Implant Raises Cellular Army To Attack Cancer

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Implant Raises Cellular Army To Attack Cancer

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday January 12, 2009 @05:39AM from the zombie-medicine dept.

holy_calamity writes "New Scientist reports on a sneaky new approach to getting the immune system to fight cancer. An implant releases a 'molecular perfume' irresistible to messenger immune cells, which enter the implant where they are given a sample of the cancer's 'scent' and a disperse signal that sends them scurrying to the nearest lymph node. There they convince other immune cells to start attacking anything that matches the sample they picked up."

193 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

uhhh by LilGuy · 2009-01-12 05:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

this is pretty amazing to a layman such as myself..

--

You're nothing; like me.
1. Re:uhhh by Kranfer · 2009-01-12 05:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I am a layman myself as well. I think this is encouraging for anyone out there who is sick... However, I am still wondering if the whole stem cell way of doing things for cancer research is the better approach. However after RTA I did see that all of the control group died and the mice with the implant 90% were cured. I would want to read a real paper on it in a journal. Just as a though.... What would happen if the implants do not work on all human beings / test animals/subjects whatever... Say... your body just starts literally killing ALL cells... cancer and normal... I am just wondering if they have a way to stop the process if they need to... Ah well. Good work Doctors!
  
  --
  -- Josh
  "Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
2. Re:uhhh by snowraver1 · 2009-01-12 05:51 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Time to quit quitting smoking!
  
  --
  Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
3. Re:uhhh by ZombieWomble · 2009-01-12 05:58 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I would want to read a real paper on it in a journal.
  If you're that fussy about your sources, at least read down to the bottom of the article to see if they have citations. Like this one:
  http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nmat2357.html
4. Re:uhhh by ArcherB · 2009-01-12 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Time to quit quitting smoking!
  My thoughts exactly... or almost. I was actually thinking:
  WooHoo! I DON'T need to quit smoking!
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
5. Re:uhhh by realmolo · 2009-01-12 06:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "Say... your body just starts literally killing ALL cells... cancer and normal... "
  How do you think chemotherapy works? Or radiation therapy?
  Both treatments kill *all* cells. The idea is to kill the cancer cells *first*, before the treatment kills the patient.
6. Re:uhhh by Windows_NT · 2009-01-12 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  That was my response.. I can still smoke!! WOOHO! I was orignally planning on spending 10k for a lung-overhaul in the future, but if i can just take a pill, thats cool with me ;)
  
  --
  Go go Gadget Nailgun!
7. Re:uhhh by Smooth+and+Shiny · 2009-01-12 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  "Say... your body just starts literally killing ALL cells... cancer and normal..." Then it wouldn't be much different from conventional chemotherapy treatments I guess. Current treatments do not differentiate between good and bad cells and just kill everything they touch.
8. Re:uhhh by macklin01 · 2009-01-12 06:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I am just wondering if they have a way to stop the process if they need to... Ah well. Good work
  There has been recent work to treat autoimmune diseases by "erasing" the immune system's "memory" (e.g., memory B cells) by attacking the marrow with chemotherapy, then reseeding the system with harvested haematopoietic stem cells. Here's an example I find after a fast search. Of course, it leaves the patient with 0 immune system while it regenerates from the stem cells, and I'd imagine you'd have to redo all your vaccinations, etc., but I suppose that could do the trick. -- Paul
  
  --
  OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
9. Re:uhhh by Belial6 · 2009-01-12 06:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You jest, but if the negative effects of smoking were removed, then there should be no problem with it. Unfortunately, cancer isn't the only problem and possibly not the biggest problem caused by smoking.
10. Re:uhhh by kj_kabaje · 2009-01-12 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  So... no different than reinstalling a system OS, I guess? ;-)
11. Re:uhhh by gehrehmee · 2009-01-12 06:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well, except for the whole, smelling like a walking ashtray, coughing up nasty flem, and annoying the hell out of everyone around you thing.
  
  --
  "You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
12. Re:uhhh by Chyeld · 2009-01-12 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Complete with the "Pwnt by viruses within 10 minutes of booting up".
13. Re:uhhh by Tanktalus · 2009-01-12 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Including the potential for your system (body) to be pwnd before you reload your anti-virus (vaccinations)? Hope you have a good firewall installed (live in a bubble)!
  (Though, really, no one here will understand any of this unless we can force it into a car analogy...)
14. Re:uhhh by mpeskett · 2009-01-12 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Cancerous cells, being defective already, tend to be more susceptible to further damage. So it takes less radiation/chemical to be lethal to a cancer cell than to a normal cell.
  The treatments are still pretty savage on the normal cells, but it at least gives you a decent shot at killing the tumour before you kill the patient.
15. Re:uhhh by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  Congratulations on finding a way to spell phlegm that is just as disgusting as the subject matter!
  Enjoy your "HOUKED ON FAWNICKSâ" award!
16. Re:uhhh by Nimey · 2009-01-12 07:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And the litter. Too many smokers are too lazy (or something) to use a damned ashtray and just flip their butts out into the world.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
17. Re:uhhh by AngelofDeath-02 · 2009-01-12 07:29 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Not only that, but you can stop administering chemotherapy and your body recovers. There is no known way to stop your immune system from attacking your body without leaving you open to all kinds of shit...
  
  --
  No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
18. Re:uhhh by philspear · 2009-01-12 07:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Both treatments kill *all* cells. The idea is to kill the cancer cells *first*, before the treatment kills the patient.
  Not quite. The current generation of drugs do have a tendancy to affect any DIVIDING cells in the body, but not all of them. Big difference, your mature brain cells and your heart muscles should not directly be targeted. The fastest dividing cells in the body will generally be affected the most, that's cancer cell. It also helps that they're less stable than healthy cells and succumb to genomic damage faster. The lining of your gut, your fingernails, hair, and skin are also fast-dividing, they also will be affected, but I believe they divide slower than most cancers, and they are more resillient than cancer cells. There's also a numbers game though, cancer can be beaten back to one cell and still recover, you need most of your stomach lining intact. So you're right in that you should kill the cancer cells before you kill the patient, but it would take an extremely high dose of any chemotherapy to start killing EVERY cell in your body, and you as an organism would be dead at much lower doses.
19. Re:uhhh by b4upoo · 2009-01-12 07:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  One joy of implants is that they can usually be removed if things are not going so well.
  That being said there will always be a few people who have very severe and unusual reactions to anything at all. A strawberry, a speck of fish oil, or a touch of tomato or peanut is enough to kill certain people. Very high tech. products are not different in that respect. Even the very best items will always be lethal to someone, somewhere. That does not imply that those products should not be freely used. Imagine a world in which no fish products or tomatos could ever be produced or sold. Even guns are like that. A few guns will always be misused just as cars are misused and kill people from time to time.
20. Re:uhhh by Belial6 · 2009-01-12 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Those would be SOME of the "cancer isn't the only problem".
21. Re:uhhh by dietdew7 · 2009-01-12 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  ...and the heart disease.
22. Re:uhhh by kalirion · 2009-01-12 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  However the article states that the implants were inserted two weeks before the cancer cells. Would it have worked if the cancer cells had been injected first? Otherwise this is not a cure but a vaccine - pretty useless for someone who already has cancer.
23. Re:uhhh by fbjon · 2009-01-12 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  ..as well as accumulating particulate matter in your lungs, damaging the alveoli eventually decreasing effective lung volume, and puts you at risk for developing a whole smorgasbord of more serious lung problems. Not to mention the problems elsewhere in the body (impotence, miscarriage, heart disease..).
  
  --
  True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
24. Re:uhhh by stimpleton · 2009-01-12 09:18 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  During the 2nd World War, soldiers recieved cigarettes in their ration pack. Smoking was essentially endorsed by the government back then.
  
  My grandfather started smoking from those cigarettes, survived the war, and died of lung cancer some years back.
  
  As for "and annoying the hell out of everyone around you", you are just conditioned to that view now from modern marketing from government and medical institutions who now realise that smoking costs them money.
  
  American physicians *endorsed* cigattes in US servicemen's ration packs till 1975.
  
  I suggest you look beyond the surface of the individual.
  
  --
  
  In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
25. Re:uhhh by PReDiToR · 2009-01-12 09:36 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I've been thinking about that whole "filling lungs up with crap" thing for a while. I came to the conclusion that it is (probably) solvable.
  
  The film The Abyss uses a plot device where the divers use an oxygenated liquid to manage the affects of deep diving. Apparently this is a real world technology. "Researching" this post led me to the article on it.
  Given then, that liquids can be used in the lungs over periods of time, what is to stop this liquid having some kind of detergent introduced to it?
  
  --
  
  Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
26. Re:uhhh by BitZtream · 2009-01-12 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Most of those problems sound like problems for people who are invading your personal space more than anything else.
  If you're outside in the open air and some one smoking bothers you, the issue is with you, not with the smoker. Step back 2 feet. If the pollution bothers you, consider that the time you spend sitting at just about any give stop light in your car produces far more pollution than a smoker does in a week.
  I say this, being smoke free for the last 4 years, and seriously annoyed by smoke at this point. Yet I'm not one of you douchebags who walks through a parking lot, sees a smoker 60 feet away, downwind, and starts coughing, which I'm guessing would be the category you fall into.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
27. Re:uhhh by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 10:01 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Well, there's still the part where the detergent has to be either capable of passing into one's bloodstream with minimal ill effects or unable to enter the bloodstream at all. Then there's the part where you're attempting to dissolve hard carbon deposits (you can see where a carbon-dissolving solution would be problematic for carbon-based lifeforms). Further still, there are the sections of the lungs that have become encased by other cells attempting to separate the foreign objects.
  Because of these (and probably more issues; I'm a layman), it seems that surgical removal of damaged/obstructed tissue with some stem-cell regeneration of healthy lung tissue would be more promising.
28. Re:uhhh by endymion.nz · 2009-01-12 10:10 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Detergent is generally toxic to life. That's why we use it to clean our dishes. Also why it says not to drink it on the bottle.
  
  --
  mediocrity rules, man
29. Re:uhhh by gad_zuki! · 2009-01-12 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree. Id hate to deal with someone who needs a sudden influx of a stimulant like nicotine just to get by. That includes caffeine. The Jr Tweakers at my old job drove me crazy. There's nothing worse than trying to deal with someone who is an emotional speedball, cant sit for a minute, cant relax, and stinks of coffee breath.
  Even if you remove the smelly smoke its still a addiction someone has to manage day in and day out. You can do heroin and your whole life and not have any unhealthy effects as long as you manage to eat right and avoid "the lifestyle". Its still a problem. No one likes to deal with addicts and addicts dont like being addicts.
30. Re:uhhh by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  If they weren't smoking, you wouldn't have to move away. Also, I don't own a car. But would it really be good justification to drive a car that pollutes when "others drive a Hummer!"
31. Re:uhhh by NeoSkandranon · 2009-01-12 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if, since detergents alter surface tension there could be some ill effects on gas diffusion across cell membranes?
  
  --
  If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
32. Re:uhhh by PReDiToR · 2009-01-12 10:24 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  In answer to all three comments (currently); how about some mild acidic compound?
  Coca Cola isn't pleasant when you inhale it, but look at the cleaning properties. Use O2 instead of CO2 and we could be on a winner.
  
  I also had a thought about how to introduce and remove the liquid without such evil choking as depicted by the film.
  A mild anaesthetic could be used in the liquid for a few seconds, invert the patient, then introduce air through the tube. Numbing the trachea should help drainage and removal of the tube.
  
  Bear in mind this isn't even alpha stage planning =)
  
  --
  
  Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
33. Re:uhhh by Arancaytar · 2009-01-12 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  Not to rain on your cigar, but lung cancer is only a tiny part of the ways smoking kills. The tar in your lungs will give you asthma, while the nicotine is toxic, addictive and constricts your arteries, resulting in circulatory disease and eventually heart failure.
34. Re:uhhh by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  "Excuse me, excuse me, would you mind ..."
  *Stubs cigarette out in eye*
  "Owwww, honey, he stubbed his cigarette out in my eye! I'm really wishing we went with the secondary smoke at this point ..."
  Gotta love Bill Hicks ;)
35. Re:uhhh by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  If the disease has a 80% mortality rate but the cure has a 75% mortality rate, I'll still be having the cure, thank you very much.
36. Re:uhhh by Sabriel · 2009-01-12 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yet I'm not one of you douchebags who walks through a parking lot, sees a smoker 60 feet away, downwind, and starts coughing, which I'm guessing would be the category you fall into.
  
  Dunno about the OP, but I usually don't see a smoker 60 feet away until after I've had a lungful of polluted air and looked around to find the addict.
  I do know my heightened chemical sensitivity means I'm the proverbial canary in the coal mine. That doesn't mean nobody should pay attention to the fact the canary's getting sick...
  (and re the cars - I'm so looking forward to electric cars)
37. Re:uhhh by Sabriel · 2009-01-12 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  As for "and annoying the hell out of everyone around you", you are just conditioned to that view now from modern marketing from government and medical institutions who now realise that smoking costs them money.
  As opposed to the old conditioning from the tobacco companies, that smokers were somehow better than other people?
  Fact is, smoking stinks. What's weakened is the conditioning against pointing that out.
38. Re:uhhh by edisrafeht · 2009-01-12 18:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yet I'm not one of you douchebags who walks through a parking lot, sees a smoker 60 feet away, downwind, and starts coughing, which I'm guessing would be the category you fall into.
  Nah. Only 2% of the population fall into that category. People that fall within 1 std. dev. get annoyed within 55.332 feet! Seriously, it's not really the coughing or the smell. A lot of us just don't want to get cancer (happens to 2nd hand smokers, ya know). Some people grew up in homes with smoke and are terrified at their future morbidity. Even if you think death is a non-event (hmmm), at least have some sympathy for your traumatized fellow beings.
39. Re:uhhh by Squeeonline · 2009-01-13 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  Stem cells are not a wonder drug solution to cancer. SC have a bigger hope for curing cancers like lymphomas where replacement bonemarrow needs to be grown and transplanted in the patient.
  
  Then of course you run the risk that the growth of the stem cells will run out of control, thus turning malignant itself. Fireman burning down the house...
  
  "Say... your body just starts literally killing ALL cells... cancer and normal... "
  unlikely AFAIK as the receptors on cells that recognise various signals are VERY VERY specific. Like one amino-acid change in a protein out of thousands and there is chance that the signal will not be recognised.
40. Re:uhhh by Squeeonline · 2009-01-13 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  Nah you could still get hit by a bus tomorrow.
  
  Wish I had the figures to hand but there were studies done by the british government (10 maybe 15 years ago IIRC) that smokers contribute more money to the health service than they take from it as they have a habit of dying from diseases to which there is no cure. Win/win!
41. Re:uhhh by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-13 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  IANARespitoryTherapist, but I would expect the more delicate lung tissues to be less resilient toward abrasive chemicals than tar build up.
  But again, IANART. Maybe the right agent could target the gunk and leave the healthy bits alone. Like leeches and necrotic flesh...
  
  I've got it! Now I've just got to get my hands on some nicotine addicted maggots and a willing test subject.
42. Re:uhhh by BlargIAmDead · 2009-01-13 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  You had me at "invert the patient", "mild anesthetic" and oddly enough "evil choking as depicted by the film" O_o.
43. Re:uhhh by spiralx · 2009-01-13 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'm fairly sure the studies were done by Phillip-Morris in the Czech Republic.
44. Re:uhhh by Squeeonline · 2009-01-13 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Philip-Morris-Czech-Study.htm
  
  Looks similar alright. Im pretty sure I saw it with GBP. Maybe someone worked it out for Britain.
45. Re:uhhh by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-13 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  This really gets my goat. I am a smoker and i ALWAYS use an ashtray, they are everywhere. I have seen other smokers throw their butts on the ground when an ashtray is only a few steps away. There really is no excuse when an ashtray is right there.
46. Re:uhhh by yrrah · 2009-01-13 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Even if dying weren't a problem with cancer anymore, it would still be a big burden on the health care system and this treatment surely wouldn't be cheap for the individual.
47. Re:uhhh by Belial6 · 2009-01-13 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, the smokers KNOW what smoking is. This isn't 1950 anymore. It is the anti-smokers and anti-smoking industry that is the propaganda machine these days. They are just as bad with the lies as the tobacco companies were in the 50s. To see who has been conditioned, just look at my previous post that specifically states
  
  cancer isn't the only problem and possibly not the biggest problem caused by smoking.
  But because it also included the 100% true statement of:
  
  if the negative effects of smoking were removed, then there should be no problem with it.
  A stream of rebuttals started pouring in about how even if there were no negative effects, there would be problems. They proceeded to try and rationalize their conditioning by pointing out negative effects that the premise of the argument already said did not exist. There is no other explanation for this than conditioning by the anti-smoking industry.
48. Re:uhhh by Sabriel · 2009-01-13 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  Of course there is conditioning by the anti-smoking industry. If one is trying to sway the populace via mass advertising to realise that they've been swayed via previous mass advertising, it is hard to avoid! :)
  That external conditioning, however, is not the only explanation. We humans are already conditioned by our natures to react in certain ways. One is to - upon realising a certain "fact" we accepted is wrong - swing right past rational response to the other side. Thus straight from "smokers are heroes" to "smokers are villains" without pause for thought.
  The other is we humans want to be right, regardless of whether it fits the facts or if the facts have changed since. Thus the people who insist smoking will always be evil even if all negatives were removed. We're right, you're wrong, and if you're lucky we won't torture and kill you for the godforsaken heretic you obviously are. :)
49. Re:uhhh by Uzuri · 2009-01-19 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Never a more apt analogy. I'm not 100% sure of the specific treatment, but I know someone who had something similar (erase everything, get marrow transplant, cross your fingers). It really looked like the cancer was finally giving up... then (and only a couple weeks ago) he got a virus and that was it.
  Human firewalls would be quite useful.
  
  --
  I'm a she-slashdotter... but I make up for it by living with my folks.
All well and good... by Wireless+Joe · 2009-01-12 05:44 · Score: 1, Informative

...until we end up with Will Smith running around a post-apocalyptic New York hitting on mannequins.
1. Re:All well and good... by Kranfer · 2009-01-12 05:49 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  I am more on the lines of a post cataclysm where everyone starts having dreams of some walking dude, and a old black woman in nebraska... the people gather to these this evil walking guy who can change into a crow, and the old black woman... ultimately God drops a nuclear weapon on the evil crow changling guy in Las vegas and the good people with the old black woman live happily ever after... or did then? As the crow changling evil guy was seen in the jungles! ::hides::
  
  --
  -- Josh
  "Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
2. Re:All well and good... by 2names · 2009-01-12 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  What is the title of this?
  
  --
  "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
3. Re:All well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  Stephen King's The Stand
4. Re:All well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  Off the top of my head, sounds like The Stand.
5. Re:All well and good... by philspear · 2009-01-12 06:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Psst, they weren't using viruses or anything contagious. Hard to see how small plastic inserts and protein could spread from person to person. Even if it did, it would cause an autoimmune disease, not reprogram you to be a vampire/zombie. And there are worse apocalypse scenarios than Will Smith hitting on mannequins.
6. Re:All well and good... by steelcaress · 2009-01-12 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  The movie with the crow/evil guy was "The Stand." Based on a novel by Steven King. I was not a big fan of his stuff before, but the miniseries frightened me until it devolved into the forces of good v.s. evil. The first 3 parts were eerie, seeing a disease get out of control, and realizing we were the inventors of it.
  The poster makes it sound a lot goofier than it actually is.
7. Re:All well and good... by Cowmonaut · 2009-01-12 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  The Stand.
8. Re:All well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  If you had posted this 16 hours ago, I would have needed to stab you in the face over the internet. Now you have me wondering whether it's really God and not Trashcan Man in the movie/miniseries...
9. Re:All well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  Stephen King's The Stand.
10. Re:All well and good... by BlackSnake112 · 2009-01-12 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Last Stand by Stephen King
11. Re:All well and good... by mpeskett · 2009-01-12 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  That movie was all well and good until the very end... suddenly in the last half hour it was like whoever was writing it said "fuck it, magic happens". Until then it was more or less your standard epidemic/apocalypse film (excepting the slightly supernatural visions some people had) and it was doing it well.
  The religious overtones I was ok with. I could just about handle the none-too-subtle divide into the lawful society-rebuilding good guys led by God (speaking through a magic old black lady) and the anarchistic criminals led by the incarnation of Satan (dressed entirely in denim), but when the hand of God quite literally came down out of the sky to detonate a nuclear bomb, for no apparent reason other than "there's a nuke on set and no-one to press the button," that was a step too far for me.
  Good guys inspired by God... fair enough. Good guys with God himself as air support... little too much deus ex machine there for my taste
12. Re:All well and good... by mpeskett · 2009-01-12 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  side note: I am aware that it's supposed to be "deus ex machina", but that little item of information got lost on it's way from my brain to my fingers
13. Re:All well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  Why was Will Smith hitting on mannequins? It's not as though the mannequins can refuse the sex from Will Smith.
14. Re:All well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  And thus why all real women will refuse sex from you.
Always good by Blinocac · 2009-01-12 05:45 · Score: 1

to see progress on fighting cancer.
If this were the internet... by Bovius · 2009-01-12 05:46 · Score: 1

Response from messenger cell: "not ur personal army"
Whatcouldpossiblygowrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 05:46 · Score: 1, Funny

There they convince other immune cells to start attacking anything that matches the sample they picked up.
"We have bad news. We accidentally gave a sample of your husband's reproductive organs. On the bright side, he won't be needing a vasectomy at any point in the future"
ah, what about immunocomplex? by girlintraining · 2009-01-12 05:47 · Score: 1

I am not a doctor, however -- isn't the main problem with cancer cells being that they have the same protein coating as normal cells that identify them to the immune system as "yours" versus "other"? The only way to kill a cancer cell that way would be with something that actually enters the cell and can then interact with the malignant protein. On the outside, cancer cells "look" the same to the immune system. Or is there a protein that expresses in cancer cells that can be differentiated from non-cancer cells?

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
1. Re:ah, what about immunocomplex? by Zarhan · 2009-01-12 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  There are some differences...in fact, using reoviruses to cure skin cancer has been attempted - it was mentioned earlier on Slashdot.
2. Re:ah, what about immunocomplex? by Zarhan · 2009-01-12 05:55 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Bah, linked wrong article. Meant this one: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/04/1816227&tid=191
3. Re:ah, what about immunocomplex? by cobaltnova · 2009-01-12 05:56 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  My understanding of the immune system is that class I MHC molecules present certain antigens produced inside host cells ("self").
  
  So yes, MHC is exactly this system you conjecture!
4. Re:ah, what about immunocomplex? by SoopahCell · 2009-01-12 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not a Biologist but I've read ~5 years ago most malignant tumor cells emit proteins that "encourage arterial growth" - increase bloodflow. Malignant tumors that don't will most likely starve so it's hard for cancer to get far without emitting that marker.
5. Re:ah, what about immunocomplex? by El+Yanqui · 2009-01-13 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  We already use the immune system to fight many cancers. Bladder cancer is often treated by filling the bladder via a catheter with a solution containing a strain of bovine tuberculosis originally developed as a tuberculosis vaccine.
  
  It works by stimulating the immune system to fight the invader and it works quite well in killing off the cancerous tumours.
  
  --
  Well, thanks to the Internet, I'm now bored with sex.
6. Re:ah, what about immunocomplex? by El+Yanqui · 2009-01-13 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Bugger, forgot the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_Calmette-Gu%C3%A9rin I'm familiar with it in that I've had to use a lot of studies with a product called Immucyst that is essentially just this strain.
  
  --
  Well, thanks to the Internet, I'm now bored with sex.
This... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 05:51 · Score: 0

... may be a problem if our immune system starts attacking the healthy cells instead.
What about long term life expectancy? It isn't everyday that we trigger a revolution inside of us!
But this is indeed an outstanding discovery.
Easily abused as a biological weapon. by plasmacutter · 2009-01-12 05:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

Incorporate this in bullets and you get 100% lethality.
"cellular army bullet" enters body, tip takes sample of nearby healthy cells, programs immune system to attack own body, person dies horrible death to both his own immune system and the pathogens which are now left alone by the distracted immune system.

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
1. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by astrodoom · 2009-01-12 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Don't even need a bullet. If/once this is possible in gas form, this could be the deadliest bioweapon ever.
2. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by N1AK · 2009-01-12 05:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It would already be trivially easy to make bullets that contained a lethal toxin, the reason we don't do it isn't because of inability. Yes, you could misuse this research (just like any other advance) but it certainly wouldn't be the bio-weapon of choice due to sheer inefficiency and slowness of effect.
3. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by xappax · 2009-01-12 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, or you could just put poison on your bullets. If your bioweapon requires a bullet as a delivery system, it's not that devastating.
4. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by plasmacutter · 2009-01-12 06:03 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It would already be trivially easy to make bullets that contained a lethal toxin, the reason we don't do it isn't because of inability. Yes, you could misuse this research (just like any other advance) but it certainly wouldn't be the bio-weapon of choice due to sheer inefficiency and slowness of effect.
  that's the beauty of it. It's a terror weapon.
  it will leave you in agony for days, weeks, or months knowing you will die.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
5. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by Anpheus · 2009-01-12 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Au contraire, as numerous studies and thousands, perhaps millions have discovered, there is little deadlier than discarded munitions, especially after war is already over.
6. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by philspear · 2009-01-12 06:07 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Incorporate this in bullets and you get 100% lethality.
  Well in terms of pure combat standards, an injured soldier is actually worse than a dead one, since the dead one can be carried off later, wheras the injured one needs immediate medical attention.
  Your body releases cytokines every time you get cut, or shot. Your immune system manages to avoid killing you in those cases, usually.
  Why bother with this roundabout way anyhow? If you absolutely want to kill everyone you shoot, it would be much easier and quicker to make a poisoned bullet.
7. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by twbecker · 2009-01-12 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Wow a deadly bullet??? Now that's innovation! Hopefully your tinfoil hat is thick enough to deflect these bad boys. /sigh
  
  --
  "The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
8. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by plasmacutter · 2009-01-12 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Incorporate this in bullets and you get 100% lethality.
  Well in terms of pure combat standards, an injured soldier is actually worse than a dead one, since the dead one can be carried off later, wheras the injured one needs immediate medical attention.
  Your body releases cytokines every time you get cut, or shot. Your immune system manages to avoid killing you in those cases, usually.
  Why bother with this roundabout way anyhow? If you absolutely want to kill everyone you shoot, it would be much easier and quicker to make a poisoned bullet.
  in this scenario you get the best of both worlds.
  Wounded soldier then gets carried off to hospital, where they tell him the bullet has given him an auto-immune disorder and he has X months to live.
  News gets back to the front lines. Morale drops, and the will to fight dwindles.
  Given how the effects would look like an auto-immune disorder, this gives totalitarian elements in "democracies" (do they actually represent ANY of us anymore?) the way to untraceably dispose of political opponents.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
9. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by canajin56 · 2009-01-12 06:18 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  If it was that simple, you just need to aerosol the "disperse" signal, which the summary implies makes your immune cells immediately attack anything that matches what they were near at the time...fortunately for everybody, it's not nearly so simple. If it was, how could the chemical signal in question possibly exist? If your body ever released it, SOME cells would be closer to each other or other important cells! Almost as though the summary was a dumbed down explanation of how it sort of works? Plus if you want a poison bullet just fill it with cyanide? Or nicotine, which is a much more concentrated poison?
  Anyways, how this works is, these cells are exposed to concentrated antigens, specifically targeted and formulated in the lab before injection. Cancer is mostly just like your own body. But cancer cells make their own proteins. The body ignores them sometimes, saying "oh they're coming from me, must be harmless," which is bad. But if you rub your immune systems nose in it and say "Spread the word", as it were, it can be forced into attacking it whatever is making these proteins. I believe there's been limited success with just injecting large amounts of antigen, but your body doesn't always get the hint. What we see here is a combination of getting high concentrations of antigen, with a technique for making sure the body actually sends immune cells to investigate! I'm not sure what happens if you gather up a large concentration of natural bodily proteins, but I think in most cases it won't trigger an autoimmune response. And you certainly have to do that concentration in a lab, not in a bullet ;)
  
  --
  ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
10. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by plasmacutter · 2009-01-12 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  If it was that simple, you just need to aerosol the "disperse" signal, which the summary implies makes your immune cells immediately attack anything that matches what they were near at the time...fortunately for everybody, it's not nearly so simple. If it was, how could the chemical signal in question possibly exist? If your body ever released it, SOME cells would be closer to each other or other important cells! Almost as though the summary was a dumbed down explanation of how it sort of works? Plus if you want a poison bullet just fill it with cyanide? Or nicotine, which is a much more concentrated poison?
  Anyways, how this works is, these cells are exposed to concentrated antigens, specifically targeted and formulated in the lab before injection. Cancer is mostly just like your own body. But cancer cells make their own proteins. The body ignores them sometimes, saying "oh they're coming from me, must be harmless," which is bad. But if you rub your immune systems nose in it and say "Spread the word", as it were, it can be forced into attacking it whatever is making these proteins. I believe there's been limited success with just injecting large amounts of antigen, but your body doesn't always get the hint. What we see here is a combination of getting high concentrations of antigen, with a technique for making sure the body actually sends immune cells to investigate! I'm not sure what happens if you gather up a large concentration of natural bodily proteins, but I think in most cases it won't trigger an autoimmune response. And you certainly have to do that concentration in a lab, not in a bullet ;)
  Interesting, but you can bet your life the pharma companies are going to fight any efforts to certify such a technique tooth and nail. They make too much money off "treatments" to have an actual cure floating around.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
11. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by Sta7ic · 2009-01-12 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  See, applications of Polonium 210 to ex-KGB agents.
12. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by Drakkenmensch · 2009-01-12 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Far easier to just use a solid metal bullet. The technology's proven itself reliable over the years. Also, while your body may resist this high-tech poisoning attempt, no immune system has ever been shown to have the ability to ignore your arteries being torn to shreds.
13. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  Screw bullets. Imagine if they could figure out a way so that if you inhale it....
14. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by Ogive17 · 2009-01-12 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Then you create an army of suicide bombers. If they were already willing to fight (and kill).. knowing the enemy sentenced you to a slow and agonizing death.. I think the easy choice for most would be going down in a blaze of glory.
  
  --
  "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
15. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by philspear · 2009-01-12 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Given how the effects would look like an auto-immune disorder, this gives totalitarian elements in "democracies" (do they actually represent ANY of us anymore?) the way to untraceably dispose of political opponents.
  Crazy conspiracy theories based on undeveloped technology aside, soldiers on battlefields are not political opponents (at least not for several years). As far as applications to real intrigues, remember almost anything will give you cancer, some substances are far more potent at that than smoking. If you really wanted to take out a political opponent and wanted to make it look natural, there are far more effective and easy ways to do it. In fact, I'd bet good money that there are more effective ways to make it look like an autoimmune disease if for some reason it absolutely had to be that.
  I'll wait for the results to say 100% that this would have no evil applications like what you're saying, but I will say I'm 99% sure that there are easier ways to accomplish those goals using other technology.
16. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  its a bullet just shoot em in the head. 100% lethality.
17. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by evanbd · 2009-01-12 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  So would a tiny blob of dimethyl mercury. For all that successful delivery would be a pain, it would be easier than this thing.
18. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by SwordsmanLuke · 2009-01-12 07:44 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You don't need a virus for this. Old musketshot used to do that too. The bullet would enter and instead of fragmenting (which modern bullets do because it kills faster by puncturing more organs and thus releasing more blood) they would flatten into a spinning disk upon entry. This disk would then have the same effect on your organs as a spinning fork in spaghetti. This tightly wound bundle of your vital organs would be torn and shredded but there was (relatively) little bleeding. Instead you'd linger a few days in agony, while your body slowly failed around you.
  
  --
  Any plan which depends on a fundamental change in human behavior is doomed from the start.
19. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by jmobley · 2009-01-12 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Or you could, you know, kill them with regular bullets. I know that doesn't sound as cool as biological magic bullets, but they've proven pretty effective in the past.
20. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by SwordsmanLuke · 2009-01-12 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  I was originally going to post some smart remark about there being easier ways to achieve a weapon with 100% lethality, but then I realized that there's an interesting puzzle there. How do you actually achieve 100% lethality with anything? There are survivors of every disaster, weapon, or other killing event (purposeful or not) in history. People have survived being shot in the head, suffocated, infected with terrible diseases, etc... Evolution has made it remarkably difficult to achieve an actual 100% kill ratio.
  
  Maybe you should just be happy with five nines.
  
  --
  Any plan which depends on a fundamental change in human behavior is doomed from the start.
21. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by mechanyx · 2009-01-12 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  it will leave you in agony for days, weeks, or months knowing you will die.
  So, it's just like real life then.
22. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by Arivia · 2009-01-12 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  [tinfoil hat] oh so that's why we have aids [/tinfoil hat]
  
  --
  The role of the writer is not to say what we can all say, but what we are unable to say. -Anais Nin
23. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by theralfinator · 2009-01-12 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah but if you have to wait until the war's over before your weapon has an effect, you're gonna find yourself probably losing the war.
24. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by orielbean · 2009-01-12 09:13 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Bullets! My only weakness! How...did...you...know??!!
25. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by orielbean · 2009-01-12 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe a bigger bullet? Or maybe an explosive bullet? Or..?
26. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by Agripa · 2009-01-12 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Why bother with this roundabout way anyhow? If you absolutely want to kill everyone you shoot, it would be much easier and quicker to make a poisoned bullet.
  This technique has been used for assassination.
27. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by SatanicPuppy · 2009-01-12 11:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Doesn't usually work that way.
  The line response is usually a level of insane fury toward the other side which results in massive cases of prisoner abuse, and the strategic response is to develop terror weapons of their own.
  Atrocities tend not to break the will of the people they're perpetrated against, terrorist ideology to the contrary.
  
  --
  ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
28. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by azenpunk · 2009-01-12 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  the heat of combustion from firing the round would likely vaporise some of the toxin to be inhaled by the shooter. fire enough rounds and you're poisoning your own people.
29. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by plasmacutter · 2009-01-12 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  How the hell do you get +3 informative for just making shit up?
  Actually i've seen it tested on ballistics gel.
  While the analogy is a little off the effect is pretty much the same.
  Musket shot has a low muzzle velocity, which causes greater trasnfer of energy into the target.
  It results in considerably greater organ trauma, and the wounds often had a tendency to be septic (as opposed to modern rounds which travel fast enough to sterilize themselves).
  Assuming there's an exit wound, it will be incredibly broad. I would liken it to giving modern rounds an explosive payload.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
30. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 19:08 · Score: 0
  
  "that's the beauty of it. It's a terror weapon."
  I've seen a few of your posts, and it's clear that you are not a well person. I'm not joking. You might think your suffering is unique, but I assure you it is not. I spent some time in prison myself, yet I did not come out thinking as you seem to think, as evidenced by the things you tend to say in some of your posts.
  Your life doesn't have to continue to be filled with rage. Get some help, "plasmacutter".
31. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by El+Yanqui · 2009-01-13 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  This is such an oft-repeated and never thought about statement that it just pisses me off. I have worked for a pharmaceutical company and if you think they're trying to string people along with treatments rather than cure a disease you're a bloody fool.
  
  Of course given your proclivity to create a conspiracy theory based on anything whether it exists or not makes me doubt anything would change your mind.
  
  --
  Well, thanks to the Internet, I'm now bored with sex.
32. Re:Easily abused as a biological weapon. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-13 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  Why bother with this roundabout way anyhow? If you absolutely want to kill everyone you shoot, it would be much easier and quicker to make a poisoned bullet.
  Or to shoot twice...
Unleashing the beast by Chris+Burke · 2009-01-12 05:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

The human immune system is a pretty potent beast to unleash. Getting it to attack cancer cells is genius. I would be worried about side effects, specifically the immune system getting confused or over-stimulated and attacking other things, but that's just speculation and surely for highly aggressive cancers like the ones they tested in the mice the risk would be more than worth it. We already use 'cures as bad as the disease' to treat cancer.
On the same note, though, I was encouraged by the teaser at the end where they suggest using similar techniques to 'reprogram' the immune system to correct auto-immune disorders. Learning how to put the immune system back in its cage could be just as useful as being able to send it after a target.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
1. Re:Unleashing the beast by truthsearch · 2009-01-12 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  As someone with severe allergies I enthusiastically agree! Presumably, if they can give instructions to attack then they can give instructions to stand down.
  
  --
  Developers: We can use your help.
2. Re:Unleashing the beast by Anpheus · 2009-01-12 06:09 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I Am Not A Doctor, but I believe once your immune system is trained to attack a particular type of something, it will always attack it whenever it discovers its presence. The immune system has no central dictionary of things it will or will not attack, but rather, is like a peer to peer system every component of the immune system shares some of the information of the entire body's list of "bad things."
3. Re:Unleashing the beast by philspear · 2009-01-12 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  The human immune system is a pretty potent beast to unleash. Getting it to attack cancer cells is genius. I would be worried about side effects, specifically the immune system getting confused or over-stimulated and attacking other things, but that's just speculation and surely for highly aggressive cancers like the ones they tested in the mice the risk would be more than worth it. We already use 'cures as bad as the disease' to treat cancer.
  Lets wait for the clinical trials first. If you develop minor allergies, that's a tradeoff I'm willing to make in order to get rid of a life-threatening inoperable tumor.
  The bigger issue will probably be that this will kill most of the cells of the tumor, but there will be a resistant fraction of cancer cells left that will repopulate, which you could feasibly seed again I guess...
4. Re:Unleashing the beast by truthsearch · 2009-01-12 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  I would agree, except for the fact that allergies can disappear (or greatly reduce) on their own. Just like we can get a new allergy at any point in life, they can also disappear at any point. So there must be some way to defuse the overreacting immune system.
  
  --
  Developers: We can use your help.
5. Re:Unleashing the beast by AngelofDeath-02 · 2009-01-12 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  As a sniffling, sneazing, waking up with a faucet on my face and puffy eyes comrade - I hope so too.
  
  --
  No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
6. Re:Unleashing the beast by Anpheus · 2009-01-12 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, when the allergen is no longer present, your body stops responding to it.
7. Re:Unleashing the beast by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-13 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  I agree completely. I've long entertained a fantasy of nano-technology supplanting the immune system. That's pretty far-fetched, though, so this would be an awesome capability to have. I wonder how difficult it will be to "program." Will each patient be one off? Or could we have generalized "programs" for certain conditions? Isn't rheumatoid arthritis an auto-immune disorder? Lupus? Perhaps these can all be treated with the same, easy switch.
yeah but once they have a taste for blood by commodoresloat · 2009-01-12 05:54 · Score: 3, Funny

If watching three seasons of Dexter has taught me anything, it's that once someone gets a taste for killing, they have a need to kill again. What happens with this army after it kills the cancer? Who does it kill next? You're going to have a mercenary army running loose in your system desperate for another kill....
1. Re:yeah but once they have a taste for blood by Anpheus · 2009-01-12 06:11 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  If watching three seasons of House has taught me anything, it's that once someone gets a taste for lying, they have a need to lie again. What happens with this army after it lies about curing cancer? Who does it lie to next? You're going to have a mercenary army running loose in your system desperate for another fabrication....
2. Re:yeah but once they have a taste for blood by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  We inject another army to combat them.
  Say... miniature sharks with lasers.
3. Re:yeah but once they have a taste for blood by Al+Al+Cool+J · 2009-01-12 06:39 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Watching three seasons of House should have taught you that if doctors think it is cancer, then it's not cancer, unless it turns out to actually be cancer. Also, the first five treatments they try will probably make things worse, and ultimately the patient will only be cured because of some random remark.
4. Re:yeah but once they have a taste for blood by felipekk · 2009-01-12 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Time to give up condoms!
5. Re:yeah but once they have a taste for blood by Anonymatt · 2009-01-12 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  I have an indigenous agrarian tribe living in my pancreas. Recently they've taken to raiding my liver...
6. Re:yeah but once they have a taste for blood by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  It's never Lupus, though.
7. Re:yeah but once they have a taste for blood by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  Also, it's not lupus. It's never lupus. Unless it is lupus.
8. Re:yeah but once they have a taste for blood by SwordsmanLuke · 2009-01-12 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  I always wondered why they didn't just throw out diagnoses until they notice there's only five minutes left in the episode and then go with the first thing that comes to mind.
  
  --
  Any plan which depends on a fundamental change in human behavior is doomed from the start.
9. Re:yeah but once they have a taste for blood by sorak · 2009-01-12 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  If watching three seasons of "Knight Rider" has taught me anything, it's that the Cancer cells will all have goatees, look like David Hasslehoff, and your immune system will emerge from this with a tricked out new trans-am.
10. Re:yeah but once they have a taste for blood by BitZtream · 2009-01-12 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Whats scary is the frequency in which House is a somewhat accurate representation of real life.
  No, some asshole genius doesn't step in and figure it out in the end based on some comment made by a random staff member, but rather based on some seemingly random fact brought up by the patient or family member that finally sets the case apart from all the others.
  The reality when dealing with the human body (or any other life form in general) is we really don't know how it works and our idea of medical diagnostics is a joke on the best day. If you pick a random 10 medical problems that you would see on a show like House, most of them will have the exact same symptoms. And those symptoms are useless for making a determination as they are consistent with the bodies reaction to any health problem as its doing what it can to try and effect a cure. Until we have better diagnostics, and we stop having doctors that are so specialized that EVERY sickness you have MUST be what they work on because they are unaware of everything else that goes wrong, its going to continue just like it is, more people dying than need to.
  Once we remove doctors from the diagnostic process we'll start getting results that you'll be willing to bet your life on. The body is simply too complex of a system for our current testing and knowledge base to deal with, especially since most of the information doctors use is not hard facts, but rather its based on their perceptions and using tests as indicators.
  I mean no disrespect to doctors, they have the job of trying to debug something FAR more complex than an OS the size of windows. The difference is, they get no checked builds, they get no debug symbols, their debugger is not nearly as powerful as anything developer were using 20 years ago, their profiler is highly inaccurate as it relies on human interpretation most of the time, they have no source code to inspect, only compiled binaries, no one to call for support from the vendor (at least, he/she doesn't answer his/her calls in a timely manner, although the method of communication may be an issue there), and the core dump they get after the body has finally crashed will be missing the contents of the RAM itself. All in all, they have a really crappy sysadmin job, they just need a good utility writen for them that can turn their observations of a patients symptoms into something that can be ran against a database of known issues to help resolve it, without ruling out potential issues because you input one of the symptoms wrong.
  *Sigh* Can someone please finish the StarTrek medical bed/scanner so we can move on. You know its coming, StarTrek is where scientists get all their great ideas for things to actually build. I used to joke about this, then I read about the Alcubierre drive, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
  Now I'm convienced StarTrek was a gift from a higher being guiding use on the path to enlightment. Which apparently includes going to conventions and not getting laid much.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
11. Re:yeah but once they have a taste for blood by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  And then finally, for once, it *is* lupus.
12. Re:yeah but once they have a taste for blood by Sentry21 · 2009-01-12 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  I for one welcome our homicidal cellular underlings.
13. Re:yeah but once they have a taste for blood by VShael · 2009-01-12 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  "Watching three seasons of House should have taught you that if doctors think it is cancer, then it's not cancer, unless it turns out to actually be cancer."
  And then it will be some kind of crazy cancer, like breast cancer in your knee.
AYBABTU by Dgawld · 2009-01-12 05:57 · Score: 1

all your lymph node are belong to us! WHAT YOU SAY!
1. Re:AYBABTU by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  too soon
Unfortunately... by philspear · 2009-01-12 06:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

However after RTA I did see that all of the control group died and the mice with the implant 90% were cured.
I hate to say it, but that's over-interpreting. This appears to have warded off imminent death in the mice, which is a result that is very encouraging. Unfortunately, it likely did not -cure- the mice. When we see data indicating these mice have a 5-year survival which is greater than the control (uh... or whatever the equivalent is since even healthy mice maybe don't live 5 years) then I too will be celebrating.
The immune system would sort of be vaccinated against markers on the cancer cells, but there's no guarantee that every cancer cell will have the marker and will keep it. You can imagine that if 99% of the cells in a tumor do have it, the tumor may be killed by the primed cells, but that 1% that doesn't will repopulate a while later.
Of course, this may have a feedback effect. I'm no immunologist, but I would hazard a guess that if a tumor were being attacked in this manner, the increased activity in the area may start targeting that 1% too. Maybe. That could also be a downside, as you can imagine if the immune system is primed but learns the wrong marker, you suddenly have an autoimmune disease on top of the cancer. Once again, I'm not an immunologist, so I don't know whether that's pure crap or not.
So it's another good finding, and of course a way to fight tumors is a miracle to a patient even if it's not a complete cure. It might be a total cure, but let's not set ourselves up for dissapointment.
1. Re:Unfortunately... by Metasquares · 2009-01-12 06:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You can imagine that if 99% of the cells in a tumor do have it, the tumor may be killed by the primed cells, but that 1% that doesn't will repopulate a while later.
  This is why we haven't cured the disease yet. The tumor evolves and all that our treatments do, if they are unable to kill off the entire tumor, is select for cells that are resistant. I'm not an oncologist, although I am involved in medical research, but it seems to me that a more effective strategy would be to select for cells that are specifically weak to conventional treatment prior to administering it. Just as in machine classification*, a combination of individually effective treatments that work in different ways should tend to perform best, especially if resistance to one implies weakness to another.
  *Because cancer treatment is really just one big classification problem: you want to kill all of the cancer cells and none of the normal ones. Get the sensitivity to 100% (all cancer cells killed) with a high enough specificity (most normal cells left alone) and you win.
2. Re:Unfortunately... by TubeSteak · 2009-01-12 06:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I hate to say it, but that's over-interpreting. This appears to have warded off imminent death in the mice, which is a result that is very encouraging. Unfortunately, it likely did not -cure- the mice.
  "did not -cure- the mice" is an understatement.
  FTFA: In tests, the researchers implanted cylinders with a diameter of 8.5 millimetres into mice and two weeks later injected the animals with highly aggressive melanoma cells.
  All of this is academic until they can inject the mice with cancer then stick an implant in them and get a 90% cure rate.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
3. Re:Unfortunately... by geminidomino · 2009-01-12 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  That could also be a downside, as you can imagine if the immune system is primed but learns the wrong marker, you suddenly have an autoimmune disease on top of the cancer.\
  It's not lupus.
4. Re:Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds like a job for support vector macrophages.
5. Re:Unfortunately... by ianbean · 2009-01-12 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  When we see data indicating these mice have a 5-year survival which is greater than the control (uh... or whatever the equivalent is since even healthy mice maybe don't live 5 years) then I too will be celebrating.
  Since the maximum lifespan of a lab mouse is about three years, and the record is 5, you're maybe asking a bit much.
6. Re:Unfortunately... by AngelofDeath-02 · 2009-01-12 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  I am a bit worried about how close cancer cells are to regular cells ... Could this cause complications where the immune system goes after the rest of the body?
  
  --
  No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
7. Re:Unfortunately... by philspear · 2009-01-12 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, I really read that backwards the first time! That is a bit of a puzzle... Still an encouraging preliminary study.
8. Re:Unfortunately... by malchus6 · 2009-01-12 07:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "You can imagine that if 99% of the cells in a tumor do have it, the tumor may be killed by the primed cells, but that 1% that doesn't will repopulate a while later".
  It seems this new treatment, if able to eliminate 99% of said tumor would work well in combination with current treatments like chemo and radiation where you could then use much lower doses to kill the remaining % with less harm to the patient.
  
  --
  You can fool some of the people all of the time ... and those are the ones you should concentrate on.
9. Re:Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  Why? If you could be vaccinated against cancer by having an implant that small, that would be a good thing. I've got no problem with a vaccination scheme, hell we already have one to stop girls getting a disease that leads to cancer.
10. Re:Unfortunately... by oneTheory · 2009-01-12 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  All of this is academic until it works in people that already have cancer that formed over a range of timelines and circumstances, (like it does in the real world). Research methods are so narrow and removed real world cases that it's no wonder there has been little progress in cancer treatment despite the billion$ spent every year.
11. Re:Unfortunately... by VShael · 2009-01-12 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  Autoimmune disease?
  Like Lupus?
  No, it's never Lupus.
12. Re:Unfortunately... by Twanfox · 2009-01-13 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  I once read an article (the referenced article below is not it) about the theory that cancer is a stem cell gone awry. The reason, it seems to me, that cancer is so resistant to treatment is that stem cells are so resistant to being killed, and they'd have to be. Stem cells are responsible for the renewal of your tissues and possibly the growth of new tissue (ie: muscle mass) when needed. They have to live your entire life while still being able to divide in a controlled fashion. The referenced article touches on the experiment of injecting cancer cells that don't contain (suspected) stem cells into mice and how no tumors resulted, yet the cancerous stem cells did.
  It seems to me that it's more like our current cancer treatments are like our cough medication. They do a lot with the symptoms and side effects, but do very little to address the root cause of the ailment.
  Ref: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12202589
13. Re:Unfortunately... by epifreak · 2009-01-17 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  The tumor evolves and all that our treatments do, if they are unable to kill off the entire tumor, is select for cells that are resistant. I'm not an oncologist, although I am involved in medical research, but it seems to me that a more effective strategy would be to select for cells that are specifically weak to conventional treatment prior to administering it.
  You are touching on a cancer stem cell theory. There are many labs that work on that and a number of papers demonstrated experiments supporting the theory, at least for a couple of cancer types. And as you said, the best treatment (and possibly cure) for cancer is considered to be a combination therapy: an agent that kills off cancer stem cells (does not exist yet) + chemo/radiation therapy to kill bulk of the cancer cells (variety available and work fine, albeit with considerable side effects). The problem with getting an agent to kill off those CSC is that there is limited info about the molecular and surface markers, genetic makeup, epigenetic regulation of those cells. Once we (as in researchers involved in medical oncology) have pinpointed those, hopefully an effective agent can be designed.
Just thinking out loud... by NtroP · 2009-01-12 06:02 · Score: 1

I'm sure I'm about to show my ignorance here (and the fact that I did not RTFA) but couldn't this approach work against anything the body needs to fight? I'm thinking HIV/AIDS, hospital drug-resistant bacteria, Ebola, etc.? Although, in the case of AIDS, I guess the immune system itself is already ineffective. I can see this as a much better alternative to the current method of introducing toxins into the body in the hopes that it kills the disease before the host.

--
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
1. Re:Just thinking out loud... by DanTheStone · 2009-01-12 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  You sort of answered your own question on HIV there. It sounds like, if the approach works, then the only people who will have cancer will be the people who have HIV or otherwise-weakened immune systems (like everyone they recommend for flu shots). This approach is about directing the immune system to attack specific cells that it wouldn't have otherwise. I think it would have limited use against things that are already identified as threats.
A long way from human use by olddotter · 2009-01-12 06:02 · Score: 1

Obviously a long way from use in humans. But I am impressed with the out of the box thinking in this approach. It seems dramatic changes in health care are coming in then next decade.
http://pbrewer.blogspot.com/2008/12/dec-18th-lunch.html

--
Think Deeply. ...
Don't get your hopes up... by TheLink · 2009-01-12 06:04 · Score: 1

Not saying this treatment won't work, just saying don't get your hopes up.

Mice don't usually live longer than 2 or 3 years, whereas humans do. The human body might already be doing stuff like that or even superior stuff.

So there's a high chance that what works for mice for age related problems won't work for humans.

Analogy: Researcher says, "hey I've just found that steel and concrete allows us to make bigger and taller mud huts", and then saying "We should use steel and concrete to make skyscrapers bigger and taller". When what we might need is something better than the usual steel and concrete.
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
"Molecular perfume"? by exploder · 2009-01-12 06:06 · Score: 2, Funny

As opposed to the nonmolecular kind?

--
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
1. Re:"Molecular perfume"? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 06:51 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  They don't want to confuse it with elemental perfume.
2. Re:"Molecular perfume"? by yeaummwhat · 2009-01-12 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  I've always preferred the aromatics to the nonaromatics myself.
3. Re:"Molecular perfume"? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  What did you think an "atomizer" was?
4. Re:"Molecular perfume"? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-13 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  I see you've never heard of Graviton , by Calvin Klein. It's theoretically irresistible.
Even better! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 06:06 · Score: 0

No wait, I have something even better! Make bullets with a BOMB attached! Then you kill not only your target, but everyone around them as well! You wouldn't even have to aim! I think I'll name this invention after my favorite type of video game, the RPG.
The right approach by Tacubaruba · 2009-01-12 06:09 · Score: 3, Informative

When my father had lung cancer, I did a lot of research on cancer treatments and came to believe that the best possible treatment for cancer was to get the body's immune system to attack it. Especially for cancer that has spread, you need a systemic treatment that targets the cancer cells while not damaging the healthy ones and nothing will ever be as effective at doing that as the body's own immune system. This treatment is very encouraging and is on the right track. There are also several cancer vaccines under development that train the immune system to fight cancer before it takes hold. In the future, you may be able to get vaccinated against the kind of cancers that you are genetically vulnerable to.
1. Re:The right approach by mpeskett · 2009-01-12 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Your immune system already does suppress cancers to some extent, killing off damaged cells before they turn cancerous, or before a tumour grows too large. I heard of a case a while back where someone had a kidney transplant, and because of the anti-rejection drugs suppressing their immune system a previously dormant cancer started to grow. When it was discovered they had to come off the suppressant drugs, which sent the cancer into remission but meant they lost the kidney.
  When a person "gets cancer" it's more the case that the normal cancer-prevention mechanisms have failed to stop it for some reason. Which is encouraging - the mechanisms already being in place should mean this kind of treatment is easier than it would otherwise be, so long as we can find a reliable way to call cancer cells to the attention of the immune system and not other cells.
Looks a lot like a vaccine! by Moryath · 2009-01-12 06:14 · Score: 1

Vaccines work much the same way, I'm surprised it took until now to come up with this.
Of course, one has to wonder what the reprogrammed cells go after once the cancer's been eaten, since "cancer" is defined as the abnormal growth rate of otherwise-normal (at least for the location they were supposed to be in) cells. I could see an immune reconstitution-style problem popping up. Point a bunch of 'redirected' immune cells at lung cancer, for example, and there's a possibility they will "finish" the cancerous cells and decide the healthy lung tissue is "close enough" for a snack afterwards.
Thy apply the cure before the illness happens? by javilon · 2009-01-12 06:16 · Score: 1

"In tests, the researchers implanted cylinders with a diameter of 8.5 millimetres into mice and two weeks later injected the animals with highly aggressive melanoma cells."
This sounds ok for research, but in real life you would detect the cancer first and then implant the capsule.
The logical way to carry that experiment would be to implant the cancerous cells first and then, after some time, implant the capsule. I guess they would have done it first that way and if it is not on the report, that means that it didn't work as expected. That also means that this is just (very good) research, but they will need a lot more to come up with a working therapy.

--

When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
1. Re:Thy apply the cure before the illness happens? by Urza9814 · 2009-01-12 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  So it's a vaccine rather than a cure? Meh, still pretty good. Won't help those who already have it, but people with high risk could be given it in advance.
2. Re:Thy apply the cure before the illness happens? by quickOnTheUptake · 2009-01-12 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  I think the reason for this is that the capsule attracts the immune cells first, and only later releases the chemical that signals a threat, see the abstract of the real article: http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nmat2357.html So by injecting the capsule early (and by using a very aggressive form of cancer) they are able to have a more dramatic result since the immune system cells are already present at the location in large numbers.
  
  --
  Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
  Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
Re:cure for cancer!! by CarpetShark · 2009-01-12 06:21 · Score: 2, Funny

I know, right? The Visitors would have given us their cancer cure ages ago, if it wasn't for that stupid Donovan guy.
I AM LEGEND by jjohn · 2009-01-12 06:24 · Score: 2, Funny

Did anyone else think of the latest movie version of /I AM LEGEND/ when reading about this miracle cure for cancer?
I'll begin hording food and guns now.
1. Re:I AM LEGEND by Koppology · 2009-01-12 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  The funny thing is, just when "I Am Legend" was released, a news release came out from Yale saying that they were going to cure brain cancer using a virus.
  The best part? The virus is "distantly related to rabies."
melanoma by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 06:28 · Score: 0

Reading TFA, it seems that they're dealing with a melanoma.
IANAMD (I Am Not A Medical Doctor), but since my wife was recently diagnosed with a malignant melanoma, I've learned a few things about cancer.
Melanoma is one of the few cancers that the immune system responds to. Immunotherapy is part of standard treatment for melanoma, but not for most other cancers. There is a good chance that this research will lead to helpful treatments of a few types of cancer, but very little chance it will help with most.
Missed opportunity by JoJo's883 · 2009-01-12 06:42 · Score: 1

How the heck did this get to 60 something post without the obligatory tie in to a similar product to attract super models to the geeks posting on /.??? Geez .. is there a subliminal message imbedded in the posts trying to get all our minds of the geek and girls dilema?
Re:Thank fuck I had a sex change! by The+FNP · 2009-01-12 06:43 · Score: 1

Always remember, even if you have to bribe the MegaCops, you always want to be taken to the Hoosegow, never the Clink.
--The FNP
with apologies to N.S.
Mod Parent up -- Thanks for the link by ObiWonKanblomi · 2009-01-12 06:53 · Score: 1

tnx
Re:Thank fuck I had a sex change! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 07:12 · Score: 0

Mmm Tranny. Can I have the buttseks with you. I am pretty good and I know how to fuck a she he. We could play prison and I can be the guard. I am 14 I hope thats okay
Anti-rejection implant. by mindwanderer · 2009-01-12 07:32 · Score: 1

Fascinating. Could this technique be used with a 'good signal' to stop the body rejecting donor tissue?

--
:wq
1. Re:Anti-rejection implant. by mick1983 · 2009-01-12 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  I think it could be possible. In the paper they described an implant that instructed dendritic cells to instruct T cells that recognize this type of tumor to become active and attack it. If I needed a heart transplant, it might be possible to make an implant that instructs T cells that recognize would recognize the foreign heart cells and attack them, to instead commit cellular suicide. That's pretty much the same way the body prevents the immune system from attacking it's own tissues anyway, except the process normally occurs in the thymus rather than a medical implant. The largest problem I can think of is that you would kill off a significant fraction of T cells would normally recognize the transplanted tissue. Even then though, it would probably work better than immunosuppressants.
To Clarify how Biologic cancer drugs work by ViennaSt · 2009-01-12 07:54 · Score: 5, Informative

I'm in the Cancer Biotech industry. For all laymens out there who don't get how this mechanism works, allow me to explain with the played out "lock and key" analogy that is taught in every biology class ever. Remember, I'm compromising some scientific accuracy to explain the concept. Everyone knows that it must be done so people can understand, even those writing for scientific journals. So for all the science geeks, please don't troll this looking to correct every nuance.
Background info....Think of these antigens the article is referring to as extremely unique binding sites ("locks"). A cell can have a variety of locks on the cell surface. Some exist to bind to only one other molecule or binding site of another specific cell. So for anything to bind this lock, it must work like an incredibly precise lock and key mechanism. Our immune's adaptive systems (that is, T cells) go around with their "set of keys"** to every cell they come across and see if they fit into the "cell's lock" (remember, that's the antigen). These T cells have keys to fit the "locks" of bacteria, viruses, tumors, or any foreign, non-human cells that's there. That is why when you come across the same flu virus you were immunized against, the T cells, already having the right "key" made, can bind to the cell and cause cell death. But if it's a new flu virus, with the lock even slightly modified by a few DNA mutations, the T-cell's keys must be made to fit once again (this takes ~2 weeks and requires B cells, antibody production, etc).
Now to get to the tumor part....Tumors with tumor-specific antigens (TSAs) will fit the keys of T-cells once the keys are made. I recall someone asking "what if the immune cells kill healthy tissue?" There are "locks" called TAAs (tumor associated antigens) that are present on normal and tumor cells...they will all be destroyed. (Thankfully you can regenerate most of your healthy tissue--the rationale behind using toxic chemotherapeutics that target healthy and cancer tissue).
Now to actually explain the article's research....So effectively what this research is trying to accomplish IS THIS: release a barrel of locks around the tumor that will ONLY bind to the tumor. ALLOW your T-cells and other immune cells to use their "keys" to BIND the huge number of locks and activate cell death of the tumor cells. Currently, most research of biologic cancer drug development is focused on producing the right "key" for the naturally occurring "locks" that are present on cancer cells. Let me say that this research is a great approach--why not make and put the locks there?
Side note and extra info for fun....It's easy to think that one method of research is going to replace another. But the new trend is hitting cancer cells with EVERYTHING at once. That is, chemotherapy + biologic + barrel of "locks" + whatever else is out there. In addition, another trend that may occur is treating cancer like a CHRONIC illness, like diabetes. You've all seen how at best we can only kill 90-99% of tumor cells (at least, our imaging technology can only pick up small malignancy, not individual tumor cells)....so imagine getting cancer treatment intermittently every 2-5 years, but never experiencing symptoms of cancer (ie sickness, death)...I just thought I'd share that extra stuff. Now that I'm done with my essay I guess I should get back to my cancer research. Thanks for reading all the way through, and please comment.
**For the science geek: Yes Yes, I know the role antibodies play as the "set of keys" T-cells use...I think it would compromise the easy of explanation if I got into all that

--
"Engineering. Where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream." -Sheldon
1. Re:To Clarify how Biologic cancer drugs work by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  Great! I never knock a cure. Thanks for the explanation. I have epilepsy since 1966, and If there was a cure in 1966 I would have been a happy camper for a while. Instead I am a consumer of poisons (drugs) to control (without ever curing) my epilepsy. In my experience, drug companies: 1. Never make anything to boost the immune system. 2. Never want cures - it's bad for business!
2. Re:To Clarify how Biologic cancer drugs work by ViennaSt · 2009-01-12 11:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I can see why you are cynical about pharmaceutical companies, with respect to the epilepsy you have had to deal with. Epilepsy is one of the most distressful neurological diseases there is. The drugs available are horrid and brain surgery to sever the corpus callosum for a chance to relieve seizures is so drastic. And it doesn't help that the major neurological drug companies are spending money to treat mostly psychological problems, rather than truly high risk brain diseases.
  But let me defend the evil pharmaceutical companies that people like me work for. I have worked for both the public (academia) and the private sectors so I have some experience to compare. When investors put money into a company it drives research. It is something about valuing time more than money that allows these companies to attract talented researchers, the most cutting edge equipment and supplies to facilitate fast pace research. And what we are working towards, I assure you, is a cure. It is not for discovery of an obscure biological feature or to say oh neat, how interesting, and move along to the next thing. It is to make a product that has value and can be sold... quickly. That product must either cure the disease or work better than the competitors as a treatment for the disease. We cherry pick as much useful information as we can from the widely published public sector and use that as the backbone to rationalize our research, but it is the private sector that ultimately provides us with the drugs we need.
  I hope that as advances in neuroscience come along, epilepsy will be a thing of the past. I am hopeful because great strides in brain imaging have and are continuing to take place and scientists are beginning to get past the tip of understanding the brain iceberg and how it works, how it can go wrong, and how we can treat problems.
  
  --
  "Engineering. Where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream." -Sheldon
Star Trek - Episode by JBHarris · 2009-01-12 07:55 · Score: 1

This reminds me of the star trek episode where these genetically enhanced children had an immune system that could not only fight off infection within themselves, but also seek out and destroy any infectious agents in the vicinity. Of course these super-immune systems went haywire. It started attacking regular people causing them to age at an advanced rate.
Not just cancer... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 08:34 · Score: 0

> WooHoo! I DON'T need to quit smoking!
Y'know, my Grandpa didn't die from cancer, but he did die from smoking. They had to put him on Prednizone (a steroid) so that he'd have enough strength to breathe. Unfortunately, that steroid also makes your bones brittle. He broke his back picking up a gallon of milk. Eventually, he got so feeble that he yelled at Grandma for having called an ambulance to save him (he wanted to die).
So, feel free to continue smoking. But don't pretend that cancer is the only worry. There are a lot of horrible ways to die, but after seeing what happened to him, I don't even want to touch a tobacco product.
I, for one by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2009-01-12 08:41 · Score: 2, Funny

welcome our new cellular overlords.

--
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
May also work as a "cure" by mick1983 · 2009-01-12 09:54 · Score: 2, Informative

There's a good reason they have to implant the device before injecting the cancer cells. The immune response isn't instantaneous, it takes some time, 2 weeks or so, for the immune system to reach it's full response. But this particular cancer kills untreated mice in about 20 days, which doesn't really leave the immune system much time to really do it's job. Fortunately, most types of cancer aren't lethal in 20 days, and for a more "normal" cancer that could take months or years to be fatal, the immune system would have more than enough time to fully respond. But, it's not really practical to use a slowly growing tumor for this kind of basic research. If you use a tumor that would kill the mouse in 6 months, it would just take too long.
Isn't this kind of old hat? by ZombieRoboNinja · 2009-01-12 10:24 · Score: 1

Once you get past the misleading science-journalist talk of "scents" and so on, this sounds an awful lot like the "antibody-based therapeutics" that have been around for decades. But I'm no scientist, and I only even know of this stuff because my dad's an immunologist who works on it. Could anyone out there explain if/how this is anything new or different?
1. Re:Isn't this kind of old hat? by mick1983 · 2009-01-12 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  The end goal here is to activate the same class of CD8+ cytotoxic T cells that are specific for proteins expressed at abnormally high concentrations in cancer cells. Antibody based therapeutics for cancer are generally used to target radio isotopes to tumors which is completely different. There were however previous attempts to harvest T cells from the patient, activate them in the lab, and inject them back into the patient. The idea there was the same as here, but this seems to do a better job of activating the T cells, and at a lower cost. Also, it's not really an article on treating cancer. The original paper that the article referred to was "Infection-mimicking materials to program dendritic cells in situ," which appeared in Nature Materials, which isn't really a cancer research journal.
TGN1412 by maestro371 · 2009-01-12 11:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

It'll be interesting to see how human trials go. The last time I saw cytokines referenced, it was in relation to this drug:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGN1412
Looked great in animal studies; not so great for the humans involved.
Sod the cancer, what about those mice! by myxiplx · 2009-01-12 21:11 · Score: 1

To quote the article, "the researchers implanted cylinders with a diameter of 8.5 millimeters into mice". To be honest, if they can survive that, I'm not overly surprised cancer didn't kill them. What kind of super mice are we breeding here?
I think this might be a case of the cure being worse than the disease. If you take 10cm as the average size of a lab mouse, and scale that implant up to people size (160cm), that treatment means implanting a cylinder with a 13.6 centimeter diameter.
13.6 centimeters? Holy fuck. If I ever get testicular cancer you can count me out of this cure...
Re:Thank fuck I had a sex change! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-13 02:07 · Score: 0

Are you thick?

I'm over three times as old as you, and, even if I was interested in guys, I don't do kids.

I am legally, physically, mentally, COMPLETELY female. I just arrived at womanhood through a different route. I am not a 'she-he'. I am not a fucking drag queen.

Unless you have tits and a cunt yourself, I'm not interested. I'm confirmed lesbian.

Now go back to your keyboard wanking, little boy.