Slashdot Mirror
Killing Cancer With a Virus
just___giver writes "The U.S. National Cancer Institute has just decided to fund multiple human clinical studies to test the reovirus. This naturally occuring virus has a remarkable ability to infect and kill cancer cells, without affecting normal, healthy cells. Here is a before and after picture of a terminal patient with an actively growing neck tumour that had failed to respond to conventional treatments. This tumour was eliminated with only a single injection of the Reovirus. Researchers at Oncolytics Biotech have shown that the Reovirus can kill many types of cancer, including breast, prostate, pancreatic and brain tumours. Human clinical trial results indicate that there are no safety concerns and that the reovirus shrinks and even eliminates tumours injected with this virus. Numerous other third party studies show that the reovirus should be an important discovery in the treatment of 2/3 of all human cancers."
If this is a miracle, then why not approve it for people who will die without it. I mean, if I was in severe pain and going to die, I'd try it in a second.
Hope is better than nothing.
How do they know of any long-term effects this virus might have? I imagine it would take at least a few years to observe any feasable side-effects. Am I wrong?
Well, it could have cured cancer for all, but that would threaten the integrity of our "intellectual property" system!
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Damnit, I wanted to cure cancer. Oh, well, I guess I'll just move on to the next thing on my list, stopping aging.
They aren't going to be able to use headlines like this anymore on their stories:
Scientific study concludes that eating a lot of fast food and sitting in front of the TV makes you fat. Still no cure for cancer.
I just finished deleting all those viruses off a client's network, and *now* you tell me they can be used for good? ..oh wait
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
i find these as very very welcome news, especially so that i have personally seen the effects of conventional therapies; if you're lucky you'll have a tumor they can cut out, if not then too many of those chemotherapies are way too toxic, and quite a few radiotherapies too.
I have long suspected that the best cures for the worst diseases would be "surgical strike" techniques instead of the all or nothing approach of radiation and chemotherapy type solutions.
I wouldn't be surprised to see nanotech get involved in the action at some point.
Anyone looking to invest in companies for the long term should pay attention to companies that do this type of work.
Hah, here I was thinking I'd have to quit. Now, I'll just get a shot and knock the tumor right out.
This is my sig.
Hope this clarifies things.
Is it just me or does htis sound like the Recolada virus that was created in Xenocide? (Is that a 'layman's' way to explain it?)
This seems to me to BE nanotech. It's just produced by nature instead of someone in a lab coat.
The really cool thing to do with this virus (assuming it really is harmless to normal human cells) would be to create an implant with a hospitible environment that 'feeds' it and keeps a minimum population of viable viruses in your body for an extended period of time to whack cancers as they start.
I have recently had a relative and family friend die from cancer.
In the case of my friend he only found out nine months before his death that he even had cancer. They tried every treatment available, but it had spread too far.
Something like this would have been wonderful. Once they had found out that it was far too wide-spread for normal treatments Ronnie would have jumped at a chance for this.
Some may say that we should try it without knowing the long-term effects, I disagree. With terminally ill patients there is no hope. This provides a double solution -- not only should the virus kill the cancer, it provides the patient with a reason to keep on fighting.
I hope they get this to all the terminally ill patients that they can ASAP.
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
Ok, I am not a biologist, and have no scientific basis for this, but...
According to the FAQ:
4. Where does the reovirus come from?
Reovirus is found naturally in shallow pools of water, lakes or streams or in the sewage system.
So assuming that we could naturally ingest these Reoviri, would someone in a cleaner environment be at a higher risk for cancer (or more to the point, a higher risk from dieing before the Reovirus healed them)? It would be really interesting to find out that drinking bottled water and organtic foods is actually increasing the risk of death from cancer.
_______
2B1ASK1
Check out the link with the details on the trails conducted. Study groups of 18.... 24....
This investigational drug/virus has a long way to go before there is acceptance.
When you cure cancer you can release the cure under the GPL, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
I may be out of date in my medical knowledge... but I'm pretty sure cancers can only develop an immunity in a single person over a course of treatment, and can't spread like a virus or bacteria to other people carrying the acquired immunity with it.
After all, cancers aren't transmitted between people, they spontaneously appear for a variety of reasons.
Here is an article concerning the possiblity of using scorpion venom to cure cancer.
Reading the article (which by the way puts one in the top 1% of /. readers), it seems this reovirus is quite common, and that non-cancerous cells kill it off quite readily. I wonder though if this reovirus has ever "wandered in" on cancer cells in a patient and led to remission in that patient.
You always here anecdotal stories about some people recovering in cases where others haven't, and it's usually attributed to God, positive thinking, a close family, and so forth.
Maybe it's been these little buggers all along.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Using viruses to attack diseases is a technique from the early 20th century. It was widely used in Russia, but fell out of favor when anitbiotics were discovered. It appears to be reviving.
If you try to mimic the idea of a computer developing "anti-bodies" to combat computer viruses, would it not then be possible for the computer to inadvertantly develop a defense for legitimate code?
.
. In other words, would your computer become "allergic" to certain programs?
.
.
Not a computer expert...just thinking out loud...
.
.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
It "partially" works because you have antibodies to the virus already. Your body recognizes the particles of virus as a "bad guy" and while the virus tends to attack the tumor cells, the body itself is eliminating the virus and any tumor cells infected with it.
However, it appears that the virus itself is fairly effective at killing of tumor cells on it's own which is fairly interesting. As it's not associated with any pathogenesis this is definately an interesting step.
Yes you can get infected more than once, hell you can get reinfected over and over again. If you have antibodies it'll probably be a fairly asymptomatic infection (pardon my spelling).
Find out about my new childrens book: SS Death Camp Criminal Batallion Go To Monte Carlo For The Massacre
Yes, but this research was started before the formation of the biotech company which now holds the rights and has been pretty well documented, so that seems a bit unlikely to me.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals."
Maybe because it's a horrible thing that NEEDS to be cured?
;)
I know it's fashionable to be so cynical, but some people do occasionally do things JUST to help society. Scary, huh? Some people do things for reasons other than money... Look at Linux
Compassionate use protocols for some drugs... for people who are terminally ill and have nothing to lose by trying risky, untested drugs.
They've been using this in HIV patients for years. The only reason I could see them being more hesitant to treat cancer patients in a like manner is this: there ARE treatments for cancer that are curative... most all the treatments for HIV simply buy time... they do not eliminate the disease. Chemo is extraordinarily unpleasant, but it does have a proven track record...
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Blatant astroturfing: this article is hyping a completely unproven treatment, and was written by an employee of the company. This is news? Every biotech company has a "promising" anti-cancer treatment in development.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
Someone correct me if I get the bacteria or the cancer wrong but if I remember right 3rd world countries have a much lower rate of prostate cancer because they have more exposure to E Coli bacteria.
Obvioulsy big bad doses of E Coli in meat kill us so we don't want to run out and do that but you get the point.
Maybe a biologist could explain this better.
As others have pointed out here, the benefits of living in a clean environment most likely outweigh living in filth and contracting a few "beneficial" viruses.
However there is something to be said for not living in a totally pristine environment. If you lived in a bubble and had your environment completely sterilized then you would never get sick (at least not from outside agents). Thus your immune system would never get challenged and the amount and diversity of the various immunological bodies in your system would be reduced. If your bubble got compromised then you would probably get very ill very quickly.
There have been a few science fiction stories which have dealt with this. In one story that I read (I don't recall the author or the story name) there were a group of people who were on a space voyage and the doctor continually released very low-grade illnesses to challenge the crew's immune system. Just stuff like the viruses that cause sniffles or a slight sore throat, nothing that could result in a major illness. This way the crew's immune system would stay "exercised" and ready to deal with any serious illnesses, should they encounter one.
I feel that this is a good explanation for why people who live in pristinely clean environments seem to get some of the worse illnesses. Their immune systems are not challenged constantly by low-grade illnesses and so when one finally comes along it wallops them. Sure people who work closely with large groups of small children tend to get sick more often, but they seem to rarely get serious illnesses. This could be because of the same effect I have been describing.
Sapere aude!
it's not necessarily different by country... it even varies by state. My state, for instance, just passed malpractice caps on noneconomic damages... and even despite that, I'm in the process of losing my malpractice insurance (despite having NO claims against me). They are dropping me like a bad habit, and if I want to stayed insured, it's going to cost me double what it was before (that's if I can even get insured).
Most of these unlabeled uses of drugs/viruses/devices are done under compassionate use protocols of one type or another. There is also "emergency use," which can even be done before clinical trials... try this link for some more info.
Even so, you should read the fine print. Even for emergency use, you still have to consult your IRB (that's "institutional review board" for you non-medical folks... they can veto what you want to do), and at least one other physician before submitting the paperwork... and who knows how long before your approval comes back? I've not personally submitted one of these (I am not an oncologist), so I won't speculate on the time frame, though I'd hope they would bypass the usual beauracratic delays.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
One of the major troubles with removing a tumour is that a small amount will remain, and the cancer will regrow. Early surgery had less of this trouble, because their hygiene wasn't so great, so during the surgery the patient was basically guaranteed to get an infection, and this would lead to fever. Since cancer cells are more sensitive to higher temperatures, the remaining few cancer cells would die of the fever, leaving the patient healthy.
So your comment is somewhat true, but not for the reason you thought.
Incidentally, I don't recommend getting a fever if you just had surgery for cancer.
Great, the R.J. Reynold's organ farm!!
"Smoke up! We'll grow more!"
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
"I never get colds, I never get infections, I don't gett'em! You know why? Cause I got a good strong immune system!.... When I was young, we swam in the Hudson River, and at the time, it was filled with raw sewage. We swam in raw sewage.. you know, to COOL OFF!
:)
And at that time, the big fear was polio.. No one in my neighborhood ever got polio.. EVER! You know why?! BECAUSE WE SWAM IN RAW SEWAGE! The polio never had a prayer, we we're tempered in liquid shit!"
- George Carlin
Ahh yes.. once again science proves truth in comedy.
This helps back my (otherwise unfounded) theory that too many of these anti-bacterial cleaning supplies will doom the human race. Of course, I was looking at it from the point of view that if we raise children unexposed to filth they'll be far more susceptible once they are exposed. This study gives the possibility that there may be more naturally occuring aids that we are destroying through our ignorance.
Consider: if Alexander Fleming had been more conscientious about cleaning his petri dishes, he may never have found penicillin. (Reference - I'd heard it was an accident, but never knew it was on a dish in a sink waiting to be cleaned.) Reading this article, it also occurs to me that while no one can (probably) patent a naturally occuring virus, they probably can patent an effective growing/harvesting process.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
How can you exactly copyright this virus if it occurs in nature ?
I agree; copyrighting natural phenomena is outrageous. This is what patents are for.
The Umbrella Corporation.
If a company or person invested billions of dollars of research developing or discovering this virus(Didn't happen in this case), why shouldn't these people deserve a patent?
The purpose of a patent is so these people can get their R&D money back exclusivly for a period of time. Most people who get patents don't sit on them, they sell them. I can assure you there would be no problem getting a hold of the cure.
I don't see any problem with people having to shell out 1,000 or 10,000 for a cure for cancer for a while until these people who developed it get their invested money back. There are real people behind the development of these things, they have families and mouths to feed too.
Mother diagonsed with a rare form of Breast Cancer, and caught in stage 4 despite regular check ups and mamagrams.
Very ill due to chemo treatments. Made an effort to see my marching competitions, but couldn't be around large crowds.
Had to drop out of several activities because she was in and out of the hospital including an audition for a music scholarship to college.
Day of prom, rushed to the hospital, discovered the tumor has spread to her brain. Spent my senior prom in an emergancy waiting room.
Made it through graduation, but couldn't walk without a walker and after my graduation party went into the hospital that night. Found the cancer in her spine, didn't respond to any more treatments and watched my mother waste away for the next month at home until she died exactly 1 month after my high school graduation.
Some how I managed to regain enough will to enter college just over six weeks later.
I hope this isn't some marketing/investment blitz and that this might be a giant leap forward in cancer treatment. Sometimes I wonder if these companies want to find a cure. I mean, research is profitable business. Just look at the March of Dimes. Their orginial goal was to help find a cure for Polio and after one was discovered, they had to find a new mission.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Ah yes,socialized medicine is great, as long as you do not have to pay the price of research.
That's the kind of misinformation we often hear from the IP/investment-led corporate bullshit classes, but hopefully most technical people can see through it.
As an ex-researcher, let me tell you about research. Researchers do not develop ideas in a vacuum, and their pay packets do not magically transform into inventions. And the stuff from which ideas are made is not created by dumping invester's money into labs.
Ideas come when good researchers interact with other clever people working in that area across the world. In part it's interactive, but of vastly more significance is the continuous process of staying on top of the massive torrent of world literature, which is a treasure chest of untapped riches. It's a sea of ideas out there, with everyone's contributions pushing the wavefront of knowledge along just a little bit further. Sometimes just a quaint turn of phrase or even a linguistic mistake spurs a line of thought. How many dollars have been invested in one's lab figures far far down the lists of important contributions.
It's typical company bullshit to try to take all the credit for research done in a company's labs by one's paid employees. It just shows how most company people are totally clueless on how the scientific creative process works.
No matter how brilliant the person that records a new scientific discovery is, and no matter how much his company is paying him nor how many trillions they have spent on his lab, that idea arose only in very small part from his own work. 99% or more is a direct result of his standing on the shoulders of a world full of very bright people, and it's largely immaterial who delivers the final brushstroke.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
[lights up a cigarette]
It's about time!
I can hear Phillip Morris (Or whatever their name is now) cheering.
99% or more is a direct result of his standing on the shoulders of a world full of very bright people...
All of whom would be flipping burgers if people weren't paid to do research.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
The lab at which I'm doing my Honours research project just made the front page on October's issue of Cancer Cell for doing work similar to this, only using vesicular stomatitis virus. The group on the lab bench across from me is working on oncolytic adenovirus.
It's shameful that the companies who make the most press releases get the most attention.
"Max, come over here. French-Canadian bean soup. I want to pay. Let them leave me alone." - Dutch Schultz
Patrick Lee, the scientist behind all of this, has been researching the reovirus for over twenty years. We (that's the University of Calgary, my alma mater) just lost him to Dalhousie University, and they haven't stopped bragging since.
When the first word of this treatment hit the papers five years ago in 1998, his colleagues at other universities (read: his competitors) were quoted saying (I'm paraphrasing) that if Patrick Lee has published, you know the science has to be solid. The peer-reviewed journals agree: he's been published in Cell, Nature, Science and Nature Cell Biology, among others.
This is the real deal. I've put my money where my mouth is, too: several thousand dollars of my own money is banking on this.
but nice try at turning a complicated issue into a cheap political shot at the intelligence of "US citizens (and Republicans)."
Malpractice lawsuits have nothing to do with the increase in premiums? Please... losses directly affect premiums in virtually any insurance arena, though not always in the short term. Notably, my state has seen its total number of malpractice insurers drop from 15-20 to only 3 in the last ten years.
Also, state law where I practice limits the amount of assets an insurance company can place in the stock market. They are required by law to keep certain amounts liquid and available to settle claims, while much of the remainder of their assets goes into the much-less-volatile bond market. This state also prevents insurers from recouping investment losses via premium hikes, thus discouraging any sort of wild futures trading, or risky investment nonsense. Many insurers used to resell policies, much like banks resell loans... but the worldwide reinsurance market has also taken a beating in the last five years, preventing insurers from reshuffling some of their exposure.
It's a complicated problem... but that doesn't mean malpractice caps are not useful. Unless, of course, you are a med-mal attorney, in which case your self-interest is obvious. My personal preference would have been to institute some form of loser-pays, or a malpractice review board made up of laymen, attorneys, and physicians of various specialties to vet lawsuits for merit BEFORE they go to trial.
Blaming it soley on evil corporations losing money in the stock market makes you sound like a ABA lobbiest.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
On the Oncolytics web site, they only list Phase I and Phase II trials. That's just to evaluate safety and dosing. In Phase III, they finally get around to testing for effectiveness, and they haven't done that yet.
I've seen lots of drugs that did this well in Phase II trials but flunked Phase III. I remember seeing Fortune magazine with the headline on the cover, "Cure for Cancer!" 20 years ago. Unfortunately not. (They got over-enthusiastic about cancer vaccines.)
Phase III is a randomized controlled trial. They randomly assign half the patients to the drug, and half the patients to a placebo. If it really works, you should see the difference. A lot of times it doesn't work and you know the drug is useless. Until the RCT you don't know anything for sure.
Another distinction you have to make is the end point. It's one thing to shrink a tumor, but the main thing most cancer patients are interested in is whether they're going to die. There are a lot of drugs that shrink tumors, but have no effect on how long they live.
Here's a discussion, "Levels of Clinical Evidence in the Primary Literature" which describes the different levels of evidence. Or look at BMJ Or if you want to search Google look for "Evidence-based medicine."
I hope this will encourage investors to throw lots of money at basic research and give us a better understanding of why cells become cancerous. It makes the New England Journal of Medicine more fun to read. Who knows? Maybe they'll come up with something useful some day. But not today.
Reovirus is known to cause cancer in lab rats :P
I'm a student at the tragically underrated University of Calgary, which has come up a few times in this discussion. In the past few years, I've followed this story quite closely - I write news for the school's undergrad paper, The Gauntlet and I covered two relevant pieces:
Story 1, June 2001
Story 2, July 2001
The first link is to the original story, which attributed the find to Dr. Peter Forsyth. Later on, Dr. Patrick Lee (who has been mentioned multiple times in this discussion) poached the research and headed for greener pastures at Dalhousie University in Halifax.
The interesting fact is that Forsyth's research found inexplicable gray spots in the residue of the destroyed tumour. At the time, I found it quite unsettling that this fact was completely ignored by the mainstream media in spite of the fact that he spent a significant portion of the press conference discussing the potential hazards that the spots could indicate, including encephalitis.
It looks like the clinical trials at Oncolytics (Forsyth and Lee were directly involved) are optimistic, showing no side-effects, but I urge everyone to temper their excitement for the time being. The allure of jumping to the conclusion that REO virus treatment is a miracle cure is significant, but the consequences of doing so could be disastrous.
This may seem like bitter cynicism, but take a hint from someone who has been on the front lines of this very discovery: the story reported by the mainstream media is never the whole story.
Patrick Boyle
...Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
Churchill
The reovirus can be stopped by the body's immune system, but all testing so far has shown that the defence is so weak, there isn't a problem. Should their be to great an immune response, a simple short term immune suppressant (such as cyclosporin) can be used to solve the problem.
As far as the reovirus mutating, it seems that it hasn't yet over the last 4 million years or so. This is partly because it's a DOUBLE stranded RNA virus, so during replication, it has its own built in "error checking".
rjc
Back then, the average life expectancy was so low because of infant mortality. People who got to puberty didn't, on average, die much younger than people do nowadays.
This is the real signature
(Beats those shadows on the cave wall, don't it?)