Drug Turns Immune System Against All Tumor Types

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Drug Turns Immune System Against All Tumor Types

Posted by Unknown on Monday March 26, 2012 @07:11PM from the confused-mice-with-foot-tumors dept.

sciencehabit writes, quoting an article in Science: "A single drug can shrink or cure human breast, ovary, colon, bladder, brain, liver, and prostate tumors that have been transplanted into mice, researchers have found. The treatment, an antibody that blocks a 'do not eat' signal normally displayed on tumor cells, coaxes the immune system to destroy the cancer cells." The abstract and full paper are freely available. It seems fairly promising: "In mice given human bladder cancer tumors, for example, 10 of 10 untreated mice had cancer that spread to their lymph nodes. Only one of 10 mice treated with anti-CD47 had a lymph node with signs of cancer. Moreover, the implanted tumor often got smaller after treatment — colon cancers transplanted into the mice shrank to less than one-third of their original size, on average. And in five mice with breast cancer tumors, anti-CD47 eliminated all signs of the cancer cells, and the animals remained cancer-free 4 months after the treatment stopped."

330 comments

It worked even better by phantomfive · 2012-03-26 19:17 · Score: 5, Funny

It worked even better in mice that didn't get cancer transplants!

I kid, I kid.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
1. Re:It worked even better by __aayejd672 · 2012-03-26 23:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I just want to see the mice with breasts
2. Re:It worked even better by Phrogman · 2012-03-27 00:46 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Your on the internet - there's probably a whole series of websites devoted to that very subject. Check 4Chan or Reddit :P
  
  --
  "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
3. Re:It worked even better by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, cancer tumours may shrink in their normal life-cycle. That's why scientific studies have to be performed on a large enough sample sizes to know if the treatment being studied has any efficacy.
4. Re:It worked even better by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  What a bunch of BOOBS
5. Re:It worked even better by jgeeky · 2012-03-27 03:54 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  I'm still trying to figure out how he/she owns "on the internet".
  
  --
  in the immortal words of socrates, "i drank what?"
6. Re:It worked even better by drawfour · 2012-03-27 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  If you're going to be pedantic, at least get your punctuation correct. The period goes inside the quotation mark.
7. Re:It worked even better by jgeeky · 2012-03-27 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  That's debatable. There are many of us who hold that to be incorrect and moronic. The quotation mark serves to demonstrate something that someone else said. There was no period in that part of his/her text, therefore there shouldn't be one within my quotes. The period signifies the end of my sentence. The quote is a part of my sentence, and not the other way around.
  
  --
  in the immortal words of socrates, "i drank what?"
8. Re:It worked even better by drawfour · 2012-03-27 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  It is not debatable that it is the rule. You may debate whether or not you think the rule makes sense, or whether or not you like the rule, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the rule. Calling out someone for using "Your" instead of "You're," when you clearly understood what they meant, is being pedantic. If you're going to be pedantic, at least follow all the rules, not just the ones with which you agree.
9. Re:It worked even better by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  and we are on slashdot, where confusing your and you're is not acceptable.
  Not to talk of that silly smiley.
10. Re:It worked even better by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-27 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Here is the history and on-going debate. Personally, I side with you, but that is primarily because I am a typography nut. The real reason that the period goes inside the quote is because a period is a very delicate piece of metal type, and is more secure when it's protected by having the larger, more solid closing quote at the end of the word instead, in the event that the text needs to be re-arranged or moved around.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
11. Re:It worked even better by jgeeky · 2012-03-27 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  There is a difference between making a mistake in vocabulary and choosing whether or not to follow a rule which is believed to be incorrect. Grammar rules change over time. I hope that this is one of them and I refuse to accept and practice a faulty rule. Your reply was just as "pedantic" as mine. You're instructing that I follow a construct with which I do not agree, and I will do no such thing. The "your vs you're", "there vs their vs they're", et al are commonly-made and consistently-frustrating mistakes that demonstrate a lack of understanding of words. You argue that my "mistake", as you deem it, shows a lack of understanding, and I replied to demonstrate to you that I do not lack the understanding, I lack acceptance. If Phrogman wishes to explain that he rejects traditional English spelling conventions do to their lack of consistency, then I welcome him to do so. If Phrogman, however, was unaware of his error, he certainly is now - be that from my correction or your defense thereof.
  
  --
  in the immortal words of socrates, "i drank what?"
12. Re:It worked even better by justforgetme · 2012-03-27 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  I always thought the punctuation inside the quotes was a topography thing not a typography thing.
  
  And at the end of his drivel he asked her "What's your formula for the ending?."
  
  --
  -- no sig today
13. Re:It worked even better by jgeeky · 2012-03-27 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  s/do/due. dammit :-)
  
  --
  in the immortal words of socrates, "i drank what?"
14. Re:It worked even better by dgatwood · 2012-03-27 06:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It is not debatable that it is the rule.
  Actually, that's debatable, too. Putting the period inside the quotation marks every time is strictly an American English distortion of the English language.
  In British English, the period goes inside or outside depending on whether it is part of what is being quoted. So about 18% of native English speakers and an even larger percentage of non-native English speakers would tell you that your rule is completely wrong.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
15. Re:It worked even better by jc42 · 2012-03-27 07:01 · Score: 2
  
  It is not debatable that it is the rule.
  Actually, it's quite "debatable". There are a lot of grammatical and spelling style guides. Nearly every publisher has one. They don't all agree on this particular detail (or many others).
  Those of us who grew up in the UK were mostly taught the rule that periods go outside the quotes. But it turns out that the "rule" is more complex than that. Some UK publishers follow the usual rule for that part of the world, but a few have an in-house rule putting periods inside the quotes. Meanwhile, over across the Pond, most American publishers put periods inside quotes, but a few have house rules requiring that periods be outside quotes.
  It's like the old joke: A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches is never sure. If you think there's a "correct" placement of punctuation when a sentence ends with a quote, you probably learned your rule from one book. You should be careful to avoid reading other books on the topic, because you'll be surprised and upset to find that some of them don't agree with your first punctuation-grammar book.
  Actually, I've seen a few "geek" discussions of the topic, which usually settles on the rule that the punctuation belongs inside the quotes if it's logically part of the quote, and outside the quotes if it belongs to the larger statement that contains the quote. The usual example is when a statement quotes a question. The most logical punctuation then is a question mark before the final quote, and a period after. Simple example:
  
  He asked me "What time is it?".
  Of course, hardly anyone ever does that. I doubt that any publishers include this situation in their rules, but it'd be interesting to find one that does.
  The reason that geeks might like this is that almost all programming language work that way. Consider the generic example:
  
  print "Hello, world!";
  This command prints the '!', since it's part of the quoted string. It doesn't print the semicolon or the quotes, because they're not part of the quoted string. This is simple and logical, and it's not surprising that people who've been required to learn this logic might also apply it to the chaos that is English spelling and grammar.
  (It is also fun to point out that there is no official English rule on such topics, for the simple reason that the English language has no official organization with the legal ability to impose such rules. The closest we can come is publishers' stylebooks and grade-school English textbooks, none of which have any official legal standing anywhere in the world. ;-)
  
  --
  Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
16. Re:It worked even better by nobaloney · 2012-03-28 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  It is not debatable that it is the rule.
  It's debatable, because there are multiple rules. Because while the period (full stop) goes inside the close double quotes, that's a typographical convention, and not a gramatical rule.
  The reason it's a typographical convention is now strictly visual, to avoid whitespace, but originally, in the days of metal and wood type set by hand it was so the period wouldn't get lost before the type block was bound in string to be put into the chase. If you'll look, you'll see the period is narrower than the close double quotes; it made sense to some that the narrowest character shouldn't be on the end. At least that's what it said in the Boy Scouts of America Printing Merit Badge pamphlet back in the 1960s.
  Grammatically, historically, the period belongs wherever it makes sense; see the second paragraph of http://www.writersblock.ca/tips/monthtip/tipmay96.htm.
But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 19:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

What about non-tumor cells, which also display this cell determinant?
1. Re:But... by TeXMaster · 2012-03-26 19:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Same perplexity I have. What if the good results are linked to the host being a mouse, and in humans the same treatment would end up becoming some kind of auto-immune disease instead?
  
  --
  "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
2. Re:But... by MichaelSmith · 2012-03-26 19:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yeah this seems to be the problem with all chemotherapy drugs. They target fast growing tissue, including the immune system. Being treated for these conditions can make you wish you were dead.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
3. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 20:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sure, but in the cases where it works you eventually come away neither dead nor wishing you were dead. So your options are
  A. Take the drugs, wish you were dead, then get better, then feel fine
  B. Don't take the drugs. Be actually dead.
  I used to stagger home through the woods after each round of chemo, not quite wishing I was dead, but certainly feeling very sorry for myself, and then in a week's time I'd go do the same thing again. But it worked, so instead of being dead and buried back when Slashdot members with six digit user IDs didn't exist yet I'm still here and feeling fine. Slight elevated risk of solid tumours in old age, and no chance I'll win any records for free diving with what the radiotherapy did to my lungs after we finished chemo, but I'll probably outlive those of my peers who are smoking.
4. Re:But... by MichaelSmith · 2012-03-26 20:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I am glad to hear that you came through okay.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
5. Re:But... by Chatsubo · 2012-03-26 20:21 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The way I understand it, is that our immune system usually waxes cells that have gone rogue, and we get 'cancer' all the time except those cells get killed quickly by our immune system.
  However 'true' cancer has a mutation that prevents this from happening and this drug turns that mechanism on again, so things can work as usual.
  In other words: normal cells should carry on as before.
  (If I understand this correctly, IANAD)
  
  --
  > no, yes, maybe (tagging beta)
6. Re:But... by ratbag · 2012-03-26 20:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Your post was possibly the post important message an AC has ever shared with this website. Thanks.
7. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 20:36 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Your post was possibly the post important message an AC has ever shared with this website. Thanks.
  Indeed. If it has just finished "P.S. first post", it would have been perfect.
8. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 20:38 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The authors share your concern. From the paper:
  
  A concern in translating this therapy to human application is the potential for toxicity. CD47 is highly expressed on tumor cells, but also at varying levels on normal (nontumor) cells. However, here we demonstrate that blockade of CD47 in immune competent mice produces an effective antitumor response without unacceptable toxicity, albeit with a temporary anemia.
9. Re:But... by Gravis+Zero · 2012-03-26 20:53 · Score: -1, Redundant
  
  Sure, but in the cases where it works you eventually come away neither dead nor wishing you were dead. So your options are
  A. Take the drugs, wish you were dead, then get better, then feel fine
  B. Don't take the drugs. Be actually dead.
  ahem...
  C. Don't take the drugs. Be actually dead. Come back for BRAAAAAINS!.
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
10. Re:But... by bestalexguy · 2012-03-26 20:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  What about non-tumor cells, which also display this cell determinant?
  They will die. But, from TFA: "CD47 is overexpressed on cancer cells". Cancer treatment is about destroying much more cancer cells than healthy ones.
11. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 21:42 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I used to stagger home through the woods after each round of chemo
  The sad thing here may be that people who have never really had a significant health problem will act all shocked about having to "stagger home" and consider it some impossible act of bravery. Fact is, if you can walk home - or stand at all - you're not in that bad a state.
  I have just watched a grandparent slowly die - bedbound. His organs were failing. He bounced in and out of awareness of the people around him. Meanwhile I'm fortunate in that I've only been really unhealthy for a couple of weeks, following an operation with complications. My abdomen was full of drains and I was so coked up on painkillers that apparently it took me minutes to finish a sentence (I was conscious but felt completely numb - I wasn't really aware of what was going on). But I have recovered completely from that.
  Compare my uncle, in his 60s, whose chemo a couple of years ago made him "feel awful" but he remained walking wounded throughout, carrying on and getting through it. My girlfriend's sister won't be so lucky - she has a few months to live following a late diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.
  tl;dr The human body can take a lot of shit. If you are worried about any symptoms, don't fear, but run to your doctor for a diagnosis. If you find you have cancer and need treatment, don't fear, but receive it happily - you'll feel a little shitty, btu if you're not too old then your body can get through much worse things.
12. Re:But... by priceslasher · 2012-03-26 22:07 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Already happened, it was called "I am Legend" (the movie). Will Smith saved us but I think the zombies got him in the end.
13. Re:But... by ildon · 2012-03-26 22:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The article states that it also weakens the defenses of blood cells, but that the mice's bodies produced enough replacement blood cells to compensate.
14. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 22:12 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  There was an AC posting a few days ago in the thread about "steering wheel position" who had lost his wife and young son as a result of a malfunctioning airbag sensor. That's not to take anything away from the insight of AC above, though.
  Just to point out that ACs have a bad rep on slashdot that is increasingly outdated. I personally refused to sign up with /. at 5 digits because I thought I would waste more time here if I had an account. Since then privacy concerns have heightened massively. Anonymity has become something that can actually be praiseworthy.
  While the standard of posts has gone down massively on slashdot in the last 15 years, far more ACs are getted modded into visibility than before. Maybe some ACs are victims of the "slashdot edit wars", or semi-famous nicks that want to make their point in a neutral way, or prolific posters who got fed up of stalkers. ACs don't mind getting routinely bashed on slashdot - but the automatic hatred of ACs seems more dogmatic than based on any recent evidence.
15. Re:But... by Huntr · 2012-03-26 22:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  From TFA:
  
  Although macrophages also attacked blood cells expressing CD47 when mice were given the antibody, the researchers found that the decrease in blood cells was short-lived; the animals turned up production of new blood cells to replace those they lost from the treatment...
16. Re:But... by tomhath · 2012-03-26 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  RTFA:
  
  Analysis of patient tumor and matched adjacent normal (nontumor) tissue revealed that CD47 is overexpressed on cancer cells...CD47 is a commonly expressed molecule on all cancers, its function to block phagocytosis is known, and blockade of its function leads to tumor cell phagocytosis and elimination. CD47 is therefore a validated target for cancer therapies.
17. Re:But... by andot · 2012-03-26 22:53 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I understand you. And I agree with you. I got 10 chemos and stem cell transplant 5 years ago. Yes, it was living hell. But seeing my kids grow up now makes it 1000 times worth it.
18. Re:But... by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2012-03-26 23:07 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Sadly anemia is a horrible symptom in itself. Best case is lightheadedness, extreme tiredness and complete inability to sustain even mild exercise ("look ma, the docter said I can't run and look !" <wham> patient lies unconscious on the floor, usually with a few bruises and a suspicious spreading discoloration in his/her face). Worst case it causes you to choke to death while your lungs are operating fine.
19. Re:But... by paiute · 2012-03-26 23:12 · Score: 0
  
  There was an AC posting a few days ago in the thread about "steering wheel position" who had lost his wife and young son as a result of a malfunctioning airbag sensor.
  I saw the same post on Reddit.
  
  --
  If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
20. Re:But... by berashith · 2012-03-26 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  but it is a somewhat common side effect to many chemo options that are in use today. If there is an option with similar or less negative side effects compared to current options, with the other side effect of treating some possibly untreatable cancers, I think the decision is fairly easy
21. Re:But... by brdsutte · 2012-03-26 23:18 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Auto-immune? I bet House can handle it ...
22. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 23:38 · Score: 0
  
  This is an antibody based treatment, not chemotherapy.
23. Re:But... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-03-26 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  It will, potentially, be rather gruesome to see what happens when they start testing on pregnant mice. Fetuses do differ from cancer in a number of respects(only in certain countries can a tumor max out your credit cards...); but it is a bit hard to be an invasive, rapidly-expanding, mass of semi-foreign tissue without looking just a touch cancerous...
24. Re:But... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-03-26 23:54 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Will he have to? It's never lupus.
25. Re:But... by necro81 · 2012-03-27 00:17 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I was conscious but felt completely numb - I wasn't really aware of what was going on. But I have recovered completely from that.
  Did you see a distant ship's smoke on the horizon?
26. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  I went down to a blood count of 8 on chemo, but it was temporary.
  If a drug like this could work and could revolutionise treatment it could make current cancer treatment look like Victorian era medicine does to us now. "You mean they did what?"
27. Re:But... by TheRaven64 · 2012-03-27 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  Blood transfusions are pretty routine these days. If you need to be in hospital receiving regular transfusions for a little while until the tumours are gone then that would suck, but it would still be vastly better than any of the alternatives...
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
28. Re:But... by neokushan · 2012-03-27 00:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Agreed. I come to slashdot for the discussions, not the articles which I tend to find on other sites before /. posts them. The discussions are brilliant here, even amongst the trolls and idiots.
  
  --
  +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
29. Re:But... by TeXMaster · 2012-03-27 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Are you talking about the remake of "The Omega man"?
  
  --
  "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
30. Re:But... by nahdude812 · 2012-03-27 01:16 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That's the nature of drug testing. You test it out in several animals of varying levels of similarity to humans before you start testing in humans. Mice are a common starting point because they're inexpensive and small, and you can run trials with thousands of mice. Also, mice sort of self-destruct if things start going badly in them, they are fairly fragile. So they make good canaries because when things are going badly, the signs are not often subtle.
  Plenty of compounds show promising results in mice that prove to have reduced results in later trials with more complex animals or in humans, or show side effects only later in the drug study regime. Conversely it's almost certain that there are compounds out there which would provide amazing results in humans, but which failed early stage drug studies in animals. It's just not a great idea to be testing drugs for the first time in humans without some idea as to what the outcome would be; the fatality rate in animals is pretty high, and you can purposely infect them to treat for a specific disease. There are drugs that even with this prep work still fail in clinical (human) trials, either because of efficacy problems or because of unexpected or more-severe side effects, or some combination (if it's effective but with bad side effects in animals, then not very effective and with horrible side effects in humans, it will be rejected).
  The study in this article is the very earliest stage. Usually they do tiny studies like this as the very first trial. Many, many drugs produce interesting results at this stage, and fail the very next set of studies (statistically large populations, which 10 mice is not, even with extremely promising results such as this). The chances of such a drug making it to clinical trials is vanishingly small, almost all compounds fail, only a few ever make it.
  
  --
  Slay a dragon... over lunch!
31. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  No the remake of the remake... At least they are getting better...
32. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  That's the model we study cancer in, now its time to see if it works in human models. I didn't read the paper yet, but usually these are SCID mice that have human tissue implanted in them.
33. Re:But... by blue+trane · 2012-03-27 01:38 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Your lack of empathy for these fellow-mortals is contemptible, my dear sir. Please repair your relation to Nature's social union.
  To a Mouse
  Wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie,
  O, what panic's in thy breastie!
  Thou need na start awa sae hasty,
  Wi' bickering brattle!
  I wad be laith to rin an' chase thee,
  Wi' murd'ring pattle!
  I'm truly sorry Man's dominion
  Has broken Nature's social union,
  An' justifies that ill opinion,
  Which makes thee startle,
  At me, thy poor, earth-born companion,
  An' fellow-mortal!
  I doubt na, whyles, but thou may thieve;
  What then? poor beastie, thou maun live!
  A daimen-icker in a thrave 'S a sma' request:
  I'll get a blessin wi' the lave,
  An' never miss't!
  Thy wee-bit housie, too, in ruin!
  It's silly wa's the win's are strewin!
  An' naething, now, to big a new ane,
  O' foggage green!
  An' bleak December's winds ensuin,
  Baith snell an' keen!
  Thou saw the fields laid bare an' wast,
  An' weary Winter comin fast,
  An' cozie here, beneath the blast,
  Thou thought to dwell,
  Till crash! the cruel coulter past
  Out thro' thy cell.
  That wee-bit heap o' leaves an' stibble,
  Has cost thee monie a weary nibble!
  Now thou's turn'd out, for a' thy trouble,
  But house or hald.
  To thole the Winter's sleety dribble,
  An' cranreuch cauld!
  But Mousie, thou are no thy-lane,
  In proving foresight may be vain:
  The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
  Gang aft agley,
  An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
  For promis'd joy!
  Still, thou art blest, compar'd wi' me!
  The present only toucheth thee:
  But Och! I backward cast my e'e,
  On prospects drear!
  An' forward, tho' I canna see,
  I guess an' fear!
34. Re:But... by mattcasters · 2012-03-27 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  No, he was completely numb, not comfortably at all apparently.
  
  --
  News about the Kettle Open Source project: on my blog
35. Re:But... by oldhack · 2012-03-27 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  Cancer treatment is about destroying much more cancer cells than healthy ones.
  That seems the basic strategy of medicine in general, enough poison to kill the nasties, but hopefully not enough to kill the patient.
  
  --
  Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
36. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 02:02 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  In the case of drugs for life-threatening conditions, why don't we have a system where those patients who are virtually gauranteed to die soon can be used in super-early trials? If I was given a "you have maybe 3 months tops, you're hopeless" cancer prognosis, I'd want researchers stabbing random cancer drugs into me at will, even if they've never even tried a mouse. Worst case I still die. Best case they cure me (very slim odds). Good chance they get some useful data from watching my body react in the lab, even if I'm too late-stage for whatever promising results they might see.
37. Re:But... by mhajicek · 2012-03-27 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Just like quelling rebellions.
38. Re:But... by gorzek · 2012-03-27 02:16 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  What you've suggested is, unsurprisingly, very controversial in the medical and legal communities.
  Here is an interesting paper on the subject: http://www.leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/547/Flannery.html
  
  --
  Check out my world simulator thingy.
39. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  Are you talking about the remake of "The Last Man on Earth"?
40. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 02:23 · Score: 0
  
  No, he's talking about the remake of The Last Man on Earth.
41. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  If the treatment works on mice, there is a substantially greater chance that it will work in humans than if we would not have tested it on mice first, and went directly to human trials.
  I really hope that either your children or your parents get cancer and die a slow and painful death. I'd be curious to hear the tune you'd be singing afterwards about this type of research.
42. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  Totally agree!
  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181008,00.html
43. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  cheesy?
44. Re:But... by nahdude812 · 2012-03-27 02:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  you have maybe 3 months tops, you're hopeless
  Such a prognosis would be rare. People have looked hopeless and ended up turning around and recovering. Doctors are extremely reluctant to pronounce you terminal, instead they read you the odds. Just last week, or the week before, I heard an interview on NPR with a woman who's had stage IV breast cancer that metastasized into her skeletal system for the past 25 years. She's tried a wide variety of cancer treatments, none of them have seemed to make much impact on her condition. Typical chances of survival for her cancer at that stage are pretty low (that's about the worst case scenario for breast cancer), but as she demonstrates, the only people whose actual survival time is known with any certainty are the people who are at the "days left to live" stage (and probably already on hospice care), not the "months/years" left stages.
  The more certain they are about the survival chances, the more damage has already been done to the body. Even if you could cure the cancer side-effect free overnight, such patients would likely still die from complications.
  
  Worst case I still die
  
  Dying is not the worst case. Living fully aware, hooked up to a large pile of life support machines in substantial and unending pain is the worst case, and not out of the range of possibilities.
  Drugs for terminal conditions do sometimes get approved for earlier human trials. But a study has to be running (there are several reasons they can't just take one-off patients as they become available, it creates too many uncontrollable factors, and makes double-blind methodology all but impossible). For all clinical trials, patients have to be free from complications which may distort results in the study (if you accept patients with existing heart conditions, that patient cannot be used to indicate heart conditions). The healthier the patient, the more meaningful the study results.
  So it can be difficult to amass a statistically significant population of very late stage otherwise-healthy patients (don't forget you also need a control group to receive placebo). Meaningful conclusions cannot be derived from "Let's stick this in Joe's arm and see what happens," without a lot of observation and confirmation bias tainting the results. That means that even if you set aside all ethical and legal considerations, you are still going to have a hard time amassing a sufficient study population for practical reasons. Also as noted, the more certain we are about fatality, the less time that patient has to live, and very-terminal patients have this frustrating tendency to die.
  
  --
  Slay a dragon... over lunch!
45. Re:But... by b0bby · 2012-03-27 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  From TFA:
  "Although macrophages also attacked blood cells expressing CD47 when mice were given the antibody, the researchers found that the decrease in blood cells was short-lived; the animals turned up production of new blood cells to replace those they lost from the treatment"
46. Re:But... by baKanale · 2012-03-27 02:58 · Score: 2
  
  They didn't get him in the original ending.
47. Re:But... by qbast · 2012-03-27 03:13 · Score: 2
  
  You forgot most frequent option: C. Take the drugs, wish you were dead. Very soon you are.
48. Re:But... by qbast · 2012-03-27 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  So it is just like chemo - kills every kind of cells, but cancer cells die a little faster.
49. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  C. Take the drugs, wish you were dead--then actually die.
50. Re:But... by Larryish · 2012-03-27 03:18 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Why does trepanning always get a bad rap?
  I mean, we always made sure to follow it with leeches.
51. Re:But... by Millennium · 2012-03-27 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  With the autoimmune effects that seem rather likely to come from suppressing a "don't eat me" signal, I wouldn't be surprised if the side effects turned out to be quite similar. That's not to say it's no better than chemo; this stands to be more reliable, and probably faster to recover from too. But the actual course of treatment will probably be about as hellish. Still better than dying of cancer, of course, but not something people would willingly do for any other reason.
52. Re:But... by Knutsi · 2012-03-27 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on wether CD47 is enough on it's own to have the macropahges dispose of the cell it's attached to. Antibodies (IgG types at least) also trigger destruction of the cells they strike and it will be more efficient at this if they attach to multiple targets in close proximity (opsonisation). If CD47 is overexpressed on cancer cells, perhaps it could trigger an immun response on the cancer cells, but not regular cells.
  If the antibodies mentioned here do not trigger an immune response, but rather inhibits CD47 function to prevent the cells from being disposed if, that might also be enough given other signals from the cell to macrophages that it is someyhing wrong with it.
  In both cases, normals cells would be largely spared, but cancer suffer. Much like chemo, really, but perhaps more targeted.
53. Re:But... by schwit1 · 2012-03-27 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  karma
54. Re:But... by phorm · 2012-03-27 03:44 · Score: 2
  
  Mice also mature rather quickly, which is ideal for getting results from different experiments in a timely manner (as applicable to mammals, otherwise fruit-flies also work nicely)
55. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdot comments are the skeptical antidote to breathlessly optimistic news stories. Seriously! The comment about mouse studies demonstrates how reporting of this type of thing is grossly premature, at best.
56. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  I used to stagger home through the woods after each round of chemo
  Nice cover for your violent lycanthropy episodes, dude, but we're not convinced
57. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  Let's just hope that this treatment doesn't end up with a new type of cancer cell that doesn't have the over-expressed CD47.
58. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  Not entirely routine. They can be dangerous. Also, once the immune system is trained to attack something, it will do continue to do something. This is a serious side effect, not some minor inconvenience.
59. Re:But... by wmac1 · 2012-03-27 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Happy to see a winner. It's a relief. I hope you a long, healthy and happy life.
60. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  The grenade mixed with highly explosive gas got Will Smith and the Zombies in the end.
61. Re:But... by yurtinus · 2012-03-27 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Which would be a concern with a communicable disease caused by some other organism, but cancer is a mutation of our own cells.
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
62. Re:But... by justforgetme · 2012-03-27 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  They are?!?!?!?
  
  --
  -- no sig today
63. Re:But... by geekoid · 2012-03-27 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  "Dying is not the worst case. Living fully aware, hooked up to a large pile of life support machines in substantial and unending pain is the worst case, and not out of the range of possibilities."
  I disagree. Death is the worse case. There really isn't any possibility of recovery after death. and certainly not more then a couple of hours of being dead.
  Three is a possibility, however slim, that they may fix me os I can live off the mechanical respiratory system and pain free.
  And yes, I have thought about this considerably.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
64. Re:But... by geekoid · 2012-03-27 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  browse lower. There are a hell of a lot of racists, stupid, and nonsensical AC posts.
  I usually browse higher, so the AC I see a generally relevant since they where modded up.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
65. Re:But... by geekoid · 2012-03-27 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  That's is no the most frequent option anymore... depending on cancer type.
  And it's still about ;probability.in that you are far more likely to survive with the drugs.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
66. Re:But... by geekoid · 2012-03-27 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  It's the dose that makes the poison.
  And , no, it is NOT a basic strategy of medicine.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
67. Re:But... by mcgrew · 2012-03-27 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  "We have him on opiates to keep him comfortable." Yes, he was comfortably numb, compared to the searing pain he would have otherwise been in.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
68. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe some ACs are victims of the "slashdot edit wars", or semi-famous nicks that want to make their point in a neutral way, or prolific posters who got fed up of stalkers.
  Pretty much the last one for me. Death threats against me and my family were enough to convince me. That and I don't really care if people see what I write. If they're curious about a subject they might see my postings. Otherwise, meh. My ego just isn't that involved.
69. Re:But... by nahdude812 · 2012-03-27 07:36 · Score: 2
  
  Three is a possibility, however slim, that they may fix me
  And there is a much greater possibility that they can't fix you, and you survive in utter anguish and misery while the cancer continues to advance in your body unabated. While you could instead have spent that time quietly and comfortably with loved ones and family, having traded that for a vanishingly small chance at survival, and being on the losing end of that bet. It's not like they're sitting on known cures, but busy filling out paperwork instead of saving patients. Until all the animal trials are complete, we don't even know if there's a reasonable chance a new drug will be able to help humans.
  Almost all drug candidates are rejected before they get to human trials, because they are discovered to in effect be a bad or ineffective drug. Those that aren't discovered to be bad or ineffective are given to humans in clinical trials before being made available to the general population. Essentially there is already a control in place to get very sick humans access to pre-release drugs that research suggests is likely to be effective and safe in humans.
  
  --
  Slay a dragon... over lunch!
70. Re:But... by garyebickford · 2012-03-27 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  I come for the centerfolds. :D
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
71. Re:But... by WillgasM · 2012-03-27 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  You realize Will Smith was the bad guy in that movie, right?
72. Re:But... by jc42 · 2012-03-27 10:05 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Let's just hope that this treatment doesn't end up with a new type of cancer cell that doesn't have the over-expressed CD47.
  That's probably already true for some kinds of cancer. One of the problems with the media's coverage of cancer is that they tend to talk about it as if it were a single disease. But it's actually a catch-all term for a list of probably thousands of different diseases that have a common symptom of uncontrolled cell growth. It's pretty well understood that what works with cancer X generally can't be expected to work with cancer Y.
  It's funny that people have this confusion, when for example flu is generally understood by most people as the same sort of thing, a name for hundreds of similar diseases, each caused by a single strain of virus. Part of the reason that people understand this is that the anti-flu vaccines produced each year are identified as being "for" a specific strain, and they won't protect you from other strains.
  It would help understand a new "cancer cure" if we understood that it probably affects only some subset (possibly small) of all the different kinds of cancer. But if you read TFS, you don't see many hint of this, and TFA isn't all that much more specific. Of course, the researchers probably thought that by listing the cancers that they'd used in testing, they were implicitly saying "We don't know how it will affect any cancers other than these." But that message obviously hasn't gotten out to the media people who have been breathlessly reporting "a new cure for cancer" as if it were a single silver bullet that would kill all cancers. It's an old story, though, and you see the same response to many earlier "cancer cures".
  
  --
  Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
73. Re:But... by interkin3tic · 2012-03-27 10:23 · Score: 2
  
  The tumor cells have more of the "I'm healthy" signals (CD47) than actual healthy cells do. If this treatment works, I suppose that means that there is a threshold effect here, if you have a normal amount of CD47 as you would on a normal cell, the immune system would ignore it.
  
  At the very least, the side effects could be less severe than targeting all dividing cells, which is what the current generation of chemo does.
  
  There is also the possibility to do things other than training the immune system to attack it. Antibodies are proteins that recognize and attach to a specific biological molecules, you can make antibodies to nearly any protein including some proteins found in cancer cells. You can then attach say a radioactive molecule or something toxic to the antibody and use that to specifically target cancer cells. Those approaches weren't wildly successful, but it might be that they just lacked a good general target like CD47.
74. Re:But... by Zpin · 2012-03-27 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Although macrophages also attacked blood cells expressing CD47 when mice were given the antibody, the researchers found that the decrease in blood cells was short-lived; the animals turned up production of new blood cells to replace those they lost from the treatment, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
75. Re:But... by UpnAtom · 2012-03-27 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  There's always the very significant possibility that death isn't the end.
76. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 14:34 · Score: 0
  
  I always browse at -1, and the stupid AC posts seem to be present in a similar proportion to the stupid logged-in user posts.
77. Re:But... by UpnAtom · 2012-03-27 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. /.'s mod system, whilst far from perfect is so vital for dealing with the millions of opinions on the internet, I'm just baffled it's not been copied.
  I like to come to /. to read articles on science and technology. Usually someone's put it into understandable terms, someone else has pointed out the flaws and you can always find both sides of the debate.
  Sometimes you can get that on Wikipedia but usually not straight away and you can't ask questions there.
78. Re:But... by MichaelSmith · 2012-03-27 18:47 · Score: 1
  
  And being a deep, complex hack into the organism it is likely to have wildly varying side effects. My father in law died from DPD/5-FU toxicity. Its a horrible way to go. He was half decomposed when he was declared dead. Having seen that happen I doubt my wife would ever consent to having chemotherapy.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
79. Re:But... by neokushan · 2012-03-27 20:07 · Score: 2
  
  That's another valid point, I'm always asking questions on /. regarding things I simply don't understand. You often get called an idiot, but that's just standard forum/comment behaviour. But you always get someone knowledgeable that explains it properly. I strongly believe in asking questions rather than getting stuff wrong and slashdot is great for that.
  
  --
  +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
80. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-28 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  Dying is not the worst case. Living fully aware, hooked up to a large pile of life support machines in substantial and unending pain is the worst case
  Depends on how much you want to live.
81. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-28 15:01 · Score: 0
  
  This sounds like the beginning of "I am legend"...
82. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-29 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  There was an AC posting a few days ago in the thread about "steering wheel position" who had lost his wife and young son as a result of a malfunctioning airbag sensor. That's not to take anything away from the insight of AC above, though.
  Just to point out that ACs have a bad rep on slashdot that is increasingly outdated. I personally refused to sign up with /. at 5 digits because I thought I would waste more time here if I had an account. Since then privacy concerns have heightened massively. Anonymity has become something that can actually be praiseworthy.
  While the standard of posts has gone down massively on slashdot in the last 15 years, far more ACs are getted modded into visibility than before. Maybe some ACs are victims of the "slashdot edit wars", or semi-famous nicks that want to make their point in a neutral way, or prolific posters who got fed up of stalkers. ACs don't mind getting routinely bashed on slashdot - but the automatic hatred of ACs seems more dogmatic than based on any recent evidence.
  Dude, I've been screaming that for years, yet every time I seem to get modded a troll. I never understood why people felt the need to create a username that they can hide behind, like a coward. I've seen some highly insightful comments coming from ACs that remained in modding hell because of this outdated reputation.
  Ho-hum. Like every other aspect of this website, there are too many sheep, and not enough intelligence. Methinks that was proven by the poll where the average Slashdotter was determined to be smarter than average. Bunch-o-arrogant dicks, if you ask me.
  I'll take my troll mod now.
Still no cure for... by TWX · 2012-03-26 19:20 · Score: -1, Troll

...

Nevermind...

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Cure for cancer just around the corner by hairyfish · 2012-03-26 19:20 · Score: -1

News at 11....
I saw this in a movie recently... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 19:21 · Score: 0

The I am Legend movie?
1. Re:I saw this in a movie recently... by MichaelSmith · 2012-03-26 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yes we've had this drug available here for...
  **NO CARRIER**
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
2. Re:I saw this in a movie recently... by Zuriel · 2012-03-26 20:13 · Score: 0
  
  The no carrier thing is so last decad-
  Read from remote host: Connection reset by peer.
3. Re:I saw this in a movie recently... by pbjones · 2012-03-26 20:32 · Score: 1
  
  Decade?, more like quarter century.
  
  --
  There was an unknown error in the submission.
4. Re:I saw this in a movie recently... by gorzek · 2012-03-27 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  I was still using dialup in 2002, you insensitive clod!
  
  --
  Check out my world simulator thingy.
New tool for *special* agencies by citro · 2012-03-26 19:22 · Score: 0

What about a treatment developed that coaxes the immune system to destroy useful / healhy / viable cells?
1. Re:New tool for *special* agencies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 19:23 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  That's called an auto-immune disease and that would be nothing new under the sun,
Mouse != Human by RenHoek · 2012-03-26 19:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Very promising, but before we uncork the champagne, it's important to keep in mind that mice and humans are different enough that most cures don't translate 1:1 to humans.
1. Re:Mouse != Human by zanian · 2012-03-26 19:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  While, you have a point
  
  that mice and humans are different enough that most cures don't translate 1:1 to humans.
  
  at least it has been tested on
  
  human breast, ovary, colon, bladder, brain, liver, and prostate tumors that have been transplanted into mice
  
  , rather than just on mice anatomy.
2. Re:Mouse != Human by Aryden · 2012-03-26 19:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes but I believe his point is that, a mouse is not the same as a human and therefore we cannot yet tell what detrimental effects the drug may have on humans that did not occur in the mice.
3. Re:Mouse != Human by reboot246 · 2012-03-26 20:10 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Then let's test it on lawyers! They're almost human,
4. Re:Mouse != Human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 20:33 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yes, but what if it doesn't kill them?
5. Re:Mouse != Human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 20:53 · Score: 0
  
  Do you really want immortal lawyers?
6. Re:Mouse != Human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 20:56 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Then it's not a cure for cancer.
7. Re:Mouse != Human by JWSmythe · 2012-03-26 21:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's a start. But you are right. People (scientists) are pushed to publish with even preliminary results. I'd prefer that stuff like this stay firmly in the scientific process, and not put out the press release until they have done enough testing to be reasonably sure of the result.
  10 mice is a start. A curiosity. Something to look more at. It's getting people's hopes up today, when we won't see it available to the general population for many years. Well, that's assuming that it does work as expected. They see a 90% success rate, with a sample set of 10. How does that translate out to a sample set of 1,000? How about humans of different ethnic origins, blood types, and other factors?
  I hope it does work as advertised. No one suffering from terminal cancer now, should hold their breath that it may work in their lifetime.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
8. Re:Mouse != Human by CubicleView · 2012-03-26 22:37 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I have a theory that with enough research we’ll eventually be able cure any disease that mice are afflicted with.
9. Re:Mouse != Human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 22:46 · Score: 0
  
  But it is the cure for lawyers!
10. Re:Mouse != Human by FTWinston · 2012-03-26 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  at least it has been tested on
  
  human breast, ovary, colon, bladder, brain, liver, and prostate tumors that have been transplanted into mice
  Yeah, it helps a mouse immune system kill the tumors. Its likely it would also help a human immune system kill them.
  Now they need to make sure that it doesn't also kill the non-tumorous parts of the human breast, ovary, colon, bladder, liver and prostate in question.
11. Re:Mouse != Human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 23:04 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, but what if it doesn't kill them?
  Well, then it will make them stronger, obviously.
12. Re:Mouse != Human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 23:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Too bad people with a terminal cancer do not have the right to test such a treatment. Because the alternative isn't better anyway.
13. Re:Mouse != Human by berashith · 2012-03-26 23:18 · Score: 2
  
  especially the ones that we give them. Diagnosis is much simpler when you just look at the previous nights change log.
14. Re:Mouse != Human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 23:28 · Score: 0
  
  Viva la Danger Mouse 4 eva!!! ...Thanks goes out to you my human friends!
  The rodent lives on for all eternity after we are done with 'em and are long gone.
15. Re:Mouse != Human by slashmojo · 2012-03-26 23:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  They're almost human
  Dear Slashdotter,
  This behaviour is a flagrant violation of our most sacred code of conduct and must be stamped out.
  Please inform us of any lawyer found to be almost human so that we may take corrective action forthwith.
  Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated.
  Regards,
  The Bar Council
16. Re:Mouse != Human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 00:10 · Score: 0
  
  Then again, on a biological scale, maybe not so much
17. Re:Mouse != Human by allcoolnameswheretak · 2012-03-27 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  Whoops, forgot to login. Ignore me... just keeping track of my AC comment.
18. Re:Mouse != Human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 00:41 · Score: 0
  
  I am aware of potential cancer cures, but 1/10,000 it wouldn't work, so they halted research. If they had gone forward they would have been morally obligated to release their results, but the 1/10,000 would have resulted in enough lawsuites that the company expected to go out of business. It still early in this research, hopefully they can get better results then 90% (after all it was only 1 mouse representing that 10%), but there still is a long way to go. If you really want some better solutions, fix the law suites first; if some one has terminal cancer, then let them try the alternatives.
19. Re:Mouse != Human by JamesP · 2012-03-27 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you could test with 100 mouse, sure, but does it make sense?
  I guess it's better to 'get it out of the door' and go test it in other ways.
  There's a limited amount of testing you can do in mice and have a meaningful result.
  
  --
  how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
20. Re:Mouse != Human by Pigeon451 · 2012-03-27 00:47 · Score: 2
  
  The mice used in these studies are typically immune-suppressed to prevent it from attacking the human tumour transplanted inside. I've read about several cases where excellent animal trials did not have good outcomes in human trials. However, this is an great start, and I hope it works out.
21. Re:Mouse != Human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 01:12 · Score: 0
  
  We certainly don't want to make them stronger.
22. Re:Mouse != Human by ceoyoyo · 2012-03-27 01:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Publishing in scientific journals is part of the scientific process. Communication and sharing your results is critical to science, particularly when the next steps (human trials) will involve way more resources than your little wet lab probably has. You also want everyone you can get examining your work before you go giving experimental drugs to people.
  The problem seems to be overeager laymen. I guess we could close all the scientific journals to non-scientists and only announce final, ready to market developments. Personally I prefer the open approach and educating the public, but if you don't, please feel free not to read any scientific publications and avoid any news articles about them.
23. Re:Mouse != Human by fain0v · 2012-03-27 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'd prefer that stuff like this stay firmly in the scientific process, and not put out the press release until they have done enough testing to be reasonably sure of the result.
  It was a paper and the press release was from a scientific journal. The purpose is to get the information out to people that are curious or directly involved with related research. I read the intro and discussion and noticed calreticulin. I cloned that protein for someone and I just forwarded the article to him. I would never have have noticed it if it were not on slashdot.
24. Re:Mouse != Human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 01:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Do you not watch TV? There are constantly commercials for drugs where the potential side effects are much worse than the condition they are treating. Sometimes including death! And yet these companies still sell it. As long as the public is made aware that there is a fairly small chance the drug will not work for them why would anyone sue? Of course there are the people that will sue over anything but it wouldn't be 100% of the failed cases. If they sued simply because it didn't work, no worsening of the situation; really bad side effects; etc. What judge would find in their favor when the company said outright this cure doesn't work for everyone.
25. Re:Mouse != Human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, but what if it doesn't kill them?
  It will probably at a minimum shrink them. Which is progress.
26. Re:Mouse != Human by JWSmythe · 2012-03-27 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  IMHO, it was still too early to publish for peer review. I would have liked to see more testing than 10 mice in one experiment.
  As you said, a lot of the blame does lay with overeager laymen. I've been caught up in the excitement of seeing the new great idea, that in time became nothing.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
27. Re:Mouse != Human by JWSmythe · 2012-03-27 04:33 · Score: 2
  
  That's dangerous ground. Jumping from "it worked in 9 of 10 mice for a few months", to "hey doc, try it on me" opens up using terminal human patients as guinea pigs.
  I'm not re-reading the article, but as I recall, they tested on 10 mice over a 4 month period. What if in humans it works to a degree for 4 months, but in 6 months your bone marrow is killed off, and in the next month or two, even your skin dies. You die as your skin rots off your body.
  It's a stretch, and an improbable one, but that's why we don't just jump straight into human trials any more.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
28. Re:Mouse != Human by ceoyoyo · 2012-03-27 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  The peer reviewers, who are professional scientists working in the field, disagree with you.
29. Re:Mouse != Human by berashith · 2012-03-27 04:47 · Score: 2
  
  This misconception drives me a bit batty. All cancer, if not treated, is terminal. Nearly all cancer, when detected, is being treated. There are many many many trials and studies taking place, and the oncologist that the patient is working with will do nearly everything that they can to attempt to discover any that may apply to their patients. These trials are just further along the testing path then those that are not available. Maybe one of these will prove to be a solver bullet for a patient that is involved.
  The idea of an oncologist telling a patient that they have 3 months to live is TV created tripe. They will state facts of the case, such as advances or reductions in the tumors, and suggest different treatments that have worse side effects if the current treatments arent working. The trials have minimum levels of health to be allowed in , so they are usually closer to diagnosis than death, but they are out there and in use all the time.
  I just watched my sister fight cancer for almost two years, and even though I knew ( she didnt) that the discovery was too late and that this was basically a death sentence, it was never brought to her in this way. It was never 100% death within a time limit, so the goal was to treat as well as possible. there were 5 different courses of chemo attempted, and two fairly major operations. She declined a trial at the beginning, as the side effects were likely and horrendous, and there were other treatments with the same odds of success. When the last option was not working, the oncologist finally gave up as there was no other known treatment, and she was not able to travel for a trial. this would have been the "terminal" point that keeps being brought up. The doctor let her know that the pain from the treatment was no longer worth it as the tumors were progressing in spite of the chemo, and each course was preventing any quality of life. When this point is reached, it isnt time to go for random expirements, it is time for hospice.
30. Re:Mouse != Human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  True, but that also means that a drug that kills human cells (and not just tumors) would have the same effect. :)
31. Re:Mouse != Human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 13:17 · Score: 0
  
  You are right, from a purely scientific point of view. However *any* given drug will have differing results based on biology (race, sex, etc), environmental factors (including *diet* and alcohol consumption). Once you have "statistically" perfect test subjects there is always an [excuse|reason|anomaly] to explain away side effects... I guess test subjects say everything about alcohol consumption, smoking, etc. I believe it is better to not have test subjects ascribing to some 'standard' and instead use people willing to try -- from all walks of life/behaviour choices. After all wouldn't you offer the anti-cancer drug to someone with a a heart defect?
32. Re:Mouse != Human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 17:36 · Score: 0
  
  My condolences.
  Also your point is well made.
33. Re:Mouse != Human by JWSmythe · 2012-03-27 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they actually work really hard in their testing. No sane research scientist would say "it worked on 10 mice, lets give it to people."
  I haven't been involved in the whole series of testing required to get a drug FDA approved for human trials, but I have been on the human trial side of it. It was years between "we think we have something", to "lets try it on people".
  Our test happened to be an contraceptive cream. We (my ex and I) were volunteers for the trial. Happy, horny couple, willing to have sex on a regular basis for the sake of science. They also paid us something like $150. It was a 6 month trial. I asked lots of questions. The only information we couldn't get was the chemical or proposed brand names, and the doctor(s) who did the work. We had a separate doctor assigned through the testing company, who would report back all the findings.
  They had gone through the various tests. Does it work on animals? Does it cause irritation of various skin types. Are there any side effects. There was years of testing before it ever got to the point of human trials. The first human trials were simpler tests, like skin reactions, and allergic reactions of any sort.
  In the interview, we were asked a whole series of questions. Understanding why they were asking made it really clear that they wanted to know everything. Do you smoke? Do you drink? Do you use any pharmaceutical drugs? recreational drugs? alcohol?
  There were other questions. Were we fertile? We both already had kids from other relationships. Were there any problems with the kids?
  We were accepted into the program as viable candidates for testing. I believe we were one couple of 300 couples chosen for this particular trial. We were to not use any other form of contraception. We had to keep a detailed journal of our sex life. With that, we were evaluated for side effects. Any itching, swelling in the obvious places. They even wanted to know if we suffered any other illnesses. Shortness of breath, regular illnesses, etc. If one of us caught a cold, it was to be logged and evaluated. If we didn't happen to have sex for a few days, they needed to know why.
  About 3 months into the trial, it turned out my ex was pregnant. That brought on a whole new set of questions. Exactly what did we do How was the contraception applied? Was it within the window dictated in the instructions. The followed our pregnancy closely, including asking for the medical records after our daughter was born. They followed up with us monthly for the first year to see how our daughter was doing. Absolutely anything unusual, they wanted to know about.
  And if you're curious, which I'm sure some people would be at this point, our daughter developed perfectly normally through the pregnancy, and was perfectly healthy when she was born. There was one complication, which wasn't related to the cream. She's 5 now, and still perfectly healthy and happy.
  So, despite what some people here may think, no doctor in his right mind, who expects to keep his medical license and freedom, would ever say "It worked on 9 of 10 mice, lets try it on a human."
  I have heard of other cases where medical trials went horribly wrong. An example is TGN1412. Even with a terminally ill patient, it is reckless and irresponsible to just try something on a human, without adequate preliminary testing. Sure, it may work, and I hope it does. But if they jumped ahead, and the first round of human trials resulted in prolonged painful deaths, No one would agree that it was "ok, because they were dying anyways".
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Won't happen by gusmolinadroid · 2012-03-26 19:24 · Score: -1, Flamebait

It won't fly, as antibodies are cheap and not complicated to do. Seriously, do you really believe Big Pharma is going to let it happen ? A treatment simple like this would jeopardize their business, risking billions of dollar. They'll do something to stop this treatment in its tracks. They always do. Sound paranoid ? I wish. It's more like realistic. Their purpose is not really to cure cancer, but getting a maximum profit from it.
1. Re:Won't happen by azalin · 2012-03-26 19:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It won't fly, as antibodies are cheap and not complicated to do. Seriously, do you really believe Big Pharma is going to let it happen ? A treatment simple like this would jeopardize their business, risking billions of dollar. They'll do something to stop this treatment in its tracks. They always do. Sound paranoid ? I wish. It's more like realistic. Their purpose is not really to cure cancer, but getting a maximum profit from it.
  I call bullshit. First of all you don't risk anything by finding such a "simple cure". There are a lot of people and a lot of them will get cancer at one time so there is a very large customer base and no shortage thereof in the long term. For the length of the patent you could sell this stuff at almost any price. Do you really think one company would keep an invention locked up (and risk loosing it to someone else) that would bring them truckloads of money?
  Not to mention all the free PR you'd get.
  Also I don't really believe in conspiracies that rely on large groups of people to keep quiet, make no mistakes and act against their own private interests.
2. Re:Won't happen by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  While i can understand your concern and partly admit you are right, if you do the math, you will realize that more patients = more profit. You can only sell medicines to living patients, so keeping them alive is also in their advantage. The type of medication may shift yes, but a growing market is something the pharmaceutic industry should welcome.
3. Re:Won't happen by Tim+C · 2012-03-26 19:59 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It won't fly, as antibodies are cheap and not complicated to do
  What does cost to produce have to do with price, other than to set a minimum? Besides, you can get generic painkillers for 12p a box here in the UK, or you can buy the name brand stuff for £3.50; the two co-exist just fine. (Though I wonder who on earth buys the name-brand stuff...)
  
  They'll do something to stop this treatment in its tracks. They always do.
  Links or it didn't happen.
  
  --
  It's official. Most of you are morons.
4. Re:Won't happen by black3d · 2012-03-26 20:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They're not stopping the treatment. They're going to make megabucks off it.
  >> Conflict of interest statement: S.J., M.P.C., R. Majeti, and I.L.W. filed U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/321,215 entitled “Methods for Manipulating Phagocytosis Mediated by CD47."
  They've already applied for the patent for treating cancers in this way. If granted, 17 years of income for a cancer cure which they control the market on would make them a trillion dollars. Each. Although, they could just be patenting it to prevent anyone else patenting it, although naturally whomever funded the study is going to want a sizeable return on their investment and it's fair enough they get it.
  
  --
  "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
5. Re:Won't happen by LBt1st · 2012-03-26 20:04 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  I agree. There is far more money to be made by treating symptoms then curing people. This is the sad state of the American medical industry.
  You can call bullshit, but in 5.. 10.. 15? years.. you may start to wonder whatever happened to this discovery.
6. Re:Won't happen by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 20:20 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Also I don't really believe in conspiracies that rely on large groups of people to keep quiet, make no mistakes and act against their own private interests.
  OMG YOU'RE FUCKING BLIND MAN. It's not hard to keep quite when there's a risk of death! Harry Whittington was going to blow the whistle that 9/11 was an inside job so Dick Chaney shot him. He didn't die because it was just a "warning" of what was to come if he actually did say anything.
7. Re:Won't happen by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 21:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Expressed in other terms:
  How may drug company execs will let their children, their spouses, or their friends die of cancer for better shareholder returns? Not all of them. It only takes one whistle blower, or potential whistle blower, to louse up plans like this.
  One drug company supposedly had a drug for an inherited, fatal condition, but was going to can development of it, as there probably wasn't enough profit. A board member, who had a friend who's child had that condition basically said, "if you can this drug, I'm going to the press with it." Fearing the backlash, the company introduced the drug and now boasts about how good they are to bring drugs for smaller markets to market.
8. Re:Won't happen by martas · 2012-03-26 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure this calls for a "don't feed the trolls." GP didn't even pretend to make a sound argument supporting a logically sound conclusion. Just spouting tinfoilhattery.
  
  --
  weinersmith
9. Re:Won't happen by geekmux · 2012-03-26 22:56 · Score: 1
  
  It won't fly, as antibodies are cheap and not complicated to do. Seriously, do you really believe Big Pharma is going to let it happen ? A treatment simple like this would jeopardize their business, risking billions of dollar. They'll do something to stop this treatment in its tracks. They always do. Sound paranoid ? I wish. It's more like realistic. Their purpose is not really to cure cancer, but getting a maximum profit from it.
  I call bullshit. First of all you don't risk anything by finding such a "simple cure". There are a lot of people and a lot of them will get cancer at one time so there is a very large customer base and no shortage thereof in the long term. For the length of the patent you could sell this stuff at almost any price. Do you really think one company would keep an invention locked up (and risk loosing it to someone else) that would bring them truckloads of money? Not to mention all the free PR you'd get. Also I don't really believe in conspiracies that rely on large groups of people to keep quiet, make no mistakes and act against their own private interests.
  I suppose that if this treatment is as effective as advertised, we will soon see just how powerful Big Pharma's influence is. There is no doubt that there will always be a "customer base" of cancer patients (unless this becomes some sort of vaccine, which that will NEVER be allowed to happen), but it's rather difficult to put a price tag on a single injection and then convince your insurance company that it is something they should cover. The latter challenge is what may prove to be the most difficult for many, and therefore everyone will continue to profit from the "traditional" million-dollar treatment "packages" of surgery and chemo.
  There is far more money to be made treating diseases than curing them. This mantra has held true for a very long time, and I don't see this changing that trillion-dollar industry.
10. Re:Won't happen by sociocapitalist · 2012-03-26 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't take a conspiracy, just your normal, average, seen everyday, everywhere corporate greed.
  Do you not believe that corporations like to maximize their profits?
  Do you not believe that corporations generally have no ethics beyond what is forced on them by law?
  I can all too easily believe that a drugs company would check how much they make selling the current crop of drugs versus a cure and might very well make more money with the current crop. I can continue to all too easily believe that they would then shelve the cure and continue selling what they're selling. I could only hope that the scientists involved couldn't be bought off.
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
11. Re:Won't happen by kyrsjo · 2012-03-27 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  *SNIP*
  I suppose that if this treatment is as effective as advertised, we will soon see just how powerful Big Pharma's influence is. There is no doubt that there will always be a "customer base" of cancer patients (unless this becomes some sort of vaccine, which that will NEVER be allowed to happen), but it's rather difficult to put a price tag on a single injection and then convince your insurance company that it is something they should cover. The latter challenge is what may prove to be the most difficult for many, and therefore everyone will continue to profit from the "traditional" million-dollar treatment "packages" of surgery and chemo.
  There is far more money to be made treating diseases than curing them. This mantra has held true for a very long time, and I don't see this changing that trillion-dollar industry.
  There are some forms of cancer (for example cervical cancer) which are caused by viruses - and which you can and do vaccinate against.
12. Re:Won't happen by foniksonik · 2012-03-27 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  India recently nationalized a drug under patent protection. They cut the price to a fraction of the market price and gave a percent of that back as a royalty.
  If there is a drug that will save as much money in an economy as this drug could, it will not last long on the market without being cloned and made available.
  Curing cancer will bring fame and a small fortune (billions in revenue - profit???) but it will not finance any empires.
  
  --
  A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
13. Re:Won't happen by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-03-27 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  They're not stopping the treatment. They're going to make megabucks off it.
  >> Conflict of interest statement: S.J., M.P.C., R. Majeti, and I.L.W. filed U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/321,215 entitled “Methods for Manipulating Phagocytosis Mediated by CD47."
  They've already applied for the patent for treating cancers in this way. If granted, 17 years of income for a cancer cure which they control the market on would make them a trillion dollars. Each. Although, they could just be patenting it to prevent anyone else patenting it, although naturally whomever funded the study is going to want a sizeable return on their investment and it's fair enough they get it.
  Most likely the study was funded through the government, as is most medical research these days. I don't have a problem with that, but since the government gets its funds from the people, then the people should get the benefit of the research without having to choose between eating or dying from cancer.
14. Re:Won't happen by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 00:49 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, no money in recombinant monoclonal antibodies to fight disease. That's why every other drug ad on TV is for something ending in "mab" (monoclonal antibody). For rheumatoid arthritis we have Retuximab (anti-CD20) which was originally developed for treating leukemias and Hodgkin's lymphoma, or gemtuzumab (anti-CD33) used to treat AML, or trastuzumab (anti-EGF receptor) used to treat breast cancer.
  No sir, no money in research for recombinant monoclonal research at all. Big conspiracy on the part of Big Pharma. The fact that it's one of the biggest and most lucrative drug pipelines in pharmaceutical research is just good marketing.
15. Re:Won't happen by Pigeon451 · 2012-03-27 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  Researchers typically do work for the greater good, but also want to reap rewards for their hard work. Generally people in this situation will cash in on the royalties and such, but not make it so expensive that it will be unavailable to most people. If these treatments work out, the hardest hit financially will be the insurance companies and hospitals, not individuals.
16. Re:Won't happen by TheRaven64 · 2012-03-27 00:55 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I suppose that if this treatment is as effective as advertised, we will soon see just how powerful Big Pharma's influence is.
  
  You're assuming that a cure for cancer would not be in the interests of Big Pharma. I don't think that is necessarily true. Most current cancer treatments are expensive (also often expensive to produce, so not a huge profit margin) and are only sold for shortish treatment periods. Either the patient recovers or dies. A proper cure could easily see people living 20+ years longer. Old people tend to be a better market for pharmaceuticals (of the non-recreational kind, anyway) and so the profit from having people not die from cancer is likely to be greater than the loss from not selling them cancer treatments.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
17. Re:Won't happen by Sarius64 · 2012-03-27 01:26 · Score: 2
  
  I agree. Assigning evil status to big pharma is a favorite past time of many. However, reasonable people know that plenty of stock holders and insiders in the biotech industries get cancer, too. Unless you're the most sociopathic type, watching your child die to cancer generally is not a common choice people would desire.
18. Re:Won't happen by Jason+Levine · 2012-03-27 01:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Not to mention all the free PR you'd get.
  Exactly. Imagine you ran the company that found the cure to cancer, the magic bullet that stopped all cancer dead in its tracks. Even if you didn't make a dime off of the cure itself, your new company slogan would be "We Cured Cancer!" Every commercial from then on out would say "From the people who cured cancer comes a radical new treatment for XYZ." Heck, even any regulations the government tried to saddle them with could be spun as "The government takes action against the cancer curers! OMG HORROR!" Any pharmaceutical company would kill (or save lives as the case may be) for this PR.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
19. Re:Won't happen by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 02:23 · Score: 0
  
  Not to mention the marketing hype a company would get if it was able to help cure cancer. Any existing and new drug that company produces would be visible as "made by the company that is helping to eradicate cancer".
20. Re:Won't happen by rich_hudds · 2012-03-27 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently the brand name stuff works better because the patient thinks it is better. It's a form of the placebo effect but it is true. Now it may not be true for you as you don't expect the expensive stuff to be better but for the people who buy it it probably makes sense.
  
  Ben Goldacre has a section about this brand effect in his book Bad Science
21. Re:Won't happen by kungfool · 2012-03-27 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  As a former cancer researcher at a big biotech pharma company, I also call bullshit. First of all, claiming that "antibodies are cheap and not complicated" just shows your ignorance of the science. The concept may be simple, but the actual production of pharmaceutical quality antibodies is VERY complicated and requires a massive infrastructure. And the average cost to bring a biologic drug to market is about 750 million dollars. As far as paranoid delusions of some company hiding the cure for cancer, I'm also a cancer survivor. Do you think if I was working on something that was "a cure for cancer" I would allow it be buried ? Do you think the entire company could be convinced to hide such a discovery ? Every nearly practical development in biotech seems to end up generating two or three spin-off companies. How are they going to be silenced ?
22. Re:Won't happen by gusmolinadroid · 2012-03-27 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  Links or it didn't happen.
  I'll try to resume some data in this message.
  
  Vitamin D supplementation was found in years-long, randomized interventional trials, to slash cancer incidence - by, for example, 77%. ( http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/6/1586.short , http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/7/451.short ) Even mechanisms of action are known ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076010001822 , http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.24762/full , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20936945 ), althought not all are fully understood.
  
  Vitamin D RDA was 200 IU, which is a joke, almost the same thing as nothing. Specially if we consider the human body will produce 10.000 IU in a 15-minute tropical noon-day sun full-body exposure ( http://0101.nccdn.net/1_5/3a0/1e8/00e/Cannell-Vitamin-D-study.pdf
  The FDA was faced with this new Vitamin D pleiotropic effects, and given that the RDA was old and obviusly innadequate, it asked the IOM (Institute of Medicine) to review it.
  
  They dismissed a Vitamin-D -cancer connection in a completely biased, and non-scientific report, cherry picked some articles, ignored many articles. It shocked the vitamin-D research community, as this link is more than clear. ( http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jbmr.328/full , http://brn.sagepub.com/content/13/2/117 ). The committee had conflicts of interest, and deliberately suppressed the favourable studies ( http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8225367 , http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/today-the-food-and-nutrition-board-has-failed-millions-111112159.html)
  
  It's interesting to note that people in the committee were hand-picked to have conclicts of interest and are developing vitamin D analogs (that work the same way, but are patenteable), so their best interest is to keep natural vitamin D the lowest level possible. Like Glenville Jones, from Cytachroma, developing CTAP101, a medicine to treat vitamin D insuficiency.
  
  Or Hector F. DeLuca, that has 101 patents of vitamin D analogs. Or J. Christopher Gallagher, working for GlaxoSmithKline, that develops Sirilux, a vitamin D analog to treat psoryasis. There are other to cite, but you got the point.
23. Re:Won't happen by gusmolinapc · 2012-03-27 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'll try to resume some data in this message.
  
  Vitamin D supplementation was found in years-long, randomized interventional trials, to slash cancer incidence - by, for example, 77%. ( http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/6/1586.short [ajcn.org] , http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/7/451.short [oxfordjournals.org] ) Even mechanisms of action are known ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076010001822 [sciencedirect.com] , http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.24762/full [wiley.com] , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20936945 [nih.gov] ), althought not all are fully understood.
  
  Vitamin D RDA was 200 IU, which is a joke, almost the same thing as nothing. Specially if we consider the human body will produce 10.000 IU in a 15-minute tropical noon-day sun full-body exposure ( http://0101.nccdn.net/1_5/3a0/1e8/00e/Cannell-Vitamin-D-study.pdf [nccdn.net] The FDA was faced with this new Vitamin D pleiotropic effects, and given that the RDA was old and obviusly innadequate, it asked the IOM (Institute of Medicine) to review it. They dismissed a Vitamin-D -cancer connection in a completely biased, and non-scientific report, cherry picked some articles, ignored many articles. It shocked the vitamin-D research community, as this link is more than clear. ( http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jbmr.328/full [wiley.com] , http://brn.sagepub.com/content/13/2/117 [sagepub.com] ). The committee had conflicts of interest, and deliberately suppressed the favourable studies ( http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8225367 [cambridge.org] , http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/today-the-food-and-nutrition-board-has-failed-millions-111112159.html [prnewswire.com])
  
  It's interesting to note that people in the committee were hand-picked to have conclicts of interest and are developing vitamin D analogs (that work the same way, but are patenteable), so their best interest is to keep natural vitamin D the lowest level possible. Like Glenville Jones, from Cytachroma, developing CTAP101, a medicine to treat vitamin D insufficiency. Or Hector F. DeLuca, that has 101 patents of vitamin D analogs. Or J. Christopher Gallagher, working for GlaxoSmithKline, that develops Sirilux, a vitamin D analog to treat psoryasis. There are other to cite, but you got the point.
24. Re:Won't happen by janimal · 2012-03-27 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  This is a fine and solid theory, except you assume that the cheap stuff is still the pure stuff, and not some chalk dust from some hole in the ground on the other hemisphere.
25. Re:Won't happen by geekoid · 2012-03-27 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  You're an idiot. Let me explain:
  There are several pharmacological companies. The compete with each other.
  The people who run those companies, the Board, CEO, CFO, ETC get money based on stock performance.
  If company A develops a cure for cancers, especial a cure for most/all cancers, there stocks will skyrocket, their competitors stock will drop.
  The C*O get bonuses worth 10s of million, if not 100's of millions of dollars. The stock holders and board members all become far more richer then they where.
  THINK about what you are proposing. THINK about the current technical and communication environment
  If company A develops this, then Companies B,C,D, etc aren't far behind.
  Are you seriously proposing the the C*O and board member sit around while other companies make billions over night? Let it sit in drawer so the next generation can make billions?
  When you use ad homs like Big Pharma, it tells the world that you aren't actually thinking.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
26. Re:Won't happen by geekoid · 2012-03-27 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  except discovering a cure for cancer will increase your stock value, considerable.
  So even if it was solely about money, they would still release it.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
27. Re:Won't happen by geekoid · 2012-03-27 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  My insurance company would cover it. Why wouldn't they?
  "There is far more money to be made treating diseases than curing them."
  A mantra that shows the person who spouts it has no fucking clue about how large corporations work. It's all about the stock value THIS FUCKING QUARTER. not: will this keep are stock value flat for the next decade.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
28. Re:Won't happen by geekoid · 2012-03-27 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Then you are stupid.
  The stock value would skyrocket, and they would get more value. THAT is what it is about in large corporations.
  The CURRENT round of executives will get FUCKING MONSTER BONUSES.
  It's the VERY SAME QUARTER TO QUARTER GREED maximization you talk about that would be the reason for releasing a cure.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
29. Re:Won't happen by MiniMike · 2012-03-27 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Which would they make more money off of- 6 months of chemo drugs, or 40 years of lipitor/viagra/bladder control/whatever*100 other drugs? The dead are not consumers. Maybe they could make more money off of chemo drugs than an anti-body cancer cure, but at the cost of a huge amount of future sales of other products. It's in the best interest of "Big Pharma" to keep you alive, and consuming, as long as possible.
30. Re:Won't happen by geekoid · 2012-03-27 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  wrong. Vitamin supplementation for people who where deficient in vitamins showed that.More then that is, literally, pissed away.
  200 iu was fine because that was a number for food intake. The vast majority if Vitamin D is being out during the day.
  The Supplementation industry made a stink, ignored the actual facts and created a marketing campaighn.
  Just so you have a chance to not look like a fool: MOST supplementation companies are OWNED by pharmaceutical companies.
  So stop make a false dichotomy.
  And next time, site ACTUAL FUCKING STUDIES. Try pubmed.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
31. Re:Won't happen by geekoid · 2012-03-27 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  It is BS,. I can look back 15 years and see akll the advances that show you are wrong.
  "There is far more money to be made by treating symptoms then curing people." If there was only 1 company, controlled by one person that owned all the research capabilities, and their growth was determined by how much profit that had you would be correct.
  But none of that is true. Stock values determines how well a company is doing. Stock price determine bonuses, stock price determine the mood of the board.
  If you half a fucking clue about business, you would know that.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
32. Re:Won't happen by sjames · 2012-03-27 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Thus far, they've been funded by public grants. That SHOULD count for something, but it won't.
33. Re:Won't happen by LBt1st · 2012-03-27 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  My concern isn't with how well businesses are doing. It's with how well the patients are being taken care of and at what cost. When it's You laying on the table you'll find you're not too worried about stock values.
34. Re:Won't happen by sociocapitalist · 2012-03-27 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  Your ideas are valid. You could post them without being an offensive asshole though.
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
So a general cure for most cancers is found... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 19:25 · Score: -1

And the most one quoted researcher can say is that the results are "promising?" Anyone else get these sense that these "cancer researchers" don't like the idea of the end of their job security and having to find a new line of work?
1. Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by rally2xs · 2012-03-26 19:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This "The doctors are evil conspirators" crap really, really gets old...
2. Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by Nursie · 2012-03-26 19:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Or perhaps they don't want to commit to a cure for human cancers when they've just found a prelminary positive result in an animal model?
  That couldn't be it, possibly?
  No, must be a conspiracy. *facepalm*
3. Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 19:48 · Score: -1
  
  You're quite right, doctors are better characterised as highly egocentric, moderately intelligent fragile personalities usually pushed into a role with status by their parents, who follow a system that is to this day still closer related to a religion than to science. Is that closer for you?
4. Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think they're evil but when someone's job is to cure cancer and other researchers come up with a possible cure and their reaction is "ehhh that's ok I guess..we'll see though" it comes across as resentment of the possible loss of job security not optimism mixed with some skepticism.
  It was the same with the cured HIV patient. Most HIV "researchers" stated "Well that's nice I guess, but it's not applicable in most cases."
  Well of course it's not applicable in most cases, it was an extremely difficult procedure, but the man was actually cured of a diseases that was till then believed to be incurable, so at the very least the cure can provide a possible template for other treatments in the future, but these "researchers" said nothing of the sort and seemed to resent the disease being cured at all.
5. Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by Aryden · 2012-03-26 20:04 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I have an M.D. from Harvard, I am board certified in cardio-thoracic medicine and trauma surgery, I have been awarded citations from seven different medical boards in New England, and I am never, ever sick at sea. So I ask you; when someone goes into that chapel and they fall on their knees and they pray to God that their wife doesn't miscarry or that their daughter doesn't bleed to death or that their mother doesn't suffer acute neural trama from postoperative shock, who do you think they're praying to? Now, go ahead and read your Bible, _Dennis_, and you go to your church, and, with any luck, you might win the annual raffle, but if you're looking for God, he was in operating room number two on November 17, and he doesn't like to be second guessed. You ask me if I have a God complex. Let me tell you something: I am God. ~~ Dr. Jed Hill (Malice 1993)
6. Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by TemperedAlchemist · 2012-03-26 20:29 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone knows that cancer already has a cure, just eat these all natural leaves.
  They just bury all of the evidence. And doctors kill people with their drugs. It's all a conspiracy to make money!
7. Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 21:46 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think anyone expects them to commit to preliminary results, and using loaded terms like conspiracy to undermine criticism isn't necessary, but their responding to a possibly revolutionary treatment after 50 years and billions expended on cancer research by basically saying "ehhh that's ok I guess," shows at least some of these "researchers" don't really care about curing anything.
  Furthermore, the quoted researcher worries about how this treatment would interact with chemotherapy, instead of looking at the possibility that this treatment could obviate the need to use such a primitive method of treatment.
8. Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 22:53 · Score: 0
  
  This "The doctors are evil conspirators" crap really, really gets old...
  The doctors are not evil conspirators, the pharmaceutical lobby in Washington is evil. And I hate to say it but if they have their way then the only ones to benefit from this treatment (assuming that it scales to humans and still is effective) will be a very small percentage of the population that can afford the drug. Same as most of Africa when it comes to AIDS drugs...if it were not for Bill and Melinda pulling some serious strings the AIDS epidemic in Africa would be one hell of a lot worse.
  I have news for you guys the drug companies answer to share holders and this means that they could care less about anything other than max dollar. There are some exceptions but by and large they spend more money by far lobbying in Washington than they do on charitable activities unless that charity gives them tax breaks which means it only applies to patients in the US.
  And just in case you have not yet noticed the place where they get the biggest tax breaks is when they give a sponsored cost break to patients for things like cheap designer pain killers for arthritis. In reality they get government tax breaks to do this...non of the really expensive drugs ever get subsidised, Medicare pays through the roof for them if they are approved and covered.
9. Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  Acknowledging that this is a quote from a movie, one can still address the sentiment by simply saying, perhaps God provided him with the innate skills necessary to be a skilled surgeon.
10. Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Only if one accepts that said god also provided his patients with those lovely stage 4 tumors eating their brains, lungs, etc...
11. Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by canajin56 · 2012-03-27 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  You left out the part about how cancer treatments actually GIVE you cancer, that's why you feel fine, doctors tell you you have "cancer", they give you chemo, NOW you feel sick and start dying, so they tell you you need to buy more chemo! Come on, were you not paying attention in Cancer Conspiracy Theory 101? ;)
  
  --
  ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
12. Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 01:27 · Score: 0
  
  You could also say God provided him with patients.
13. Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by ledow · 2012-03-27 02:00 · Score: 2
  
  Sir David Attenborough (a famous naturalist, and someone whom I admire) basically says the same.
  Whenever asked if he believes in God, the answer is vehemently not. His usual anecdote is about seeing a child in Africa with a worm that was slowly burrowing into their eye and blinding them:
  "Are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball?"
  It's a similar argument. If God is wonderful and created everything, he created rapists, murderers, child molestors, pain, suffering, and every disease we see. Deliberately. Knowingly. And seeing all that they would do.
  And if you think you're divinely favoured, and such things (e.g. AIDS, HIV, etc.) are targeted only at "sinners" (e.g. homosexuals, drug-users, deviants, etc. and that's NOT my definition but some Christian groups!), then I suggest you go kiss their wounds and bleeding sores in the spirit of Christian easing of their suffering and see how long he favours you, too.
14. Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by Skreems · 2012-03-27 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  That, or you don't understand how experimental treatments work. This has been "proved" in 10 mice. That's all. There are a host of potential problems that could easily be discovered with this treatment in the process of bringing it to wide-spread human use. Many of those problems could involve unacceptable side effects, or even simply failing to have the same benefit in humans.
  
  This is how science works, man. You don't jump to "hooray, we cured cancer" on the basis of one promising test.
  
  --
  Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
  The Urban Hippie
15. Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  No, he was not. Just a prideful arrogant flawed human being, just like the rest of us.
16. Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by Nursie · 2012-03-27 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Why would it obviate the need for chemo? It doesn't say this eliminates all cancers, just that it shrinks them. And he also says that 'real' cancer is a more complex picture than implanted cancer.
  It's a great result, but it needs to be replicated and then adapted and tested in humans before we should start to get over-excited about it. Potential cancer cures with promising results crop up frequently. Many lead to useful treatments. It would be flat out wrong to jump around crowing about the cure for all cancer right now.
17. Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by sjames · 2012-03-27 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, since the promising cure has never even been introduced into a human body before, that is really all he can fairly say about it.
/b/ by Alex+Belits · 2012-03-26 19:28 · Score: 3, Funny

I propose to perform the next experiment on /b/.
Then maybe we will be able to continue this thread there.

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
1. Re:/b/ by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 19:48 · Score: 0
  
  Too late, it's already metastasized to /sp/, /v/, /co/, and /a/.
Interesting times we live in... by Max+Romantschuk · 2012-03-26 19:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm a little over 30 now. Me getting cancer is relatively probable at some point in my life. The big question is will they cure it first?
Oh, and if cancer doesn't get me, will I have robot attendants at home when I'm old and fragile, or will they just upgrade my body? Medicine is progressing at an amazing rate, really...

--
.: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
1. Re:Interesting times we live in... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 20:09 · Score: 0
  
  No, you'll just choose voluntary euthanasia when you're 70. Or maybe compulsory euthanasia.
2. Re:Interesting times we live in... by rrohbeck · 2012-03-26 20:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Remember that over 60% of cancers are environmentally caused (eating, drinking, smoking, sun, exposure to chemicals) and live accordingly.
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
3. Re:Interesting times we live in... by Max+Romantschuk · 2012-03-26 20:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Remember that over 60% of cancers are environmentally caused (eating, drinking, smoking, sun, exposure to chemicals) and live accordingly.
  I do. Meaning I expose myself to a reasonable degree, and accept the risk. Much more fun to live that way IMHO. (Never smoked and hardly ever drink though.)
  
  --
  .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
4. Re:Interesting times we live in... by thejynxed · 2012-03-26 20:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but you've breathed in enough vehicle exhaust to more than make up for that.
  
  --
  @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
5. Re:Interesting times we live in... by rrohbeck · 2012-03-26 20:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Hint: Drinking is OK as long as it's beer or wine and it's not so much that you damage your liver. It's the hard stuff that damages mucous membranes.
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
6. Re:Interesting times we live in... by sFurbo · 2012-03-26 21:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The big question is will they cure it [cancer] first?
  Cancer isn't one disease, it is a rather diverse family of diseases. Today, medicine is able to treat some of them to the level where they are cured for most of the patients. Some of them, it can give patients years of extra life. For some of them, there isn't much we can do a this point. The advance to this level have been slow, but relatively steady. This will continue. We are probably never going to cure cancer, in the sense that all cancers are survivable by 95% of the patients, but we are slowly going to get better and better, so that more and more cancers fall in that category, and for most of the rest, the average number of years the patients survive will rise.
7. Re:Interesting times we live in... by sociocapitalist · 2012-03-26 23:12 · Score: 2
  
  So what, live underground and grow your own mushrooms?
  Modern life doesn't lend itself to avoiding carcinogens in any realistic fashion unless one is ready to become a hermit.
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
8. Re:Interesting times we live in... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 00:38 · Score: 0
  
  So you are saying the the ethanol in beer is different from the ethanol in vodka? No, what matters is primarily how much ethanol you drink. And then possibly with a small effect from the concentration of ethanol in your beverage of choice.
9. Re:Interesting times we live in... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 00:41 · Score: 0
  
  If everybody smoked, lung cancer would be a genetic disease.
10. Re:Interesting times we live in... by ProfessorPillage · 2012-03-27 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  Also remember that research is known to cause cancer in mice, and live accordingly.
11. Re:Interesting times we live in... by jeffb+(2.718) · 2012-03-27 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  Remember that over 60% of cancers are environmentally caused (eating, drinking, smoking, sun, exposure to chemicals) and live accordingly.
  Well, duh. Just stop eating and drinking, and your tumors will stop growing within weeks. If you're willing to cut out exposure to all chemicals, the hard vacuum will take care of your cancer in scant minutes.
  Hang on, there's a Pfizer truck out front, and someone's at the d...
12. Re:Interesting times we live in... by Jason+Levine · 2012-03-27 01:35 · Score: 2
  
  So once they cure all cancer we'll finally be able to eat, drink, sit in the sun, etc again without worrying about cancer!
  "Rats, I sat in the sun too long. There's some melanoma. Better stop by CVS on the way home to pick up some CancerBGone."
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
13. Re:Interesting times we live in... by LeDopore · 2012-03-27 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  It's the hard stuff that damages mucous membranes.
  The mucous membranes can notice the difference between a pint of beer and a shot of whiskey IFF the whiskey is consumed so fast that the alcohol concentration in your stomach climbs above what the beer would cause. Hard liquor is fine if you drink it slowly enough.
  Disclaimer: my New Year's resolution this year was to drink more hard liquor, and it's been one of the best decisions of my life so far. Long live moderation!
  
  --
  Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
14. Re:Interesting times we live in... by SecurityGuy · 2012-03-27 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Most likely no. I used to be in the field. Cancer is a name applied to a complex class of diseases. I've watched a number of very promising developments, some of which looked like they might be "cures", come and go. I've watched friends die of it in spite of this. Cancer will probably be cured someday. I wouldn't put any money on it being in our lifetimes.
  This one doesn't inspire me because they're attacking human tumors in mice. Human tumors in mice already look like foreign tissue. Your own tumors don't, because they ARE you. I won't be surprised if they try this in people and it doesn't do anything. If I'm wrong, great.
15. Re:Interesting times we live in... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  The question isn't whether they'll find a cure before you get it. The question is, will whoever finds a cure be able to stand up to pharma corporations who make a FUCKTON of money with current chemo and other treatments? The answer is no. So, prepare for cancer and ineffective, expensive treatment for the rest of your life - if you can even afford that. Potential real cures will only be available to a few select people who can afford sanctioned, private, "experimental" hospitals no normal citizen could ever go to.
  Remember, this is a health system in which some old, rich, white mass murderer, who'll croak in a couple of years anyway, has priority when it comes to heart transplants over somebody whose life could be extended by decades.
16. Re:Interesting times we live in... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  The trouble is that cancer isn't a normal disease, cancer is when your cells forget that they are part of a multi-celled organism, and start replicating as if they were a single-celled one. In single-celled organisms, each cell tries to replicate as quickly as it can because all cells are identical and can live independently, thus survival of the species is best reached through individual cells replicating as quickly as the environment allows. In multi-celled organisms, this replication is controlled more centrally so that the organism grows evenly, but remember that each cell in your body evolved from a bacterial cell, and thus 'wants' to replicate itself out of control, it just suppresses that urge for the good of the whole.
17. Re:Interesting times we live in... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  Moron-like typing detected
18. Re:Interesting times we live in... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  I think it's more likely the OP was thinking that people drinking vodka tend to imbibe a greater amount of alcohol than people drinking beer due to the greater alcoholic content in vodka.
19. Re:Interesting times we live in... by LearnToSpell · 2012-03-27 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  my New Year's resolution this year was to drink more hard liquor
  
  Mine too! But like every other resolution, I only did it for a couple of days before I couldn't hack it anymore.
  
  --
  Haida Manga
20. Re:Interesting times we live in... by tepples · 2012-03-27 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Modern life doesn't lend itself to avoiding carcinogens in any realistic fashion unless one is ready to become a hermit.
  Or join the Amish. Or equivalently join The Village.
21. Re:Interesting times we live in... by bjackson1 · 2012-03-27 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  "Some researchers have suggested that drinks containing higher alcohol concentrations are more deleterious per gram of alcohol than drinks with lower alcohol concentrations. The evidence for this hypothesis, however, is weak and inconclusive (Doll et al. 1999)." Source: http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh25-4/263-270.htm
22. Re:Interesting times we live in... by vawwyakr · 2012-03-27 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  We combine this with a cure for obesity and we will be living in some very interesting times indeed....smoking and binging and purging will become a new pass time for quite a few I think.
23. Re:Interesting times we live in... by garyebickford · 2012-03-27 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  An interesting point of speculation - up till now, cancer has been considered, and successfully attacked, as a family of diseases. But (highly speculative) something like this experiment pans out, showing that all, or most, cancers are cured by attacking this CD47 problem. Then, one might think, that cancers (or some large group of them) can be reconsidered as, in fact, one disease with many manifestations. The disease in that case might be thought of as 'overexpression of CD47', or perhaps 'uncompensated expression of CD47'. Symptoms and treatment would of course vary with the locale and tissue type. This might be a useful way for some researchers to think of the problem, potentially leading to some other related advances. Not that our present approach should be dropped, by any means! It's just another angle to attack the problem from.
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
24. Re:Interesting times we live in... by geekoid · 2012-03-27 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  That was one of the most pointless and stupid things ever written on slashdot.
  Why don't you just say cancer is cause by chemicals?
  idiot.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
25. Re:Interesting times we live in... by geekoid · 2012-03-27 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  You dont know much about the Amish, do you?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
26. Re:Interesting times we live in... by rrohbeck · 2012-03-27 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Because some of it is genetic. This is often used as an excuse, "it's in my genes", while in most cases it's your own damn fault if you get cancer.
  Oh and it's not just chemicals. It can also be ionizing radiation, in particular UV.
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
27. Re:Interesting times we live in... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  Don't bully tepples.
28. Re:Interesting times we live in... by Manos_Of_Fate · 2012-03-27 11:37 · Score: 2
  
  So what, live underground and grow your own mushrooms?
  Modern life doesn't lend itself to avoiding carcinogens in any realistic fashion unless one is ready to become a hermit.
  And those mushrooms are probably known to the state of California to cause cancer.
  
  --
  Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
Optimisim by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 19:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not sure why some people are so sure "big pharma" are disinterested in curing many diseases/conditions. After all, if you can sell a cure for cancer, you just landed in a bucket of money.
Beyond that, the need for a cure is overwhelming. Even corporate greed will often take a backseat because this issue affects us all. If it was a condition associated with a specific population, or with the poor etc then I'm sure the interest would be much less humanitarian.
Every day we get closer to a cure, every piece of research, even if it's only effective on mice takes us when step closer. I for one, appreciate every effort made in this regard.
I do not have cancer and no one close to me has it either. Perhaps just a matter of time.
1. Re:Optimisim by azalin · 2012-03-26 19:59 · Score: 1
  
  Especially if the bucket of money is outrageously large and will provide a permanent revenue stream. Also there is a large risk of loosing all of it if someone else published it.
2. Re:Optimisim by shentino · 2012-03-26 20:03 · Score: 0
  
  Somehow I don't think that "permanent revenue stream" and "cure" mix very well.
  Once someone is cured, they are no longer a patient.
3. Re:Optimisim by Aryden · 2012-03-26 20:07 · Score: 0
  
  The money is not in a cure for the disease, the money is in the treatment for the disease. If the big pharmas were in it for the good of mankind, they would be non-profits and their CEOs wouldn't make the money they do.
4. Re:Optimisim by gutnor · 2012-03-26 20:14 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Also there is more money to be made curing psychosomatic type disease than real one. I'm sure big pharma would be happy to get rid of scary sickness like cancer so that people live longer and pay more attention to take their variety of "psychological disorders'. Pill to cure sadness, boredom, ... that where long term money is.
5. Re:Optimisim by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 20:18 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  So does not curing them, because THEY DIE.
  Your conspiracy falls short around every turn and faceplants into a wall every time.
6. Re:Optimisim by Gaygirlie · 2012-03-26 20:20 · Score: -1
  
  After all, if you can sell a cure for cancer, you just landed in a bucket of money.
  I think you've misunderstood how it works for Big Pharma; curing something does not generate them bucketloads of money. Helping someone with the symptoms for several years without curing them, however, does generate bucketloads of money. As such it's defnitely in Big Pharma's best interests to not find cure for something and instead find something that relieves the symptoms.
  
  Even corporate greed will often take a backseat because this issue affects us all.
  Oh, there's plenty of history on that to go around!
7. Re:Optimisim by RivenAleem · 2012-03-26 20:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And once you cure one person, nobody else ever gets cancer again, ever.
8. Re:Optimisim by RivenAleem · 2012-03-26 20:31 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  You cannot eradicate cancer, like you would a virus (smallpox). Cancer is an inherent flaw in the design of the human body (living past it's intended lifetime, not dying to wild animals) and we will have to put up with it for a very long time (until our understanding of medicine reaches a point where we can manipulate our genes to prevent cancer ever occurring in the first place).
  If you have a cure for cancer, you will market it immediately, and make a whole lot of money. We will not reach a medical level to eradicate cancer in the patent lifetime of such a drug.
  Believe it or not, there are still some people in big Pharma who are in it for the patients, not the money. And even if cancer was gone tomorrow, there would still be many many other things for big pharma to make money on, if that was all they are interested in.
  Disclaimer: I work in big Pharma, and I see every day, people working hard for patients, not for the money.
9. Re:Optimisim by sFurbo · 2012-03-26 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  I think you've misunderstood how it works for Big Pharma; curing something does not generate them bucketloads of money.
  
  This is simply false, which you would know if you knew the prices for cancer drugs. A drug that is effective against a cancer will make you bucketloads of money. People really don't like dying, and they will pay good money not to.
  
  Helping someone with the symptoms for several years without curing them, however, does generate bucketloads of money. As such it's defnitely in Big Pharma's best interests to not find cure for something and instead find something that relieves the symptoms.
  But what if that is not the dichotomy? What if $other_pharma_company already have a patent on a drug to help with the symptoms, and you have the options of not going into that field, making no money, or try and cure the disease, making you a bucketload of money while costing $other_pharma_company money? What if drugs to help with the symptoms are out of patent protection? What if the drug you developed and tested turned out to cure people, in stead of helping with symptoms? Do you just ditch those billions of dollars worth of research because you might make more money by starting over, spending additional billions?
10. Re:Optimisim by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  If cancer is the result of an inherent flaw in the design in the human body then it can still be eradicated by eliminating whatever "flaws" exist in the human body that lead to the development of the disease.
  But thinking such as that is emblematic of the mindset that cancer must always exist representing a continual revenue stream for certain corporations.
11. Re:Optimisim by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-03-26 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  The thing that you, and all the other idiots like you overlook is that if Big Pharma Company A chooses to not pursue a cure for Disease X so that they can profit from treating the symptoms, they run the risk that Big Pharma Company B will develop it. Then Big Pharma Company A not only loses the potential profit from selling the treatment for symptoms, they also lose the profit from selling the cure. The other thing you overlook is that people who die no longer spend any money on products from Big Pharma. Big Pharma has an interest in keeping its customers alive as long as possible, so as to keep those people as customers. Thus Big Pharma has an interest in curing any disease which is terminal.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
12. Re:Optimisim by FTWinston · 2012-03-26 23:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Ok, so you're saying that if Big Pharma weren't evil, they'd be trying to rewrite everyone's genetic code at this point? Whereas if they are evil, they'll just try to treat cancer? If that's the choice, give me Evil anyday!
13. Re:Optimisim by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 23:14 · Score: 0
  
  living past it's intended lifetime, not dying to wild animals
  Tell that to my friend who died in leukemia at the age of 22.
14. Re:Optimisim by sociocapitalist · 2012-03-26 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  "And even if cancer was gone tomorrow, there would still be many many other things for big pharma to make money on, if that was all they are interested in."
  For corporations, if not necessarily the people who work for them, it's not a question of making enough money. It's a question of making the most money possible.
  "Disclaimer: I work in big Pharma, and I see every day, people working hard for patients, not for the money."
  I see employees, good people, solid people, working well for customers all the time. Doesn't mean that the upper level management and owners think of anything other than the bottom line and it's upper management and the owners who make such decisions.
  On a side note, is there really such a thing as a 'patent lifetime' these days?
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
15. Re:Optimisim by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 00:02 · Score: 0
  
  Doesn't mean that the upper level management and owners think of anything other than the bottom line and it's upper management and the owners who make such decisions.
  They don't give a shit about the "bottom line", they give a shit about the money they personally make as a result of the bottom line.
  They also give a shit about a cure, because they are themselves potential patients... or are already patients.
  Not a one of them would refuse to develop a full cure, precisely because they are selfish pricks. They will rape their company's future profits both for the short-term monetary gains and their own health and lifespan. ANY company who came up with a magic bullet for cancer, old age, etc. would be able to set almost any price, and people would pay it, at least for long enough that the CEO's and other Fatcats could make a pretty penny.
16. Re:Optimisim by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 00:41 · Score: 0
  
  cancer is an inherent flaw in the design of multicellular life, unless you intend to make humans non multicellular or into robots you can not ever completely fix it ..... better to get really good at fixing it
17. Re:Optimisim by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 00:58 · Score: 0
  
  Pharma intensely narrows its pipelines to those few candidates which have 1) high probability of success, 2) have a high profitability, and 3) other things. There is not that many companies with overlapping specific research programs, capabilities, and approaches to think that there is real competition for any specific disease. And if that comes about, competitors shift their game to other promising positions. Maybe the people there truly want to save people; not so sure it even enters the equation at their financial level.
18. Re:Optimisim by TheRaven64 · 2012-03-27 01:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  Let's see, we have two choices:
  
  Sell an expensive treatment, patient dies a few months later.
  
  Sell a cure, patient lives for 20-30 more years, suffers from a large number of minor ailments and a few major ones, keeps earning money for 20-30 years and spending some proportion of it on drugs, becomes a long-term revenue stream.
  
  Which one will the evil profit-driven capitalists pick? In fact, there's a third option:
  
  Competitor sells a cure, we don't make any money from selling the treatment.
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
19. Re:Optimisim by TheRaven64 · 2012-03-27 01:09 · Score: 2
  
  22 is fine as a lifespan for a 'natural' human. You're able to reproduce by about the age of 12, so that gives 10 years to raise your children to the point where they can survive on their own. With a tribe of overlapping ages, they'll then have the support of some other adults for the next few years until they are fully (physically) mature. The short generation, it doesn't take as long for beneficial mutations to spread to the entire tribe, so you have an advantage in evolutionary speed.
  For some reason, people often conflate 'natural' with 'good'.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
20. Re:Optimisim by TheRaven64 · 2012-03-27 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  I think you've misunderstood how it works for Big Pharma; curing something does not generate them bucketloads of money
  Not immediately, no. The problem with cancer is that it often kills people at a relatively young age. Take the person from just up the thread who had a friend die of leukaemia aged 22. Think how much the industry would have made from him if he'd lived even an averagely healthy life - mostly only needing treatment for minor illnesses - until the age of 70. It will dwarf what they could make from him in a few months of chemotherapy. Even people dying of cancer in their 40s and 50s are a problem for pharma companies: they're dying before they hit the most profitable time of their lives!
  Curing one disease doesn't mean that people will stop needing the services of the pharmaceutical industry. Quite the reverse: the longer they live, the more things you can sell them to ensure that they keep on living.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
21. Re:Optimisim by RivenAleem · 2012-03-27 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  In Pharma, yes, there is a patent lifetime. In the US it is 20 years. Typically a drug is patented when the molecule is isolated and ready to be produced for clinical trial. Due to the length of clinical trials and market registration, which is about 8 years long, once on the market the drug has up to 12 years to make back the R&D costs (and turn a profit) before other companies can make a generic version to compete.
  Where I work, the compounds are often so difficult to copy (and expensive to produce even if that is possible) that generic copies are rarer than more of the mainstream medications. Also, it is possible that the strength of the brand name is enough to allow a company to continue to market their drug at pre-expiry prices in the face of competition. But patents do definitely expire and I would believe that the 20 year lifetime of pharma patents is just about right. If it was shorter, then the companies would have to charge (even) more for the medicine to recoup their cost (and make a profit). If it was longer, then you wouldn't get so much innovation, as companies could just make the one drug for ever.
22. Re:Optimisim by camperdave · 2012-03-27 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  You're thinking is too binary. Between cure and death is the big pharma sweet spot: lingering malaise. If your cocktail of pills seems to slow the approach of death, they will continue to shell out the green, sometimes for years. A hundred dollars a week on pills, fifty two weeks a year, for five or six years... $26,000 per patient. Do you think big pharma would be allowed to charge $26,000 per dose of cancer cure? Not a chance! That would get price regulated so fast your head would spin. And if it didn't, there would be cheap knock-offs.
  
  Also, selling drugs is only one part of big pharma. There's also research grant money. This mouse didn't pay for the treatments. Some bequeathment or government grant did. You can kiss those revenue streams goodbye as well, once a cure is found.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
23. Re:Optimisim by Smauler · 2012-03-27 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Cancer kills people of all ages, many prior to hitting puberty. It is not caused by long lives. 22 is not "fine" as a lifespan. A male who lives to 60 has about 5 times the breeding years to reproduce.
24. Re:Optimisim by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong. They will get it endogenously and then they will need your cure.
25. Re:Optimisim by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  You have no idea what you are talking about if you think $26,000 would be an EXPENSIVE cancer cure. That would be dirt cheap compared to what people are spending today. And no, it is not "Big Pharma" that is getting all the money today. It is doctors, surgeons, hospitals, radiation treatments, home health care, equipment rentals, etc. Not to mention loss of income from not being able to work.
  Pay $26,000 to some evil Big Pharma company to be CURED of cancer? Fuck yeah! Where do I sign up???
26. Re:Optimisim by backslashdot · 2012-03-27 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  Also, they can easily price the cure at the amortized cost of the treatment (for example price the cure at the 5 years of treatment price) -- insurance companies will gladly pay it -- since their costs will be reduced since they can spread it across quarters. (and btw the treatment industry isn't necessarily all that profitable there is a fair amount of competition).
27. Re:Optimisim by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  Expensive treatments (rather than cures) improve share-holder value THIS quarter.
  Remember, this is why customer service emulates inter-galactic vacuum these days: Customer Service DOES NOT ADD to share-holder value this quarter.
  And, given Sarbanes-Oxley, this is more pronounced than it was 15 years ago.
28. Re:Optimisim by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  With you. I don't understand this meme against the possibility of cures. We have cures against diseases that have killed millions, if not billions over the course of human history. They're called vaccines. And anyone who has not been living under a rock in the last 20 years knows the primary opponents of vaccines are not from big pharma.
  In fact, here's a prediction. Any future cure for a relatively common childhood disease will eventually be said to cause yet another less common, currently uncurable disease in children. When we get to autism, the cure for that will be said to cause something else. You read it here first on /.
29. Re:Optimisim by nanoflower · 2012-03-27 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  There's a problem with your thinking. You would be right if all drugs were being produced by one company but there are actually many competing companies. So a company that currently isn't making any money off of cancer treatments would love to have a pill that cures cancer even if they could only charge $10 a pill (assuming that gives that some profit.)
30. Re:Optimisim by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 04:34 · Score: 0
  
  Steve Jobs died of cancer, did he not?
  If that's not proof that the super-rich ARE NOT holding back a cure for this for themselves, I don't know what is. I'm sure they probably have a few little super-rich tricks up their sleeves (what rich person wouldn't try to use their wealth to preserve their or their family's lives?), but it's not a cure.
  Unless he was so evangelical that he had to bring his "walled garden" approach to the guys upstairs? Or down? ;)
31. Re:Optimisim by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 06:52 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong. Capital is scarce. You forgot the most important option:
  3) Concoct some new Viagra-like medicine with a fraction of the capital costs and a multiple of the potential earnings.
32. Re:Optimisim by Agent0013 · 2012-03-27 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  The fourth option: There is already a cure, but it involves diet. There is no money to be made in telling people what to eat, so they outlaw it and you have to go to Mexico or Japan to get treatment. And anyone who wants to tell me that Gerson Therapy does not work has not read up on the astounding number of people completely cured. The experts will tell you that the results are not valid because it wasn't a double blind study. I'm not sure how to do a double blind study with some people eating vegetable juices and some people eating a regular american diet. But having 198 out of 200 people walk away cured is pretty good results. The experts will also tell you the institute will not let anyone look at the records to confirm the results, yet that too is a lie.
  
  --
  
  -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
33. Re:Optimisim by garyebickford · 2012-03-27 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Well put.
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
34. Re:Optimisim by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  Fourth option:
  Sell an expensive treatment to patients for 20-30 more years, while holding onto the patent for a cure so no competitors are able produce it.
  (Captca: corrupts)
35. Re:Optimisim by Your.Master · 2012-03-27 18:05 · Score: 1
  
  We generate new people all the time. And even cured people generate new cancers.
36. Re:Optimisim by Your.Master · 2012-03-27 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  What are you talking about? The expensive lingering treatment is the one that requires long term thinking (if it made sense upon inspection, which it doesn't). A cure would be an enormous immediate boon. That quarter would be stellar.
37. Re:Optimisim by Your.Master · 2012-03-27 18:19 · Score: 1
  
  Given them all sugar pills, only put some on the diet. Now it's a blind trial. You want double-blind, you'll have to make sure they don't discuss diets -- but really a random blind trial would be great. This is not something that is particularly difficult to test.
38. Re:Optimisim by Your.Master · 2012-03-27 18:27 · Score: 1
  
  I guarantee that won't happen.
  Absolutely worst case scenario, they price the cure at the net present value of 30 years of treatment, plus or minus the difference in the actual cost to supply the cure vs. the treatment.
  Patents aren't that magical. If it came down to it, you'd fly off to Canada or somewhere where there is a compulsory licensing law for this sort of thing. Maybe that flight is expensive, but if the 20-30 year treatment is as bad as you say I guarantee insurance will pay for it in preference.
39. Re:Optimisim by sociocapitalist · 2012-03-27 20:33 · Score: 1
  
  Okay thank you for the information, good to know -
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Really? | www.thanhlapdoanhnghiepvn.net by thanhlapdnvn · 2012-03-26 19:36 · Score: -1, Offtopic

If the our world have this drugs, humanity will be saved. Please visit my homepage : http://www.thanhlapdoanhnghiepvn.net/
In Mice, and AutoImmune by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 19:38 · Score: 1

IANAMD but, note it says mice, and it might substitute chronic autoimmune disease for the cancer. But combining an anti CD47 drug with a system for making alerting the immune system to the cancer, e.g. Dendrons Provenge, ought to make immune threapy a high sucessful care. Without targeting the immune system on
a particular organ, an autoimmune response, could do mass long term damage, (long term isn't something we worry about in mice). A 90% cure rate is great through, modern cancer drugs have been getting approved for 30% cure rates or lower.
1. Re:In Mice, and AutoImmune by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 20:48 · Score: 0
  
  Honestly I'd be willing to be a lot of people would prefer the option of 90 percent or better remission, followed by autoimmune problems and possibly immunosuppressive therapy, rather than the long term effects of chemo/cancer progression.
  While both might kill you, it's inevitable with the latter.
More important by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 19:52 · Score: 0

How do we make it less effective so people have to take it constantly to keep the cancer in check? Where's the profit in a cure we need treatments not cures!
1. Re:More important by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 20:08 · Score: 0
  
  Bingo! We have a winner.
But will Obamacare cover it? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 20:01 · Score: 0

or is it only for the 1%
1. Re:But will Obamacare cover it? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  Considering that SCOTUS this morning overturned Obamacare in its entirety (citing the lack of severability in the individual mandate), I would say no, it is not covered.
How long it will take to turn it into medicament? by YurB · 2012-03-26 20:04 · Score: 1

...If everything goes well. Also, how much it may cost then?
They waste all there time on this... by dmomo · 2012-03-26 20:17 · Score: 1

And still, no cure for cancer. ... oh.
1. Re:They waste all there time on this... by maxwell+demon · 2012-03-26 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  ... and still no cure for confusing "there" and "their"! :-)
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
2. Re:They waste all there time on this... by dmomo · 2012-03-27 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Ha. Yah. I actually made fun of myself for that first, but something about the way slashdot's "preview" looks, makes me think the post went through (despite the bright yellow, "this is a preview" box).
"do not eat" normal function by anwyn · 2012-03-26 20:21 · Score: 2

What is the normal function of the "do not eat" signal? Just what normal function is going to get messed up when you turn this off?
1. Re:"do not eat" normal function by martin-boundary · 2012-03-26 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  What is the normal function of the "do not eat" signal? Just what normal function is going to get messed up when you turn this off?
  
  OMG, I hope it's not the "do not fuck" signal! If I have to leave the basement every saturday night, I'm never going to finish watching my TNG DVDs in time for batlhjaj!
2. Re:"do not eat" normal function by izomiac · 2012-03-27 12:04 · Score: 2
  
  Well, most cells in the body work better when they're in the "not-eaten" state, so I'd venture to guess "all of them".
  
  "Do not eat" is an oversimplification, but the "eating" refers to your immune cells destroying things that aren't supposed to be in the body. For example, bacteria lack CD47, so they get eaten by phagocytes. Your kidneys have CD47 so the immune system generally leaves them alone. If your CD47 membrane proteins all magically disappeared, your immune system would try to destroy nearly every cell in your body. If we didn't have CD47, then it'd be harder to tell what is and what is not supposed to be in the body. It's part of the immune system's IFF.
  
  Cancer cells are rapidly mutating versions of your own cells. They already have CD47 and other membrane proteins, so the immune system has a tough time with them. That said, there are a large number of checks the immune system does, and many of the anti-viral checks (e.g. present random fragments of internal proteins for examination) also cause an early cancer to be eliminated (probably happens all the time). It's a delicate balance, because an "auto-immune" disease is what happens when your immune system errs on the side of killing something it shouldn't, and an infection or cancer is when it errs on the side of not-killing something it should.
Re:How long it will take to turn it into medicamen by jimicus · 2012-03-26 20:59 · Score: 5, Informative
I'm no expert in these things, but AFAIK the process goes something like this:
1. Test your idea in a petri dish. If it works, continue.
2. Test your idea in an animal. If it works, continue.
3. Test your idea in another type of animal. If it works, continue.
4. Test your idea in a small handful of healthy humans at very small doses. If it doesn't cause them any harm, continue.
5. Test your idea in a larger number of healthy humans at slightly higher doses. If it doesn't cause them any harm, continue.
6. Test your idea in a handful of sick humans. If it works better than existing treatments, continue. (This is going to be awkward. Ethical clearance is an important part of any medical testing; there's little chance of getting ethical clearance of using this in place of existing treatments for cancer patients because if it doesn't work, you've delayed them treatment that could have worked. You could possibly use it in conjunction with, or in patients for whom existing treatments haven't worked, but then there's the question of is the treatment more/less effective when the cancer's progressed that far? Or if it's given in conjunction with existing treatments? Sure you can devise tests to deal with these issues, but they won't be as simple as "administer drug, keep a list of who's had it and what the results were".)
7. Test your idea in a large number of sick humans. If it works better than existing treatments, continue.
8. Release your treatment into the market.
Each of these steps can take months. Some of it's political and administrative wrangling, some of it's just that the test itself will take some time before you can be sure of the results. A drug can fail at any one of these stages and it's back to the drawing board (or maybe the test tube).
The whole process takes years. Yet newspapers often start reporting about "miracle cure" drugs that have only just completed the first round of live animal trials. Which is why you hear about all sorts of miracle cures that never see the light of day.
I'll hazard a guess. by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2012-03-26 21:06 · Score: 3, Informative

What is the normal function of the "do not eat" signal? Just what normal function is going to get messed up when you turn this off?
I'm not sure which "do not eat" signal they're talking about. But one that I do know a little about is the one that prevents rejection of a placenta and multiple sclerosis.
The immune system apparently recognizes and avoids attacking its own body primarily by:
- Editing the sections of DNA coding for antibodies to produce a bunch of small clones of proto-antibody-producing cells that randomly react to all sorts of stuff.
- Shortly after birth (when most of mommy's random cellular components have been purged from baby's body) letting these clones take a grand tour of baby's body - and anybody who recognizes anything dies off.
- Then the survivors (who don't recognize any tissue in baby) turn themselves on and get ready to do a growth spurt if they recognize a target at the same time they're getting an "I'm being damaged" signal (i.e. histamine).
Result: A no-autoimmune immune system. Well, almost.
A significant problem is that there are a few tissues that aren't deployed yet when the baby is just born. One such tissue is the myelin sheaths of the nerves. Another, of course, is placental tissue from a pregnancy. (Unlike tribbles, humans aren't born pregnant.) If nothing were done about this, the immune system tissues would be a time-bomb, ready to go into attack mode if it happens to see a damage signal near a nerve or a placenta. This would result in multiple sclerosis or spontaneous abortion - both very big negative scores in the evolutionary game. So the immune system has a patch.
The main myelin protein has a short sequence that tells the immune system that this is a late-blooming tissue, so leave it alone. (I'm guessing this may be the "do not eat" signal they're talking about.) Placental tissue has the same sequence. There are lots of opportunities for failure, of course. (Defects in the signal molecules, disease organisms mimicing it, etc.) But when this patch is working right the nerves and a new baby are protected without significantly degrading the immune system's response to diseases.
This, by the way, is the reason nursing on cow's milk is a risk factor for MS. Milk has a protein related to the myelin sheath protein, but with the "do not eat" signal slightly different. As a result a baby may develop an allergy to that component of cow's milk - and thus to the common stretch of the myelin protein. Result: Autoimmune reaction to the myelin sheaths.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Sounds like Burzynski therapy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 21:34 · Score: -1

http://documentaryheaven.com/cancer-cure-dr-burzynski-therapy/
Documentary on Stanislaw R. Burzynski’s revolutionary cancer cure treatment based on his discovery on the mechanics of cancer, which lead him to the creation of the Antineoplaston Therapy. Dr. Burzynski’s Therapy has successfully cured thousands of terminal cancer patients for the last 30 years and has demonstrated to be 3 to 5 times more effective than the conventional chemotherapy and radiation treatments.
In spite of the success of his therapy, he has faced the prosecution of big pharma and the FDA which has tried to stop his therapy from spreading in the United States.
1. Re:Sounds like Burzynski therapy by ledow · 2012-03-26 21:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Probably because he's a fraud:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislaw_Burzynski
  Miraculous claims require miraculous proofs. And doctors aren't just sitting on the sidelines waiting to be paid more to kill more people, despite what you might think.
2. Re:Sounds like Burzynski therapy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 01:12 · Score: 0
  
  Tell that the mothers of the children with inoperable brain cancers that Burzynski Cured.. Watch the documentary.
3. Re:Sounds like Burzynski therapy by ledow · 2012-03-27 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  Okay.
  THIS THERAPY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
  And the American Cancer Society, several prominent, qualified (and non-controversial) scientists working in that area, Cancer Research UK, the National Cancer Institute, the British Medical Journal, and several patients and organisations who've sued him for saying such things (some while dying of cancer) WITHOUT REPRODUCIBLE PROOF would probably agree with me.
  I can find you a mother that claims unicorns and crystals helped heal her cancerous son. Just because she's thick and stubborn doesn't mean she's correct, or that we should be certifying faith healers or sourcing Unicorn droppings.
  When you can reproduce the results and a SINGLE independent and well-known cancer research organisation gets behind the research with their own scientists, then you can get bolshy and claim he's an outcast.
  At the moment, he's an outcast because he's a fecking idiot that's encouraging people to try an unlicensed treatment that REPEATEDLY and VERIFIABLY DOES NOT WORK. Not for any other reason.
  -- Person living with someone who has spent their life researching leukaemia and other cancers
4. Re:Sounds like Burzynski therapy by ceoyoyo · 2012-03-27 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, an emotional appeal. A sure sign that your argument is flawed.
Re:How long it will take to turn it into medicamen by YurB · 2012-03-26 21:38 · Score: 1

Thank you for the information.
Because the no-brand stuff is India or Chinese by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-03-26 22:54 · Score: 1

And we all know how those countries attitudes are towards optional ingredients.
Most here can easily afford brand name medicine. We are the 1%, enjoy it.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
1. Re:Because the no-brand stuff is India or Chinese by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 23:31 · Score: 0
  
  Bullshit - this is not the case in Europe, I dunno what your shit in the USA is like. Here the no brand stuff is just as good and often is THE SAME STUFF in a different packet.
2. Re:Because the no-brand stuff is India or Chinese by w_dragon · 2012-03-27 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  The medical ingredient is the same, the distribution within the pill (for pill splitting) and the binders used are often different. The binders are important for people who have certain allergies or disorders like Celiac disease, since common cheap binders often involve wheat.
3. Re:Because the no-brand stuff is India or Chinese by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  At some point, you have to rely on the licensing authorities to ensure that generics sold in a drugstore are what they claim to be. Binders can be important, but you have no guarantee that a branded pill will be better for you than generic. My wife is allergic to something in the branded medication when the pharmacy gives her it but not the generic one.
Re:How long it will take to turn it into medicamen by dankasfuk · 2012-03-26 23:17 · Score: 3, Informative

Typically the first testing in humans is done in patients which have already failed multiple therapies (relapse or resistant), eliminating the ethical quandry that they would have had a better response with conventional treatment.

--
Ban Engadget - moderators censor comments!
Re:How long it will take to turn it into medicamen by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 23:33 · Score: 0

And it's also why the researchers are being deliberately cautious about this one.
Didn't we learn our lesson? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 23:42 · Score: 0

Will Smith would not endorse this research. Best watch the movie "I am Legend" before getting too excited about this.
Re:How long it will take to turn it into medicamen by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 23:55 · Score: 0

8.1 create machines for production / packaging incl. everything on computer systems.
8.2 validate those machine.
8.3 create medicamen with those maschines.
8.4 validate samples for institutes like FDA (these samples have to be created with those maschine to get a licences on markets).
8.5 after inspection and validation of production and packaging process on site successful, start producing and shipping.
All these steps together can take roughly 3 to 5 years in total. So even if 1-7 are successful, they can fail at step 8 or have a LONG (months to years) delay, cause if one of these steps fail, they start @ 8.1 again.
The Dog That Didn't Bark by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-03-27 00:04 · Score: 1

How would Big Pharma ever charge enough for a one-time treatment to cure cancer? Yes, I think this discovery will have to be...studied.... for a lonnnnnnng time, first.*

* Except for Big Pharma execs, their mistresses, and friends.
Re:How long it will take to turn it into medicamen by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 00:21 · Score: 0

Typically the first testing done in humans is done to assess the safety of the drug and determine the maximum dosage before bad things happen. The test subjects are all healthy people looking to make 3-10k for a couple weeks of work (lots of college students). They sit around in a clinic for a couple weeks and take increasingly large dosages until they start vomiting or showing other signs of overdose.
Re:How long it will take to turn it into medicamen by TrekkieGod · 2012-03-27 00:33 · Score: 2

Test your idea in a handful of sick humans. If it works better than existing treatments, continue. (This is going to be awkward. Ethical clearance is an important part of any medical testing; there's little chance of getting ethical clearance of using this in place of existing treatments for cancer patients because if it doesn't work, you've delayed them treatment that could have worked. You could possibly use it in conjunction with, or in patients for whom existing treatments haven't worked, but then there's the question of is the treatment more/less effective when the cancer's progressed that far? Or if it's given in conjunction with existing treatments? Sure you can devise tests to deal with these issues, but they won't be as simple as "administer drug, keep a list of who's had it and what the results were".)
There are patients who refuse chemo because they prefer death to the side effects. They would gladly volunteer for an alternative treatment with less extreme side-effects. I have seen my grandmother go through chemo, and I hope I never have to make this decision, but if I were diagnosed with non-operable cancer, I'm not sure I'd opt to be treated. I suppose it would depend on survival chances. 80% survival rate, I'd probably think it's worth a try. 50% survival rate or worse? I'd probably opt to take the time I have left to enjoy life a bit instead of spending it going through the horrors of chemo. No objections to trying a treatment that would still let me enjoy that time, even if it doesn't work.

--
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
That's good news for mice... by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-03-27 00:38 · Score: 1

That's good news for mice! Of course they get free health care. How many people will actually be able to afford such a drug, assuming that it works on people without having major side effects?
Lets get it going then..... by hesaigo999ca · 2012-03-27 00:42 · Score: 2

Come on!!! Lets get this going, get some human subjects quickly, and lets end cancer as quickly as possible....stop just rehashing stories for the last 3 years about the same thing....I sometimes think that the amount of time it takes to get this out there, is enough tie for all of them to die from the disease....!
Breakdown? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 00:46 · Score: 0

I'm totally wasted, can someone do a summary for a drunk person?
Sony and MS by Bensam123 · 2012-03-27 00:55 · Score: 1

Newest generation of consoles; same reasoning.
How can proper credit for scientific advances ... by TheMathemagician · 2012-03-27 00:58 · Score: 1

... be apportioned when there are 44 authors for a single paper? That's not a criticism of this paper or what is hopefully an important discovery but just the whole scientific peer-reviewed system seems in danger of breaking down if this is the norm.
Big Pharma does not care. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 01:04 · Score: 0

FORGET big Pharma, they are not interested in cures... Google Gerson Therapy, Budwig Protocol (flaxseedoil2 on yahoo groups) , Cellect Powder, Apricot Seeds, Pancreatin.
1. Re:Big Pharma does not care. by ledow · 2012-03-27 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  "Gerson's therapy has not been independently tested or subjected to randomized controlled trials"
  "Evidence for the effectiveness of the Budwig diet is limited as most research has only been done on cell culture studies and experiments on rats and mice with inconsistent results"
  "Cellect has not been studied in clinical trials and there is no evidence that it can be used to prevent or treat any diseases in humans. We do not support using this product as a cancer treatment." (By the report LINKED TO on the Cellect page that they then try to spin positively!)
  The other two examples, I can't find nice quotes for because they ONLY come up on cancer-cure-crank sites that provide absolutely no medical trial information at all.
  They are also both things that we would notice having an effect in the SIMPLEST of trials, if true. People who ate apricot seeds (or maybe even just lots of apricots!) would have a lovely, positive reaction above placebo. And pancreatin is a naturally occurring substance in the body anyway, so we'd notice portions of the population who were more or less likely to develop cancer just because of their naturally high/low levels of pancreatin. We don't.
  Just because something is sidelined and condemned doesn't mean it ISN'T just a waste of time. A conspiracy is easier to believe than the fact that these people (and the websites that promote these items) ARE JUST LYING TO YOU in order to make money. They have no idea what they can or can't do, or how effective they are and they CERTAINLY have zero proof that would convince even a small minority of independent and reliable cancer charities / scientists.
  There are plenty of examples of cancer-fighting products that just never made it through certification even WITH proven effectiveness, too. It's not like there aren't hundreds put through certification and trials EVERY SINGLE YEAR. The problem is, the people certifiying and trialling them are NOT the people who "discovered", "invented" or stand to gain financially from them - so they have no impetus to push something through or not and the smallest paper from the smallest post-grad researcher with dubious reproducibility can kill an active trial or a product reaching approval.
  Just because someone is a Dr, PhD, etc. DOES NOT MEAN they aren't lying to you. Otherwise we'd all be having free energy by now, and cold-fusion, and no diseases, and we'd all lose weight just by eating the right diet.
"Just fix the underlying problem!" by jeffb+(2.718) · 2012-03-27 01:09 · Score: 1

If cancer is the result of an inherent flaw in the design in the human body then it can still be eradicated by eliminating whatever "flaws" exist in the human body that lead to the development of the disease.
Sure, all you need is omniscience and omnipotence.
The human body is a lot more complicated than a computer program that you can check for infinite loops. Oh, wait, you can't do that, either.
Wake Me Up When It Can Be Prescribed by assertation · 2012-03-27 01:38 · Score: 2

Lots of articles like this come and go. As far as I am concerned it is vaporware until doctors begin prescribing it. Lets hope it does turn out to be all that.
Re:How can proper credit for scientific advances . by ledow · 2012-03-27 01:46 · Score: 1

If you're in science just for the credit, you shouldn't be.
If you're in science to provide breakthroughs and build and rely on others work, with the assistance of similar people, then having 44 authors on a paper gives it approximately 44 times more weight than a single name. And you *can* still say "I worked on Project X" when you want to use it as a job-seeking tool. The people who care about that will find out exactly what you did on the project, I assure you.
So much science, nowadays, CANNOT be done by a lone crank working out of a hermit-like existence, especially where it concerns medical trials and sharing information.
In maths, yes, 44 names on a paper would reek of "Put my name on that because I helped you changed the font size", but in medicine? I don't think I'd believe anything without a significant trial and, thus, weight of names behind a paper. But WHO those 44 are matters infinitely more than how many there are.
The more important question by camperdave · 2012-03-27 01:48 · Score: 1

What is the normal function of the "do not eat" signal? Just what normal function is going to get messed up when you turn this off?
The more important question: how long before manipulating the "do not eat" signal becomes the latest diet drug?

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Immortal Mice? by Lairdykinsmcgee · 2012-03-27 01:59 · Score: 1

http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/0410239/aging-reversed-in-mice Not so long ago, Slashdot saw this story on how scientists were able to prevent the splicing of telomeres from chromosomes in mice in order to allow not only prevention of aging, but de-aging. The only problem was that these mice inevitably died from becoming riddled with cancerous tumors. So now that this development has occurred, are we one step closer to having mice that cannot die of natural causes?
1. Re:Immortal Mice? by ledow · 2012-03-27 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  One step, maybe.
  Only several billion more to go.
  That's the problem with reporting things so early. Nobody knows if this has even been narrowed to be caused by the procedures that they suggest it is (and not random variation or other causes) or that ANYTHING will happen at all even in another species of mouse, let alone humans.
  Or that it won't kill them a month after the cancer would have killed them. Sure, all little steps forward, but not necessarily getting you any closer to your goal, and certainly not getting you *SIGNIFICANTLY* closer to claiming you could do even something simple with it yet.
Who provided the tumors.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 02:34 · Score: 0

Only if one accepts that said god also provided his patients with those lovely stage 4 tumors eating their brains, lungs, etc...
God did not provide the patients with stage 4 tumors. Satan gave them the tumors.
So perhaps you're insinuating that Satan is *your* god?
1. Re:Who provided the tumors.... by DynamoJoe · 2012-03-27 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? -Epicurus
  
  --
  bah.
necessary evil by msheekhah · 2012-03-27 02:45 · Score: 1

until our computer systems are sophisticated enough to *accurately* model the effects on humans, we're going to continue to do animal testing. that's just the reality we live in.

--
Mark Anthony Collins
Warning: Sarcasm ahead by RogueWarrior65 · 2012-03-27 03:13 · Score: 1

Great, now all those social programs that are dependent on most people dying off in their 70s will be even more effed.
Consequences and Side Defects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 03:27 · Score: 0

One wonders if this kind of treatment/cure (as if cures will be delivered since there's no "planned obsolescence" to encourage future revenues), if it works in humans at all, will end up exacerbating any auto-immune disorders?
Woot, so we cured cancer. by Baloo+Uriza · 2012-03-27 03:35 · Score: 1

Now can we cure stupidity?

--
Furries make the internet go.
What will Fark do? by s_p_oneil · 2012-03-27 03:41 · Score: 2

What will Fark do? They'll have to stop using that "... still no cure for cancer" meme. Wonder what'll take its place.
Re:How long it will take to turn it into medicamen by qbast · 2012-03-27 03:48 · Score: 1

So I guess chemoterapy and radioterapy fail at step 4 or 5.
Possible side effects include... by Kaenneth · 2012-03-27 04:07 · Score: 1

I have Psioritic Arthritis; my understanding is it's caused by the immune system thinking my skin are joints are cancerous, and so attacking them; that's why the newest treatments are 'tnf' (tumor necrosis factor) blockers, that reduce the immune systems cancer fighting tags.
So, if you have auto-immune disease, these drugs could make your body tear itself apart from the inside, or maybe trigger auto-immune disease where none existed.
But it you're gonna die from cancer otherwise, bring it on.
Cancer Cell Jedi Mind Trick by Dareth · 2012-03-27 05:21 · Score: 1

They turn of the ability for the cell to wave its hand and say, "This is not the cell you are looking for."

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
News flash!! by doston · 2012-03-27 05:48 · Score: 1

Scientists have been able to cure any and all kind of cancer *in mice* since the two statin combo (that was going to cure all cancer) in the late 90s. So tired of these worthless cancer (and whatever else disease) research stories that never go anywhere. There's DRACO for all viruses....yup, cures them all IF you're a mouse. If you're a lab rat, they can help you. You'll see that nothing will come of this and it'll be forgotten in a few months. If the stuff actually worked, they'd supress it or claim the manufacture isn't feasable. Seriously, as long as there's more money in chronic illness and as long as we've got a for profit health care industry, forget any cures...duh.
WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE IP?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 06:09 · Score: 0

So we'll see this on the market (for several tens of thousands of dollars per dose so the lawyers get paid) in 60-70 years after the patent disputes are cleared up?
Re:How long it will take to turn it into medicamen by geekoid · 2012-03-27 08:37 · Score: 1

Anecdote:
I ahve watch sone go througbh cancer several time in my life.
Twice in the 1970s
You have cancer, 6 months later dead.
Once in the 80s. Treamentr with horrible side effects. nasty, nasty side effects. Survived for 4 years.
twice again in the 90s:
bad side effects, one died 4 years later, the other is still alive.
My mother in 2010.
Treatment was nasty, but cause early enough and she is still alive. Her cancer is a cancer that only 5% of peopel who get cancer get.
The anecdote is just that, and anecdote, however it does coincide with the constant betterment of treatments. Less harsh, more specific, less amount of time.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:How long it will take to turn it into medicamen by TrekkieGod · 2012-03-27 10:40 · Score: 1

Anecdote: I ahve watch sone go througbh cancer several time in my life.
Twice in the 1970s You have cancer, 6 months later dead.
Once in the 80s. Treamentr with horrible side effects. nasty, nasty side effects. Survived for 4 years.
twice again in the 90s: bad side effects, one died 4 years later, the other is still alive. My mother in 2010. Treatment was nasty, but cause early enough and she is still alive. Her cancer is a cancer that only 5% of peopel who get cancer get.
The anecdote is just that, and anecdote, however it does coincide with the constant betterment of treatments. Less harsh, more specific, less amount of time.
You're absolutely right, surviving cancer today is far more likely than even ten years ago, and it's only getting better. Chemo is still a bitch. My grandmother went through it in the late 90's, and did not survive.
I'm glad your mother made it through. The one thing I learned from my experience watching my grandmother is that the people who choose to fight have to be strong and courageous. Going back for another treatment in a week after they've experienced what the first one did to them? Takes a very strong desire to live to make yourself do that. I did not in any way mean to imply people shouldn't choose to fight, or that a cancer diagnosis is a death sentence. Just that the path to becoming a cancer survivor is a tough one, and I'm not sure if I'm personally that tough. Depending on the situation, I might just give up right away and enjoy the time I've got left as much as possible. That said, nothing makes me happier than knowing there are people like your mother out there, who fight it out and beat that damned disease, and I hope the number of survivors keeps going up.

--
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Amish exposure to carcinogens by tepples · 2012-03-27 11:15 · Score: 1

You're right; I don't know much about the Amish. If their shunning of certain kinds of tech doesn't diminish the carcinogen exposure risk associated with modern life, go ahead and correct me; I won't mind.
1. Re:Amish exposure to carcinogens by camperdave · 2012-03-27 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes the tech shunning is conditional. They may not have any tech in the house, but the computer, TV, etc are all in the barn.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
It Works? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-28 02:57 · Score: 0

Coming never to a pharmacy near YOU