[HN Gopher] Moderna Melanoma Vaccine Cuts Death Rate in Half
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Moderna Melanoma Vaccine Cuts Death Rate in Half
        
       Author : boiler_up800
       Score  : 243 points
       Date   : 2023-12-14 15:18 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
        
       | YellOh wrote:
       | This is very neat! The effect has only been observed up to three
       | years out, but this seems like it could become a pretty cost-
       | effective option?
       | 
       | Also, misc side note: I keep reading the words "Madonna" and
       | "Cults" in the title even though they're not there. Was very
       | confused when I first clicked the link.
        
         | seydor wrote:
         | Can't unsee
        
       | ceejayoz wrote:
       | A friend's kid had a specific rare childhood melanoma that, when
       | Googling, showed a 90% mortality rate. Thankfully that number is
       | apparently before recent immunotherapy advancements, but it was
       | pretty terrifying. This article is a happy click for me.
        
         | edc117 wrote:
         | A little bittersweet for me, lost an uncle to this about 10
         | years ago...but still happy and a little inspired, proud of our
         | species. I really hope ours is the last generation(s) that have
         | to suffer through that awful disease.
        
       | briane80 wrote:
       | Great news, and with the 92% effective covid vaccine, Moderna are
       | really killing it.
        
       | orwin wrote:
       | Weirdly, while this is not the first time i read about this
       | vaccine, this is the first time i read an explanation about how
       | it work.
       | 
       | Seems to be a tad expensive, but also generalizable. Hopefully it
       | can replace hormone therapy for breast cancers, and be extended
       | to all common cancers.
        
         | fnordpiglet wrote:
         | Didn't see any pricing information? Sadly all incentives are to
         | not make it less expensive and to simply extort the
         | institutions on the payment side and give rebates to everyone
         | who doesn't have an institution to back them. Much of medicine
         | is intentionally expensive to prop up revenues (and indirectly
         | profits while maintaining a defensible percent of revenues
         | margin).
         | 
         | But maybe not here - Moderna got a lot of experience with mass
         | scale production in the pandemic. If they orient it here we
         | could see biopsy based / pre surgical vaccination of cancer at
         | mass scales which would require scaled out pricing.
        
           | s1artibartfast wrote:
           | Current personalized cancer "vaccines" arent really
           | comparable. They typically cost millions and require the a
           | team of scientists to harvest your cells and create tailored
           | biologics to treat you.
           | 
           | Even if you strip out the profit motive, you still have huge
           | amounts of skilled human labor
        
             | fnordpiglet wrote:
             | Yes, but that's the beauty of industrialization. As scales
             | grow, manual skilled processes become automated. I'm not
             | asserting todays mRNA based on a sequence of a single virus
             | genome is comparable - but that the process of
             | industrializing as a skill is in fact a skill in an
             | enterprise that once perfected can be applied to more
             | complex domains.
             | 
             | The profit motive is reflected more in terms of keeping
             | high revenue producing processes inefficient to justify
             | higher profits with the same margin. Medicine is replete
             | with examples of processes that can be dramatically more
             | efficient and widely available, but are not optimized
             | because it reduces profits by reducing gross revenues. High
             | margins invite scrutiny, high revenues invite investment.
        
               | gattr wrote:
               | Hopefully, in a few decades: got cancer? Go for a biopsy,
               | wait a week for a personalized vaccine. Even if some
               | cells survive, mutate and start growing again, just
               | repeat the procedure. Cancer becomes a somewhat annoying
               | chronic illness.
        
               | DiscourseFan wrote:
               | Well, let's hope that repeatedly injecting people with
               | mRNA over the course of a lifetime doesn't create other
               | problems--I guess if the alternative is death, then
               | there's nothing else one can do anyway
        
               | bawolff wrote:
               | Is there any reason to think it would? mRNA is naturally
               | present in the body, and also gets broken down pretty
               | quickly.
        
               | s1artibartfast wrote:
               | I agree with the march of progress and the hopeful
               | commodification of new technologies. I also agree that
               | there are a number of counterproductive incentives
               | driving up the cost of healthcare. Regulatory capture and
               | lack of payment controls means efficiency is not
               | rewarded.
               | 
               | It is similar to the California energy market, where
               | electric providers are fixed, and rates are set by the
               | sate on a cost plus basis. It should be no surprise that
               | electricity production costs are multiple times higher
               | than other states if manufacturer profit is capped at 8%.
        
               | bawolff wrote:
               | industrialization usually requires making the same
               | product for everyone. E.g. back in the day everyone had
               | custom fitted shoes, now we choose from pre-made sizes.
               | 
               | Its not entirely clear such tailored processes can be
               | easily automated.
        
       | fnordpiglet wrote:
       | This, coupled with mass sequencing of individual cancers and
       | pathogens, feels like the generalized way forward in medicine.
       | 
       | I wonder how they identify the targets in each genome. Is there
       | an optimizing expert system? Generative AI?
        
         | chrisamiller wrote:
         | The short answer is, we sequence their genomes, identify
         | mutations that change a protein sequence and are highly
         | expressed, then run those all through suites of algorithms that
         | predict how well they'll be presented to the immune system.
         | (mostly neural networks trained on far-too-sparse experimental
         | data). This prediction is the hard part right now - we still
         | don't understand enough about how the immune system identifies
         | and interacts with these altered peptides to do really accurate
         | predictions of which ones will be most effective. Throw in that
         | these tumors are actively suppressing the immune system in
         | various ways, and it's complicated! There is lots of research
         | going on, though, and lots of promising early results, like
         | this one
        
       | CoastalCoder wrote:
       | I'm guessing that this vaccine is only used post-diagnosis.
       | 
       | Anyone know if there's talk of using this profilactically, like
       | the HPV vaccine? (I realize that viruses != cancers, but IIUC hpv
       | can sometimes lead to cancer, which is why I thought to ask.)
        
         | sbelskie wrote:
         | "The vaccine is custom-built based on an analysis of a
         | patient's tumors after surgical removal. The vaccines are
         | designed to train the immune system to recognize and attack
         | specific mutations in cancer cells."
         | 
         | Looks like their is a level of personalization going on that
         | requires actual existing cancer.
        
           | packetlost wrote:
           | Damn, I knew mRNA vaccines were the pretty much the end game
           | for vaccines, but holy shit this is cool.
        
             | DiscourseFan wrote:
             | Well, not really, what (mass) mRNA trials have shown is
             | that they don't deliver long term immunity, and each time
             | you give someone an mRNA booster the immune reaction gets
             | more severe, until the point at which it might give them
             | serious long term side effects or even, in severe cases,
             | kill them. It doesn't actually make sense in _most_ cases
             | to use mRNA over traditional vaccines--but they have been
             | producing fascinating non-prophylactic immunotherapy
             | treatments with mRNA, where triggering a severe, and
             | specific, immune response would lead to positive results
             | (like with specifically targeted cancer treatments).
        
               | Spooky23 wrote:
               | As someone who just lost the love of my life to
               | complications of metastatic melanoma, I'd encourage you
               | to tune out the naysayers and nonsense around these
               | treatments.
               | 
               | Melanoma in particular heads to the brain often and is
               | difficult to treat. 10-15 years ago, it was a death
               | sentence. Today, 60-70% of qualified patients will
               | survive 5 years or more thanks to immunotherapy. A chunk
               | of the 30-40% are folks who have difficulty tolerating
               | the therapy, have poor response, or other complications.
               | In my wife's case, complications from brain surgery
               | delayed treatment and the combo of mets and immunotherapy
               | response created a bad situation.
               | 
               | Today, about 50% of melanoma tumors have a BRAF mutation,
               | and a medication that can delay growth and buy patients
               | time to get better in order to get treatment. In my
               | wife's case, that wasn't an option.
               | 
               | COVID demonstrated that these vaccines bend the death
               | curve, reduce severity and offer positive immune
               | response. If that were available early this year, the
               | chances are my wife would be alive, finishing her second
               | course of immunotherapy.
        
               | mikeyouse wrote:
               | I'm unfamiliar with anything in this line of research --
               | the Covid mRNA vaccines haven't provided longer-term
               | immunity, but that's not at all due to the mRNA, but due
               | to the nature of coronaviruses, how quickly they mutate
               | and how many different mechanisms they have for cell
               | entry. "Traditional" vaccines were actually performing
               | worse for Covid19.
               | 
               | I'd be curious to read more about long-term immunity
               | issues if you have some links?
        
               | JAlexoid wrote:
               | Way before we had COVID bring out mRNA based vaccination
               | to mass media, I learned about mRNA as a treatment for
               | various cancers.
               | 
               | Moderna's research pipeline has been full of cancer
               | medications, which seem to be very promising.
        
               | SamBam wrote:
               | Do your statements have any sources? And are those
               | sources anything other than the difficulty in targeting
               | the fast-evolving covid virus?
        
           | FpUser wrote:
           | Sounds very unaffordable for general public. Hopefully I am
           | mistaken.
        
             | kstrauser wrote:
             | Everything's unaffordable at first. It only gets better
             | when enough people are using it that we get economies of
             | scale.
        
               | mrguyorama wrote:
               | Which is why modern insulin is super cheap to the end
               | user right?
        
               | ksenzee wrote:
               | It is, in countries that negotiate price. The US is doing
               | the equivalent of walking into a market where everyone
               | else is negotiating, and taking the vendor's first sky-
               | high offer.
        
         | blackbear_ wrote:
         | Cancer is a bit more difficult due to its high mutation rate,
         | but yes people are thinking at that:
         | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8525885/
        
       | sys32768 wrote:
       | ~20 years ago a young father on my block had a mole on his neck
       | that ended up being a fatal melanoma. He otherwise looked so
       | healthy.
       | 
       | He said it might have been from sunburns when he was in the Boy
       | Scouts.
       | 
       | I will never forget the look on his face when I spoke with him, a
       | look of bewilderment wrestling with anger.
       | 
       | His wife teetered with grief and confusion, trying her best to be
       | strong while trying to bear the sickening reality that nobody
       | could have prepared their family for.
       | 
       | I always get an annual dermatology checkup now because of him.
        
         | ejb999 wrote:
         | Please explain to someone that has never seen a melanoma - this
         | person had a single 'mole-like' mark on his neck (presumably
         | small?), and that alone killed him? or was it 'mole-like' and
         | eventually got so big that it killed him?
         | 
         | Having a hard time understanding how something so small, and so
         | easily removed can kill someone.
         | 
         | I have so many 'moles' on me, I wouldn't even know what to look
         | for.
        
           | askonomm wrote:
           | I just go to a dermatologist once a year who scans my moles.
           | Totally worth it.
        
           | teruakohatu wrote:
           | Just like many cancers, the cancerous cells spread and
           | destroy vital organs.
           | 
           | Yes they can be removed, but if the cancer has already spread
           | then it may be too late.
        
             | ejb999 wrote:
             | so it can be visually very small, and still kill you?
             | 
             | Just like an iceberg I guess...
        
           | pohl wrote:
           | The concept you want to understand is metastasis. When a
           | cancer metastasizes, it sends out cells that become cancers
           | elsewhere in your body. One day just just have a little
           | melanoma, the next day it sounds out cells that become
           | cancers in other organs: your lungs, your liver, etc.
           | 
           | Some skin cancers, like basal cell carcinoma, never
           | metastasize. Melanoma is one that will.
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastasis
        
           | SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
           | There are plenty of sources online to tell you what to look
           | for, but my dermatologist sticks with "pink and brown makes
           | you frown". Irregularly shaped with strange combination of
           | pink and brown is a flag to watch out for.
           | 
           | I've had a couple basal cells (the way less scary one) and
           | the easiest way to identify those is just look for a pearly
           | pimple that won't go away.
        
       | rafaelero wrote:
       | That's amazing news. Even cooler when you realize that Keytruda
       | was already a relatively effective treatment!
        
       | bkummel wrote:
       | Sounds like an important breakthrough!
       | 
       | Side note: in the article, I find it a bit inappropriate that the
       | first paragraphs only talk about the effects on the stock prices
       | of both involved companies, before going into details of the
       | research and how the vaccine works...
        
         | BurningFrog wrote:
         | That's how financial news is structured.
         | 
         | Science news go in the opposite order.
        
       | leetrout wrote:
       | Wear sunscreen.
       | 
       | Get your moles checked.
       | 
       | My dad died in July 1996 from a nasty mole on his back. He would
       | ask me to scratch his back and I remember being 8 or 9 years old
       | and having to scratch around it as it was near the seam of his
       | tank top (which likely aggravated it daily). And would make
       | comments about it being "gross". We just didn't know what we know
       | today.
       | 
       | He was drying off after showering one morning and got blood all
       | over the towel from the mole. He went to the dermatologist and
       | was told he had malignant melanoma. This was in September 1995
       | and he was in the ground before the middle of July 1996. Nine
       | months to get his affairs in order. I remember driving around and
       | seeing his old college pals (one of which I still see once a year
       | or so for lunch to this day). I remember him buying a bag phone,
       | a "car phone" so we could keep in touch as he drove from Eastern
       | KY to Duke University for experimental treatments (I believe it
       | was the one that led to the immunotherapy treatments used today).
       | He told my mom even if it didn't help him he hoped it would help
       | someone.
       | 
       | I avoid the sun with the exception of the back of my neck and the
       | top of my hands. He has no clue (nor do the dermatologists) what
       | caused it but, like other posts mention, likely sunburns in
       | childhood.
       | 
       | I am so hopeful for this treatment and thankful for the progress
       | made on the immunotherapy fronts.
        
         | hammock wrote:
         | >Wear sunscreen.
         | 
         | Melanoma in adults is typically tied back to acute blistering
         | sunburn events that happened before the age of 18 (as you seem
         | to be aware). The most common sites of melanoma are chest and
         | back in men and legs in women, areas that are more often than
         | not covered by clothing and not in need of sunscreen.
         | 
         | Cumulative sun exposure on the other hand causes the other
         | types of skin cancer - not melanoma, which this vaccine is
         | targeting.
         | 
         | The most common chemical sunscreen ingredients cause cancer
         | themselves and are wildly overdue for FDA review and removal
         | (that has been held up for political reasons). For those who
         | wish to wear sunscreen I recommend non-nano zinc mineral
         | sunscreen such as Thinksport. Look for "non-nano" and zinc
         | oxide (not titanium oxide, which is often nano in part and also
         | a carcinogen) on the label.
        
           | astockwell wrote:
           | > The most common sites of melanoma are chest and back in men
           | and legs in women
           | 
           | > The most common chemical sunscreen ingredients cause cancer
           | themselves
           | 
           | Both of these statements are out-of-date.
           | 
           | Recent studies show two different histological subtypes of
           | melanoma for young adults vs older adults, each following a
           | different common mode of presentation [1]. Melanoma in
           | younger adults tends to present on the long limbs and is
           | thought to have different contributing factors.
           | 
           | Also "common chemical sunscreen ingredients cause cancer" is
           | a common FUD trope. Sunscreen reduces cancer mortality, full
           | stop. Each person's circumstances vary based on their daily
           | habits, geography, and personal/familial history.
           | 
           | [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8482997/
        
             | loceng wrote:
             | Re: 'Also "common chemical sunscreen ingredients cause
             | cancer" is a common FUD trope. Sunscreen reduces cancer
             | mortality, full stop. Each person's circumstances vary
             | based on their daily habits, geography, and
             | personal/familial history.'
             | 
             | You didn't actually prove anything with your counter point
             | here, as confident as you are - which is as confident to
             | whom you're responding to.
             | 
             | At this level of ideological-indoctrination, it seems each
             | person would have to actually participate [run and observe
             | them] in the trials to see if certain ingredients cause an
             | increase in rates of cancer.
             | 
             | How else do people indoctrinated into a belief, believing
             | they simply know better - and must be right, than have
             | people repeat clinical trials on animal models [or better]?
             | Genuine question.
        
           | loceng wrote:
           | Re: "Melanoma in adults is typically tied back to acute
           | blistering sunburn events that happened before the age of 18
           | ..."
           | 
           | With the practical advice to counter this being gradual
           | increase of sun exposure to allow your body to build a deep
           | layer of protection (tan) - of which sun screen will prevent,
           | and then if you miss any spots and get full blast of sun for
           | hours all of a sudden then those will be points of
           | vulnerability.
           | 
           | Pharmaceutical industrial complex: create-advertise the
           | problem, sell the solution(s) = profit!!
        
             | pdabbadabba wrote:
             | Note that your quote from GP only relates to melanoma. They
             | also said "Cumulative sun exposure on the other hand causes
             | the _other types of skin cancer_. "
             | 
             | Its there evidence that the incremental tanning you
             | describe actually protects you from skin cancer and will
             | not cause other cancers? If not, this seems like a very
             | reckless comment.
        
               | hammock wrote:
               | Melanoma is far more deadly than the other types of
               | cancers. If building a base tan can protect you from the
               | acute blistering burns that are known to cause melanoma,
               | it may be worth it
        
           | r0m4n0 wrote:
           | > Melanoma in adults is typically tied back to acute
           | blistering sunburn events that happened before the age of 18
           | (as you seem to be aware)
           | 
           | I'm curious how this was studied. I feel like that's when
           | everyone gets really bad sunburns because this has to be
           | extremely hard to actually confirm. Doesn't everyone get
           | sunburns when they were in this age category? It's when we
           | are young and irresponsible, putting on sunscreen requires
           | persistence on something that doesn't seem important in the
           | short term (and arguably is a newer trend).
           | 
           | I totally believe that sun damage on your skin causes skin
           | cancer but studying your choices in your younger years to
           | later years seems quite difficult to confirm through
           | research. Wouldn't they need to confirm adults that were
           | diligent about putting on sunscreen their entire life,
           | including when they were kids?
        
         | jncfhnb wrote:
         | You are likely hurting yourself a lot more by avoiding the sun.
        
         | aidenn0 wrote:
         | > Get your moles checked.
         | 
         | Tell that to my GP. Both my parents had melanoma, and they each
         | had one additional type of skin cancer each. _Their_
         | dermatologist is insistent that I get checked, but my GP doesn
         | 't think it's necessary, so my HMO won't pay for it.
        
           | mjcohen wrote:
           | It might be a worthwhile investment in self-preservation.
        
           | vkou wrote:
           | Fire your GP.
        
             | HumblyTossed wrote:
             | They probably can't depending on insurance.
        
               | vkou wrote:
               | Insurance isn't a suicide pact that ties you to one
               | particular, shitty GP.
        
               | usea wrote:
               | For many people it is. They cannot see another doctor if
               | they want to continue doing things like eating food. If
               | they're lucky enough to be insured at all.
        
               | COGlory wrote:
               | Could you explain the mechanism of this? I am unsure how
               | this situation could arise. There are seemingly infinite
               | GPs in-network on any insurances.
        
               | vkou wrote:
               | Is their GP the only practitioner in-network for them?
               | Their network has one member?
        
               | mschuster91 wrote:
               | Depends if there are other in-network GPs in a range
               | where OP can reasonably travel to.
        
               | yeetawayhn wrote:
               | And who are also accepting new patients.
        
             | aidenn0 wrote:
             | I'll try, but my 3 previous GPs, who were all better than
             | my current one, are no longer in-network. Presumably the
             | insurance doesn't pay well enough to keep the better
             | doctors. It's a substantial amount of paperwork (both with
             | the insurance and the new GP) with no guarantee things will
             | be better.
        
           | verve_rat wrote:
           | Sounds like your GP isn't doing their job? Time to get a
           | different one.
        
           | smileysteve wrote:
           | In the US, even with a referral, dermatology is not
           | considered preventative, so high deductible POS plans are
           | left to HSAs too.
        
             | aidenn0 wrote:
             | My HMO pays almost 100% of in-network care with a referral
             | (there is a nominal per-visit co-pay), so that at least
             | wouldn't be an issue there, as long as I don't run into
             | silly things like "The facility you visited was in-network,
             | but Person X who did some of your care was an out-of-
             | network contractor" which has bit me for emergency care
             | before.
        
         | jandrese wrote:
         | At the same time make sure you are getting enough sun exposure
         | to avoid bottoming out your Vitamin D levels. Low Vitamin D is
         | linked to a number of bone and muscle issues.
        
           | ekianjo wrote:
           | Low vitamin D is linked to weakened immune system and higher
           | rates of cancers.
        
       | victorbjorklund wrote:
       | https://archive.is/wh409
        
       | jseliger wrote:
       | _The combination treatment has won U.S. breakthrough therapy and
       | European Medicines Agency PRIME scheme designations, regulatory
       | programs that aim to speed development of innovative treatments.
       | Still, Hoge said that even with the new data it would be some
       | time before the companies can file for approval of the
       | treatment._
       | 
       | These delays help fill graveyards in the meantime:
       | https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/01/th....
       | The tragedy goes mostly unremarked on, because the dead don't
       | agitate or vote.
        
         | icegreentea2 wrote:
         | But also remember the other invisible graveyard - the people
         | who aren't dead because they received ineffective treatments.
         | 
         | I do agree that drug approval processes need to consider the
         | negative cost of delay, but in this specific case, from further
         | in the article we see:
         | 
         | > Moderna is currently building a dedicated facility in
         | Massachusetts to produce the vaccine at commercial scale, which
         | it hopes to finish sometime next year.
         | 
         | > "We need to make sure that we have that near completion
         | before we could even contemplate asking for approval," Hoge
         | said.
         | 
         | And the reason for this is that you typically need to submit
         | detailed manufacturing information as part of your new drug
         | approval process. This allows the FDA assess how likely the
         | drug you actually sell will provide the same benefits as those
         | in the trial, as well as make sure you don't like... dunno
         | forget to serialize stuff and ship out contaminated product.
        
           | JAlexoid wrote:
           | The approvals themselves are much less efficient, than they
           | aught to be.
           | 
           | In so many cases, the changes trigger a review of the whole
           | process - rather than the changes.
        
       | kxyvr wrote:
       | This is great news. We can always use better treatments. I had a
       | case of metastatic melanoma (III-A) in my early 20's and the drug
       | of choice at that time was interferon, which was not a
       | particularly pleasant experience. There were experimental
       | vaccines at the time as well, so these new vaccines have been
       | multiple decades in the making.
       | 
       | As some unsolicited practical advice, yes, it's always good to
       | protect one's self from the sun using long sleeves or sunscreen.
       | However, melanoma can and often does occur in areas that does not
       | receive sun exposure. This could be between your toes or inside
       | your butt cheeks. As a result, it's worthwhile to have a
       | dermatologist conduct a skin exam once a year. Normally, this is
       | covered under a specialist visit for insurance and for many
       | insurance plans this is a flat fee.
       | 
       | Outside of a regular exam, any growth that has unusual size,
       | shape, or color should be checked by a dermatologist, especially
       | if it changes. My lesion was raised off the skin and red in
       | color. It also changed and grew over time. If one can not
       | immediately see a dermatologist, lacks insurance, or money for a
       | visit, regular pictures of the skin blemish or growth can help
       | track changes. If it changes, though, it really does require a
       | dermatologist to look at it.
       | 
       | Lastly, dermatologists can and do make mistakes. In my case, my
       | lesion was dismissed as a benign nevus at first visit. When I
       | revisted the physician six months later, it was larger and was
       | finally biopsied to discover it was melanoma. It is possible that
       | the cancer metastasized in the interim period, but we'll never
       | know. That said, if one is concerned about a growth and the
       | physician defers, it is very simple to tell the dermatologist
       | that you'd feel more comfortable if we biopsied the growth just
       | to be sure. You don't have to be mean and I've never been
       | refused. At that point, they take a small sample of the growth
       | and send it to the lab. Then, you know for sure. Normally, the
       | sample is taken by using a razor blade and skimming off some of
       | the surface. It's fast, easy, and while not painless, it is not
       | particularly painful. Generally, this is rolled into my
       | specialist visit fee for insurance, but they may send an
       | additional billing code to insurance.
       | 
       | Finally, dermatolgists can be difficult to schedule with.
       | Honestly, their schedule is often filled with cosmetic procedures
       | like skin peels and botox because it's so profitable. That said,
       | any dermatologist can do a biopsy, so just call around to find
       | one with an opening that takes your particular insurance.
       | 
       | I apologist for the side talk. I often find the whole talk to
       | your doc discussion regarding skin lacks details, so hopefully
       | this helps. Great to hear that the treatments are progressing.
        
         | s3p wrote:
         | Thanks for the advice. I haven't had any type of skin cancer
         | but will definitely keep this in mind since a lot of family
         | members have had it in the past.
        
       | deminature wrote:
       | Two out of three Australians will be diagnosed with some form of
       | skin cancer at some point their lives [1] due to the higher
       | atmospheric UV. This is going to prevent a lot of unnecessary
       | death. Modern medicine is fantastic.
       | 
       | [1] https://www.phrp.com.au/media/media-releases/two-in-three-
       | au...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-12-14 23:01 UTC)