... a creative new CRISPR-based approach can selectively destroy cells carrying a mutation in a tumor suppressor found in nearly half of all cancers and up to 70–90% of cases of some of the most difficult-to-treat cancers, including ovarian, pancreatic, and non-small cell lung cancer.

That sounds pretty amazing. I hope it pans out in real life practice and can become available to patients.

[–] Waterpumpee@lemmus.org 10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

just like with this teeth regrow headlines this will either take longer than we live to be available or disappear entirely. Wish we could volunteer more easily to new advanced medicine. A fellow who was late stage cancer was finally allowed to join such a programm but you are either given the real medicament or a fake one. Given how fast his health declined, i guess he was in the control group without effective medication. Just think about how many people avoid colon checks because docs still insist using their hands like its the year 1600. There are small robot pills which can do the same and these are cheap. but no one offers this procedure.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Very unlikely. In medication trials, it's usually comparing the new medication against the known existing treatment. No medication is both not considered ethical, and wouldn't tell you very much, because what you're testing for is whether the new medication is better than the existing treatments, not whether it works to begin with. You have to show that it does to justify doing the study in the first place. Ethics regulators would not permit you to prevent people from getting any treatment in a study.

The sad thing is that medication just doesn't work sometimes, especially for something as variable as cancer. That's the other side of joining an advanced program. Sometimes, it turns out that the treatment isn't effective for some kinds of cancer, or for some people. If it was perfect, and passed that stage, it would be the normal treatment, not a trial.

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 2 points 1 week ago

Did you actually analyze the likelihood or did you just assume good things never happen?

Would you have said the same if antibiotics were invented now?

Look, most of the time good things don't happen but what's the point of saying that, congrats you're right 80% of the time or more.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 1 week ago

I've used one of those pills to check for cancer. A colonoscopy doesn't involve carrying around the little device that tracks/records what the pill is seeing. But it also doesn't involve colonoscopy prep.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

And soon!

[–] Nomad@infosec.pub 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I hope so too. But knowing our timeline, we will end up with zombies instead.

[–] Dojan@pawb.social 0 points 1 week ago

Honestly, I'll take it.

[–] rain_enjoyer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

or maybe it's not as good as expected or maybe it falls apart for some obscure reason. remember: 90% of clinical trials fail

[–] jacej@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Paper isnt on scihub.. anyone have?

[–] GargleBlaster@feddit.org 5 points 1 week ago

I have the accelerated article preview. On imgur.gg

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

Well that was a good headline given that it started with CRISPR

[–] Maroon@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Any molecular biologists here?

To someone with half-baked knowledge on CRISPR, how are they actually getting the CA's enzyme and plasmid into the human cancer cell?

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

[–] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 points 1 week ago

The Wikipedia article gives the details under Genome Engineering, Delivery.