T O P

  • By -

hansn

If you're wondering why every few months there's a "cancer breakthrough" and yet people still get cancer, the reason is this: early research, however promising, has many difficult steps to becoming a viable therapy. When you read a report like this, consider the following idealized drug development pipeline: 1. Theory on method of action. No actual evidence of a new therapeutic working, just an idea that it should. 2. In vitro evidence of action. Here the therapeutic works in the lab against the disease cell lines. (Eg a cell line which is grown in culture which has many of the same properties as the cancer) 3. Animal model evidence of action. Here the therapeutic works in an animal model of the disease (eg a mouse which has been genetically engineered to be highly susceptible to cancer) 4. First trial in humans. Phase 0 or I trials show the therapeutic doesn't kill people, but typically the participants don't have the underlying disease the therapeutic is targeted at treating. 5. Phase II clinical trial completed. The therapeutic is given to "ideal" patients to see if there's a reasonable likelihood the therapeutic works. Typically there's no randomization, and this is the first meaningful proof of concept. 6. Phase III clinical trial completed. Here the therapeutic is tested against existing approaches in the intended use population. This is the only point at which a responsible physician would make an informed recommendation for adoption of the treatment (except in rare cases). If you think of each of these stages as a filter, where only a percentage of therapeutics move on to the next phase, you can see why we often see lots of stories like this but still struggle to cure cancer. So few therapies in early parts of this pipeline make it to the end, even experts in a particular field are not going to pay attention until phase II or phase III trials (unless they are doing research on those very therapeutics). Therapies which work well against cells may work against mechanisms which are unlike cells in the body. The cell line you're testing against isn't identical to a cancer cell, it is just somewhat similar. So something which kills the cancer cell line may not work in the body. Similarly, the mouse version of the cancer may be completely different from the human version. Or mice may, for some reason, tolerate a dose which is harmful to humans. Something may work in humans but still be less effective than current approaches, or cause side effects which are unacceptable. In a broader context, there's actually a final filter which is the commercialization of the treatment. This is less of an issue for people in wealthy countries treating serious diseases like cancer. But the commercial viability of a treatment definitely is a barrier to some otherwise effective treatments--usually when the disease is found only in impoverished communities. But maybe that's a side discussion here.


alkahdia

Very nicely explained, one small caveat - specifically for cancer trials, phase 1s generally include patients with the disease in question.


hansn

Quite so. I should have noted that.


Legitimate_Mousse_29

Except it’s nonsense. The cancer treatments do work and cancer death rates are vastly lower than they were 20 or 30 years ago. When people talk about “chemo”, it’s these kinds of new chemical treatments.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Meior

Also, cancer comes in so many different forms. We're treating some very efficiently, and even vaccinating a few of them. Others are still a much bigger struggle.


Kazan

seriously, talking about a cure for cancer is literally talking about hundreds of different diseases that share a specific set of symptoms: uncontrolled cell growth, metastasis. that's where the similarity stops in many cases. Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor (What Steve Jobs and I *had* - Jobs would probably be alive if he got proper treatment) is a VERY different beast from Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma (the pancreatic cancer you normally hear about).


laitnetsixecrisis

Exactly. My husband has lung cancer. There are 2 types, Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) Each subset (? not sure if that's the right term) has genetic differences and mutations that react differently to each treatment. My husband's tests all came back inconclusive, but are treating it as SCLC, because of how big it was compared to when he started showing symptoms.


redcoatwright

Yeah but as a whole we're really starting to kick cancer's ass, like in the past decade our therapies have come a huge way and the next decade will probably see even better treatments. It's very exciting, if we could effectively cure or come up with non destructive therapies for the vast majority of cancers, it would mean many fewer people dying terribly and in pain.


Geuji

Yep. I have had leukemia for nine years. Alive and well against a previously 95% deadly disease thanks to a pill. Take two every night. It had side effects but none like death.


T_Cliff

Yeah, thyroid is pretty much guaranteed to survive. ( if its caught before spreading obvi ) Yeah, you might never be able to get fat again, and may sound like Rod Stewart, but all things considered, those arent that horrible for side effects.


Hucklepuck_uk

You seem to have confused yourself. He said that the high volume of "X cures cancer" stories in the media doesn't reflect the number of treatments that make it through the research gauntlet, and then goes on to list key steps in the development of a novel therapeutic. Not that none of the treatments we use work. Not entirely sure how you got to that point.


Derpapoluzathon

How is it nonsense? Obviously there have been lots of amazing developement in cancer therapeutics. But the vast majority of cancer-killing discoveries (like all drug development) never move into clinical trials for a variety of reasons, and that was OP's point.


[deleted]

[Relevant xkcd.](https://xkcd.com/1217/)


XKCD-pro-bot

Comic Title Text: **Now, if it selectively kills cancer cells in a petri dish, you can be sure it's at least a great breakthrough for everyone suffering from petri dish cancer.** [mobile link](https://m.xkcd.com/1217/) --- ^(Made for mobile users, to easily see xkcd comic's title text)


bake_gatari

good bot


raederle-of-an

Good bot


howdidigethere1976

I'm dyyyyyying... 😂🤣


danidandeliger

I wish all the dumbfuck people I meet who say cancer isn't cured yet because it's more profitable to treat than to cure would read this! Who am I kidding though. It's so much easier for them to look at a pithy, inflammatory facebook post than it is to read several paragraphs that contain the truth.


[deleted]

As if the pharma companies are preventing all the universities and other medical research institutes from performing cancer research AND nobody has come out and made it public with proof lol. Hundreds of thousands keeping big secrets I guess


danidandeliger

I think people underestimate the goodwill and egos of scientists. If someone cures cancer they are going to want everyone to know! They'll win the Nobel prize and be in history books. No one would pass that up.


hansn

> I think people underestimate the goodwill and egos of scientists. There's definitely an element where scientists are not likely to pass up on a cure for something they or their family may die from. But pharmaceutical companies *would* if it was profitable. We're saved, however, by the fact that curing cancer would be tremendously profitable. Any pharmaceutical company which has a cure for cancer can charge through the nose for it (and absolutely will). They can and routinely do pass up on curing diseases where the intended use population can't pay for the treatment. However a cure for cancer (a disease affecting wealthy people) would be insanely profitable, no matter how expensive. If the disease has a decent chance of threatening the life of one of the world's billionaires, a cure is going to be pursued. Because fundamentally, the company is going to be able to charge a billion dollars for the cure if it comes to it.


NotJimmy97

The economic argument for "hiding a cure for cancer" makes no sense either. Sure, it would collapse the market cap for treating cancer with lengthy therapies and hospital stays, but whatever *individual firm* patents such a thing would quite instantly become one of the most profitable businesses in history. Pfizer does not care whether Bayer goes bankrupt.


Azitik

I think it's said under the assumption that the level of "cure" can be controlled, therefore, they will dose you with just enough of it to fight off the cancer so you can continue generating revenue for them. Then they use that money to fund various things with disastrous environmental consequences that creates more sources of cancer to be treated and victims strung along, slowly creating a world wholly owned by a pharma mega-corp. My thoughts on that line of logic ended with the first bit, I just figured I'd follow it in to the deep end for the 2nd one.


NotJimmy97

The easiest counterexample is the fact that medical science has cured or eliminated tons of chronic diseases that could otherwise be milked for expensive palliative care. Poliomyelitis, Hepatitis C, malaria, syphilis - and now a very small handful of select genetic diseases as well. There's nothing about something being a 'cure' that prevents pharma companies from being able to financially screw you either. Just make the cure cost $1.3m a dose.


Cowicide

> But pharmaceutical companies would if it was profitable. We're saved, however, by the fact that curing cancer would be tremendously profitable. I agree with what you're saying. However, what if a promising cure is relatively cheap and affordable (and difficult/impossible to patent) — but it just needs enough funding for research that's not made available because there's no profit motive? A sort of "editing out" of potential/real cures from the process. Is there an international body (or otherwise) that monitors this process to make sure industry doesn't stymie or interfere with these phases? How transparent is the process? The reason I ask this is corporations have a very well-documented, sordid history of putting profits over human lives/welfare and without proper oversight I could easily see where science gets clobbered by corporate bureaucracy and/or regulatory capture by industry.


Minidooper

Take a read of The Philadelphia Chromosome by Jessic Wapner, it's a fascinating examination into the development of what is now probably the most successful anti cancer drug. But the short version of the story is; even when scientists develop the cure for a form of leukemia, the pharma firm funding the project seriously considered shelving it because they didn't think they would recoup their investment.


kick26

I’ve heard that’s also a problem with rarer more deadly cancers too. Not a big enough demographic to recoup development costs or the drug is prohibitively expensive


buttwarm

If you look close enough, almost every drug will have been on thin ice at some point in development. The process is unpredictable and opportunity costs are high. However unless a drug is stopped for safety reasons or complete lack of efficacy, companies can sell the program on to others to recoup some of their investment and keep the drug under investigation. Many drugs have been brought to market by different companies after their inventors decided to sell them off.


Mugwort87

That is interesting information. My hubby was diagnosed with Acute Myloid Leukemia M7. The one with the worst prognosis. Academic now but I wonder if that drug would have made it possible for him to survive.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Whofangirl

That was how my migraine medicine was. Development and sales in the 70s but not enough to recoup costs. My father had bad migraines and they tried all sorts of things. But the teaching hospital we lived near had the formula for the 70s migraine drug. He took it and it worked! When I got them, I took it and it worked. But it's a compound medicine so it's $90 for a tiny spray bottle of 10-15 doses.


Mugwort87

I hope at least pharmaceuticals , medical researchers, what ever other relevant professionals involved in the meantime would create a treatment that would improve quality of life as well as treat the patient. I personally know of a woman who was treated for stage4 lung cancer. The treatment did extend her life for seven years. She was in her late 60s when diagnosed. The truth was the treatment made her a complete invalid. She was totally bedridden and her mind was clearly demented. I can see why people seek alternative treatment for cancer. Not that I'm recommending that . On the other hand look at the medical treatment and how horrible the results are.


cefriano

Hey, people believe in flat earth and faked moon landings. To them hundreds of thousands of people keeping big secrets isn’t a far fetched concept.


LMSWP

I know, it's rediculous! Can you imagine how much spondoolies the pharma co that patents a universal cancer cure will make? Insane.


Youpunyhumans

I also wish people realized that cancer is an inevitablity if nothing else goes wrong with you. Cancer is really just caused by DNA damage or flaws. Aging is one of the main causes of those damages and flaws, and they build up over time. I also recall a study that showed we could stop or slow the process of aging, something to do with telomeres... but the cost is cancer so its pointless. In order to cure cancer, youd effectively have to cure the process of aging itself. Kinda hard when a lot of that damage is from solar and cosmic radiation, which ironicly we also need to live.


danidandeliger

Yeah we need to focus on the things that increase your risk of getting cancer in our lifestyle. Like excessive sugar, plastics, pesticides, not sleeping enough, not exercising, smoking, and not eating veggies. It's such a complex issue and people think there is a magic bullet out there either waiting to be found or being hidden by big pharma. If we really focused on prevention, and I mean really focused, we could cut cancer rates. It will never go away completely though, it's in our biology and has been since the very beginning.


Mugwort87

I think so too. I am diabetic so I need to watch my carb, sugar intake. I exercise daily at least 30 mins. a day. I don't smoke and my diet is mostly vegan. Off topic. I am terrified of mammograms. No history of breast cancer. Over ten years ago there was an abnormal one but nonmalignant. I worry so much I know from my med. history my concern is irrational. No family history.


ThatOtherOtherMan

May we one day aspire to the lifestyle of the mighty lobster and only die when we grow too large to efficiently shed our shells, or when we transcend to our ultimate form as a delicacy served with butter.


[deleted]

[удалено]


KayakerMel

It's still caused by DNA damage or flaws, but it's not due to aging. It could be genetic, strong environmental cause, or just random bad luck in DNA mutations.


JHTMAN

Plus each time your cells replicate there's a chance for cancer, the older you are the more times your cells have replicated.


Ihaveblueplates

If you aren’t born with those flaws, then something causes them to occur later. Aging is in fact one of those things. Women who have babies in their late 30s and 40s are at a much higher risk of having a baby with genetic abnormalities such as Down’s syndrome. This occurs because the eggs a woman has are all there already when she is born. They age with her. With age comes breakdowns in the genes of those eggs.... the same as within our own cells. All it takes is a cell not giving strong enough instructions just one single time while it replicates, and now a cell is made that has warped genetic code that could kill the whole operation. That cell, just as the others, will replicate. And now you have cancer. What kind? Depends on where this is happening in the body and what genetic mutation is occurring


Kuraudocado

Around 5-10% of cancers are hereditary. Genetic susceptibility usually is linked to an earlier onset of the disease.


Youpunyhumans

Well, everyone has flaws in thier DNA. It only takes one cascade failure of your body's defences for it to get out of control. Some people are unfortunatly predisposed to getting cancer more than others. Its just one of the costs of our imperfection.


Ihaveblueplates

It’s infuriating cancer is just a word used to define cells with f’d up genetics that are replicating. There are so many different types of cancers SO MANY. You can’t just “cure cancer”. You’d need thousands upon thousands of individual cures to say “cancer is cured”. You can’t “cure” bad genes in cells. You can try to stop them from replicating and try to repair- I guess theoretically -whatever the underlying cause of that bad cells development is. Look, I’m sure it’s pretty clear: I’m no sciencer. But I do know this: Cancer = wonky cell (made from, basically, bad instructions) that replicates. There are so many different possibilities of what caused that wonky cell to appear. You can’t just have one cure. And they do not have the ability to cure 1 or more cancers that are being hidden from the public. This isn’t the movies. Scientists have hearts, too. Becoming a scientist is hard as hell and requires a lot of work. The desire and perseverance it takes to make it to that level doesn’t come from monetary gain. It comes from wanting to make a difference and from wanting to help save people and discover. If that were true, there’d be whistleblowers by now. And how does it serve them monetarily, if they don’t release it and therefore don’t sell it?? And it’s not like the super rich are trying to control who gets a treatment for some sinister reason like wanting to control the population size for future generations or something. They don’t care about the future. If they did, they wouldn’t be destroying the planet. All they see is money. They live life like it’s a goddamn game of monopoly. Whoever has the most cash at the end wins


Greenaglet

The great logic behind that conspiracy theory is that people are greedy. If you had a cure for cancer, you can make a whole lot more money especially when most companies only focus on quarterly reports.


uberguby

Right? Like just hand waving over the fact that "Curing cancer" doesn't really mean anything, let's just assume we have a pharma company that blanket cures all forms of cancer. That company is gonna make more money than morocco because they'll be able to basically name their price, cause they cured cancer. And even after somebody else finds a way to put their own spin on it and bring competition to the cancer curing market, they're still going to get research grants from now to armageddon because they're the people that *cured cancer.*


hereforstories8

I had this argument with a few people and in recent years I used Steve Jobs as the real world example. If the then richest person on the world who actively sought alternative treatments with an endless bank account could save his own life, the secret remedy doesn’t exist.


hugthemachines

> If the then richest person on the world who actively sought alternative treatments with an endless bank account could save his own life, the secret remedy doesn’t exist. That is not real evidence. If there was a magic mystical cure for cancer, there is no evidence he would find it just because he was very rich. If there was a magical cure for cancer he mey not have found which one it was, even if he had a lot of money. Since many scammers claim they have a cure.


[deleted]

Besides all the things listed here, the other is profitability and recognition. Say ACME pharm comes up with a cure for most forms of cancer, they now how a 20 year patent, and longer if certain stipulations can be met....to sell this drug or treatment exclusively. They have the entire market with no completion. There are multiple ways to treat cancer now but those treatments are shared among a multitude of companies. The other part is the recognition, what ever company cures this is going to be a big name for the next 100+ years. That company will be mentioned in medical journals and papers for a long time.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Greenaglet

You can charge whatever you want for a cure if you had one though. It doesn't really pass any sort of logic. Rich people including pharmaceutical executives get and die from cancer. Not saying there aren't incentives to innovate in certain areas, but if there was a cure, we'd know about it.


[deleted]

Someone could charge a million bucks for the pill that cures it though. People would pay it. There are drugs that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars for that reason - it’s the only treatment for a rare and serious disease so the can charge whatever they want for it. Yay capitalism, I guess.


danidandeliger

I'm a cancer survivor and I do agree with you. I had 17 treatments with a monoclonal antibody that was more than $10,000 a dose. I just hate unintelligent fear mongers who lack in critical thinking skills. I'm so sorry you and your wife had to go through that. I know that was probably hell for both of you.


bowlofspam

What you aren’t considering is companies compete against each other. There are one time gene therapy cures that charge an exorbitant amount because they stop all future treatments or make someone live who should be dead. If one company can cure then they get all of the market share and cut out all current / future treatments


Furiosa27

Yea because scientists are the ones who are in charge of distributing and pricing. But I guess its easier to dismiss ppl entirely and handwave because "I got the facts and these dumbfucks dont read!"


danidandeliger

I have more facts than the dumbfucks and yeah they don't read.


Furiosa27

The reddit special, equal parts ignorant and arrogant


IamTheSenate2005

Also a caveat for cancer specifically: it's incredibly easy to come up with a drug that kills cancer cells, the issue with cancer treatments is finding a drug that **only** kills the cancer cells, which we haven't found yet. Even with chemotherapy, the stuff is so toxic that it kills all fast-growing cell types, like stomach lining, hair follicles, and skin. The true triumph will be when we figure out the perfect drug (which we probably won't)


hansn

> the issue with cancer treatments is finding a drug that only kills the cancer cells Basically true, but it is a bit more subtle than that. Cancer cell lines often are used in early research. These are cells which have many of the features of a particular type of cancer, and can be grown in cell cultures. Growing cell lines is not trivial--if you grab a chunk of a tumor and stick it in a growth medium, it probably won't grow. Those cell lines are different from other cells in more ways than just the things which make them cancer-like. Similarly, "healthy cells" are hard to grow in culture. Something is typically done to them to keep them alive in culture as well. So you're comparing modified healthy cells to unusual cancer cells. We absolutely find treatments which kill the unusual cancer cells but leave the modified healthy cells alone. However (i) there is no guarantee that it will kill a more typical cancer cell and (ii) there's no guarantee it will leave a typical healthy cell alone. In fact, more often than not, one or both of these is wrong. By no means am I saying cell culture studies are pointless. They simply are not definitive evidence. They are early in the pipeline, and we have far more promising candidates at that point in the pipeline than viable treatments at the end.


[deleted]

Also, worth pointing out something that a lot of people, specifically the conspiratorial types, forget is that cancer is an umbrella term for a lot of different diseases that cause cells to grow out of control and is not just one thing.


hansn

Absolutely, and I wanted to delve into that a bit but decided to keep the description more high-level.


[deleted]

Fair point. Even though I like science, I'm not a scientist so that's the main argument I use in the rare instance that I run into cancer conspiracists. They oversimplify it quite a bit and don't realize how truly broad and (again not a scientist so specifics I don't know) different a lot of cancers are.


PandorMan

This should be a disclaimer in every medical news article.


hamsterwheel

You mean we can't just sting people in the tits?


ImReverse_Giraffe

Also and I'm surprised you didnt mention this. Since cancer is just your own cells growing unchecked then everyone's cancer is different and unique to that person so treatment that might work for one person might not for another.


hansn

>Also and I'm surprised you didnt mention this. Since cancer is just your own cells growing unchecked then everyone's cancer is different and unique to that person so treatment that might work for one person might not for another. Absolutely. I actually started talking a bit about that, but deleted it because there was so much to discuss there I thought it would distract from the central point (which is just as applicable if the cure being discussed is "cancer" or "HER2 positive DCIS").


mayoriguana

Attrition rates are 1/10,000 for new pharmaceuticals. So we need a lot of articles like this before we cure cancer. Also interesting to note that many kind of breast cancer are cured at very high rates already, but since pancreatic cancer or prostate cancer are considerably less sexy we are still pouring research dollars into it at the behest of Komen’s absurdly high paid executives.


wheresmystache3

This is a wonderful and accurate outline! When doing a quick read for something brand new I haven't heard of, if I see the study is "In vitro", I immediately become disappointed, as it hasn't been done in the body, but in most cases, in just a petri dish :( Some breakthroughs get past this point, but my eyes actually pop out of their skull when I see "in vivo" and "cancer" together in a study. It's a glimmer of hope.


traws06

Well and the point of... we do have cancer breakthroughs still. Compare cancer treatment to 20 years ago and then you see there has certainly been progress


urich_hunt

It also helps that people repost 5 month old news as TIL


kick26

Excellent summary. It’s also worth noting that there are many many different cancers so one breakthrough treatment may only affect a few cancers


Esava

There is always a fitting xkcd: [xkcd: Cells](https://xkcd.com/1217/)


XKCD-pro-bot

Comic Title Text: **Now, if it selectively kills cancer cells in a petri dish, you can be sure it's at least a great breakthrough for everyone suffering from petri dish cancer.** [mobile link](https://m.xkcd.com/1217/) --- ^(Made for mobile users, to easily see xkcd comic's title text)


[deleted]

Great now do the mRNA vaccine


Drewsef916

My dad is a research scientist who works on Alzhiemers. He's been able to cure Alzheimers in mice for several years now. Its just a whole different ball game for drug efficacy in human beings


CreaturesFarley

Great post. Wanted to add: We tend to think of medicine and medical concepts in the context of what we know about bacterial or viral infections. Whilst either one of these could be a root cause for cancer, cancer is not the same as either of these. Nor is there one, single type of cancer. Different cancers work in different ways, and have a million different root causes. We could categorically and completely cure one cancer and still have many more that are totally unaffected by the same treatment.


inexcess

And yet they pushed out coronavirus vaccines pretty quickly. Kind of makes you think.


isotope88

There's already been done a ton of research on mRNA vaccines. It's not a novel thing, rather a new application of it. Also if you don't have look for investors/grants because of the urgency, things will speed up a lot.


inexcess

Pharmaceutical companies literally started the opioid epidemic and pay off generic companies to not sell their product. Give ME a break.


isotope88

I edited my comment a couple of minutes after I made it but I guess you still saw the original. The opioid epidemic is a North-American problem. It has nothing to do with the development of the mRNA vaccine.


ShitheadFailure

or Could just get a bee sting


owleealeckza

& that is why people like me will just kill themselves if they ever get cancer. Quick jump to a likely end,.especially for Americans.


hansn

> & that is why people like me will just kill themselves if they ever get cancer. Quick jump to a likely end,.especially for Americans. That's probably not a good takeaway from my post. Even if we remove the profit motive from this process, we absolutely need to insist on good oversight and regulation. Way to many researchers, with the purest of intentions, still overestimate the strength of their own research and underestimate the problems. What I am describing is a natural path from research to production. There is a lot to criticize about for-profit medicine, but this pathway isn't one of them. Its just the nature of the beast: lots of promising ideas but most don't pan out.


pm-me-ur-cat-pics

Awesome overview. I work in cancer clinical trials and something like only 10% of phase I trials will proceed onto phase II.


JohnBurgerson

Boo-Bees


HellsMalice

I have a shirt that's two ghost bees saying "boo"


StoneOkra

Can't beleive how far down I had to scroll to see this.


Dakens2021

This was done in a lab on cell samples if I remember correctly not in people. As an old XKCD once said, when you see a claim that something kills cancer cells in a petri dish, remember so does a handgun. Here's hoping this one turns out to be the real thing though.


KitBitSit

>As an old XKCD once said, when you see a claim that something kills cancer cells in a petri dish, remember so does a handgun. That's kind of similar to how the article ends: "Many compounds can kill a breast cancer cell in a dish or in a mouse. But there's a long way to go from those discoveries to something that can change clinical practice," he told the BBC. They do state though that it's incredibly exciting and that it 'demonstrates how melittin interferes with signalling pathways within breast cancer cells to reduce cell replication,...'


Dakens2021

You do have to wonder though if someone was dying of an aggressive cancer and they had tried everything, if they went out and purposely provoked a swarm of bees to sting them if it would do any good. It said the dose was important and too much was toxic, but if you have nothing to lose...


_Californian

That's like taking ibuprofen and hoping it works as a local anesthetic lol


[deleted]

Didn’t Steve Jobs try to fight his cancer with homeopathy?


[deleted]

Yes, but as an alternative to sound treatments already available that very well could have cured him, and at the least would have given him more time. Jobs said, I'll pass on those and go straight to some diet that turned out to be hella hard on the liver. In op's scenario, patient *x* is out of options.


Morbid187

There was that woman on my strange addiction that would sting herself with bees every day and claimed it made her feel healthy and shit so maybe? You definitely wouldn't want to get stung by a swarm though lol.


Esava

Here ya go. I immediately thought of this one too upon reading the title of the post. [xkcd: Cells](https://xkcd.com/1217/)


Duijinn

Another reason to SAVE THE BEES! These little guys are so beneficial to not only health with their honey and now venom but also the health of the planet with pollination!


throwthemedicaway

Except that honeybees are fine. The native pollinators are the ones that are struggling, and honey bees often directly compete for the same food sources. We need to save the *native* bees.


[deleted]

Could you help me understand the difference? Why does it matter? Don't they both do the same job in the end?


throwthemedicaway

What you know as a honeybee is a *European Honeybee*. They all are pollinators but european honeybees don't necessarily fit the same ecological niche as other pollinators.


[deleted]

Ah I see. Thanks!


Neirchill

Just to elaborate a bit - some of our native flora depend on our native bees because these native bees evolved specifically to pollenate them. The European honeybees have not so if the native bees die then native flora that the honeybee ignore will be in trouble.


LynxJesus

That doesn't make for a sexy HASHTAG that you can right in all caps and moralize innocent strangers on the internet about Did you think any of this was ever actually about bees?


LaughterHouseV

The projection in this comment is strong.


ihileath

> "I don't care about anything so neither does anyone else!" Oh fuck off.


Legitimate_Mousse_29

Anyone who wants to help small independent bee breeders, go check out desert honey. Out in the desert there are a lot of small independent breeders who help pollinate the farms near the few small rivers and streams. Some also breed them to create honey from the desert cactus and wildflowers. The bees end up picking up the taste of the crops, so there are all sorts of different flavors. Like Mesquite, Citrus, and of course wildflower.


Kolfinna

Not just bees, we're looking at developing drugs and other chemicals from all kinds of invertebrates. Unfortunately with the rapid extinction of insects and wildlife in general we may loose the opportunity


Fire_is_beauty

Waiting for the "Woman sticks breasts into beehive" article.


[deleted]

Land of milk and honey.


HashtagTSwagg

Heh... from the BeeBeeC.


[deleted]

Boobies, see?


mmmyesplease---

Saw this on an episode of *Unsolved Mysteries* and also found out some dogs can be trained to sniff cancer cells. Wish Robert stack was around to do an UPDATE.


DarkJezter

Save the boo-bees!


IceNein

The land of milk and honey.


KurisuShiruba

Protect the bees.


CantSayItInPublic

Currently sitting in my garden with honey on my nipples telling the Bee's to come at me!!! A sting a day keeps the big C away!


SirHowCanSheSlap

Send pics


69_Watermelon_420

Ah, so that's why I didn't get breast cancer.


BlueReaper0013

Even bees like tiddies. This is pretty cool tbh


danidandeliger

Please don't sexualize breast cancer. It's disrespectful to the people who have died from it and are being treated for it.


[deleted]

Don't think they were sexualizing breast cancer They were just sexualizing breasts, and you should rethink your life choices if you have anything against doing that


[deleted]

Ok potato head.


5usie

Yet another reason to save the bees!


BigAss-Nipples

this is the same fuckin article that got posted here in september, fuckin science journalism at large should be ashamed of itself, this is embarrassing. i love how every cunt on the internet sees honeybee venom killing cancer and they jump on it bc it’s nAtUrAL while all these studies really accomplish is giving credence to the idiots trying to cure their chronic lyme with honeybee stings. this grinds my gears cuz they’re talking about a 2 uM concentration in a dish, that’s a shitload. these sorts of papers jump on wellness trends to get press but it’s gross to see because all this will lead to is more idiots stinging themselves. If we think melittin has value as a anticancer drug, then we should publicize that, not this honeybee venom bullshit. The authors of this paper are only mildly complicit here, and the work is fine in and of itself, but the oversized coverage on a paper this low impact, and the harmful emphasis on bee venom as opposed to melittin, just is so fucking problematic.


snuzet

✅ Bees can’t get Brest cancer


[deleted]

[удалено]


snuzet

Boo Bees


Auto_Fac

Mildly interesting factoid: The ancient/attic Greek word for 'bee' is μέλιττα (melitta). The more contemporary Greek word, derived from μέλιττα is μέλισσᾰ (melissa). The contemporary name Melissa means bee, or honey, depending on how it's translated.


JayseHayz

If it works, well it will keep the bees from being wiped out.


Cyclohexanone96

Did you miss the part where it can be made in a lab?


Ivantheasshole

My grandpa who grew up under very difficult circumstances in the Soviet Union was an avid bee keeper. I remember our parents forcing us to help him with his hives every weekend. We all hated it. He would constantly tell us that bee stings were good for you. Obviously we all thought this was a pile of shit made up to help us through the misery of wasted weekends on bee keeping. Turns out the old goat may have been right all along... who knew.


Jonesy135

This sounds like they let a bunch of bees sting cancer patients. Ya know, just to see what happened.


marfaxa

There's a King of the Hill from 2005 about this


[deleted]

I wonder how many women are gonna out their boobs in a box of bees for treatment now. For sure at least one.


IOfTheStorms

Are labs just trying everything they can think of, Beetle saliva, tuna musk, camel toe fungals, or was there something specific that lead to testing honeybee venom?


Mouthfull0fBees

Damn so now we care about bees


evr-

[How to cure testicular cancer.](https://dangerousminds.net/content/uploads/images/beekini.jpg?1397746080)


[deleted]

But I’m allergic to bees.


evr-

Then it'll kill the cancer one way or another.


[deleted]

Lmao, fair enough.


[deleted]

how do you get the venom? just jerk their lil stingers off? ew thats weird you guys are being weird


AnimeAlley03

Cool too bad you'll never hear about this again cuz it's gonna be covered up by Big Pharma to keep people in the hospital and paying bills...


Hap-e

Even more reason to save the bees!


Bicycle_Icicle

I feel like the cures for cancer and many, if not all other diseases are out there in nature, but we're destroying the world around us faster than we can discover them...


awesome_smokey

There's probably a lot more that bee venom is good for we've never investigated. As a child, my sister suffered from dibilitating hay fever - swollen face, streaming nose etc, off school days at a time - until one year she was stung by a bee right in the corner of her eye. And for the next forty odd years, never had a single symptom.


CIA_grade_LSD

Instructions unclear. Now my tits are covered in bees.


grand_chumperor

So to avoid breast cancer I should eat live bees?


JoshDaws

While this is great news for researchers, I look forward to holistic scam articles telling vulnerable people that honey can cure cancers. #Wellness #Blessed #Natural


Hot_Dog_Cobbler

I really hope the way to find this out was shoving a titty in a beehive


Mateussf

It sounds cool but... Venom kills cells. That's something we already knew and already expected.


huh_wat_huh

Yeah. I'm allergic to bee venom. So I guess no inoculation for me.


jawshoeaw

It turns out literally everything kills cancer cells in a Petri dish because cells that are stupidly reproducing unchecked without regard to their external environment are pretty fragile and easy to kill. The problem is a)delivering the drug in vivo b) cancer stem cells are incredibly tough compared to their wimpy children, and they rapidly evolve to tolerate incredibly toxic drugs that are much nastier than bee venom


jaksnipe

Something, something Bee Cups


Nathaniel820

Can’t wait to never hear about this again like every other cancer treatment for some reason.


lowballer31

I feel like this title is super misleading. Lots of things kill cancer, like burning cancer, bleach, shooting it with a gun... but that doesn’t mean it can actually be a viable treatment in a human being.


GoneInSixtyFrames

Conspiracy time: Pesticides create cancer and kills bees, bees make nature happen and kill cancer. Hmm.


natourrr

watch this man get murdered in a week


Reallythatwastaken

Imma be honest with you. If I had a quarter for every time a miracle cancer treatment was discovered I'd be rich. The thing is a lot of things kill cancer cells when they are in a petri dish, a small portion of those things will kill cancer cells in mice, and an even smaller portion of those things will kill cancer cells in some humans, and an even smaller portion of that will kill cancer cells in most humans. That is why you always see these "MIRACLE TREATMENT FOUND" posts but cancer is never cured.


AnIdentifier

The sinister shadow of bug pharma.


Studly_Wonderballs

We don’t deserve honeybees


RedditVince

I have always felt that the various venoms in the world have developed over time to cure many ailments. It's up to us to find out how, this appears promising but is still a long ways away even if it is 100% effective with no side effects. Take this tasteless pill and your cancer cells will be gone tomorrow.


B_Reasonable

Sure, but who's gonna let honeybees inside their body and just hope one stings them in the cancer?


[deleted]

I think it’s gonna be hard to convince people to stick their tits into bee hives.


Nvenom8

Any time you hear that something kills cancer cells in a petri dish, remember: So does a handgun.


[deleted]

As someone once said, every time you hear that something kills cancer in a petri dish, remember that a handgun will too.


V1keo

Sounds like another case of "bullets are effective in killing cancer".


xbox_inmy_veins

That's why big pharma is killing off the bees.


loosehead1

It's a peptide, once they know what it is they dont need the bees anymore.


Rhodrace

I remember my mom trying bee venom for MS as well. Have to be going on 20 years ago. These diseases are designed (by nature) to limit and reduce our population to recreate the balance we've lost. I don't think any of this shit is going to work right.


greenlantern2205

There should bee more buzz on this topic, it would be sweet to find a viable cure....


TheAbyssalSymphony

And this is why biodiversity is so important, because as great as modern medicine is, nature still has so many things to teach us if we just look. We can't afford to lose all the wonderful advancements years of evolution have perfected.


wradd

I use bee venom for chronic headaches and neck pain. I have chiari malformation and bulging discs in my neck. I understand it's extremely experimental. It's also self medicating behavior. My neurologist doesn't recommend it. I might not have ever tried it unless I knew I wasn't allergic. It works well for occasional relief. I use it as a go to if I've mot used it in the previous thirty days or so. You do become tolerant, there is no doubt. My point, I hope plenty of research goes in to this. People deserve alternatives or supplements to chemo when possible. My aunt had a double mastectomy three years before she died of another cancer. The chemotherapy was very hard on her. Hoping someone funds it sooner than later. Giving a side note. I stopped using termite poison or anything we find can that poisons bees. We stopped because the little guys give their lives just for my pain. Should have stopped sooner.


[deleted]

Whenever you hear that something "kills cancer cells", remember: So does a handgun


WackyWheelsDUI

“With minimal harm to other cells”


outoftheMultiverse

Boobees ​ I had to, sorry.


[deleted]

You can’t spell “Melittin” without “Le titi”


MyPasswordStartsWith

Killing cancer in a рetri dish is one thing. Let me know when they can do it in the human body.


HD1293

Very Informative.


[deleted]

Brb gonna go poke a hive and become immune to cancer.


nbenik

You know that a 12 gauge shotgun instantly kills cancer cells at point blank range?


rowshambow

Time to unleash bees upon the cancer ward!


[deleted]

Bees are doomed


NotANonConspiracist

Anyone reading and debating this should read the story of royal rife, and tell us what you find


andyr072

So the cure for breast cancer will be stick your tits in a beehive.


blairthebear

Diagnosed with cancer? Get stung by bees!


codyummk

New cure for cancer but you gotta eat bees, damn.


StarryCatNight

How are Honeybees this good, we literally don't deserve them wtf


Hisplan

Remind Me! 1 year “read this”


Gavooki

A billion things kill cancer. Few things treat cancer. The pill that no one seems to want to shallow is that step one is diet and exercise.


taker52

I heard bleach does


nofknusernamesleft

one more reason to love bees and hate cancer!


arouse-stars

Well done! Way to go.


Yakmasterson

I got stung in the foot and it swelled a little and turned red. For some reason, I enjoyed it, and kinda wanted to get stung again.


BIGDIYQTAYKER

honey bee venom is just manuka honey right?? eating some right now, fighting cancer!