undefined | Better HN

0 pointsd--b3mo ago0 comments

From what I saw, there are very few experimental therapies that claim 100% efficacy, no side effect, no patent on complex engineering process to produce the drug.

I agree with GP that it is very notable.

I mean if it works on humans, which is not a stretch, colorectal cancer is done. It's huge.

0 comments

estearum3mo ago

Yes there are few that claim 100% efficacy and no side effect at this stage, but there are far, far, far fewer who make it to human availability.

I wouldn't describe it working in humans as "a stretch" per se. I'm not identifying a specific reason it shouldn't work in humans. I'm just saying that's true of thousands and thousands of really great looking treatments (per year!) that, nonetheless, end up not working in humans, or not being convincing enough to even warrant putting them in humans once.

d--bOP3mo ago

If it is the case that there are such treatments (easy to produce, 100% efficacy, no side effect) that cure fairly common deadly disease such as colorectal cancer in mice, and that never make it to human trial, there is something seriously broken about medical research...

estearum3mo ago

No, the issue is that mice are very different from humans.

The only thing such a state of affairs clearly indicates is broken is using mice as proto-human test subjects.

Which of course, when you state it like that, is obviously suboptimal. But no one knows what to do about it.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsd--b3mo ago0 comments

From what I saw, there are very few experimental therapies that claim 100% efficacy, no side effect, no patent on complex engineering process to produce the drug.

I agree with GP that it is very notable.

I mean if it works on humans, which is not a stretch, colorectal cancer is done. It's huge.

0 comments

estearum3mo ago

Yes there are few that claim 100% efficacy and no side effect at this stage, but there are far, far, far fewer who make it to human availability.

d--bOP3mo ago

estearum3mo ago

No, the issue is that mice are very different from humans.

The only thing such a state of affairs clearly indicates is broken is using mice as proto-human test subjects.

Which of course, when you state it like that, is obviously suboptimal. But no one knows what to do about it.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse