5 ms·
What's weird about this article (and maybe about its reception on HN, although it does further some popular narratives on this site) is that if you have ever kn
by plorg 3y ago
What's weird about this article (and maybe about its reception on HN, although it does further some popular narratives on this site) is that if you have ever known someone diagnosed with a glioblastoma you will be familiar with some very positive initial results after surgery, followed within a year by recurrence, 2 or three other experimental treatments, and very likely death within 2-3 years. That's the thing that is incurable, and while I hope for the best for the doctor, there's nothing about this article that suggests something substantially different in outcome from the immunotherapy. I would think we would have to wait maybe a year to really see anything outside the prevailing expectations - he was diagnosed in June.
- isk517 3y agoI didn't get the impression that they were pushing the immunotherapy like a miracle cure, just that when the tutor was removed and biopsied they found evidence that it had done something when the traditional belief seems to be that the blood-brain barrier would have render it useless.
- tim333 3y ago"10-fold increase in the immune cells in the tumour, that they were activated against the cancer" seems outside the prevailing expectations.