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

A Universal Cancer Treatment?

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 100 posts

Re: A Universal Cancer Treatment?

#81

Post by m348e912 »

01100011 wrote: post #74
dominotw wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in recent years, a very effective checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy has been developed for the cancer in question. ~2x the success rates of traditional chemo > I think they've been saying this for a long time now, but it's truer than ever that a real cure for cancer is right around the corner. I think thats quite a leap. For prostate cancer( most common cancer among men), top line therapies are still androgen bloc…

Prostate cancer is, from what I understand, one of the cancers with the least amount of genetic differences from normal tissue. That makes it harder to target. It also explains the general failure of checkpoint inhibitors.

Interestingly prostate cancer is a cancer many people die with and not from.

Re: A Universal Cancer Treatment?

#82

Post by adamredwoods »

NetWonk_me wrote: post #17

Someday soon they'll look at our insane chemotherapy with the same level of utter disbelief as we do about bloodletting and tapeworm diets I mean untargeted chemotherapy kills -the one thing- that protects us since before we were born from cancer, our immune system. Killing our immune system to kill cancer makes as much sense as shooting off the leg you lead with so to run faster. Its idiotic, stupid and, yeah its ba…

Nanoparticle-delivered chemotherapy could also be a potential solution, and is actively researched.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7357073/

Re: A Universal Cancer Treatment?

#83

Post by uwuemu »

wonder_er wrote: post #72

I can't help but mention that there are two dominant schools of thought regarding cancer treatments: 1. The Somatic theory of cancer ('bad genes/out-of-control cellular replication') 2. The metabolic theory of cancer ('cancer cells ferment blood sugar for energy via an ancient emergency metabolic pathway') Both have merit, but a complete occlusion of one would be bad. I wrote an open letter, long ago, to a wealthy pe…

> cancer cells ferment blood sugar

oh boy

Re: A Universal Cancer Treatment?

#84

Post by [deleted] »

uwuemu wrote: post #83
wonder_er wrote: post #72

I can't help but mention that there are two dominant schools of thought regarding cancer treatments: 1. The Somatic theory of cancer ('bad genes/out-of-control cellular replication') 2. The metabolic theory of cancer ('cancer cells ferment blood sugar for energy via an ancient emergency metabolic pathway') Both have merit, but a complete occlusion of one would be bad. I wrote an open letter, long ago, to a wealthy pe…

> cancer cells ferment blood sugar oh boy

[deleted]

Re: A Universal Cancer Treatment?

#85

Post by devinj »

uwuemu wrote: post #83
wonder_er wrote: post #72

I can't help but mention that there are two dominant schools of thought regarding cancer treatments: 1. The Somatic theory of cancer ('bad genes/out-of-control cellular replication') 2. The metabolic theory of cancer ('cancer cells ferment blood sugar for energy via an ancient emergency metabolic pathway') Both have merit, but a complete occlusion of one would be bad. I wrote an open letter, long ago, to a wealthy pe…

> cancer cells ferment blood sugar oh boy

They do.

Eg https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/ras/ras-cent...

Obviously not usually considered cause, but rather effect.

Re: A Universal Cancer Treatment?

#86

Post by silisili »

nyx wrote: post #2

It really is remarkable how far cancer treatment has progressed, even in the last few years. I'm one of the unfortunate people who, through a close family encounter with cancer, knows more about this stuff than anyone should have to. The oncologist told my relative that if they had presented with this particular cancer just a decade ago, his recommendation would have been to start hospice care. However, in recent yea…

It's moving so fast even doctors(sans oncologists, perhaps?) can't keep up.

Brother's been a doctor about 15 years. Huge extended family is aging, and of course cancer creeps in. Of course family members call to get his opinion, and he's been wrong every single time(thankfully). Usually saying something like 'oh, she'll be dead within 2 years' and them living 6, or 8. And in one case calling something a death sentence that was actually, seemingly at least, cured.

It's entirely possible he's just a shit doctor, but I like to think it's that progress has moved a ton since he's studied up on it last.

Re: A Universal Cancer Treatment?

#87

Post by d_tr »

NetWonk_me wrote: post #17

Someday soon they'll look at our insane chemotherapy with the same level of utter disbelief as we do about bloodletting and tapeworm diets I mean untargeted chemotherapy kills -the one thing- that protects us since before we were born from cancer, our immune system. Killing our immune system to kill cancer makes as much sense as shooting off the leg you lead with so to run faster. Its idiotic, stupid and, yeah its ba…

Invent something better if you know how. For many people chemo is their hope and in many cases does wonders by itself or in combination with other methods, either in parallel or in succession.

Re: A Universal Cancer Treatment?

#88

Post by inglor_cz »

silisili wrote: post #86
nyx wrote: post #2

It really is remarkable how far cancer treatment has progressed, even in the last few years. I'm one of the unfortunate people who, through a close family encounter with cancer, knows more about this stuff than anyone should have to. The oncologist told my relative that if they had presented with this particular cancer just a decade ago, his recommendation would have been to start hospice care. However, in recent yea…

It's moving so fast even doctors(sans oncologists, perhaps?) can't keep up. Brother's been a doctor about 15 years. Huge extended family is aging, and of course cancer creeps in. Of course family members call to get his opinion, and he's been wrong every single time(thankfully). Usually saying something like 'oh, she'll be dead within 2 years' and them living 6, or 8. And in one case calling something a death sentenc…

It is also notable how doctors can get away with not following the progress in their own field.

A programmer who would ignore the developments since 2007 would be unusable.

Re: A Universal Cancer Treatment?

#89

Post by thelittleone »

inglor_cz wrote: post #88
silisili wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's moving so fast even doctors(sans oncologists, perhaps?) can't keep up. Brother's been a doctor about 15 years. Huge extended family is aging, and of course cancer creeps in. Of course family members call to get his opinion, and he's been wrong every single time(thankfully). Usually saying something like 'oh, she'll be dead within 2 years' and them living 6, or 8. And in one case calling something a death sentenc…

It is also notable how doctors can get away with not following the progress in their own field. A programmer who would ignore the developments since 2007 would be unusable.

This 500x.

Re: A Universal Cancer Treatment?

#90

Post by viraptor »

inglor_cz wrote: post #88
silisili wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's moving so fast even doctors(sans oncologists, perhaps?) can't keep up. Brother's been a doctor about 15 years. Huge extended family is aging, and of course cancer creeps in. Of course family members call to get his opinion, and he's been wrong every single time(thankfully). Usually saying something like 'oh, she'll be dead within 2 years' and them living 6, or 8. And in one case calling something a death sentenc…

It is also notable how doctors can get away with not following the progress in their own field. A programmer who would ignore the developments since 2007 would be unusable.

"their field" is a fuzzy concept. For example for a GP their field is "medicine". By definition they need to know just enough about everything to direct you to a specialist when needed, but it's simply impossible to be up to date with everything.

On the other hand, there's a huge number of consultants for enterprises which still write .net 4 like it's 2008 and they're both happy and productive. Unless they're sent to a training, why bother learning new stuff?

Post reply on HN