350
submitted 2 weeks ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] GargleBlaster@feddit.org 107 points 2 weeks ago

I'll read the publication in the coming days and report back, but don't get your hopes up. There's a "breakthrough" in cancer research every few months and it leads to nothing. And this study was done in mice which are a bit different to humans (citation needed)

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 48 points 2 weeks ago

They cured hair loss in mice at least twenty times now and we still have bald humans

[-] remotelove@lemmy.ca 57 points 2 weeks ago

They should probably find a way to turn humans into mice. It's a shame to leave billions of dollars on the table like that.

[-] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 week ago

Might be a good concept for a sci fi story actually, probably a comedic one. Scientists learn how to cure any disease and reverse aging, but only for mice. Conveniently for plot reasons, they also figure out how to turn people into mice and back. You can get any disease cured or become young again...but you have to spend three months as a mouse.

[-] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Someone that knows what they're doing: I will watch this show.

[-] turtlesareneat@discuss.online 5 points 1 week ago

Is Anne Hathaway coming back as the grand witch?

[-] vestigeofgreen@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago

I know of a short story on becoming a mouse, but that one's focus is something euthanasia adjacent.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Why do we not simply transplant the hair from the mice, onto the humans?

[-] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 week ago

To avoid rejection of the hair follicles, simply glue live mice to the top of your head.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] OpticalAccount@aussie.zone 39 points 1 week ago

I think this is overly negative. There have been multiple significant advances in cancer treatment over the past 10 years. It just depends which type you get.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Maybe overly negative by saying they come to "nothing", but if you trace those advances back to their initial press release stage, they generally way ovehype it.

Here we have what is being heralded as maybe a universal response to any and all cancer. That would be a shockingly amazing deviation from basically all the cancer research to date. It's possible and wonderful if true, but generally the research falls short of the initial press coverage, even if it amounts to something.

[-] chosensilence@pawb.social 20 points 2 weeks ago

while you're not wrong i do want to reiterate that mRNA vaccines are likely going to be how we treat and cure cancers so there is precedent at least for this to be massive news. if not this there will likely be a real announcement one day.

[-] tburkhol@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

The likelihood that all cancers express a common surface marker that is never expressed by any non-cancerous cell seems pretty low. Not a cancer biologist, but there's all kind of different genetic paths to cancer - why would they all cause some specific molecule to be expressed and why would no other cell ever use it?

[-] AmidFuror@fedia.io 21 points 1 week ago

Your instincts are correct. The approach in the paper is more complicated than this. Here is the abstract:

Abstract The success of cancer immunotherapies is predicated on the targeting of highly expressed neoepitopes, which preferentially favours malignancies with high mutational burden. Here we show that early responses by type-I interferons mediate the success of immune checkpoint inhibitors as well as epitope spreading in poorly immunogenic tumours and that these interferon responses can be enhanced via systemic administration of lipid particles loaded with RNA coding for tumour-unspecific antigens. In mice, the immune responses of tumours sensitive to checkpoint inhibitors were transferable to resistant tumours and resulted in heightened immunity with antigenic spreading that protected the animals from tumour rechallenge. Our findings show that the resistance of tumours to immunotherapy is dictated by the absence of a damage response, which can be restored by boosting early type-I interferon responses to enable epitope spreading and self-amplifying responses in treatment-refractory tumours.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Eh a lot of them save some lives. Its just cancer is really good at killing people and there are a lot of types of cancer

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 92 points 1 week ago

Hopefully, the researchers will be fully employed by the EU. I wouldn't trust the US to not fuck up this miracle.

[-] some_designer_dude@lemmy.world 38 points 1 week ago

“How much would you pay to not die of a tumour?”

[-] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 46 points 1 week ago

I can't want to never hear about this again

[-] mechoman444@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago

Rfk is about to wake up and fire everyone doing this research.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] iturnedintoanewt@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago

Previous research has focused more on homing in on a target or tailoring a vaccine specific to a patient's own cancer profile.

"This study suggests a third emerging paradigm," said study co-author Duane Mitchell, MD. "What we found is by using a vaccine designed not to target cancer specifically but rather to stimulate a strong immunologic response, we could elicit a very strong anticancer reaction. And so this has significant potential to be broadly used across cancer patients – even possibly leading us to an off-the-shelf cancer vaccine."

So... Kinda triggering your own auto-inmune response. But I'd be wary of trouble with overtly aggressive auto-inmune responses, as we already have quite a few diseases coming from these, as well.

[-] eletes@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago

I guess if I was gonna die and absolutely wanted more time I would make the trade off for living with lupus

[-] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

living with lupus

[-] jaennaet@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 week ago

As someone with an autoimmune disorder, I'm honestly not all that sold on whether that's a good tradeoff.

Yay, you're not acutely dying of cancer, but now your body is attacking your internal organs and depending on how shitty your luck is, you can eg. look forward to liver and/or kidney transplants (possibly more than once, too)

[-] kinther@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Multiple Sclerosis comes to mind

[-] yermaw@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

Superbugs are gonna look like regular bugs.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] SirActionSack@aussie.zone 34 points 1 week ago

This is how I Am Legend starts.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

While the formulation isn't unlike the Covid-19 vaccine, which uses lipid nanoparticles to deliver the genetic instructions to the body, it is still somewhat different. Instead of the drug encoding a virus protein, it sends a message to the immune system to rally the troops. It essentially tells the body to produce certain proteins that stimulate the immune system – including a protein within cancer cells known as PD-L1 (Programmed Death-Ligand 1), which makes tumors become more visible to immune cells.

TLDR: they are finding that it’s more effective to make cancer more visible and have the body’s immune system do its thing.

[-] mintiefresh@piefed.ca 22 points 1 week ago

I want to believe.

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

In this study on mice...

Took them 7 paragraphs to get around to mentioning that.

[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 1 week ago

But this was based on their treatment of glioblastoma working in humans, and is a modified version of that one.

[-] BetaBlake@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago

Republicans "universal? Not on my watch"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 16 points 1 week ago
[-] rothaine@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 week ago

We'll find out in 30 years

[-] AngryRobot@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

It causes cancer.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] vga@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'm gonna be watching with popcorn when anti-vaxxers get cancer and definitely 100% will take this vaccine.

I mean, if it's true and not just shit science reporting that I assume it is.

[-] BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 week ago

Universal Cancer Vaccine? WASTE OF MONEY, CUT IT!

-The Trump Administration!

[-] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It has the potential to do away with chemotherapy, surgery and radiation treatment.

I read that as: Will never reach the market because it threatens a multibillion dollar industry.

But srsly, glioblastoma is a really nasty motherfucker with a very low patient survival rate, so if they've really managed to cure it that's a huge milestone.

[-] potato_wallrus@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

CIA hitmen:

[-] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

mRNA vaccine research in America? don’t need that, cancel the funding!

[-] frenchfryenjoyer@lemmings.world 6 points 1 week ago

amazing. i can already hear the anti vax crowd seething lol

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
350 points (96.3% liked)

science

20653 readers
82 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS