this post was submitted on 08 May 2024
82 points (98.8% liked)
chat
8151 readers
2 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Treating cancer is more profitable than curing it. That’s really all anyone needs to know about that industry.
"Cancer" is actually an umbrella term for a type of disease and there are over 200 kinds of cancer that require different approaches to treatment. We cannot have a "cure for cancer" anymore than a "cure for virus."
I mean eventually gene therapy will be able to target any form of cancer, so long as it can be delivered to the affected cells. Pharmacogenomics is the future of medicine, sadly only the privileged will be able to access it.
And eventually the Navy will have a working railgun and anti-missile lasers
Except what I'm talking about is closer than you might think, not futuristic at all
Individualised neoantigen therapy mRNA-4157 (V940) plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in resected melanoma (KEYNOTE-942): a randomised, phase 2b study
Sure but it probably won't happen in America, and when it's imported it will be incredibly expensive
Isn't that kinda his point with this post, though?
Probably, I think I kinda lost the plot here admittedly
I mean, a thing they can do is more profitable than a thing they can't, yes. What do you think cancer treatment is?
The problem being that there’s less of a profit incentive in researching a means to eliminate a disease rather than just treating individuals indefinitely.
Perhaps cancer was a bad example, but I think it gets the point across.
Yeah, as soon as non-chemo, proton, etc. cancer cures are found they will be available to the upper-class, medical advancements aren't kept secret, but...
Guess which form of cancer is at the forefront of research in terms of finding cures/prevention. Melanoma. Can you guess why?
Because it has a well understood oncogenesis, because immunotherapy and selective therapy drugs tend to work well against Melanomas, and because since it's localized in peripheral tissues it's easy to access and model?
Nah cause its for white people /hj
All cancer treatments disproportionately benefit white people, as they can disproportionately afford them and disproportionately have better access to diagnostic tests. It actually wouldn't be sufficient to explain the difference in why melanoma treatments are more developed.