Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Palpitating_Rattus t1_j8ewsm5 wrote

Reply to comment by myusernamehere1 in A study found that CBD "exerted anti-cancer activity by reducing epithelial-mesenchymal transition and causing cell cycle arrest." by OregonTripleBeam

It is also true so many things work in cell culture but not in actual patients. You can kill cancer cells if you put bleach into the dish. But if you put bleach in people you are not going to have a fun time.

10

myusernamehere1 t1_j8f3h17 wrote

If this is actually a point of contention for somebody then they dont need to worry about their scientific literacy, as it would be moot.

1

Palpitating_Rattus t1_j8f3ob1 wrote

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying every that works in vitro also works in vivo?

1

myusernamehere1 t1_j8f4e8c wrote

Absolutely not, i have no idea how you came to that conclusion. I am saying that cell cultures and organoids help to greatly accelerate research, and i dont get why their use would make a study any less valid. Your bleach example is a bad faith argument.

3

JoeyBE98 t1_j8ios0k wrote

His point entirely is that just because you can put 2 things in a tube and see something happen doesn't necessarily mean if you put that same chemical into our bloodstream it will react the exact same way if it encounters the same cells. There's thousands of drugs that kill cancer in a test tube, but do absolutely nothing when consumed by a human.

2

Palpitating_Rattus t1_j8f6elu wrote

Why is the bleach example a bad faith argument? I gave that as an example that promising in vitro results often fail to make it to the clinic. That statement is absolutely true.

You don't like bleach? Fine, if you put enough table salt into the dish, cancer cells die, but people who eat the same salt still get cancer all the time. Is that still a bad faith argument? Or how about the fact FCCP kills cancer cells in a dish but will likely also kill people if you give it to them?

In vitro research is important, but it should always be followed up by in vivo studies and clinical trials.

1

myusernamehere1 t1_j8ffa66 wrote

Believe it or not, cancer research is typically more advanced than just exposing cancer cells to caustic/toxic chemicals.

0

Palpitating_Rattus t1_j8fgxw8 wrote

>Believe it or not, cancer research is typically more advanced than just exposing cancer cells to caustic/toxic chemicals.

And how is this argument different from what I stated just prior?

> In vitro research is important, but it should always be followed up by in vivo studies and clinical trials.

1

Herbicidal_Maniac t1_j8f47dh wrote

Many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many things*

1

seamustheseagull t1_j8hii8g wrote

I mean, I recall having this exact conversation in class with our science teacher at 14. In theory, if you could extract all of someone's blood and subject it to bleach/alcohol/UV/etc then in theory some diseases could be cured.

But extracting all of someone's blood is not a thing. Not if you want them alive anyway.

1