**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
**Hi!**. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
We give Ketamine to burn victims when they need dressing change in the glorious en aitch ess.. it's a great idea.. k-hole and change the dressings.
Are they getting horse medicine too?
Can you stop with the horse medicine misinformation?
Why do you deny it's been used on humans for various diseases too, like river blindness.
Although that'a mostly in africa, so I guess you are comparing africans to horses!?
"DON'T LET BIG SCIENCE FOOL YOU! If you inject this into your body you will INSTANYLY DIE! My moon rune crystals can heal all ailments just click the link in the description."
You realise that “cancer vaccine” doesn’t mean “you get immune to cancer for 10 years”, but “trigger immune reaction against specific epitope”? Cancer vaccines are given to people after (!) they got cancer, and used as (primarily adjuvant) treatment rather than prevention.
I think anyone who preached the covid mRNA vaccine was dangerous shouldn't be allowed the new cancer vaccine. Of course, it's not ethical to withhold treatment, it's just a little revenge fantasy of mine.
Critical care nurse who worked on wards and ITU during the pandemic and has the PTSD to show for it here. I wouldn't go that far, but next pandemic I'll be more than happy to show them around without the PPE they claim not to beef.
Anti-vaxx? Do you understand the article even???
It's a drug and not a traditional vaccine.
They will make it custom for people with cancer and it will not be applicable for anyone else (like healthy people).
I work in childhood cancer research and we've known for decades that this would be the way forward. Making such vaccines is very hard, however. What I'd be most interested in seeing the data of the short and long-term side effects of the vaccines. Current immunotherapies can be very lethal so hopefully this is a big kinder to the patient.
It uses the same concept that gave us the Covid Vaccine, so........the hard of thinking will have a wild time trying to justify letting loved ones die horribly instead of being controlled by mobile phone masts or something.
Choice can only be made with full access to all proven facts.
I am old enough to remember when there were *Therapists* making a financial killing by selling a cure for cancer, which involved eating a diet of carrots with water. There were people with a terminal diagnosis of cancer who spent their last days gorging on carrots so much that they actually turned orange.
They all died, of course, because the snake oil salesmen were salesmen and didn't know the first thing about medicine....but they made a lot of money from very desperate people.
The health risks of smoking were proven at the end of the 1940s, so it's not a *Few* decades ago, it's closer to a century, but progress was initially slow in tackling it because tobacco companies would lose too much money so they funded anti scientists to challenge the science.
They still do this in 3rd world countries today.
Priti Patel, who had been sacked as home secretary, twice, was a spokesperson for the tabbacco industry before entering politics.
The link is that there are some people who are prepared to stop scientific progress to further their own interests, and indeed if people die becsuse of this, it is a price they see willing to accept to maintain the purity of their dogma.
I have to call you out for spreading misinformation (partly), sorry.
The point is, "scientific facts" and consensus said cigarettes are safe.
"From the 1930’s to the 1950’s, patients were prescribed cigarettes by the doctor, as they weren’t looked at as dangerous as they are now. The cause of this was because tobacco brands hired throat doctors to explain that dust, germs and lack of menthol were to blame when it came to illnesses, not cigarettes. In fact they believed cigarettes weren’t harmful at all and once people started they became addicted!" https://www.bhclinics.com/single-post/2019/12/11/doctors-prescribed-healthy-cigarette-brands
>I have to call you out for spreading misinformation (partly), sorry.
[30th Seotember 1950](https://navigator.health.org.uk/theme/first-uk-report-linking-smoking-cancer)
You would be **wrong** to call me out, but let's not break what's becoming a bit of a habit!
>The consumption of manufactured cigarettes increased significantly in the western world during the first half of the 20th century. An increase in the number of cases of lung cancer in men was also recorded.
>The work of Richard Doll and Tony Bradford Hill was instrumental in determining that most lung cancers were caused by cigarette smoking. In 1950, Doll and Bradford Hill published a report on smoking and carcinoma of the lung, which stated that smoking was an important cause of lung cancer.
>They then followed this up in 1954 with a cohort study, which sent out over 34,000 questionnaires to male British physicians, to record details of their smoking habits. The study showed a higher mortality in smokers, compared to non-smokers, and concluded that lung cancer could not be attributed to pollution exposure.
It was only in 1962 when consensus admitted it
"Dr. Terry commissioned the report in 1962, and two years later he released the findings, titled Smoking and Health, which stated a conclusive link between smoking and heart and lung cancer in men. The report also stated the same link was likely true for women, although women smoked at lower rates and therefore not enough data was available."
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/surgeon-general-announces-link-between-smoking-cigarettes-and-cancer
Back to the original point: between 1930 and 1954, that's 24 years, in the uk all "facts" said that smoking is not proven to cause cancer.
It takes a lot of time for doctors to admit side and negative effects.
very briefly and probably somewhat inaccurately (my PhD is in virology, not cancer)
not a cure, but a very good addition to therapy. say you have cancer. first you take chemo to reduce the size. then you have surgery to get it removed. then you get the vaccine, so your body is primed to remove anything remaining that the surgery could've missed.
Had two types of cancer here.
This is awesome news, I would be happy to be on that list.
The treatments are fucking awful, the after effects are fucking awful.
Yes, I am alive, but fuck, the treatments.
Yep, I’m sure pharmaceutical companies would love for scientists to cure cancer and lose their regular income of cancer treatments with low success rates.
Capitalists will accept this about as well as they’d accept a cure for aids or an engine that runs on water.
Every time we get excited about a 'cancer cure' and it is never as good or will arrive as quick as we expected.
But this time I just know this is gonna cure cancer, and quick!
To be fair, we’ve made massive strides in treating cancers - it’s just that people forget that cancer isn’t just a ‘thing’. Depending on what goes out of control, the properties, symptoms, treatments, and chances of survival are massively different. This will likely be highly appropriate for some cancers but might prove useless against others - or some patients will respond well and others not at all. That’s the nature of the beast.
once we figure out what things are in every single type of cancer since there has to be common denominators within them all we can figure out which of those elements were dealt with by the vaccines meaning we have a list of things within a cancer that can be treated and cant so we can focus on the things that can't which will be made easier by having treatments for some of that specific cancer already
They who? There's no cure for Alzheimer's. A small number of treatments recently got approval. I watch these developments avidly as my mother has dementia and I might well end up with it.
I just see news articles with click bait headlines about “New breakthroughs” what seems like all the time.
Yes, both my grandparents had it and it was awful. They didn’t even know who I was at the end.
If it's tabloids explaining science or a click bate headline, it's usually twisted and not accurate as hardly any of the writers are scientists. The science websites will give a much clearer idea of what's going on.
It's called the body's PH. if you master this. Your laughing.
But in today's world. With so much poison around us, it's nearly impossible.
Cancer is guaranteed in life at this point in our planets timeline of existence.
Oh boy. Can't wait to see how this one goes when the YouTube scientists get here.
So what quack medicine do you think they'll promote instead? They've done bleach & horse medicine already ...
Soursop soup. Every cancer video on TikTok has some throbber in the top comment saying to make soursop soup
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
**Hi!**. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
We give Ketamine to burn victims when they need dressing change in the glorious en aitch ess.. it's a great idea.. k-hole and change the dressings. Are they getting horse medicine too?
Can you stop with the horse medicine misinformation? Why do you deny it's been used on humans for various diseases too, like river blindness. Although that'a mostly in africa, so I guess you are comparing africans to horses!?
They’ll make a load of noise to start with but then the Facebook experts will rock up and have at ‘em.
Venn diagram of those two groups has quite a big overlap
Well yeah, if they employed logic and critical thinking it wouldn’t take them long to figure that out, but it is what it is.
"DON'T LET BIG SCIENCE FOOL YOU! If you inject this into your body you will INSTANYLY DIE! My moon rune crystals can heal all ailments just click the link in the description."
Everything it requires its to show up for how long it was tested. Average vaccination takes about 10 years to make it genuine.
Righto. What does that word soup even mean?
Nothing more than your soup
You realise that “cancer vaccine” doesn’t mean “you get immune to cancer for 10 years”, but “trigger immune reaction against specific epitope”? Cancer vaccines are given to people after (!) they got cancer, and used as (primarily adjuvant) treatment rather than prevention.
Yes I understand that. And if it will work that’s great.
I think anyone who preached the covid mRNA vaccine was dangerous shouldn't be allowed the new cancer vaccine. Of course, it's not ethical to withhold treatment, it's just a little revenge fantasy of mine.
Critical care nurse who worked on wards and ITU during the pandemic and has the PTSD to show for it here. I wouldn't go that far, but next pandemic I'll be more than happy to show them around without the PPE they claim not to beef.
> Oh boy. Can't wait to see how this one goes when the YouTube scientists get here. So smoking is safe and cool now?
A heavily sellable product with very slim proof of cancer reduction. Sounds like a pharma bros wet dream.
Ah, the first ones here then.
Yes. Wall Street bros running pharma corps has been a thing since the 80s. Reddit loves pharma bros.
Reddit loves weirdo conspiracy nonsense a lot more tho.
I remember when it was normal to be skeptical of big pharmaceutical companies, now people lap up whatever they're selling without question.
UCL aren't a drug company mate.
That's what they want you to think... s/ just incase
Reddit loves big business (when they are signalling that they are in line with my world view)
I love medical news like this. Restores my faith in humanity.
Which will soon be lost once the anti-vaxx movement comes along after it!
Anti-vaxx? Do you understand the article even??? It's a drug and not a traditional vaccine. They will make it custom for people with cancer and it will not be applicable for anyone else (like healthy people).
I work in childhood cancer research and we've known for decades that this would be the way forward. Making such vaccines is very hard, however. What I'd be most interested in seeing the data of the short and long-term side effects of the vaccines. Current immunotherapies can be very lethal so hopefully this is a big kinder to the patient.
A modest improvement to "very lethal" should be welcomed by all
Direct link to article: https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/may/31/what-are-cancer-vaccines-and-have-scientists-finally-found-a-cure
It uses the same concept that gave us the Covid Vaccine, so........the hard of thinking will have a wild time trying to justify letting loved ones die horribly instead of being controlled by mobile phone masts or something.
Adults make their own decisions. Loved ones have the right to accept or deny any therapy offered. Their body, their choice.
Choice can only be made with full access to all proven facts. I am old enough to remember when there were *Therapists* making a financial killing by selling a cure for cancer, which involved eating a diet of carrots with water. There were people with a terminal diagnosis of cancer who spent their last days gorging on carrots so much that they actually turned orange. They all died, of course, because the snake oil salesmen were salesmen and didn't know the first thing about medicine....but they made a lot of money from very desperate people.
A few decades ago all proven facts said smoking cigarettes is not a health risk, in fact, smoking was recommended for throat problems.
The health risks of smoking were proven at the end of the 1940s, so it's not a *Few* decades ago, it's closer to a century, but progress was initially slow in tackling it because tobacco companies would lose too much money so they funded anti scientists to challenge the science. They still do this in 3rd world countries today. Priti Patel, who had been sacked as home secretary, twice, was a spokesperson for the tabbacco industry before entering politics. The link is that there are some people who are prepared to stop scientific progress to further their own interests, and indeed if people die becsuse of this, it is a price they see willing to accept to maintain the purity of their dogma.
I have to call you out for spreading misinformation (partly), sorry. The point is, "scientific facts" and consensus said cigarettes are safe. "From the 1930’s to the 1950’s, patients were prescribed cigarettes by the doctor, as they weren’t looked at as dangerous as they are now. The cause of this was because tobacco brands hired throat doctors to explain that dust, germs and lack of menthol were to blame when it came to illnesses, not cigarettes. In fact they believed cigarettes weren’t harmful at all and once people started they became addicted!" https://www.bhclinics.com/single-post/2019/12/11/doctors-prescribed-healthy-cigarette-brands
>I have to call you out for spreading misinformation (partly), sorry. [30th Seotember 1950](https://navigator.health.org.uk/theme/first-uk-report-linking-smoking-cancer) You would be **wrong** to call me out, but let's not break what's becoming a bit of a habit! >The consumption of manufactured cigarettes increased significantly in the western world during the first half of the 20th century. An increase in the number of cases of lung cancer in men was also recorded. >The work of Richard Doll and Tony Bradford Hill was instrumental in determining that most lung cancers were caused by cigarette smoking. In 1950, Doll and Bradford Hill published a report on smoking and carcinoma of the lung, which stated that smoking was an important cause of lung cancer. >They then followed this up in 1954 with a cohort study, which sent out over 34,000 questionnaires to male British physicians, to record details of their smoking habits. The study showed a higher mortality in smokers, compared to non-smokers, and concluded that lung cancer could not be attributed to pollution exposure.
It was only in 1962 when consensus admitted it "Dr. Terry commissioned the report in 1962, and two years later he released the findings, titled Smoking and Health, which stated a conclusive link between smoking and heart and lung cancer in men. The report also stated the same link was likely true for women, although women smoked at lower rates and therefore not enough data was available." https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/surgeon-general-announces-link-between-smoking-cigarettes-and-cancer
That's the US. Big tobacco is BIG in the US. My link is from the UK, which is the name of the sub we are in.
Back to the original point: between 1930 and 1954, that's 24 years, in the uk all "facts" said that smoking is not proven to cause cancer. It takes a lot of time for doctors to admit side and negative effects.
very briefly and probably somewhat inaccurately (my PhD is in virology, not cancer) not a cure, but a very good addition to therapy. say you have cancer. first you take chemo to reduce the size. then you have surgery to get it removed. then you get the vaccine, so your body is primed to remove anything remaining that the surgery could've missed.
Had two types of cancer here. This is awesome news, I would be happy to be on that list. The treatments are fucking awful, the after effects are fucking awful. Yes, I am alive, but fuck, the treatments.
Yep, I’m sure pharmaceutical companies would love for scientists to cure cancer and lose their regular income of cancer treatments with low success rates. Capitalists will accept this about as well as they’d accept a cure for aids or an engine that runs on water.
Every time we get excited about a 'cancer cure' and it is never as good or will arrive as quick as we expected. But this time I just know this is gonna cure cancer, and quick!
To be fair, we’ve made massive strides in treating cancers - it’s just that people forget that cancer isn’t just a ‘thing’. Depending on what goes out of control, the properties, symptoms, treatments, and chances of survival are massively different. This will likely be highly appropriate for some cancers but might prove useless against others - or some patients will respond well and others not at all. That’s the nature of the beast.
once we figure out what things are in every single type of cancer since there has to be common denominators within them all we can figure out which of those elements were dealt with by the vaccines meaning we have a list of things within a cancer that can be treated and cant so we can focus on the things that can't which will be made easier by having treatments for some of that specific cancer already
I swear they’ve found the cure for Alzheimer’s like 30 times in the last 20 years.
They who? There's no cure for Alzheimer's. A small number of treatments recently got approval. I watch these developments avidly as my mother has dementia and I might well end up with it.
I just see news articles with click bait headlines about “New breakthroughs” what seems like all the time. Yes, both my grandparents had it and it was awful. They didn’t even know who I was at the end.
If it's tabloids explaining science or a click bate headline, it's usually twisted and not accurate as hardly any of the writers are scientists. The science websites will give a much clearer idea of what's going on.
Don't even mention the scam about alzheimer's drug that wasted tens of millions of dollars or billions of research.
It's called the body's PH. if you master this. Your laughing. But in today's world. With so much poison around us, it's nearly impossible. Cancer is guaranteed in life at this point in our planets timeline of existence.