If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   News: Major advance in the war on cancer will make very early detection VERY cheap and VERY fast. Fark: Scientist responsible is 15 years old. Still no cure ... hey give him a chance he won't be 15 forever   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 58
    More: Hero, kayaks  
•       •       •

5628 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Aug 2012 at 11:14 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-21 08:36:26 PM  
And will take 20 years to get approved by the FDA.
 
2012-08-21 08:37:24 PM  
Oh good another one of these.
 
2012-08-21 08:39:59 PM  

SilentStrider: And will take 20 years to get approved by the FDA.


And then it will be prohibitively priced to the point that no insurance will cover it here in the "greatest health care system in the world!"
 
2012-08-21 08:43:59 PM  
If the pharmaceutical companies get their hands on him, he will be.
 
2012-08-21 10:56:54 PM  
"Very cheap?" Could possibly save lives?

Why does this kid hate America?
 
2012-08-21 11:30:21 PM  
Article blurb made it sound like he figured out to type in "Do I have cancer?" and hit "I'm feeling lucky?"
 
2012-08-21 11:30:54 PM  
And this is the last we'll ever hear of it again, just like every other breakthrough that's occurred in my lifetime.
 
2012-08-21 11:32:42 PM  
Well 199 emails he sent were rejected by Professors, that sounds more like America.
 
2012-08-21 11:35:21 PM  
According to his wiki, the test is 90% accurate. This means that 1 out of every 10 people you administer this test to is going to be given a false positive, scaring the crap out of people and consuming resources proving its a false positive. The FDA is gonna want a better accuracy rate than that. Getting that accuracy to 99.999% or more is where your extra cost comes from.
 
2012-08-21 11:35:58 PM  
Also need to point out this news is coming from British National news, since when did they have anything of value to report? They need to mind their own business and leave us Merican's alone.
 
2012-08-21 11:37:06 PM  
My guess is that this is not as big a breakthrough as they're making it out to be. Just a hunch. And for those that say somebody would try to squash this information, you're idiots. There is much more money to be made in keeping the patient alive, not the quick death that pancreatic cancer usually delivers
 
2012-08-21 11:43:02 PM  

DrySocket: According to his wiki, the test is 90% accurate. This means that 1 out of every 10 people you administer this test to is going to be given a false positive, scaring the crap out of people and consuming resources proving its a false positive. The FDA is gonna want a better accuracy rate than that. Getting that accuracy to 99.999% or more is where your extra cost comes from.


Actually it not unusual to use a cheap "screening" test with a high false-positive rate It is legit if the positive are followed up by a more accurate test. This type of procedure can save a lot of money. (Though there are services that do only the screening test especially for drug tests which should be illegal.)

And of course this was just invented, I imagine someone could find a way to improve it.
 
2012-08-21 11:48:20 PM  

Vodka Zombie: SilentStrider: And will take 20 years to get approved by the FDA.

And then it will be prohibitively priced to the point that no insurance will cover it here in the "greatest health care system in the world!"


Tangentially related CSB regarding insurance:

Earlier this week I got diagnosed with a genetic form of arthritis. That's bad. Luckily, there are drugs that have been shown to completely halt the progression of the disease and send all symptoms into remission. That's good. However, because the disease isn't life threatening and the symptoms can be managed with generic NSAIDs in the short term, my insurance doesn't cover the new drugs. That's bad. And because the drugs are new, they cost ~$1200 per month out of pocket. That's... also bad. But my insurance DOES cover the hip replacement surgery that I'll need at 40 if I don't take the drugs. That's retarded.
 
2012-08-21 11:52:42 PM  
I like at the end how he understands that he "didn't build that" himself.
 
2012-08-21 11:55:55 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: DrySocket: According to his wiki, the test is 90% accurate. This means that 1 out of every 10 people you administer this test to is going to be given a false positive, scaring the crap out of people and consuming resources proving its a false positive. The FDA is gonna want a better accuracy rate than that. Getting that accuracy to 99.999% or more is where your extra cost comes from.

Actually it not unusual to use a cheap "screening" test with a high false-positive rate It is legit if the positive are followed up by a more accurate test. This type of procedure can save a lot of money. (Though there are services that do only the screening test especially for drug tests which should be illegal.)

And of course this was just invented, I imagine someone could find a way to improve it.


Actually what im more interested in is the dipstick sensor he invented. If it works like they say and assuming it just uses an antibody to the protein, you could use this test for any protein you want to test that has a suitable antibody.
 
2012-08-22 12:01:08 AM  
Some needs to hook him up with that 17 year old from the other article. Tell them if they put in a solid 8 hours a day curing cancer, they can spend the other 16 screwing like bunnies.
 
2012-08-22 12:01:39 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger: DrySocket: According to his wiki, the test is 90% accurate. This means that 1 out of every 10 people you administer this test to is going to be given a false positive, scaring the crap out of people and consuming resources proving its a false positive. The FDA is gonna want a better accuracy rate than that. Getting that accuracy to 99.999% or more is where your extra cost comes from.

Actually it not unusual to use a cheap "screening" test with a high false-positive rate It is legit if the positive are followed up by a more accurate test. This type of procedure can save a lot of money. (Though there are services that do only the screening test especially for drug tests which should be illegal.)

And of course this was just invented, I imagine someone could find a way to improve it.


Seriously. Feeling your tits for lumps is cheap and generates plenty of false positives, but it's still effective.
 
2012-08-22 12:04:05 AM  
Isn't this a repeat?
 
2012-08-22 12:04:24 AM  
Why is there carnival music in my cancer story?
 
2012-08-22 12:05:29 AM  

Jubeebee: Vodka Zombie: SilentStrider: And will take 20 years to get approved by the FDA.

And then it will be prohibitively priced to the point that no insurance will cover it here in the "greatest health care system in the world!"

Tangentially related CSB regarding insurance:

Earlier this week I got diagnosed with a genetic form of arthritis. That's bad. Luckily, there are drugs that have been shown to completely halt the progression of the disease and send all symptoms into remission. That's good. However, because the disease isn't life threatening and the symptoms can be managed with generic NSAIDs in the short term, my insurance doesn't cover the new drugs. That's bad. And because the drugs are new, they cost ~$1200 per month out of pocket. That's... also bad. But my insurance DOES cover the hip replacement surgery that I'll need at 40 if I don't take the drugs. That's retarded.


Go on the New Atkins for a New You diet (very low carb - high fat) and get rid of the arthritis (as well as a bunch of other auto-immune disease shiat).
 
2012-08-22 12:09:07 AM  
I forsee an unfortunate automobile accident in his future. Either that or a trumped up drug and/or rape charge
 
2012-08-22 12:09:33 AM  
Yup.

Does this teen deserve a double hero tag?

/Probably
 
2012-08-22 12:36:23 AM  

StoneColdAtheist: Go on the New Atkins for a New You diet (very low carb - high fat) and get rid of the arthritis (as well as a bunch of other auto-immune disease shiat).


And replace his arthritis with heart disease. Great job!
 
2012-08-22 12:37:39 AM  

Jubeebee: Vodka Zombie: SilentStrider: And will take 20 years to get approved by the FDA.

And then it will be prohibitively priced to the point that no insurance will cover it here in the "greatest health care system in the world!"

Tangentially related CSB regarding insurance:

Earlier this week I got diagnosed with a genetic form of arthritis. That's bad. Luckily, there are drugs that have been shown to completely halt the progression of the disease and send all symptoms into remission. That's good. However, because the disease isn't life threatening and the symptoms can be managed with generic NSAIDs in the short term, my insurance doesn't cover the new drugs. That's bad. And because the drugs are new, they cost ~$1200 per month out of pocket. That's... also bad. But my insurance DOES cover the hip replacement surgery that I'll need at 40 if I don't take the drugs. That's retarded.


Low-ball this, am I getting a frogurt out of this or not?
 
2012-08-22 12:50:56 AM  

Scrotastic Method: StoneColdAtheist: Go on the New Atkins for a New You diet (very low carb - high fat) and get rid of the arthritis (as well as a bunch of other auto-immune disease shiat).

And replace his arthritis with heart disease. Great job!


Or, you could actually follow the diet(you know, read the book), and enjoy a long healthy life without heart disease.
 
2012-08-22 01:02:58 AM  

Scrotastic Method: StoneColdAtheist: Go on the New Atkins for a New You diet (very low carb - high fat) and get rid of the arthritis (as well as a bunch of other auto-immune disease shiat).

And replace his arthritis with heart disease. Great job!



Replace arthritis with a slightly increased chance of heart disease. Its not a one-for-one trade being talked about here.  Also its worth pointing out that the person in question said it was related to genetic factors. Not clear whether a change in diet would be effective.
 
2012-08-22 01:13:22 AM  
Sadly though with the state of the pharmaceutical industry, the Big Pharms will take this dirt cheap cure for pancreatic cancer and jack up the price so not everyone can afford it.
 
2012-08-22 01:15:07 AM  

DrySocket: According to his wiki, the test is 90% accurate. This means that 1 out of every 10 people you administer this test to is going to be given a false positive, scaring the crap out of people and consuming resources proving its a false positive. The FDA is gonna want a better accuracy rate than that. Getting that accuracy to 99.999% or more is where your extra cost comes from.


Or, you know, just repeat a positive test before assuming anything. Like they do with lots of other medical tests with high false positive rates. It's just a screening tool. (If it works like the strange little video says it does.)
 
2012-08-22 01:15:56 AM  

D_Evans45: Sadly though with the state of the pharmaceutical industry, the Big Pharms will take this dirt cheap cure for pancreatic cancer and jack up the price so not everyone can afford it.


i.imgur.com
All I know is you got a head full of Pharmakom data and they paid the Yakuza to get it back.
 
2012-08-22 01:18:44 AM  
Also, if our gold standards in cancer research are pre-empted by kids with Google chilling in Biology class, start giving the kids more money. Just how many times have oodles of dough went down the drain while scientists diddle their thumbs and feign discoveries? Ive read hundreds over the years here on Fark alone.

/A couple weeks ago in the geek tab some ignorant twit actually greened "Scientists discover cannabis' chemical factories"
 
2012-08-22 01:25:37 AM  
Sure he invented this fancy cancer science thing. But let's focus on what's important. From this kid's voice and mannerisms, he's clearly homosexual. I pray he is bullied and taunted until he takes his own life.
 
2012-08-22 01:29:53 AM  
The most important cancer drugs will need to be taken daily.
 
2012-08-22 01:34:22 AM  
Jack Andraka has created a pancreatic cancer test that is 168 times faster and considerably cheaper than the gold standard in the field

This is relevant to my interests.

Unfortunately, the current metastatic adenocarcinoma "gold standard" test involves a series of true/false and 1-10 questions, and is short on definitive pancreatic enzyme mutalyase.
 
2012-08-22 01:37:03 AM  
DrySocket:
According to his wiki, the test is 90% accurate. This means that 1 out of every 10 people you administer this test to is going to be given a false positive,

Um... no.

What that 90% probably means is that 1 of every 10 could get a false NEGATIVE. Sure, there could be some false positives, but most tests of this sort tend to have low false positive rates.

The FDA is gonna want a better accuracy rate than that. Getting that accuracy to 99.999% or more is where your extra cost comes from.

Most medical tests run in the 99% or lower range. There's a helluva lot of "first run" lab tests that really only have an 80% or so "success" rate in detecting cancer. The way they get better accuracy is by using several tests to narrow down the odds.

As for the folks who immediately jumped in with the conspiracy theories: you're crazy. The big pharma companies would LOVE to have a cheap, fast, effective new test for cancer. They don't make much money on the mainstream lab tests in the first place - a lot of the common tests consist of some lab geek looking through a microscope at a bunch of cells on a slide. The big savings would be in time and lab technician salaries (since there's always a shortage of good techs, that's not a bad thing at all) - and in malpractice insurance savings. The pharmas make money selling the treatments, not selling the tests.

Oncologists, by the way, tend to be good people. You have to remember that most of their patients are going to die - even if they do the best job possible with current science - and the better the doctor, the MORE patients they have die. You see, the average oncologist gets a wide variety of patients - some skin cancer, some lung cancer, et cetera. A good number of those will survive for at least a few years (mostly the skin cancer cases).

The really good doctors? They get the hard referrals from the rest. They get all of the nasty "found it too late" cases, or the unusual types where 90% of the patients are going to die, no matter what. And the kids...

I met one guy - a world class specialist - who said, "If I do my job as well as anyone in the world... about a third of my patients will see the end of the year."

Oncology is a lousy job, and it gets worse the better you are at it.
 
2012-08-22 02:28:33 AM  

Corn_Fed: Sure he invented this fancy cancer science thing. But let's focus on what's important. From this kid's voice and mannerisms, he's clearly homosexual. I pray he is bullied and taunted until he takes his own life.


obvious troll is haiku
 
2012-08-22 02:52:34 AM  

D_Evans45: Also, if our gold standards in cancer research are pre-empted by kids with Google chilling in Biology class, start giving the kids more money. Just how many times have oodles of dough went down the drain while scientists diddle their thumbs and feign discoveries? Ive read hundreds over the years here on Fark alone.

/A couple weeks ago in the geek tab some ignorant twit actually greened "Scientists discover cannabis' chemical factories"


Look, jackass, studies to find out how often the nearly extinct South African Snow Gerbil shiats after eating 4 week old Chinese food don't conduct themselves. Real scientists need large grants to continue this valuable research...it's way more important than some high school kid helping cure "cancer," whatever that is.
 
2012-08-22 04:36:15 AM  

DrySocket: According to his wiki, the test is 90% accurate. This means that 1 out of every 10 people you administer this test to is going to be given a false positive, scaring the crap out of people and consuming resources proving its a false positive. The FDA is gonna want a better accuracy rate than that. Getting that accuracy to 99.999% or more is where your extra cost comes from.


It isn't ingested or placed on the skin. The FDA has nothing to do with it.


Even a 90% effective rate is better than what we have now, which is a 95% death rate from a 30% detection rate that has to be followed up.
This thing - if it isn't fake - WILL save lives: the earlier you detect the faster you can cure. If early enough what is normally death by chemo can become salvation by laser surgery.
 
2012-08-22 07:14:33 AM  
A fifteen year old boy who enjoys watching Glee? He's be better off researching an AIDS test.
 
2012-08-22 07:35:44 AM  

bhcompy: Feeling your tits for lumps is cheap and generates plenty of false positives, but it's still effective.


s14.postimage.org
 
2012-08-22 08:08:03 AM  
Kid has a good future ahead of him.

This test will need to go through a few revisions before it goes live, but it does look promising.
 
2012-08-22 08:24:51 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger: Actually it not unusual to use a cheap "screening" test with a high false-positive rate It is legit if the positive are followed up by a more accurate test. This type of procedure can save a lot of money.


My understanding is that for the screening test, you're not so worried about the rate of false positives as you are about the rate of false negatives.
 
2012-08-22 08:27:11 AM  
Freakin Cool!
 
2012-08-22 08:35:57 AM  
All he did was use Google? I wonder how many other problems we could solve merely by using Google.
 
2012-08-22 09:05:46 AM  
So he'll be approved a patent and the test will cost $50,000 until the patent runs out.
 
2012-08-22 09:29:18 AM  
I have to say, I was surprised when it wasn't a kid whose parents are immigrants from India or China.
 
2012-08-22 10:18:07 AM  

Jubeebee: Vodka Zombie: SilentStrider: And will take 20 years to get approved by the FDA.

And then it will be prohibitively priced to the point that no insurance will cover it here in the "greatest health care system in the world!"

Tangentially related CSB regarding insurance:

Earlier this week I got diagnosed with a genetic form of arthritis. That's bad. Luckily, there are drugs that have been shown to completely halt the progression of the disease and send all symptoms into remission. That's good. However, because the disease isn't life threatening and the symptoms can be managed with generic NSAIDs in the short term, my insurance doesn't cover the new drugs. That's bad. And because the drugs are new, they cost ~$1200 per month out of pocket. That's... also bad. But my insurance DOES cover the hip replacement surgery that I'll need at 40 if I don't take the drugs. That's retarded.


Hire an attorney and submit a request under your insurance policy. If they deny it, you may be able to file a bad faith insurance claim against them.
 
2012-08-22 10:19:04 AM  

Jubeebee: Vodka Zombie: SilentStrider: And will take 20 years to get approved by the FDA.

And then it will be prohibitively priced to the point that no insurance will cover it here in the "greatest health care system in the world!"

Tangentially related CSB regarding insurance:

Earlier this week I got diagnosed with a genetic form of arthritis. That's bad. Luckily, there are drugs that have been shown to completely halt the progression of the disease and send all symptoms into remission. That's good. However, because the disease isn't life threatening and the symptoms can be managed with generic NSAIDs in the short term, my insurance doesn't cover the new drugs. That's bad. And because the drugs are new, they cost ~$1200 per month out of pocket. That's... also bad. But my insurance DOES cover the hip replacement surgery that I'll need at 40 if I don't take the drugs. That's retarded.


Also, have your doctor call the drug company to see if they can get you a special deal. Most drug companies offer drugs at cheaper prices to those that can't afford it.
 
2012-08-22 11:18:32 AM  

DrySocket: According to his wiki, the test is 90% accurate. This means that 1 out of every 10 people you administer this test to is going to be given a false positive, scaring the crap out of people and consuming resources proving its a false positive. The FDA is gonna want a better accuracy rate than that. Getting that accuracy to 99.999% or more is where your extra cost comes from.


So wrong I don't even
 
2012-08-22 11:30:47 AM  

DrySocket: According to his wiki, the test is 90% accurate. This means that 1 out of every 10 people you administer this test to is going to be given a false positive, scaring the crap out of people and consuming resources proving its a false positive. The FDA is gonna want a better accuracy rate than that. Getting that accuracy to 99.999% or more is where your extra cost comes from.


So take the test twice. The odds of two false positives is a mere 1%.
 
2012-08-22 11:32:50 AM  

cirby: DrySocket:
According to his wiki, the test is 90% accurate. This means that 1 out of every 10 people you administer this test to is going to be given a false positive,

Um... no.

What that 90% probably means is that 1 of every 10 could get a false NEGATIVE. Sure, there could be some false positives, but most tests of this sort tend to have low false positive rates.

The FDA is gonna want a better accuracy rate than that. Getting that accuracy to 99.999% or more is where your extra cost comes from.

Most medical tests run in the 99% or lower range. There's a helluva lot of "first run" lab tests that really only have an 80% or so "success" rate in detecting cancer. The way they get better accuracy is by using several tests to narrow down the odds.

As for the folks who immediately jumped in with the conspiracy theories: you're crazy. The big pharma companies would LOVE to have a cheap, fast, effective new test for cancer. They don't make much money on the mainstream lab tests in the first place - a lot of the common tests consist of some lab geek looking through a microscope at a bunch of cells on a slide. The big savings would be in time and lab technician salaries (since there's always a shortage of good techs, that's not a bad thing at all) - and in malpractice insurance savings. The pharmas make money selling the treatments, not selling the tests.

Oncologists, by the way, tend to be good people. You have to remember that most of their patients are going to die - even if they do the best job possible with current science - and the better the doctor, the MORE patients they have die. You see, the average oncologist gets a wide variety of patients - some skin cancer, some lung cancer, et cetera. A good number of those will survive for at least a few years (mostly the skin cancer cases).

The really good doctors? They get the hard referrals from the rest. They get all of the nasty "found it too late" cases, or the unusual types where 90% of the patients are going to die, no matter what. And the kids...

I met one guy - a world class specialist - who said, "If I do my job as well as anyone in the world... about a third of my patients will see the end of the year."

Oncology is a lousy job, and it gets worse the better you are at it.


Qft.
I should've read farther in the thread. As usual.
Thank you for laying out facts.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report