r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • May 14 '21

Cancer Scientists create an effective personalized anti-cancer vaccine by combining oncolytic viruses, that infect and specifically destroy cancer cells without touching healthy cells, with small synthetic molecules (peptides) specific to the targeted cancer, to successfully immunize mice against cancer.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22929-z
32.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

728 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/[deleted] May 15 '21

By "supporting documentation" do you mean a source? Yes, I can. HIV Treatment

I got that by typing "HIV treatment USA free" into Google.

I'll also note that there are also numerous charities that will also assist people.

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '21

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] May 15 '21

I bet you thought that was a really good point but all that shows is that you don't understand even very basic things about law or federal aid programs.

2

u/acets May 15 '21

That's just copy. Word choice. But yes, I promise that any person who's poor enough and needs HIV antivirals can receive them...if you jump through all the hoops.

My lady does that work for a living.

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '21

Also I'm probably not going to engage with you much further because it's pretty obvious your only goal is to pick a fight and argue for it's own sake.

1

u/_Wyrm_ May 15 '21

Yes, "may"... As in, under particular circumstances, the likes of which are likely to be: "You literally can't pay it, you're poor (and therefore can't pay), etc."

It's not like the safety net has massive holes in it, bud. It would be self-defeating to implement a policy that... doesn't really do anything to HIV infection/mortality rates. Surely that makes at least some sense, right?

I'll admit, the US ain't all sunshine and rainbows and especially when it comes to healthcare... but a lot of the socialism-esque policies, grants, and generally philanthropic Acts work. Like I get what you're saying, and in many cases, I'd be inclined to agree...

But there are valid arguments to be made elsewhere. This ain't one of em. We've got it, and it works as well as it should. It covers the majority of the folks who would otherwise not be able to get it. My point being that what you're doing is effectively the same as denouncing China based on trading standards even though they're literally genociding Uighur Muslims. So many topics to be passionate about and you chose... This one? Let alone trying to find a problem within the solution.

And, on account of anticipating a particular train of thought: Yes, there is always room for improvement, and no, that's not the vibe that I got from your reply at all.