910
this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
910 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19233 readers
2746 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Slight correction on that vaccine, the FDA doesn't authorize any drug for sale in the US that hasn't passed it's rigorous trials and gone through its approval process. It's currently being tested and has more trials ongoing right now. FDA will be able to approve it for sale if it passes its trials.
https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.9135
Also the word cancer vaccine kind of implies cure to some, but it's not by any means:
"MST was 10.83 months for vaccinated vs. 8.86 months for non-vaccinated. In the Phase III trial, the 5-year survival rate was 14.4% for vaccinated subjects vs. 7.9% for controls."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5346887/
So it might be a useful tool but just don't want to get hopes up unnecessarily. People who's immune system reacted to the vaccine the strongest did best, so current trials are focused on combining it with an immune checkpoint inhibitor drug to increase the immune response even more hopefully (and those drugs are already being used by themselves in cancer). These drugs block "checkpoints" in the immune system that would normally stop it from attacking things like yourself, which we kind of want it to do in cancer.
Not saying I support an embargo in Cuba, I don't, just don't want this comment to be inadvertently read as "Cuba has had the cure to lung cancer this whole time and you're not allowed to have it!" which isn't true.
Wow this comment really unwinds the one you replied to, so much so that the original seems in bad faith
Edit op edited, and improved their comment. You don't need to defend them, they are fine on their own
It’s almost as if people just go on lemmy and tell lies.
What's next, socialism has been tried and didn't quite work??
I mean, it's still true that Cuba has likely made significant advances in the cancer medicine, but it hasn't passed the standards of the FDA yet. And it's still true that the embargo between Cuba and the US is upheld to this day by politicians despite the potential good that could come from opening up trade again.
The first comment to me reads as more just overly enthusiastic, more than explicitly bad faith to me.
Reuters is bad faith?
The incomplete characterization that the drug was READY for us markets.
It is not fda approved.
Edit After discussion, the op elected to make the seen edits in their comment. I'd refer you to them.
@astreus never made that claim.
I agree, I did not make that claim! And I do find it a bit weird that people are using that line of attack. But c'est la vie. I was wrong about what the treatment did, I was wrong about the level of verification it had, however we are singing from the same hymn sheet
This has already been discussed and op met my edit request. You aren't part of this.
For the sake of transparency, I edited before you suggested I did - hence my comment "I had not done the research and have edited my comment above." 😉
My edit request was met. No comment on order of operations.
Now who's being disingenuous 😂
The implicature of cause and effect is reversed
When I made my claim your comment was not of quality, you hadn't edited yet. When token boomer was commenting to me, you had.
Nope, I had already. Hence why I said "I have edited my comment" and then you said "you should edit your comment.
Well that's fucking wrong else I wouldn't have started this whole thing, as I've indicated your edit is satisfactory
Check again.
"My original comment was a glib link to a wikipedia page. I had not done the research and have edited my comment above"
To which you replied:
"Your last sentence here would change the sentiment of your original comment in a positive way. I encourage an edit."
I was going to reply with "what, I should edit my comment again to say I have edited my comment" but decided it wasn't as funny typed as in my head.
Sorry, mate, you are wrong. But over the most stupidly ridiculously small thing on the internet (and that's saying something)
I just want us to be clear: your satisfaction/demands mean literally nothing to me so please don't take credit for the other poster helping me do my research 🤷♂️
You're the one reviving this thread. You posted your top level comment. The other commenter destroyed your bullshit claim, and I said ,"wow this really highlighted the bullshit". You hadn't edited then, cause both of our comments wouldn't make sense.
Unless you have timestamps, I believe your edit came either at the same time, or after I and the other comment called for you to tidy up your misinformation, which you did. Of course you didn't do it for me or because of me, I'm not your mom.
You got called out and are now flailing. Just let it go
My "you should edit" comment was may 6th at 356.
Your edit was at may 6 425.
Edit The point of all of this end of the thread is that token boomer showed up far later than that, of any edits, acting like none of them happened
I'm not flailing, I'm pointing out you are trying to rewrite history.
On top of that the other commenter didn't "destroy" my claim nor was it "bullshit". They added context based on an assumption I didn't make (i.e. vaccine = cure) which led me to do more research and add context that changed the level of enthusiasm I had.
What was bullshit was you deciding it was disingenuous AND you saying I had made changes you had requested. Neither of those statements are true.
"I believe your edit came either at the same time" - you do see the irony of asserting your belief like it's fact in a thread where I added my belief to a fact and mangled it as a result? You do see it, right?
I find it kinda funny that I admitted where I was wrong but you are literally unable to.
Anyway, just clarifying: the OTHER poster got me to edit based on their HELPFUL comments. You didn't do anything apart from state obvious facts about FDA approval and try to take credit for being so wise and insightful
I provided timestamps.
I never did shit but call out the the other dudes comment was good, and yours sucked. The fact you can't drop this is flailing.
The fact that you find my fda facts obvious, yet your didn't use them in your original comment, takes us full circle to why I commented in the first place lol
Definitely wasn't bad faith and I do stand by it.
Vaccine does not mean cure. We did not have a Covid cure either. And much like the covid vaccine isn't 100% effective, neither is this. However, it is proving effective, especially in combination with other drugs and at certain stages of treatment.
Stage 4 clinical trials were concluded in Cuba in 2017. Stage 2 trials were concluded in the US in 2023. I believe, strongly, that the embargo has increased the amount of time the research has taken - cooperation is impossible during an embargo.
Even if they lift the embargo tomorrow the drug wouldn't come on the market, however it is because of the embargo that the use in treatment has taken far, far longer than it would have otherwise.
Edit: I admit I knew less about the vaccine than I thought I did (edited my comment to reflect what I have learnt)
I agree it may have presented barriers for coordination the FDA and access to US markets. I haven't been able to dig deep into the Cuban studies, but just because something is labeled a phase 3 or phase 4 by the investigators doesn't necessarily mean it was done to the standards necessary for fda approval or in the correct context of current standard of care treatments in the US or who knows how many other issues. If it was fully ready for all markets as is and required no further investigations, and it was only the US FDA causing problems, I would expect it to have already been widely available in many other countries that don't have embargos with Cuba, like all of Europe. Currently it's only available in Cuba, Colombia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Peru, and Paraguay.
Mostly though I didn't want someone to accidentally misread this and think it meant cure. I realize you did not say that, but it's just a common misreading I've noticed people make of the term cancer vaccines when they've been mentioned in popular media. Didn't want someone to drag their poor dying relative off to Paraguay thinking they're getting cured.
I agree the Cuban embargo is ridiculous, should be stopped, and is hurting both countries with no benefit to anyone (other than keeping a certain segment of voters in Florida happy).
While Europe does not have an embargo, up until 2016 the EU and Cuba basically had 0 relationship. The EU created "The Common Position" in 1996 which was "to encourage a process of transition to a pluralist democracy" in Cuba which the Cuba government rejected as meddling in their internal affairs.
Then in the 2000s there was a bigger spat where Cuba even started rejecting EU aid.
But since 2017 they've actually really warmed relations so this is a super good point!
Thank you for kicking off these research dives with your comments.
"yes, it works, and has been independently verified" makes it seem like it is 100% ready for us markets but not available. That's not the case, and it seems you knew that.
How would that be possible during an embargo?
If a treatment is developed in the EMA, there's a level of cooperation that means drugs can come to market quickly if proven safe and even somewhat effective (Covid vaccine is an extreme example). This treatment would likely be US ready without the embargo in place.
My original comment was a glib link to a wikipedia page. I had not done the research and have edited my comment above.
Your last sentence here would change the sentiment of your original comment in a positive way. I encourage an edit.
Oh yeah, already edited.
Sounds more like just just being I'll informed, don't see much reason to assume bad faith.
Thank for you adding some incredibly well summarized context.
Cigarette industry would be all over a lung cancer vaccine
It's also not a vaccine in the sense it's preventing cancer, it's for the treatment of cancer that is already there, specifically non small cell lung cancers (though it's being tested in other cancers that use the signaling mechanism being targeted). Not saying it's impossible that it could prevent cancer, just that it hasn't been tested in that way to the best of my knowledge.
There is some precedence for a vaccine like that though. The HPV vaccine for instance prevents HPV (and therefore hpv related cancers), but is also used as a treatment if an HPV related cancer develops.
its* rigorous trials.
People whose* immune system.
Lol, I did my best, typed it on a cell phone.
No worries, man.
That long text only has two typos? That's impressive!