• some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I don’t know how accurate this is, but I know that it fits with Repubs voting against the migrant bill that they had formerly wanted because it would help Trump on the campaign. Whether this is true or not doesn’t change that they openly want to stall government, therefore this could be true.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t know how accurate this is

      Biden made a rather cavalier claim that he was going to fund investments in medical science that would lead to a final cure for all forms of cancer within the next decade. And I think we can safely say that’s bullshit.

      However, ramping up blue sky medical research and public sector spending on the adoption of new medical technology would be helpful in treating a host of cancerous maladies and potentially curing or inoculating against others.

      Consider that the US isn’t even on the front line of cancer research anymore. Cuba’s cancer research has outpaced research in the states for over a decade. That, alone, should tell you what kind of progress is possible with a little strategic public investment.

      Whether this is true or not doesn’t change that they openly want to stall government, therefore this could be true.

      Conservatives hate public investment, particularly when it threatens private profits. Liberals do too, abet not as fervently (see: our bipartisan obsession with the health of the domestic automotive, financial, real estate, insurance, and commercial export agricultural industries).

      But this is more an issue of scoring political points. Republicans were happy enough to finance Operation Warp Speed under Trump, in order to fast track the vaccine they thought they’d get to take credit for in 2020. And they loved nothing more than giant state sponsored give-aways to Majority Leader Bill Frist’s family owned Hospital Corporation of America.

      So they’re not strictly against government spending. They simply don’t want another Liberal Democrat like Kennedy taking credit for putting a man on the moon.

  • Delusional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yes we all know that they fail at their jobs and fail to uphold anything that their office is supposed to stand for thereby failing the American people. Republicans are failures. That is an absolute fact.

  • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I seriously hope they all get cancer themselves, just for the irony and to watch them claim they are still standing by their decision to die a gruesome death

  • Stern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    You can blame Newt Gingrich for that one, he installed in the R’s hyper partisanship and the idea that they can never let the D’s get a “win”. It carried them to a majority back in the 80’s, and much like voodoo economics, they haven’t changed the playbook since, since it still works.

  • neo@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    To me it seems, a rich minority is gaming the system (political theatre, Fox news, CNN… --> public opinion), hoping to secure wealth and power against “the will of the people”, up to a point where the system will eventually break and be replaced by dictatorship.

    Ironically it is much more dangerous to be a billionaire in Russia or China than in the US or Europe.

    Maybe that should be our message: it seems easier to exploit us without checks and balances, but having none can be very dangerous for you and your family.

    However, the leader who will eventually emerge, the one using AI to check this comment, will be best for all of us, I’m sure!

  • astreus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Fun fact! Cuba has a vaccine for lung cancer - yes, it works and has been independently verified. No, you can’t have it because embargo.

    Cuba have also became the first country to have 0 mother-child transmissions of HIV.

    But the US has decided that working with Cuba to prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths each year (in the States alone) is less important than causing “economic dissatisfaction and hardship” to the Cuban people.

    • Ranvier@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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 a phase 2 trial 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.TPS2677

      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.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Wow this comment really unwinds the one you replied to, so much so that the original seems in bad faith

        • astreus@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            “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.

            • astreus@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              100% ready for us markets

              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.

              it seems you knew that My original comment was a glib link to a wikipedia page. I had not done the research and have edited my comment above.

              • GBU_28@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Your last sentence here would change the sentiment of your original comment in a positive way. I encourage an edit.

          • Ranvier@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            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).

            • astreus@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              like all of Europe

              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.

        • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

        • ripcord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Sounds more like just just being I’ll informed, don’t see much reason to assume bad faith.

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            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.

            • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              @astreus never made that claim.

              It is currently available in Cuba, Colombia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Peru and Paraguay.[

              • GBU_28@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                This has already been discussed and op met my edit request. You aren’t part of this.

                • astreus@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  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.” 😉

              • astreus@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                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

        • Ranvier@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          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.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      They aren’t. But if one side could grow a pair instead of pretending that the other side is still willing to debate and act rationally like it’s still the 90s, that would be great.

      • OpenStars@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is the downside to choosing politicians that are so wealthy and therefore disconnected that the entire USA could fall and they would barely notice. Example: Hillary Clinton’s campaign slogan was practically “everything is totally fine here, no need for like, changes or anything”.

        img

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    We should keep a record of the nay votes so we can remind them should any of them be diagnosed with cancer.

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Conservatives are generally opposed to any healthcare they personally do not need at the moment. They distrust science, education and medicine. Given a choice, most conservatives would dissolve all scientific research in the U.S.

    Conservatism is a plague of idiocy, sickness and death. This has been true throughout all recorded history.