Cancers and other similar diseases are so difficult to address precisely because
My general understanding is that they are so difficult to address because we don't really understand them.
I have a condition that gets partly explained as "overactive immune response." I really hate the concept of autoimmune diseases and I hope that someday it will be mocked as "god, what those barbaric idiots believed back in the day."
'Cancer' is a huge umbrella term. Some cancers we know very well, many we do not. The one's being addressed by these therapies are well enough understood to target therapeutically. Some like cervical cancer, skin and lung cancer are well enough understood to in part be prevented.
But under that umbrella the reason cancers are 'hard to treat' (from the perspective of a pharmaceutical education/industry/knowledgebase that had a century of success curing invading diseases) is because cancers do not present a 'differnece' that can be exploited biochemically. Cancers are by definition a mashup and amalgamation of the components that make up a human - again very much unlike a bacteria, viral or fungal infection.
You are correct though that there is still a lot for us to learn. The technologies in this article are very much a glimpse of the next steps though.
That honestly does not fit with my understanding of the problem space. Granted my understanding of the problem space is as a layperson, not a medical professional. But I am a layperson who took care of a relative after their first mastectomy, I have multiple relatives who have had cancer, some of them repeatedly, and one relative was themselves Patient Zero in a cancer treatment study. So, it isn't like I have been unexposed entirely to the intricacies of cancer treatment.
I don't really know how to effectively engage you, but I stand by my initial statement of:
I would like to see a more elegant means to boost the immune function, without so much of the Dr. Frankenstein element. I think supporting the immune function is the way to go, but I think we need a lighter hand, not a heavier one.
I don't really feel you are making points that invalidate that desire. Perhaps we just don't understand each other. If so, it is probably best to stop here rather than keep digging a deeper grave.
That kind of comment isn't OK here. Michele is sincere in her commitment to learning whatever a layperson can reasonably learn about medical science, and sharing what she's learned with generosity and humility.
There's nothing stopping you from asking Michele to expand on her position, and it would be great for you to educate her if you know things that she doesn't. But on HN, personally cruel comments are off limits.
Equally sadly, a brand spanking new account (created minutes ago and this its first comment) with a doctor-y title gives you even less credibility than I have and looks like trolling. Just an FYI.
I apologize for the way the parent comment replied to you. I do have some questions though.
What is it about the therapy that is Frankenstein? Frankenstein implies the haphazard and artificial sewing of parts. However, every drug or treatment we use today is artificial, a.k.a. created by humans, and by reading the article, the development of the immunotherapy was far from haphazard. Furthermore, you mention elegance and a light touch. How can those terms be defined in a clinical setting? Is elegance defined only by your opinion? What is elegant to one may not be to another.
Lastly, I would like to agree that if possible, a light touch is always valued over a heavy one if the outcomes are the same. But in this situation we are in today with cancer, there is no room for valuing such pleasantries when lives continue to be at stake. Most would want the survival of their loved ones if a heavier touch must be used. In fact, this immunotherapy is indeed the lighter touch compared to extensive chemotherapies.
What is it about the therapy that is Frankenstein?
The principle of BIG ZAP followed by pronouncement that IT LIVES! We like this kind of drama. It makes it easy to claim credit for the outcome. Subtler approaches get a whole lot more "correlation does not prove causation" type feedback. But it sort of overlooks the fact that the body is the battlefield and if you have a scorched earth policy towards the disease, the remaining shelled out husk may not support life.
Lastly, I would like to agree that if possible, a light touch is always valued over a heavy one if the outcomes are the same.
In my experience, the outcomes are not the same: A lighter touch gets superior results because it does not leave one with a shelled out husk that cannot support life.
Without going on at length, the TLDR of what my mother did for my father was she focused on keeping him hydrated and adequately nourished. He lost a third of his body weight prior to finally being diagnosed with colon cancer. At a time during his treatment that most colon cancer patients are losing weight, he was gaining weight so rapidly that his doctor yelled at my mother to slow it down. My father had a longstanding heart condition and the doctor was concerned that the sudden weight gain would be too much strain for his heart.
I have followed some similar principles in recovering from my incurable health issues. My condition involves significant gut impairment, so much so that CF medical teams routinely include a dietician. Yet, the last time I checked, the state of the art was to encourage CF patients to feast on junk food because CF patients are encouraged to eat a high fat, high salt, high calorie diet. I never counted calories. I did work on getting enough fats and salt, but a higher priority for me was to eat nutritionally dense foods and high quality foods. I did a fair amount of research (or took advice from other people who had done so) and I got very picky about the kind of salt and fats I would eat, as well as the kind of food. This has yielded good results and allowed me to get off a long list of drugs and other treatments. I am gradually getting my life back when the norm for CF patients is steady deterioration until they finally die, often at very young ages.
My general understanding is that they are so difficult to address because we don't really understand them.
I have a condition that gets partly explained as "overactive immune response." I really hate the concept of autoimmune diseases and I hope that someday it will be mocked as "god, what those barbaric idiots believed back in the day."