[HN Gopher] Research finds immune system responds to mRNA treatm...
___________________________________________________________________
Research finds immune system responds to mRNA treatment for cancer
Author : geox
Score : 152 points
Date : 2021-12-15 15:46 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org)
| erickhill wrote:
| Not trying to be cheeky: How many millions of citizens here in
| the U.S. will abstain from a potential cancer vaccine if based
| off this research? Would the same religious/tribal objections be
| held, for example, if the disease to be prevented was cancer vs a
| virus of unknown origin? Would it still be viewed by so many as a
| political/big-pharma conspiracy ("But where did the cancer come
| from?" etc.)?
|
| Cynical me says it would.
| standardUser wrote:
| It depends 100% on if the conservative media and figureheads
| like Trump think they can make hay out of turning any given
| medical treatment into a way to oppose liberals. Let's hope
| they can't.
| acomjean wrote:
| There is a cancer vaccine (HPV) for cervical cancers. Its a
| touchy subject but reports are vaccinations are declining.
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/13/well/live/hpv-vaccine-
| chi...
|
| "that parental intent not to vaccinate their adolescents
| against HPV rose from 50.4 percent in 2012 to 64 percent in
| 2018. Many parents resisted the vaccine despite their doctors'
| recommendations, Dr. Sonawane said. Ironically, parents were
| most resistant -- at 68.1 percent -- to vaccinating girls, the
| very group for whom this vaccine was initially developed to
| prevent cervical cancer."
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine-for-hpv.html
|
| When in a doctors office with a cancer diagnosis, people will
| take it.
| mmastrac wrote:
| When the research showed it was useful for men (in both self-
| and other-protection regards), it was still not an easy task
| to get my doctor to prescribe it for me. Zero hesitation on
| my part to get it, even with the extremely high price tag.
| zhengyi13 wrote:
| I'm curious how long ago this was for you?
|
| When my 15 year old son went to his new doctor earlier this
| year, they immediately strongly suggested it as a very good
| idea.
| mmastrac wrote:
| Approx 3 years ago, but I was in my late 30s.
| maweaver wrote:
| My doctor told me I was too old for it. I went to CVS
| instead and got it for free, zero questions asked.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| If you already have HPV I'm not sure it does any good.
| kemayo wrote:
| I got it for my daughter the instant she was eligible last
| year, because cervical cancer is awful and it seemed stupid
| not to.
|
| My experience suggests that it was something the doctor's
| office wasn't actively _pushing_ -- they made it known that
| it was available without me having to ask, but it was
| presented very much as a "do you want to?" thing, rather
| than as part of the "of course you'll be getting this" set of
| earlier vaccines.
|
| Then it was sort of a pain to actually get, because it
| required an extra doctor visit for the second shot in the
| series.
|
| I can see all that adding up to hurting uptake.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > When in a doctors office with a cancer diagnosis, people
| will take it.
|
| That's a bit late.
| whatshisface wrote:
| It may not even be true - cancer has a denial phase.
| snarfy wrote:
| My trump loving father-in-law tried to deny my niece from
| getting the HPV vaccine because it would 'increase
| promiscuity'. It's literally a cure for cancer and they don't
| care.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| The logic of "I'll make sure my minor child doesn't have
| sex with the threat of an untreatable STD and substantially
| higher lifetime risk of cancer" is so incredibly insane to
| me I have a hard time empathizing on any level.
|
| Seems akin to "I'm going to forbid my child from wearing a
| seatbelt to ensure they pay attention while they drive."
| BeetleB wrote:
| Well Trump is a great authority on promiscuity :-)
| jacquesm wrote:
| I hope you set him straight on that count.
| qzw wrote:
| Boromir meme: One does not simply set a trumpy FIL
| straight.
|
| Source: have a trumpy FIL.
| josephwegner wrote:
| Men too :)
|
| HPV is most commonly known for being a cause of cervical
| cancer, but it can lead to other sorts of cancer that men are
| also prone to. HPV vaccines are good for everyone!
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv.htm
| nvahalik wrote:
| As someone who is very anti-COVID vaccinations, my problem with
| it isn't the vaccine itself or the underlying technology so
| much as it's been the plethora of other issues associated with
| it. The normal processes for drug approval were bypassed and so
| as a result we have very limited safety data and no long-term
| >5yr safety data at all.
|
| With something like this, I would expect it to go through those
| trials and see that we'd have some sort of safety data and
| further research.
|
| Again, I am actually very positive about mRNA therapies--I just
| want them to be fully tested and vetted first.
| mike00632 wrote:
| It's important to correct this misinformation and point out
| that "normal processes" were followed. The long approval
| process delayed the roll out of the vaccine causing hundreds
| of thousands of needless deaths. If anything, the approval
| should have gone faster.
| nvahalik wrote:
| There were no clinical trials. There is no safety data.
| Perfectly healthy young people have reported heart problems
| after getting it.
|
| Let's face it: anyone who takes it is participating in an
| experiment. It may be that the risks are OK for a lot of
| people. But obviously there is more to discover.
| standardUser wrote:
| Yes, though it is funny how until it became a political
| issue, virtually no one knew anything about the processes by
| which new drugs made their way into their body.
| multjoy wrote:
| So you'd simply let a pandemic rage for five years?
| donkarma wrote:
| it seems that this was going to happen vaccine or not
| nvahalik wrote:
| The problem, of course, is that vaccinations don't _end_
| pandemics.
|
| If they did, some places would likely be completely free of
| COVID. However, they are not.
|
| They lessen the effects but many people have pointed out
| that this whole thing is entirely new territory: We have a
| flu "vaccination" but the flu us just something people
| learn to live with.
|
| We have never----ever----forced mass vaccination against a
| viral respiratory infection. Because we cannot vaccinate it
| away. COVID is here to stay and I (personally) don't think
| anything will happen until people contract it enough to get
| a good natural immunity and then things will go away.
| gassiss wrote:
| Just because you don't agree with X doesn't mean you need
| to have an alternative for it
| johnisgood wrote:
| People turn to pseudo-scientific stuff as a last resort (or the
| only) as well, so I would not necessarily say they would not
| get the vaccine if it might be their last hope.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| People have a belief that they can just tough out COVID, and so
| the vaccine is a long-term-risk tradeoff: suffer unknown side-
| effects of the vaccine, or maybe die of this disease that my
| friend had and recovered from?
|
| This immunotherapy is cotemporal with "traditional"
| immunological and chemo treatments, so the mortality calculus
| is different: "Suffer potential unknown side-effects of an mRNA
| therapy or content myself with that 'three months' number the
| doctor gave me?"
| kevin_b_er wrote:
| So we'll have a group of people who suffer from cancer and
| those who don't. Natural selection it would seem.
| bkjelden wrote:
| I tend to think the abstinence rate would be much lower than
| with the vaccine.
|
| Cancer scares people in a way that COVID doesn't.
|
| Many of the anti-vaxxers do not perceive COVID as a credible
| risk, so they let their contrarian/anti-authoritarian/"don't
| tell me what to do" instincts kick in, because none of it
| actually matters to them in their mind.
|
| When faced with a form of cancer that has a <10% survival rate
| they will shut up and take the mRNA treatment in a heartbeat.
| hncurious wrote:
| I agree. It'd be the same with Covid too if the risk was
| high. Ultimately the reason so many don't want a Covid
| vaccine is because the risk of hospitalization is only 1.6%
| and is well below 1% if you're young and otherwise healthy.
| Or if you already had Covid and have natural immunity you're
| about as protected as the vaccinated (<1% chance of
| hospitalization).
|
| If the risk of hospitalization or death was 10%? 30%? Almost
| everyone would want the vaccine except the real hardcore
| anti-vaxxers. You wouldn't have to mandate or otherwise
| coerce people to take something if the threat was that
| credible generally. Few resist the smallpox vaccine, for
| example.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The threat is very credible. Just as the misinformation and
| bullshit campaign is very powerful. To the point where even
| a credible threat isn't enough to get people to act in
| their own best interest. With odds approaching 1:400 across
| the whole population of death and substantially higher of a
| serious bout of disease it is quite amazing how many people
| continue to downplay this because of the age factor.
|
| If the odds were that good for the lottery I'd be playing.
| hncurious wrote:
| The fear campaign is very powerful too. People radically
| overestimate the risk. A large % of the population
| overestimates it by 48.4%!
|
| "For unvaccinated hospitalization risk, 2% of Democrats
| responded correctly, compared with 16% of Republicans. In
| fact, 41% of Democrats replied that at least 50% of
| unvaccinated people have been hospitalized due to
| COVID-19."
|
| https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-
| estimat...
|
| But yes, on the other side of it, if a 60 year old obese
| person isn't taking the vaccine, they're misinformed too.
| Their risk benefit analysis is off.
| geekbird wrote:
| The problem is that many people who think that they are
| 'healthy' without comorbidities that make covid worse
| are, quite frankly, deluded.
|
| "Nearly 40% of American adults aged 20 and over are
| obese. 71.6% of adults aged 20 and over are overweight,
| including obesity." (National Health and Nutrition
| Examination Survey, 2017-2018; Harvard School of Public
| Health, 2020).
|
| So 71.6% of American adults are at elevated risk for
| severe Covid. Because even just being overweight
| increases your risk of hospitalization if you get it.
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e4.htm
|
| So IF the unvaccinated have the same demographic profile
| as general US adults, then 71.6% have an elevated risk of
| hospitalization if they catch Covid because they are
| overweight and unvaccinated.
|
| You will notice that there is no political affiliation in
| that conclusion. Also, risk is not actuality, and levels
| of comorbidities vary from person to person, so
| population risks and personal risks are different.
|
| Now, as to how many have actually had covid and been
| hospitalized I will admit that there is a perception
| difference based on political affiliation. But for that
| data, I will respect the actual statistics, not my
| perception based on displayed attitudes.
|
| Basically, the problem is that a lot of adults think that
| they aren't fat, or don't know they have high
| cholesterol, etc. and are declining the vaccine because
| they are 'healthy'.
|
| https://www.the-
| hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/238272/c...
| peddling-brink wrote:
| Exactly. There's a big difference between, "take this jab,
| then the scary news thing won't get you" and "you're dying.
| You can die, or take this jab."
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| The operative word being treatment rather than prophylaxis.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| > Not trying to be cheeky: How many millions of citizens here
| in the U.S. will abstain from a potential cancer vaccine if
| based off this research? Would the same religious/tribal
| objections be held, for example, if the disease to be prevented
| was cancer vs a virus of unknown origin? Would it still be
| viewed by so many as a political/big-pharma conspiracy ("But
| where did the cancer come from?" etc.)?
|
| So this misses the full Covid-19 vaccine critique and provides
| a disturbing slant instead of the proposed hazards. The
| specific critique is that the protein chosen in C19 vaccines is
| in fact dangerous in its own right.
|
| mRNA as a mechanism of delivering a protein to the body is
| anything but an empirical debate -- the tech works, and works
| decently well for risk profiles who have no other option. The
| philosophical / duty of care debate is whether or not the risks
| associated with mRNA therapies / vaccines are worth the
| inherent risks.
|
| Equating Covid 19 for the common person as the same as cancer
| for the common person doesn't appear to balance. If C19 had
| cancer mortality rates, this pandemic would look drastically
| different -- with far few people in the room.
| locallost wrote:
| I think that's less problematic as you can't infect someone
| with cancer if you have it. But my guess is you are right.
| Although I will say that suspicious people are occasionally
| right. Trusting science has a proven track record, but it
| doesn't have a 100% shooting percentage, so I would be ok with
| not having a debate there.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease
|
| You can't infect anyone yet, at least
| stavros wrote:
| Sure you can, HPV is infectious and causes cervical cancer.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| It can* cause cancer.
|
| Some estimate up to 99% of cervical cancer cases are
| caused by HPV, but having HPV causes has a lifetime
| cancer risk of 0.6%.
| mike00632 wrote:
| The point is that we currently have a vaccine that
| eradicates those types of cancers but we have very low
| numbers of people willing to take the vaccine because of
| cultural hesitancy
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I would quibble with your definition of "very low", given
| that the number is >50% in the US.
|
| I agree we have a preventative treatment for a cancer and
| not everyone takes it. What conclusions do you draw from
| this point as it relates to this thread (or in general)?
|
| Personally, I'm surprised that uptake is so fast for a
| relatively new and elective treatment. Even moreso when
| considering that it addresses a rare disease that effects
| people many decades later.
| locallost wrote:
| But that's a virus that can cause cancer. You could
| theoretically get a cancer vaccine and still transmit HPV
| if you have it.
| stavros wrote:
| Hmm, what do you mean? Vaccines generally protect you
| from the disease more than they protect unvaccinated
| others from you transmitting it.
| locallost wrote:
| That you still can't infect someone with cancer. But it's
| not so important.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| You can transmit it to those you have sex with. That's a
| pretty narrow means of transmission, and one that is
| already a vector for a variety of other diseases.
| mrfusion wrote:
| You're right. If science was never questioned, you would
| still be drinking cocaine, giving your kids cough syrup laced
| with heroin, spraying people with DDT, and smoking the
| cigarette brand your doctor recommended.
| mike00632 wrote:
| "Science" isn't an authority figure saying what they think
| is best or a drunk person re-posting misinformation on
| Facebook. That's the anti-vaxx'ers.
| toolz wrote:
| I personally don't know anyone that abstains from
| MMR/polio/chickenpox vaccines. I think this whole anti-anti-
| vaxxer meme has really got people riled up and ignoring just
| how many people are already taking vaccines. over 92% of kids
| have 3 doses of polio vaccine by the time they're 24 months
| according to the CDC. Something tells me that number gets much
| higher with just another year or two.
|
| It's a sad day for honest debate when being skeptical of an
| item gets you labeled as being "anti" an entire category of
| things to which that item belongs.
|
| To be clear I don't think your question is expressly stating
| that anti-vaxxers are a big concern, but if there's a genuine
| concern that a vaccine is well established to work, an
| incredibly large majority of people take it in the U.S. so I
| don't think the concern is warranted.
| toyg wrote:
| We've had clusters of measles in Wales a few years ago, that
| were due to vaccine scepticism driving down vaccination rates
| below herd-immunity levels. That was a real event, that took
| more than a year to correct. And then you have all the circus
| they've built around COVID19.
|
| Antivaxxers are real, downplaying the risk they pose is
| dangerous.
| toolz wrote:
| > downplaying the risk they pose is dangerous
|
| Over-amplifying the risk is dangerous. Wales, according to
| [1] has had well over 94% MMR vaccination since 2012. The
| herd immunity threshold for measles is >95%, which is very
| unique to measles since it's so much more contagious, but
| to blame anti-vaxxers for that incomplete vaccinated status
| seems like a likely wrong conclusion. Getting a 100%
| willing population to 100% vaccination status is _hard_. I
| see anti-anti-vaxxers everywhere, what I don't see is any
| evidence or solutions coming from that group, just people
| whining that "the others" are causing problems.
|
| 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/380453/mumps-
| measles-and...
| brokensegue wrote:
| I personally don't know anyone who voted for Trump. Who you
| know is not a representative sample. There are lots of
| vaccine deniers and they occasionally cause problems.
| toolz wrote:
| which is why I gave stats from the CDC
| brokensegue wrote:
| 20% of americans polled refuse to get any COVID vaccine.
| https://www.npr.org/2021/09/03/1033750072/the-share-of-u-
| s-a...
|
| That isn't a small amount.
|
| If you don't think this has/will cause at least minimal
| problems you are mistaken.
| toolz wrote:
| What are these problems you speak of? We have countries
| like Gibraltar which has been 100% vaccinated since April
| of this year, they continue to have case spikes. It's
| indisputable that the vaccine doesn't prevent
| transmission and recently in a court of law the Federal
| government went on record saying it lacked evidence that
| it even slowed transmission. That's why the courts
| overruled the CMS vaccine mandates in so many states.
|
| Personally, I think this vaccine has done a great deal of
| harm reduction and I'm glad people in at-risk categories
| have access to it, but pretending there is some big
| social consequence for these people not taking the
| vaccine is ill-informed. They might be hurting
| themselves, but literally no one who is alive for the
| next few years will escape being attacked by covid.
| Because no one will escape covid, there is no logic
| behind suggesting people refusing vaccinations is a
| social consequence. It's a personal consequence alone.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| People look for an enemy to direct their frustration about
| the Problem of Evil, chaos, impersonal viruses etc. Classic
| scapegoat behaviour. the pattern has been repeated throughout
| history. Usually the scapegoats become at least oppressed.
|
| It's also clear that the authorities are not pushing this
| meme more than the people. Which is also a characteristic and
| one where some in charge are capitalising on.
|
| Interestingly its also fear and worry at the root of this is
| the same as the "antis" and their scapegoat is those above
| us. Others capitalise on this too.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| If it demonstrably cures diagnosed cancer I think most people
| will not hesitate, especially for cancers that have a high
| mortality and/or few other treatment options.
|
| If it's proposed as a vaccine for cancer that you don't have
| yet, there would be more hesitancy.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| The HPV vaccine is proven to prevent cervical, throat, and
| other cancers. Uptake outside of a few developed countries is
| woefully low considering the benefit.
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009174352.
| ..
| [deleted]
| Leader2light wrote:
| I am so sick of hearing about vaccines. It has been two years. If
| this shit actually worked well as intended, covid19 would be gone
| by now.
|
| Instead it is constant moving goalposts and secondary results.
|
| It prevents deaths? We are doing 1000+ deaths a day in the USA.
| It is a joke.
| airstrike wrote:
| Everyone seems to be commenting "cancer vaccine" but the article
| is talking about a treatment
| allemagne wrote:
| It seems like you really could vaccinate someone against their
| future cancer using this, assuming you had a time machine and a
| tumor sample.
| zionic wrote:
| Why not have:
|
| 1) One of those new blood tests that can detect XX number of
| cancers before any other type of screening
|
| 2) Synthesize MRNa vaccine against the detected cancer type
| to kill it early?
| throwawayboise wrote:
| It's like a vaccine in that it is using/stimulating the immune
| system to target the cancer.
| NullPrefix wrote:
| Is this treatment going to be mandatory?
| newsbinator wrote:
| I hope so! ~50% of people in a developed country get cancer
| within their lifetime and they cost our healthcare system the
| most (other than, err, very sick elderly people).
|
| If this works safely and reliably, then this is like doubling
| or 5x'ing our healthcare budget over 5 years.
|
| I wouldn't mind if people could opt-out of mRNA cancer
| treatment, but then they have to pay for every other cancer
| treatment option (and all doctor visits) out of pocket.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| What is the news here? Also what's the difference between this
| and Moderna's personalised cancer vaccine?
| smrk007 wrote:
| My thoughts exactly. According to the Moderna pipeline [0],
| they're already on phase II trials for their cancer vaccine,
| which to me seems much more exciting than a proof-of-concept if
| that's what this is.
|
| [0]: https://www.modernatx.com/pipeline
| f6v wrote:
| And that's why reproducibility studies aren't a thing. People
| say "yeah that's old news!" We need to fund independent
| validation. Especially knowing that private companies could
| massage the data to get to market.
| ziddoap wrote:
| I think the news is the fact that a non-profit, non-affiliated
| (w/ Moderna) organization has additional supporting evidence
| for mRNA therapy for cancer patients who weren't responding to
| treatment otherwise.
|
| Not every piece of news needs to shake the world to the core.
| onychomys wrote:
| This is a treatment, not a vaccine, so it's something you use
| after you get cancer instead of something you take to prevent
| you from getting it.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| Correct it is to help T-cells identify existing cancer cells,
| because current immunotherapy isn't all that great (cancer
| cells are tricky!).
|
| >> Next, the researchers employed new sequencing technology
| that makes a mRNA-based change of primary immune cells
| possible. They identified the target gene in single-cell RNA-
| sequencing datasets. Then they performed a functional test to
| validate the role of the target gene in enhanced immune cell-
| mediated killing of tumor cells.
|
| This is important because cancer cells have different
| properties that enable it to sneak past T-cells. So they are
| trying to identify specific characteristics to tumor cells
| that enable them to make mRNA that then is used to shape
| T-cell behavior.
|
| These vaccines can also be used (hopefully) to prevent
| metastasis, which is the true killer behind most cancers.
| Getting the body's immune system to respond is key. It could
| be seen as a prevention against spread in the body.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| You are right that it's not a vaccine, but you are wrong
| about the definition of a vaccine. Moderna's personlized
| cancer vaccine triggers the immune system in a different way
| than this therapeutic.
|
| ,,Vaccines can be prophylactic (to prevent or ameliorate the
| effects of a future infection by a natural or "wild"
| pathogen), or therapeutic (to fight a disease that has
| already occurred, such as cancer.''
| laura2013 wrote:
| it could be that this is public research vs private?
|
| It's quite exciting to see this scientific discovery having
| such widespread use, don't you agree? The research is around
| the [NKG7 protein][1], not sure what Moderna targets.
|
| [1]:
| https://cancerimmunolres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2021...
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Sure the more therapeutics use modern platforms, the better
| it is for humanity, I just wish these articles were written
| more similar to how a human would want me to understand the
| differences between approaches instead of trying to make a PR
| article.
|
| It's a bug deal that they found out about the importance of
| the NKG7 gene, but the whole article doesn't have a reference
| to it.
|
| Moderna's personal vaccine is different, as it sequences the
| cancer itself as far as I know.
| ren_engineer wrote:
| seems like Covid might end up having a WWII like impact on some
| technologies. Tons of accelerated R&D triggered by a massive
| crisis. Would be nice if we could salvage something good out of a
| bad situation
| throwawaymanbot wrote:
| Spot on!!
| tonmoy wrote:
| The mRNA research was already very well underway before the
| pandemic. In fact the COVID vaccines were low hanging fruit.
| malermeister wrote:
| I would imagine there's a lot more capital going around in
| that industry now though :)
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Capital and also just straight up mindshare. How many
| people would have had any idea what mRNA was two years ago?
| Now it's a kitchen table thing, everyone's seen a dozen
| explainers on what the basic idea is and how it works. It's
| firmly associated with new technology, agility, and highly
| effective vaccination.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Unfortunately, it is also at times oversold and this will
| do a lot of damage. Vaccines are regularly hyped as
| miracle medication which in turn causes people to stop
| following lots of other common sense rules, rather than
| as one arrow in a whole quiver of tools.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Oh definitely, and there's for sure also the likelihood
| of the name being hijacked for other technologies that
| are only peripherally related. See also the zillions of
| cheapo air purifiers prominently branded to contain "HEPA
| type" filtration.
| newsclues wrote:
| How long before they would have been commercialized without
| an epidemic?
|
| Now, is there people greedy enough to start a pandemic or
| allow it to occur, to accelerate the pay off of this new
| technology? (I guess there is financial and medical
| technology incentives to accelerate mRNA technology)
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| The pandemic gave it the final push in the same way WW2
| gave nuclear weapons the last push and the cold war gave
| rocketry the final push. In all these cases it was pretty
| well understood that it can work but there were a ton of
| engineering obstacles to overcome.
| zeven7 wrote:
| Now that's a movie I'd watch
| junon wrote:
| > Now, is there people greedy enough to start a pandemic or
| allow it to occur, to accelerate the pay off of this new
| technology?
|
| Nobody that would directly profit off of it, no. This is
| conspiracy talk.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Why are you so sure about that? From what I saw in last
| year's Moderna presentation on R&D day they ramped up
| vaccines for other infections _because_ it worked so well for
| COVID, but they were focusing more on therapeutics before, as
| they thought there's more money in it and less in preventing
| infections with vaccines.
| FredPret wrote:
| We usually do!
|
| Hunger, sabre-tooth tigers, malaria, war: everything seems to
| make civilization stronger in the end
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| The very definition of survivorship bias :)
| newsbinator wrote:
| Some version of the anthropic principle?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
| FredPret wrote:
| Reality has a survivorship bias. That's the idea of
| Nietzsche's Will to Power.
| wongarsu wrote:
| What doesn't kill your civilization makes it stronger (or
| cripples it enough that it slowly fades into irrelevance,
| with nobody agreeing on the exact cause)
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Solving problems makes your civilization stronger.
| Letting them around while you learn to cope makes it
| weaker.
|
| Nobody agrees on the exact cause because when one is weak
| enough to fade into irrelevance, there are way too many
| of those unsolved problems.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| So you are saying that one way to solve a problem quick is to
| create a pandemic around it ... hmm
|
| I think the most important takeaway from the pandemic is that
| accelerated phase 2/3 trials will become the norm
| onychomys wrote:
| It should probably be noted here that for the mRNA vaccines,
| the only reason that the trials seemed accelerated is that
| they were able to find so many infected participants, and so
| were able to reach their stated endpoints more quickly.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| I'm not so sure about that. People worked all day and night
| and through weekends, were much more flexible with
| streaming data instead of getting it in one big package
| after it all arrived. I'm extremely thankful for all people
| who took part in letting me seeing my parents again without
| masks.
| ksd482 wrote:
| I don't think that's what he/she is saying. How did you infer
| that?
|
| What he's/she's saying is how to make the best out of a
| crisis after the fact.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-15 23:02 UTC)