7 comments

  • GenerWork 1 hour ago
    This is great news! I think people forget how anti-skin cancer protocols even as simple as applying suntan lotion weren't as popular as recent as 50-60 years ago. Lots of "sun children" of the 50s and 60s are now feeling the repercussions of only applying baby oil and are getting hit with lots of melanoma.
    • Noaidi 0 minutes ago
      To be very clear about this, not all skin cancers are caused by sun exposure, and this is more true for Melenoma which occur both more frequently in darker skinned people and in place where there is little sun exposure.

      Melenoma's are in fact being seen as caused by some other mechanism and not caused by sun exposure:

      https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2017/05/04/rare-...

      Most skin cancers are not a big deal, and even Melanomas can vanish on their own.

    • Insanity 25 minutes ago
      +1. Also, just to call out, it doesn't need to be _warm_ for you to need sunblock. Even when it's cooler / cloudier out there you can still get skin damage. Look for UV rating rather than temperature. Conversely, it being hot doesn't imply high-UV either.
      • jjice 22 minutes ago
        I didn't know about the UV index or what it meant until like three years ago. It blows my mind I went that long without understanding. It was actually wonderful to learn that I could just see if I needed sunblock based on a 0-10 scale.

        We never wore sunscreen as kids because we didn't burn. I probably have had three sunburns in my life. Learned once I became an adult that that wasn't sound logic...

  • nearbyyak 19 minutes ago
    Huge, uplifting, news, hope the study will bear further fruit. Considering that 90% of all clinical trials fail, it's good to read about a truly promising one for once.
  • consumer451 1 hour ago
    This appears to be a potentially huge win for health. The market has Moderna up 153%, which is some sort of validation I suppose.

    Related stories:

    https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/merck-and-modernas-per...

    https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/merck-moderna-say-m...

    https://www.wsj.com/health/pharma/moderna-merck-vaccine-succ...

    • Jyaif 28 minutes ago
      oh nice. If it goes up another 100% I may not lose money on this stock anymore.
      • consumer451 26 minutes ago
        I mean, this appears to be validation of mRNA in general, right?
        • ianlevesque 8 minutes ago
          Saving a couple million people in the pandemic wasn’t validation enough?
          • consumer451 5 minutes ago
            100%, what I meant to say was that it proves that it wasn't somehow a one trick pony.
      • bpodgursky 19 minutes ago
        And if it doubles after that, I may even beat a passive S&P 500 investment.
  • epistasis 1 hour ago
    Ever since I first heard of them a decade ago, it seemed that mRNA therapeutic vaccines were going to be the next wave of massive improvements in care. It's taken a bit longer than I had expected, and it's not that mRNA is the only way to make these sorts of vaccines, it's just so much better than the alternatives.

    I'm very very excited to see what comes next.

  • MartinMond 1 hour ago
    I listened to a great podcast on this just a month ago - too bad that I thought all of this would obviously be priced in already… https://virological.podigee.io/51-21-cancer-vaccines-how-the...
    • henry2023 47 minutes ago
      Even if you were to optimally price in all available information you still have uncertainty of what will actually happen. i.e. A 1 dollar coin flip has an expected value of 50c before it’s thrown and it will collapse either to zero or to one after the uncertainty is resolved.
    • mapipolo 17 minutes ago
      Hard to price in the political factors now involved in Moderna's success or lack of success.
    • bluGill 21 minutes ago
      I don't believe the efficient market hypothesis. However even if you do, new information has arrived and that will affect the price.
  • jambalaya8 1 hour ago
    [flagged]
    • tnel77 1 hour ago
      Why?
      • jimbo808 55 minutes ago
        People were assured that COVID vaccine mRNA would disappear within days and the spike protein would short-lived. Yet Yale-led researchers later detected circulating S1 and full-length spike as late as 709 days after vaccination.

        They also left the public in the dark about the risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis, especially in young males, many of whom experienced permanent heart tissue damage.

        That is a massive gap between what the public was told and what later evidence found. If a technology makes your cells produce a biologically active protein, regulators should establish where it goes, how long it can persist, and what prolonged exposure does before mass deployment.

        https://news.yale.edu/2025/02/19/immune-markers-post-vaccina... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.18.25322379v...

        • estearum 9 minutes ago
          > They also left the public in the dark about the risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis, especially in young males, many of whom experienced permanent heart tissue damage.

          Not true. This was correctly disclosed in the trial results as a super super super tail risk.

          Once they realized that the (minuscule) risk could be even further mitigated by simply spacing out the booster schedule, they adjusted that (Feb 2022).

          Nobody was "left in the dark"

      • jambalaya8 1 hour ago
        [flagged]
        • consumer451 1 hour ago
          > (and yes, I have a background in this)

          Care to share what that is exactly?

  • reenorap 45 minutes ago
    I have 1000 shares of mRNA woohoo! For all the hate I have for the COVID vaccine, I still believe in the underlying technology and I put my money where my mouth was and bought around $20. I think this is just the first of many cancer treatments mRNA will bring and I’m very excited for the future of the technology.
    • Someone1234 41 minutes ago
      > For all the hate I have for the COVID vaccine

      Can you clarify that? It saved 100K+ lives even by incredibly conservative estimates, and allowed life to returned to normal at least a year earlier than otherwise.

      • declan_roberts 27 minutes ago
        I can't speak for other people but I was upset to enter a medical era where bureaucrats were forcing medical decisions on me. I was forced to get it or lose my job despite 1) working remotely, 2) having already had Covid and 3) being healthy and not at risk of Covid death but being the largest risk for myocarditis.
        • martythemaniak 2 minutes ago
          Is that when you entered that era? Or did you enter it when you were a newborn in the hospital, or a kid entering school?
      • zulux 12 minutes ago
        I thankfully figured out my young children didn't need COVID vaccines. A little grumpy that the medical profession pushed them on children when they really did know that children weren't at risk nearly as much by then.

        Sloppy thinking like this is how we get RFK, love him or loathe him.

    • bhaak 34 minutes ago
      What are the reasons for the hate of the COVID vaccine?
      • declan_roberts 31 minutes ago
        Probably one of the most polarizing issues of the last 5 years.
        • Insanity 27 minutes ago
          I don't recall it being as polarizing outside of the US, where there was a larger group of anti-vaxxers to begin with. But that might be my "outside US" bubble.
          • estearum 9 minutes ago
            And, critically, a malignant narcissist in the highest office.
      • tasty_freeze 11 minutes ago
        There is a legitimate discussion of what can be mandated you do to your body.

        However, that discussion was largely side-tracked by the massive amount of disinformation (eg, "Plandemic") that circulated online. There are people who to this day swear that COVID-19 was just like the flu and simultaneously claim that the vaccine spike proteins have killed around 20M people. Not just crackpots, but people with reach, like Brett Weinstein on Joe Rogan's podcast.

      • alexlesuper 30 minutes ago
        Probably disinformation.