Killing Cancer With Engineered Viruses

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Killing Cancer With Engineered Viruses

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday March 21, 2012 @07:16AM from the enemy-of-my-enemy dept.

techfun89 writes "Viruses can make us all sick, but one day could be engineered to defeat cancer. Cancer cells have one trait that may leave them open to attack. They aren't good at killing off viral infections, hence, at least in theory, you could use a virus to kill cancer cells without affecting the patient. Dr. Ian Mohr, a virologist at New York University, altered the herpes virus so that it isn't attacked by the immune system and kills cancer cells more efficiently. Another virus that is proving effective for liver cancer is Vaccinia. Vaccinia is used to protect against smallpox and so far the results have been promising. Several groups of patients have had an increase in survival times. Meanwhile other viruses are being used for things like melanoma, bladder cancer, and head and neck cancer."

109 of 144 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Good news everyone! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 07:17 · Score: 4, Funny

So, patient, we cured your cancer but now you have herpes. Feel better?
1. Re:Good news everyone! by DC2088 · 2012-03-21 07:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The answer would be a resounding yes. I'd rather have herpes than be dead.
2. Re:Good news everyone! by SJHillman · 2012-03-21 07:24 · Score: 2
  
  What if it was a non-fatal cancer? Would you take herpes over having your testicles/breasts removed?
3. Re:Good news everyone! by ThatOtherGuy435 · 2012-03-21 07:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Given that 90% of herpes is social stigma, and it's actually one of the least problematic STDs out there? Yes.
4. Re:Good news everyone! by Stargoat · 2012-03-21 07:27 · Score: 2
  
  Considering that I have cold sores now, yes. Absolutely. 100% of the time and then some. Herpes, while sucky, is much better than tearing apart parts of your body to hopefully kill a cancer. And that's before all the hormone and self-esteem. Yes, herpes all the way.
  
  --
  Hoist Number One and Number Six.
5. Re:Good news everyone! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  As long as there's no such thing as hand-herpes it's no problem at all to most Slashdotters.
6. Re:Good news everyone! by DurendalMac · 2012-03-21 07:32 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No. This has already been done with HIV, and although the trial was small, the success was remarkable. They use the invasive traits of the virus with none of the nastiness. It's incredibly promising, so much that we may well have a cure (or at least a damned good treatment) for cancer within the next decade.
7. Re:Good news everyone! by SomePgmr · 2012-03-21 07:33 · Score: 2
  
  I might just take a prosthetic testicle, given the option and all other outcomes being equal.
  Though I wonder if they don't render most of the nasty bits of this herpes virus inert. I seem to remember reading something similar about an HIV based one.
  Yep, harmless, modified version of HIV used as treatment for lukemia:
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44090512/ns/health-cancer/t/new-leukemia-treatment-exceeds-wildest-expectations/
8. Re:Good news everyone! by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-03-21 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  The news is so old the method should have been mainstream medicine for years. IIRC first experiments were about 2000.
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
9. Re:Good news everyone! by Adriax · 2012-03-21 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  I recall a slashdot story years about about using a virus found in pond scum to attack tumors. The idea was normal cells have dealt with this virus many times over, but the cancer cells forget what to do with it.
  They had a before and after picture of a golfball sized tumor on the back of someone's neck that was almost completely gone after one injection of this stuff.
  Always wondered what happened to that research, I figured some big drug company silenced it.
  
  --
  I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
10. Re:Good news everyone! by foobsr · 2012-03-21 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  although the trial was small, the success was remarkable
  We had two candidates, only one failed.
  We had two samples of 10 each. In the untreated one, 1 survived, a figure which remarkably doubled in the group with treatment.
  CC.
  
  --
  TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
11. Re:Good news everyone! by cpu6502 · 2012-03-21 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not using them anyway, so what does it matter. ;-)
  And on a side note, now I know where the word vaccine came from (from smallpox's vaccinia).
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
12. Re:Good news everyone! by mrops · 2012-03-21 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  What would be neat is if the virus mutates and becomes infectious like flu, one day we wake up and cancer is gone.
  Though drug companies will make every effort so this is not the case. In fact, if during their research a scientist comes and says we cured cancer with this virus, but its also infectious and has no other side effects, his research will more than likely shut down.
13. Re:Good news everyone! by X0563511 · 2012-03-21 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  You realize that every outbreak causes CNS damage? The virus is dormant in the CNS, and when there's an outbreak the virus is multiplying... this damaging the CNS tissue that it was inhabiting.
  That kind of damage tends to be cumulative.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
14. Re:Good news everyone! by X0563511 · 2012-03-21 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  The idea was normal cells have dealt with this virus many times over, but the cancer cells forget what to do with it.
  That can't be right... normal cells do not handle virii, that's the responsibility of specific immune cells.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
15. Re:Good news everyone! by DurendalMac · 2012-03-21 08:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Two went into complete remission. One saw a major remission, but it was not total. I'd say that's pretty damned promising, especially when one of the cured ones was perhaps a month or two away from the grave.
16. Re:Good news everyone! by dgatwood · 2012-03-21 08:43 · Score: 2
  
  IIRC, the virus has to be targeted at specific structures on the exterior of a specific type of cancer cell, so it is unlikely that anyone who doesn't have cancer could usefully be a carrier. This makes the chances of it spreading among the general population effectively zero.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
17. Re:Good news everyone! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  "Dr. Ian Mohr, a virologist at New York University, altered the herpes virus so that it isn't attacked by the immune system"
  what could possibly go wrong?
18. Re:Good news everyone! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-03-21 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  They got a grant for a 5-year study, in 2008. So it ain't over yet.
  http://www.physorg.com/news135928212.html
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
19. Re:Good news everyone! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Then we can give you crabs.
  "Will that cure my syphilis then?"
  No, but we can give you crabs.
20. Re:Good news everyone! by JamesP · 2012-03-21 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  So, next step, to cure aids they will use a specially engineered cancer!
  
  --
  how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
21. Re:Good news everyone! by chooks · 2012-03-21 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you are pregnant -- in which case prenatal herpes infection can cause death or severe morbidity of the fetus.
  Or unless you get encephalitis -- HSV is a big player in that game too.
  Or unless you are immunocompromised (due to cancer treatment, HIV, lymphoproliferative disorders, etc...)
  
  --
  -- The Genesis project? What's that?
22. Re:Good news everyone! by chooks · 2012-03-21 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry to disappoint: herpes whitlow
  
  --
  -- The Genesis project? What's that?
23. Re:Good news everyone! by jamstar7 · 2012-03-21 10:06 · Score: 2
  
  Turn it around, though. Big Pharma would love to get a cancer vaccine or 30, considering that each tissue type seems to have its own cancer variant. The cure gets loose, they just test for its presence in every blood test, and charge the patient for the vaccine...
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
24. Re:Good news everyone! by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-21 10:21 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Just to shut down this line of reasoning: it requires a large number of genes for a virus to reproduce, which the researchers remove completely to make room for the more useful payload. In the case of the HIV-based study being described, that payload rewired one class of immune cells to identify another class of immune cells (which included the cancerous ones) and destroy them. Viruses crippled in this way can't spontaneously develop the ability to reproduce any more than a human eunuch can. Mutations occur during reproduction, which medically-engineered viruses have no opportunity for doing.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
25. Re:Good news everyone! by srjh · 2012-03-21 11:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  From the latin vacca, or cow.
  Because the first steps towards a smallpox vaccine were based on the realisation that dairy workers who had contracted cowpox were immune to smallpox. Vaccinia is very closely related to cowpox, but has diverged from it slightly since the its widespread use as a vaccine.
  Because it was so successful as a vaccine, the name vaccination stuck.
  Miss that part of the story, and it's nowhere near as interesting.
26. Re:Good news everyone! by hoggoth · 2012-03-21 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  Cancer cure: the gift that keeps giving!
  
  --
  - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
27. Re:Good news everyone! by hoggoth · 2012-03-21 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  They could hire some Monsanto lawyers as consultants. "Our vaccine has accidentally blown into Mr. Smith's bloodstream. We require Mr. Smith to pay licensing fees or return all of his blood to us."
  
  --
  - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
28. Re:Good news everyone! by mjwx · 2012-03-21 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  So, patient, we cured your cancer but now you have herpes. Feel better?
  Considering the fact that once you get Herpes, you have it for life (your body just suppresses the symptoms) and that it's pretty much benign except for a few blisters every now and then.
  
  But dont worry, scientists are working on eradicating the virus with a modified cancer.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
29. Re:Good news everyone! by GNious · 2012-03-21 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  I was reading about attempts at using viruses to cure other ailments, incl cancer, from ca 100 years ago in the Ukraine ... so very old news indeed!
  (except for the mutation/engineering-thing perhaps)
30. Re:Good news everyone! by X0563511 · 2012-03-22 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  I thought biological viruses was where "virii" is actually used? Huh.
  Thanks for the explanation!
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
31. Re:Good news everyone! by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-22 03:25 · Score: 2
  
  Nah. Biologists are sticklers about preserving dying Latin forms (hence treating "data" as a plural when the rest of the world has moved it to singular) and because "virus" was uncountable and had no plural in Latin, they're pretty opposed to formulating a Latin plural that was never attested historically. My girlfriend, who moved from studying Classics to Biochemistry, often remarked that many of the newer coinages were fantastically vapid—the whole mitotic cycle is made up of things like 'long phase' and 'big phase'. Chemical names are even sillier.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
32. Re:Good news everyone! by munozdj · 2012-03-22 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Damn. Where's Etymology-Man when you need him?
  
  --
  Democracy: Crowdsourcing a country near you
I am Legend by halfEvilTech · 2012-03-21 07:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

yea what could possibly go wrong?
1. Re:I am Legend by slashdottoy · 2012-03-21 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  no idea
2. Re:I am Legend by ChromeAeonium · 2012-03-21 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  yea what could possibly go wrong?
  I don't know, maybe cancer?
3. Re:I am Legend by rudy_wayne · 2012-03-21 07:55 · Score: 2
  
  Exactly.
  These researchers need to watch that movie before they go messing around with this stuff.
4. Re:I am Legend by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah those stupid researchers with their fancy MDs and PhDs in virology, immunology, pharmacology, genetics, molecular biology, and decades of hands-on experience are completely ignorant of the subject. We must defer to a random group of Hollywood screen writers that just happened to land a gig adapting a decent 1950's science fiction novel into a shitty movie.
5. Re:I am Legend by Dahamma · 2012-03-21 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  I thought it was with zombie-eating gorillas that will just freeze to death when winter rolls around.
6. Re:I am Legend by Culture20 · 2012-03-21 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Hollywood screen writers just happened to land a gig adapting a decent 1950's science fiction novel into a shitty movie.
  No joke.
  
  SPOILER
  
  In the movie, Will Smith becomes legendary by sacrificing himself and providing a cure.
  In the book, the protagonist spends his daylight hours staking vampires while they sleep or dragging their comatose bodies into the sun, and eventually discovers that he's the last human and that vampires have made a new civilization after getting a handle on their infection (feeding on animal blood?). He's become the legendary monster that kills innocents while they sleep in the safety of their homes. Entirely different ending.
  
  END SPOILER
7. Re:I am Legend by iluvcapra · 2012-03-21 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  The premise of the Will Smith I am Legend is that the Vampire Apocalypse was caused by an errant genetically-modified virus, a virus that "completely cured" cancer.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
8. Re:I am Legend by jamstar7 · 2012-03-21 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Nonono. Zombie-attacking rattlesnakes, which are eaten by radioactive mongooses, which are hunted by the carnivorous gorrillas which freeze to death when winter comes. Except in Florida. Oh, and where void by law...
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
9. Re:I am Legend by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-21 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing exciting. The engineered viruses can't be contagious. Please all classic FUD for military robotics, which are hilariously dangerous.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
10. Re:I am Legend by luis_a_espinal · 2012-03-21 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah those stupid researchers with their fancy MDs and PhDs in virology, immunology, pharmacology, genetics, molecular biology, and decades of hands-on experience are completely ignorant of the subject. We must defer to a random group of Hollywood screen writers that just happened to land a gig adapting a decent 1950's science fiction novel into a shitty movie.
  Can you say woooosh?
11. Re:I am Legend by tsotha · 2012-03-21 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  Oh come on. Military robots can't reproduce either. Also, you the verb in that last sentence.
12. Re:I am Legend by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-22 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  So I did. I'm sure the verb very predictable and not at all important, though.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
I Am Legend. by ToiletBomber · 2012-03-21 07:22 · Score: 1

If they set that virus free, it will be the end of all of us! NOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Obligatory xkcd by ericloewe · 2012-03-21 07:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

http://xkcd.com/938/
1. Re:Obligatory xkcd by gabereiser · 2012-03-21 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  But with enough money and treatments you can stave off the advancement of HIV indefinitely ([magic johnson])... Whilst not cured... his HIV is at the "undetectable" levels... 20 years after he announced he had it... I know of so many cases where cancer, after being treated, goes into remission, and comes back with a vengeance. ([andy whitfield - r.i.p])
I found the NYT Article referenced in TFA better.. by mykepredko · 2012-03-21 07:23 · Score: 3, Informative

Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/health/research/viruses-are-recruited-and-flipped-as-cancer-killers.html?_r=2&ref=science
Sounds interesting (especially as somebody who is at high risk for melanoma).
myke

--
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Obligatory XKCD Ref by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 07:25 · Score: 1

http://xkcd.com/938/
isn't this old news? by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-03-21 07:30 · Score: 1

i thought HIV was the cure for cancer.

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
1. Re:isn't this old news? by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-21 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  To answer the question you were probably actually having: different viruses are more applicable to different cancers. HIV is ideal for blood-borne leukaemia.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
2. Re:isn't this old news? by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-03-21 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/08/11/1458205/cancer-cured-by-hiv
  
  yes, i'm aware this article is talking about leukemia. i'm also aware that they used a "modified, harmless version of HIV" so it's no big mental leap to realize something like this can be done for other cancers. there was nothing in that article to indicate the HIV treatment was exclusively beneficial to leukemia patients, and throughout the article the term cancer is used generically. in fact, i'll quote from that article, so you can see where the implication lies:
  
  In the Penn experiment, the researchers removed certain types of white blood cells that the body uses to fight disease from the patients. Using a modified, harmless version of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, they inserted a series of genes into the white blood cells. These were designed to make to cells target and kill the cancer cells. After growing a large batch of the genetically engineered white blood cells, the doctors injected them back into the patients.
  
  In similar past experimental treatments for several types of cancer the re-injected white cells killed a few cancer cells and then died out. But the Penn researchers inserted a gene that made the white blood cells multiply by a thousand fold inside the body. The result, as researcher June put it, is that the white blood cells became “serial killers” relentlessly tracking down and killing the cancer cells in the blood, bone marrow and lymph tissue.
  and no thanks for the condescension. i know exactly what fucking question i was asking, prick. the topic is "Killing Cancer With Engineered Viruses" and we already covered that. so yes, the obvious interpretation of the question, "isn't this old news?" is "i've already heard of this, so what's so different? why phrase your headline that way?" bravo for being the fucking genius that you are, you saw right through my obvious question. instead of "Killing Cancer With Engineered Viruses" something more informative and relevant would be something like "Different Viruses More Applicable to Different Cancers." that would actually build upon the knowledge i've already been given. but that wasn't the headline, and it wasn't the focus of the topic. if only it was, because then we could move on from there. simply stating "different viruses are more applicable to different cancers" doesn't explain why HIV didn't prove to be the cancer cure-all. in fact, it almost seems to assume i've never heard of the HIV treatment for cancer.
  
  --
  insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
3. Re:isn't this old news? by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-21 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Woah, chill out! The topic is crap because this is Slashdot. There's no mystery there.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
4. Re:isn't this old news? by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-03-21 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  don't assume you know better than me what i'm thinking. then getting your ignorance picked apart and your ass handed to you wouldn't be a mystery to you either.
  
  --
  insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
5. Re:isn't this old news? by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-21 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  Y'know, that doesn't usually bother people so much. You may want to think about that.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
6. Re:isn't this old news? by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-03-22 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  oh so this is something you do a lot then. telling other people what they mean. just because i'm comfortable being an asshole to people who are complete shitheads doesn't mean you don't bother people a lot when you do that. you may want to think about that. maybe take a survey of the people you know who you do this to. they probably tell you it doesn't bother them so much so they won't have to hear from you how they should feel about it.
  
  --
  insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
7. Re:isn't this old news? by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-22 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Whatever is going on in your head, it can't be good for your blood pressure.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
8. Re:isn't this old news? by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-03-22 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  LOL wow what a trolly bitch. To answer the question you were probably actually having: putting condescending cunts like you in their place is actually quite relaxing. Whatever is going on over your head, it can't be good for your ignorance. Stop telling other people what they think. Stop telling people how they should feel about being condescended to by you. That's all. Just stop. Can you do that, bitch? Can you?
  
  that felt good, thanks. you can fuck off now.
  
  --
  insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
9. Re:isn't this old news? by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-22 06:14 · Score: 2
  
  I haven't even begun.
  Human communication is predicated on the basis of making assumptions about what others are thinking. There was no other way to respond to your initial comment than to either ask for further clarification of what exactly was going on in your mind, or to make an assumption about what you were saying. The literal statement was "Isn't this old news? I thought HIV was the cure for cancer," which is most closely translated into the question "why are other viruses involved?" because you explicitly named a virus. I sought to be informative by explaining the answer to this question, and left my phrasing open ("the question you were probably actually having") to admit that I was making an assumption about what you were saying. A normal reaction to this mistake would have been to simply to comment that my interpretation was incorrect.
  If you react to people making assumptions about your intentions like this on a regular basis, you will not get very far in life. I can read your comment history. I know that just two days ago, on Tuesday, you had to explain your comments were intended as facetious. Are you really so hypocritical as to expect perfectly careful communication from others when you yourself won't do the same? Your subsequent responses have been increasingly laden with insults, cursing, and other abusive language. This is not normal behaviour for healthy, intelligent people unless they are under tremendous stress. Making the (admittedly risky) assumption that you are healthy, intelligent, and capable of talking to at least some people without spitting vitriolic acid like this at others, I seriously think you should figure out and face whatever ancillary factors contributed to your violent reaction toward me, and take time to address those problems before you do something counter-productive to your own well-being.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
10. Re:isn't this old news? by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-03-22 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  the only thing counter-productive to my well being is to believe you were just trying to be informative. most condescending types are just trying to be "informative." the truth is, you're just condescending. i don't care how you feel about that, or how you try to rationalize that you're not.
  
  you assumed i read your statement one way, and i assumed you meant it another way - one that is obvious and which i deemed necessary to put in check. true to condescending form, you failed to accept that you had offended someone, even if unintentionally, and attempted to shift responsibility for the offense on to me (probably because i reflected your rudeness back to you). so you offend me and now it's my fault because you (say you) didn't mean it?
  
  had i been working to increase Positive karma in the slashdot game, my response to you might have gone like this:
  "hey are you assuming i don't know how to form my own questions? i don't appreciate that. i may not know much about biology but i don't deserve to be made to look stupid for it."
  at which point a normal person would backpedal and ask to be excused. it fascinates me that when you're made to feel insulted somehow there's no way in your mind that you could have been insulting to begin with. because i confront and affront you, you absolve yourself of any wrongdoing, and attempt to transfer that responsibility away from yourself. if you can't tell, i'm not really concerned with whether it's right or wrong or how you feel about it. it's just fascinating.
  
  no matter how you meant to be read, no matter whether i responded to you with respect or with more of your own disrespect, you were fucking condescending and your apparent inability to grasp that compounds the frustration only slightly more than telling someone you've offended to chill out. it's really, really hard to believe that isn't obvious to you, which makes it all the easier to shovel your own shit back at you. it's like you're giving the thumbs up in iran, wondering why they want to hang you by your intestines.
  
  since you've seen my comment history you might be puzzled about the number of my comments modded funny, insightful, or informative balancing out the trollish ones. i'd be happy to explain why experimenting with the karma system is fun, but not in public. if i compared slashdot users to mice in a maze, you might start to understand why i'm vitriolic in one comment and helpful or humorous in another. but then again you're good at making bad assumptions.
  
  i also find it really hard to believe these replies haven't been modded down yet. what gives?
  
  --
  insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Isn't Attacked by the Immune System by medv4380 · 2012-03-21 07:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

Sounds nice but once it mutates into something harmful what are you going to do?
1. Re:Isn't Attacked by the Immune System by yanom · 2012-03-21 09:32 · Score: 2
  
  become legend. Seriously, this is the plot device for I Am Legend. They cure cancer but the virus turns everyone into zombies.
  
  --
  "That's either incredibly asinine or the most brilliant troll I've ever read. Not sure which." -Anonymous Coward
2. Re:Isn't Attacked by the Immune System by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-21 10:25 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It can't. Viruses mutate when they reproduce. These viruses have all of the genes for reproduction removed. They're essentially eunuchs.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
3. Re:Isn't Attacked by the Immune System by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-21 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  N... no. There is no mutation.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
4. Re:Isn't Attacked by the Immune System by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-21 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  In that case, the source of the problem was that the donor virus used was actually just a bunch of Hollywood movies. This made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
5. Re:Isn't Attacked by the Immune System by davidshewitt · 2012-03-21 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Prepare to fight the zombies! ;)
6. Re:Isn't Attacked by the Immune System by medv4380 · 2012-03-22 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  So you've eliminated all forms of mutation? Doubtful since the sun is still on. I'm sure they've done everything possible to eliminate it's replication ability to "self replicate". However viruses have been shown to swap genes with other viruses and bacteria. It would be a bit arrogant to believe that a random event wont occure and cause the gene that allows it to slip by the immune system won't get picked up by other more liberal viruses or bacteria, or for it to get changed in some other fashion. Saying it cant replicate and bread sounds like the GMO engineers saying that their plant can't breed and won't infect the general plant population. All it will take is 1 mistake.
7. Re:Isn't Attacked by the Immune System by jpvlsmv · 2012-03-22 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  They're essentially eunuchs.
  No, GNU/Cure's Not Unuchs.
  But luckily, it's being released under the Apache public license, so it's not "viral".
  --Joe
8. Re:Isn't Attacked by the Immune System by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-22 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  I realise what you're saying sounds plausible to you, but it's actually dependent on a whole swath of technical underpinnings that aren't applicable in this situation. There are cases in which co-infection by a normal virus could cause the engineered virus to be produced, but they have limitations. Let's go on a tour.
  When UV and other forms of ambient radiation cause mutations in DNA, there is a very limited amount of damage they can do. Typically this consists of damaging a single nucleotide, or causing it to connect with its neighbour (e.g. a thiamine dimer). A given photon can only mess up one atom or bond; they're very small. Normally, when this happens in a cell, the resultant damage is repaired immediately by a special protein complex that functions specifically to seek out and fix such things. Mutations caused in this way are comparatively easy for the cell to fix, because they're predictable in nature and the other side of the chromosome is generally still intact, which is why low radiation doses tend to have no consequences: there are few enough errors that the cell can repair them all.
  Viruses work a little differently. Internal to them, they have no functioning proteins that can do repair; they're just bags of water and nucleic acids, and a few pieces of landing gear that will be activated once they reach the cell. If they encounter a mutation, then it won't be found until that happens.
  When a virus reaches the cell, it injects its payload, and some mechanism (depending on the different kinds of virus) prepares its payload for delivery. For many medically interesting carrier viruses like HIV, this involves some step in which the virus's nucleic acids must be transcribed into the host's. Viruses are wired to evolve at a very rapid rate, and this do that by causing mutations at this point in the process; essentially, this reverse-transcription process is extremely sloppy. Herpes, by contrast, integrates its genome directly, because it's already in a format (double-stranded DNA) that can be put in place.
  The thing I really need to stress here is how the mutations transpire. When you modify a virus's payload, you have complete power to erase what it contains, as long as it has a certain special tag that would lets its ancestor virus reproduce using it. This tag is necessary for the engineered nucleic acid to be copied into the new viral particles. It is not possible for a provirus to spontaneously re-develop all of the necessary machinery for making a complete package. That's equivalent to making a typo in Word and accidentally producing a Shakespearean sonnet. It's a lot of very specific programming, not random noise.
  There are two cases in which such a virus could be restored to functionality: (a) if the patient is infected with the original virus, their body will start becoming a factory for the engineered viruses. A viral particle can only contain one chromosome (their size is dependent on their capacity), so the real infection would be forced to pick randomly between the correct viral genome and the engineered one. However, in this case, the produced engineered virus would be exactly like the one that the patient was infected with; it's a full copy of the dysfunctional, engineered genome, and not capable of reproducing. (b) if this patient gets infected in the germline—impossible with most of these viruses because they target other tissues; the germline is not attractive to viruses—then, and only then, a child could be born that naturally produces the engineered virus mixed up with the original one. It should be noted that viruses have been integrated into the human genome many times in the past, and that a large portion of the non-functional DNA in our bodies comes from this.
  Let me know if you have any outstanding questions.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
9. Re:Isn't Attacked by the Immune System by medv4380 · 2012-03-23 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  It is not possible for a provirus to spontaneously re-develop all of the necessary machinery for making a complete package. That's equivalent to making a typo in Word and accidentally producing a Shakespearean sonnet. It's a lot of very specific programming, not random noise.
  Viruses evolved those mechanisms once before and there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't be able to do so again. Lets say one mutation occurs that makes the virus just linger in the system longer increasing the changes that the patient gets infected with the original virus. That increases the number of copies, and because this version isn't attacked by the immune system lingers around again until the patient is infected again. Given enough time and enough random mutations it could become a threat again, and would have the added bonus of the immune system ignoring it. It's how evolution works. I'm not saying this would be over night, but for us to believe the virus wont do it because we created it is arrogance on the part of humanity.
10. Re:Isn't Attacked by the Immune System by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-23 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  The virus can't linger at all. Each copy is destroyed immediately upon use. They're just syringes.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Another scientist in that area of research is by CmpEng · 2012-03-21 07:42 · Score: 5, Informative

Dr. Bell at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, http://www.ohri.ca/profiles/bell.asp. He's been researching and using viruses to treat cancer in liver cancer. I believe it is currently in clinical trials in Europe and showing promise to not just kill cancer cells but cut off blood flow to the tumour which also helps to 'starve it'.
1. Re:Another scientist in that area of research is by Onco_Rx · 2012-03-21 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  The clinical trials are under way in Ottawa at this moment. There were also several trials years ago... Right when I started getting a permanent cold!
I am Legend by luis_a_espinal · 2012-03-21 07:46 · Score: 1

Didn't Will Smith teach us not to mess with that? Zombie/Vampire things are going to eat us all!!!!(10+1)
HIV too! by Prien715 · 2012-03-21 07:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

Though the sample size is much smaller, the success rate is much higher. The theory here is different though: the HIV virus infects only T-Cells. T-Cells are responsible for "marking" bodily intrusions as harmful -- but rather than the traditional AIDs payload of "don't attack anything" going into them you alter the HIV virus's DNA to train the T-Cells to kill cancers. So in essence, it teaches your body how to treat cancer as an infection.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/health/13gene.html?pagewanted=all

--
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
1. Re:HIV too! by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-21 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  The choice of virus is mostly about picking what tissue you want to engineer. In the case of the technique you cited, the researchers made T cells (the immune system's hitmen, if you will) target another class of immune cells called B cells (they're the ones that make antibodies.) The engineering work was specific to the one type of B cell that had gone cancerous (although there were innocent casualties within that type.) HIV-based engineering wouldn't be practical if you were trying to fix cancer in a tissue that's out of reach of T cells, such as the brain or skin.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Promising, but... by lax-goalie · 2012-03-21 07:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

...there's still tons of work to do.
I've got a friend with brain cancer who was enrolled in one of the current virus trials - one which has shown great promise in animal studies. He ended up leaving the trial after a month or so, with tumor regrowth and tremendous swelling around the tumor site, causing all sorts of problems with speech, reading, and sight. He has surgery scheduled for tomorrow, after that, hopefully another trial.
Not to be a downbuzz, but it's a long road before this kind of therapy is anything more than an experimental crapshoot.
Problem by wanzeo · 2012-03-21 08:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

The problem with using living solutions to medical problems (as opposed to drugs) is the high rate of mutation. Perhaps you engineered the virus to kill the cancer cells, but 2 months and 40k generations later it could be doing something completely different.
1. Re:Problem by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-21 11:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  All viruses used in this manner are wired not to reproduce. It means you need to inject a lot more copies of the virus, but there's no chance of mutation in a virus that can't reproduce. And no, they can't spontaneously redevelop the huge number of genes necessary to reproduce; they don't even have the opportunity to do so. It's completely safe. They're just DNA injectors, and we're exploiting the side-effects that the viruses normally bundle with their (deleted) reproductive payloads. In this case, healthy cells are smart enough to fend off the infection, but cancer cells aren't, which is why they're cancerous in the first place.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
2. Re:Problem by wanzeo · 2012-03-21 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  Well let's agree that the article is really light on information, but assuming you are able to remove enough of the viral DNA to prevent reproduction, how are you going to produce the billions of them required for treatment? You can't make them individually, so they have to be capable of reproduction to be useful.
  However, I think they are using the word "engineered" too liberally. They basically just want to inject a particular viral strain which happens to kill a higher percentage of cancerous cells than normal cells. This approach is just the viral version of chemotherapy, which is an extraordinarily blunt, shotgun approach.
  A real "engineered" solution would be viruses which only recognize cancerous cells, and leave normal cells unharmed. But it still doesn't solve the problem of unexpected mutations.
3. Re:Problem by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-21 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  Here's a textbook on viral engineering; it's paywalled if that sort of thing bothers you, but the details can be found in there. You're certainly right that the methods involved are broadly messy, start with reproduction-competent vectors, and that some bits of the machinery get left behind, but like the cancer itself, the lack of the ability to reproduce prevents them from being able to exploit evolutionary mechanisms to support their survival. I guess the virus might be able to reproduce if the patient happens to have been infected with the original virus previously, or is currently infected by it, however. Presumably, to meet FDA approval, the process will have to be much more controlled to prevent such potential mishaps; I expect we'll even see synthetic virus printers some day.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
4. Re:Problem by Spigot+the+Bear · 2012-03-21 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  All viruses used in this manner are wired not to reproduce. It means you need to inject a lot more copies of the virus, but there's no chance of mutation in a virus that can't reproduce. And no, they can't spontaneously redevelop the huge number of genes necessary to reproduce; they don't even have the opportunity to do so. It's completely safe.
  Life finds a way.
5. Re:Problem by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-21 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, we have a solution to that, too. Viruses aren't alive. :)
  However, since writing that I realised that such a treatment could have its reproductive machinery rescued if it co-infects with the natural form of the virus. If the people who were treated with the HIV-based method from the other story actually had AIDS, then anyone infected with HIV from them would also get the modified virus, and hence the B-cell-killing T-cells that made that treatment work.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
6. Re:Problem by wanzeo · 2012-03-21 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  start with reproduction-competent vectors, and that some bits of the machinery get left behind.
  So they would splice an engineered gene into the genome which somehow shortens the viral DNA with each generation. So the viruses get busy infecting cells in the lab, and after some point, the cells begin bursting with a bunch of viral pieces instead of whole functional viruses. After enough time, all the functional viruses have been used up, and all you have left is viral fragments. What are you going to use to attack the cancer cells?
  
  I expect we'll even see synthetic virus printers some day.
  Yes, but at that point you just manufacture virus sized machines which do what you tell them. No need to mess with the kludgy biological organisms. It really is amazing to think about how much simpler lab techniques will be when you can actually handle individual molecules by simply making a function call.
7. Re:Problem by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-21 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, wait, sorry. This is all very silly. It's a lot simpler to engineer viruses, and I can't believe I forgot what I was doing. Here's how it works.
  1. You find a host cell, in which you have full control of the genome, which is similar enough to the target organism that it can generate the virus (yeast is often sufficient.)
  2. Take the inserted block of DNA from some infected tissue. This includes a header (promoter) that the host cell will read and use to generate new copies of the viral genome, which includes the elements that the viral assembly process will use to recognize it as friendly, and hence incorporate it into the capsid. Alter this as you please; just make sure that the host cell has a version of the viral operon(s) that can still produce all of the parts necessary to assemble a virion.
  3. Put your new construct into the temporary host, using e.g. electroshock.
  4. Profit! The yeast will now produce replication-incompetent virus particles as long as you feed it.
  To make a long story short: viruses reproduce entirely by hijacking the cell's machinery to do so. Certain viruses, like retroviruses and adenoviruses, completely integrate into the host cell (in what's called a provirus), and then the cell reads from this embedded set of instructions to produce new viral particles. One of the pieces that gets manufactured is the DNA/RNA payload, and this can be replaced simply by relocating the correct self-recognition elements to a different gene.
  This also gets around the "infection by template virus –> active form of the virus" problem because each virion can only incorporate one copy of the integrated payload. Infection by the template virus would cause the patient to produce reproduction-incompetent viruses, in addition to normal copies of the template virus.
  Just like bacteria that produce drugs, we already have virus printers.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Bacteriophage by Hokan · 2012-03-21 08:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

TFA makes it seem like the concept of pitting viruses against bacteria was developed in the '50s, but research has been ongoing for much longer, at least from 1896.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage

--
My sig is wonderful. I love my sig.
1. Re:Bacteriophage by NatasRevol · 2012-03-21 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure bacteriophages were around before 1896.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
One other change... by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2012-03-21 08:49 · Score: 2

-- but rather than the traditional AIDs payload of "don't attack anything" going into them you alter the HIV virus's DNA to train the T-Cells to kill cancers
You also artificially assemble the engineered virus from components and don't include the code that says "make lots more of me".

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Re:WOW!!! by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2012-03-21 08:51 · Score: 2

We also saw movies where nuclear tests created giant women with inadequate blood circulation to the brain, inch tall men, ants the size of SUVs, ...

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Have no fear, folks! by KatchooNJ · 2012-03-21 08:53 · Score: 1

At least Will Smith will be immune. We'll all be dead or vampire-like creatures, but at least Will Smith will carry on the torch of humanity. I can now sleep at night.

--
"Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
1. Re:Have no fear, folks! by captain_nifty · 2012-03-21 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  No you'll sleep during the day, did you forget that all of us cancer free zombies are nocturnal.
Good till everyone mutates into monsters by mkraft · 2012-03-21 08:54 · Score: 1

Didn't we learn anything from the "I am Legend" film.
Re:Just strong enough? by bjohnso5 · 2012-03-21 08:59 · Score: 1

It's not a question of a virus' strength... it's about the specific receptors and features of a cell that it attaches to (I believe - and let me tell you, IADNAMB).
Better by way2trivial · 2012-03-21 09:32 · Score: 1

Altered herpes, "that it isn't attacked by the immune system"

--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Re:I found the NYT Article referenced in TFA bette by blueturffan · 2012-03-21 10:21 · Score: 1

I'm at a high risk for both lemonoma and dyslexia.
Not so fast... by InsertCleverUsername · 2012-03-21 10:26 · Score: 1

Looks like cancer has gotten wise to the plan: http://www.kurzweilai.net/cancer-cells-send-out-the-alarm-on-tumor-killing-virus

--
Ask me about my sig!
Re:Just strong enough? by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-21 10:27 · Score: 1

I am, and you're right.
Also, what's the "D" stand for? Oh, "definitely." Gotcha. Okay.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:WOW!!! by Fned · 2012-03-21 10:28 · Score: 1

...giant women with inadequate blood circulation to the brain, inch tall men, ants the size of SUVs...
?
O wait I got the movie and the country mixed up again
You don't need to engineer a virus by __aawzag621 · 2012-03-21 11:01 · Score: 1

unless you are a Big Pharma who wants to make $ out of the treatment. The reovirus and about 10 other viruses already attack cancer cells in this way. There have been clinical trails, somewhere in Canada, I believe. If you catch reovirus naturally, you will perhaps feel under the weather for a week or so. On the other hand, the clinical trials that inject reovirus into the tumor have a high rate of complete remission of the cancer. So rethink the usefulness of the FDA : it makes it impossible for 'natural' treatments to be used in medicine by making the cost of taking a substance through the FDA's regulations in the neighborhood of $500M. Without the ability to patent the treatment, no drug company will do that. Next, rethink the entire medical cartel. Every oncologist knows about dozens of these treatments. None can use them without jeopardizing their license to practice medicine. The FDA kills 100s of 1000s of people in the US yearly because it prevents the development of new drugs and the use of 'natural substances' in treatments. We don't die of unsafe drugs (tho the FDA has been pretty bad at that lately), we die of no new drugs at all. Regulations == programming for an open environment == a conceptual oxymoron.
1. Re:You don't need to engineer a virus by Fedarkyn · 2012-03-21 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  So you are saying that no oncologyst dies of cancer?
Re:Any cure for .. by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-21 11:23 · Score: 1

Research has shown that that disease was endemic to corporate raiders. As corporate raiding is no longer generally practised (except by large tech conglomerates) the last known sufferer died in 1991. His last words were "My only regret is that I haven't been cryogenically frozen."

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Ways to prevent and sometimes cure cancer by Paul+Fernhout · 2012-03-21 11:29 · Score: 1, Troll

It may be too late, but you could tell your friend about vitamin D, iodine, and vegetables, fruits, and beans, as well as fasting, in preventing and sometimes curing cancer. I've posted many links on that stuff here in the past. Just google on those term and cancer, and look up Dr. Joel Fuhrman's work and Dr. John Cannell's work. Unfortunately, the best way to deal with cancer is to prevent it by helping the human immune system deal with individual cancer cells before they proliferate. Once you have cancer, things are pretty iffy. Fasting can also help in reducing nausea from chemotherapy. Good luck to your friend. Assuming the surgery is a success, exploring these things may help prevent a recurrence. Some links to start:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article24.aspx
http://iodine4health.com/disease/cancer/cancer.htm
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080331/fasting_may_improve_cancer_chemotherapy
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fasting-cancer/
Unfortunately, instead of scientists studying what is proven to work (nutrition, fasting, and lifestyle) and then people lobbying to make good support for healthy choices readily available to all, scientists seem to be creating what could become the basis of a weaponized plague that evades the human immune system. :-(

--
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
1. Re:Ways to prevent and sometimes cure cancer by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 16:24 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Ahhh, yes, special diets and fasting to treat cancer. Worked GREAT for Steve Jobs, didn't it?
  First off, good diets are the "FSKING DUH" of cancer preventions (and CV, and diabetes, etc...), but that's MAINLY with GI cancers or urinary tract cancers. Skin, brain, bone, blood? Mostly genes, with a just enough of a hint of environmental exposure to terrify you if you think about it too much.
  And as for your suggestions:
  Vitamin D's probably not gonna be the wonder drug everyone's been hoping for. The data only supports bone health, barely hinting at an actual clinically significant improvement in cancer risk or CV disease. It'd be fantastic, coz that stuff is cheaper than oxygen, but I remember all the other Vitamin crazes in the past 20 years.
  Iodine. You live in a country with adequate iodine intake. Do you have a goiter? If not, you take in enough iodine. The thyroid is, by far, pretty much the only organ that uses iodine directly. Pretty much all the other tissues that use iodine use it indirecty in that they use thyroid hormone, the iodine bearing molecule produced by the thyroid. You wanna know what supplementing iodine can do? You can overload the thyroid, shutting it down temporarily. Then, depending on your intake and your luck, the damn thing may go into overdrive, which is simply wonderful for your health, truly. Also does interesting things to your cancer risk.
  Wanna know why fasting helps with nausea from chemo? Because there's nothing in your GI tract to exacerbate your nausea. Wanna know why fasting is not a good idea when you're getting chemo for cancer? Because you're STARVING while you're trying to recover (to put it crudely) from poisons and toxins that you hope kills your cancer before they make your heart fail, wash all the calcium out of your bones, give you arrhythmias, damage your nerves, make your mucosal surfaces erupt in ulcerations so horrendous you can't even swallow your own spit, much less enough water to keep you alive, or otherwise cripples or kills you.
  Now, something may come of that paper from 2008, hell, I'll even throw you a bone and point out that the group that did that just released a paper this year with updated info, but they're playing with cells in petri dishes for that data. "Starving" groups of cells and observing the results is LIGHTYEARS different than starving a human. You can cryogenicly freeze small groups of cells and revive them to healthy growth, but it sure as shit doesn't work on the whole human, else there'd be a crew on the way to Alpha Centauri at this very moment, right? And if you want to talk about the animal trials from 2008, I'll point out that as useful as mouse models are, there are still massive differences between mouse and human physiology, and mice can tolerate things that, proportionally, will leave us dead in the dirt. (And vice versa, of course.) Right now, starving yourself when dealing with cancer is an incredibly, dangerously, foolishly risky choice.
  Additionally, you know just enough biology to not realize you have no real understanding of virology, if you think these crippled viruses could be "weaponized" any easier than the strains of measles, mumps, or rubella used in the live virus vaccines could be "weaponized."
  Finally, I'm gonna be a little nasty, because you seem like a smart enough person, but I'm not sure how else I'll get through just how BADLY your post comes off.
  Stop it, you God-damned Ghoul! Stop telling people who have friends with cancer RIGHT NOW what their friends SHOULD have done to not get the cancer that is KILLING THEM RIGHT NOW! Go take some 400 level classes in biology, put your magical faith in alternative "medicine" on the shelf for a few months, and come back when you can look at them with a decent foundation.
2. Re:Ways to prevent and sometimes cure cancer by Paul+Fernhout · 2012-03-22 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  AC, probably you feel you have the moral high ground here and so that justifies incivility and so on, but you are mainly just regurgitating outdated conventional wisdom, sorry. Saying only genes cause cancer is just deep ignorance, sorry. Genes may give people weak links, but whether those weak links are ever pulled on to the point where they break is in most cases determined by what you eat and how you live (a point Dr. Fuhrman makes in "Eat to Live"). You're just advocating a certain kind of genetic fatalism.
  If you bothered to look up those references you would see links to scientific research calling into question the US RDA for vitamin D (which is involved in regulating thousands of genes),
  The same is true for iodine. Iodine is used both in apoptosis and also to build a protective layer against infections, again showing you don't really know what you are talking about with that. People in Japan get about ten times as much iodine as people in the USA and live longer. Also, they probably don't eat as much bread made now with bromine in the USA (bromine is an iodine antagonist).
  You called someone a "Ghoul" (anonymously even) when they point out stuff that may reduce a person's friends nausea or that may help them prevent a recurrence of cancer if treatment is successful (as I mentioned). Was in appropriate to mention that to someone right now? Always a judgment call when the alternative is that they may never hear such things, true. But, would you rather that person's friend had way more nausea than the friend has to have? That sounds more ghoulish to me, sorry. Maybe it is also far more "ghoulish" to just make anonymous personal attacks on people trying to help move beyond a broken medical paradigm that tends to exploit people in all kinds of ways? Granted, 20% of modern medicine is miraculous, and some cancer treatments do indeed help, because as I said, once you have cancer, the results are iffy. I was actually in a PhD program in Biology (ecology and evolution) twenty years ago for what it is worth. I am trying to help people learn some very hard won knowledge, stuff I wish I had know years before loved ones died from heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. Call that ghoulish if you will. Also, a lot of people read slashdot that may benefit from knowing more about cancer, both prevention and treatment, especially considering how vitamin D deficiency is an occupational hazard of indoor working (like most slashdotters probably engage in). That's why people read and post here.
  See also stuff like a book written by a former oncologist:
  http://cancercaremalaysia.com/2011/09/02/book-review-money-driven-medicine-%E2%80%93-chemotherapy-for-non-responsive-cancers-%E2%80%93-denying-reality/
  "Medical oncologists are paid almost nothing for talking with patients and their families. Their income depends entirely on the number of chemotherapy treatments that they order and how much they charge for each treatment. Unlike other specialists, the government allows them to also profit by selling chemotherapy drugs to their patients. ... Because of the so-called "blood brain barrier," most drugs do not penetrate well from the blood stream into the brain tissue. With the exception of childhood neuroblastoma, brain cancers respond poorly to chemotherapy. ..." (Yet Vitamin D, iodine, fasting, and phytonutrients may indeed all benefit the brain...)
  Also from that link: "Let me stress again, the above 44 statements are words written by Dr. David Cundiff, a medical oncologist turned hospice doctor. Dr. Cundiff left oncology perhaps because he couldn't "stomach" what he saw and practised. He has now joined the list of those brave souls who have enough conscience and guts to speak up."
  Who does that imply are the ghouls here?
  As for fasting in general, it activates biochemical pathways in the h
  
  --
  A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Coley Toxins by calmond · 2012-03-21 13:15 · Score: 2

This was discovered by a doctor, William Coley in the 19th century, and used effectively by him to treat a number of cancers. It has been called Coley fluid or Coley Toxins.
When? by tsotha · 2012-03-21 17:20 · Score: 1

Okay, I gotta ask what I always ask with these kinds of stories. If I get liver cancer (or whatever). how long do I have to hold out before the local hospital can offer a tailored virus to cure me?
Which day? by micahjc · 2012-03-22 02:27 · Score: 1

Which day will they engineer to kill cancer? I'll be pissed if it's the day before I get cancer!