Thats 17% saw a complete response, 33% a partial response and 50% no response.
It’s not particularly striking results, though any progress is welcome.
University press releases aren’t exactly the most unbiased sources of scientific information.
If it has only minor side effects when treating agressive cancers, it could be a huge quality of life improvement for patients compared to other treatment options.
But it's worth noting the relatively low effectiveness means that someone who has the option of using an "ordinary" treatment with a known, higher effectiveness should do so.
I don't see any reason to be dismissive of this result. It is, indeed, striking to have half of terminal patients respond to a new treatment and two completely healed.
It is also striking that this treatment works on multiple cancer types.
Overall - striking, yes. N == 1, but I am awestruck. Let us hope that the larger trials won't disappoint us.
That type of response is pretty incredible. The details of each patient isn’t known, and obviously there is a lot of work to do. But this is an amazing result and a future drug will save lives.
It accelerates from there and doubles every couple of weeks.
Can you blame them? They're always looking for funding for their research, and the current climate is not the best.
The system is well broken, and the outcome of the over hype is the MAHA movement - people who have not understood the reporting really means "We have found an interesting new avenue of research" not what they hear which is "We've cured disease" which inevitably then leads to "Science is false, they told me they could cure disease, but it didn't, eat more Vitamin C instead"
In the university we don't allow the students to cheat. We don't allow researchers to make creative titles of research papers (in spite I've seen a few) or just lie inside the papers (in spite I've seen a few). So I think the university press office has a responsibility to give a simplified but accurate report.
Whom are they lying to? Investors take a look at the data or get professional advice. Grant founding committees read the papers (or at least they shoud) and in particular care more about the grant proposal than the press release. So a bad tite only confuse the layman, that after a few clickbait titles that disappear start to doubt that a university professor is more reliable than the guy from Ancient Aliens.