I'll read the publication in the coming days and report back, but don't get your hopes up. There's a "breakthrough" in cancer research every few months and it leads to nothing. And this study was done in mice which are a bit different to humans (citation needed)
They cured hair loss in mice at least twenty times now and we still have bald humans
They should probably find a way to turn humans into mice. It's a shame to leave billions of dollars on the table like that.
Might be a good concept for a sci fi story actually, probably a comedic one. Scientists learn how to cure any disease and reverse aging, but only for mice. Conveniently for plot reasons, they also figure out how to turn people into mice and back. You can get any disease cured or become young again...but you have to spend three months as a mouse.
Someone that knows what they're doing: I will watch this show.
Why do we not simply transplant the hair from the mice, onto the humans?
To avoid rejection of the hair follicles, simply glue live mice to the top of your head.
"Mice lie and monkeys exaggerate."
That's cause they're not on dutasteride, finasteride, or estrogen therapy. It's all the fault of DHT.
I think this is overly negative. There have been multiple significant advances in cancer treatment over the past 10 years. It just depends which type you get.
Maybe overly negative by saying they come to "nothing", but if you trace those advances back to their initial press release stage, they generally way ovehype it.
Here we have what is being heralded as maybe a universal response to any and all cancer. That would be a shockingly amazing deviation from basically all the cancer research to date. It's possible and wonderful if true, but generally the research falls short of the initial press coverage, even if it amounts to something.
while you're not wrong i do want to reiterate that mRNA vaccines are likely going to be how we treat and cure cancers so there is precedent at least for this to be massive news. if not this there will likely be a real announcement one day.
The likelihood that all cancers express a common surface marker that is never expressed by any non-cancerous cell seems pretty low. Not a cancer biologist, but there's all kind of different genetic paths to cancer - why would they all cause some specific molecule to be expressed and why would no other cell ever use it?
Your instincts are correct. The approach in the paper is more complicated than this. Here is the abstract:
Abstract The success of cancer immunotherapies is predicated on the targeting of highly expressed neoepitopes, which preferentially favours malignancies with high mutational burden. Here we show that early responses by type-I interferons mediate the success of immune checkpoint inhibitors as well as epitope spreading in poorly immunogenic tumours and that these interferon responses can be enhanced via systemic administration of lipid particles loaded with RNA coding for tumour-unspecific antigens. In mice, the immune responses of tumours sensitive to checkpoint inhibitors were transferable to resistant tumours and resulted in heightened immunity with antigenic spreading that protected the animals from tumour rechallenge. Our findings show that the resistance of tumours to immunotherapy is dictated by the absence of a damage response, which can be restored by boosting early type-I interferon responses to enable epitope spreading and self-amplifying responses in treatment-refractory tumours.
Eh a lot of them save some lives. Its just cancer is really good at killing people and there are a lot of types of cancer
It's why I start following it myself when it gets to the human trial stage and less the breakthrough stage. There, you make the assumption that they have a plan and are much more confident in the product.
Hopefully, the researchers will be fully employed by the EU. I wouldn't trust the US to not fuck up this miracle.
While the formulation isn't unlike the Covid-19 vaccine, which uses lipid nanoparticles to deliver the genetic instructions to the body, it is still somewhat different. Instead of the drug encoding a virus protein, it sends a message to the immune system to rally the troops. It essentially tells the body to produce certain proteins that stimulate the immune system – including a protein within cancer cells known as PD-L1 (Programmed Death-Ligand 1), which makes tumors become more visible to immune cells.
TLDR: they are finding that it’s more effective to make cancer more visible and have the body’s immune system do its thing.
Previous research has focused more on homing in on a target or tailoring a vaccine specific to a patient's own cancer profile.
"This study suggests a third emerging paradigm," said study co-author Duane Mitchell, MD. "What we found is by using a vaccine designed not to target cancer specifically but rather to stimulate a strong immunologic response, we could elicit a very strong anticancer reaction. And so this has significant potential to be broadly used across cancer patients – even possibly leading us to an off-the-shelf cancer vaccine."
So... Kinda triggering your own auto-inmune response. But I'd be wary of trouble with overtly aggressive auto-inmune responses, as we already have quite a few diseases coming from these, as well.
I guess if I was gonna die and absolutely wanted more time I would make the trade off for living with lupus
living with lupus
As someone with an autoimmune disorder, I'm honestly not all that sold on whether that's a good tradeoff.
Yay, you're not acutely dying of cancer, but now your body is attacking your internal organs and depending on how shitty your luck is, you can eg. look forward to liver and/or kidney transplants (possibly more than once, too)
mRNA vaccine research in America? don’t need that, cancel the funding!
I want to believe.
Universal Cancer Vaccine? WASTE OF MONEY, CUT IT!
-The Trump Administration!
Too bad we got a Sociopathic Oligarchs as HSS, who thinks mRNA vaccines should be banned. Cancer is better than...well, whatever is wrong with mRNA vaccines.
amazing. i can already hear the anti vax crowd seething lol
CIA hitmen:
I was recently in a conference about synthetic biological approaches to deal with cancer. The only quote I wrote down was "this approach kills cancer in a petri dish, but so does a shotgun"
But won’t the thimerosal in the cancer vaccine give everyone autism? Cancer is better than autism!
/s (duh)
Curing (or at least improving our treatments for) cancer would be great. There's a small part of me that absolutely does not want to see it happen within the next few years because of the current administration. It'd still be an overwhelmingly good thing to accomplish but I dread the future arguments over the time Dr. Don and Bobby got together in the lab to cure cancer through the power of Jesus, bootstraps and grit.
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind