Ongoing clinical trial testing therapeutic in humans.

  • daq@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s not completely true. Look up the video medlifecrisis did on it for just one example. When cancer isn’t cancer or epidemic of fake disease.

    • Shikadi@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Part of the reason I consider those arguments weak, is we could be dedicating research money to solving those problems, but we don’t. In his video, he also is very quickly glossing over the counter points. For example, the patient who received a heart stent because they detected early narrowing of an artery would not be given a stent today, and instead it would be monitored, which is a good thing. For the breast cancer bit, two paragraphs show up on the screen showing a study that followed women with DCIS. 5/28 of those women died of breast cancer. So by the numbers in that study, testing positive means you would have an 18% chance of dying from breast cancer if you did nothing. Idk about you, but if my ods were practically 1 in 5 I’d be monitoring the situation. Again in the anecdote the patient chose to operate too early, and a good doctor would be advising against that. Lead time bias is the only argument I think isn’t weak, but there also isn’t really enough data on it for us to know for sure. That and the fact that deaths to cancer remains steady instead of going down as diagnosis goes up. I still think it would be better to screen people and monitor them if they test positive rather than wait for symptoms, because so often the symptoms come far too late. I also think more research could be done to reduce false positives and understand what makes some cancer not deadly. It’s severely under funded research because it doesn’t make money and it isn’t glamorous, but it could absolutely save lives

      • daq@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree there’s more money in just treating symptoms and EOL care than actually eradicating cancer, but future treatment/eradication is certainly glamorous. Just think of all the celebrities that keep dying from cancer that could come out and say I was saved by X.

        Patric Swayze, Steve Jobs, David Bowie and Peewee Herman just to name a few.

        • Shikadi@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Steve Jobs died because he tried homeopathic treatment the second time, so you can take him off that list lol.

          • daq@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Would he go the crazy route is there was an established treatment with 100% success rate though?

            How many people you know that drink diluted shit to treat rabies? You just go get your shots like a good boy and live to get bit another day.

            • Shikadi@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean, the treatment he had the first time worked, seems to me like it would make sense to do it again, especially with the advances in the treatment since the first time