Phoenix5869

Phoenix5869 OP t1_j6zze8f wrote

Reply to Cancer mRNA vaccine completes pivotal trial by Phoenix5869

From the article

Patients taking Keytruda for advanced melanoma were less likely to die, or have the skin cancer reoccur, if they also had the jab, mRNA-4157/V940, Moderna and MSD said.
The findings, in 157 patients, have not yet been scrutinised by independent experts or regulators.
More trials will be needed to check how effective the treatment might be.
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. That's an important finding and I think it has the potential to be a new paradigm in the treatment of cancer patients."

Tailormade to match each patient's cancer, the vaccine is very expensive to make - although, the company has not named a price.
Prof Alan Melcher from The Institute of Cancer Research said: "There's no question, this is very exciting. These results show the feasibility of making and delivering personalised vaccines to treat cancer, and that the vaccine can add benefit to current treatments.
"These results establish the principle that this complex technology is doable."
Consultant colorectal surgeon at the University of Birmingham Mr Andrew Beggs said: "Although early data, it is very encouraging that this is a likely effective treatment option in the future.
"This advance is likely to have important implications for metastatic cancer patients in the future and opens a new therapeutic avenue for these patients."
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. These results are grounds for optimism that the science which helped get us out of the pandemic could add another powerful treatment option for cancer in the future."

36

Phoenix5869 t1_j6mfql5 wrote

Reply to comment by GayHitIer in I love how the conversation about AI has developed on the sub recently by bachuna

I’m not saying it can’t do anything, but even the smartest ASI possible can’t break the laws of physics or do something that is impossible. and why are you so sure that it’l wanna do our dirty work? Why are we instantly saying A.I = slave? Imagine if you were created just to be an unpaid worker, how would you feel?

0

Phoenix5869 t1_j6m1ihg wrote

Reply to comment by GayHitIer in I love how the conversation about AI has developed on the sub recently by bachuna

Also what is AGI / ASI gonna do? Magically suck the excess co2 out of the air? Conjure up more resources (water, metals etc)? Wave a magic wand and turn our degrading soil nutrient rich?

some of you seem to think that all our problems will be solved and we dont have to worry about x. Youre in for a shock when those problems do hit you like a ton of bricks

−1

Phoenix5869 t1_j6fdrb8 wrote

Reply to comment by Vehks in How rapidly will ai change the biomedical field? What changes can be expected. by Smellz_Of_Elderberry

AI developed the covid vax? I didn't know that.

but yeah the FDA approval process takes a long time, and for good reason (they need to be proven safe and effective and stuff). even if the cure for (insert incurable ailment) was discovered tomorrow it would still have to go through years of testing first

3

Phoenix5869 t1_j6evlad wrote

Reply to comment by DarkCeldori in Why did 2003 to 2013 feel like more progress than 2013 to 2023? by questionasker577

>Ca akg preliminary data appears to show it reverses epigenetic age by years, and epigenetic changes appear to be the cause of aging. Resveratrol basically halts age related changes in gene expression in the heart, keeping it young indefinitely.

OK this is good, I didn't know that

>Sinclair is bringing blindness treatment to clinical trials within 1 or 2 years iirc.

Good, but unfortunately many promising blindness treatments fail in human trials. I hope it works obviously but I'm just warning you it might not

>Alzheimer progress was halted by melatonin in one case study in another it also halted parkinsons.

That's great, but again, many promising treatments fail later on.

>Regrowth of teeth is already in animal trials.

Regrowing teeth has been in clinical trials for decades

>As for organs it is likely we can use embryonic development for that and do humanized chimeras in pigs, the research is already quite advanced.

True, and from what I remember we are already using pig hearts as a scaffold, growing a patients own cells onto it to avoid rejection, and putting it into a patient.

>Cancer within years a company doing transfusions from cancer immune humans to normal humans will bring a product to market. There are also nanoparticle sponges from another company that appears highly effective.

Hopefully this works. In future we could work out how to make someone immune to cancer via gene editing etc

>True nanobots are likely to be the result of advanced synthetic biology using unevolvable designs. Recently ai has allowed for zinc finger design which will enable the edition of the genome at arbitrary points greatly accelerating progress. Also ai has beem able to predict many existing proteins and design novel ones with novel functions iirc just exactly what we need for nanobots.

I'm not saying nanobots will never happen, but we've been working on them for decades with little progress made.

Progress in genome editing is good but please try to remember that this is still in its infancy

Yh ai is helping a lot, they already designed a potential treatment / cure for a currently incurable and untreatable lung condition

1

Phoenix5869 t1_j6a6nfu wrote

Reply to Why did 2003 to 2013 feel like more progress than 2013 to 2023? by questionasker577

Most people dont like to admit it, but technology is slowing down significantly. Cures for aging or even treatments for it, nanobots, curing blindness / paralysis / alzheimers etc, lab grown / artifical organs etc or even regrowing teeth or a cure for the common cold are still decades away despite years upon years of ‘breakthroughs’.

im sure if you asked someone in 2013 what they think we would have in 2023, they would give an answer that seems ridiculous to us today. But no, 2023 is the same as 2003 except for smartphones, tablets, etc, better computers, and a few primitive gene therapies. What does that say about what 2043 or even 2053 will be like?

and if you dont believe me, go ask basically any expert in the relevant field(s) how far away even the simplest of these technologies are. You probably wont like what they tell you

−6