Checkpoint inhibitors (which are the primary driver of improved cancer treatment over the last 15 years and generate > $50B/year in sales) generally don't look very good preclinically. Even their clinical data can be hard to interpret prior to a large scale trial, which led to them almost being shelved.
The catch here is that only two targets (PD(L)-1 and CTLA-4) turned out to work well in humans. All of the other immunotherapies that looked mediocre preclinically turned out to also be mediocre or entirely ineffective in humans.
Please cut out swipes and fulmination like this in comments. It's clearly against the guidelines, and we've asked you before to avoid using HN for ideological battle.
The problem was similar to a Goldfish group I left on Facebook:
Every day someone, in a panic, would ask for help with a sick goldfish with the same exact symptoms as a post made the day prior.
Needless to say, if a community can't occasionally discuss what content it wants, and what content to exclude, it devolves. HN has a "no politics" rule. I think it's okay to discuss if other content needs to be excluded too.
I'm guessing this is rarely tested since animal modeling is usually a gating factor for human testing?
reply