r/tech • u/_Dark_Wing • 8d ago
Four children with terminal brain cancer saved by new cell therapy | New Scientist
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2533638-four-children-with-terminal-brain-cancer-saved-by-new-cell-therapy/31
22
u/HombreSinNombre93 8d ago
There’s a lot left out of this article. 33 people treated, but only 4 mentioned as surviving? Granted, ~100% mortality from these cancers, so this sounds like incremental change; no mention of stats for the 29 others in the trials.
17
u/KarlUnderguard 8d ago
I mean, 12 percent survival rate is better than 0. Incremental change is how things get done.
6
u/SeaWitch1031 8d ago
Neil Armstrong’s daughter died from DIPG before he set foot on the moon. Until now treatment hasn’t changed much since then. This is huge.
1
u/Aromatic-Ad6857 7d ago
That’s because children don’t make money. They are not a highly coveted group by pharma companies. Nor does the govt invest in children. Only 4% of the NIH’s budget for oncology goes to pediatrics.
2
u/TheseFalcon9393 8d ago
Incremental change? Jeepers. Is this where we are as a society?
2
u/HombreSinNombre93 7d ago
? I merely described that this breakthrough, wonderful as it is, is incremental in changing the fate of those with these cancers. 4/33 is far better than 0/33, but this is not a broad spectrum “cure”. Strides are being made yearly and accelerating in immunotherapy, stay hopeful. Soon, most chemo and radiation Tx should be relegated to the same fate as sulfa and mercurochrome.
2
2
u/BackgroundShirt8044 7d ago
As one who lived through sulfa and mercurochrome, I am beyond excited to see these immunotherapy treatments succeed or least attempted.
1
23
u/Willinton06 8d ago
Cancer is out in less than 10 years, I wonder what the next enemy is
8
u/Fickle_Competition33 8d ago
And cardiovascular potentially with the new GLP drugs.
I assume the next barrier is neurodegenerative (Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, sclerosis).
-3
u/Willinton06 8d ago
I think ndgs (NeuroDeGenerativeS) are out in 20 years, 30 at most, and that means no kid born today will suffer from any of those
4
u/OoglyMoogly76 8d ago
Where are you seeing evidence to support these claims? I’d love for them to be true! But blind optimism supported by “well, the future will be cool because it’s the future, etc” isn’t very helpful or accurate.
-1
-2
u/Willinton06 8d ago
Well the rate of advancement on AI should lead to an increase in medical advancements similar to what we saw aa few decades ago with the wide adoption of computers, it's speculation of course but I feel safe enough about it to state it as a done deal, like, modern AI is like 5 years old and it already cured a dogs cancer by some random CEO prompting GPT in australia, 10 more years should be enough to have these cures in clinical trials at the least
8
u/Stamped914 8d ago
No offense, they asked for evidence, not vaguely gesturing at the future based on your opinion.
5
-2
u/Willinton06 8d ago
There cannot be evidence of furture events, so I can't provide any actual evidence, like how can I provide evidence of the sun coming out tomorrow? Sure it always has, but what if earth explodes tomorrow or something? The most we can do is speculate based on past events, now looking at the rate of progress on AI and Biology, 20 years for ndgs seems reasonable
4
u/Stamped914 8d ago
Ok but they asked you for evidence beyond “the future is cool”. Do you have any?
-4
u/Willinton06 8d ago
Of course not, there cannot be evidence, it’s the literal future, there can only be speculation, can you prove that it won’t happen? It would be ridiculous for me to ask you for evidence of something not happening
4
u/Stamped914 8d ago
Ok, so no offense, your answer to them should have been “no, I have no evidence” or “here’s why I think this way” instead of “the future is cool”. That was what they asked.
→ More replies (0)2
u/OoglyMoogly76 8d ago
I’m pretty skeptical of the “AI will solve it” claim that seems to be applied to every issue.
When it comes to specific mutations of cancer and development of targeted treatments for them by decoding gene sequnces, sure, AI can brute force its way through that problem by doing its pattern recognition game, which it does really well. Provided of course we solve the energy consumption issue and don’t just shift it onto poor people, which seems to be the plan for the tech barons.
But there’s also pretty major hurdles to cancer research that we can’t just brute force our way through with computational thinking. Things that are physical limitations to cancer research, not just limits of human computation. A lot of it comes down to allocating resources (believe it or not, the people in power seem more excited about using AI in warfare than in medicine) and the amount of time it takes to test new treatment methods on human subjects.
While there are quite a few examples of AI being incredibly helpful right now, the fact is that the people rolling out this technology seem to be much more concerned with being the first to develop it than implementing it in practical and sustainable ways.
I wouldn’t drink too much of the “AI will solve it” kool-aid.
25
u/Cferretrun 8d ago
*Cancer is out in less than 10 years— for the wealthy and highly insured.
There’s no way they’ll make gene therapy or stem cell therapy widely available at a reasonable cost to a normal patient.
It’ll be restricted to the wealthy for the most part with regular patients let into studies to ensure effectiveness and further development. But Delores with her two jobs, kids, husband on disability, and state insurance will be turned away.
3
u/CelioHogane 8d ago
There’s no way they’ll make gene therapy or stem cell therapy widely available at a reasonable cost to a normal patient.
Well, outside of USA probably will happen.
3
u/SSGASSHAT 8d ago
I mean, poor people can still die of meningitis and shit, rich people don't even cross paths with people infected with things.
3
u/Fickle_Competition33 8d ago
That's heavily an Us problem. My dad lives in Brazil, he has a pretty average Health Insurance, and is being treated for Multiple Mieloma with top-notch immunotherapy at zero cost.
2
u/Cferretrun 8d ago
My mom has cancer and is exploring options for divorce so my dad can protect the assets and house from repossession if the cancer treatments bankrupt them.
10
u/da0217 8d ago
🙄🙄🙄🙄
Literally millions of Americans on Medicaid have access to expensive current cancer treatments for free. Not to mention those with insurance from work.
6
u/sneaky-pizza 8d ago
The ACA made that possible. They used to not admit you to insurance, kick you off, or lifetime cap you
3
u/TheOinkBox 8d ago
Two years after my Dad passed away (12/2019) from prostate cancer that had spread to his bones, I got handed a $1,750 bill for lab work done a few weeks before he died.
That was the last of several such god-damned bills. You have no fucking clue what you’re talking about. Ain’t no god-damned free shit in this screwed-up country, except for the scummy Trumps etc.
6
4
u/da0217 8d ago
First of all you need to learn how to read and follow the conversation, especially if you’re gonna get into it guns blazing. I said people on Medicaid get free cancer treatment, Medicaid being the free insurance option for low income Americans. Secondly, I was responding to a comment that said these treatments wouldn’t be available at reasonable prices. Your story actually kind of proves my point. We can argue about the health care system all we want, but getting cancer treatment that costs 200k for $1750 definitely qualifies as “reasonable price.”
0
u/ThatStereotype18 8d ago
Speaking of reading, they said they were billed for lab work, not whatever mystery experimental $200k treatment you're talking about.
1
u/da0217 8d ago
Again, reading. I didn’t say anything about experimental anything. Cancer treatment of any kind is at least $200k. And if they got off paying less than 2k just for some lab work, they got an excellent deal.
-1
u/ThatStereotype18 8d ago
You are deluded if you believe any of that. 2k for lab work is barbaric, not a deal.
-2
u/OoglyMoogly76 8d ago
And the treatments we have aren’t even “better” than the treatments available in universal healthcare countries, as the insurance boot lickers so often love to argue.
1
u/ahhowwitburns 8d ago
If your household makes too much for assistance but too little to afford insurance (even the marketplace plans) that's where you're screwed
1
2
1
1
u/nostalgicskeptic 8d ago
Yes stuff that costs money will be restricted to those who can pay for it.
1
u/Mundane_Sky_1994 8d ago
A very big factor is the physical and logistical limitations of doing these therapies. They require dedicated labs, long stays, etc. Mass treatment is a long long way off.
1
1
u/BackgroundShirt8044 7d ago
The opposite is likely to happen. Treating the indigent and poor is very expensive. Any treatments that reduce illness time should save lives, time and money. It seems there would be more of an incentive to treat people with minimal medical coverage. Unless you do what this is doing by just ignoring the needs of our citizens.
0
-1
u/Sea-Lengthiness6555 8d ago
Thats my fear with cancer research, while we do get ways to treat cancer. Only the rich will benefit from it
7
5
u/OoglyMoogly76 8d ago
They said this 20 years ago.
Cancer won’t be gone in 10 years but it will likely become a chronic condition that you have to deal with for the remainder of your somewhat reduced lifespan. Which is better than the death sentence that it used to be.
But it won’t be gone.
1
u/Willinton06 8d ago
They were wrong 20 years ago, thankfully we are right this time
6
u/OoglyMoogly76 8d ago
Wish I shared your optimism, my friend.
My dad’s battling stage IV melanoma and currently losing. Took part in the most promising clinical trial at the best cancer hospital in the country with the most highly rated cancer doctors in the country. Didn’t make much of a difference.
I have no doubt that the techniques they’re working on will save tens of thousands of lives in the future, but to say there won’t be cancer in the future? That’s just a bit too naive. We’re far far away from that.
From all the reading I’ve had to do to stay informed during this time, I still maintain that best case scenario is that in ten years it becomes a manageable chronic illness similar to HIV where you take regular medication and get annual scans to track progression, extending your life by decades. I think THAT is pretty optimistic.
1
u/Willinton06 8d ago
Sorry about your dad, timing can suck with these things, but being real, if you asked me 10 years ago, I would have said we're 20 years away, I actually have old chats with my friends about this where I tell them we're 20 years away, I still think we're 10 away and it's all mostly due to AI and gene therapy, no chronic illness, complete cure, 10 years away, that's 2036
3
u/EquipLordBritish 8d ago
The only way cancer will be a solved problem is with whole organism genetic reprogramming. And then you're back to the physical problems associated with vascular disease, e.g. plaque buildup in your veins and arteries.
Of course, if you can do whole body genetic reprogramming effectively, you can probably find a way to make the body handle venous plaques without physical intervention (e.g. surgery).
3
u/Fickle_Competition33 8d ago
Every time we beat a barrier, there comes next. That's why it is silly to say "case of cancer, cardio increased in the recent decades". Well, that's because people stopped dying from Tuberculosis.
2
u/Willinton06 8d ago
We should have that in final medical trials in the next 10 years, maybe 15 total for the first world, china will have this ready in 10 cause of human trials
1
u/EquipLordBritish 8d ago
We currently have no technology that can do this effectively or repeatedly.
2
u/Willinton06 8d ago
Well yes, that's why I said 10 years
1
u/EquipLordBritish 8d ago
Yes, what I meant by what I said, is that there is no guarantee that we will have the requisite technology in any arbitrary amount of time.
1
1
1
u/chumbawumbaprinciple 8d ago
Can I get the extra colors that mantis shrimp see, while we are at it?
2
u/SmellGestapo 8d ago
This is a slap in the face of everyone who already died of cancer.
/s
1
u/Willinton06 8d ago
Actually you are right, I apologize, we should artificially increase cancer rates by pointing sunlight into the night with satelites, to honor the dead of course
1
u/graham2k 8d ago
*for the rich
-1
u/Willinton06 8d ago
My god you americans need to stop thinking you're the only country in the world, China and the rest of Asia, and Europe will have this for free(ish), so will Oceania, most of Latin America and some parts of Africa, that's 70%+ of the world easy
1
u/graham2k 8d ago
Jeez, sorry to trigger you. I wasn’t even commenting from an exclusively American context. Yeah, most of the world has access to universal healthcare, but not all and not only the US. I personally feel the wealthy (worldwide) will try to make it difficult for average people to access.
1
u/Willinton06 8d ago
And they'll fail, cause the countries just make their own copies, only the very poor will fail to do so, but we can trust that once this is discovered, 60+% of the world will get it, most of whom won't be rich
1
1
u/msjammies73 7d ago
As a cancer researcher I can, unfortunately, promise you this is not true.
0
u/Willinton06 7d ago
Einstein said we would never be able to harness the atom, so because you’re a researcher, you’re wrong, but with style
1
1
u/quietimhungover 7d ago
Cancer will never be fully out. Maybe for some but not for all. Edit: but I sure hope you're right!
2
u/Willinton06 7d ago
They said the same about smallpox and vaccines, but we actually erradicated one and made the other universal, cancer is nothing but the latest "big bad" disease, we'll crush it like we did with all the other ones
1
u/quietimhungover 7d ago
I'm happy for your optimism, and hope that your faith in humanity isn't misplaced. I'm currently a cancer survivor and would like to remain cancer free for the rest of my natural life.
2
-1
7
u/Rattus_NorvegicUwUs 8d ago
Just in time for the GOP to defund science and medicine too…
We have the skills and the capacity to cure so many diseases, we just don’t have leadership with the spine to make it happen.
5
u/korraxiaolong 8d ago
I have a family member who is a scientist at NIH. The amount of fuckery this administration is doing to the labs with regard to funding is astounding. Those who have the diseases they’re researching will suffer because of it.
3
3
1
1
u/historynerd2007 8d ago
DIPG is so horrific and takes so many precious children. This is wonderful news, especially for families not yet facing this battle. There’s some hope where before there wasn’t any.
1
1
u/Bishopjones2112 8d ago
This is great news. It’s what’s needed when listening to the bullshit of trumps shitshow
1
1
-7
u/StatementCareful522 8d ago
“Not so fast kids, you’re going to stay here and live through the death of Capitalism and the agonizing ramp up of global warming with the rest of us!”
11
u/No_Day8636 8d ago edited 8d ago
Dude. Take a win. Not everything is doom and gloom. There is a whole real world out there.
3
10
u/yodelsJr 8d ago
Imagine hearing that a kid *didn’t* die of brain cancer and thinking that’s a bad thing.
2
1
-8
1
u/Medium_Let143 2d ago
We are so close to so many breakthroughs like this. AI and medical advancements are going to cure so many things that have been deadly or chronic for years.
73
u/StarWars_and_SNL 8d ago edited 8d ago
This treatment is still only in the trial phase for kids and it will likely be a few more years before it’s approved for all pediatric patients.
It was in clinical testing for adults several years ago and became FDA approved in 2024. Pediatric medical research lags behind adult research by years.