5 ms·

Twice the number surviving one year without the side effects of chemotherapy seems like a pretty big improvement to me, although there are a lot of news article

by nsgi 10y ago

Twice the number surviving one year without the side effects of chemotherapy seems like a pretty big improvement to me, although there are a lot of news articles prematurely hyping "cures for cancer" that will probably never see the light of day.

charlesism 10y ago
Well, that's the problem with relative numbers. If my absolute chance of survival increases from 0.1% to 0.2%, I'll take a pass.
- PakG1 10y ago
  Would you choose nothing? If not nothing, why wouldn't you choose the option with a slightly higher chance of success and fewer side effects?
  - charlesism 10y ago
    It depends on how well studied the treatment is. If it's been on the market for 70 years, I'd take the chance. Otherwise, why risk waking up one morning with a tail, or having my arm fall off ;)
    - rangibaby 10y ago
      Because you are going to die pretty quickly either way if you have terminal cancer. At least if you try a new treatment you could theoretically help other people in the future live for longer, and other people who will get very, very rich. lol
      - charlesism 10y ago
        If news like this brings people hope, I suppose I shouldn't complain too loudly.
        berntb 10y ago
        Just be happy you and I are not one of them (yet).
    - Sanddancer 10y ago
      In order for a medication to even begin human testing, you need to show that you've done a ton of lab work to show that a medication works, and that the side effect profile is probably minimal. So, by the time it's offered to you, the risks of the drug having disarming side effects, or of causing you to join the caudal class, are pretty damn minimal.
      - charlesism 10y ago
        > pretty damn minimal Let's revisit which medications have harmful side effects a century from now. It's impractical to run studies with thousands of patients, and we haven't had more than half a century of data on most drugs. Not that there's much interest in replicating studies anyways. I'm not keen to pop a bunch of pills unless there is significant (absolute, not relative) benefit. Drugs are overprescribed in my part of the world, partly because people assume "cuts risk by 50%" must mean "a lot." It might... it might not.
- coldtea 10y ago
  On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone turns to zero.

by nsgi 10y ago

charlesism 10y ago

Well, that's the problem with relative numbers. If my absolute chance of survival increases from 0.1% to 0.2%, I'll take a pass.

PakG1 10y ago
Would you choose nothing? If not nothing, why wouldn't you choose the option with a slightly higher chance of success and fewer side effects?
- charlesism 10y ago
  It depends on how well studied the treatment is. If it's been on the market for 70 years, I'd take the chance. Otherwise, why risk waking up one morning with a tail, or having my arm fall off ;)
  - rangibaby 10y ago
    Because you are going to die pretty quickly either way if you have terminal cancer. At least if you try a new treatment you could theoretically help other people in the future live for longer, and other people who will get very, very rich. lol
    - charlesism 10y ago
      If news like this brings people hope, I suppose I shouldn't complain too loudly.
      - berntb 10y ago
        Just be happy you and I are not one of them (yet).
  - Sanddancer 10y ago
    In order for a medication to even begin human testing, you need to show that you've done a ton of lab work to show that a medication works, and that the side effect profile is probably minimal. So, by the time it's offered to you, the risks of the drug having disarming side effects, or of causing you to join the caudal class, are pretty damn minimal.
    - charlesism 10y ago
      > pretty damn minimal Let's revisit which medications have harmful side effects a century from now. It's impractical to run studies with thousands of patients, and we haven't had more than half a century of data on most drugs. Not that there's much interest in replicating studies anyways. I'm not keen to pop a bunch of pills unless there is significant (absolute, not relative) benefit. Drugs are overprescribed in my part of the world, partly because people assume "cuts risk by 50%" must mean "a lot." It might... it might not.
coldtea 10y ago
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone turns to zero.