[dead]
Gut bacteria from amphibians and reptiles achieve tumor elimination in mice
81–90 of 144 posts
Re: Gut bacteria from amphibians and reptiles achieve tumor elimination in mice
#82It is my wish and my blessing that this is true
Re: Gut bacteria from amphibians and reptiles achieve tumor elimination in mice
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of potential treatments are too easily available and can't be patented. If a big pharma company can't make massive profit from it, they won't bother bringing it to market. Consider that a not-good reason. Other treatments may eventually prove to have too many serious negative side effects. That's a good reason to abandon them.
Why would a China or India care if it were a viable treatment? Unless a country wants to use their population as lab rats, it takes money and scientists to actually confirm a treatment is safe and effective.
Obviously you use the neighboring country’s population, or an ethnic minority, or prisoners, or orphans, or…
Re: Gut bacteria from amphibians and reptiles achieve tumor elimination in mice
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I'm not being clear. Are these examples of "good" or "bad" reasons to not go to market? I assume "good"? If so, what would be an example of "bad"? Or vice versa if your meaning was opposite.
Ultimately most of these decisions come down to economics and not mustache twirling villains. The banality of evil. Simplest "bad" reasons are the wealth of the patients. Malaria, river blindness, guinea worm, etc are terrible diseases that mostly impact poor people out of sight from Western eyes. Spending $X billion developing a drug for a population that can barely afford to feed themselves is not going to make a f…
Well, it would for those countries, but yes, it's not sensible for a private business with no guaranteed source of funding. If they did develop it and no one paid the PR would be even worse.
Re: Gut bacteria from amphibians and reptiles achieve tumor elimination in mice
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a fascinating niche of evolutionary biology that I have worked in for a while. The short answer is that yes, as far as we can tell all organisms evolve increasingly more efficient replication machinery, however at some point the strength of selection is no longer powerful enough to overcome the strength of genetic drift and some degree of error rate persists. As far as we can tell it seems like population siz…
If the organism is too efficient at preventing mutations - it would evolve slower, right?
Not necessarily if it had recombination (as in sexual reproduction), but as far as I understand, yes, you’d probably get fewer novel alleles/coding sequences of DNA generated per organism replication
Re: Gut bacteria from amphibians and reptiles achieve tumor elimination in mice
#86100% response, zero side effects? This sounds like world changing news. Can anyone with domain expertise explain the catch, if any?
I hesitate to link directly to a single podcast dealer, but if you search for Dave Ricks, CEO of Eli Lilly's podcast with Stripe brothers, there's some alpha in there.
Re: Gut bacteria from amphibians and reptiles achieve tumor elimination in mice
#87100% response, zero side effects? This sounds like world changing news. Can anyone with domain expertise explain the catch, if any?
Certainly good news for mice.
I wonder if anyone has tried to engineer a mouse that lives forever by applying all these life enhancing mouse therapies at once.
Re: Gut bacteria from amphibians and reptiles achieve tumor elimination in mice
#88I have never once seen a promising cancer treatment I've heard of on the news help people. You hear about the breakthrough treatments all the time, but when people get cancer, all you ever hear about is people getting chemotherapy and radiation. Same old scary shit. Well, I guess Leukemia has been somewhat cured I heard, so that's pretty huge. When I was a kid it was a death sentence IIRC.
Yes, you only hear about the initial breakthrough. The regular news doesn't report the trials unless things go spectacularly wrong. And you don't hear about the successes using the therapy on patients where traditional treatments didn't work. And you don't hear about the treatments successful enough that they replace the traditional treatments. But they are there, being used and saving lives. A family member's prostate cancer metastasized after 20 years of hormone therapy, they refused chemotherapy, and had their life saved by radioligand therapy, a treatment not available just months earlier. No side effects beyond a dry mouth, and now off the more debilitating hormone treatments.
Re: Gut bacteria from amphibians and reptiles achieve tumor elimination in mice
#89Interesting article, but in the full paper their key figure (Fig 2) shows their treatment group of n=3 mice completely responded to the bacterial treatment, but their methods say they treated n=5 mice? Could be an honest mistake but that’s a little concerning for data manipulation. Also agree that using a PD-L1 mab feels like it’s for show especially considering the cancer model they’re using (Colon-26) was shown to…
Figures 2 and 3 seem to be different experiments, with n=3 and n=5, respectively. Both showed 100% survival. Obviously very small sample sizes, but still promising.
Re: Gut bacteria from amphibians and reptiles achieve tumor elimination in mice
#90So maybe I am too much a layperson here, but even without any direct therapetutic effects, it is pretty remarkable to have an easily scalable mechanism to get self-replicating agents into tumors, but nowhere else, is it not?