Current Events > Cancer vaccine soon? Researchers at Stanford make breakthrough.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2018/01/cancer-vaccine-eliminates-tumors-in-mice.html

holy shit yes
---

"soon"
---

Is this real? It even goes after all tumors in the body?
---

...and all the lab mice rejoice
---

LightHawKnight posted...

Is this real? It even goes after all tumors in the body?

It's real and apparently yes.
---

That would be awesome but theres no chance any of this will happen any time soon. Way too many companies and people would lose way too much money.
---

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

That would be awesome but theres no chance any of this will happen any time soon. Way too many companies and people would lose way too much money.

Then why did any cures or vaccines for any diseases ever make it to market? God, people are so unbelievably stupid sometimes.
---

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

That would be awesome but theres no chance any of this will happen any time soon. Way too many companies and people would lose way too much money.

I don't believe that they would be able to stop it. There's also hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, in the world of cancer research. Tons of wealthy people donate a lot to it. They have a lot of power too.
---

It says it works on many different cancers. How many is that, there are thousands of types. People have poured millions just researching a specific type.

The mice were later destroyed.
---

LightHawKnight posted...

Is this real? It even goes after all tumors in the body?

It's specifically for lymphoma. It's a way of sensitizing the immune system to tumor cells. It's not a universal "caner vaccine" or "cancer cure".
---

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

Is this real? It even goes after all tumors in the body?

It's specifically for lymphoma. It's a way of sensitizing the immune system to tumor cells. It's not a universal "caner vaccine" or "cancer cure".

There's a clinical trial being done for humans with lymphoma, but trials in mice have been successful with other types of cancer.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Then why did any cures or vaccines for any diseases ever make it to market? God, people are so unbelievably stupid sometimes.

Was pharma always this big of business?

idk the answer, you tell me
---

yay non-profit organizations contributing to the greater good with no expectation of compensation other than building their reputation and helping others!
---

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

That would be awesome but theres no chance any of this will happen any time soon. Way too many companies and people would lose way too much money.

The reason this stuff typically doesn't make it to market is because it either doesn't work or only works on extremely specific cases of cancer. Not because of some conspiracy to make more money off of chemo.

Note: Works on Mice is not the same thing as works on humans.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

yay non-profit organizations contributing to the greater good with no expectation of compensation other than building their reputation and helping others!

I believe the universities patent their research and receive royalties for it.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

That would be awesome but theres no chance any of this will happen any time soon. Way too many companies and people would lose way too much money.

Then why did any cures or vaccines for any diseases ever make it to market? God, people are so unbelievably stupid sometimes.

Because people actually once cared about each other more than they cared about money

https://youtu.be/3W9kDQ2kKgA?t=4m15s
---

we need to stop funding these liberal indoctrination research centers. businesses will pick up the slack and make ethical decisions on the distribution of stuff like this.
---

KILBOTz posted...

we need to stop funding these liberal indoctrination research centers. businesses will pick up the slack and make ethical decisions on the distribution of stuff like this.

i would've expected a man of business like yourself to understand the nuances of the conversation rather than devolve into shitty one-liners

do businesses ever innovate in pharmaceuticals or do they ever donate money to organizations that do?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

yay non-profit organizations contributing to the greater good with no expectation of compensation other than building their reputation and helping others!

I believe the universities patent their research and receive royalties for it.

but this is much better than a for-profit pharmaceutical company figuring this out and charging people exorbitant costs because investors
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

That would be awesome but theres no chance any of this will happen any time soon. Way too many companies and people would lose way too much money.

Then why did any cures or vaccines for any diseases ever make it to market? God, people are so unbelievably stupid sometimes.

Cancer is non-transmittable and not contagious for one, it's controlled and cannot be spread. You can't give another person cancer, and you can't catch cancer, so there's zero chance of a sudden epidemic if you cannot cure it.

I've always been in the middle of both of you here when it comes to this stuff. Don't be so naive to think that there is no corruption and withheld medications and vaccines because current treatments are more profitable. It's always about money, not the best interest of humanity.
---

We get multiply "breakthroughs" every year.

It'll get gobbled up big big pharma and never heard from again
---

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

"soon"

---

But if they cure cancer, trump supporters won't be able to say "trump could cure cancer and liberals will still hate him" because cancer will have already been cured so trump wouldn't be able to do it...
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

yay non-profit organizations contributing to the greater good with no expectation of compensation other than building their reputation and helping others!

I believe the universities patent their research and receive royalties for it.

but this is much better than a for-profit pharmaceutical company figuring this out and charging people exorbitant costs because investors

New technology and medicine is expensive at first because the institutions need to recoup the massive cost of doing the research in the first place. And your initial claim was that a non-profit was contributing to the greater good with no expectation of compensation other than building reputation and helping others. That naive initial claim is often wrong, considering universities do patent their research and receive royalties. If this goes anyway, they'd probably do the same with this.

That being said, if a company is explicitly ripping people off (raising an acquired $18 drug to $1000 per pill or w/e) then they should be regulated and the government should make it easier for new competition to enter the market. It's a regulatory nightmare to start a new company in this industry, which gives the big players their power.

MabusIncarnate posted...

Cancer is non-transmittable and not contagious for one, it's controlled and cannot be spread. You can't give another person cancer, and you can't catch cancer, so there's zero chance of a sudden epidemic if you cannot cure it.

I've always been in the middle of both of you here when it comes to this stuff. Don't be so naive to think that there is no corruption and withheld medications and vaccines because current treatments are more profitable. It's always about money, not the best interest of humanity.

I mean, if you really think that entities are withholding cures to cancer because of profitability, then you need to provide some strong evidence because that sounds like a load of conspiracy theory horse shit. The first entity, private corporation or public research center, that provides a legitimate cure for cancer will be richer than you can imagine.
---

https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/400-current-events/76268527
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

KILBOTz posted...

we need to stop funding these liberal indoctrination research centers. businesses will pick up the slack and make ethical decisions on the distribution of stuff like this.

i would've expected a man of business like yourself to understand the nuances of the conversation rather than devolve into shitty one-liners

do businesses ever innovate in pharmaceuticals or do they ever donate money to organizations that do?

I just find a lot of your believes to be poorly thought out. if you don't personally see the immediate benefit of it seems like you are anti-government. Generally seems to me that you are the one missing the nuance of the role of government and instead tend to just moralize capitalism as an end into itself instead of merely a tool that should be used for the benefit of the average American.

but that's just me.
---

KILBOTz posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

KILBOTz posted...

we need to stop funding these liberal indoctrination research centers. businesses will pick up the slack and make ethical decisions on the distribution of stuff like this.

i would've expected a man of business like yourself to understand the nuances of the conversation rather than devolve into shitty one-liners

do businesses ever innovate in pharmaceuticals or do they ever donate money to organizations that do?

I just find a lot of your believes to be poorly thought out. if you don't personally see the immediate benefit of it seems like you are anti-government. Generally seems to me that you are the one missing the nuance of the role of government and instead tend to just moralize capitalism as an end into itself instead of merely a tool that should be used for the benefit of the average American.

but that's just me.

i mean do you really need examples of government not being the trustworthy arbiter of morality and ethical distribution
---

no, it needs to be changed to get money out of it so it stops being influenced by corporations and the super wealthy. public financing so the politicians spend their time legislating instead of fund raising and are accountable to the voters instead of the financers seems like it would resolve many of the issues that currently make politicians gross.

the love of money is the root of all evil.
---

that's a fun thought, but it's naive to think it's that simple. especially since often times the voters are financiers. and people with investments into communities have more at stake during elections, so they're going to be taken more seriously. and often rightfully so - because let's be honest, between some 18 year old NEET who plays WoW all day and someone who is providing quality housing to the community, or a fair and reputable credit union, or some other critical service in the form of a business, the latter is worth more to the mayor than the former.
---

and that leads to entire classes never being represented by their representatives. that seems like a larger issue to me than a fraction of owners of capital no longer having a disproportionately large voice.
---

i don't think it's unfairly disproportionate for the person in my example to have a more important voice than the other person in my example.

it's fair.
---

seems to me "all men are created equal" means no one voice should be systematically set up to be louder than the others. not being represented is a pretty common ingredient for the recipe of revolution.
---

AFAIK all men being created equal means everyone has the right to life, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. that doesn't mean that all individuals are equally qualified to lead. consider the two individuals i mentioned in my other post. one of them is clearly more credible and capable of being a leader and influencing legislation than the former.

no sane person who wants their community's interests represented would demand that the 18 year old NEET playing WoW all day is worth listening to as much as the successful and honest businesswoman who is providing the community with quality housing, credit unions, food services, or some other useful and valuable good/service.
---

its not a matter of leading, its a matter of saying we are all Americans and all deserve a fair say in who will lead us.

People naturally try to move up the ladder. Those who have power try to silent the voices trying to usurp them. We have a system that keeps those in power in power and makes it harder for new players to get a bigger stake of the pie.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

The voice of the people being governed must have weight according to the founding fathers of this country.
---

If you were a politician who wanted to best serve your community, who would you give more credence and floor-time to? An 18 year old NEET who plays WoW all day and doesn't even know where the town hall is, or the successful and reputable businesswoman who is employing hundreds in your own and providing critical services/goods?

Is it unethical to prioritize the latter or to trust the latter more?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

AFAIK all men being created equal means everyone has the right to life, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. that doesn't mean that all individuals are equally qualified to lead. consider the two individuals i mentioned in my other post. one of them is clearly more credible and capable of being a leader and influencing legislation than the former.

no sane person who wants their community's interests represented would demand that the 18 year old NEET playing WoW all day is worth listening to as much as the successful and honest businesswoman who is providing the community with quality housing, credit unions, food services, or some other useful and valuable good/service.

you created a strawman to attack

replace the 18 year old neet with a citizen who makes minimum wage

by your argument, his voice is basically unimportant because he doesn't have properties at stake in an election and doesn't create businesses that give value

but that is a naive viewpoint because elections stake his freedoms, his health and the overall lives of his family he works to provide for
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

If you were a politician who wanted to best serve your community, who would you give more credence and floor-time to? An 18 year old NEET who plays WoW all day and doesn't even know where the town hall is, or the successful and reputable businesswoman who is employing hundreds in your own and providing critical services/goods?

Is it unethical to prioritize the latter or to trust the latter more?

I don't get what you're trying to argue. No one has ever doubted that there are certain civilians who are more influential than others. No one has doubted that say a community organizer is more influential than an 18 year old NEET.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

AFAIK all men being created equal means everyone has the right to life, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. that doesn't mean that all individuals are equally qualified to lead. consider the two individuals i mentioned in my other post. one of them is clearly more credible and capable of being a leader and influencing legislation than the former.

no sane person who wants their community's interests represented would demand that the 18 year old NEET playing WoW all day is worth listening to as much as the successful and honest businesswoman who is providing the community with quality housing, credit unions, food services, or some other useful and valuable good/service.

you created a strawman to attack

replace the 18 year old neet with a citizen who makes minimum wage

by your argument, his voice is basically unimportant because he doesn't have properties at stake in an election and doesn't create businesses that give value

but that is a naive viewpoint because elections stake his freedoms, his health and the overall lives of his family he works to provide for

it wasn't a strawman. it was an example of why there are times when one person's voice matters more to politicians, and why it isn't so simple to just say shit like "get money out of politics" or "stop listening to the financiers over the voters" or w/e kilbtoz said
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

If you were a politician who wanted to best serve your community, who would you give more credence and floor-time to? An 18 year old NEET who plays WoW all day and doesn't even know where the town hall is, or the successful and reputable businesswoman who is employing hundreds in your own and providing critical services/goods?

Is it unethical to prioritize the latter or to trust the latter more?

I don't get what you're trying to argue. No one has ever doubted that there are certain civilians who are more influential than others. No one has doubted that say a community organizer is more influential than an 18 year old NEET.

see post #39
---

I'll explain why this article is misleading after work

Well not the article per se, but people's conceptions of what cancer actually is and what therapy modalities already exist. This isn't new and exciting, or a vaccine for "cancer" in general.
---

Soviet_Poland posted...

I'll explain why this article is misleading after work

:( plz don't crush my dreams of no more cancer
---

i don't know. that sort of stuff usually leads to xombie infestations
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

That naive initial claim is often wrong, considering universities do patent their research and receive royalties.

but they are still non-profit entities who are not seeking to maximize value for stock holders. that's the key difference and only a naive person wouldn't see that.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

That naive initial claim is often wrong, considering universities do patent their research and receive royalties.

but they are still non-profit entities who are not seeking to maximize value for stock holders. that's the key difference and only a naive person wouldn't see that.

even if that's the case, your initial claim was still wrong

it isn't about whether or not they're trying to increase the value for the stock holders. that's a strawman.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

If you were a politician who wanted to best serve your community, who would you give more credence and floor-time to? An 18 year old NEET who plays WoW all day and doesn't even know where the town hall is, or the successful and reputable businesswoman who is employing hundreds in your own and providing critical services/goods?

Is it unethical to prioritize the latter or to trust the latter more?

I would say yes, it is unethical to prioritize the latter. if you prioritize the voice of the latter you will be setting up a system where they are likely to be able to continue their success without the former having much opportunity to improve their situation. both are just as much citizens of this country and deserve to be represented by their government. but the 18 year old neet does not have any real representation.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

even if that's the case, your initial claim was still wrong

no it wasn't. if you feel otherwise please elaborate.
---

KILBOTz posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

If you were a politician who wanted to best serve your community, who would you give more credence and floor-time to? An 18 year old NEET who plays WoW all day and doesn't even know where the town hall is, or the successful and reputable businesswoman who is employing hundreds in your own and providing critical services/goods?

Is it unethical to prioritize the latter or to trust the latter more?

I would say yes, it is unethical to prioritize the latter. if you prioritize the voice of the latter you will be setting up a system where they are likely to be able to continue their success without the former having much opportunity to improve their situation. both are just as much citizens of this country and deserve to be represented by their government. but the 18 year old neet does not have any real representation.

so when it comes to matters of town infrastructure, town spending, etc, the 18 year old NEET is as valuable and relevant to the conversation as the successful and reputable businesswoman, all because of "G-G-G-G-ET THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!!!!"?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

That naive initial claim is often wrong, considering universities do patent their research and receive royalties. If this goes anyway, they'd probably do the same with this.

It's very rare that such a thing happens, especially in biomedical sciences.

I mean, more commonly the universities profit from grants but that's the university itself and not the researchers, and the primary purpose of those grants is to directly fund the research.

Anyway, you have a very skewed sense how research works.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

so when it comes to matters of town infrastructure, town spending, etc, the 18 year old NEET is as valuable and relevant to the conversation as the successful and reputable businesswoman, all because of "G-G-G-G-ET THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!!!!"?

dude's having a legit conversation with you after you called him out on a one liner and now you're gonna be obnoxious to him?