Comment by andreygrehov | Hacker News Reader

Comment by andreygrehov | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The announcement coming directly from Russia's president does carry significant institutional weight - no organization would risk presenting false medical claims at that level, as it would severely damage presidential authority. However, what's more interesting is Russia's track record in vaccine development. They were the very first country globally to release a COVID vaccine back in 2020. Despite initial widespread skepticims, they were ahead of both Pfizer and Moderna.

It's quite telling that this submission only reached 100+ position on HN despite getting 14 upvotes in just 30 mins - a vote velocity that typically lands posts in the top 10-20. To me, this unusual ranking pattern suggests possible suppression, either automated or manual. But hey, I guess groundbreaking cancer vaccine announcements are just too commonplace these days to deserve top billing, right? I mean, we all create revolutionary cancer vaccines every day - no big deal!

The fact that Russia plans to provide this vaccine free to their citizens demonstrates a clear commitment to public health. Given the knee-jerk skepticism we're seeing, perhaps they shouldn't share it internationally - why offer breakthrough medical advances to those who view your achievements with automatic disdain? And let's be honest about the "arbitrary arrests" argument - every country in the world has faced similar accusations. This isn't unique to Russia and shouldn't be used to dismiss potential medical breakthroughs.

> ...and shouldn't be used to dismiss potential medical breakthroughs.

Probably. But I can't find anything about it at https://gamaleya.org/en/ which seems unusual for something of that magnitude?

Maybe it's because they haven't updated anything there under press releases/news beyond 2020.

Edit / I've found these:

  https://tass.com/society/1801311

  https://tass.com/society/1855511

  https://tass.com/science/1884273

  https://tass.com/science/1887455

Here is a quite informative interview: https://lenta-ru.translate.goog/articles/2024/10/08/onkovakc...

Some specific bits:

"It is important to understand that this is not a panacea. After reading the headlines in the press, some people think that this is a miracle cure that can cure everything. However, this is not the case.

The vaccine will only be effective against certain types of cancer for which immunotherapy is indicated. There are currently clinical guidelines that indicate where and when immunotherapy can be used.

For now, this is a limited list of diseases, such as melanoma. In the future, it may include lung cancer, some types of gastrointestinal cancer, and possibly kidney cancer. "

"For a vaccine to be effective, a significant number of changes in the tumor genome are needed, for example, hundreds. From these, 20-30 of the most effective mutations, so-called neoantigens, can be selected, which will allow the immune system to be trained to recognize and attack the tumor.

If a patient has few changes in the tumor genome, the vaccine may not be effective. This is because there are few differences from normal tissue, and the immune system may not recognize the tumor as a threat."

"When choosing a vaccine-based therapy, we will focus on patients who are likely to respond positively to the treatment. In addition, the state of the person’s immune system and how it interacts with the tumor plays an important role. In some cases, additional methods may be needed, such as checkpoint inhibitor therapy or the use of antibodies that help the immune system recognize and attack the tumor."

"For example, in one study, the median relapse was 13 months. Many patients who responded to vaccine immunotherapy had a median of over 24 months. And that's just the observation period. It's probably longer. That's a pretty significant extension. The response to vaccine immunotherapy is about twice as strong as checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy alone."

We'll believe it when we see it. Ordinarily I would agree that reputable institutions wouldn't stake their reputation on exacerbated claims, but this isn't coming from a reputable source at all.

> why offer breakthrough medical advances to those who view your achievements with automatic disdain?

As atonement for the past decade of raping the Donbas and supporting a mass-murdering autocratic dictatorship in Syria? That's a few hundred thousand senseless and unnecessary deaths that could use an apology.

Oh, sorry. Was a word-of-mouth cancer vaccine from the future supposed to change my mind on all that? "Two week" special operation will come to a close any day now, and then we all can cure cancer right guys?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com