A common cancer drug has been restructured to make its cancer cell killing abilities up to 20,000 times more effective while also reducing its toxicity
far more powerful and targeted—leaving healthy cells unharmed.
The new drug entered leukemia cells 12.5 times more efficiently, killed them up to 20,000 times more effectively and reduced cancer progression 59-fold. This was all without detectable side effects, according to the researchers.
It has only been tested in animals thus far, but wow
There are always a lot of good news. The goods news just don't make 'good news' for the news companies. Nobody wants to read that x metric is slightly better now, disaster was averted, or slight progress was made in world changing new technology. That doesn't sell subscriptions or bait clicks.
What does "it killed cancer cells up to 20000 times more effectively" mean? Genuinely asking because in my mind it's ethier dead or its not. The other stats make some amount of sense to me but I can't figure out what this one is saying.
I read the article it never clarifies this point. It also doesn't link to a study as it reads like its just an interview about an ongoing study. Your interpretation makes sense though.
17 Comments
MTK@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 295d
Who is designing drugs for cancer? What about drugs for the patients?
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 295d
Smh equal opportunities, gotta give the cancer a chance in this fast-paced agile hustlin world of today.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 295d
I've watched a documentary called "I am Legend", so i know what happens next.
arrow74@lemmy.zip · 12 pts · 295d
It has only been tested in animals thus far, but wow
charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 295d
I'm just waiting for the next article which says one of the potential side effects is that patients might dissolve into a puddle of goo.
Deceptichum@quokk.au · 4 pts · 295d
charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 295d
I searched that. That seems like a deep dive reference.
FR0578Y73@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 295d
Fuck yeah, hook me up with that GC161
Devjavu@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 295d
Sure hope it's a drug against cancer.
kelpie_returns@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 295d
Korkki@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 295d
There are always a lot of good news. The goods news just don't make 'good news' for the news companies. Nobody wants to read that x metric is slightly better now, disaster was averted, or slight progress was made in world changing new technology. That doesn't sell subscriptions or bait clicks.
kelpie_returns@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 295d
frongt@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 293d
Additionally, not all the good news ends up panning out. They might find later that this has significant other negative effects.
Lexam@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 295d
So fentanyl for cancer!? RFK better get to stopping this.
victorz@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 295d
And what's going to happen to the price of that drug?
scintilla@crust.piefed.social · 0 pts · 294d
What does "it killed cancer cells up to 20000 times more effectively" mean? Genuinely asking because in my mind it's ethier dead or its not. The other stats make some amount of sense to me but I can't figure out what this one is saying.
lastunusedusername2@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 294d
You have to cast Resurrect 20,000 times
frongt@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 293d
You can read the article and the study, but presumably a single dose kills that many more cancer cells.
scintilla@crust.piefed.social · 1 pts · 293d
I read the article it never clarifies this point. It also doesn't link to a study as it reads like its just an interview about an ongoing study. Your interpretation makes sense though.
altphoto@lemmy.today · -1 pts · 295d
So I can keep my peanuts?