First author Dr. Olivia Bracken (UCL Department of Ageing, Rheumatology and Regenerative Medicine) said: "Our findings reveal a natural pathway that limits harmful immune cell expansion and helps calm inflammation more quickly.

"Targeting this mechanism could lead to safer treatments that restore immune balance without suppressing overall immunity. With chronic inflammation ranked as a major global health threat, this discovery opens a promising avenue for new therapies."

all 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 12 points 1 month ago

This could be a really big deal

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago*
    [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    "hidden" by who? Though I guess people say stuff like "a hidden waterfall". Can "hidden" be applied to things nobody has hidden, but are nonetheless hard to find? Now I'm wondering.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 31 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 52 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Yeah, uh… can I get some of that?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    I’ve been using a phosphdiesterase inhibitor for the past year and it’s a game changer. Expensive though, unless your insurance covers it.

    This is a step further up the chain, which should mean fewer side effects and a more general effect on the entire system. And it’s with an already approved drug.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 1 month ago

    First you'll need insurance so they can start laundering the funny money. Oh look! Here it goes! All clean! Right into big pharma's pockets. Healthcare is a business after all. We couldn't run something like that to...cough...benefit humanity. That would be stupid.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 month ago (17 children)

    I'm willing to bet my life that there is some rich motherfucker salivating to monetize this like they did with insulin.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    There was a woman i think 15 ish years ago that made herself the owner of the sun because of a loophole and i think it was that no country can take ownership of a celestial body (not yet anyway) but the rules didn't state that a person cannot take ownership, it didn't last long but it was an interesting exploit.

    Nevermind, apparently it's still an ongoing battle,

    https://www.gistlover.com/pay-me-for-sunlight-woman-who-registered-the-sun-as-her-own-wants-the-world-to-pay-for-it/

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -28 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    And there is nothing wrong with that, since it requires money to do drug trials and drug approvals

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    Money that is frequently government funded/subsidised.

    Also you know that the patent for insulin was sold for a couple bucks because the guy believed the greedy fucks?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 1 month ago (12 children)

    Government didn't invent drugs like semaglutide. The research into GLP-1 may have been government funded, but semaglutide research was done at novo nordisk

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    So, you’re saying it’s okay to socialize the funding and privatize the profits?

    Fuck you.

    If anything had government funding, then the public should get ownership or at the very least, part ownership- proportional to the funding it required.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    The actual drug was developed by the company, out wouldn't exist without it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (9 children)
    1. you don’t actually know that.

    2. by the same logic, it wouldn’t have existed without public funds.

    3. that’s still not an argument for public funding of private profits, you jackass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    What do you mean you don't know that? It would eventually be found sometime in the future, but the obesity rate falling this year is because of Novo Nordisk funding the research when they did. Millions of people got their diabetes and weight under control because a for profit firm did this research.

    Yes, the research in the 1970s was public. Still took decades to bring a real substance to market. We live in a society. You didn't build that and everything

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    That something did happen a certain way, doesn’t mean it had to happen that way or couldn’t have happened any other way.

    Stop being an obtuse loser. I’m running out of insults to express just how much of a prick I think you are for thinking it’s entirely appropriate that our tax dollars make billionaires richer by funding their R and D without appropriate recompense.

    Novo Nordisk would happily watch you die while holding a cure you couldn’t afford, they’re not worthy of your glazing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

    You don't want to credit the people who did the work and you're running out of not just insults, but arguments

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    The people who did the work? Like the researchers at Novo that mainly just get salary? Let them have their salary, patents and scientific recognition. That is their credit.

    Indeed Novo has built upon a lot of research and most of that is publicly funded. The price of the drug of course should recompense the organization for costs in research, trials and approval.

    Still it is strange that costs to the consumer are 9 times higher on the US market than in Europe.

    Also, it's strange that capitalisation is so free in making money that high prices are required to attract capital for helping and healing people. Human lives are worth less than profits. Gross amounts of money are making their way to sociopaths. You are downplaying a very real and sad state of affairs with "but money must be made". Sadly that is the state of things, but you put it as if this is as it should be.

    Insulin was named as an example which you gloss over, where research wasn't needed and production could be optimized for larger profits, but prices were raised to the point of people cutting back on their intake. This has caused bodily damage, loss of eyesight, loss of life. This wasn't to the benefit of the working people, and to the deficit of patients.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    Yes, but the investors that invested their money to pay those salaries expect a return on their investments. If they couldn't make the profits, people wouldn't buy the stock. Other pharmas wouldn't be able to IPO or be acquired since there would be no money in pharma

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    You understand that when the government helps fund things like research thst is an investment?

    Right? Are you just trolling everyone? Or do you really believe that our job is to solely suck off billionaire dick as they price us out of healthcare and let us die.

    Get your head out of Novo’s ass. They’re probably not paying you enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    As I said above: You are downplaying a very real and sad state of affairs with "but money must be made". Sadly that is the state of things, but you put it as if this is as it should be.

    You are excusing predatory business practices and growing income divide. You are apparently okay with businesses having so much political power they can dictate laws. Regulations and actual sanctions, anti monopoly laws and corruption, unions and raised minimum wages would severely lower the amount of money for investers across the board and the world would be a better place for it.

    You present as something without any empathy. Someone laments the state of things and you say: good way to make a profit and draw investors! Tone deaf.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 36 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Title: Scientists discover hidden switch that shuts down inflammation.

    In the article: "The treatment did not, however, significantly change outward signs such as redness or swelling."

    Uhh...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Blocking sEH increased epoxy-oxylipin levels, helped pain resolve more quickly, and sharply reduced the number of intermediate monocytes found in both the blood and tissue. These immune cells have been linked to persistent inflammation and the progression of inflammatory disease.

    redness/swelling aren't the only markers of inflammation in this context, as the cells that kick off the response do more harm than good when they wear out their welcome.

    monocytes are white blood cells that develop in bone marrow. i'm curious/interested in whether the same treatment affects mast cells that develop in connective tissue

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago

    They spent several paragraphs talking about how the test was setup but then said, well, we didn't see anything, so it must be reacting at a deeper level.

    Other than an apparent reduction in pain and a reduction in the number of monocytes, there was no mechanism to make the claim that they could switch off inflammation.

    I was hoping for a little more than that.

    The best claim the article should have made was they found a way to reduce monocytes, which have been shown to be associated with the body's inflammation response

    They still don't even understand how the monocyte side of the equation really works either.

    I don't disagree that this should lead to more testing, and I also hope that it might lead to better treatments but that title sits firmly in the "clickbait" arena for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    What’s the opposite of inflammation? Can it go too far in the other direction?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    Yes. Studies show that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like Advil and Tylenol can actually supress gains in the gym if taken in excess because the natural muscle breakdown, inflammation, and response mechanism is blunted. Same is true for ice baths. So, sometimes swelling and inflammation can be a good thing that we want to occur.

    Also staying on prednisone and other steroids too long to supress inflammation leads to all kinds of issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Tylenol is not an NSAID. It doesn't work on inflammation.

    Also, there was a study a year or so ago that found evidence that Ibuprofen after working out helped speed recovery times.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Speeding recovery times has a tradeoff though. It may be negligible but I heard on an exercise science podcast of some kind that it blunts the recovery process so if maximizing muscle growth is your goal, don't overdo nsaids.

    However, like you said, if you're an NFL athlete during the season then recovery is the priority over muscle growth and then ice baths and nsaids and inflammation reducing things are worth the trade off.

    My mistake on Tylenol being an nsaid. Obvious hindsight. Brain fart.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    This week's UC London miracle cure.

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/world view that post
    [–] 10 points 1 month ago