[HN Gopher] Cancer vaccines: the next immunotherapy frontier
___________________________________________________________________
Cancer vaccines: the next immunotherapy frontier
Author : CharlesW
Score : 76 points
Date : 2022-11-24 19:25 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| adamredwoods wrote:
| >> Effective vaccines are likely to be combined with other
| immunostimulatory approaches including adoptive T cell therapies
| and to be deployed in postsurgical adjuvant settings to prevent
| relapses.
|
| Mostly post-surgical, but I wouldn't be surprised if eventually
| used for metastatic as well. Good luck to all involved.
| mcbain wrote:
| Immunotherapy is also being trialled as a neoadjuvant with
| promising results.
| [deleted]
| hanselot wrote:
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Yes, if you're in close proximity with someone with cancer you
| will not get their cancer after getting the vaccine. Before
| too.
| peteradio wrote:
| That's actually 0% effective.
| mfcl wrote:
| No, but they will decrease the severity of the disease and you
| will be more likely to survive, maybe. Also, know that a shot
| will provoke a small tumor that should go away by itself after
| a few days.
| christkv wrote:
| These are therapeutic vaccines customised to each case. My father
| is heavily involved with this working on one targeting brain
| cancers.
|
| It's not a silver bullet but it will help if the patient responds
| and the cancer is not aggressive enough to kill the patient
| before the immune system is reactivated to fight the cancer
| successfully.
|
| If it does work it looks very likely there will be no relapse.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| A medicine that sometimes stops a bad thing from happening is
| hard for people to appreciate, because if it works you'll never
| know it, and it might have some side effects.
|
| We need to improve public education about why we believe these
| medicines work. I want to see the studies presented on social
| media: "We gave 30,000 people this drug and you won't believe
| what happened!" Less censoring people and more presenting the
| studies in a way people can understand. Less appealing to
| authority and more appealing to observations; yes, you observed
| your 2 relatives, and I observed 30,000 people, judge for
| yourself which is more persuasive.
|
| Most people aren't going to read your 3 paragraph abstract, let
| alone the the full paper. You have to tell them the observations
| in a few sentences, preferably with minimal added interpretation.
| anonporridge wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| > I want to see the studies presented on social media: "We gave
| 30,000 people this drug and you won't believe what happened!"
|
| We've had two years of that... get vaccinated and you won't get
| it, also get vaccinated and you won't get your grandparents
| ill!
|
| Somehow all the censoring was done on people who didn't believe
| these claims.
| bamboozled wrote:
| To be fair we also now have stories that some people were
| injured from the vaccines ?
| mig39 wrote:
| I guess we were hearing different messages?
|
| I thought the vaccine message was "get vaccinated so you
| won't die when you get it."
| dimitrios1 wrote:
| That was the updated messaging from DNC HQ because the
| first one was clearly wrong.
| vinyl7 wrote:
| It depended in the day of the week. Sometimes it was slow
| the spread, sometimes it was to prevent getting covid,
| other times it was to reduce the severity if you got it.
| sdiacom wrote:
| I think a big part of it is that COVID has become an
| attention point in our lives, it entirely dominated the
| media cycle for months. There's something everyone wants
| to hear about and _we just don't know that much about
| it_, so the media increasingly plays telephone with
| itself in an attempt to report anything.
|
| Various people gave their hopefully somewhat informed
| opinion at the time to different members of the media,
| who reported on it with different levels of accuracy,
| attributing often undue levels of confidence to it. And
| that quickly mutated into "the media's trusted sources
| can confirm that the experts definitely know the vaccine
| will have exactly these effects and will be effective for
| these specific cases"
|
| I think it's worth questioning what influence there was
| in which narratives did or didn't get pushed, but I also
| think it's worth keeping in mind that the media is also
| just... fallible.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| My point was that should not be the message. Promising
| people the vaccine will save them is a false hope, people
| look around and find someone who got vaccinated but still
| died and now the trust is broken.
|
| Instead, tell people about the trial control group vs
| treatment group, let people see that there is risk on both
| sides, but that the treatment group was ultimately better
| off. Use minimal interpretation. I'd like to see so much
| focus on the trial outcomes that the number of people who
| died in both groups is a household fact that families talk
| about.
| thinkmcfly wrote:
| Just give angry religious zealots a crash course in
| genetics and epidemiology, its so easy! Why isn't the CDC
| doing this? /s
| Buttons840 wrote:
| Presumably more people are getting sick and dying in the
| control group. People can understand "more people dead"
| even without taking a genetics course.
| jfengel wrote:
| You'd be surprised. The data is overwhelming, and this
| group of highly trained techies still contains many who
| call the COVID vaccines "clot shot".
|
| There is nothing so obvious that people cannot fail to
| understand if sufficiently motivated.
| throwaway0x7E6 wrote:
| because there were a lot of different, often contradicting
| messages
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| > DR. ROCHELLE WALENSKY, CDC DIRECTOR
|
| > And we have -- we can kind of almost see the end. We`re
| vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today
| suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the
| virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the
| clinical trials but it`s also in real world data.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20210402002315/https://www.msnb
| c...
| Krssst wrote:
| In April 2021 the original strain was still dominent if I
| record well, against which the vaccines were much more
| effective against getting COVID.
| thelittleone wrote:
| Do you have a source for this?
| jostmey wrote:
| Cancer vaccines would be given to someone with cancer. These
| vaccines would not be preventative
| bitxbitxbitcoin wrote:
| That there is confusion just emphasizes that the term
| therapeutic vaccine needs more education around it.
|
| When I think of vaccines, I think of something that's
| preventative - regardless of the mechanism. Even the coming
| "Lyme Disease" vaccine is still preventative though it's more
| of a tick bite vaccine.
|
| Someone please school me.
|
| Why is it a therapeutic vaccine - what's wrong with calling
| it a treatment?
| svara wrote:
| It's a vaccine because it doesn't work on the cancer
| directly but rather teaches your immune system to attack
| the cancer.
| mig39 wrote:
| Giving HPV vaccines to teens (including boys) seems to be
| preventative.
| bawolff wrote:
| Which is not the type of vaccine the article is about.
| the-printer wrote:
| > "We gave 30,000 people this drug and you won't believe what
| happened!"
|
| Lab coat Clickbait?
| pydry wrote:
| >Less appealing to authority and more appealing to observations
|
| Antivaxxers aren't scientifically inclined skeptics who will
| change their minds if fed more objective, impartial evidence.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-24 23:00 UTC)