Recent comments in /f/science

idispensemeds2 t1_jcenjsw wrote

This is not novel at all, and not feasible from an oncology perspective. PD-L1 and CTLA4 are badass drugs with awesome immune mediation with limited other effects. Let's support what we have, instead of coming up with ridiculous ideas. There is not enough data about this class of drugs, and it NEEDS to be researched because it's possible that immunotherapy is cheaper and more effective than chemotherapy but unfortunately it's only studied in late stage/refractory cancers or tried in melanoma where immunoglobulins are known to be effective. Anyway, let's research what matters and not this stupid BS.

1

Lyotan t1_jcen28t wrote

Oh I have no idea, unfortunately. The fact that they even have embryonic medications and treatments these days is amazing.

If you read what I typed earlier as "medication for treating microplastic complications", it was intended as "medication based on using microplastics as a key ingredient"

It is in extremely early theoretical testing, it seems? https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.abm5551 The OP paper seems to be suggesting caution on this line of study.

We already have many non plastic nanoparticle medications, and the number is accelerating with technology.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/List-of-globally-marketed-nanomedicines-approved-by-the-FDA-and-the-EMA_tbl1_357704523

1

SephithDarknesse t1_jcebw4e wrote

Its amusing how much logic these people are willing to ignore to continue their fantasies, too. I keep hearing from my SO's parents that all australian weather is down to bill gates.

Its a little more than that, though. You're not really allowed to go against the grain anywhere on reddits atm, else you'll be crudely accused of being a fanboy, no matter how much logic you produce. This is just people in general.

7