all 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 20 points 1 year ago (5 children)

They've been curing cancer for longer than I've been alive, but it's also clear that the treatments over time have gotten more effective. This makes me wonder though: if a 100% effective cure (or preventative) for cancer comes around, what will be the next big goal?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago*

    There are plenty of other horrific medical conditions without cures or significant funding into their research.

    Blanking on the medical name, but there's a disease that fucks the immune system into turning bruised flesh into bone. Most sufferers of it don't even make it to 20 years old. And the existing treatments to reduce it all have terrible side effects.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    if a 100% effective cure (or preventative) for cancer comes around, what will be the next big goal?

    Making the cure accessible. Some cancer treatments are more effective AND much more expensive. Companies may be looking for return on investment, or the treatment is tailor-made from the patient's own cells, and inherently labor intensive and hard to produce.

    Either way, curing 100% of the richest 5% who can afford it isn't the most satifying outcome.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I would hope this happens but who knows. It feels like making something as basic as insulin accessible is somehow controversial in the US, so it'd probably end up being accessible in other countries to cure cancer while in the US your insurance would pay $1m, never approve it for you, then max out your copay and somehow charge you more beyond that just for the consultation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    If we're talking in very general, "wishlist" ways, I would hope that a lot of the present cancer and vaccine research might make it possible in the future to correct birth defect prenatally. Things like congenital heart defects being fixed via gene editing during development versus surgically afterwards. Ditto for things like autoimmune or other inherited diseases.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago
    40 comments in c/goodnewseveryone@piefed.social view that post
    [–] 52 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    "When tested in a small animal model of acute myeloid leukemia"

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah but it's generally a good metric for how it will work in humans and leukemia is really tough to treat. Seems promising.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah but it’s generally a good metric for how it will work in humans

    LOL. no it is not.

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

    Lol. Bad day in the onco lab? I'm confused because most markers, immune responses and other induced responses present the exact fucking same in mice and humans. When these treatments work in humans it's almost always identical to the way it worked in the oncology mice. Hence why we use them.

    And because they always have cancer. But that's fucked up ethics stuff.

    What's your experience?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    By the time I get cancer, it's already going to be cured! That wasn't the plan though, time to start smoking.

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

    There are funner ways to get throat cancer :wink: :wink:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I get the joke, but is it true?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yep, HPV, but still worth it, just imagine how cool your epitaph will look

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Cant wait to never hear about it ever again! Cant wait to never hear about it ever again!

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Please let it be weed. Please let it be weed.

    Nope

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    people need to stop making weed such a good thing. its not 100% safe for you, even in non-smokable products.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I guess I'll add it to the "not 100% safe" list.

    Thanks! Hilarious

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    i was trying to make a serious point. people promote cannbis consumption but downplay booze and cigarettes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Someone's about to fall out of window after shooting himself in the face three times.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Sorry, I whooshed. Does this imply a conspiracy to keep cancer research secret?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    If anyone wants to know the actual reason, it's usually just the difference between in vitro and in vivo research. Classically illustrated by the humorous (and useless) factoid that listerine kills the HIV viroid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This sounds more reasonable.

    I mean, I can imagine why a conspiracy might develop. According to headlines, we’ve cured cancer hundreds of times now! So why do people still die from cancer? Maybe because big-_____ is stopping it. And maybe there are some one-off case examples that fit the theory.

    But we know for a fact that there’s a long tradition in science journalism of misrepresenting and overhyping the results of cancer research especially. And the typical omissions are IIRC: in vitro vs in vivo > rats vs humans > treatments targeting specific cancers that may not be generalizable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    ITs because we all know how money corrupts. For example, theres no money in cures. But theres endless money in treatments. The only shining light, if you want to look at it like that, is that theres no money in your dying. So... theres that. But theyd still rather you died than cure you. But they will be desperate to get us all on pills and injections that we need the rest of your lives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    There is HUGE money in developing a cure for cancer. You could literally sell that for a million dollars a dose, and insurance companies would STILL be happy to pay it because it's cheaper than the alternative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Right, I suspect that, even if we ignore just how singularly unifying cancer has become as an enemy to every echelon of society, there’s simply no way any individual or group of conspirators could or would keep a cure under wraps for very long.

    Like you said, profit is one good reason. As profitable as the cancer industry may be overall, any capitalist agent within the space with the sudden power to “sweep the board” and make an unforetold fortune in the process has little incentive to cooperate with their competitors.

    Another reason is the irrepressible selfishness and entitlement of the wealthy. There’s no way wealthy decision makers would choose their own death if a potential cure was near at hand. Assuming the cure was developed in secret, exclusively for the wealthy (which might actually happen at some point) it wouldn’t be possible to maintain such a secret for very long.

    Finally, if there is any truth to the speculation that a true general cure would, in effect, amount to a cure to aging itself, then in addition to the reasons above, any supposed conspiracy would face the impossible task of containing perhaps THE most catchy idea of human history. If that was actually possible, we might as well also believe in ancient myths like the Tree of Life, the Fountain of Youth, and the Holy Grail.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)