• Blóðbók@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    it was done on a case-by-case basis. Each person has their own therapy tailored for them. This does not appear to be a mass-solution.

    I’m not sure what you are expecting for something to be considered a cure? What they are describing is a treatment procedure which uses the patient’s own tissue. How does that make it case-by-case?

    • Talaraine@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Because you can’t pack it up in a box and ship it to just anyone. They have to make it specifically for you. Hence case-by-case.

      • Blóðbók@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        That’s not what case-by-case means. Wiktionary:

        Separate and distinct from others of the same kind; treated individually.

        Case-by-case implies that each treatment is different and is not generalisable; but the fact that they use a patient’s own tissue does not make each individual treatment different. If you want to extend the logic, you might call vaccination a case-by-case treatment as well, since they use different needles for each person.

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          The approach is generic. The implementation is case by case. But this is exactly the problem. When the implementation is generic, like a vaccine, then you can mass produce it and the costs go down.

          As far as this seems, you can’t mass produce this solution. You can mass implement the approach, but that doesn’t really bring the cost down.