Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

The_Puss_Slayer t1_j7fnele wrote

Reply to comment by Agitated_Narwhal_92 in Sound Waves Trigger Anti-Cancer Immune Responses in Mice by dissolutewastrel

"Nooooo don't make broad stroke searches for multiple cancer treatments, only look at this exact specific theoretical treatment I deem as the best with 0 human trials"

What.

13

Agitated_Narwhal_92 t1_j7fnwa4 wrote

Are you serious, there have been multiple human trials woth CRISPR. WHAT. We keep hearing a fucktonn of cancer cure researches. Someone checked the algae that grows on a sloth's body because of mack of movement and found anti cancer properties in the algae. What are we, gunna harvest sloth algae now? What I meant is the money that is spent on cancer research is finite and such resource should be allocated to something that can give verifiable result in a reasonable time frame. Which CRISPR does. Sound waves, algae, Indian and Chinese mushrooms and herbs, might contain a lot of good properties that may help orevebt cancer to certain extent, doesn't mean we treat it the same way we treat CRISPR.

−10

sorenflying t1_j7fqb0q wrote

CRISPR was literally discovered in random bacteria, you can’t just not look at anything that has promising leads. Grant funded research requires you to apply for this money and preliminary data is given as reasoning for why the researcher should be funded for what they are interested in looking at, so this could have had very promising preliminary data for them to even get this far. Also not every treatment works for every single person, if CRISPR ever becomes a widespread treatment option it doesn’t guarantee that it works for every single person, immunotherapy has this very issue.

Source: Am a PhD candidate in a renowned cancer immunology lab

7

Noobexe1 t1_j7g9lmp wrote

CRISPR is less feasible than the kurzgesagt video you watched made you think. It’s an experimental technology, not some kind of button you press to remove cancer from people.

2