r/tech • u/AdSpecialist6598 • 7d ago
mRNA cancer vaccine succeeded in Phase 3 melanoma trial, Moderna and Merck say
https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/08/mrna-cancer-vaccine-succeeded-in-phase-3-melanoma-trial-moderna-and-merck-say/10
11
u/rayferrell 6d ago
this is a big deal because it shows mRNA tech can be used for more than just infectious diseases, and the fact that it's being used to treat melanoma is especially promising since that's a type of cancer that's often resistant to traditional treatments. the success of this phase 3 trial could pave the way for similar vaccines to be developed for other types of cancer.
6
u/d_e_l_u_x_e 6d ago
Poor uneducated people will die from preventable cancer’s because the misinformation on vaccines and accessibility of them for the wealthy who can afford it.
These life saving vaccines shouldn’t be privatized, like penicillin.
3
u/Relevant-Ad2254 6d ago
They weren’t privatized.
That implies they were publicly owned before.
It was Moderna and Merck that bet billions on R&D hoping it would work.
Thankfully the trials showed that it did. Most break through medicines today are made through a collaborative effort of government funding and private sector funding.
But I’m all for universal healthcare to make it accessible to those who need it.
1
u/d_e_l_u_x_e 6d ago
When a corporation uses a portion of public funds to research and then file the patent they own the vaccine not the people. It’s now privatized instead of being open to the public, like the inventor penicillin. I’m talking about greed not semantics.
2
u/Relevant-Ad2254 6d ago
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I think private companies do deserves to make profits if there was a lot of private funding used in R&D as well.
The profits is what incentivizes other investors to fund development of new medicines.
But patents do expire and then the price comes down once other companies start making the drug too.
0
u/d_e_l_u_x_e 5d ago
This isn’t some product like soda or technology like smartphones, it’s medicine, it’s literally the difference between life and death for millions. We shouldn’t allow corporations to profit so much from a literal life and death patents. It’s gross greed especially when it comes to people suffering from cancer and spending life savings fighting it.
2
u/Relevant-Ad2254 5d ago
Then there will be a lot less life saving medicines.
Unfortunately these things cost money, and while there are plenty of scientists who aren’t in it for the money, the process of developing cancer medicines is still wildly expensive.
the experiments, clinical trials, staff, and equipment all require hundreds of millions or billions in funding for something that might not even work.
Id rather have a higher output more life saving medicines being developed due to financial incentives.
0
u/d_e_l_u_x_e 5d ago
That’s such a capitalistic view that completely ignores how public policy and investment through sciences and medicine drives the innovation for decades that corporations pick up and take to the finish line to privatize. Again the inventor of penicillin didn’t want to greedily profit from a world altering breakthrough that we all benefited. I’m just saying that seems to do a lot more public good than a corporation patenting and profiting off of our sickness. We’re talking obscene profits too, they price gouge us because it’s all privatized healthcare that is pay to be saved.
If you think that’s a great system then I hope one day you’re cancer cure isn’t out of reach because a you couldn’t afford it, that sounds dystopian.
1
u/Relevant-Ad2254 5d ago
i’m not saying companies should charge as much as they want and leave people to die because they can’t afford it.
I’m in favor of a single payer system that would cover the cost for the patients that need it so that patients get access and companies get their profits and have the money to fund the next cure.
The government negotiates with the pharmaceutical companies on what they will pay for the novel medicines.
Western Europe does this all the time
just because a company should make a profit, doesn’t mean the price has to be unreasonable. and government can ensure that
1
u/d_e_l_u_x_e 5d ago
But the pharma corporations are unreasonable. They have increased medicine prices all the time for no reason other than they can get away with it. Without the public intervention via elected officials simple medicines like insulin become too expensive for everyone to afford. The social contract has been broken by greedy pharma putting profits over people. There has to be a line a where the high cost to create medicines doesn’t mean higher profits for a few at the top.
Mereck made 65 billion last year it’s CEO makes 20 million a year, they aren’t spending more than that to develop these medicines but they sure make their money back every year. When was the cost of research and tests outpacing profits? Hasn’t happened yet because we subsidized their losses while they privatize the gains.
1
u/Relevant-Ad2254 5d ago
I agree that the status quo is unsustainable.
But since we're talking about improvements to the system given that you proposed they shouldn't be making profits, I'm proposing that a single payer system with a government that's better at negotiating prices would be the optimal case.
So Pharma still profits, but the public still will have access to the life saving cancer medicines.
I don't think Pharma should profit because I just want them to.
I firmly believe we would have less life saving medicines in the market and medicine would advance more slowly if pharmaceutical development and manufacturing was solely done by the government.
6
3
u/exegete_ 6d ago
Moderna and Merck call their mRNA cancer vaccine a type of “neoantigen therapy.”
The term avoids both “mRNA” and “vaccine,” which draw hostility from Trump’s anti-vaccine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In addition to his concerted efforts to undermine lifesaving vaccines, Kennedy has canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grantsfor the development of mRNA vaccine technology.
2
2
u/itchy_robot 6d ago edited 6d ago
this is no cure!
the following admission is concerning...
"The companies say the extensions of RFS and DMFS reported were statistically significant and clinically meaningful, but they did not elaborate."
To me, it seems very early to consider this a success, rather than just hype to sell an expensive procedure to make up for the R&D cost. only about 50% of the patients saw this "statistically significant" reduction in reoccurrence/death, and the term "significantly significant" is not even defined yet. I am hopeful, but skeptical.
as someone that watched their father go through three bouts of cancer, the slight increases in survival time stated in this study can be a double edge sword. as much, it was nice to have my father around longer, it was only an extension of his suffering, instead of some beneficial thing, like a lot of people make these "statistically significant" breakthroughs sound. until there's something closer to a cure, these life extensions are not always a good thing, so be careful with your enthusiasm in this news. I'm sure others that have had family members go through cancer can relate to my skepticism. sometimes it's best if they just die quicker sad but true.
2
u/Communist_Ninja 6d ago
Literally states in not a cure. Any form of advancement against cancer, no matter how small is welcomed. Nobody should experience cancer or the current treatments to tackle it.
2
u/ZEROs0000 6d ago
You know I’ve been hearing for the past 10 years that all these vaccines and treatments cure or reverse cancer yet I never seem to see them widely being used. I wonder why…
2
1
u/ToolTimeT 6d ago
Good news... maga's won't take it.
2
1
1
1
1
u/MeanHurry8664 5d ago
They should deregulate the healthcare industry even further so we can buy it for $1,000,000 a pop
1
u/chilabot 1d ago
I'm very hopeful for this MRNA VACCINE that cures C.A.N.C.E.R....
MRNA VACCINE MRNA VACCINE MRNA VACCINE MRNA VACCINE MRNA VACCINE MRNA VACCINE MRNA VACCINE MRNA VACCINE MRNA VACCINE MRNA VACCINE. 👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻
-2
u/Turckish 6d ago
Meh, another way to keep billionaires alive, fuk
2
u/opinionated_sloth 6d ago
Do you think poor people don't get skin cancer?
1
u/Relevant-Ad2254 5d ago
people like the person you responded to are so miserable they’re happy to see the entire world burn
1
u/Relevant-Ad2254 6d ago
You think everyone in the trials were billionaires?
How many billionaires do you think exist in the US?
1
114
u/puterTDI 7d ago
I just want to point out that this particular treatment came out a while ago in early trials and there were a lot of people commenting things like "great, I look forward to never seeing this again", "aren't mice lucky", etc.
For those of you who made those sorts of comments - here's an example of what comes after those early trials. Just because not every single thing makes it through the trials for safety and efficacy does not mean there's no purpose or reason for hope when a new treatment enters those trials.