this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
138 points (98.6% liked)

science

22476 readers
149 users here now

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

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MTK@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Who is designing drugs for cancer? What about drugs for the patients?

[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Smh equal opportunities, gotta give the cancer a chance in this fast-paced agile hustlin world of today.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

I've watched a documentary called "I am Legend", so i know what happens next.

[–] charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm just waiting for the next article which says one of the potential side effects is that patients might dissolve into a puddle of goo.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Cool I wanna be Alex Mack.

[–] FR0578Y73@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Fuck yeah, hook me up with that GC161

I searched that. That seems like a deep dive reference.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 week ago

A common cancer drug has been restructured to make its cancer cell killing abilities up to 20,000 times more effective while also reducing its toxicity

far more powerful and targeted—leaving healthy cells unharmed.

The new drug entered leukemia cells 12.5 times more efficiently, killed them up to 20,000 times more effectively and reduced cancer progression 59-fold. This was all without detectable side effects, according to the researchers.

It has only been tested in animals thus far, but wow

[–] Devjavu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago

Sure hope it's a drug against cancer.

[–] kelpie_returns@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Some good news for once! Humans rock!

[–] Korkki@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

There are always a lot of good news. The goods news just don't make 'good news' for the news companies. Nobody wants to read that x metric is slightly better now, disaster was averted, or slight progress was made in world changing new technology. That doesn't sell subscriptions or bait clicks.

[–] kelpie_returns@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

I do not disagree. Still, it is nice when some of it breaks through, and even nicer when it has to do with such an otherwise cold and unforgiving topic like this. Very good point tho!

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago

Additionally, not all the good news ends up panning out. They might find later that this has significant other negative effects.

[–] Lexam@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

So fentanyl for cancer!? RFK better get to stopping this.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

And what's going to happen to the price of that drug?

[–] scintilla@crust.piefed.social 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

What does "it killed cancer cells up to 20000 times more effectively" mean? Genuinely asking because in my mind it's ethier dead or its not. The other stats make some amount of sense to me but I can't figure out what this one is saying.

You have to cast Resurrect 20,000 times

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You can read the article and the study, but presumably a single dose kills that many more cancer cells.

[–] scintilla@crust.piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago

I read the article it never clarifies this point. It also doesn't link to a study as it reads like its just an interview about an ongoing study. Your interpretation makes sense though.

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today -1 points 1 week ago

So I can keep my peanuts?