Submitted by AdmiralKurita t3_y5cewv in Futurology
Comments
RottenBananaCore t1_isjfk2r wrote
Worth reading for how progress was being made until we collectively got sidetracked by the (wrong) genetic theory of cancer : “Tripping over the Truth: The Metabolic Theory of Cancer”
KFUP t1_iskn4lg wrote
At least it wasn't intentionally doctored unlike the leading theory on Alzheimer’s that caused the whole Alzheimer’s research go in the wrong direction for almost 20 years.
paulfdietz t1_isjp8xi wrote
> There are a few more targeted therapies.
Cancer is many diseases. Your complaint is like "We haven't cured illness. There are a few targeted therapies."
raynorelyp t1_isk48zs wrote
I mean… there are a lot of viruses but vaccines are effective against basically all of them except a few. And even those few we’ve basically solved at this point, we just haven’t finished the trials.
Edit: a lot of people seem to be weirdly skeptical of mRNA or are pretending we have anything remotely close to that for cancer. Ironically the closest thing to an mRNA vaccine equivalent for cancer is… a literal mRNA vaccine.
SnapcasterWizard t1_iskivrv wrote
??? It takes a lot of time and effort to develop a new vaccine. We dont have a universal "anti virus" vaccine.
raynorelyp t1_isl10sn wrote
No, but we have a near universal strategy in using traditional and mRNA vaccines. The only viruses I haven’t heard that we can use it for already have other working solutions.
We don’t have anything remotely close there that as a strategy for cancer. Chemo is insanely destructive to our bodies.
TheGoodFight2015 t1_isko8gn wrote
No this is wrong, please edit this. There are many viruses, and every novel virus requires a new vaccine to be developed and tested for safety and efficacy. That means the vaccine needs to #1 not hurt people, and #2 actually protect against the worst effects of the infection (a bonus /ideal #3 is effective prevention of getting sick and being contagious).
raynorelyp t1_isl0o54 wrote
Are you saying mRNA vaccines won’t eventually solve almost every virus and for the rest like HIV we don’t already have medicine effectively curing it in a lot of cases?
LightOfTheElessar t1_isll0zf wrote
I'm pretty sure the gist of what they're saying is that you were massively oversimplying medical research. For my own two cents, I think the development of mRNA vaccines is amazing, but it's extremely off putting to see it get held up as the one stop shop for "solving almost every virus" so soon. Pump the brakes a bit and let the research and development finish running it's course for more vaccines before taking victory laps, for lack of a better phrase, that big.
Odeeum t1_isk0v0z wrote
Wife has BRCA1...opted for double mastectomy a few years ago. No regrets as it was a huge stressor given her family history of cancers, specifically breast.
We haven't tested out daughters yet but they're aware so this is really cool news.
deedeebop t1_isko556 wrote
Interesting. How does one go about acquiring the test for BRCA1 or BRCA2… is it expensive? Or is there a way for it to be covered by ins? (Woman, 46 asking.)
Unbr3akableSwrd t1_iskruy0 wrote
Usually, if you have a family history, you can and should be tested. I believe that insurance company usually paid for it because earlier catch of the illness can save them more monies down the road.
Or I could be totally wrong.
gudfred t1_isl419y wrote
I work as a cancer genetic counselor. If you meet criteria for testing/insurance coverage, then in my experience most patients end up paying $100 or less out of pocket. There are a couple labs where you can also self-pay (and avoid going through insurance) for a flat rate of $250.
I strongly encourage people to try and meet with a genetic counselor, as I've seen PCPs either order the wrong test or do it through a lab that costs more than necessary. Also, when other providers decide to order testing and it comes back positive, they often refer to a genetic counselor to discuss the implications of results anyway. There are genes other than BRCA1 and BRCA2 that we test for, but not every test is the right fit for each individual so it's important to understand your testing options and the pros and cons of those options.
Many genetic counseling clinics offer remote telehealth appointments so you don't necessarily need to travel to a hospital to be seen. Here is a good resource to locate a genetic counselor in your area: https://findageneticcounselor.nsgc.org/
deedeebop t1_islsy28 wrote
Hey thank you so much for this valuable insight! I really appreciate that you took the time to tell me (all of us) about that. I will have to look into this. There is no real family history here but I’m still curious… and as far as criteria… is that what would qualify? A family history of some kind?
gudfred t1_ismmhwb wrote
The criteria are factors of your personal and family history that are suggestive of a hereditary cancer syndrome. They help guide who has a higher likelihood of having one of these syndromes as they are typically quite rare and we want to focus our efforts on people with an elevated chance of benefiting from the results. Unfortunately, insurance often uses the same criteria for determining whether they will cover genetic testing.
That being said, I do see patients in clinic who don't meet these criteria but are still interested in testing and they often just pay the $250. If someone really wants the information, I'd rather they do it through a genetic counselor who can fully explain the testing as well as any results that come back than to find some other way of doing it themselves and possibly getting untrustworthy results, results they don't know how to interpret, or even the wrong test for what they were trying to learn.
I've had some patients who had gone to significant lengths to get testing done themselves and then an odd result comes up... They still end up in our clinic and may even need to get confirmatory testing at a reputable lab to confirm their initial result! My job isn't to be a barrier to testing, it's to empower patients by helping them understand what genetics can and cannot do when it comes to their risk of developing cancer. Hope that all helps!
deedeebop t1_isn930n wrote
Wow, one thing I can say it’s that you’re an amazing person! Thanks for sharing and thanks for helping so many people.
Odeeum t1_iskt8eh wrote
It was more difficult than it should have been tbh. My wife had a leg up as her aunt had a complete genetic screening a few years befire that flagged it in the family...this allowed my wife to use her paperwork to take to her PCP and get her own test done for it.
Cancer was prevalent on both sides of her family so it was a spectre lurking in her mind her whole adult life. She didn't hesitate as soon as the test came back positive...it was actually quite a relief and has zero regrets. The surgery was fully covered by our insurance as well as the follow up plastic surgery for her replacememt boobs.
This was several years ago though and I believe it's much easier to get tested. I think 23andMe actually has added it to the list of things they can test now too.
gudfred t1_isl4mfz wrote
I also replied to the above question, but read your response and figured I'd mention that 23andme does not currently have FDA approval for BRCA1 and BRCA2 full gene analysis, only for the Ashkenazi Jewish founder mutations. A lot of people think they did BRCA testing through 23andme but it wasn't actually comprehensive and more testing may be recommended. Sorry to hear that your wife had difficulty in getting her genetic testing done!
Odeeum t1_isln2bf wrote
Oh awesome, thanks for the info...I signed up with 23andme really early on and loved it but haven't kept up the last couple years. Thanks for thr kind words, I can only assume things are much easier now to get tested.
[deleted] t1_islk44p wrote
[removed]
NapClub t1_isj87v6 wrote
i think the pig heart valve protein based treatment is very promising but it's still years, maybe a decade, away from being really reliable i think.
AstriumViator t1_ism1owu wrote
You know what? Ill take what we can get. If these guys ever plan on testing these on people in the future, im 100% willing to take it. Ive got a long family history of breast cancer, and theres no doubt in my mind im next at some point.
Ok_Wolverine_1904 t1_isj6dec wrote
Cancer sucks to watch and harder to deal with. They need to figure this out and share as much research as they can to beat it! Big pharma has the resources but they need to stop using chemo as the only very expensive option
A_Shadow t1_iskhzue wrote
The stopped using chemo as the only option decades ago btw.
In some cases of advanced cancer then yes, chemo would be the only or best option.
_Silvestris_ t1_isjigmd wrote
When this is out some day in the future, I wonder if all the stupid Covid antivaxxers would refuse this one too or would they flock on it
JohnBPrettyGood t1_isjm33m wrote
It would help if the Vaccine was introduced by Veterinarians.
d0rito5 t1_isjujti wrote
I'm not sure about that anymore. I'm seeing local anti-vaxxers refusing to give their dogs rabies shots now. This is what human stupidity has wrought.
maowsers93 t1_iskgpal wrote
Ho-ly shit! Is this for real? Are they really so intense that they’re against rabies vaccines now?
myaltaccount333 t1_iskkrjb wrote
Wouldn't want an autistic dog now!
deedeebop t1_iskooxn wrote
Funny story. Coworker is mega maga antivax. Started out as just antivax a few years before the trump bullshit came along to accompany that stupidity. Anyway her main reason for skipping vaccines (Even though she herself was fully vaccinated/PROTECTED as a child…) was the fear of her child becoming autistic. Well… 7 years and no-vaxes later and he is very, very autistic. It just goes to show ya 🤷♀️
[deleted] t1_isllata wrote
[deleted]
echobox_rex t1_isjmipz wrote
LOL no shit.
usernamenumber3 t1_iskivh0 wrote
Albert Bourla has a doctorate from a vet school.
HellsMalice t1_isks2z4 wrote
"Ah yes this wondrous all natural human breast dewormer will heal all your woes, and smells of lavender"
That'll get 'em.
hexydes t1_islxou5 wrote
Does it contain elderberry?
jgainit t1_iskxn2y wrote
I wanna sneak into a vet office to get my lime disease vaccination ;(
goldmanstocks t1_isjldl7 wrote
If it even had a marginally higher success rate than chemotherapy, there would still be a loud section of the population parroting Facebook memes and posts about how the side effects kill you.
kolitics t1_iskr3j1 wrote
Antivaxxers would probably refuse the vaccine. Covid antivaxxers would probably want to see long term data and oppose mandates.
TinfoilTobaggan t1_iskwdm6 wrote
They'll jump on it for themselves, but do everything possible to prevent others from using it.. Also alot of em who have had to suffer through treatment for it will do their best to make sure others suffer like they did..
Sauteedmushroom2 t1_isk29em wrote
Truth. As someone who jumped in line to get the Covid vax, I’d jump again for a freaking cancer vaccine. A couple years of trials would make me jump faster though.
kolitics t1_iskpu1m wrote
Would you participate in the trial?
Sauteedmushroom2 t1_iskxju6 wrote
Only because I’m a single parent that if I get seriously wrecked, my child really has no great option, not at this time. In another time, sure.
[deleted] t1_iskd546 wrote
[removed]
Orlando1701 t1_isljyhq wrote
The MAGA yokels will say this is a government conspiracy at population control then list 13 dates where it’s supposed to activate and kill everyone.
GeforcerFX t1_isn2j5p wrote
Does it matter? you can't spread cancer like a virus, if they want to avoid medical techniques for some reason that only effect there lives that's there choice.
Dapaaads t1_isjqsij wrote
I mean if you can’t tell the difference between an actual vaccine(polio) and what the Covid one is…. It is not the same. I got it, but vaccine means prevention, we don’t have that for Covid
d0rito5 t1_isjtk0h wrote
There is no difference. They both only prevent the severity of infection and the degree to which disease develops. Vaccines aren't magical virus shields.
Covid has a super short incubation period, so the immune response isn't fast enough to stop symptomatic cold-like disease. But it does stop it from progressing into severe disease.
That's exactly what the polio vaccine does, but in the intestines. It stops it from progressing to the nervous system.
Spector567 t1_isjud78 wrote
It’s almost like they set themselves up. Good response.
[deleted] t1_iskv5my wrote
[removed]
GWsublime t1_isjuntn wrote
I'll bite, what do you think the difference is?
thelonerainer t1_iskcpas wrote
They don’t have any reasons for their opinions besides “libs liked vaccines so it’s bad”
Odeeum t1_isjxbhi wrote
I'm glad you got it but that's not at all how vaccines work. Both are vaccines but the two diseases don't react and respond the same to vaccines which is probably the source of confusion. Someone below me summarized it nicely.
_Silvestris_ t1_iskdezr wrote
That’s the stupidest comment I’ve read this whole week. Congratulations on your stupidity.
the_perennial_Sophia t1_isjonyc wrote
1st step is to start call it what it is: it gene therapy.
_Silvestris_ t1_isjowcw wrote
I would take it any day over chemotherapy or double mastectomy.
swordsaintzero t1_islc1rf wrote
One of the best examples of confidently incorrect I've ever seen.
[deleted] t1_isjqgew wrote
[removed]
tlighta t1_isjry7z wrote
Its not gene therapy.
mcscom t1_isjtpe8 wrote
What's wrong with gene therapy?
GWsublime t1_isjur1v wrote
Nothing, but this isn't that
grimtrigger86 t1_isjvap2 wrote
Is vaccine actually an accurate descriptor for it though? Cancer is abnormal cells dividing uncontrollably destroying tissue. Or are we changing the definition of vaccine again
GWsublime t1_isjvrr5 wrote
Yeah vaccine would be the right description. A vaccine for a certain kind of breast cancer would be training the immune system to recognize and respond to a surface protein unique to that cancer in the same way that a vaccine for, say, mumps trains the immune system to recognize and respond to a surface protein unique to paramyxoviruses.
Wiggie49 t1_isjx1m7 wrote
Do cancerous cells have identifying proteins that differ from the patient’s cells? Cancers aren’t exactly foreign bodies so wouldn’t they pretty much look the same outside of the fact that they are immortal cancerous cells?
GWsublime t1_isk9or9 wrote
They do, yes. The mutations that, allow the cells to divide also cause conformatuonal changes. Thats what cancer vaccines target (as do some existing therapies) when the article speaks of triple negative breast cancer it's referring to breast cancer where three surface proteins usually targeted by conventional therapies are absent.
mcscom t1_isjzcxd wrote
All cancer have some mutations that would make them different from normal tissue. The question is just how targetable those mutations are by the immune system
Wiggie49 t1_isk18k8 wrote
I thought that was all just visually different, like I thought on a microscopic level it looks the same to our immune system.
GWsublime t1_iska3b3 wrote
No, our immune system can and does fight cancer, usually very successfully. Unfortunately it can be too slow and when it is you get to a point where the immune system can't keep up or can't access the cancerous tissue
mcscom t1_iskm9g2 wrote
All cancers (so far) have some amount of DNA changes in them that make them different from the rest of the body. The number and type of DNA mutations varies greatly depending on the type of cancer. Whether and how much these changes are "detectable" by the immune system varies as well, but theoretically it should be possible to design vaccines or other immune therapies for any type of cancer.
Wiggie49 t1_ismq6u2 wrote
Yeah I was never that great at microbiology, good to kno tho
grimtrigger86 t1_isjwdib wrote
Is there a unique surface protein for breast cancer, as opposed to any other type of cancer? It seems odd that the immune system would be used to attack cell growth
GWsublime t1_isjx514 wrote
That's what they are working on in this article and they seem to have a target. Cancer isn't cell growth its uncontrolled cell growth cause by damage to the systems that regulate that. Specific types of damage could and probably do result in specific conformal changes. Also, the immune system often does recognize and kill cancerous cells without any external input so there is definitely something to target.
grimtrigger86 t1_isjxg8y wrote
Well yeah, I specified uncontrolled in the initial post. It's still cell growth, and referred to it as such for the sake of brevity because I already established that it's considered uncontrolled. That all being said. Any efficiency of communication went out the window with this explanatory post
GWsublime t1_isjxvns wrote
Right but there's a significant difference. No, you can't target cell growth, that kills the human. Yes you can target uncontrolled cell growth as long as that comes along with some sort of conformational change.
TheGoodFight2015 t1_iskomy3 wrote
Edit to clarify and include more about the immune system:
Look up T cells. They’re called cytotoxic for a reason: they kill cells that contain virus or other disease like cancer.
Our bodies also perform a technique called autophagy all the time. It literally means eating one-self, and it’s to clean up dead and defective cells, save resources, etc.
kolitics t1_isks43l wrote
Nothing unless you rebrand it as a vaccine to downplay the risks. As I understand this is not a gene therapy though, it is a vaccine to trigger immune response against proteins uniquely expressed on the surface of cancer cells. The risk would be the proteins are not as unique as you thought and you become autoimmune.
shadowst17 t1_isjnhv7 wrote
If there's one thing the world can Unite behind it's saving titties
trent1055 t1_islict9 wrote
Sad to think in 50+ years we could have vaccines for cancer. But no cure. Incredibly sad actually
AdmiralKurita OP t1_islv0de wrote
Yeah, it is a diminished vision of the future. You only have something that can reduce the possibility of recurrence or reduce its emergence in vulnerable individuals, but not effectively treat it when it occurs.
It is possible that many cancers could be arrested in 50 years, like HIV with antiretrovirals.
Alkans_bookshelf t1_isjxac0 wrote
Guaranteed dumb-ass conservatives will figure out a way to sound insane on this topic
Blueprint81 t1_iskb9ei wrote
See comment above yours...lol
Emergencycallout t1_isljw65 wrote
Sounds like a problem that will eventually solve itself.
kiroks t1_iskq8bg wrote
Can someone explain to me what s vaccine is please. I thought this wouldn't be a thing? Are we now including different medicine under the vaccine title?
Better-Ad6812 t1_islswme wrote
I hope I’m around to have a chance at this. Stage 4 10 year MBC statistics aren’t great.
[deleted] t1_isix6q3 wrote
[removed]
FuturologyBot t1_isixs1n wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/AdmiralKurita:
Article states that the vaccine may be available in ten years or so. A potential use for these vaccines is to vaccinate those with a predisposition for cancer, such as those with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations or those who had cancer and are at risk for re-occurrence, as oppose who have advanced cancer.
Oddly enough, the article agrees with my negative assessment on the progress of oncology over the last few decades:
>A breakthrough like that can’t come soon enough, say breast cancer
advocates. “I was diagnosed in 1987, and I wasn’t treated much
differently from what is available today, in terms of surgery and
chemotherapy,” says Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer
Coalition, an advocacy organization. “Yes, there is a lot of focus on
immunotherapy, and that’s exciting from a research perspective. But it
hasn’t really made a difference in women’s lives yet.”
There are a few more targeted therapies.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/y5cewv/the_race_to_make_a_vaccine_for_breast_cancer/isivp4t/
[deleted] t1_isizjxs wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isj0t4n wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isje6zf wrote
[removed]
blacklivesmattteeer t1_isjr8be wrote
Vaccines are literally the future, honestly it will be interesting to see the eventual die off of redneck freedum idiots who refuse the beauty of science. Natural selection i guess!
Alecrizzle t1_isksuzp wrote
You seem like such a nice person
swordsaintzero t1_islbvve wrote
Being nice to your enemies is fucking overrated.
[deleted] t1_iskvjz2 wrote
[removed]
TheGamerHat t1_isly67d wrote
Y'all Qaeda
[deleted] t1_isjuox5 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isk8xm6 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iski7x3 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iskpwuv wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iskq9v7 wrote
[removed]
jgainit t1_isky1kt wrote
This is exciting! I am not a female but an aunt had breast cancer and my mom has the gene that makes it really likely to get it as she ages
i_suckatjavascript t1_isljw3c wrote
Believe it or not, men can get breast cancer too. However, the good news is that they make up less than 1% of all breast cancer diagnosis so get checked up if you feel like you have the symptoms.
[deleted] t1_iskzfvb wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isjt6yy wrote
[deleted]
d0rito5 t1_isjus40 wrote
We already vaccinate for plenty of things that aren't viruses. As long as you can train the human immune system to recognize and destroy it, you can vaccinate against it.
lorenzotinzenzo t1_isjw1lc wrote
ELI5 how exactly you teach the immune system to attack something? I mean, let's say immune system is a dog. Let's say that cancer is a cat entering the house (the body). Now, the problem is that normally the dog wouldn't attack the cat. Now, with a vaccine you are putting a stuffed cat in the house to have the dog attack it and learn that behavior. What I don't understand is how you tell the dog that the stuffed cat must be attacked.
d0rito5 t1_isjx4nc wrote
Yes, you have to train the dog to recognize the cat as an enemy, so you take a rat and put some cat smell on it, then let it loose in the house. The dog will catch the rat and associate that smell with an intruder. Now the dog will recognize both cats and rats as threats in the future and chase both of them.
GWsublime t1_isjuq9l wrote
That's not how vaccines work
[deleted] t1_isjvusn wrote
[deleted]
CelestineCrystal t1_iskl7pw wrote
it’s also supposed to help some to cut out animal products. luckily we can start that now
[deleted] t1_iskvkj3 wrote
[deleted]
M-elephant t1_isl0qf6 wrote
We already had vaccines for types of covid discovered in prior years/decades and many covid 19 vaccines used that research to accelerate thier development process. This is much more unique than that
Edizzl720 t1_isl102q wrote
Really have to wonder if a cure for cancer would ever be released in the event. Treatment is much more profitable.
M-elephant t1_isl2qur wrote
We have a vaccine for cervical cancer so I imagine this will get released.
WR_MouseThrow t1_iso75vl wrote
There are a few differences between cancer cells and viruses that might account for that.
TikkiTakiTomtom t1_isk57bf wrote
It’s kind of weird seeing the term vaccine being thrown around everywhere nowadays.
A_Shadow t1_iskikll wrote
Why? A vaccine is very simple, training the human immune system to target a specific antigen.
That's what's its always been, the only difference is that we have gotten better at making them.
TikkiTakiTomtom t1_iskpru3 wrote
I was saying more like it’s commonspeak now ever since the pandemic happened. From people on the street to news media. A decade ago this article would have been titled “A Race For The Cure” or something to that effect.
A_Shadow t1_iskwnpb wrote
Fair enough I get what you are saying now and I agree with you in that. Although I would prefer this to what it was in the past since this is a bit more accurate.
The "whole race for the cure" suggests that there is one magic bullet for cancer. But there isn't, because cancer is a very broad term and there are 1000s of different cancers. It's like saying one antibiotic for all bacterial infections ever.
HellsMalice t1_iskstzi wrote
Almost like technology has advanced to allow greater healthcare through things like the development of vaccines.
What a shocking revelation.
TikkiTakiTomtom t1_iskvo9q wrote
Sorry but not the point I was making
jgainit t1_iskxvtq wrote
Dumb point
[deleted] t1_isk1377 wrote
[deleted]
A_Shadow t1_iskf5ja wrote
While this article is definitely click bait, the idea that cancer treatment has not changed is absurdly wrong.
Look up the difference in survival rates of melanoma or childhood leukemia now compared to a few decades ago.
[deleted] t1_iskft34 wrote
I'm talking about the full on treatment via vaccine or some special pill. All that has been done is literally hook people to profitable drugs. Yes, the profitable drugs are better than they used to be. But not by much. Survival means very little. You are hooked to shitty drugs for the rest of your life in many of these cases.
GWsublime t1_iskhhi4 wrote
Cite that please. Unless treatment fails I'm not aware of any chemotherapy that you need to be on for the rest of your life.
AstriumViator t1_ism2t4b wrote
Do you have experience in this case?
My dad had stage 4 stomach cancer that spread to his bones and eventually his brain. The medicines he was on was to help with nausea from the aggressive treatment, he was given medicine for anxiety, for pain, for trouble sleeping, etc. All this medicine was to help him have enough energy to try to keep fighting cancer. He knew exactly what was happening, and he still wanted a fighting chance and doctors gave him that. When it did spread to his brain, that was when they told him and my mom that treatment very likely will do more harm than good anymore. And they were concerned with the quality of life over longevity at that point. They gave him the option to quit or keep going. He quit, because he wanted to be able to travel.
My point is, hospitals arent trying to make you hooked. They just want you to feel good enough to get going, and hopefully get better permanently. If that's not feasible, they talk to you about your options, like they do from day one.
gameartist3d t1_iska56l wrote
There is no race. They're taking their time to milk the issue as much as possible. Before anybody downvotes me, look into medical fraud. We have lists of compounds that cure cancer that are completely ignored.
A_Shadow t1_iskeh2x wrote
Just because something cures cancer in a petri dish doesn't mean it cures cancer in an actual human being.
Bleach kills cancer cells but we aren't drinking bleach are we?
And with 1000s of different drug companies worldwide all trying to get the edge on each other, they aren't trying to hide some secret miracle cure.
They would want to release it ASAP so that there is no competition to their products; holding on to it just allows other competitors to work on their R&D in the meantime and possibly make something better or cheaper.
tim36272 t1_iskrtdm wrote
Yeah this is a rare time to praise capitalism. If your company has the "miracle cure" you might sell it for a million dollars a dose, but you're definitely going to sell it.
uroburro t1_iskuy4x wrote
Stop spreading conspiracy theories and disinformation. I am a biomedical scientist working on developing new cancer therapies. What you posted is completely false.
gameartist3d t1_isle6z7 wrote
Disinformation?
Clearly you're fresh into the field because we've been in a drug war for decades which has impeded research.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7409346/
The entire time, our government was well aware of the natural benefits.
The for profit american health system is largely influenced by the pharmaceutical companies, research is usually focused for patents and profit.
You can watch "weed the people" if you like documentaries.
This doesn't just effect cannabis research, this effects all drugs that could potentially be used for therapy. But radiation is the go to. It's becoming more progressive but disinformation? Please just look at recent history.
uroburro t1_iso2lv8 wrote
This weekend I’m presenting at an AACR conference. I’ll be sure to let everyone know that someone on Reddit told me “we have lists of compounds that cure cancer”
gameartist3d t1_isor5dz wrote
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/health/research/28cancer.html
Well members of the conference seem to agree with me.
RSO oil has now been reported at putting even some of the most devastating cancers such as skin cancer into remission.
The industry is way behind and missing out and if you want to use your position to pretend that the AACR is doing everything they can when 15 year olds are making more progress. . . . Then go ahead.
WR_MouseThrow t1_iso3sqy wrote
None of those links are to lists of compounds that cure cancer.
HellsMalice t1_isksm79 wrote
The list:
-Horse dewormer
-Vitamin B
-Clove oil
-Thoughts and prayers
did I miss any?
Oh yeah
-Bleach
[deleted] t1_ismip4a wrote
[removed]
VallryBagr t1_isjv210 wrote
Highly doubt anyone will see this vaccine. Theirs no money in a cure. This vaccine will only be available to the 1%
A_Shadow t1_iskg4v8 wrote
Spoken like someone not in the medical field.
There are already vaccines for cervical cancer.
And oh, that cervical cancer vaccine is widely available and in fact the US actually passed a law stating insurance has to pay 100% of the vaccine to all eligible patients. If you don't have insurance, the US government will pay for it anyways.
India recently launched their version of the cervical cancer vaccine that they were able to make significantly cheaper per person ($2-5).
There is also a vaccine for melanoma as well. Although it's less common these days because we have better and newer treatment options for melanoma (immunotherapy).
Unbr3akableSwrd t1_isksvlf wrote
You can cure cancer and still profit from other illnesses down the road. If I learned anything, the longer you live, the more medical expenses you will spend.
trabso t1_isk68n4 wrote
Interesting that science assumes cancer is a bad thing. Firefighters showing up at one's house is a bad thing...uh, kind of. But kind of not.
divat10 t1_iskf3lm wrote
How is 't cancer a bad thing?
WR_MouseThrow t1_iso6x1h wrote
>Interesting that science assumes cancer is a bad thing
Interesting that you think it's an assumption.
[deleted] t1_isjeorq wrote
[deleted]
bizon1829 t1_isjitmr wrote
Your ignorance is showing. I'd be thrilled if it is was as good as the Covid vaccine. The difference in infection severity between those who are vaccinated and those who aren't has been proven several times over.
[deleted] t1_isjktn4 wrote
[removed]
byrby t1_isjmgo2 wrote
Provide literally one source.
PDaniel1990 t1_isjo7so wrote
https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/study-covid-vax-increases-risk-of-infection/
Ok, one source, as requested, though i don't know why I bother. You won't accept any source, no matter how many I bring.
byrby t1_isjpeae wrote
Lovely. Now please indicate where your source indicates it is “much higher in the vaccinated.” Because your source doesn’t seem to make that claim, nor does the article it cites.
whoskey t1_isjrdrc wrote
I read both the Clark County Today article, which horribly misrepresents the science, and the actual NEJM article, which also does not support the argument you are making.
The NEJM article says the following:
-
The effectiveness of previous infection alone against symptomatic BA.2 infection was 39.5-51.9%
-
The effectiveness of vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was negligible (−1.1%; 95% CI, −7.1 to 4.6), but nearly all persons had received their second dose more than 6 months earlier.
-
The effectiveness of three doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was 48.1-55.9%
-
The effectiveness of previous infection and two doses of BNT162b2 was 50.9-58.9%
-
The effectiveness of previous infection and three doses of BNT162b2 was 72.4-81.4%
They are defining effectiveness as being against “symptomatic COVID” for these numbers, so you cannot draw any conclusions about disease severity from these numbers (which is where your conclusions are inaccurate). In terms of disease severity in these populations, this is what the paper had to say:
“Even though the five forms of immunity investigated showed large differences in protection against symptomatic infection that ranged from 0 to 80%, they all showed strong protection against Covid-19–related hospitalization and death, at an effectiveness of more than 70%. This suggests that any form of previous immunity, whether induced by previous infection or vaccination, is associated with strong and durable protection against Covid-19–related hospitalization and death.”
So, in conclusion, I read your source, as well as the actual scientific data the article is supposedly pulling from, and the argument you are trying to make based on this data is specious and unsupported.
bizon1829 t1_isjq01p wrote
That article doesn't provide a source or link to the study in question. All it does is link to a website that has been rated as having a conservative bias.
I'd be genuinely interested to read the study if you can provide it.
Edit: I decide to try and find it myself. Needless to say, there aren't any studies in the NEJM that support this claim with the confidence that the above comment suggests. However, this is the best guess as to the study in question: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2119451
If you read through it, it does state that protection wanes significantly at 20 - 24 weeks (5 - 6 months), and this was already known. It does not, however, state that natural immunity is stronger or longer lasting than vaccination. It also states several times over that the results need to taken with caution and that more research will be needed.
Motiak t1_isjsxpm wrote
That's pretty clearly comparing those who are vaccinated to those who are previously infected. Not vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
XAlphaOX t1_isjt10m wrote
Here's a link to the study for everyone else: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203965
I did a quick read of the study, and the study is comparing previous infection immunity with vaccination immunity. It does not say anything about being unvaccinated with no prior infection.
TL;DR of the study is 2 dose vaccination is similar or slightly worse than natural immunity through previous covid infection, 3 dose immunity is better, and previous infection + booster is best.
So I would say your claims of being unvaccinated is better is misleading at best. You must be unvaccinated and also have immunity through a previous infection. But again, the study claims higher efficacy to be previously infected and have a booster, so vaccinations are still better.
thelonerainer t1_iskeuov wrote
I apologize man but if you actually read the study instead of some “journalists” paraphrasing of it you would see that it clearly says that the vaccines are worse than someone who had covid antibodies. Basically it is saying you need to have had covid within a few months of contracting the next case to have higher effectiveness (from antibodies) than the vaccines. So if you want to risk yourself and infect yourself with a disease just so you can be safer if you get it a second time, be my guest. But don’t lie about it.
billdb t1_isjojhx wrote
Are you suggesting that the severity of COVID-19 effects are higher/worse in vaccinated individuals than in non-vaccinated individuals? Would love to see some proof for that. The CDC would also prob be interested lol
geminimad4 t1_isjo584 wrote
What is this “it” you’re referring to? Infection severity?
edited typos
[deleted] t1_isjtwgl wrote
[deleted]
billdb t1_isjoalo wrote
I swear the anti-covid vaxxers just flock to any thread about vaccines to profess their views about the covid vaccine. Yall need to take up a hobby or something lol
January28thSixers t1_isjhsjk wrote
You don't belong.
[deleted] t1_iskwenv wrote
[removed]
seansy5000 t1_isjirme wrote
Says the unvaxxed asshole spreading the disease…
[deleted] t1_iskvm4v wrote
[removed]
dubamamorange t1_isk0rcf wrote
you know even the vaccine companies are denying that they ever said that misinformation you are spreading
[deleted] t1_isk37x6 wrote
[removed]
thelonerainer t1_iskcz5r wrote
Just because you were too stupid to become a researcher doesn’t mean it’s not possible. Imagine if we gave up before the polio vaccine? Jesus you sound stupid. “Why try” LMAO
Edit: the guys last message was essentially telling me to eat some form of poison. I’m not surprised for that to come from that kind of person but it is pretty dang funny
unchainedthor t1_iskw3p2 wrote
Polio vaccine doesn’t change how your body produces genetic material you fool
Don’t compare apples to cars yeeee lil dolt head
thelonerainer t1_iskw717 wrote
Uh oh someone doesn’t understand genetics
unchainedthor t1_iskwafl wrote
Uh oh, someone needs to order hemlock for dinner
AdmiralKurita OP t1_isivp4t wrote
Article states that the vaccine may be available in ten years or so. A potential use for these vaccines is to vaccinate those with a predisposition for cancer, such as those with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations or those who had cancer and are at risk for re-occurrence, as oppose who have advanced cancer.
Oddly enough, the article agrees with my negative assessment on the progress of oncology over the last few decades:
>A breakthrough like that can’t come soon enough, say breast cancer
advocates. “I was diagnosed in 1987, and I wasn’t treated much
differently from what is available today, in terms of surgery and
chemotherapy,” says Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer
Coalition, an advocacy organization. “Yes, there is a lot of focus on
immunotherapy, and that’s exciting from a research perspective. But it
hasn’t really made a difference in women’s lives yet.”
There are a few more targeted therapies.