Al3n99

It absolutely is. For context, I have known personally 5 people who all died within 2-8 weeks. This is only the first step: FIND A DRUG THAT ACTUALLY PROLONGS SURVIVAL. From here, move into 1L setting, from there into peri-surgical settings and combo trials. It is not unreasonable to expect 5 yr survival to go from 5-10% toward 50% of patients in next 5 years. Absolutely the most paradigm shifting asset/MoA past 10-20 years. Context: pancreatic cancer is one of the few who have had absolutely no success the past 20 years in drug development. That means, it is one of the few tumor types immunotherapy like keytruda has absolutely no effect (it is approved for over 26 indications), which means it has helped millions of patients. But not pancreatic patients.

Over 50,000 people in the U.S. die from pancreatic cancer every year. After this drug is approved and widely used, that number will remain essentially the same. In absolute terms, they are reporting a median survival shift of around six months. Yet we know resistance inevitably develops, as it does in all cancers subjected to drugs targeting mutations in the RAS/MAPK/PI3K pathway. If the goal is to meaningfully reduce cancer mortality, this does not move the needle. This is where decades of focus and billions in NIH/NCI funding have concentrated. National Cancer Institute is funded at roughly $9 billion per year, and a substantial portion of that budget is devoted to oncogenes and what is marketed as targeted therapies. This is then layered on top of a drug development and healthcare model where drugs like this can cost over $100,000 per patient. These are incremental gains at the late metastatic stage, where the biology is already stacked against you. Meanwhile, the two areas that actually determine population-level outcomes—early detection and prevention—remain neglected. If we are serious about reducing the number of people who die from pancreatic cancer, the priority cannot be continuing to optimize late-stage interventions that predictably yield temporary gains. The goal should be zero deaths. Right now, we are not on a path that gets us there. It is not surprising that this view is being met with backlash. Much of the criticism is coming from people whose incentives—academic , financial, or institutional—are tied to maintaining the current system in biomedical research and the biotech and pharma sectors that profit from it.

This is exactly the kind of hype and misrepresentation that has defined cancer research and oncology for decades. After 40+ years of work and well over $100B in taxpayer funding, what’s being presented as a revolution is a survival improvement of about 6–7 months. Patients don’t even get an additional birthday. This is now being hyped by the biotech industry and amplified by academic scientists as if it represents some fundamental breakthrough. It doesn’t. What’s even more concerning is that almost no one is calling this out. The same narrative gets repeated, the same approaches get reinforced, and the same cycle continues. Billions of taxpayer dollars will continue to fund this. Venture capital will continue to flow into biotech companies built around these claims. Pharma will continue to allocate time and resources here. Healthcare expenses for the public will continue to be greater than ever. Meanwhile, entire areas of cancer research and oncology practice—particularly early detection and prevention—remain neglected.

Tata 1 Kancer 0

Legs

How to make slop bowl: - 1lb meat (beef, chicken, salmon) - High volume veg (lettuce, potato, carrot) - 1-2 cup Greek yogurt/Skyr - fermented veg (pickle, sauerkraut, etc) - Season heavily (salt, garlic, paprika, etc) Easy 100g protein. High volume. Shit ton of micronutrients.