Why do we need a cure for lupus?

I don't get "inoperable". You can't risk operation because it's too close to major arteries, nerves, yadda yadda. guess what...it's gonna kill the person anyway. it's worth a damn try. cut that shiat out dammit.

/least that's what I'd say if it were me.

Ok I skimmed the article.

It does indeed seem to be the first step to "curing" cancer.

So... I guess this is the last we'll ever hear about it?

/I've seen, like 25 stories at least here on Fark over the last 5 years detailing some new potential cure, never to be heard from again

ihatedumbpeople: I don't get "inoperable". You can't risk operation because it's too close to major arteries, nerves, yadda yadda. guess what...it's gonna kill the person anyway. it's worth a damn try. cut that shiat out dammit.

/least that's what I'd say if it were me.

Surgeons can be very, VERY vain. An operation like that could put them in journals everywhere, or screw up their numbers/percentage/whateverit'scalled

Phaeon: ihatedumbpeople: I don't get "inoperable". You can't risk operation because it's too close to major arteries, nerves, yadda yadda. guess what...it's gonna kill the person anyway. it's worth a damn try. cut that shiat out dammit.

/least that's what I'd say if it were me.

Surgeons can be very, VERY vain. An operation like that could put them in journals everywhere, or screw up their numbers/percentage/whateverit'scalled

Pfft...that kind of surgeon blows. You shouldn't care how many journals you're in, etc. Do the operation to try and save someone's life...if it works, great...you're in the news. if it doesn't, hell, you TRIED to save a life. That's something to most people too. I'd rather fail trying than not try at all.

ihatedumbpeople: Phaeon: ihatedumbpeople: I don't get "inoperable". You can't risk operation because it's too close to major arteries, nerves, yadda yadda. guess what...it's gonna kill the person anyway. it's worth a damn try. cut that shiat out dammit.

/least that's what I'd say if it were me.

Surgeons can be very, VERY vain. An operation like that could put them in journals everywhere, or screw up their numbers/percentage/whateverit'scalled

Pfft...that kind of surgeon blows. You shouldn't care how many journals you're in, etc. Do the operation to try and save someone's life...if it works, great...you're in the news. if it doesn't, hell, you TRIED to save a life. That's something to most people too. I'd rather fail trying than not try at all.

Your logic is 100% correct.

However, you must be new to humanity. Welcome, take a seat. 99.9% of us are selfish assholes.

So, they have a drug that treats advanced cases of a form of skin cancer that doesn't usually metastasize to other tissues in the body. While it's pretty cool from a scientific standpoint, and from a patient's standpoint, I'm willing to bet a lot of oncologists/dermatologists are thinking "Call me when you have something for melanoma."

ihatedumbpeople: I don't get "inoperable". You can't risk operation because it's too close to major arteries, nerves, yadda yadda. guess what...it's gonna kill the person anyway. it's worth a damn try. cut that shiat out dammit.

/least that's what I'd say if it were me.

It's a comparison between between the life expectancy of the patient with cancer and the life expectancy of the patient with surgery. Too low, and the doctor says "He would live longer with the cancer." In a perfect world, we would always go to heroic efforts if needed, but here in the real world, heroics kill people more than they don't. That's why they are called "heroic."

Glenford: Why do we need a cure for lupus?
[blog.vampirisme.com image 430x339]

Except when it has been. Twice so far.

LoneWolf343: In a perfect world, we would always go to heroic efforts if needed, but here in the real world, heroics kill people more than they don't. That's why they are called "heroic."

Yep. Surgery can save them. But they'll spend the rest of their shortened life in agony (10 on the scale), be unable to look after themselves in any meaningful way and there is a good chance of the condition coming back. Or you can push the morphine drip a little higher, surpress their breathing and let them pass quietly in their sleep with dignity.

One of those is, frankly, easy to do but expensive. The other highly illegal in a lot of countries, takes some serious balls to do but possibly shows more compassion and humanity than the other.

Whilst I'd want House to be my doctor, I'd also want to know that he'd push the button and let me go. I'm not totally convinced House would.

ihatedumbpeople: Phaeon: ihatedumbpeople: I don't get "inoperable". You can't risk operation because it's too close to major arteries, nerves, yadda yadda. guess what...it's gonna kill the person anyway. it's worth a damn try. cut that shiat out dammit.

/least that's what I'd say if it were me.

Surgeons can be very, VERY vain. An operation like that could put them in journals everywhere, or screw up their numbers/percentage/whateverit'scalled

Pfft...that kind of surgeon blows. You shouldn't care how many journals you're in, etc. Do the operation to try and save someone's life...if it works, great...you're in the news. if it doesn't, hell, you TRIED to save a life. That's something to most people too. I'd rather fail trying than not try at all.

In most cases when there's an inoperable tumor, medical options such as chemotherapy are used instead. It's not like, "this tumor would be dangerous to operate on so... Bye."

sure haven't: Ok I skimmed the article.

It does indeed seem to be the first step to "curing" cancer.

So... I guess this is the last we'll ever hear about it?

/I've seen, like 25 stories at least here on Fark over the last 5 years detailing some new potential cure, never to be heard from again

That's because most of those types of articles are about drugs still in pre-clinical testing or even still in the discovery phase. From that point to FDA approval can be 10 or more years.

This drug has been through all the clinical trials and the FDA has approved it. I work in the pre-clinical side of things so I don't know how long it has to go to get to market but it's a matter of months, not years, at this point.

John Nash:
This drug has been through all the clinical trials and the FDA has approved it. I work in the pre-clinical side of things so I don't know how long it has to go to get to market but it's a matter of months, not years, at this point.

It honestly depends how long it takes to scale up production, finalise the packaging and patient information pamphlets, press releases and get the drug reps out pushing it.

Even with FDA or similar approval it may well take years before it's used in anger in a hospital if the cost per dose is too high.

Article is interesting but Basal Cell Carcinoma is very rarely metastatic with a rate estimated as 0.03% all cases.

sarah_t_s: John Nash:
This drug has been through all the clinical trials and the FDA has approved it. I work in the pre-clinical side of things so I don't know how long it has to go to get to market but it's a matter of months, not years, at this point.

It honestly depends how long it takes to scale up production, finalise the packaging and patient information pamphlets, press releases and get the drug reps out pushing it.

Even with FDA or similar approval it may well take years before it's used in anger in a hospital if the cost per dose is too high.

Cool, thanks.

/The people I work with are more on the "how much of this stuff does it take to kill you?" side of things.

chiefsfaninkc: Article is interesting but Basal Cell Carcinoma is very rarely metastatic with a rate estimated as 0.03% all cases.

Yup. I've had a chunk of my arm taken out due to basal cell carcinoma, and the dermatologist pretty much said that it's no big deal. Unlike Melanoma.

John Nash: sure haven't: Ok I skimmed the article.

It does indeed seem to be the first step to "curing" cancer.

So... I guess this is the last we'll ever hear about it?

/I've seen, like 25 stories at least here on Fark over the last 5 years detailing some new potential cure, never to be heard from again

That's because most of those types of articles are about drugs still in pre-clinical testing or even still in the discovery phase. From that point to FDA approval can be 10 or more years.

This drug has been through all the clinical trials and the FDA has approved it. I work in the pre-clinical side of things so I don't know how long it has to go to get to market but it's a matter of months, not years, at this point.

Thank you, government plant to assuage my suspicions, and lull me back into complacency.

/I'm on to you

sure haven't: Thank you, government plant to assuage my suspicions, and lull me back into complacency.

/I'm on to you

Just remember to read Life magazine every week and ignore the feeling of paranoia that arises when you read the seemingly innocuous articles.