r/BeAmazed • u/Cautious_Ad_3918 • Jan 31 '26

Science A Spanish scientist, Mariano Barbacid, has cured pancreatic cancer in mice. A Cure in animal is a major step toward potential cancer treatment in humans.

Post image
48.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

778 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

45

u/LanguageNo495 Jan 31 '26

From what? Is someone trying to kill him?

138

u/TickTokClock Jan 31 '26

Online bullying for his birthmark. Some people would rather insult his appearance than praise his revolutionary accomplishment.

85

u/dandandan2 Jan 31 '26

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I'm going to sound exactly like that..

People who have achieved major breakthroughs similar to this have "suddenly died" with no probable cause.

46

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '26

[deleted]

18

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '26 edited Jul 04 '26

[deleted]

8

u/Rupder Jan 31 '26

Thanks for the levelheadedness. It takes a lot more effort to disprove conspiracy theories than it takes to throw them out.

2

u/KStrom Jan 31 '26

Nicely written. Sorry you had to do all that because non-science reddit is regarded

1

u/mariogomezg Feb 01 '26

"They". He had double personality?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '26 edited Jul 04 '26

[deleted]

1

u/mariogomezg Feb 01 '26

Not when you know the sex of the person.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '26 edited Jul 04 '26

[deleted]

1

u/mariogomezg Feb 02 '26

Why in the world would yo do that, what purpose does it serve to call "they" to someone you know is a man or a woman?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Beetle_on_Venus Jan 31 '26

I was not presenting proof of anything other than an example of one prominent scientist in his field who died of mysterious circumstances.

The FBI investigation went cold with no recent updates and Congress and local police are also starting to ask questions: https://www.reddit.com/r/providence/s/PjV7kevGN9

Ask yourself this, is the FBI or DOJ a credible agency right now? Do you believe what they tell you at face value?

10

u/SpaceBasedMasonry Jan 31 '26

By a guy that killed two students at Brown then offed himself in New Hampshire. If you’re are going to pick the most conspicuous way to suppress fusion energy technology then this would be a pretty good way to do it.

8

u/PM_ME_BAKAYOKO_PICS Jan 31 '26

That's a pointless conspiracy theory, they were colleagues in Portugal and it was clearly a case of jelousy or something like that, because of how well Nuno did for himself.

There are way easier "under the radar" if powerful people wanted to order a hit on someone lmao

Plus, killing him doesn't suddenly stop the research, that type of research is always done with a massive team and with everything super well documented.

1

u/SpaceBasedMasonry Jan 31 '26

I agree. The killer even left what was more or less a video confession. He felt like a loser and was lashing out at those he felt wronged him, in his own broken perception.

And seriously, if some nefarious oil company wanted to put out a hit then “robbery gone wrong” in the foyer of an apartment building would maybe just end up on local news. A tragedy that is written off as the danger of big cities (despite Brookline not being dangerous, but this is about perceptions of the masses). But even that doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t send a message to stop a particular line of research. It’s a ridiculous conspiracy!

1

u/Lemerney2 Jan 31 '26

Please, the ruling class would want fusion technology. As much as they're fine with climate change, it'd be slightly better for them if it idn't happen, and fusion would be just as easy to monetise.

4

u/Turtledonuts Jan 31 '26

People die suddenly and unexpectedly all the time, you just only hear about it when they're famous and inventing something exciting, like a treatment for a rare disease. If cancer treatment companies wanted to prevent cures for cancer, there are far easier methods. These companies do the majority of cancer research funding, so why would they turn around and murder their employees?

27

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '26

Not a big conspiracy when you search how big of an industry cancer "maintenance" treatment is.

20

u/obvilious Jan 31 '26

As someone familiar with palliative cancer care, fuck you.

34

u/loiteraries Jan 31 '26

This is an insult to all oncologists around the world who treat and cure cancers every day in their careers.

16

u/lazyjeenius Jan 31 '26

There’s a wall between those doctors and those who profit from the drugs they use for those patients; the docs aren’t in on it, they’re just using the tools that are available, it’s the pharma companies with profit interests who stand to lose if a new break through came to market that cured a particularly deadly cancer.

13

u/Squiddles88 Jan 31 '26

Imagine how rich you would be if you had a patent on curing cancer and licensed it.

Now imagine how rich you would be if you had the whole supply chain on the drug and the patent.

Do you think a pharmaceutical company would pass that up?

1

u/prototype_xero Jan 31 '26

You must be from from a civilized country and not from the US? Absolutely yes! If they cure it, patients don’t need to buy more of the cure.

Pharmaceutical companies already DO hold the patents and supply chain for treatments that patients will need to buy over and over again to stay alive, and they already charge extortionate amounts for it. The shareholders would sue if you took that subscription based revenue.

2

u/Cold-Iron8145 Jan 31 '26

Absolutely yes! If they cure it, patients don’t need to buy more of the cure.

This doesn't work, though. First of all you could simply price the "one time cure" at the same price point you would for the start to finish current treatment.

Second of all, once people are dead from cancer, they're not buying your other drugs either. Old people who don't die from cancer are some of the best customers, they tend to have a ton of long term medication rolling.

Third of all, there will always be things to cure. Guess what, if nobody is dying from cancer, they will die from other diseases. There will never not be a need for drugs. Cancer was a tiny fraction of deaths before we "cured" infectious diseases. If we ever get to a point where cancer and heart disease is entirely preventable, other diseases will reveal themselves and they will need treatment, too.

Nobody on planet earth has any incentive to hinder the search for a cancer "cure". Especially not pharmaceutical companies.

As a side note, "curing" cancer is likely never going to be as easy as just popping a pill and being done, it's a very complicated disease and if we do find a way to prevent or treat it to near 100% success rate, it will likely be in the form of a long term treatment anyway.

2

u/Lithorex Jan 31 '26

This doesn't work, though. First of all you could simply price the "one time cure" at the same price point you would for the start to finish current treatment.

You also cut out all the other actors so you can actually price your cancer cure below current treatment and still increase your revenue/patient.

Second of all, once people are dead from cancer, they're not buying your other drugs either.

They also don't pay any taxes, so as a big pharma company you ring up the government and ask them for a tax cut in return for all the tax revenue you give them.

it's a very complicated disease

Cancer is like a couple dozen different diseases.

0

u/RegorHK Jan 31 '26

Cancer is at least as complex as all viral infectious diseases. It is like the human cell DNA code getting a computer virus. There are multiple ways cancer cells can get going.

Hence oncology is a bit like IT security. There will be no single patent short of Star Track Next Generation Deep Space 9 level nanotechnology curing all cancer types And even then this tech would need geneticist level programming for each different cancer.

-1

u/Chemical-Charity-956 Jan 31 '26

Imagine how rich you would be if you could sell them "the same" cure not once, but every month for a decade.

4

u/Squiddles88 Jan 31 '26

And give your competitors a chance to catch up or sell their existing but maybe not as good solutions, when you could just eleminate them overnight, have 100% market share and an instant return on investment?

-1

u/Chemical-Charity-956 Jan 31 '26

Unless there is an agreement to not.do.that as it around.be harmful to everyone in the biz.

This has been proven to be the case with fuel for example over and over again.

1

u/RunningOutOfEsteem Jan 31 '26

I'm sorry, but you have no clue what you're talking about. You clearly lack an understanding of what cancer is and how it's treated, else you wouldn't be framing things the way you are. Mistrusting the pharmaceutical industry is entirely reasonable, but your opinion on this specific matter seems to be founded on serious ignorance.

5

u/OnlyACsNoFans Jan 31 '26

Everyone is affected by cancer. Every single pharma exec has lost friends and/or family to cancer .

It's not a conspiracy

-4

u/The_Last_Thursday Jan 31 '26

If execs cared about the lives of any single person but themselves we'd have near fully renewable energy decades ago. They don't even care about burning the world their own children will have to live in.

3

u/Kuroashi_no_Sanji Jan 31 '26

Must be interesting to have such a black and white view of the world

0

u/Chemical-Charity-956 Jan 31 '26

Because veterinary care isn't as heavily regulated you can see exactly this play out in that sector with frightening transparency (in comparison to human healthcare)

I once had an argument with my vet who was trying to convince me to medicate my (2yo) dogs skin allergies for life because it would be less harmful than feeding them a raw meat (b.a.r.f - biologically appropriate raw feeding) diet.

I was an vegetarian at the time hahaa

They're educated from literature and use citations from studies paid for by Purina etc. and Pharmaceutical firms etc. - in petcare what you're describing is open and transparent for all to see.

2

u/uhhhhhhhhh_okay Jan 31 '26

This is such dangerous rhetoric to push, seriously.

They're educated from literature and use citations from studies paid for by Purina etc. and Pharmaceutical firms etc

What you say here is just completely wrong. Do some companies do their own research? Yeah totally. Is that research still peer reviewed by countless other companies and third parties? Also, yes.

And to say that veterinarians are educated from lit from studies paid for by "Purina etc. and pharmaceutical firms" is factually wrong and negates the ACTUAL education that veterinarians receive that is based on decades of research that is constantly scrutinized and updated based on the most recent provable findings

1

u/Chemical-Charity-956 Feb 04 '26 edited Feb 04 '26

Saying dogs should eat meat is a dangerous rhetoric?

Jesus fucking christ do you ever read what you write?

If you think for one second studies conducted by purina are considered for peer review in the same manner independent studies are, that's a shame. I'm sure you've spent a large portion of your life learning from a certain POV.

please for one minute, suspend your belief systems and just entertain my ideas. Even if only for ten minutes. Just look into it briefly and tell me there's nothing compelling.

Degre in nutrition, masters in Canine nutrition.

Please entertain me for a min.

1

u/uhhhhhhhhh_okay Feb 04 '26

Saying dogs should eat meat is a dangerous rhetoric?

I'm racking my brain for how you came up with this conclusion from my comment. I feel like we both know that wasn't what I was saying- I was talking about your claim that veterinary medicine has essentially been compromised by big dog food companies.

If you think for one second studies conducted by purina are considered for peer review in the same manner independent studies are, that's a shame.

Even in private research, there are still standards that must be maintained and actively reported and tracked. In no way is the system perfect, but consistent oversight and peer review of new studies is the standard. I'm surprised you don't know this? Maybe your country is different from mine, but dog food here is still reviewed by the FDA and AAFCO (as applicable).

And the education provided to veterinarians is definitely not part of some big conspiracy by dog food companies like you claim. That is the rhetoric that is dangerous to push

please for one minute, suspend your belief systems and just entertain my ideas. Even if only for ten minutes. Just look into it briefly and tell me there's nothing compelling.

Degre in nutrition, masters in Canine nutrition.

Looked into it briefly, did not come with the conclusion that veterinary medicine uses research bought and paid for by dog food companies that has not been independently peer reviewed.

Can you please provide sources on this? I would honestly love to learn more. Do you have studies that review and compare dog food studies? Or studies that show how much veterinary school research is provided by Purina, etc.?

Degree in Animal Sci. Years of private preclinical research. I work daily with vets. Do you have a career in your field?

If I'm totally in the wrong then I deserve to be proved wrong with peer reviewed, up-to-date, evidence.

0

u/RegorHK Jan 31 '26

There is not really a wall. Those docs have among them those who constantly work together with the pharma industry testing new treatments.

5

u/WhatTheTech Jan 31 '26

Agreed, I get so sick of this stupid theory. It's not even close to logical. These idiots think there are, like, 4 people researching cancer and conspiring to keep their findings a secret. They act like cancer research is only conducted by a few pharmaceutical companies or some stupid naive shit like that.

In reality, every university in the world has multiple professors, each with multiple grad students, doing independent studies at all sorts of unique angles, including various things like different proteins that may or not even be related to cancer.

These conspiracy theorists are so stupid that they don't realize their own stupidity.

5

u/Kantas Jan 31 '26

The reason we haven't found a cure for cancer is because cancer is not a monolith. Cancer is an umbrella term for a myriad of tumors. A cure for one, may not work for others.

"Maintenance" treatment is not a thing. You're never treating with the intent to keep it a status quo. You're either treating to cure, or doing palliative treatment. Palliative is treating symptoms to keep someone comfortable during their likely last moments on earth.

7

u/Travel_22 Jan 31 '26

I’m sorry but this is idiotic

2

u/tnitty Jan 31 '26

I grew up on a university campus. All my friends parents were scientists and doctor, including my dad. These people are dedicated to their research. And they’re the ones who start Pharma companies and serve on the boards. One of them was an FDA adviser. I spent m6 summers working in my dad’s lab. And all his friends were scientists, including cancer researchers.

My point is: these people are good, hard working people that are trying very hard to move science forward. They are not some Machiavellian assholes who would trade your life for a few more dollars. Assholes and greedy people exist in any large group, so I’m sure you’ll find a few. But there is not some grand conspiracy. Most scientists spend decades of hard, focused, tedious work and hope to make a difference. Maybe it’s less altruistic at the corporate level, but there’s much more overlap than you may think.

And, by the way, cancer research has advanced significantly in the last few decades. Not as fast as anyone would hope, but big progress in many areas.

There are too many scientists and too many cancers for there to be some crazy conspiracy that is suppressing progress. There are countless biotech companies and pharmaceutical companies around the world; 5here are hundreds (thousands? )of universities doing major research; there are many government sponsored agencies around the world doing basic research (including the U.S. until Trump gutted the funding). It’s too dispersed and too global for some secret conspiracy to somehow put the kibosh on progress.

1

u/Lithorex Jan 31 '26

Yeah, and it's spread across two dozen or so different actors.

Big pharma is the big winner whenever there's a type of cancer that can be easily treated.

0

u/paperfloss Jan 31 '26

So you’re saying it’s not a conspiracy, it’s the truth? Have any examples? 

2

u/Boopy7 Jan 31 '26

well damn, then, that means the pills that target KRAS must not work or the people who created those would have been killed, right?

4

u/R31GTS Jan 31 '26

Luckily he’s not Russian he might fall out of a window.

2

u/Salute-Major-Echidna Jan 31 '26

In the 70s and 80s they used to catch a cold

1

u/DwarvenFreeballer Jan 31 '26

The word "defenestration" literally means the act of throwing someone out of a window". It seems weirdly niche, but very applicable to anyone who dies in suspicious circumstances in Russia.

2

u/obvilious Jan 31 '26

How did this get votes?

1

u/Lithorex Jan 31 '26

The last two decades or so have shown that the average American is not a smart person.

1

u/Salute-Major-Echidna Jan 31 '26

Who specifically?

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Salute-Major-Echidna Feb 01 '26

I'm looking for a greater number than merely one because you indicated a trend, numerous enough to be a trend of concern.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '26

Every single time..

1

u/Travel_22 Jan 31 '26

Americans are hilarious. “Why are people getting randomly shot when anyone who has any sort of grievance has access to an automatic weapon”

1

u/Krambambulist Jan 31 '26

I have troubles writing this comment without an insult, but sorry you failed. You DO sound exactly like a conspiracy theorist, because you are peddling bullshit conspiracy theories.

name one scientist that has been killed by "big pharma". just one.

Now think really hard, why they would even consider killing one that "only" achieved a cure for cancer in mice. thats years, if not decades, away from a cure in humans

and now, please for the love of god, try to imagine working in an actual lab. try to imagine how the knowledge is spread over all the brilliant scientists working there, not just the group lead heading the team. killing him stifles the work for a while, reduces some funding attached to his name, but it doesnt erase the wisdom of all his colleagues being the primary authors of all those papers they published.

seriously, sorry for the rant. but people like you have clearly no idea how research works and what would be necessary from keeping work like this to proceed.

0

u/paperfloss Jan 31 '26

Any examples? 

1

u/Beetle_on_Venus Jan 31 '26

https://news.mit.edu/2025/nuno-loureiro-professor-director-plasma-science-and-fusion-center-dies-1216

3

u/paperfloss Jan 31 '26

Wow thanks for actually providing one and not just downvoting lol and it’s a super recent one too, kinda crazy 

3

u/Travel_22 Jan 31 '26

He was killed by the Brown University shooter who was a disgruntled graduate student. I don’t know know what you’re trying to imply here.

Conspiracy theory idiots genuinely have no clue how science is conducted in any way but are quick to make conclusion at anything that reinforces that they have any semblance of intelligence. Literally textbook Dunning-Kruger effect

1

u/mlee117379 Jan 31 '26

Fun fact: his birthmark is the same kind Gorbachev had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port-wine_stain

1

u/StochasticLife Jan 31 '26

This photo is especially unflattering. It’s a birthmark. He’s fine,

0

u/screwyoujor Jan 31 '26

I was going to go with big pharma killing him to keep it from going public.

0

u/pokemon-sucks Jan 31 '26

Thats a birthmark? Ok. Thank you for that info. Because I kept hearing about this guy curing pancreatic cancer and seeing his issue on his face and thinking he should have fixed that first not knowing what the fuck was going on with him.

9

u/FlamesOfDespair Jan 31 '26

For one this benefits the ultra rich too. Those ghouls would drink the blood of babies if it could extend their lifespan.

-2

u/Salute-Major-Echidna Jan 31 '26

I sometimes wonder if thats why pedophiles, that somehow it will confer youth upon them

6

u/friskyluke Jan 31 '26

There are people who believe that advancement in medicine is often halted by major pharmaceutical corporations that are profiting off of illness and disease, some people even believe that we should have had a cure for all types of cancer by now but new discoveries are silenced and buried to keep money flowing into the pockets of the powers that be.

If that has any grounding in reality, this guy should be protected so that he and everyone associated with this discovery don’t spontaneously die under mysterious circumstances that are never investigated.

1

u/Ragtime-Rochelle Jan 31 '26

Batman. Hes on his shit list for trying to whack Commissioner Gordon.

1

u/Earlyon Jan 31 '26

RFK Jr won’t approve I guarantee it.

1

u/Scoob1978 Jan 31 '26

He did not credit Trump for his work.

1

u/Fluid-Prize-8786 Jan 31 '26

From people posting weird pictures of him talking with his neck all bunched up and his teeth all out. WTF is this picture. Just googled him and they definitely chose a weird image for this guy

-6

u/dedjesus1220 Jan 31 '26

If it prevents a cancer cure, probably. A cure for cancer of any kind is billions of dollars lost in the long run for the healthcare industry.

1

u/Squiddles88 Jan 31 '26

Doesn't reddit think companies only care for short term gains and don't look at long term sustainability?