Am I the only one who read the paper? All the comments are like: it’s only mice.
They did it in 6 different breeds of knockout mice, rats, and beagles -as in the best dog model for cancer translation to humans. They are well passed the threshold needed to show strong potential in people.
Other comments: it’s new and experimental
They have been working with it for years now and have shown efficacy down to a single dose. That is what this paper is about. They had previous tests with the compound, then with decreasing doses, and now this paper will it down to a single dose.
Other comments: there is no way this is real
Of the 9 primary authors, 4 are on NIH grants. I’m taking a wild guess no one here has had to fill one of those out, but they take about a month of solid writing and submitting evidence as to why your thing should get funded due to the shortage of scientific funding, then it gets reviewed by several rounds of blinded experts in the field to evaluate if you have any merit to what you are talking about, then you have to submit regular updates to show that you aren’t just pissing away tax dollars. On top of that, this was done out of a lab at the university of Illinois urbana-champaign, meaning you also have university funds mixed in so you have them checking in on you. Then they also had a state cancer research grant, adding more oversight.
How real is it? If you read the paper you would have seen they were using human tumors grown in the mice. This is a very well established cancer testing method. The downfall in their model, as they pointed out, is using NSG and athymin mice. These are immunocompromised mice. They bring up how with the necrotic cell death in the tumor (from the drug working ironically so well and so fast) that they don’t know how human immune systems will respond to it and that is kind of their next direction of the research.
Read the full abstract, then at least read the discussion section near the end if you want to get a better understanding of what is going on. Then if you are still interested, go back up to the intro and read through from there till you can’t any more.
it is indeed quite important to highlight they tested it in more than just one mice species. however, they did not test the effects against breast cancer in dogs; they only did some toxicology studies on just the “side-effects” part and they did not test for breast cancer reduction, which is why this is only mentioned in two sentences. it’s still important information, but it’s much less than what you might have implied.
i’m the only guy who said that and i was responding to a comment literally asking for people to scour for reasons to doubt. in fact i dedicated half of my comment towards saying how low the odds of it being a bad study are due to the authors and accreditation. i’m glad you read the links people post tho, one of my posts in a “don’t alter headline” sub was swarmed with comments that evidently only read the headline once.
Am I the only one who read the paper? All the comments are like: it’s only mice.
They did it in 6 different breeds of knockout mice, rats, and beagles -as in the best dog model for cancer translation to humans. They are well passed the threshold needed to show strong potential in people.
Other comments: it’s new and experimental
They have been working with it for years now and have shown efficacy down to a single dose. That is what this paper is about. They had previous tests with the compound, then with decreasing doses, and now this paper will it down to a single dose.
Other comments: there is no way this is real
Of the 9 primary authors, 4 are on NIH grants. I’m taking a wild guess no one here has had to fill one of those out, but they take about a month of solid writing and submitting evidence as to why your thing should get funded due to the shortage of scientific funding, then it gets reviewed by several rounds of blinded experts in the field to evaluate if you have any merit to what you are talking about, then you have to submit regular updates to show that you aren’t just pissing away tax dollars. On top of that, this was done out of a lab at the university of Illinois urbana-champaign, meaning you also have university funds mixed in so you have them checking in on you. Then they also had a state cancer research grant, adding more oversight.
How real is it? If you read the paper you would have seen they were using human tumors grown in the mice. This is a very well established cancer testing method. The downfall in their model, as they pointed out, is using NSG and athymin mice. These are immunocompromised mice. They bring up how with the necrotic cell death in the tumor (from the drug working ironically so well and so fast) that they don’t know how human immune systems will respond to it and that is kind of their next direction of the research.
Read the full abstract, then at least read the discussion section near the end if you want to get a better understanding of what is going on. Then if you are still interested, go back up to the intro and read through from there till you can’t any more.
Have you considered a career in science journalism? Because you should.
Probably. I’m still trying to figure out what “Single-Dose Drug Wipes” are.
/joke
it is indeed quite important to highlight they tested it in more than just one mice species. however, they did not test the effects against breast cancer in dogs; they only did some toxicology studies on just the “side-effects” part and they did not test for breast cancer reduction, which is why this is only mentioned in two sentences. it’s still important information, but it’s much less than what you might have implied.
i’m the only guy who said that and i was responding to a comment literally asking for people to scour for reasons to doubt. in fact i dedicated half of my comment towards saying how low the odds of it being a bad study are due to the authors and accreditation. i’m glad you read the links people post tho, one of my posts in a “don’t alter headline” sub was swarmed with comments that evidently only read the headline once.