No more barbaric irradiating people and injecting them with toxic poison, hopefully (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/03/one-drug-to-shrink-all-tumors.html).
Quote
One Drug to Shrink All Tumors
A single drug can shrink or cure human breast, ovary, colon, bladder, brain, liver, and prostate tumors that have been transplanted into mice, researchers have found. The treatment, an antibody that blocks a "do not eat" signal normally displayed on tumor cells, coaxes the immune system to destroy the cancer cells.
A decade ago, biologist Irving Weissman of the Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, discovered that leukemia cells produce higher levels of a protein called CD47 than do healthy cells. CD47, he and other scientists found, is also displayed on healthy blood cells; it's a marker that blocks the immune system from destroying them as they circulate. Cancers take advantage of this flag to trick the immune system into ignoring them. In the past few years, Weissman's lab showed that blocking CD47 with an antibody cured some cases of lymphomas and leukemias in mice by stimulating the immune system to recognize the cancer cells as invaders. Now, he and colleagues have shown that the CD47-blocking antibody may have a far wider impact than just blood cancers.
"What we've shown is that CD47 isn't just important on leukemias and lymphomas," says Weissman. "It's on every single human primary tumor that we tested." Moreover, Weissman's lab found that cancer cells always had higher levels of CD47 than did healthy cells. How much CD47 a tumor made could predict the survival odds of a patient.
To determine whether blocking CD47 was beneficial, the scientists exposed tumor cells to macrophages, a type of immune cell, and anti-CD47 molecules in petri dishes. Without the drug, the macrophages ignored the cancerous cells. But when the CD47 was present, the macrophages engulfed and destroyed cancer cells from all tumor types.
Next, the team transplanted human tumors into the feet of mice, where tumors can be easily monitored. When they treated the rodents with anti-CD47, the tumors shrank and did not spread to the rest of the body. In mice given human bladder cancer tumors, for example, 10 of 10 untreated mice had cancer that spread to their lymph nodes. Only one of 10 mice treated with anti-CD47 had a lymph node with signs of cancer. Moreover, the implanted tumor often got smaller after treatment -- colon cancers transplanted into the mice shrank to less than one-third of their original size, on average. And in five mice with breast cancer tumors, anti-CD47 eliminated all signs of the cancer cells, and the animals remained cancer-free 4 months after the treatment stopped.
"We showed that even after the tumor has taken hold, the antibody can either cure the tumor or slow its growth and prevent metastasis," says Weissman.
Although macrophages also attacked blood cells expressing CD47 when mice were given the antibody, the researchers found that the decrease in blood cells was short-lived; the animals turned up production of new blood cells to replace those they lost from the treatment, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Cancer researcher Tyler Jacks of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge says that although the new study is promising, more research is needed to see whether the results hold true in humans. "The microenvironment of a real tumor is quite a bit more complicated than the microenvironment of a transplanted tumor," he notes, "and it's possible that a real tumor has additional immune suppressing effects."
Another important question, Jacks says, is how CD47 antibodies would complement existing treatments. "In what ways might they work together and in what ways might they be antagonistic?" Using anti-CD47 in addition to chemotherapy, for example, could be counterproductive if the stress from chemotherapy causes normal cells to produce more CD47 than usual.
Weissman's team has received a $20 million grant from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine to move the findings from mouse studies to human safety tests. "We have enough data already," says Weissman, "that I can say I'm confident that this will move to phase I human trials."
At first glance sounds good.
Cite yo-self, fool.
Really though, just curious as to the source and Googling is difficult and not grabon approved.
That is extremely promising news.
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 29, 2013, 04:52:13 PM
Cite yo-self, fool.
Really though, just curious as to the source and Googling is difficult and not grabon approved.
The word "hopefully" in his post is a link, dude.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/03/one-drug-to-shrink-all-tumors.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/cancer-drug-shrinks-tumors_n_2972708.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
I thought the Death Panels were going to cure cancer?!? :hmm:
:rolleyes: Idiot.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 29, 2013, 04:54:01 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 29, 2013, 04:52:13 PM
Cite yo-self, fool.
Really though, just curious as to the source and Googling is difficult and not grabon approved.
The word "hopefully" in his post is a link, dude.
I can't read good.
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 29, 2013, 06:16:46 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 29, 2013, 04:54:01 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 29, 2013, 04:52:13 PM
Cite yo-self, fool.
Really though, just curious as to the source and Googling is difficult and not grabon approved.
The word "hopefully" in his post is a link, dude.
I can't read good.
:D Meh, it's pretty easy to miss a link with the color contrast on this board.
Quote from: Strix on March 29, 2013, 05:13:09 PM
I thought the Death Panels were going to cure cancer?!? :hmm:
Do cancers die when their host does? :hmm:
Quotebreast, ovary, colon, bladder, brain, liver, and prostate
Didn't see lung. Stopped reading.
These medical story writers really need to tone down the Timmahism. This drug hasn't even been tested in humans and the author is going on about one drug to cure all cancer. :rolleyes:
You could write the same drivel about any of a thousand other drugs that fail to make it to phase IV testing. For some reason cancer hasn't been cured yet, though... this one must be different!
This is very exciting if it works out. Still a ways to go and it may not be all it's talked up to be, but damn it sure seems a huge step in the right direction.
Great, so we cure cancer in mice.
Quote from: PDH on March 30, 2013, 03:21:37 PM
Great, so we cure cancer in mice.
it's only fair since we purposefully give them the cancer in the first place.
Quote from: HVC on March 30, 2013, 03:36:20 PM
Quote from: PDH on March 30, 2013, 03:21:37 PM
Great, so we cure cancer in mice.
it's only fair since we purposefully give them the cancer in the first place.
If that was how it worked, the US government would have cured HIV in blacks by now.
Quote from: Fate on March 30, 2013, 11:23:43 AM
These medical story writers really need to tone down the Timmahism. This drug hasn't even been tested in humans and the author is going on about one drug to cure all cancer. :rolleyes:
You could write the same drivel about any of a thousand other drugs that fail to make it to phase IV testing. For some reason cancer hasn't been cured yet, though... this one must be different!
THE MAN won't allow cancer to be cured. Think of all the companies that will be screwed if that happens and their drugs are no longer needed.... and of all the money said companies give to members of Congress. :)
Quote from: Fate on March 30, 2013, 11:23:43 AM
These medical story writers really need to tone down the Timmahism. This drug hasn't even been tested in humans and the author is going on about one drug to cure all cancer. :rolleyes:
You could write the same drivel about any of a thousand other drugs that fail to make it to phase IV testing. For some reason cancer hasn't been cured yet, though... this one must be different!
Eventually, one of them *is* different.
But far be it from me to dwell on such things. Please continue to froth.
Quote from: Caliga on April 02, 2013, 11:59:51 AM
Quote from: Fate on March 30, 2013, 11:23:43 AM
These medical story writers really need to tone down the Timmahism. This drug hasn't even been tested in humans and the author is going on about one drug to cure all cancer. :rolleyes:
You could write the same drivel about any of a thousand other drugs that fail to make it to phase IV testing. For some reason cancer hasn't been cured yet, though... this one must be different!
THE MAN won't allow cancer to be cured. Think of all the companies that will be screwed if that happens and their drugs are no longer needed.... and of all the money said companies give to members of Congress. :)
If it could be proven that a cure for cancer was squashed by Congress due to pharmaceutical lobbying, I would definitely love to see the ensuing lynchings. That'd be rad.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 12:27:12 PM
Quote from: Fate on March 30, 2013, 11:23:43 AM
These medical story writers really need to tone down the Timmahism. This drug hasn't even been tested in humans and the author is going on about one drug to cure all cancer. :rolleyes:
You could write the same drivel about any of a thousand other drugs that fail to make it to phase IV testing. For some reason cancer hasn't been cured yet, though... this one must be different!
Eventually, one of them *is* different.
But far be it from me to dwell on such things. Please continue to froth.
Shh. Don't rain on Fate's I-are-smarter-than-all-of-you-look-at-me-I'm-gonna-be-a-doctor parade. :secret:
Quote from: merithyn on April 02, 2013, 12:32:30 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 12:27:12 PM
Quote from: Fate on March 30, 2013, 11:23:43 AM
These medical story writers really need to tone down the Timmahism. This drug hasn't even been tested in humans and the author is going on about one drug to cure all cancer. :rolleyes:
You could write the same drivel about any of a thousand other drugs that fail to make it to phase IV testing. For some reason cancer hasn't been cured yet, though... this one must be different!
Eventually, one of them *is* different.
But far be it from me to dwell on such things. Please continue to froth.
Shh. Don't rain on Fate's I-are-smarter-than-all-of-you-look-at-me-I'm-gonna-be-a-doctor parade. :secret:
"People sure need to stop being excited about potential medical breakthroughs! What a bunch of suckers! Don't you know what a low success rate drug development has?"
Keep fighting the good fight Fate. :)
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 12:27:12 PM
Quote from: Fate on March 30, 2013, 11:23:43 AM
These medical story writers really need to tone down the Timmahism. This drug hasn't even been tested in humans and the author is going on about one drug to cure all cancer. :rolleyes:
You could write the same drivel about any of a thousand other drugs that fail to make it to phase IV testing. For some reason cancer hasn't been cured yet, though... this one must be different!
Eventually, one of them *is* different.
But far be it from me to dwell on such things. Please continue to froth.
It is absolutely ludicrous to think there will be a single cure for all cancers as the author purports. The disease process is simply too complex. If you want to be realistic in your fantasizing then there will eventually be a multitude of drugs each tailored to a person's individual cancer genetics. But that doesn't sound as snazzy in a poorly written health article.
Quote from: Fate on April 02, 2013, 03:40:32 PM
It is absolutely ludicrous to think there will be a single cure for all cancers as the author purports.
With your years and years of experience in pharmacology I am sure to trust your expert opinion.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 03:53:16 PM
With your years and years of experience in pharmacology I am sure to trust your expert opinion.
With luminaries such as Merithyn and yourself lined up against it, Fate's critique looks thin indeed.
I don't see anything in here about a cure for bitches.
Quote from: Scipio on April 02, 2013, 05:51:37 PM
I don't see anything in here about a cure for bitches.
divorce.
Oh, you think they go away at that point, eh? :lol:
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 03:53:16 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 02, 2013, 03:40:32 PM
It is absolutely ludicrous to think there will be a single cure for all cancers as the author purports.
With your years and years of experience in pharmacology I am sure to trust your expert opinion.
It does seem odd to suggest there would be one cure. Given that at the most basic cancers all involve cells growing uncontrollably in a way that harms the body - why would it make sense to assume there would be a drug that could stop such growth in all types of cells?
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2013, 04:52:19 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 03:53:16 PM
With your years and years of experience in pharmacology I am sure to trust your expert opinion.
With luminaries such as Merithyn and yourself lined up against it, Fate's critique looks thin indeed.
:rolleyes: Every scientific breakthrough is "impossible"...until it isn't.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 03:53:16 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 02, 2013, 03:40:32 PM
It is absolutely ludicrous to think there will be a single cure for all cancers as the author purports.
With your years and years of experience in pharmacology I am sure to trust your expert opinion.
It does seem odd to suggest there would be one cure. Given that at the most basic cancers all involve cells growing uncontrollably in a way that harms the body - why would it make sense to assume there would be a drug that could stop such growth in all types of cells?
It doesn't make sense to "assume" it at all. It makes a lot more sense to keep testing and see if it works or doesn't work.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 06:57:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 03:53:16 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 02, 2013, 03:40:32 PM
It is absolutely ludicrous to think there will be a single cure for all cancers as the author purports.
With your years and years of experience in pharmacology I am sure to trust your expert opinion.
It does seem odd to suggest there would be one cure. Given that at the most basic cancers all involve cells growing uncontrollably in a way that harms the body - why would it make sense to assume there would be a drug that could stop such growth in all types of cells?
It doesn't make sense to "assume" it at all. It makes a lot more sense to keep testing and see if it works or doesn't work.
Actually I do think it makes sense to assume there won't be one superdrug that stops all types of cancers. Probably better to funnel that money towards stopping particular types of cancers given that the root causes and the sorts of mechanisms of actions you need for various types varies wildly. Thinking about cancer as one disease that can be cure with one medicine probably isn't very helpful.
Also, pharma companies routinely test their cancer drugs on other types of cancer cells. They a big incentive as a new indication lets them extend the patent. ;)
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 07:00:19 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 06:57:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 03:53:16 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 02, 2013, 03:40:32 PM
It is absolutely ludicrous to think there will be a single cure for all cancers as the author purports.
With your years and years of experience in pharmacology I am sure to trust your expert opinion.
It does seem odd to suggest there would be one cure. Given that at the most basic cancers all involve cells growing uncontrollably in a way that harms the body - why would it make sense to assume there would be a drug that could stop such growth in all types of cells?
It doesn't make sense to "assume" it at all. It makes a lot more sense to keep testing and see if it works or doesn't work.
Actually I do think it makes sense to assume there won't be one superdrug that stops all types of cancers. Probably better to funnel that money towards stopping particular types of cancers given that the root causes and the sorts of mechanisms of actions you need for various types varies wildly. Thinking about cancer as one disease that can be cure with one medicine probably isn't very helpful.
I would say testing a lung cancer medicine and finding that it also works on brain tumors would be very helpful indeed.
And really - if we were talking about some drug with proven results in rolling back - let's take a random number - 5 different kinds of cancer, would we honestly be having some stupid conversation about how "this one doesn't cure all of them, it's no good"? Would we still be calling it a superdrug? We would - most of us would, anyway, unless Fate and other keen predictors of the future decide to opt out - and we would be quite right to do so.
The instant it's tested on a number of patients with lung cancer (for example) and it's determined that it has no beneficial effect no one will be talking about it as a cure-all. However it advances research in a number of directions and, more importantly,
helps people who fucking happen to have brain tumors. What could possibly be "wrong" with that?
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 07:02:50 PM
I would say testing a lung cancer medicine and finding that it also works on brain tumors would be very helpful indeed.
And really - if we were talking about some drug with proven results in rolling back - let's take a random number - 5 different kinds of cancer, would we honestly be having some stupid conversation about how "this one doesn't cure all of them, it's no good"?
The instant it's tested on a number of patients with lung cancer (for example) and it's determined that it has no beneficial effect no one will be talking about it as a cure-all. However it advances research in a number of directions and, more importantly, helps people who fucking happen to have brain tumors. What could possibly be "wrong" with that?
There's nothing wrong with testing a drug on a different type of cancer - and as I said that does actually routinely take place.
Of course, there could be something unethical with testing a cancer drug on a type of cancer (in a person) when you've know reason to believe it'd work. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 07:10:40 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 07:02:50 PM
I would say testing a lung cancer medicine and finding that it also works on brain tumors would be very helpful indeed.
And really - if we were talking about some drug with proven results in rolling back - let's take a random number - 5 different kinds of cancer, would we honestly be having some stupid conversation about how "this one doesn't cure all of them, it's no good"?
The instant it's tested on a number of patients with lung cancer (for example) and it's determined that it has no beneficial effect no one will be talking about it as a cure-all. However it advances research in a number of directions and, more importantly, helps people who fucking happen to have brain tumors. What could possibly be "wrong" with that?
There's nothing wrong with testing a drug on a different type of cancer - and as I said that does actually routinely take place.
Of course, there could be something unethical with testing a cancer drug on a type of cancer (in a person) when you've know reason to believe it'd work. :hmm:
If you test a drug on a human's lung cancer because it has succeeded in reducing lung cancer in non-humans, you might test the same drug on a human's brain cancer if that drug has succeeded in reducing brain cancer in the same batch of non-humans.
I mean - I assume that's how it works, because I assume we're talking about the scientific method here, right?
I'm still not really sure I'm understanding your attitude. I've already said that testing of cancer agents on different tumor types occurs...so the sticking point appears to be whether or not one thinks it useful to think there will be a drug that can cure all cancer types or whether drugs should be developed with particular cancers in mind and then tested to see what additional effects they might have. Is that fair?
Anybody do 'listen to your body' yet?
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 07:21:04 PM
I'm still not really sure I'm understanding your attitude. I've already said that testing of cancer agents on different tumor types occurs...so the sticking point appears to be whether or not one thinks it useful to think there will be a drug that can cure all cancer types or whether drugs should be developed with particular cancers in mind and then tested to see what additional effects they might have. Is that fair?
My issue was with Fate's prognostication. I think scientists developing cancer drugs should proceed in whatever way makes the most scientific sense and is most humane.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 02, 2013, 07:55:47 PM
Anybody do 'listen to your body' yet?
I was considering it. Working out how do run the best joke about Fate not studying to be a Holistic doctor.
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2013, 04:52:19 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 03:53:16 PM
With your years and years of experience in pharmacology I am sure to trust your expert opinion.
With luminaries such as Merithyn and yourself lined up against it, Fate's critique looks thin indeed.
I don't remember saying that Fate's critique was thin. The fact that I dislike the say he shared it doesn't mean that I disagree with him. But hey, don't let that get in the way.
Quote from: merithyn on April 02, 2013, 08:28:32 PMI don't remember saying that Fate's critique was thin. The fact that I dislike the say he shared it doesn't mean that I disagree with him. But hey, don't let that get in the way.
Okay :)
That said, if you're just being snarky because you think he's got an attitude problem that's way more defensible than Fahdiz's "lol one drug to cure them all!" But there isn't really anything wrong with picking on bad science reporting, especially about cancer.
Seems there's a new "cure for cancer!" article in circulation every 3-6 months.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 03:53:16 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 02, 2013, 03:40:32 PM
It is absolutely ludicrous to think there will be a single cure for all cancers as the author purports.
With your years and years of experience in pharmacology I am sure to trust your expert opinion.
It does seem odd to suggest there would be one cure. Given that at the most basic cancers all involve cells growing uncontrollably in a way that harms the body - why would it make sense to assume there would be a drug that could stop such growth in all types of cells?
All the ones they tested had a protein that inhibited a proper immune response. Disable that protein and it logically follows there will be a proper immune response unless there are other protiens or factors preventing it.
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2013, 09:16:46 PM
That said, if you're just being snarky because you think he's got an attitude problem that's way more defensible than Fahdiz's "lol one drug to cure them all!"
That's your characterization of my beef with Fate's statement?
Lol.
You know, it's kinda interesting. If Tim had started this article it probably would have been mocked within the first five posts.
It comes too late for auther Iain Banks, who today announced he has terminal cancer:
Quote
Author Iain Banks has terminal cancer
Author Iain Banks has revealed that he has late stage cancer and is unlikely to live for more than a year.
The Scottish writer posted a message on his official website saying his next novel The Quarry, due to be published later this year, would be his last.
The 59-year-old's novels include The Wasp Factory, The Crow Road, Complicity and the Culture series.
The statement said his health problems came to light when he saw his doctor, suffering from a sore back.
He was diagnosed with jaundice, before further tests established the full extent of his illness.
In the personal statement on his website, Banks said he had asked his partner Adele to marry him and was now on a short honeymoon.
Fellow Scottish author, Ian Rankin, said the news of Banks' terminal cancer was "just awful".
....
rest of item here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22015175 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22015175)
:(
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 03:53:16 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 02, 2013, 03:40:32 PM
It is absolutely ludicrous to think there will be a single cure for all cancers as the author purports.
With your years and years of experience in pharmacology I am sure to trust your expert opinion.
No you should totally trust the science reporter with no formal training in medicine or pharmacology who probably had a story quota and decided to fill it with the drug#53819318-in-testing de jour. This exact same story could be written every week. I bet he has a copy/pasted template ready to go when news dry spells occur.
Quote from: mongers on April 03, 2013, 08:12:31 AM
It comes too late for auther Iain Banks, who today announced he has terminal cancer:
Quote
Author Iain Banks has terminal cancer
Author Iain Banks has revealed that he has late stage cancer and is unlikely to live for more than a year.
The Scottish writer posted a message on his official website saying his next novel The Quarry, due to be published later this year, would be his last.
The 59-year-old's novels include The Wasp Factory, The Crow Road, Complicity and the Culture series.
The statement said his health problems came to light when he saw his doctor, suffering from a sore back.
He was diagnosed with jaundice, before further tests established the full extent of his illness.
In the personal statement on his website, Banks said he had asked his partner Adele to marry him and was now on a short honeymoon.
Fellow Scottish author, Ian Rankin, said the news of Banks' terminal cancer was "just awful".
....
rest of item here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22015175 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22015175)
:(
:o
I thought he was a lot older than that. Just terrible. :(
Quote from: Fate on April 03, 2013, 08:17:16 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 03:53:16 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 02, 2013, 03:40:32 PM
It is absolutely ludicrous to think there will be a single cure for all cancers as the author purports.
With your years and years of experience in pharmacology I am sure to trust your expert opinion.
No you should totally trust the science reporter with no formal training in medicine or pharmacology who probably had a story quota and decided to fill it with the drug#53819318-in-testing de jour. This exact same story could be written every week. I bet he has a copy/pasted template ready to go when news dry spells occur.
I don't trust either one of you. I thought I made that clear. :mellow:
Quote from: fahdiz on April 03, 2013, 09:44:34 AM
I don't trust either one of you. I thought I made that clear. :mellow:
QuoteThat is extremely promising news.
Not clear to me.
"That" meaning "a drug which appears to work on several cancers in non-humans will go to a human testing phase".
Quote from: mongers on April 03, 2013, 08:12:31 AM
It comes too late for auther Iain Banks, who today announced he has terminal cancer:
Quote
Author Iain Banks has terminal cancer
Author Iain Banks has revealed that he has late stage cancer and is unlikely to live for more than a year.
The Scottish writer posted a message on his official website saying his next novel The Quarry, due to be published later this year, would be his last.
The 59-year-old's novels include The Wasp Factory, The Crow Road, Complicity and the Culture series.
The statement said his health problems came to light when he saw his doctor, suffering from a sore back.
He was diagnosed with jaundice, before further tests established the full extent of his illness.
In the personal statement on his website, Banks said he had asked his partner Adele to marry him and was now on a short honeymoon.
Fellow Scottish author, Ian Rankin, said the news of Banks' terminal cancer was "just awful".
....
rest of item here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22015175 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22015175)
:(
:( Too bad, I love his books.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 03, 2013, 11:52:28 AM
"That" meaning "a drug which appears to work on several cancers in non-humans will go to a human testing phase".
Apart from what Fate said that this is really something novel. A casual search gave me more than a handful of results from 2008-2012 of different agents they wanted to test.