Note that this was only examined in cell lines and mouse models. Showing efficacy in a clinical trial in humans is the next step, and that's where most discovery dies.
This is not to detract from the study, which is perfectly fantastic. The problem is the disconnect between what actually happened and how people perceive this press release.
My GF had grade III glioma. They are usually grouped together with GBM (grade IV) when prognosis is discussed.
Tumor was operable. She hade 5 great years till the first recurrence. Then another great year after seccond surgery. Then shitty year with multiple reccurences and surgeries though she still had the pleasure of watching movies, eating, excercising and generally spending time with family and friends. After sixth surgery she landed in the hospice and passed away two days ago.
I hope your sister might get lucky and live in good condition till there are some new treatments available.
What an odd part of history we're in. Imagine 50 years ago, how few options there were for people with tumor problems. Surgery, drugs to help with things like associated seizures. And then imagine 50 years in the future where there could be more of these solutions coming.
Article says ~15 month life average after being diagnosed with GBM, but imagine. Then think how in 3 years this new drug could extend the life of a person by 6 months. 6 months is a huge amount of time for a person and their family. Changes happen so quick in medicine, even going past clickbait "new drug" articles.
> Imagine 50 years ago, how few options there were for people with tumor problems [...] And then imagine 50 years in the future where there could be more of these solutions coming.
50 years ago we thought cancer would've been totally cured by now.
My mother had terminal kidney cancer and was given two weeks to live. After radical surgery and chemotherapy she got to live 4 extra years. The cancer was still terminal, and the chemo wasn't a walk in the park, but she was deeply grateful for the extra time.
That's exactly the case. There's pretty significant probability that you will die before diagnosed terminally ill patient that will die in 15 months time. Just check actuarial tables for your age and be scared.
I just did and my probability of dying is greater than 1/500. Not great odds. Not at all. It's like being forever stuck in a big college class that's held in an auditorium, except every year someone gets shot randomly. And every year the class gets a lot smaller. By 60, the class has only 100 students.
A large component of the progress can't be seen because it involves preventing cancer by banning and discouraging carcinogenic materials and practices. People are happy when they can ring that bell but when they never had cancer they take it for granted. Often there is resistance to a ban on things that cause cancer. Sometimes it's justified (needs to be traded off with other things) while other times it isn't.
Also, it's not deprioritized like you make it seem. New cancer therapies form one of the biggest fields in medical and biological research.
A major contributor to the fact of a „no upward sloping curve“ by the way is that the average age of patients is itself an upward sloping curve. It‘s the reason we haven‘t made any apparent progress across a multitude of medical fields (like narcosis deaths and many more) on average. The picture completely changes when adjusting for age.
The price of insulin isn't being set by supply and demand (there is a terrible frankenmarket lumbering around right now), so I'm not sure if the increase in demand will raise the price.
https://mobile.twitter.com/justsaysinmice
Note that this was only examined in cell lines and mouse models. Showing efficacy in a clinical trial in humans is the next step, and that's where most discovery dies.
This is not to detract from the study, which is perfectly fantastic. The problem is the disconnect between what actually happened and how people perceive this press release.