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.

(NYPost)   Still no cure for... I don't know, Parkinson's or something   (nypost.com) divider line 82
    More: Spiffy, science magazine, ovaries, blood cells, metastasis  
•       •       •

10506 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 9:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-29 09:08:07 AM
Zombies in..... 3......2.......
 
2013-03-29 09:08:56 AM
You know what else kills 100% of cancers every time?

That's right. Incineration.
 
2013-03-29 09:09:30 AM
great news
 
2013-03-29 09:11:13 AM
Ah, great news from the granddaddy of peer-reviewed journals, the NY Post.
 
2013-03-29 09:11:23 AM
I hope!
 
2013-03-29 09:12:30 AM

DragonIV: Ah, great news from the granddaddy of peer-reviewed journals, the NY Post.


This
 
Skr
2013-03-29 09:12:43 AM
www.wired.com
"Is there hope for me and my contagious tumors?"
 
2013-03-29 09:13:05 AM
So, what?  $5,000 a pill?  $10,000?
 
2013-03-29 09:13:57 AM
I really *really* like the short span of time between when true breakthroughs are made and when Big Pharma determines how best to monetize the product for obscene profit.  Maybe they'll name this drug "401K."  You can probably guess why.
 
2013-03-29 09:14:59 AM
Headline had me chucking heartily.
 
2013-03-29 09:19:22 AM
I quit reading as soon as I saw "miracle drug".
 
2013-03-29 09:22:22 AM
Don't worry, it'll be great for five years, and then we'll get Supercancer.
 
2013-03-29 09:23:01 AM
oi50.tinypic.com

For some reason I read that headline in his voice.
 
2013-03-29 09:24:59 AM
This guy's been sucking at the NIH teat for years, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good thing that the sequester will start clamping down on this kind of Waste of My Tax Money.
 
2013-03-29 09:27:50 AM

Great_Milenko: So, what?  $5,000 a pill?  $10,000?


If you're lucky.

Cancer 'treatments' can cost upwards of 50k a year. A cure would have to be be about $250,000, to be as profitable as someone buying the treatments for 4-5 years before dying. And profit is all that matters to pharm ghouls.
 
2013-03-29 09:29:46 AM

emersonbiggins: I really *really* like the short span of time between when true breakthroughs are made and when Big Pharma determines how best to monetize the product for obscene profit.  Maybe they'll name this drug "401K."  You can probably guess why.


Jonas Salk ain't walking through that door anymore :(
 
2013-03-29 09:38:40 AM

TheManofPA: emersonbiggins: I really *really* like the short span of time between when true breakthroughs are made and when Big Pharma determines how best to monetize the product for obscene profit.  Maybe they'll name this drug "401K."  You can probably guess why.

Jonas Salk ain't walking through that door anymore :(


Now THAT would be the biggest medical breakthrough OF ALL TIME.
 
2013-03-29 09:41:00 AM
The only value in this article is to maybe attract more money for the researchers but mostly it's to sell newspapers. There's a LONG way for this to go before it shows any promise in humans and this "breakthrough" is already displaying the exact same problem as every other kind of cancer treatment: IT ALSO ATTACKS HEALTHY CELLS. In other words: still no magic bullet. At best, this will be an adjunct to current chemotherapy and radiation and that's only IF it makes it through to human testing and then makes it through that without killing a more than acceptable number of humans. Any research article that includes the words "in mice" has to be taken with a gigantic, cancer-causing grain of salt, especially if you're reading it in the NY Post. You can be certain they fluffed up the researchers' press release a bit.

Cancer researchers are finding novel ways to kill all the cancer cells all the time. The trick is to not KILL ALL THE CELLS.

Sorry subs, still no cure for cancer.
 
2013-03-29 09:45:00 AM

Stoj: Headline had me chucking heartily.


Not me.

/Mom has Parkinson's
//Debbie downer.jpg
 
2013-03-29 09:49:44 AM
Shake it off. It's just cancer.
 
2013-03-29 09:53:34 AM

TommyDeuce: Stoj: Headline had me chucking heartily.

Not me.

/Mom has Parkinson's
//Debbie downer.jpg


My dad and his sister died of cancer.

There's plenty of sadness to go around!
 
2013-03-29 09:53:55 AM
Although this is very cool, this news is about a year old.
 
2013-03-29 09:58:08 AM
I heard they used a a cross between a common cold virus and a rabies virus.
 
2013-03-29 09:58:26 AM

emersonbiggins: I really *really* like the short span of time between when true breakthroughs are made and when Big Pharma determines how best to monetize the product for obscene profit.  Maybe they'll name this drug "401K."  You can probably guess why.


Actually, true breakthroughs very very rarely happens any more. All of the "easy" questions got answered last century. It turns out that life is complicated and problems in complex, unpredictable systems are hard to solve, like a bubble in wallpaper. There haven't really been any true breakthroughs since penicillin, and we blew that a while ago. Most drugs are modifications of already known molecules. Also, the development cycle from possibly useful molecule to marketable drug is ridiculously long and the fraction of molecules that make it to the end is ridiculously small.

Not that drug companies don't do unethical things, and aren't as profit-driven as any other corporation, but you go back to your ground-up apricot seeds, or algae or whatever unmeasured and untested shiat you and millions of other people are forking over BILLIONS of dollars for to treat... nothing... (and likely worsen or cause a few things), and call pharmaceutical companies "Big Pharma". Meanwhile Big Nutra gets a Big Pass. A friend who works at a local health food store admits that they've scaled back on bothering much with the actual "food" side of the store because they make such breath-taking profits on "supplements" that food isn't worth the floor space.
 
2013-03-29 09:59:55 AM
*like chasing a bubble in wallpaper. Obviously if you want to solve a bubble in wallpaper you prick it with a pin.
 
2013-03-29 10:00:09 AM

ruta: The only value in this article is to maybe attract more money for the researchers but mostly it's to sell newspapers. There's a LONG way for this to go before it shows any promise in humans and this "breakthrough" is already displaying the exact same problem as every other kind of cancer treatment: IT ALSO ATTACKS HEALTHY CELLS. In other words: still no magic bullet. At best, this will be an adjunct to current chemotherapy and radiation and that's only IF it makes it through to human testing and then makes it through that without killing a more than acceptable number of humans. Any research article that includes the words "in mice" has to be taken with a gigantic, cancer-causing grain of salt, especially if you're reading it in the NY Post. You can be certain they fluffed up the researchers' press release a bit.

Cancer researchers are finding novel ways to kill all the cancer cells all the time. The trick is to not KILL ALL THE CELLS.

Sorry subs, still no cure for cancer.


So far as I can tell, this isn't so much a cure as identifying the cause of Cancer's immunity to the immune system. And, sure, they can remove that, but the trick is removing that immunity for only the cancerous cells.

Perhaps in a few years we'll pair it with a nano-particle delivery system which can release the antibodies only on cancerous cells. (Not nanorobots, but more like nano-pollen.)
 
2013-03-29 10:00:40 AM
How long before Big Pharma gets it classified as a solvent?
 
2013-03-29 10:01:05 AM
They will never find the cure for anything because that would ruin the research racket they solicit funds for.
 
2013-03-29 10:04:38 AM
Guaranteed cancer cure in the New York Post?  That's totally believeable!  Hooray!
 
2013-03-29 10:05:12 AM

oryx: They will never find the cure for anything because that would ruin the research racket they solicit funds for.


Research itself is woefully unprofitable. As anyone who has worked in a lab, ever. Scientists don't drive around in Escalades with gold-plated rims. They're lucky if they've got a car.
 
2013-03-29 10:06:06 AM

ruta: *like chasing a bubble in wallpaper. Obviously if you want to solve a bubble in wallpaper you prick it with a pin.


Like a moth equipped with a lightning bug?

/That's probably going to be a bit obscure, but I know Fark won't let me down!
 
2013-03-29 10:18:22 AM
If it works, it will be quietly swept under the rug. If it doesn't, it may be something to prolong the life of (profitable) cancer patients. Big pharma isn't interested in the cure, because the money is in the treatment...
 
2013-03-29 10:18:45 AM

ruta: Also, the development cycle from possibly useful molecule to marketable drug is ridiculously long and the fraction of molecules that make it to the end is ridiculously small.


Everything in your post is dubious, but that's probably easiest to disprove just by the sheer volume of new drugs released each month. Many of which are later found to be harmful, because they weren't fully tested first. The FDA has been gradually lessening the amount of testing required before drugs can hit the market, and the only drugs you ever hear about being buried under years of testing these days are potential cancer cures.
 
2013-03-29 10:30:31 AM
Can cancer really be considered a single disease?  It seems to me that the label covers so many conditions that are only vaguely related that there can't be a single "cure for cancer".
 
2013-03-29 10:34:24 AM

J. Frank Parnell: ruta: Also, the development cycle from possibly useful molecule to marketable drug is ridiculously long and the fraction of molecules that make it to the end is ridiculously small.

Everything in your post is dubious, but that's probably easiest to disprove just by the sheer volume of new drugs released each month. Many of which are later found to be harmful, because they weren't fully tested first. The FDA has been gradually lessening the amount of testing required before drugs can hit the market, and the only drugs you ever hear about being buried under years of testing these days are potential cancer cures.


"but that's probably easiest to disprove " And yet you didn't, with like, sources cited or anything. If you know anything, you sure know "dubious".
 
2013-03-29 10:37:14 AM

SpdrJay: Zombies in..... 3......2.......


And we do not have Charlton Heston or Vincent Price to save us! All we got is that crappy Will Smith version. We are boned!
 
2013-03-29 10:44:19 AM

ArkPanda: Can cancer really be considered a single disease?  It seems to me that the label covers so many conditions that are only vaguely related that there can't be a single "cure for cancer".


The cells are all very much the same. Metabolism is about 8 times faster than normal cells, and they fuel themselves using glucose fermentation.

There seems to still be an effort to mystify cancer, but the more we learn the simpler it actually seems.
 
2013-03-29 10:45:46 AM

oryx: They will never find the cure for anything because that would ruin the research racket they solicit funds for.


^This.  Treating something long term is far more profitable than curing it.  Big pharma, the doctors, hospitals, scientists, universities....everybody who is supposed to be helping us would lose big $$$.

We may never see a major disease cured in our lifetime.

1.  Cure for cancer!
2.  More research needed.
3.  Never heard from again.

And you "government should do it" folks have a point, but the lobbyists own the government and we know who owns the lobbyists.  Ain't gonna happen there either.
 
2013-03-29 10:47:39 AM

J. Frank Parnell: Great_Milenko: So, what?  $5,000 a pill?  $10,000?

If you're lucky.

Cancer 'treatments' can cost upwards of 50k a year. A cure would have to be be about $250,000, to be as profitable as someone buying the treatments for 4-5 years before dying. And profit is all that matters to pharm ghouls.


Except those are different companies. Why would one company cost itself hundreds of billions of dollars to protect completely unrelated companies?

There is no reason.
 
2013-03-29 10:48:09 AM

ruta: "but that's probably easiest to disprove " And yet you didn't, with like, sources cited or anything.


Why should i do more work than you did?
 
2013-03-29 10:49:59 AM
Umm.. this is a column in the March 27 NY Post about an article that appeared on Sciencemag.org on March 26.

The problem? The original article is from March 26, 2012. TWENTY-TWELVE.
 
2013-03-29 10:59:46 AM

meanmutton: Except those are different companies. Why would one company cost itself hundreds of billions of dollars to protect completely unrelated companies?


Actually, they'd be missing out on hundreds of billions of dollars by selling cheap cures, instead of selling expensive treatments like all the other drug companies.
 
2013-03-29 11:01:04 AM

meanmutton: Except those are different companies. Why would one company cost itself hundreds of billions of dollars to protect completely unrelated companies?

There is no reason.


You think they actually compete?  Big money doesn't compete with each other.  They help each other.

The same for thinking that Big Oil and Big Banking compete with each other.  Think about it...those are two of the most fungible products on the planet and somehow both industries enjoy HUGE profit margins.
 
2013-03-29 11:08:13 AM
Cool!  So, now, can someone please invent a time machine so that I can go back to 1970 and give this to my dad?

farking cigarettes...if you are a smoker, you are an idiot.
 
2013-03-29 11:17:50 AM

J. Frank Parnell: ruta: "but that's probably easiest to disprove " And yet you didn't, with like, sources cited or anything.

Why should i do more work than you did?


Laziest. Response. Ever.
 
2013-03-29 11:23:09 AM
Link to the abstract for the research in question.
 
2013-03-29 11:25:13 AM
"Yes, we have this amazing drug, but we have to do another decade of required testing before we can try it on people who were dying anyway". I think once 'causes people to mutate into zombies' has been ruled out, you might as well start using it as a hail mary for terminal patients, yes?
 
2013-03-29 11:27:32 AM

cchris_39: meanmutton: Except those are different companies. Why would one company cost itself hundreds of billions of dollars to protect completely unrelated companies?

There is no reason.

You think they actually compete?  Big money doesn't compete with each other.  They help each other.

The same for thinking that Big Oil and Big Banking compete with each other.  Think about it...those are two of the most fungible products on the planet and somehow both industries enjoy HUGE profit margins.


Oil is oil and money is money. Pharmaceuticals are patented, proprietary intellectual property. The patent owners pay to keep generics off the market after patents expire, but the companies that pay for original, patentable research very much compete against each other. If you can show me a case where two phramaceuticals companies developed chemically similar drugs and one paid or had some other kind of agreement to keep the other off the market, I'd change my mind on that.
 
2013-03-29 11:30:39 AM
Like with all of these discoveries, we shall see.

/hope so
 
2013-03-29 11:34:23 AM

Virtuoso80: "Yes, we have this amazing drug, but we have to do another decade of required testing before we can try it on people who were dying anyway". I think once 'causes people to mutate into zombies' has been ruled out, you might as well start using it as a hail mary for terminal patients, yes?


FDA allows this to some extent.  Usually called Compassionate Use
 
Displayed 50 of 82 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 »






Report