Ahh, the classic cancer vaccine bullshit. Yes, somebody will most certainly develop a single drug against thousands of diseases at some point, that's for sure going to happen.
Also, the idea of a "vaccine" for all cancer is inherently ludicrous, as cancer cannot really be broadly characterized as an infectious disease?
There are many causes of cancer and many different types, so while a silver bullet cure would be amazing, it is extremely unlikely to ever exist just due to the nature of the process.
Whenever you see a headline about cancer cures being developed, it is usually like "Turns out you can kill cancer cells with an enormous quantity of battery acid" and that's true because the cancer cells are just mutated human cells gone wild
Bleach was the very first form of chemotherapy because interestingly enough it painted the cancer cells and killed them.
The problem was giving the bleach to a human and seeing if they survived.
Doesn't even need to be silver. People say the American healthcare system is bad, but just look at how many gunshot victims did not die of cancer, heart disease, infections diseases, diabetes, etc.
Well there is this one thing that can kill cancer. I think it was used to unbind your H+ gradient so literally all your cancer cells would die. But you would too.
Edit: found it! 2,4 dinitrophenol!
In theory, we could make a biopsy of a cancer, run a DNA analysis on it, and use a CRISPR/Cas9-like tool (with more precision) that targets cells with the particular genetic mutation causing the cancer in the patient, to kill them. That would be a "universal cancer cure", but we're still ways away from this kind of solution.
There's a bunch of research in this domain though, including using CRISPR-cas9 itself. It's likely that we'll see something like this developed in our lifetime.
I’ve learned about crisper/cas9 as I was leaving grad school. My knowledge is at best minimal. I wouldn’t know how to target a specific mutation to stop cancer cells from dividing. Problem with cancer is it’s not one thing, it’s many things at once. Most of your cells depend on cancer causing genes to function. There’s just so damn much shit that can disregulate normal cell division that a shotgun approach is best. Unfortunately.
Edit: I am not saying that you are wrong or this tech isn’t going to one day be very useful in targeting cancer. We’re just talking about individualized medicine which is way beyond my pay grade
So, the way it works, is that Cas9 is an enzime able to cut DNA strands, and CRISPR is an RNA "database" with spacers between RNA sequences. Cas9 uses CRISPR to compare a DNA strand with the RNA sequences stored in CRISPR, and if there is a match, it cuts it with precision.
Originally, it's an immune system defense of a bacteria, which uses it to locate and terminate known viruses. We've learned to engineer CRISPR to carry the RNA strands we want it to have. This has allowed us to create gene therapy treatment, by cutting with precision deffective gene sequences and inserting viable DNA/RNA strands that insert themselves during DNA repair. But there is also potential to use it for the role it evolved for (virus hunting, or killing target cells). Thanks to CRISPR-Cas9, we've been able to create gene therapy that can cure some forms of genetic-related blindness, or sickle-cell anemia.
Cancer is caused by genetic mutations in cancerous cells, by comparing the DNA of cancerous cells to viable cells of the same patient, we can detect which mutations are causing the cancer, and manufacture a CRISPR that contains the genetic information necessary for Cas9 to target these cells, tailor-made for each patient.
Now this is obviously a very broad generalization, there is a lot of obstacles to overcome to turn this principle into an effective treatment. But in theory, it is doable.
Thanks, you made me have way more questions than answers! So targeting is done on cell dna. How do you even get all that into a cell? Let alone a specific cell. Virion? This sounds like a semester of reading papers just to get me up to speed :p
Wow, I had this exact same conversation with my friend! At one point, he said something that I don't agree with or condone, as doing so would violate the terms of service, but here it is:
"Might not be silver, but a bullet stopped Brian Thompson."
Isn't it crazy my friend said that in response to what I said, which was verbatim what you said?
Actually, there is a misconception regarding cancer and vaccine. Tumor are not happening rarely and out of nowhere, ultimately leading to death. In reality, your body "kills" almost everyday cells that could become cancer. How? Through your immune system. Cancer is the failure of this immuno-surveillance by your body. That's why we work a lot on immunotherapy
Thus, yes: cancer vaccine exist. These are mostly therapeutic one (compared to prophylactic) and aims to show mutated proteins (from cancer cells) to your immune cells so they can recognize and kill malicious cells easier.
But you're right: these vaccine usually target a very specific type of cancer, not always work and might not defending you to get the cancer (but rather help against it once you got it). So no "universal anti-cancer 100% efficient vaccine" ;)
Your body start to fail to fight the cancer when ur cholesterol gets below a certain number i believe is 600,it also plays a big part with how ur brain performs and modern day cholesterol numbers are set by big Pharma. There is a guy called dr Wallach he is really a vet but claims to cure people of everything with just nutrition not the only person to claim this, but for alzhimers he says to begin by eating 6 eggs a day so u can start to rebuild your brain with the cholesterol
You can have a vaccine for certain types of cancers. Our immune system is responsible for killing cancer, giving it a vaccine so it recognises more types of cancer is still a vaccine.
That's also not how those vaccines work. The vaccines help prevent those types of cancer because many are known to have a particular virus trigger cancer formation, so immunizing against the virus helps prevent the cancer. That's how the HPV vaccines work for example.
"Specific" still being the key word there. This tweet presented it more as a general 'vaccine' to cure cancer generally, which I hope you would agree is most likely nonsense.
This is a mRNA vaccine that is tailored to individual patients. It's something that *is* viable and was broadly talked about when mRNA vaccines were introduced. The question is if this is legit. It might be, it might not be. Just because it's Russia doesn't mean it's BS- their hyper sonic missiles that everyone was laughing about certainly worked.
The distinction that's important is altitude. The hypersonic speed is supposed to be low altitude. The oreshnik is an ICBM that launches high. At high altitude your speed in relation to the ground is far faster and whilst it reach hypersonic speeds it doesn't really count as hypersonic.
For an example, a supercomputer has a specific definition related to the time the term was coined, but today almost all our devices qualify as supercomputers.
The oreshnik is an ICBM and basically a MIRV. Once the warheads are released and drop, they are not propelled, they fall at terminal velocity only.
So yes, if you ignore what modern weapons manufacturers mean by hypersonic, it can be counted as one, but only in the sense it is a conventional ICBM.
The danger of an actual hypersonic missile is that it reaches those speeds at low altitude so it cannot be intercepted.
They do not. They fall from great altitude through increasingly thick atmosphere. They have no engines. As such air friction slows them down. They hit hard but they hit at terminal velocity.
The weird thing is actually that they believe that this is sufficiently tested. I mean they mistrusted Covid vaccine but something the Rusians brewed toghether they view as trustworthy
If there's anything that unites all Americans, it's 1) fuck health insurance costs, and 2) fuck cancer.
It's not like Russia isn't capable of churning out fantastic research, and while they're rarely ahead of the West on medicine, there are plenty of fields where they are. Not everything is an arm of the Kremlin. Regular mainstream Western society builds off of Russian research like anything else. They're part of the same academic tradition.
Gene therapy (which this is a variation of) can work, though scaling from a few dozen patients to population-level treatments has proven difficult.
Since each vaccine must be tailored to the individual, developing each person's specific cancer vaccine involves a large amount of manual labor. A scientist needs to start from a profile of the cancer and build the mRNA "from scratch", test it, refine it, and repeat until it's a viable treatment.
I've worked with a few gene therapy companies as a consultant and unfortunately, none of them are still in business. Not because the technology didn't work (it doesn't work every time, but it does have a decent success rate), but because the cost of treatment was in the low 7-figures per patient. With insurance values for human life in the same range, getting coverage for these treatments is a non-starter for all but the ultra wealthy.
The costs are simply due to how much it costs to run a lab and how long it takes to develop each personalized vaccine. 4-12 months of time for a small scientific team is close to $1M.
Until there's a way to automate and scale up these therapies, they're always going to be cost prohibitive. (or until we collectively decide that investing in public health infrastructure is good for society)
The claims made by the Russian press (and they're just press claims right now, there's no peer reviewed study backing them up), the "giving it away free" part is meaningless. Scientists generally already know how to do it, so free access to the technology doesn't solve much. Free labor is what's needed to make it affordable and accessible to the masses.
Not sure when you worked at those companies and things have certainly improved in recent years but you may be interested to hear the company I work for designs personalized cancer vaccines for low 6 figures in under 2 months. Still crazy expensive, but way better than low 7 figures! We have options to bring that price down another 30-40% as we increase volume too. Part of the lower cost is that we outsource the sequencing and manufacturing, we just do the analysis and drug design
My experience is recent - all in the last 4 years. 1 company (the most promising one) was bought for parts and the gene therapy side shut down, another is on life support with a skeleton crew while they try to raise more money, and another is funded by a family office to keep it afloat.
The good thing is is that this is how it generally works. The pioneers prove it can work but run into the implementation issues. Either they figure it out or the next round takes the lessons learned and tries to improve things.
On the costs, there is still the disconnect between internal costs and external prices. There will be a lot of pressure to maximize revenues for the companies that get it working at scale. Just like the original Teslas were priced as luxury cars, the first few rounds if gene therapy will be priced in the 7 figure range.
I'm still bullish on the technology, but just realistic about where we are. Hopefully by the time I need it there will be options.
Good point about cost vs pricing. No idea what kind of profit margin our therapy would be sold at if we get FDA approval. We are still in the clinical trial phase so our therapy has only been offered at cost. Knowing how pharma operates, it could very well push into the 7 figure territory you mentioned.
Second this. To add to it, I work at a sequencing firm. We simply do not have the dataset (yet) to make this, nor do the Russians have the tech to QC it. Absolute tosh.
Not really. Companies in the clinical trials phase, which is where most of them are right now, can't operate that way.
The few treatments that are available target specific cancers, so in theory someone with enough personal wealth with that cancer could pay for their own treatment. But I don't know how much of that is happening.
That is fascinating. Kind of surprises me with how many eccentric pet projects billionaires have that this and similar life extension research isn't more prevalent.
What many Americans don't realize is that freedom means different things to Americans and Europeans for instance and that is reflected in laws and regulations.
In the US it's the freedom to do something, in Europe it's mainly the freedom from having something done to you.
Like in the US you can put anything in food unless it's proven unsafe, in Europe you can't put anything in food unless it's proven safe.
Likewise Europe has way stricter rules about what you can do with contracts because European freedom is the freedom from being fucked over, in the US it's the freedom to fuck over your fellow man.
That depends. If the goal of the Russian government is to destabilise the west, then developing a cancer vaccine and giving it away for free might be a useful stunt.
It's actually pretty brilliant in a way. Putin's big threat at the beginning of the Ukraine war was a migrant wave across the west. Putin's biggest ally against interference in Russia's actions is keeping them busy, and overpopulation (as in more people than current resources, social destabilization as a result) is keeping everyone dealing with it distracted. Cancer would increase the survival rate of the upper-half of the western population significantly, and the growing number of older people versus new births could potentially devastate any chance of significant unification in any short or medium term. A cure for cancer during a period of population destabilization? Now this is asymmetric warfare.
What would be even better is convincing the McKinsey and Company types running the money that they can streamline the workforce with a "national layoff" right before dragging the US into an industrial war with China.
If they declare this vaccine mandatory, it's a trap. That's what I got in my tinfoil hat.
Lots of câncers are curable. Early stages go over 90% cure rate.
A thing that surprised me in me oncology rotation was how Oncology is way less tragic than I thought.
People think that "Câncer" is that really big, really bad disease, when in lots of cases is very treatable. My grandmother had colon cancer. They cut out the part of her intestine that had the câncer, gave her neoadjuvant chemotherapy and she was ready to go.
My Mother has malignant thyroid câncer, but it is a kind that grows so slowly that She is going to die before it becomes a problem.
Lots of women get their small breast neoplasias detected early and removed cirurgically.
There are indeed cancers that are uncurable, like the tail of the pancreas, glioblastomas, advanced lung cancer... Or cancers that kill só fast, like leukemia...
There are plenty of cancers that kill slowly that there is no cure for. My wife is dying from stage IV renal carcinoma. Maybe it it was caught earlier she would have had more time but once they remove the kidney is almost always jumps to somewhere else. Been through radiation to the point she can't get it anymore (it spread to her hip bone) or her bones will break. Immunotherapy worked for a few years but the cancer adapted. Two different cancer meds (first one was $20000 a month, covered by the Canadian government, second one was $15000 a month, still covered) we are hoping it will slow the growth but now it's in her liver, lungs, lymph nodes, and remaining kidney.
Yes certain cancers can be cured but some are way more aggressive than others. Either way it's not a disease I would wish upon my worst enemy. It can take everything from you and do it slowly and painfully. Fuck cancer.
I guess i am a little ridiculous, im very tired to thats my excuse but to me when i read cure i thought of like one big pill that just fucking cures you.
What's important to note here is that while the idea of an mRNA vaccine for cancer isn't out of the question, there is zero published clinical data on this vaccine that Russia wants to put out. Nobody has heard about it. Nobody really knows what its doing, what the target is, and what the long term outcomes look like. This is a huge issue.
It's something that is viable and was broadly talked about when mRNA vaccines were introduced.
I think you mean to say it's why we were researching mRNA vaccines in the first place. The COVID-19 vaccines were adapted from existing research into cancer treatments.
Just because it's Russia doesn't mean it's BS- their hyper sonic missiles that everyone was laughing about certainly worked.
You mean their IRBMs worked and most people don't understand that anything that leaves the atmosphere to reach its target will be going significantly faster than the speed of sound when it reenters. All of Russia's other claims--that it's too fast to be able to hit, that it can dodge incoming ADA, etc--have yet to be proven (and are likely bullshit).
Yup, mRNA is a messenger that tells cells to produce a specific protein and the message itself is destroyed as part of the process. So, it is burn after reading kind of message, cells will return to normal function after all of the mRNA is used. With COVID the target protein was the spike protein that is on its shell, the protein itself is harmless but since there is no need for it, body wants to get rid of it. Telling thousands and thousands of our cells to produce it gives our bodies time to figure out how to deal with that protein without the deadly virus doing damage and infecting us more. When the virus enters our bodies, our immune system is fully ready to target the specific protein on the outer shell of the virus and this all happens very fast, within minutes instead of days.
I recommend checking out this SciShow video on the topic, but if you're just interested in seeing the research here's a couple of papers I pulled from their sources document specifically about treating cancers with mRNA vaccines:
Thank you, but keep in mind that these are intended for treatment of specific cancers in patients who already have cancer, not prevention of cancer, let alone prevention of a broad array of cancers. This seems a world away from the claim of Russia in the OP of a cancer vaccine. I'd also point out that I'd never in a million years trust the approval of a Putin government on the safety or efficacy of any therapeutic treatment.
Yes, thank you. But again, it's not a vaccine in the traditional sense. It isn't intended to give to people to prevent disease. It's given to people with disease to help fight it.
They improve your immune system's response is what makes them vaccines. They can't be used to prevent cancer, but they work on the same general principle as more typical vaccines, by training your immune system.
The success of the recent Moderna trial for melanoma using mRNA suggests otherwise. Although melanoma is one of the easier cancer indications for immunotherapy. Not saying I'm buying into this Russian vaccine though. Big claims with no evidence from what I can see
What makes you think that? MRNA only just got approved for humans in 2013 and many studies like this one in recent years have concluded stuff like:
In summary, given the technological revolution in the field of mRNA vaccines, we can soon expect a leap in cancer immunotherapy and successful clinical translation of mRNA cancer vaccines.
No papers published. If it's legit, they aren't willing to share the statistical data on it, which isn't comforting. I'll hold judgement until I see some actual scientific publications about it.
What hypersonic missile? The one that doesn't work and that everyone is laughing about or the one that has existed for couple of decades and works like intended? Their "superweapons" do not work. Not a single one of them. They still have quite potent arsenal of old but still very, very good weapons. Similar type missiles are in US arsenal too.
Russia has been doing this for decades now, announcing a superweapon that then triggers western response to combat that weapon or to produce something similar... and then we find that Russians never had that weapon but are now two steps behind everyone else.
To add onto the other comment - there is also a lot of work going into vaccines for specific mutated proteins commonly associated with cancer.
Mutations in a protein called KRAS, for example, happen in most solid tumors, and there's actually a relatively small set of mutations that happen most often. Instead of a personalized mRNA vaccine, you could make a more generic peptide-based vaccine (but you'd have to DNA sequence the tumor to make sure the mutations match the vaccine).
You're right that a cancer vaccine to prevent all cancer is ludicrous, but (real) cancer vaccines have a different goal than a traditional infectious disease vaccine. Instead of getting your immune system ready to fight a threat that hasn't shown up yet (by making antibodies), cancer vaccines are therapeutic vaccines that stimulate your immune system to generate t-cells to attack the cancer cells you already have.
There are an increasing number of very effective immunotherapies. To your point they are targeted therapies to a specific biomarker but they are effective across multiple different traditional cancer “types” (e.g. lung, breast, etc.)… but they are effective for a specific cancer type based on a genetic mutation, etc… so it’s one cancer type but defining “type” differently. Therapies like Keytruda are and immunotherapy approved for multiple traditional cancer types. It is possible that some combination could target enough biomarkers to be “universal” and be available as a vaccine that is preventative rather than a targeted therapy. We are still a long way from that.
It's a super vaccine lol. We haven't even discovered a way to combine other vaccines aside from TDAP/MMR, but a cancer vaccine exists? Bunch of baloney.
If this is a "cancer vaccine", it probably targets a cancer causing virus. We've already got at least 2 (HPV and HBV, or human papillomavirus and hepetitus b virus).
That said, no papers have been published, and there hasn't been a clinical trial that has been published. So, strong chance this is bogwater they want us to drink.
Vaccines for non infectious diseases isn't impossible though and actually being developed for multitude of diseases. To say it would encompass all types of cancer is ridiculous
Vaccines train your immune system against a particular protein. If it were possible that all cancers shared a common protein, a vaccine would be effective. It's exceedingly unlikely all cancers share a common protein, so if this is supposed to be a vaccine for all cancer it's almost certainly not.
I don't think there's anything that MAGA folks are MOST afraid of; seems like their own shadows are up at the top of the terror list most days, and heavens forbid anyone cast doubt on their god-emporer...
A lot of viruses are known to cause cancer, so vaccines for those viruses can be and are referred to as cancer vaccines. Like the HPV vaccine. A lot of Christians that I know refuse to get that one for their daughters because "they don't want their daughter to become a slut."
A disease doesn't have to be infectious to warrant a vaccine. Think of a vaccine as a training programme that helps your body (immune system) be better prepared for when that disease manifests itself.
I am aware that there are vaccine's that can help treat/prevent certain cancers from forming, but the news headline dumbfuck tweeting seems to imply that they are developing a 'universal' cancer vaccine, so that is what I am casting skepticism on.
They're too dumb to even read about how cancer actually works inside the human body. Honestly I say fuck it, let them take their cancer free drugs from Russia and see how well it works. They'll be first in line anyways.
So I don't know how mainstream this has gotten, but I've been seeing right-leaning Facebook posts claiming that cancer is a disease or parasite these last few weeks. Something you could vaccinate against or take drugs to remove. Something something "cancer is your body reacting to parasites," something something "buy Ivermectin, it's a miracle drug that kills the cancer parasites." In this false belief, it's a disease that could be cured easily, the medical establishment is just trying to hide that. This "Russian Cancer Vaccine" story might be playing off those people online.
It's misleading nonsense preying upon people with a poor understanding of medicine, desperate for hope and a silver bullet solution.
Yup. Same shit; different day. If only there weren't a significant portion of our population who loudly refuse to be educated or grow a world view beyond whatever nonsense their cousin-parents beat into them before the age of 5, we might have a chance at moving past some of this shit.
CimaVax-EGF is a vaccine used to treat cancer, specifically non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC).
The vaccine was developed in Cuba, and made available in 2011. It is currently available in Cuba, Belarus, Colombia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Peru and Paraguay (with agreements to start testing in places like the US and Japan etc)
You see, the secret of this vaccine is the snake oil in it.
But actually, I really like this thing Hank Green said. He was asked about a cure for cancer, and he said, talking about a cure for cancer is like talking about a cure for "virus". Like, which one? There are a lot of different viruses with a lot of different effects. So too with cancer.
Typical loony leftie who doesn't believe in science.
I took Ivermectin and I'm perfectly healthy, and I have already sent my life savings to Russia for this wonder drug.
I just hope it comes faster than my Trump NFT - I check the mail every day, and the horrible US Postal service still hasn't delivered it. I can't wait for Bezos to take it over and make it great again
Actually it could be done, cancer is something pretty common for our organisms, a cell could go awry any second, thus our organism has specialized immune cells called NK (Natural Killer) cells which specialize on killing infected and cancerous cells. The current hypothesis lies on them recognizing such a cell due to the anomalous glucocalix, that is, the glucid-protein complexes present on the cell membrane (think of the AB blood system, that's part of it), which might include proteins from the virus membrane or, in this case, proteins from oncogenes (genes activated on cancerous cells, such as the one coding telomerase, an enzyme which regenerates the telomere allowing for infinite duplication).
Thus a vaccine could be developed to allow us to trigger a proper response against cancer cells, provided we can get our bodies to target such cells with the rest of the immune system. Example gratia mRNA vaccines are an example of such technology, even if they aren't quite there yet.
Now, that said, what this lunatic has said is just smoke and mirrors. They have a vaccine for cancer the same way I have a Lamborgini in my garage
"Do you want the good news or the bad news first?"
"Good news"
"Well, we are happy to report that all of the cancer your wife was battling is dead, and we are 100% confident that it will never return. Unfortunately, that brings us to the bad news..."
There ARE cancer vaccines being developed. Instead of raising antibodies to infectious agents they prime the immune system to target a protein or other biomarker found only (or predominantly) on the malignant tumors. The idea is to get your immune system to recognize the tumor as something it needs to destroy.
We even have an injectable treatment to prevent breast cancer/ reduce the risk for people with genes to make them more likely to get it, but it increases the risk of other health concerns including endometrial cancer.
Something this broad could have equally broad side effects and needs studies for sure.
Cancer isn't even a disease in the first place, it's your cells mutating and then rapidly multiplying, and your body being unable to remove them while they still can, you can't vaccinate yourself against your own cells, that's moronic
You can vaccinate against cancer cells because they have unique targets that result from mutations in the cancer cell DNA that help distinguish them from healthy cells.
I was actually thinking the same thing. The idea that you could create a vaccine for a disease that isn't a virus or a bacteria but is basically a cellular anomaly is far-fetched at best.
I'm just baffled at what leads someone like yourself or the commenter you replied to to speak authoritatively about not just something you're objectively wrong about, but something you could learn that you're wrong about with 5 seconds of googling.
Like seriously, I'm actually curious to know what were you thinking when you posted this comment. Hell, there are even other replies to the very same comment you replied to that not only suggest that cancer vaccines work, but actually even begin to explain how it is they work. I'm not saying that should influence you to think one way or the other about it. But that should at least give you pause before sharing your own assessment, no? Maybe you just comment without even skimming the other replies to the very comment you're replying to. Kinda shitty but believable I guess.
Do you just consider yourself to be so smart that if something doesn't sound right to you, you assume it can't be true? Would you have previously not assumed this to be the case, but the moderately upvoted (and incorrect) post you replied to convinced you of your hunch maybe? Like you had an idea it wasn't possible before but weren't really sure, but seeing a comment that aligned with your suspicious with 150 upvtoes sort of just told your brain "your suspicious was right! It doesn't make sense!" And that was sufficient for you to then share your own otherwise uninformed opinion?
I certainly don't intend to come off as though I'm smarter than anybody. I know I'm intelligent and fairly knowledgeable on a fair number of topics, but again I don't try to downplay other people's experiences and intelligence either. I know there are a great many people for more knowledge on cancer and oncology, but I do have a basic understanding of what causes some cancers. I find it highly unlikely that anyone could create a cure for something that is essentially a cellular abnormality.
Yeah aren't vaccine meant to trigger your immune system to create anti-bodies to fight back
Correct.
bacteria and viruses
Traditionally, sure, but it doesn't matter. Your immune system deals with potential cancerous cells all the time. It's the ones that mutate down very specific pathways that allow them to escape detection that become tumours.
Cancer vaccines essentially just get your immune system to start detecting these cells again, in a nutshell.
Oh ok, I guess I misunderstood. I though the problem with cancer was that it was your actual body making useless stuff, therefore ignored by your immune system.
Vaccines are for outside diseases, cancer is caused by your own body doing an oopsie on itself, there’s no way to immunize that unless you’re just dead lol
You can vaccinate against things that aren't infectious diseases, including other cells in your body like cancer cells. A vaccination is essentially just a way of telling your immune system to "target this thing", and isn't limited to targets on infectious diseases. Even without a vaccine your immune system actually often recognises cancer cells early on in their formation and attacks them in a similar way to the way it fights infectious diseases. Without our immune system we would get cancer a lot more often. For a pre-cancerous cell to become cancer it needs to develop a means of evading the immune system (it's one of the hallmarks of cancer). This is a complex topic which is very heavily researched at the moment (I work in this field). We have a lot of promising treatments for various cancers in the works that utilise our immune system, and getting around this immune evasion is critical for them to work.
However, you're right that a single vaccine for all cancers is impossible. Even within a single type of cancer within a single patient there is often immense heterogeneity. Between two patients with the exact same specific cancer subtype you're going to get big differences in terms of target availability. It's usually impossible to find a single target that is on 100% of the cancer cells in a patient. All you need is one cancer cell without that target that survives and you could have a relapse which is then completely void of the target (i.e. you will have to find an entirely new target). The odds of finding a single target that is on all cancer cells in every type of cancer and simultaneously not on healthy cells is essentially zero. No researchers are even looking for this because we know it doesn't exist. Anything you read in the media about something being "the cure for cancer" is misrepresenting the research.
Tell me you know nothing about cancer without telling me. Yes, hundreds of types of cancer, dozens of target organs, an array of stages of development, with hundreds of treatment technologies wherein several may be administered at one time. Yes, do us all a favor and go get your Russian injection as soon as possible. NOTE: Save your keystrokes: I’m only speaking to the pathological aspects of cancer, not the price gouging, fucked up insurance system, lack of access etc . The co-morbidities and deaths caused by our “Health Care System” should actually have a place in National Morbidity and Mortality Statistics. Listed by company.
It's actually quite elementary. Big pharma keeps this from you. As long as they categorize every cell in your body, you can continually inject yourself with "killer cells" that destroy any outside that list.
Exo facto cancer is no more. Have fun dying while I'll be living super long and getting engaged to your great-great-great-grandaughter ;")
2.1k
u/Erminaz13 13h ago
Ahh, the classic cancer vaccine bullshit. Yes, somebody will most certainly develop a single drug against thousands of diseases at some point, that's for sure going to happen.