Slashdot Mirror
A Protein That Terminates 70% Of Common Cancers
Orne writes "BBC News reports here that researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis have located 'a protein CUGBP2 (that) interacted with the mRNA for Cox-2 in eight types of human cancer cells.' Cox-2 (which is already known to affect inflammation in arthritis sufferers) is involved in growing blood vessels to feed cancer cells, leading to their uncontrolled growth. Raising CUGBP2 to normal levels puts the cancer's 'death' cycle back on track."
Microsoft claims Cox-2 has no effect on the GPL. Film at 11
what are the side effects with flooding tissue with this protein?
this is not a sig.
See this article for a slightly more technical treatment of the item.
Free book: Science Toys You Can Make
So this will be useful to today's cancer patients in 20 years for some ridiculous cost, right? *cough*
But unfortunately it will have to go through a decade-long FDA approval process and of course be ridiculously expensive because of royalties, despite the fact that it is a hormone that the body naturally produces and it will only be used in concentrations similar to what is found in normal tissue, so it is extremely unlikely it could have any significant bad side effects. On a similar note gene-sequence patenting is absurd and malicious. What if someone had patented Vitamin C?
Repeal the DMCA!
It's probably to early but anyone who knows people with inoperable cancer would probably love to try anything.. just the hope it would give them would make there last days/months/years of life more bareable.
None of the articles mentioned a timeline to human testing (at least not that I could find). I'm going to be watching this research closely. I've seen too many people succumb to their own bodies going haywire.
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
After some of the things that have made front page lately I'd think that a way to stabilize 70% of cancers would make it. It's no flying car, but hey, it's nice.
I wonder if all those UD packets I crunched had anything to contribute. Probably not.
The protein doesn't kill 70% of common cancers, it kills 70% of the cells of the 8 tumor types it was tested in.
A) This means that 30% of the tumor survives the treatment. This is a good start for a treatment but alone it is not a cure as the remaining 30% will continue to grow and spread.
B) There are many more types of tumor which it hasn't been tested in so this is not exactly the mythic magic bullett.
In addition this has not been tested in a physiological situation. While it is a natural substance you can't just throw it at patients and see what happens. The dose of this protein required to reach the correct level in tumor cells may in fact push the level in normal cells to extremes. Killing 70% of a tumour is not good if it also causes 70% of your kidney to whither away and die.And delivary stratagies targeting specific cells have still not been well worked out.
If you actually read the report, it says "70% of cancer cells", not "70% of cancers". Big difference.
The United Devices (UD) Cancer Research project allows people to crunch data (much like SETI@Home) but instead of finding alien life the idea is to find a cure for cancer. The software (as far as i can tell) models how various chemicals interact (IANAChemist, so I can't really give much more detail than that - check out the site if you're interested of course).
Though this post to clarify the previous one may be getting offtopic :p
if cancers can evolve, eventually becoming immune to these proteins. I think not, but nature is often quite surprising.
reason defies logic
If you want to understand how the mind-body can be helped in restoring its own health, here you go.
m mu nology.html
http://www.newhopeclinic.com/
http://www.newhopeclinic.com/pages/psychoneuroi
Key points:
Do not overlook the importance of keeping your lymph system flowing. You probably think your blood stream is important - your lymph system is more important in maintaining your health.
Angiogenesis attempts to thwart the support of cancer cells. Classic western medicine. Got weeds. Apply weedkiller. We dare not consider enriching the soil, so the grass can grow and weeds simply don't have a chance to thrive - why that would be too natural. Next season. More weedkiller.
Chemotherapy never completely removes cancer cells because the body can only harbor the drugs for short periods of time and cancer cell flawed differentiation occurs on a continuum. Conventional western medicine usually follows up with radiation on the area to finish the clean-up.
Of course, you can still end up with the same cancer again, if you don't deal with the underlying reasons why the cancer developed in the first place.
The above article on PNI is worth a read. Combine the ideas in their with positive life style changes, including daily lymph system stimulation and you'll start feeling better than you ever have.
Stay happy!
Not even close; it was created over 50 years ago by a Swiss researcher working for an ordinary pharmaceutical company.
See this timeline , for instance.
It's true that the US government (military, CIA, etc) did do some rather illicit experiments with various hallucinagens (and other drugs, and radioactive treatments, and diseases, etc).
But they didn't invent any of those things.
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
Not trying to sound cynical or pessimistic, but don't hold your breath waiting for a treatment that would actually treat 70% of all cancers. The causes (viruses, mutation, etc.) and characteristics of cancers (specific gene over/under expression) vary far too much for a 'cure all' in the near future, if ever. Working at the University of Michigan, I'm working with a very promising chemo drug for head and neck cancers, and only about 70 percent of head and neck cancers are responsive to this new drug, one of the most promising we've ever seen. Treatments will not really be universal, besides traditional 'kill em all' type chemos that just damage DNA wherever the drug is delivered.
I have wondered for a while how many diseases and afflictions mankind suffers because treatment is more profitable than the cure...
Of course, I think that if there is a cure, the public eventually finds out about it, but not until a great many people have suffered a life not quite as fullfilling.
On very specific case I'm thinking of is in dealing with headaches and ulcers. The best (and by best I mean fastest and with the highest degree of relief) way of dealing with these isn't with drugs, it's with muscle relaxation techniques.
Someone who is properly trained can "turn off" a stress-related headache and turn down the stomach acid in a matter of minutes (depending on the severity; most headaches are mild enough that a few seconds is probably enough). Yet we have "maximum strength" (and harmful, if taken in large enough doses) pain-killers to deal with the problems.
In fact, many problems related to pain can be dealt with mentally far more effectively than physically using techniques that any child can learn (it's much more difficult for most adults because the initial stages of use require a strong imagination). Considering the pervasiveness of pain as part of life, shouldn't it be considered as something that every child learns?
But then, what would Tylenol do in 60 years when none of the adults have ever taken one?
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!