Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

autotldr t1_j02p18y wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot)

> Researchers say they have successfully completed a trial of a personalised cancer vaccine that uses the same messenger-RNA technology as Covid jabs.

> Moderna's chief medical officer Paul Burton said: "This is a significant finding. It's the first randomised-trial testing of an mRNA therapeutic in cancer patients."It's shown a 44% relative reduction in the risk of dying of cancer or having your cancer progress.

> Dr Sam Godfrey from Cancer Research UK, said: "There is unlikely to be a single cure for cancer and we must focus on ways to tailor treatment for patients.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: cancer^#1 patients^#2 vaccine^#3 treatment^#4 new^#5

9

herewego199209 t1_j02jeeo wrote

Obviously, I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about since I'm not a scientist or an oncologist, but wouldn't it make more sense to develop technology that tracks cancer cell replication before it turns into full-blown cancer? Like let's say, and this is some futuristic sci-fi shit so hang with me here, you swallowed a capsule and that capsule lived inside of you and just tracked your cell replication, and then when it detects abnormal mutations it triggers you to get your blood checked to catch any signs of cancer forming and it can be eliminated before it turns into cancer. Most cancers if they can catch it early or before there's a tumor they're 100 percent treatable. Maybe they're already working on alternate versions of this idea, but I think with regards to cures for cancer it's been practically a century and it seems like we've made a small dent with immunotherapies and a few other things, but the dent is just not a big as you'd think with the money poured into the research and development of these things.

−2

isnotgoingtocomment t1_j02nifo wrote

No, for a variety of reasons. The main issue against the technology you describe is that for a capsule to detect abnormal cell replication, it would have to know what “normal” replication was, which is different for different cell types. That and many other very sciency reasons.

10

edgemint t1_j031jcz wrote

You basically answered your own question. You'd need "futuristic sci-fi shit" to pull that off. What you're proposing would require nanotechnology on a level that's straight out of a cyberpunk science fiction story.

7

estranho t1_j02ol8w wrote

> we've made a small dent with immunotherapies and a few other things, but the dent is just not a big as you'd think with the money poured into the research

I'm in my 40's and I never met either of my grandmothers because they died of breast cancer in their late 20s / early 30s. Two of my aunts are breast cancer survivors and are in their late 60s. I know SEVERAL cancer survivors, and even the ones who haven't survived ended up living a lot longer - and better quality life - than they would have a generation or two ago.

There's still work to be done, but we really have come a long way in treating cancer.

6

unresolved_m t1_j045at4 wrote

> we've made a small dent with immunotherapies

Not a small dent at all - Jimmy Carter got cured of cancer when he was in his 90s, which is nothing short of a miracle. Unfortunately the type of treatment he had is prohibitively expensive for most people and isn't covered by insurance.

4

Xe6s2 t1_j02piqh wrote

Thats what immune cells do, or do you mean the drug targets the cells dna, cause that would add another layer of complexity

1

mediaphage t1_j09eljm wrote

cancer fatality rates have dropped a lot over the last 20 years honestly. there's been an insane amount of work done. to your point, that's actually what a lot of work tries to do - a number of treatment strategies work on a cellular level because the cancer cell actually takes up too much of a drug.

> but I think with regards to cures for cancer it's been practically a century

lol the structure of dna was only published 69 (nice) years ago bud

1