Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mokebe890 t1_itu47eh wrote

Reply to comment by tonymmorley in Merck pays Moderna $250m for personalized cancer vaccine by tonymmorley

43 years for 17% of survival rates? That's one very slow progress tho.

36

tonymmorley OP t1_itu51sr wrote

Well, there's some good news hidden in the data. Cancer rates will continue to rise, this is largely due to an aging population with a high life expectancy. On average, cancer is still a +50 disease. The fact that we're still making progress with an aging population is indicative of more progress than it looks. Travel back 100 years, and cancer rates were not as high, not because it was a synthetic chemical-free world, but rather because average life expectancy was not as high.

46

Mokebe890 t1_ituamvx wrote

Sure, and by no mean Im not happy about that. But we won't get much further with simple medicines. mRNA tech and tweaking our genes will prevent and treat cancer, which no lifestyle adjustments, medicine and other stuff will achieve.

Universally, the best way would be to adress aging itself as root od every disease and just cure aging as disease, reversing our bodies to youthfull state.

7

[deleted] t1_itw79ld wrote

[removed]

−5

Elibomenohp t1_itw7skc wrote

If you keep spreading the good word then you are going to drive demand up and price yourself out of tinfoil.

5

LayerTasty t1_itw9bsl wrote

and why would i need tin foil? i cook on cast iron

−4

Mokebe890 t1_itwzkx1 wrote

Holy crap you really believe that? Cancer is literally random mutations that occur in your body through DNA malfunction. And pretty everything alters it, even your body as your age because there is more replication errors.

All you have to do is bioengineering body to youthfull state and fight cancer by repairing DNA, not some nature bullshit you say.

1

Electrical-Bed8577 t1_itwnc4u wrote

"A +50 disease"? That's just because they keep saying, "you're too young to have that!" and finally diagnosing it 30 years later when it's totally obvious and maybe too late to do anything about it.

0

Showmethepathplease t1_itvbnnu wrote

It's an ~33% increase in five year survivor rates

At this rate, that would mean 85%+ will survive 5+ years by 2053 (30 years from today)

Pretty good no?

17

chesterbennediction t1_itvfbe0 wrote

To be fair most progress has only been in the last few years so we will likely see rates improve at a faster rate especially if we can find better screening methods.

9

LastExitToSalvation t1_itw9mi4 wrote

The overall increase in survival rates masks somewhat the huge progress made on some kinds of cancers and very little progress on others. The more common a cancer is, the more attention and investment it gets, the more patients you have for clinical trials, the drugs are developed, studies done, etc.

But if you have an exceptionally rare cancer, then that one is not going to have the some money, patients or attention, and so survival rates don't move much.

For example, the five year survival rate for stage 3 breast cancer is between 66 and 98%! For renal small cell carcinoma (aka kidney cancer, quite rare), stage 3-4 is a death sentence. Like 12% five year survival.

What we need is a breakthrough on getting the body to kill it's particular kind of cancer. All of us have cancer at any given moment, but it never grows because our bodies see it and kill it. Cancer grows when the body doesn't recognize what's there as something to kill, and that necessarily is a person to person issue. My body (as far as I know) has no problem killing kidney cancer. But someone else's body might not.

I didn't mean to write this much so to sum up, we don't just need better screening. We need personalized medicine that can get each of our bodies to kill the particular cancer our bodies are crap at killing. And in that sense, a personalized cancer vaccine is super, super exciting. Maybe we could get to a point where there is just one figure for 5 year survival and it is 99%. I hope we do.

6

AdmiralKurita t1_itulgti wrote

I'd think we would love a 50% survival rate for pancreatic cancer in the next 20 years.

5

Duke_Shambles t1_itvpcsp wrote

Progress in technology tends to increase at an exponential rate if it is being seriously pursued.

The first sustained powered and controlled flight by man happened in 1903

...We landed on the moon 66 years later.

In that context, if it took 47 years to get here, we're only at the beginning of the ramp, and it's possible that it will be something humanity overcomes well within the next 50 years.

5

GuiltyLawyer t1_itw4z0t wrote

Gonna blow you away when you see survival rate increases from 2013-2025. I'm working clinical trials that can't close because they're survival studies, meaning we follow the patients until they die. Many of these studies started around 2013-2015. We're having to combine these studies into a broad protocol so that we can continue to follow everyone.

3

LayerTasty t1_itw8kor wrote

this is already patently false. life expectancy is down. cancer is skyrocketing. the fact that billons of people have injected synthetic spike protein that self replicates causing a cancer explosion is proof that there will be a devistating consequence in the years coming.

−1

Protean_Protein t1_itvj0or wrote

Going from half of all cancer sufferers dying within 5 years to two thirds of them surviving longer seems pretty good.

1