Tony Bark@pawb.social to News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 10 days agoCancer drug made 20,000 times more potent in breakthroughwww.newsweek.comexternal-linkmessage-square3linkfedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10
arrow-up11arrow-down1external-linkCancer drug made 20,000 times more potent in breakthroughwww.newsweek.comTony Bark@pawb.social to News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 10 days agomessage-square3linkfedilink
minus-squarenomad@infosec.publinkfedilinkarrow-up0·10 days agoSounds like better targeting. Have you read the article?
minus-squarefalseWhite@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·edit-210 days agoYes, I’m not a doctor though. So what does “better targeting” mean for cancer patients in real world? I’m just trying to quantify that 20,000 improvement to make sense to me, a regular person, because it’s just a random number to me. It certainly doesn’t mean we have cured cancer. Does it? “In animal models, we demonstrated that we can stop tumors in their tracks,” They make it sound like they have cured cancer in that sentence. But they haven’t. So how much more effective is the drug? Does it save 20x more patients compared to regular drugs? Because it certainly doesn’t save 20,000% more patients. Is it just a clicbait title? and that 20,000 improvement will only save 0.01% more cancer patients and cost 1000 times more?
Sounds like better targeting. Have you read the article?
Yes, I’m not a doctor though. So what does “better targeting” mean for cancer patients in real world?
I’m just trying to quantify that 20,000 improvement to make sense to me, a regular person, because it’s just a random number to me.
It certainly doesn’t mean we have cured cancer. Does it?
They make it sound like they have cured cancer in that sentence. But they haven’t.
So how much more effective is the drug?
Does it save 20x more patients compared to regular drugs?
Because it certainly doesn’t save 20,000% more patients.
Is it just a clicbait title? and that 20,000 improvement will only save 0.01% more cancer patients and cost 1000 times more?