| ▲ | d--b 4 days ago |
| If it is the case that there are such treatments (easy to produce, 100% efficacy, no side effect) that cure fairly common deadly disease such as colorectal cancer in mice, and that never make it to human trial, there is something seriously broken about medical research... |
|
| ▲ | estearum 4 days ago | parent [-] |
| No, the issue is that mice are very different from humans. The only thing such a state of affairs clearly indicates is broken is using mice as proto-human test subjects. Which of course, when you state it like that, is obviously suboptimal. But no one knows what to do about it. |
| |
| ▲ | gus_massa 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Mice are good because they are super cheap. It's useful as a very early test. They used a shotgun approach, they tested 9 bacterias and 1 of them was suspenseful. At least it was suspenseful for 2 weeks, until the study ended. It's very difficult to extrapolate that to the 5 year survival rate in humans. | | | |
| ▲ | d--b 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Right, yes, at least that study proved that some bacteria eat cancerous cells in at least one mammal. If that particular bacteria doesn't work in humans it may still trigger a search for a bacteria that does. Still being optimistic about this :) | | |
| ▲ | estearum 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Yep, it's not wasted effort. This is how science works! Lots of dead ends and then suddenly a breakthrough. |
|
|
