Spyke

5FU is a very common chemo for a variety of cancer types. Increasing it's effacacy while reducing side effects would be a major win.

43
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Why are we wasting money on getting cancer cells high? Like, shouldn’t we be killing them?

34

When the cells are high they dont see the treatment coming and are easily overwhelmed.

6
feddit.dk

That's certainly great news! So... How many millions of dollars is a dose going to cost?

23

"It's one banana, Michael. What could it cost, $10?"

Checks the current price of bananas

Welp. I guess I still can't afford it.

10
_deleted_reply
aussie.zone

My chemo cost AUD$28,000 a month for two years (but as an Australian citizen I didn’t pay that much). So either more than that or as much as the drug companies can gouge, or both.

6
xxce2AAbreply
feddit.dk

I suppose "the alternative to buying my product is death" is a rather effective business strategy.

6
_deleted_reply
aussie.zone

I’m so lucky to have had cancer in Australia and not the USA.

4

To stay in your example: if something has a success rate of killing 1% of all cancer cells (which would not be very effective) , it fails at 99% of all cells.

A factor 20,000 imrovement would mean 0,99^20000 = 5.056988325166235*^-88 failure rate, which would effectively mean complete success in destroying cancer cells.

Alas I'm sure there's a different math behind that increase in effectiveness.

6
nomadreply
infosec.pub

Sounds like better targeting. Have you read the article?

2

Sounds like the 20k number is in vitro. (In a glass dish with cell cultures). In mice its 59 times more effective as without the targeting improvement. The targeting improvement seems to be specially developed for blood cancer (leukemia). Not a doctor, taking out of my ass.

2

You reached the end

Cancer drug made 20,000 times more potent in breakthrough | Spyke