SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
EurekAlert reports on a potential "Early Breakthrough with Cancer Vaccine":
Lead Researcher Associate Professor [The University of Queensland] Kristen Radford says the vaccine has the potential to treat a variety of blood cancers and malignancies and is a major breakthrough for cancer vaccinations.
"We are hoping this vaccine could be used to treat blood cancers, such as myeloid leukaemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and paediatric leukaemias, plus solid malignancies including breast, lung, renal, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, and glioblastoma," she said.
"Our new vaccine is comprised of human antibodies fused with tumour-specific protein, and we are investigating its capacity to target human cells while activating the memory of the tumour cells."
According to Radford, the vaccine has significant advantages over the current entries in this space. Passing clinical trials is not a small hurdle however. An MIT study shows that 3.4% of investigational cancer treatments eventually receive FDA approval, although that has increased significantly in the past five years.
Journal Reference:
Frances E Pearson, Kirsteen M Tullett, Ingrid M Leal‐Rojas, et al. Human CLEC9A antibodiesdeliver Wilms' tumor 1 (WT1) antigen to CD141+ dendritic cells to activate naïve and memory WT1‐specific CD8+ T cells [open], Clinical & Translational Immunology (DOI: 10.1002/cti2.1141)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2020, @08:45PM (1 child)
Now that cancer is cured, they can work on a cure for white privilege.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2020, @10:39PM
and non-White Supremacy!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frrubi on Thursday July 09 2020, @10:44PM (15 children)
Only the rich and only the white will ever see the likes of this
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2020, @11:16PM (5 children)
Not true. The overly generous government health insurance plan ensures that diversity-hire BIPOCs will get it too, on taxpayer's tab.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2020, @12:10AM (4 children)
> The overly generous government health insurance plan ensures that diversity-hire BIPOCs will get it too, on taxpayer's tab.
I work for the government.
I pay $650/mo for a catastrophic only plan with a $7500 deductible through my government employer (a school). The *identical* plan purchased off the California ACA exchange from the same insurance company is $75/mo after subsidy per my income level.
Instead of attacking fellow working class folks, just because of their employer, you would do better to direct your anger and energy at the rich parasite class who exploit all of us. The rich parasites want us to remain divided over race, government vs. private sector employment, class divisions (as long as the only two classes mentioned are poor and middle class), religion, etc.
The rich parasites made labor solidarity illegal with the Taft Hartley Act, but that was not enough-- they want us to attack each other over anything and everything so we remain weak and divided. Don't be their pawn.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Friday July 10 2020, @12:54AM
+ 1 Insightful.
That's the best I can do, due to Taft Hartley. You're welcome.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2020, @03:45AM (2 children)
Why are you paying the $650 per month then?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2020, @06:32AM
Not the GP but I have a guess. In the U.S., if you have group insurance offered through an employer, you don't get the subsidy unless one of two requirements are met. First is that the insurance offered by your employer cannot be considered "affordable" (premiums are less than 9.78% of their income) Second is that it falls below the "minimum standard" (it must pay at least 60% of the total cost of medical services for a standard population and offers "substantial" coverage of hospital and doctor services). You also have to wait for an enrollment period to change your insurance. Catastrophic plans usually have an HSA or FSA, and there are rules there for transitioning. On top of that, your employer can object, in which case you aren't covered by either plan until that is sorted out. And then, there are a bunch of tax things that go into play, such as premium deductions. In addition, rejected your employment insurance can affect other coverage types or benefits you qualify for for stupid reasons.
Regardless, if they can be arsed to do it, it might actually be worth their while to opt out, or at least get the paperwork going. They might be surprised as to the result.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2020, @03:25AM
I am GP AC-- The insurance my work offers is considered "affordable" (not more than 9.something ~10% of income to premiums), so I am forbidden from purchasing from the exchanges. See sibling comment from a diff AC that explains some of the crazy BS in the US health insurance laws.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Subsentient on Thursday July 09 2020, @11:31PM (7 children)
In the USA, it's a fucked up system where the poor rightfully get free health care, but if you manage to crawl even a little bit above poverty level, the free healthcare suddenly quits and you need $500/month health insurance. So the rich and the poor have healthcare, and the middle class are fucked.
It also creates a very deadly poverty trap for a lot of people, because if you have health issues, you can't afford to get a half-passable job, or suddenly you're hit with hundreds of thousands in medical bills the next time you need an ER visit.
My big problem with a lot of the US welfare stuff isn't the idea of the welfare, it's that it traps participants into it. I wonder how much taxpayers would save if so many people weren't rightfully terrified to get off government assistance. We need longer grace periods for these programs so the few that can bootstrap themselves actually can do it without going bankrupt.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Friday July 10 2020, @12:56AM (6 children)
Yes, the US health system is the worse of all possible systems (apart from Somalia's, presumably) but the weird thing is that all you guys have to do is look at your friends and neighbours to see lots of better systems that you could cherry-pick to get the best possible system ever.
It's not like you can't afford it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RS3 on Friday July 10 2020, @04:07AM (5 children)
We The People agree with you. Something's blocking the road though.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Saturday July 11 2020, @02:11AM (4 children)
That seems weird too. Its almost like you don't have any say in the matter.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday July 11 2020, @03:04AM (3 children)
> That seems weird too. Its almost like you don't have any say in the matter.
Um, no disrespect meant from me, but is there some reason to believe we do have any say, in any matter?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday July 12 2020, @12:16AM (2 children)
Not really, unless you agree with Fusta who think Americans are too stupid and lazy to bother electing third parties.
My view is that you don't really live in a democracy.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday July 12 2020, @12:43AM (1 child)
USA is a republic (which has NOTHING to do with Republicans). In a democracy we would vote directly on issues. So now you'll have people arguing that USA is a democracy, and what I'm referring to is a "pure democracy". Saying the USA is a democracy appeases too many people. I wish we did get to vote on issues directly. We occasionally have a "referendum" on the ballet.
Our congress- senators and representatives, are supposed to connect with us and generally vote on issues in our favor. That worked much better when we were much smaller population. However, now they are swamped by lobbyists- people who are paid, generally by corporations, industry and other organizations, political action money, etc., and they "lobby" the congress. Badger and swamp them.
What we need to balance it: people's lobby.
3rd parties exist, and some have garnered significant votes, and some have won in lower offices, even state governors.
The problem: actually we're too smart to vote for 3rd parties. If you don't vote for one of the big 2, your vote just helps one or the other win.
But I get what you're saying- if enough of us voted for a 3rd party... But, the top 2 overwhelm the media and we barely know who any 3rd party candidates are, let alone what they stand for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 12 2020, @01:04AM
Each state may be more or less democratic. Federally, we're a "representative democracy" aka "oligarchy playing musical chairs".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2020, @02:43PM
Or everyone in the not-so-shithole countries that have medical care for everyone? You know, like Canada or France or maybe even for such rich nations like Kazakhstan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2020, @11:26PM
Next up, working fusion and flying cars
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2020, @11:31PM (3 children)
Years ago, on the other website (pre-Soylent), there was an article on a great new treatment for Cancer. A virus that targeted cancer cells. The documentation was thorough and the company looked legit. 20+ years later, still nothing. No FDA approval. Never got past a phase 2 test, even. Stock has gone down and down and down. Including a 1 for 9.5 reverse split.
With stuff like this, it's always too early to get excited. Wait until it passes a phase 3 study and gets approved. Then we can talk about the cost and who will get it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2020, @03:46AM (1 child)
Consider the same about a purported Covid-19 vaccine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2020, @03:03PM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8506961/Maryland-man-says-vaccinated-against-Covid-19.html [dailymail.co.uk]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2020, @11:16AM
There is absolutely zero business interest in curing or fixing problems. The money is in treatments that make people dependent on the treatment, keeping them alive only long enough to suck their insurance and wallet dry.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday July 09 2020, @11:32PM
It is not "take a shot and forget about it" thing. It's "I'll get all your money and then some" thing, while you suffer meserably.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.