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.

(The New York Times)   New cancer drug that instructs defective DNA to self-destruct could cure half of all cancers, decimate populations of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Alabama   (nytimes.com) divider line 29
    More: Obvious, West Virginia, DNA, cancer types, cure  
•       •       •

9962 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Dec 2012 at 12:33 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-23 01:37:21 PM
3 votes:

Spanky_McFarksalot: Felgraf: Do you realize that for your argument to be true *all the scientists* performing the research have to be in on it, too?

never said the people working on it didn't want to find a cure, I said the drug companies wouldn't let it out if they did.

The big drug companies need their workers to toil away for their stock holders so they wouldn't tell them they don't really want a cure.


The current trend in laboratory research design is big, giant, shared workspaces (which, by the way, and apropos of nothing, I hate.) Entire floors of buildings with 50 lab tables and 30 PIs. Trust me, we know when other labs are having pizza for lunch, when a PI has PMS and when stuff goes wrong (or right.)
Lab staff is paid such crap that even those who would not put a 'supressed' cure on protocol-online would sell one to the highest bidder in seconds.
Really, if you're not the PI, or trying to become one, the only hope you have of making serious fundage is your lab having the next cure and your name being on the paper.
2012-12-23 01:22:09 PM
3 votes:

Spanky_McFarksalot: drug companies don't cure anything, theres no profit in it.

They'll make it so you have to keep taking for it to work.


No. This is stupid and a foolish, ignorant, idiotically PARANOID statement and I will tell you why.

A cancer cure, or at least a nigh-100% treatment for several types of cancer, IS A LICENSE TO PRINT MONEY.

This isn't farking polio or smallpox. Cancer is not going to 'stop existing' once we develop an effective cure, even if we distribute it *Freely*, because CANCER IS YOUR OWN BODY GOING @#%#@ BUGNUTS. PEOPLE WILL STILL GET IT.

I'm not lying, I put statments like this up there with "ZOMG The GUBBMIN'T GONNA USE THE UN TO TAKE MAH GUNS!" in terms of paranoia. Do I believe pharmaceutical companies are benevolent? Fark no! But at the very least, in terms of *cancer*, *your argument makes no sense*.
2012-12-23 12:52:00 PM
3 votes:
I can't understand the logic of believing you have a drug that will cure deadly forms of cancer and then NOT using it on people who will be long dead before you finish exploring minute toxicity studies.

You can donate your body to science after you die but apparently "Give me the drug, I don't CARE what it might do to me because I KNOW I will be dead in a month without it" just doesnt hold water. Seriously, if I knew I was terminal I would take whatever "might be efficacious according to lab mice" drug they wanted to try out on me.
2012-12-23 12:41:58 PM
3 votes:

Spanky_McFarksalot: drug companies don't cure anything, theres no profit in it.

They'll make it so you have to keep taking for it to work.


This is poisonous stupidity and needs to stop being repeated.
2012-12-23 04:04:11 PM
2 votes:
New cancer drug that instructs defective DNA to self-destruct could cure half of all cancers, decimate populations of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Alabama

You know, you don't even need the new drug to do that. Just scatter around some bottles of Oxycontin and methamphetamine spiked with ricin and they'll do that on their own.

spidermilk: MycroftHolmes: Spanky_McFarksalot: drug companies don't cure anything, theres no profit in it.

They'll make it so you have to keep taking for it to work.

This is poisonous stupidity and needs to stop being repeated.

I agree. According to Spanky McLunatic drug companies would never have allowed these diseases to be virtually eradicated (in the US):


2. Malaria
3. Typhoid Public health concerns that recieve funding to halt when they show up
6. Cholera

4. Rickets Cured through diet and supplementation dictated by the government.
5. Scurvy

7. Rabies (as a disease that kills humans) Minimized by requiring animals to be vaccinated creating herd immunity

8. Measles
9. Mumps Making a come back because people are "fighting big pharma
10. Rubella

19. Leprosy Only about 5% of the population is susceptible. Then the drugs take a year to work.

and on and on and on...

As you can see, diseases aren't as simple as a company coming forward and giving us a pill so it is not as simple as a company deciding to 'not invent' or not market a cure.


I'd like to point out that drug and chemical companies are still making money off many of the diseases listed.
2012-12-23 01:08:59 PM
2 votes:

Louisiana_Sitar_Club: LabGrrl: dying because my body can't tell good cells from bad anymore...
How lame is that? Fark cancer.
(Crosses fingers)


Sarcasm detector broken. I'm dying of an autoimmune disease. My body would quite happily eat any cancer cells it found. Unfortunately, it also eats healthy lung tissue. When I get to the lung transplant level, they can't replace mine, because as someone whose immune system rejects ITSELF even on massive immunosuppression, I'm never going to qualify for a transplant. The problem with drugs that work with p53 is that we end up with assloads of anti-p53, which is what you see in Lupus (insert House joke here.)

About 5 years ago, every cancer lab I knew was doing p53, and about 10 years ago, they were all working with CD40, drugs revolving around which were going to cure HIV *and* cancer, and instead just gave all the already immunodeficient mice autoimmune-related *death.*

But we got some great anti-arthritis drugs from those mice.
/Now it's radioprotectants and old forms of radiation.
2012-12-23 12:50:13 PM
2 votes:
Decimate means to remove 10%

Just saying.
2012-12-23 12:35:19 PM
2 votes:
drug companies don't cure anything, theres no profit in it.

They'll make it so you have to keep taking for it to work.
2012-12-23 11:16:31 AM
2 votes:
There's another company called Cellceutix (CTIX, which I am long in) that's got a drug from a completely novel class of compounds that is in Phase I human testing right now.  It also targets the p53 gene, but so far it has shown no toxicity.  None.  Soon it might be possible to go through chemo without losing your hair and half of your body weight.  It's a fantastic time for biotech, I hope these guys figure it all out and save lots of lives (maybe even mine...).
2012-12-23 05:56:05 PM
1 votes:

funmonger: Insisting that a company can repress a cure while searching for one is ouroborus-grade derp.


It is scary that some people actually buy into that conspiracy theory. The idea that big pharma is actively suppressing research into curing certain chronic diseases involves the following assumptions

1. All pharmaceuticals will act in concert to avoid researching cures (and that this can be kept secret)
2. Only big pharmaceuticals can research, small labs, start-ups, academic labs, etc cannot research
3. The entire medical and research community can either be deceived regarding the feasibility of curing certain diseases, or their voices can be suppressed.

You want to argue that certain pharmaceutical companies are not dedicating money to researching cures for certain diseases, that is fine. They all have their own risk versus reward evaluations, so maybe not every company is going to research a cure for cancer. But to argue 'drug companies don't cure anything' is to be willfully ignorant. To continue to argue the point in the face of people pointing out how fallacious it is is to be proud and smug of your willful ignorance. In other words, dumb.
2012-12-23 04:34:26 PM
1 votes:

Dinjiin: Fizpez: I'd rather be USED as a lab rat in this case, even if it only serves to show this particular drug won't work, then die anyway and have someone else down the line die as well because THEY are now the first test subject.

So lets say that you had a prognosis of 6 months to live.  You start taking the drugs and you're dead in 2 weeks.  You just lost months of your life where you could have said goodbye to your friends and family, traveled the world, or done whatever else was on your bucket list.

If you wait till the cancer if more advanced so you can do those things, suddenly you may find that you're in a stage of cancer too far advanced for the trials to work.  They're not going to want to test on you because you'll drag their case averages down.


Right. If you're on the verge of death (in which case, I'm very sorry), you're probably far from an ideal subject--if the drug objectively 'works' but too many patients in the treatment group (or not enough in the control) die off, the drug's likely to be dead in the water.

Science, done correctly, is quite tragically slow. :\
2012-12-23 03:39:35 PM
1 votes:

Spanky_McFarksalot: drug companies don't cure anything, theres no profit in it.

They'll make it so you have to keep taking for it to work.


Actually there is tremendous profit in the cure because cancer will not be eradicated such as polio or small pox. As well, finding a legitimate cure to one or more forms of cancer means huge initial profits and taking the lion share of the market while increasing capital resources for the company while reducing over the long term those of the competition. Pharmaceutical companies do not do the bulk of medical research, and to not utilize the research first means the competition will.

There is, in fact, profit in any cure; what people are looking at is the pharmaceutical industry as a whole with long term profits of treatment versus cure in isolation, which is a drastic oversimplification.
2012-12-23 03:07:48 PM
1 votes:
Speaking as someone who may well have a Bad Gene for a familial cancer syndrome (likely Lynch syndrome, but not gettin' tested until I'm sure the insurance company can't deny coverage if the answer is "yes"):

a) At least this might be helpful for folks with FAP (one of a number of p53-linked cancer syndromes) assuming the drug doesn't cause lupus (which has been the negative side effect of prior attempts--this does seem to use a different mechanism, so we'll see how primate and human trials go).

b) To really get rid of all the familial cancer syndromes (and a lot of spontaneous cancer syndromes) you also need something that can fix missense errors that the cellular repair mechanisms don't catch or help the body find these better. (This is what is specifically broken in Lynch syndrome--put in layman's terms, the genes in Lynch cancers tend to have a lot of "typos" and "bits of missing text" that aren't caught by the body's usual "typo flagger". Put in smartphone user's lingo--let's just say folks with Lynch syndrome have a particularly wonky version of Genetic Autocorrect that doesn't exactly correct typing errors or tends to correct them in the most inappropriate manner possible.)

c) IF it turns out that this is not something that is p53-specific...well, hopefully it'll be less ouchy in price than colonoscopies are and hopefully it's not one of those things that's going to inspire a Change.org petition because the Damn Insurance Company Won't Pay For The Lifesaving Miracle Drug. :P
2012-12-23 03:02:26 PM
1 votes:
Anybody else read the start of the zombie apocalypse in that article?
2012-12-23 01:51:47 PM
1 votes:

Spanky_McFarksalot: Dokushin: Why don't you go ahead and whip up a cure for us? Easy, right? They're just sitting on all those cures they have?

They've had hundreds of billions of dollars, an army of scientists and many decades to try.

I couldn't do any worse.


More to the point, you couldn't do any better. But hey -- that science stuff is easy, right? It's clearly a conspiracy that they aren't finding new stuff faster. You fixed a toaster the other day, so the human body is automatically president.
2012-12-23 01:37:03 PM
1 votes:

Spanky_McFarksalot: MycroftHolmes: This is poisonous stupidity and needs to stop being repeated.

they cure something, it will be.


Why don't you go ahead and whip up a cure for us? Easy, right? They're just sitting on all those cures they have?

We'll wait. We'll even make you filthy stinking rich when you're done.

Are you done yet?
2012-12-23 01:34:05 PM
1 votes:

Spanky_McFarksalot: drug companies don't cure anything, theres no profit in it.

They'll make it so you have to keep taking for it to work.


and no one with cancer in the universe would care.
a "cure" which I need to take forever, but allows me to not die from cancer?
Yah, I am ok with that.
2012-12-23 01:31:51 PM
1 votes:

lewismarktwo: It's still LESS MONEY than they currently get. Not that I think they would suppress a cure.


Why? They could just charge more than what they're currently charging.

When the demand for the good is "You die/have a higher chance of dying if you don't get this", the elasticity in price tends to be reaallllyyyy low.

LabGrrl: Felgraf: Spanky_McFarksalot: drug companies don't cure anything, theres no profit in it.

They'll make it so you have to keep taking for it to work.

No. This is stupid and a foolish, ignorant, idiotically PARANOID statement and I will tell you why.

A cancer cure, or at least a nigh-100% treatment for several types of cancer, IS A LICENSE TO PRINT MONEY.

This isn't farking polio or smallpox. Cancer is not going to 'stop existing' once we develop an effective cure, even if we distribute it *Freely*, because CANCER IS YOUR OWN BODY GOING @#%#@ BUGNUTS. PEOPLE WILL STILL GET IT.

I'm not lying, I put statments like this up there with "ZOMG The GUBBMIN'T GONNA USE THE UN TO TAKE MAH GUNS!" in terms of paranoia. Do I believe pharmaceutical companies are benevolent? Fark no! But at the very least, in terms of *cancer*, *your argument makes no sense*.

Thanks for saying this, by the way. All the lab staff I know living the lush ten-thousandaire lifestyle, working 60 hours a week and making minimum wage after you take out the price of their student loans out are too busy sleeping on the one weekend a year many of them have off to make this comment, and it needs to be repeated... A LOT.
Anyone who thinks that 'big pharma' is hiding 'teh cure' has never met the people working on teh treatmenzt.


Yeah, I'm a physics grad student (Though some of my work could eventually have medical applications! Yay nanotech), and I sort of get... confused when people suggest scientists are engaging in a conspiracy "FOR THE MONEY", or to get all that "sweet grant money", etc. It's like "You... don't really understand what motivates *most* people who go into the sciences, do you?"
2012-12-23 01:28:29 PM
1 votes:

Spanky_McFarksalot: which is why they won't cure it even if they could. It worth to much money.

so thanks for agreeing with me.


... No, because, see, if one company releases a cure that works *much better* than their competitors (who, lets say, are intentionally sabatoging it!), then everyone will BY THE #@$%@# ONE THAT WORKS.

Do you realize that for your argument to be true *all the scientists* performing the research have to be in on it, too? (And before you go "Well, yeah, they're doing it for the money!", no. You generally do not go into science for the money.)

Look. You really, really sound like those people that INSIST that there must be a conspiracy amongst EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST that supports global warming.
2012-12-23 01:27:22 PM
1 votes:

Felgraf: Spanky_McFarksalot: drug companies don't cure anything, theres no profit in it.

They'll make it so you have to keep taking for it to work.

No. This is stupid and a foolish, ignorant, idiotically PARANOID statement and I will tell you why.

A cancer cure, or at least a nigh-100% treatment for several types of cancer, IS A LICENSE TO PRINT MONEY.

This isn't farking polio or smallpox. Cancer is not going to 'stop existing' once we develop an effective cure, even if we distribute it *Freely*, because CANCER IS YOUR OWN BODY GOING @#%#@ BUGNUTS. PEOPLE WILL STILL GET IT.

I'm not lying, I put statments like this up there with "ZOMG The GUBBMIN'T GONNA USE THE UN TO TAKE MAH GUNS!" in terms of paranoia. Do I believe pharmaceutical companies are benevolent? Fark no! But at the very least, in terms of *cancer*, *your argument makes no sense*.


Thanks for saying this, by the way. All the lab staff I know living the lush ten-thousandaire lifestyle, working 60 hours a week and making minimum wage after you take out the price of their student loans out are too busy sleeping on the one weekend a year many of them have off to make this comment, and it needs to be repeated... A LOT.
Anyone who thinks that 'big pharma' is hiding 'teh cure' has never met the people working on teh treatmenzt.
2012-12-23 01:23:55 PM
1 votes:

Fizpez: I'd rather be USED as a lab rat in this case, even if it only serves to show this particular drug won't work, then die anyway and have someone else down the line die as well because THEY are now the first test subject.


So lets say that you had a prognosis of 6 months to live.  You start taking the drugs and you're dead in 2 weeks.  You just lost months of your life where you could have said goodbye to your friends and family, traveled the world, or done whatever else was on your bucket list.

If you wait till the cancer if more advanced so you can do those things, suddenly you may find that you're in a stage of cancer too far advanced for the trials to work.  They're not going to want to test on you because you'll drag their case averages down.
2012-12-23 01:17:34 PM
1 votes:

Fizpez: Seriously, if I knew I was terminal I would take whatever "might be efficacious according to lab mice" drug they wanted to try out on me.


It turns out that a LOT of drugs that work in mice do not show the same results when the trials move to testing with lower primates.  You get another drop in results when you move from lower primates to humans.  So just because it works with lab mice, don't suddenly expect that it will work with people.

Second, if you happen to die one day earlier from the drug than you would have from cancer, your family can sue the drug maker.  Even if you signed an agreement, they can sue, and because judges like to see their names in the paper, they'll probably fail to dismiss it at a pretrial hearing.  So the drug makers do not have a lot of incentive to switch to human trials too early.

Third, a large number of negative reactions in early trials might sour investor support for drug research.  It might also overwhelm some smaller labs.  So they keep the numbers low.
2012-12-23 01:11:11 PM
1 votes:

ultraholland: so *that's* what the beginning of Prometheus was all about


Oh sure. ET gave them the p53 gene, and it ate their DNA, so then we could come in the space ship and the captain could fark the ice queen and then Shaw had the baby they made try to eat her but instead they ate it.

And that is the creation story of kalamari, which we celebrate by rolling xenomorphs up into a big ball and eating them like crab ball soup, which let me tell you reminds me of android hydraulic fluid leaking into their data cores, y'see-
2012-12-23 01:10:24 PM
1 votes:

Fizpez: but if the lab results show there is some potential for real benefit and you are already at a stage where doctors are comfortable making predictions of your death in the next 3-6 weeks then I think you should have the right to waive those oversights and any claim against the drug company for whatever might happen.

I'd rather be USED as a lab rat in this case, even if it only serves to show this particular drug won't work, then die anyway and have someone else down the line die as well because THEY are now the first test subject.



FWIW, that type of situation is considered and balanced into the equation by both agencies and ethics committees in pretty much the manner you suggest. The bar for a GBM (glioblastoma multiforme) study for example is much lower in terms of required safety and tox data than for a hypertension study. But it really has to be higher than "good rat data" because cancer has been cured in rats hundreds of times.
2012-12-23 01:05:07 PM
1 votes:

justGreg: Fizpez: I can't understand the logic of believing you have a drug that will cure deadly forms of cancer and then NOT using it on people who will be long dead before you finish exploring minute toxicity studies.

You can donate your body to science after you die but apparently "Give me the drug, I don't CARE what it might do to me because I KNOW I will be dead in a month without it" just doesnt hold water. Seriously, if I knew I was terminal I would take whatever "might be efficacious according to lab mice" drug they wanted to try out on me.

Which is precisely why it is a good thing that there are mechanisms in place like ethics committees and regulatory agencies to prevent misguided profit-seeking companies from exploiting that desperation.


I 100% agree that you trying to sell me a drug "because it might save your life" requires the type of oversight provided - but if they are willing to provide it for free I fail to see how I can not make the choice to accept it - regardless of how desperate I may be. I'm not talking about "we have 1000 molecular candidates and want to blindly feed them to people" - but if the lab results show there is some potential for real benefit and you are already at a stage where doctors are comfortable making predictions of your death in the next 3-6 weeks then I think you should have the right to waive those oversights and any claim against the drug company for whatever might happen.

I'd rather be USED as a lab rat in this case, even if it only serves to show this particular drug won't work, then die anyway and have someone else down the line die as well because THEY are now the first test subject.
2012-12-23 12:57:12 PM
1 votes:

Fizpez: I can't understand the logic of believing you have a drug that will cure deadly forms of cancer and then NOT using it on people who will be long dead before you finish exploring minute toxicity studies.

You can donate your body to science after you die but apparently "Give me the drug, I don't CARE what it might do to me because I KNOW I will be dead in a month without it" just doesnt hold water. Seriously, if I knew I was terminal I would take whatever "might be efficacious according to lab mice" drug they wanted to try out on me.


Which is precisely why it is a good thing that there are mechanisms in place like ethics committees and regulatory agencies to prevent misguided profit-seeking companies from exploiting that desperation.
2012-12-23 12:52:06 PM
1 votes:

NewportBarGuy: Well, Maine is going to be heavily depopulated as well.


Maine? Try New York. There's a population that's been inbreeding for a hundred years.
2012-12-23 12:49:55 PM
1 votes:
As someone who is dying because my body can't tell good cells from bad anymore, I don't see any potential problems with this AT ALL.

/Weirdly, was working on a p53-related drug before I got sick.
//Don't think it's related...
2012-12-23 12:43:05 PM
1 votes:

Cymbal: You forgot Mississippi, Texas, Arizona, Louisiana, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, Alaska, Indiana, and Florida.


Also left off the list: Iowa, New Jersey, Montana, New Jersey, Utah, and New Jersey.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report