"In mice."

https://mobile.twitter.com/justsaysinmice

Note that this was only examined in cell lines and mouse models. Showing efficacy in a clinical trial in humans is the next step, and that's where most discovery dies.

This is not to detract from the study, which is perfectly fantastic. The problem is the disconnect between what actually happened and how people perceive this press release.

My sister was diagnosed with GBM five months ago. It is a death sentence. Surfen is mentioned in the referenced article.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-09/uog-edc09101...

How can we take advantage of this ?

My GF had grade III glioma. They are usually grouped together with GBM (grade IV) when prognosis is discussed.

Tumor was operable. She hade 5 great years till the first recurrence. Then another great year after seccond surgery. Then shitty year with multiple reccurences and surgeries though she still had the pleasure of watching movies, eating, excercising and generally spending time with family and friends. After sixth surgery she landed in the hospice and passed away two days ago.

I hope your sister might get lucky and live in good condition till there are some new treatments available.

I'm so sorry to hear that. I wish the best for you and your sister.

What an odd part of history we're in. Imagine 50 years ago, how few options there were for people with tumor problems. Surgery, drugs to help with things like associated seizures. And then imagine 50 years in the future where there could be more of these solutions coming.

Article says ~15 month life average after being diagnosed with GBM, but imagine. Then think how in 3 years this new drug could extend the life of a person by 6 months. 6 months is a huge amount of time for a person and their family. Changes happen so quick in medicine, even going past clickbait "new drug" articles.

> Imagine 50 years ago, how few options there were for people with tumor problems [...] And then imagine 50 years in the future where there could be more of these solutions coming.

50 years ago we thought cancer would've been totally cured by now.

My mom died after about 12 months after being diagnosed with a GBM and honestly wouldn't even have wanted it to be 15 months let alone 18.

Like knowing the car is going to crash and somebody's going to be dead but then having to watch it in slow motion anyway.

People have wildly different views about death.

My mother had terminal kidney cancer and was given two weeks to live. After radical surgery and chemotherapy she got to live 4 extra years. The cancer was still terminal, and the chemo wasn't a walk in the park, but she was deeply grateful for the extra time.

It’s important to remember that we’re all terminal, just some more than others.

That's exactly the case. There's pretty significant probability that you will die before diagnosed terminally ill patient that will die in 15 months time. Just check actuarial tables for your age and be scared.

I just did and my probability of dying is greater than 1/500. Not great odds. Not at all. It's like being forever stuck in a big college class that's held in an auditorium, except every year someone gets shot randomly. And every year the class gets a lot smaller. By 60, the class has only 100 students.

Now imagine if we put in a real effort and 50 years turns into 25.

Change doesn't happen in the medical field as fast as you think. There's no upward sloping curve.

A large component of the progress can't be seen because it involves preventing cancer by banning and discouraging carcinogenic materials and practices. People are happy when they can ring that bell but when they never had cancer they take it for granted. Often there is resistance to a ban on things that cause cancer. Sometimes it's justified (needs to be traded off with other things) while other times it isn't.

Also, it's not deprioritized like you make it seem. New cancer therapies form one of the biggest fields in medical and biological research.

I didn't say it was deprioritized. I said if we increase research we'll gain more knowledge sooner.

As a percentage of GDP, most countries probably only spend a few percent.

A major contributor to the fact of a „no upward sloping curve“ by the way is that the average age of patients is itself an upward sloping curve. It‘s the reason we haven‘t made any apparent progress across a multitude of medical fields (like narcosis deaths and many more) on average. The picture completely changes when adjusting for age.

There were plenty of drugs 50 years ago, they merely got recalled

We’d be invincible if those other drugs didnt kill us!

To be precise, this has nothing to do with insulin. The mentioned small molecule was first synthesized to improve insulin delivery in 1938.

Is it sad that this just makes me thing the price of insulin in the US will skyrocket some more?

The price of insulin isn't being set by supply and demand (there is a terrible frankenmarket lumbering around right now), so I'm not sure if the increase in demand will raise the price.

Regular insulin in the US is not expensive, rather auto-injectors are expensive, and analogs (rapid acting, long lasting) are also more expensive.

But the regular traditional insulin in a vial is not more expensive: https://www.goodrx.com/blog/how-much-does-insulin-cost-compa...

If the FDA’s approval process for insulin producers was sane the price of insulin would be as sensitive to demand as the price of aspirin, or sugar.