Immune discovery 'may treat all cancer'
Discussion
Thales said:
marksx said:
Cue the conspiracy theorists saying 'they' won't let it happen.
It's not a conspiracy. Big pharma is BIG business.It is big business with significant risk.
I was involved with Glaxo, Stevenage construction. It was a massive investment at the time.
ash73 said:
Should they cure cancer? Should they offer the cure to everyone? Do we need more old people?
Do people want to live to 150, a third of it with dementia?
You enjoy dying of cancer if you wish - I’ll take a cure if I have the option and need it!Do people want to live to 150, a third of it with dementia?
ETA: I’ll live as long as I’m able to - if I can decide that I’ve had enough, that’s fine. Otherwise, living to 1,000 would be great, thanks, assuming there’s a way to keep me active and otherwise together...
Nickgnome said:
Thales said:
marksx said:
Cue the conspiracy theorists saying 'they' won't let it happen.
It's not a conspiracy. Big pharma is BIG business.It is big business with significant risk.
I was involved with Glaxo, Stevenage construction. It was a massive investment at the time.
ash73 said:
DanL said:
You enjoy dying of cancer if you wish - I’ll take a cure if I have the option and need it!
Where do you stop, should they cure aging? Where are you going to put everyone?ash73 said:
DanL said:
You enjoy dying of cancer if you wish - I’ll take a cure if I have the option and need it!
Where do you stop, should they cure aging? Where are you going to put everyone?We haven’t stopped ageing but surely keeping people as healthy as they can be until they die has to be a good think.
On what basis can you possibly select? Why should it be age? How about worth to society, not just fiscal?
DanL said:
Answered in my edit above - given the option, I’d never die. As for where you’d put everyone, I’d think that as life spans extend birth rates would fall dramatically. It’s close to equilibrium (or below) in a number of developed countries already.
I’m not sure it’s quite that simple. My Dad had kidney cancer in his mid 50s. They operated promptly and he survived and was very productive and active after. He as very active until the age of 83. When he got Osteoporosis he simply stopped eating. Died at the age of 87. DanL said:
ash73 said:
DanL said:
You enjoy dying of cancer if you wish - I’ll take a cure if I have the option and need it!
Where do you stop, should they cure aging? Where are you going to put everyone?
Nickgnome said:
We have no shortage of space. In the UK the actual constructed on bit represents less than 2% of the available land. If you include gardens and parks etc your looking at less than 6%.
We haven’t stopped ageing but surely keeping people as healthy as they can be until they die has to be a good think.
On what basis can you possibly select? Why should it be age? How about worth to society, not just fiscal?
Many things are good things... Until they have to be paid for.We haven’t stopped ageing but surely keeping people as healthy as they can be until they die has to be a good think.
On what basis can you possibly select? Why should it be age? How about worth to society, not just fiscal?
The NHS is the problem it is partly because technology has improved faster than our willingness to fund it and the unintended consequences. In some circumstances it is causing its own issues.
Huge rethinks are needed, and Ash73's question is very relevant - just because we can do something, should we?
This was a large part of a post grad AI course I took in 1993...
Murph7355 said:
Will you pay for it directly?
Depends on the price and what it is. 
Cancer cure? Should be covered by my insurance. Living forever? If I can afford it. If the outcome is effectively to stop / reverse ageing, you’d probably be able to get a loan against future earnings.
If your complaint is that it’ll be too expensive for the NHS - I’m sure this is true. However, what starts out as exclusive and expensive will likely become commoditised and mainstream over time, given sufficient demand...
Murph7355 said:
Many things are good things... Until they have to be paid for.
The NHS is the problem it is partly because technology has improved faster than our willingness to fund it and the unintended consequences. In some circumstances it is causing its own issues.
Huge rethinks are needed, and Ash73's question is very relevant - just because we can do something, should we?
This was a large part of a post grad AI course I took in 1993...
Yes. I think in general yes we should.The NHS is the problem it is partly because technology has improved faster than our willingness to fund it and the unintended consequences. In some circumstances it is causing its own issues.
Huge rethinks are needed, and Ash73's question is very relevant - just because we can do something, should we?
This was a large part of a post grad AI course I took in 1993...
As soon as we stop developing in every area the human race will wither away.
Surely, one of our key drivers is betterment, in every sense of the word.
Challenges are not a reason or excuse not to develop.
BevR said:
I thought UCL was still doing quite a few CAR-T trials? I would imagine that as new CAR-T treatments come out there would be a need to more centers to become accredited, assuming they are affordable.
Have any patients been treated with Kymriah in the UK yet? I seem to remember that the number of patients in the US was not as high as Novartis expected.
Yeah more than Yescarta.Have any patients been treated with Kymriah in the UK yet? I seem to remember that the number of patients in the US was not as high as Novartis expected.
there are numerous sites doing trials still but the main sites for processing the cells commerically is US & Germany
Nickgnome said:
We have no shortage of space. In the UK the actual constructed on bit represents less than 2% of the available land. If you include gardens and parks etc your looking at less than 6%.
We haven’t stopped ageing but surely keeping people as healthy as they can be until they die has to be a good think.
On what basis can you possibly select? Why should it be age? How about worth to society, not just fiscal?
This is true for the UK, nimbies may not like it but we have masses of space in the U.K. just look at how many people China cram into their cities (not that you would want that) but there is plenty of space and even more space to grow food. You only need to take a long train journey to see mile after mile of farmland without crops or animals growing on it. We haven’t stopped ageing but surely keeping people as healthy as they can be until they die has to be a good think.
On what basis can you possibly select? Why should it be age? How about worth to society, not just fiscal?
Something will kill us all in the end it doesn’t have to be cancer.
ash73 said:
DanL said:
You enjoy dying of cancer if you wish - I’ll take a cure if I have the option and need it!
Where do you stop, should they cure aging? Where are you going to put everyone?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff