this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
395 points (97.4% liked)

science

20312 readers
977 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 12 points 2 hours ago

Rfk is about to wake up and fire everyone doing this research.

[–] iturnedintoanewt@lemmy.world 10 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Previous research has focused more on homing in on a target or tailoring a vaccine specific to a patient's own cancer profile.

"This study suggests a third emerging paradigm," said study co-author Duane Mitchell, MD. "What we found is by using a vaccine designed not to target cancer specifically but rather to stimulate a strong immunologic response, we could elicit a very strong anticancer reaction. And so this has significant potential to be broadly used across cancer patients – even possibly leading us to an off-the-shelf cancer vaccine."

So... Kinda triggering your own auto-inmune response. But I'd be wary of trouble with overtly aggressive auto-inmune responses, as we already have quite a few diseases coming from these, as well.

[–] yermaw@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago

Superbugs are gonna look like regular bugs.

[–] SirActionSack@aussie.zone 28 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

This is how I Am Legend starts.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 0 points 5 hours ago

Win/win I love people that slap Chris Rock

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 72 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Hopefully, the researchers will be fully employed by the EU. I wouldn't trust the US to not fuck up this miracle.

[–] some_designer_dude@lemmy.world 28 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

“How much would you pay to not die of a tumour?”

[–] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 10 hours ago

I can't want to never hear about this again

[–] GargleBlaster@feddit.org 152 points 13 hours ago (11 children)

I'll read the publication in the coming days and report back, but don't get your hopes up. There's a "breakthrough" in cancer research every few months and it leads to nothing. And this study was done in mice which are a bit different to humans (citation needed)

[–] OpticalAccount@aussie.zone 26 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I think this is overly negative. There have been multiple significant advances in cancer treatment over the past 10 years. It just depends which type you get.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Maybe overly negative by saying they come to "nothing", but if you trace those advances back to their initial press release stage, they generally way ovehype it.

Here we have what is being heralded as maybe a universal response to any and all cancer. That would be a shockingly amazing deviation from basically all the cancer research to date. It's possible and wonderful if true, but generally the research falls short of the initial press coverage, even if it amounts to something.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 71 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

They cured hair loss in mice at least twenty times now and we still have bald humans

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 79 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

They should probably find a way to turn humans into mice. It's a shame to leave billions of dollars on the table like that.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 27 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Might be a good concept for a sci fi story actually, probably a comedic one. Scientists learn how to cure any disease and reverse aging, but only for mice. Conveniently for plot reasons, they also figure out how to turn people into mice and back. You can get any disease cured or become young again...but you have to spend three months as a mouse.

[–] vestigeofgreen@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 7 hours ago

I know of a short story on becoming a mouse, but that one's focus is something euthanasia adjacent.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Someone that knows what they're doing: I will watch this show.

[–] turtlesareneat@discuss.online 3 points 10 hours ago

Is Anne Hathaway coming back as the grand witch?

[–] Zirconium@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I cannot remember what but I've heard of mention of a story where because there's so many cures of disease for mice that they take over the world or something. It's such a faint mention sorry

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 hours ago

Pinky and the Brain. Obviously.

[–] Dicska@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

Fuck that, just implant those mice on my scalp.

[–] theLetterJ@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 10 hours ago

That's cause they're not on dutasteride, finasteride, or estrogen therapy. It's all the fault of DHT.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutasteride

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 12 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Why do we not simply transplant the hair from the mice, onto the humans?

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 12 points 11 hours ago

To avoid rejection of the hair follicles, simply glue live mice to the top of your head.

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)
[–] kurwa@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago
[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 11 points 13 hours ago

"Mice lie and monkeys exaggerate."

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 10 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Eh a lot of them save some lives. Its just cancer is really good at killing people and there are a lot of types of cancer

[–] chosensilence@pawb.social 25 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

while you're not wrong i do want to reiterate that mRNA vaccines are likely going to be how we treat and cure cancers so there is precedent at least for this to be massive news. if not this there will likely be a real announcement one day.

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 14 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The likelihood that all cancers express a common surface marker that is never expressed by any non-cancerous cell seems pretty low. Not a cancer biologist, but there's all kind of different genetic paths to cancer - why would they all cause some specific molecule to be expressed and why would no other cell ever use it?

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 16 points 10 hours ago

Your instincts are correct. The approach in the paper is more complicated than this. Here is the abstract:

Abstract The success of cancer immunotherapies is predicated on the targeting of highly expressed neoepitopes, which preferentially favours malignancies with high mutational burden. Here we show that early responses by type-I interferons mediate the success of immune checkpoint inhibitors as well as epitope spreading in poorly immunogenic tumours and that these interferon responses can be enhanced via systemic administration of lipid particles loaded with RNA coding for tumour-unspecific antigens. In mice, the immune responses of tumours sensitive to checkpoint inhibitors were transferable to resistant tumours and resulted in heightened immunity with antigenic spreading that protected the animals from tumour rechallenge. Our findings show that the resistance of tumours to immunotherapy is dictated by the absence of a damage response, which can be restored by boosting early type-I interferon responses to enable epitope spreading and self-amplifying responses in treatment-refractory tumours.

[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 9 points 13 hours ago

It's why I start following it myself when it gets to the human trial stage and less the breakthrough stage. There, you make the assumption that they have a plan and are much more confident in the product.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] BetaBlake@lemmy.world 18 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Republicans "universal? Not on my watch"

[–] andallthat@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago

Universal as in "anyone can pay big $$$ for it"

[–] mintiefresh@piefed.ca 22 points 11 hours ago

I want to believe.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 38 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

In this study on mice...

Took them 7 paragraphs to get around to mentioning that.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 10 hours ago

But this was based on their treatment of glioblastoma working in humans, and is a modified version of that one.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 30 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

While the formulation isn't unlike the Covid-19 vaccine, which uses lipid nanoparticles to deliver the genetic instructions to the body, it is still somewhat different. Instead of the drug encoding a virus protein, it sends a message to the immune system to rally the troops. It essentially tells the body to produce certain proteins that stimulate the immune system – including a protein within cancer cells known as PD-L1 (Programmed Death-Ligand 1), which makes tumors become more visible to immune cells.

TLDR: they are finding that it’s more effective to make cancer more visible and have the body’s immune system do its thing.

[–] BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz 18 points 12 hours ago

Universal Cancer Vaccine? WASTE OF MONEY, CUT IT!

-The Trump Administration!

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 21 points 13 hours ago

mRNA vaccine research in America? don’t need that, cancel the funding!

[–] EffortlessEffluvium@lemmy.zip 8 points 11 hours ago

But won’t the thimerosal in the cancer vaccine give everyone autism? Cancer is better than autism!

/s (duh)

[–] half@lemy.lol 9 points 12 hours ago

I was recently in a conference about synthetic biological approaches to deal with cancer. The only quote I wrote down was "this approach kills cancer in a petri dish, but so does a shotgun"

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago

Curing (or at least improving our treatments for) cancer would be great. There's a small part of me that absolutely does not want to see it happen within the next few years because of the current administration. It'd still be an overwhelmingly good thing to accomplish but I dread the future arguments over the time Dr. Don and Bobby got together in the lab to cure cancer through the power of Jesus, bootstraps and grit.

[–] TrojanRoomCoffeePot@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Sweet baby Jesus, is this it? Is this finally the cure for cancer that everyone's been waiting for?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DrFistington@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds great, but don't get excited, it's not for you. It will be priced so that poorz can't afford it, like 5-15 mil a pop

[–] ThoGot@feddit.org 3 points 8 hours ago

laughs in european

load more comments
view more: next ›