is very unlikely that they will compete with the ligand they are trying to block. In brief: you will…

Thank you.

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The only way to secure your victory would be to end representative democracy." That would be why I prefer a constitutional republic to a democracy. Edit: to be more specific, a constitutional republic that pays actual attention to the Tenth Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Do you see anything in the Constitution that grants the federal government the right to tell me what medications I choose to take? I don't.

The Constitution is a living document that provides the legal framework for testing the constitutionality of laws and a method for its amendment. It explicitly grants society, via representative government, the right to interpret, change and extend the Government's power.

To reject the power of society to, by following constitutionally-specified methods, give government this power is to reject self-government.

Post reply on HN