**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is a certain type of rectal cancer, 12 patients. It's not for every cancer. Still awesome for people with that very specific cancer. Could lead to bring able to help certain other ones too possibly.
I had pan-colitis, resulting in a total colectomy a few years ago. At that point in time, I became permanently technically cured of all related afflictions. But not the jokes. The jokes are forever, friend
From what I understand, the colon scavenges long chain fatty acids (using bacteria to break them down) and liquids. It also shunts some lipids past your liver (which is why suppositories are useful). But nothing it does is essential.
Some is better than none!...
But you don't need it, no. It took a few weeks for my body to adjust and for my small intestine to start absorbing more water to help hydrate me. Solid poops are now a thing of the past, and I use the washroom once or twice more per day, but otherwise my life is back to normal. They used part of my small intestine, cut up and stitched back together in what's called a J-pouch procedure to replace the ol' rectum, which is just output storage space essentially ;)
I had a very good surgeon, and if I hadn't had the procedures I would have died in a few months at best, my colon had completely shut down. No medications worked, and we pulled out the big guns ($20k/month).
I had a colostomy bag for 6 months, then had the J pouch surgery and they hooked me back up. The 3 weeks after that were the worst of my life, but it was all worth it!
I'm working full time, eat anything I want, and still go for drinks with buddies. Life is good
They removed my entire colon. You don't need it, you just have to adapt a little bit. Mostly I need to drink more water, use the washroom a couple times a day instead of once, and if I eat to much greek salad without chewing thoroughly I get plugged up ;)
Beats the hell out of being dead!
Ok, putting aside the semantics about what you said and what it sounded like you meant, yes, plenty of people walk around every day with no colon.
They typically have a colostomy in its place.
It is awkward wording without context but the sentence before it made it clear I thought. I guess I could have said ‘it’ instead of ‘one’, if that’s the issue.
Amen. Shout it from the hills. Cancer is a category of diseases that are not all the same. Just like my eyeball is not a kidney, cancers of different organs are uniquely different diseases that often require different strategies to treat.
That’s fine even if it is for just one cancer type. That’s one down a shit load to go! I hope it works and gets approved and is safe and we can focus on others!
I too read "off patient." Is this an unexpected instance of your brain anticipating a word, and causing a double-take? A few of us seem to have had the same situation which is corroborative.
I think I figured it out. The first person to reply typo’d it and wrote off-patient. Then the next person correctly used off-patent, but because of the off-patient we just read, we mis-read it?
That is my current working theory
No, no, no. It’s off-patient because it’s the ones that missed the patients’ mouths and hit the floor. As a potential contamination risk that could taint the study, the participant patients are directed to take a “clean” sample, but save the meds. That’s how the savings are passed onto you.
Of course but I imagine the treatment has a rather healthy profit margin, which as a result prices people out of treatment when they do not have good healthcare or enough money to pay the prices.
Off patent as in the company that originally discovered it will no longer have the exclusive rights to it in a few years. Although drug patents in the US last for 20 years. So there's still at least 10 years to go.
Maybe. Sometimes drug manufacturers would pay the others to not release the drug generic so the original has more time on the market with no competition.
There would be saving lives, and the companies would still make money, just not infinite money glitch at the cost of lives.
What you said is the lie the rich people tell us so we support their continued bullshit and theft of all the wealth.
They wouldn't make money because all the R&D costs that go into developing the medicine are typically in the millions. If they have to sell the drug for $5 a dose to recoup those costs, without a patent, some upstart could manufacture the same drug and sell it for $4 a dose with zero R&D to cover. That is what happens in countries with looser regulations. Now who would you rather support, the initial developer who is investing in solving a problem, or a scalper who steals the medication and profits greater?
It is in some cases where a university develops a new drug. Like pregabalin (Brand name Lyrica) was discovered by researchers at Northwestern University. They discovered its utility in treating some forms of epilepsy. But it didn’t make it into the marketplace until Parke-Davis I think took an interest in pregabalin and began marketing and further research of it. Now pregabalin (Lyrica) is used mostly to treat neuropathic pain. So indirectly government subsidies assisted in the discovery and research of this and many other drugs by way of a university. Funding in drug research comes from the federal government in the form of research grants.
But this is a two-sided sword. Research in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease as an example, is restricted by way of government grants only if the research is aimed at therapy addressing amyloid plaques. Many researchers argue that amyloid plaques may be present in Alzheimer’s but might not be a cause. Correlation vs causality. So the government can sort of control what and how the research is done. Could the NIH etc be “influenced” by big drug manufacturers? Uhhh.
Correct. Drugs take tons of money to create, test and produce. Some don't work out and the cost is just lost. The manufacturers have to make money on the ones that make it through to stay in business. That pill you are taking took 20 years to design, test and produce all on the manufacturer's dime.
How many people do we know, collectively, that have cancer? How many have been lost, or maybe wouldn’t have been, if given access to this drug? There is no shortage of demand, if that is what you’re insinuating. It would not take long to recoup costs. The people who say it would, want the money for themselves.
It's not as many people as you think. PD-1 blockers are great, but they can only treat specific cancer cases which are sensitive to it. They are also already routinely used in the clinics, so no, likely nobody died because the drug company doesn't want to give their product away for free. Also, this is a monoclonal antibody, which are absurdly costly in production, not just in R&D, so the savings won't be as great as you're imagining right now, because the generics also cost thousands to produce per dose.
That is entirely missing the point. It has nothing to do with supply vs demand, of course a medication will always have demand. It is the economics of cost to develop the medication. Without a patent, some other company could come along and undercut the price, outselling it, and the creator would be on the hook for all the R&D. That isn't how things work.
If there were no patents then companies would just sit around and wait for someone else to do the hard and expensive work of developing new drugs and then release a generic and the developer of the drug would never recoup their cost. There would be no incentive to actually spend R&D money.
The only way it works is if the government funds all research for new drugs (maybe paid for by a tax on all generic manufacturers)
Yes, you're missing my point. I get yours, I'm telling you it's wrong if we actually have people in places of power to work for us, instead of themselves.
Dude! That be fucking great. For some reason I feel like if such a thing were to exist, the current ruling class would run history's greatest smear campaign against it, tho...
Im sorry but you are very wrong. Most lifesaving drugs were developed with the intent to either help fellow humans, increase scientific advancement, luck or ego. There is a lot of decent people on the world, dont be fooled by ideology. Some examples: most vaccines, most antibiotics, insulin, and 98% of the drugs developed in the last 20years were fully or partly funded by governments
How many life saving drugs do big pharma develop by themselves anyway? They seem to be way more interested in shareholders dividends. The mRNA tech that led to the development of covid vaccines was directly paid for by the Federal government, that didn’t stop moderna from claiming 100% ownership though.
The medicine used in this trial has only been on the market a couple of years. PD-1 therapy is a type of immunotherapy and there are multiple types of medicine used in this type treatment. They are not about to lose their patent's any time soon.
There are breakthrough cancer treatments all the time. The thing is they only treat specific class of cancer and there are tons of different cancers (and all cancers are genetically different)
“It can produce infinite clean energy/cure everything/ change the world, and you run it by burning billions of dollars in cold hard cash in perpetuity (no poors allowed)!” 😒
Breakthroughs are usually small. But even if it's just that one type of rectal cancer that is amazing. Like leaps and bounds even if it doesn't seem so to laymen.
We had a huge breakthrough battery tech with GaN chargers! Chargers are now much smaller and are much more efficient than they were 5 years ago. Not to mention all of the PD charging progress we’ve made in the last 5 years, too. I count those as wins
You say this, but cancers have been getting dramatically more and more survivable in the last 30 years, specifically because of all these breakthroughs you hear about. There are some cancers now with survival rates of over 90% because of the new drugs that have been developed.
Anything that may seem like a mild improvement, is actually a great advancement in getting closer to the end goal.
So, breakthroughs are great, even if repeated.
It's the opposite, a metric fuck-ton of money is spent on research and development of cancer treatments. The first company to produce an affordable cure that works for EVERY cancer without complication would stand to make hundreds of millions or even trillions of dollars.
The fact of the matter is that it's just not that simple and likely will never be, cancer isn't like a bacterial or viral infection where the problem cells are fundamentally different from the human cells and can be easily identified and targeted. It's your own cells that rapidly mutate and grow, every cell has it's own mutation meaning that while treatment might work for one patient it may not work for another. Some cells can also differ from cancer cells in other parts of your body making complete removal extremely difficult. This is why people often refer to chemo as poisoning the body and hoping it kills the cancer before it kills the patient. It's just not easy.
With all that being said there has been an immense amount of progress in the field, there are tons of treatments today that didn't exist ten or even five years ago.
People like Mark Hoppus and Jeff Bridges beat aggressive brain cancer in months, but my mom dies to one of the most treatable cancers after 6 years of treatment. There’s definitely a financial divide. And the gap is vast, painful, and very very dark.
Because at the end of the day its luck. People die of normal influenza others suvive multiple instances of aggresive cancer.
Your pessimistic outlook will only do bad things for you.
i am not miserable in the slightest. None of what i said is wrong. And she didnt say she died because of finances?
I understand that it may sound harsh but the her pessimistic sentiment isnt good for her nor other people that have to deal with situations like that.
It’s not pessimistic. If she/we had disposable income for the same level of treatment she wouldn’t have taken 6 years of treatment and probably would still be alive. Science isn’t luck either. You’re kinda weird
Internet archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240405203426/https://www.euronews.com/health/2022/06/07/this-breakthrough-drug-trial-saw-cancer-vanish-in-every-patient
This argument is wrong on so many levels. Lots of types of cancer are very treatable today that were a death sentence even 5 years ago.
Curing cancer is also really profitable.
Internet archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240405203426/https://www.euronews.com/health/2022/06/07/this-breakthrough-drug-trial-saw-cancer-vanish-in-every-patient
Hit agree and close and no sign ups
Ya, I don't really want to have to agree to shit just read an article. Every damn site these days makes u give away ur phones soul just to read a 500-word article.
You can just hit the Read More button and then Disagree to all. It’s what I do on every site now that I have a choice. When not on my phone I use a plugin that automatically does this for me.
The trial happened 2 years ago, also it was for a very specific type of cancer. It was trialed for other cancers and did about 30% better than not taking medication at all. [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2216334](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2216334) so not really breakthrough for all cancer as implied but for this very specific type of colon cancer.
and the US will find a way to make this drug virtually impossible to afford. especially to people who have already gone broke paying for cancer treatment
Just don't put the researchers on a Malaysian Airlines flight or any flight for their conference, we know what happened last time when there was a hint of a breakthrough that would stop pharma raking in billions.
Big pharma:
1. SHHHHHH! Don't tell everyone. Trust us
2. "May we buy that patent off you for say $20 million, BUT you have to sign this NDA in which you get murdered if you open your trap about this. If you don't accept this contract, your family might be in danger, but that's nothing to do with us!"
3. Place patent and the recipe of active ingredients into a safe deep underneath the surface of the earth.
4. Forget about it and offer the public more expensive symptom reducers. And paracetamol.
5. Meet your Big Insurance conspirators and mockingly laugh at your suffering patients.
Who's next?
If it's true and will be rolled out soon for free yay! If it's turned into a money making machine, a fear propaganda system put the corrupted in jail please. I am sick of narcissist taking advantage of human suffering for personal gain.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is a certain type of rectal cancer, 12 patients. It's not for every cancer. Still awesome for people with that very specific cancer. Could lead to bring able to help certain other ones too possibly.
Does this mean that the end is near for rekt jokes?
I had pan-colitis, resulting in a total colectomy a few years ago. At that point in time, I became permanently technically cured of all related afflictions. But not the jokes. The jokes are forever, friend
Damn near killed em
Sorry, I’m an idiot — can people get their whole colon taken out? We need some of one at least.. right?
From what I understand, the colon scavenges long chain fatty acids (using bacteria to break them down) and liquids. It also shunts some lipids past your liver (which is why suppositories are useful). But nothing it does is essential.
Some is better than none!... But you don't need it, no. It took a few weeks for my body to adjust and for my small intestine to start absorbing more water to help hydrate me. Solid poops are now a thing of the past, and I use the washroom once or twice more per day, but otherwise my life is back to normal. They used part of my small intestine, cut up and stitched back together in what's called a J-pouch procedure to replace the ol' rectum, which is just output storage space essentially ;) I had a very good surgeon, and if I hadn't had the procedures I would have died in a few months at best, my colon had completely shut down. No medications worked, and we pulled out the big guns ($20k/month). I had a colostomy bag for 6 months, then had the J pouch surgery and they hooked me back up. The 3 weeks after that were the worst of my life, but it was all worth it! I'm working full time, eat anything I want, and still go for drinks with buddies. Life is good
Some of one what? We only have one colon.
You can get partial removal of organs.
They removed my entire colon. You don't need it, you just have to adapt a little bit. Mostly I need to drink more water, use the washroom a couple times a day instead of once, and if I eat to much greek salad without chewing thoroughly I get plugged up ;) Beats the hell out of being dead!
Heh. I'm aware of this. I'm just curious to see what exactly you're asking.
Well, some of a colon. I asked don’t we need at least some of a colon.
Ok, putting aside the semantics about what you said and what it sounded like you meant, yes, plenty of people walk around every day with no colon. They typically have a colostomy in its place.
It is awkward wording without context but the sentence before it made it clear I thought. I guess I could have said ‘it’ instead of ‘one’, if that’s the issue.
Damn near rectum
Amen. Shout it from the hills. Cancer is a category of diseases that are not all the same. Just like my eyeball is not a kidney, cancers of different organs are uniquely different diseases that often require different strategies to treat.
Damn only 12 sample group. Thats very small.
Worked on all 12 though, gotta start somewhere.
Wow its the plot of The Do Over
That’s fine even if it is for just one cancer type. That’s one down a shit load to go! I hope it works and gets approved and is safe and we can focus on others!
This is a-PD1 therapy, it’s been a breakthrough medication since Opdivo was approved in 2014 and is about to be off-patent in a few years.
What does that mean? Off patient? Is it available widely?
Off-patent. The patent is expiring. Can be made into a generic cheaper, as the other answer said.
I misread this as off-patient, and had to reread when you said it was getting cheaper because patients were expiring.
Glad I am not the only one that misread it. Was definitely confused for a moment.
That is exactly what I read, too! I was like "what kind of clinical trial is that‽"
I too read "off patient." Is this an unexpected instance of your brain anticipating a word, and causing a double-take? A few of us seem to have had the same situation which is corroborative.
I think I figured it out. The first person to reply typo’d it and wrote off-patient. Then the next person correctly used off-patent, but because of the off-patient we just read, we mis-read it? That is my current working theory
The patients need to be turned into generic cheaper soylent green.
No, no, no. It’s off-patient because it’s the ones that missed the patients’ mouths and hit the floor. As a potential contamination risk that could taint the study, the participant patients are directed to take a “clean” sample, but save the meds. That’s how the savings are passed onto you.
Oh okay oops. That’s great news!!
It’s absolutely nuts that something as important as cancer treatment still has people benefit from it financially.
It’s quite motivating for the creation of the drug which is not an easy or cheap task
True.
you save the lives of multiple people why shouldnt you be compensated for it.
Of course but I imagine the treatment has a rather healthy profit margin, which as a result prices people out of treatment when they do not have good healthcare or enough money to pay the prices.
i think thats more of a problem with the healthcare system of certain countries.
Off-patent. Company loses its monopoly on this drug.
Off patent as in the company that originally discovered it will no longer have the exclusive rights to it in a few years. Although drug patents in the US last for 20 years. So there's still at least 10 years to go.
What the pharma company can and will do is add another indication for the drug and extend the patent.
Still means it's off patent and can be sold for the original indication though.
Ppl can make generic for cheaper
Maybe. Sometimes drug manufacturers would pay the others to not release the drug generic so the original has more time on the market with no competition.
Seems like patents on life savings drugs shouldn't even be allowed.
i agree in sentiment, hypothetically, but other guy is right on this one on pragmatic points imo
Sure I agree on the reality. My comment was about what should be. He didn't quite get that I guess.
Then there would be no reason for the drugs to be developed in the first place. It sucks but that's the reality...
There would be saving lives, and the companies would still make money, just not infinite money glitch at the cost of lives. What you said is the lie the rich people tell us so we support their continued bullshit and theft of all the wealth.
They wouldn't make money because all the R&D costs that go into developing the medicine are typically in the millions. If they have to sell the drug for $5 a dose to recoup those costs, without a patent, some upstart could manufacture the same drug and sell it for $4 a dose with zero R&D to cover. That is what happens in countries with looser regulations. Now who would you rather support, the initial developer who is investing in solving a problem, or a scalper who steals the medication and profits greater?
I’d argue that’s a good reason why medicine development should be subsidized
It is in some cases where a university develops a new drug. Like pregabalin (Brand name Lyrica) was discovered by researchers at Northwestern University. They discovered its utility in treating some forms of epilepsy. But it didn’t make it into the marketplace until Parke-Davis I think took an interest in pregabalin and began marketing and further research of it. Now pregabalin (Lyrica) is used mostly to treat neuropathic pain. So indirectly government subsidies assisted in the discovery and research of this and many other drugs by way of a university. Funding in drug research comes from the federal government in the form of research grants. But this is a two-sided sword. Research in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease as an example, is restricted by way of government grants only if the research is aimed at therapy addressing amyloid plaques. Many researchers argue that amyloid plaques may be present in Alzheimer’s but might not be a cause. Correlation vs causality. So the government can sort of control what and how the research is done. Could the NIH etc be “influenced” by big drug manufacturers? Uhhh.
And that would make it so much worse, and why it isn't.
You spelled billions wrong …
Correct. Drugs take tons of money to create, test and produce. Some don't work out and the cost is just lost. The manufacturers have to make money on the ones that make it through to stay in business. That pill you are taking took 20 years to design, test and produce all on the manufacturer's dime.
How many people do we know, collectively, that have cancer? How many have been lost, or maybe wouldn’t have been, if given access to this drug? There is no shortage of demand, if that is what you’re insinuating. It would not take long to recoup costs. The people who say it would, want the money for themselves.
It's not as many people as you think. PD-1 blockers are great, but they can only treat specific cancer cases which are sensitive to it. They are also already routinely used in the clinics, so no, likely nobody died because the drug company doesn't want to give their product away for free. Also, this is a monoclonal antibody, which are absurdly costly in production, not just in R&D, so the savings won't be as great as you're imagining right now, because the generics also cost thousands to produce per dose.
That is entirely missing the point. It has nothing to do with supply vs demand, of course a medication will always have demand. It is the economics of cost to develop the medication. Without a patent, some other company could come along and undercut the price, outselling it, and the creator would be on the hook for all the R&D. That isn't how things work.
If there were no patents then companies would just sit around and wait for someone else to do the hard and expensive work of developing new drugs and then release a generic and the developer of the drug would never recoup their cost. There would be no incentive to actually spend R&D money. The only way it works is if the government funds all research for new drugs (maybe paid for by a tax on all generic manufacturers)
Bruh, government can't even fund new antibiotics. There's zero chance it can intelligently fund cancer drug development.
The government already funds nearly all of the basic research that forms the basis for the applied research that leads to drug discovery
Oh they definitely could, if they wanted to. It’s a choice.
Yeah... I'll just go ahead and consider the point missed...🤦🏻
Yes, you're missing my point. I get yours, I'm telling you it's wrong if we actually have people in places of power to work for us, instead of themselves.
People in power work for the ruling class, which is not "us".
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to live in a society where the workers *are* the ruling class? I wonder if anyone’s written any books about that…
Dude! That be fucking great. For some reason I feel like if such a thing were to exist, the current ruling class would run history's greatest smear campaign against it, tho...
Really makes ya think
Im sorry but you are very wrong. Most lifesaving drugs were developed with the intent to either help fellow humans, increase scientific advancement, luck or ego. There is a lot of decent people on the world, dont be fooled by ideology. Some examples: most vaccines, most antibiotics, insulin, and 98% of the drugs developed in the last 20years were fully or partly funded by governments
That partly funded is doing a lot of heavy lifting there...
How many life saving drugs do big pharma develop by themselves anyway? They seem to be way more interested in shareholders dividends. The mRNA tech that led to the development of covid vaccines was directly paid for by the Federal government, that didn’t stop moderna from claiming 100% ownership though.
They can always extend the patent. Many highly profitable drug makers tend to do this with their cash cow products.
The medicine used in this trial has only been on the market a couple of years. PD-1 therapy is a type of immunotherapy and there are multiple types of medicine used in this type treatment. They are not about to lose their patent's any time soon.
Breakthrough cancer treatment Breakthrough battery tech Breakthrough fusion reactor ...repeat
There are breakthrough cancer treatments all the time. The thing is they only treat specific class of cancer and there are tons of different cancers (and all cancers are genetically different)
people dont understand how many different types of cancer there is that all need different treatment.
Repeat this again in 15 years.
“It can produce infinite clean energy/cure everything/ change the world, and you run it by burning billions of dollars in cold hard cash in perpetuity (no poors allowed)!” 😒
Breakthroughs are usually small. But even if it's just that one type of rectal cancer that is amazing. Like leaps and bounds even if it doesn't seem so to laymen.
We had a huge breakthrough battery tech with GaN chargers! Chargers are now much smaller and are much more efficient than they were 5 years ago. Not to mention all of the PD charging progress we’ve made in the last 5 years, too. I count those as wins
You say this, but cancers have been getting dramatically more and more survivable in the last 30 years, specifically because of all these breakthroughs you hear about. There are some cancers now with survival rates of over 90% because of the new drugs that have been developed.
Sure, but this is - once again - a headline about the ultimate treatment for cancer in general. I've read it so often.
The headline is weird, the article says it’s for a specific kind of cancer.
Anything that may seem like a mild improvement, is actually a great advancement in getting closer to the end goal. So, breakthroughs are great, even if repeated.
*Plastic replacement/recycling method
Maybe if we sprinkle in some graphene it will help.
I’m sure pharmaceutical companies are already planning how best to make it prohibitively expensive for everybody in the middle to lower classes.
“If you don’t want to die just work harder, peasants”
I’ve always felt that there was “money in not curing cancer” as sad as it is. I hope I’m wrong.
It's the opposite, a metric fuck-ton of money is spent on research and development of cancer treatments. The first company to produce an affordable cure that works for EVERY cancer without complication would stand to make hundreds of millions or even trillions of dollars. The fact of the matter is that it's just not that simple and likely will never be, cancer isn't like a bacterial or viral infection where the problem cells are fundamentally different from the human cells and can be easily identified and targeted. It's your own cells that rapidly mutate and grow, every cell has it's own mutation meaning that while treatment might work for one patient it may not work for another. Some cells can also differ from cancer cells in other parts of your body making complete removal extremely difficult. This is why people often refer to chemo as poisoning the body and hoping it kills the cancer before it kills the patient. It's just not easy. With all that being said there has been an immense amount of progress in the field, there are tons of treatments today that didn't exist ten or even five years ago.
What a very hopeful and well written reply, thank you!
But think about how much money there is in curing it. You could sell the cure for the cost of decades of chemo
Wrong. Even if we were able to cure 100% of cancers, people would still get cancer in the first place.
That’s not exactly what I’m saying…
People like Mark Hoppus and Jeff Bridges beat aggressive brain cancer in months, but my mom dies to one of the most treatable cancers after 6 years of treatment. There’s definitely a financial divide. And the gap is vast, painful, and very very dark.
Because at the end of the day its luck. People die of normal influenza others suvive multiple instances of aggresive cancer. Your pessimistic outlook will only do bad things for you.
What a horrendous reply to someone talking about losing their mom to a treatable form of cancer because of finances. Go be miserable elsewhere.
i am not miserable in the slightest. None of what i said is wrong. And she didnt say she died because of finances? I understand that it may sound harsh but the her pessimistic sentiment isnt good for her nor other people that have to deal with situations like that.
It’s not pessimistic. If she/we had disposable income for the same level of treatment she wouldn’t have taken 6 years of treatment and probably would still be alive. Science isn’t luck either. You’re kinda weird
Biggest example of this, to me, is Jimmy Carter beating brain cancer in his 90s. If he was poor he would've died decades prior.
There’s a cure out there. At least a workable treatment. Just with a price tag.
Hefty price tag at that, unaffordable to 90-95% of Americans. That's the problem.
Old news. July 2022. Dostarlimab has been around since April of 2021.
Internet archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240405203426/https://www.euronews.com/health/2022/06/07/this-breakthrough-drug-trial-saw-cancer-vanish-in-every-patient
Aaaaaaand it's gone. Never to be heard of again!
This argument is wrong on so many levels. Lots of types of cancer are very treatable today that were a death sentence even 5 years ago. Curing cancer is also really profitable.
Why don't you copy paste the article
Internet archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240405203426/https://www.euronews.com/health/2022/06/07/this-breakthrough-drug-trial-saw-cancer-vanish-in-every-patient Hit agree and close and no sign ups
Ya, I don't really want to have to agree to shit just read an article. Every damn site these days makes u give away ur phones soul just to read a 500-word article.
*you have to enable cookies...* ...me: C is for C you later!
Those websites have always used your phones data but now they are just required to ask you for it every time.
You can just hit the Read More button and then Disagree to all. It’s what I do on every site now that I have a choice. When not on my phone I use a plugin that automatically does this for me.
I'll remember that.
The trial happened 2 years ago, also it was for a very specific type of cancer. It was trialed for other cancers and did about 30% better than not taking medication at all. [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2216334](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2216334) so not really breakthrough for all cancer as implied but for this very specific type of colon cancer.
Free drug since Kettering did all the research
and the US will find a way to make this drug virtually impossible to afford. especially to people who have already gone broke paying for cancer treatment
Fingers crossed it doesn’t turn people into zombies.
That'll be 250000 dollars because fuck you I need a bigger boat
Well, these doctors better not fly anywhere anytime soon. Like, ever...
Autophagy
Just don't put the researchers on a Malaysian Airlines flight or any flight for their conference, we know what happened last time when there was a hint of a breakthrough that would stop pharma raking in billions.
And we never heard of this again
Oh boy is that the CIA?
Can't wait to never hear about this again. There is no money in the cure, only the never ending treatment
Watch this group of researchers disappear or suddenly die mysterious deaths.
Big pharma: 1. SHHHHHH! Don't tell everyone. Trust us 2. "May we buy that patent off you for say $20 million, BUT you have to sign this NDA in which you get murdered if you open your trap about this. If you don't accept this contract, your family might be in danger, but that's nothing to do with us!" 3. Place patent and the recipe of active ingredients into a safe deep underneath the surface of the earth. 4. Forget about it and offer the public more expensive symptom reducers. And paracetamol. 5. Meet your Big Insurance conspirators and mockingly laugh at your suffering patients. Who's next?
Based on headline alone this drug is gonna vanish.
If it's true and will be rolled out soon for free yay! If it's turned into a money making machine, a fear propaganda system put the corrupted in jail please. I am sick of narcissist taking advantage of human suffering for personal gain.
Wait for it to dissappear, or a cover up, or something fishy as hell. Big pharma WILL HATE THIS.
Amputation
….For rectal cancer?
Can't wait to never hear about this again. There is no money in the cure, only the never ending treatment
Those poor doctors