Slashdot Mirror


Finding a Crowdsourced Cure For Brain Cancer

Hugh Pickens writes "Salvatore Iaconesi, a software engineer at La Sapienza University of Rome, writes that when he was recently diagnosed with brain cancer, his first idea was to seek other opinions. He immediately asked for his clinical records in digital format, converted the data into spreadsheets, databases, and metadata files, and published them on the web site called The Cure. 'The responses have been incredible. More than 200,000 people have visited the site and many have provided videos, poems, medical opinions, suggestions of alternative cures or lifestyles, personal stories of success or, sadly, failures — and simply the statement, "I am here." Among them were more than 90 doctors and researchers who offered information and support.' The geneticist and TED fellow Jimmy Lin has offered to sequence the genome of Iaconesi's tumor after surgery, and within one day Iaconesi heard from two different doctors who recommended similar kinds of 'awake surgery,' where the brain is monitored in real time as different parts are touched. A brain map is produced and used during a second surgery. 'We are creating a cure by uniting the contributions of surgeons, homeopaths, oncologists, Chinese doctors, nutritionists and spiritual healers. The active participation of everyone involved — both experts and ex-patients — is naturally filtering out any damaging suggestion which might be proposed,' writes Iaconesi. 'Send us videos, poems, images, audio or text that you see as relevant to a scenario in which art and creativity can help form a complete and ongoing cure. Or tell us, "I am here!" — alive and connected, ready to support a fellow human being.'"

23 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. doesn't this rely rather strongly on the novelty? by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There were a ton of people interested in his case, but imo that was strongly dependent on the novelty and the fact that it's uncommon so far. Why did these geneticists and researchers spend a bunch of unpaid time on his case in particular? Because it was one of the few (only?) available in this form. But every year there are about 13 million people diagnosed with cancer. What if even 1% of them were uploaded online? Would there be folks like Jimmy Lin looking through all 130,000 of those cases on a volunteer basis? My guess would be no: once it gets to be a few hundred or thousand people trying the same thing, and then it just goes back to being normal medicine again, of the kind where you need doctors who're doing it as a full-time job to go through all the cases.

  2. Support =/= Cure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Send us videos, poems, images, audio or text that you see as relevant to a scenario in which art and creativity can help form a complete and ongoing cure."

    Cancer does not work that way.

  3. Thank fuck! by gazbo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now we've got homeopaths and spiritualists involved, a cure for cancer must surely be just around the corner!!

    1. Re:Thank fuck! by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, and because the spiritualists have been diluted 1000 times by the number of homeopaths and other practitioners on the site, their advice is made even more effective!

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    2. Re:Thank fuck! by XaN-ASMoDi · · Score: 2

      Maybe people should read this before reading your opinions on homeopathy!!! http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/

      --
      Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
  4. Misguided by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'We are creating a cure by uniting the contributions of surgeons, homeopaths, oncologists, Chinese doctors, nutritionists and spiritual healers.'

    This is incredibly misguided, and that is the most charitable way of putting it. Other things you could call it are bloody stupid, daft and irresponsible. There is no way in hell you're going to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff with such a volume of random input, most of it crap, and come up with any useful ideas, let a lone a "cure". Especially not if you're apparently going to accept most of the crap. Homeopaths? Chinese doctors? Spiritual healers? "Uniting their contributions" is going to drag the net worth of the resulting mess down to below zero...

    1. Re:Misguided by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 2

      So from your own point of view, there is no way in hell such a thing as Slashdot can work, all those random comments from idiots who can't even RTFA!

      Announcing that you are going to accept the contributions of homeopaths, etc. is like saying you're going to read Slashdot at -1 or accept every edit on Wikipedia.

      Yes, a lot of suggestions are going to come from homeopathy and spiritual healers. And you know, then, maybe these people will learn more in the process than if they were being outlawed and chased by lawyers.

      Hardly. Most of these people want to believe. No amount of rational argument is going to sway them. As they say: you can't reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Either that, or they are con artists.

    2. Re:Misguided by Nerdfest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When it comes to what works, the only thing I really trust is double-blind studies.

    3. Re:Misguided by bhartman34 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please don't tell me you're one of those "drug companies want people to have cancer" idiots.

      Read the following slowly, so that you'll understand it completely:

      Cancer isn't one thing. It's many things, under one umbrella term.

      Colon cancer isn't the same as lung cancer or skin cancer. There's no such thing as a "cure for cancer", and there never will be. There are treatments that can cure cancer for individual patients when it rears its ugly head, but there's no such thing as, "Wow! Look at this drug! No more cancer for anyone, ever!!".

      A 100% effective treatment for a specific cancer would be a multi-billion dollar a year drug, and would earn that revenue for years to come. (Yes, patents expire, but there are different routes of administration and different formulations to patent.)

      On the other side of the ledger, you have homeopathic "cures", that do absolutely nothing but drain people's wallets. Homeopathic drugs are nothing but really expensive water -- by design. You dilute some marginally useful ingredient many, many, many times over, and then sell people on magical bullshit.

    4. Re:Misguided by SecurityGuy · · Score: 2

      Oh, I don't mind the guy doing this one bit. I mind web sites with a huge audience (slashdot and CNN) publishing this as anything but one desperate man's cry for help. I read this first on CNN, which described it as an open source "cure" for cancer. As if the one thing that's been missing in all the thousands of trials and billions of dollars spent trying to cure cancer was one man's complete medical record.

    5. Re:Misguided by BKX · · Score: 3, Informative

      First, he was 100% correct about cancer. Second, even if he doesn't know how homeopathy works, I do, and it doesn't. This is how homeopathic "medicines" (no, they aren't medicine; I'm not even willing to just put medicine in scare quotes and leave it at that. It must be said explicitly, homeopathy is not medicine; it is water.) are made:

      1: Put random shit in bottle. Set counter C to 0.
      2: Dilute 100:1 with water.
      3: Shake solution up and down ten times.
      4: Shake solution side to side ten times.
      5: Shake solution back to front ten times.
      6: Tap bottle of solution on a Bible (King James preferred for some reason) ten times.
      7: Increase C by 1.
      8. GOTO step 2 until C is 30 (or whatever number you prefer).

      The interesting thing here is that by 13C or so, there's no way that there's any of the original substance left unless you poured some 1C in the ocean and smacked it up a few times with a Bible. At 14C, you're lucky if you got a single molecule. Beyond there it's just gone. So unless Jesus comes down from Heaven to make water into medicine every time you shake a bottle and beat a Bible with it, homeopathy is nothing. See this website for more details: http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/

    6. Re:Misguided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Homeopathic remedies have been the subject of numerous clinical trials, which test the possibility that they may be effective through some mechanism unknown to science. Taken together, these trials showed no effect beyond placebo. Although some trials produced positive results, systematic reviews revealed that this was because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias. The proposed mechanisms for homeopathy are precluded by the laws of physics from having any effect. Patients who choose to use homeopathy rather than evidence based medicine risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions. The regulation and prevalence of homeopathy vary greatly from country to country.

      Sounds like he's got it about right, considering there's never been any evidence for homeopathy working that's stronger than the placebo effect. Maybe YOU could explain for us how homeopathy works, since you seem to think you know, and nobody else has been able to verify it working, much less *explain* its workings.

      We're not talking "chew willow bark to relieve a headache" type of "alternative medicine" - willow bark is simply a natural source for a well-studied and well-characterized chemical - acetylsalicylic acid, or aspirin. We're talking about "soak a piece of willow bark in a bit of water or alcohol, and continue diluting until no trace of any salicylate from the willow bark can be detected in the water or alcohol, and then expect it to have an even more potent effect than the willow bark itself."

      That's the shit that is completely bogus, and completely without merit, except as a placebo.

    7. Re:Misguided by Americano · · Score: 2

      I'll take a stab at correcting his procedure:

      1: Put some shit dictated by your repertory or materia medica in a bottle. Set counter C to 0.
      2: Dilute 100:1 with water.
      3: Succuss bottle on some elastic surface to help that "water memory" to develop.
      4: Increase C by 1.
      5: GOTO step 2 until C is 30 (or whatever number you prefer.)

      At the end of this procedure, you will still likely be unable to detect even a single molecule of "active ingredient" in the water, and you will still be left with a very expensive sugar pill. Homeopathy is grade A snake oil bullshit, friend. I'm sorry, but the ONLY benefit you get from it is the placebo effect - and you don't need expensive water to get that effect - belief is all that's required, and that comes free if you're credulous enough.

      Even IF the medicines prescribed by the repertories were useful, homeopathy's dilution principles guarantees that no biologically significant amount of active ingredients will ever enter your system. Unless you have some actual science to show that this is more than a placebo effect, it's an argument you're going to lose.

    8. Re:Misguided by bhartman34 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, I do know how it works. That's why I was charitable enough to say "marginally useful ingredient", rather than "random shit", as one of the more blunt posters said below.

      Do yourself a favor and look at the studies. Not just the favorable ones, but all the studies, including the meta analysis of multiple studies. PubMed is a good start.

      The reason I know this is because I've been pulling information on studies from databases for almost 14 years now as part of my job. I know how to look this stuff up and weigh the evidence. I also know a thing or two about routes of administration and mechanisms of action. When you don't have a single molecule of the active ingredient left, there's no viable mechanism of action, and no administration whatsoever.

      Oh, and in regards to flight: When the Wright Brothers flew, they didn't chalk it up to magic. They understood the basics of what was keeping them aloft, even if they didn't yet understand aerodynamics the way we do today. Homeopathy rejects basic physical principles we know today, in favor of faulty reasoning. It's not quite at the level of alchemy or astrology on the Bullshit Meter, since there are at least some observations (albeit incorrectly interpretted) behind it, but it's pretty close.

    9. Re:Misguided by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      "First of all lots of chinese medicine is: standardized, purified and most of all validated."

      No, it's not. The first thing you learn when you look into Chinese medicine is that everything is done a little bit differently by each practitioner. When an actual clinical trial of some technique or concoction fails to show an effect the first criticism from believers is usually "oh, you didn't do it right. You have to do it the way THIS school/practice/group/individual does it!" If you do a clinical trial of Advil, Adex, Actron, Anadin or any of the other Ibuprofen brands, you get the same results, because each of them is exactly the same thing.

      Regarding Homeopathy, if it would rely on the placebo effect only a small number of patients would be "cured"

      No. The placebo effect is quite strong. It can be measured and quantified, although it does depend on the circumstances and the effect in an individual depends very much on that individual's psychology and how they view the treatment they're getting. Modern clinical trials peg the placebo effect at around 30%. Homeopathic remedies HAVE been run through randomized clinical trials and they do not perform better than a placebo.

      I don't think you know what homeopathy is. Homeopathy specifically involves diluting substances (ranging from herbal extracts to things like arsenic) until there it is very unlikely there is even a single molecule of the active substance remaining. That is, homeopathic remedies are water. The "theory" underlying homeopathy is that water molecules have a memory of other molecules they've been near and somehow this memory effect turns the water itself into an active drug.

      The camomile example you give sounds like an herbal remedy. Many people confuse the two. Many "homeopathic" practitioners probably hope people confuse the two since herbal remedies have a LOT better chance of actually working (i.e. greater than zero). Herbs do indeed contain active ingredients that could potentially be purified, standardized, and validated. However, studies to date (and the US government has invested billions in doing these studies) have resulted in finding one traditional herbal remedy (that hasn't already been turned into a drug) that performed better than placebo: ginger for nausea. Other plant extracts are already used extensively. Aspirin (from willow bark) is the standard example. Currently drug companies are "mining" tropical rain forests looking for drugs.

      I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about, regarding homeopathy or anything else you've mentioned. Please stop trying to educate other people. And no, I'm not being harsh. People like you and the quacks that practice homeopathy are screwing around with people's lives. I have one friend who lost her mother because by the time they realized the alternative "medicines" weren't working it was too late. I remember the day she asked me if I could recommend a good oncologist.

    10. Re:Misguided by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      There was a discussion about the national health service in the UK covering homeopathic treatments a while ago on Slashdot. The average Slashdotter (sorry, average of the ones who are not idiots) thought it was a horrible idea. I thought it was a great idea. Provided the "homeopathic treatments" were tap water, prescribed by a real physician. The physician could prescribe water to patients who wanted it for a variety of common ailments such as the common cold, instead of things like antibiotics, but if anyone with something treatable came in he could give them real treatments. You'd have to tell the patient it was an expensive homeopathic remedy of course.

      The criticism of that idea is that you'd be reinforcing the superstitious beliefs of people who already believe in homeopathy. My counter argument is that people who really believe things like that tend not to be swayed by telling them it doesn't work anyway.

  5. Re:doesn't this rely rather strongly on the novelt by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's in part novelty, it's in part the cult of the individual. We've seen the internet pay for doctors bills, legal fees, new houses, breast implants etc for individuals, to the detriment of bigger charities that are far more efficient (and often more deserving) because people like an individual person with an individual story -- it's more personal. A genuine "cause" is far more abstract.

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  6. My ex by ledow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My ex was in chronic joint pain for years. She was told by leading medical experts that it was arthritis (before she was 30) and prescribed all kinds of arthritis medication and treatment over decades for it before giving up because nothing really worked.

    When I started living with her, I spotted lots of problems she had with movement and joints and I had to explain to her that, no, it's not normal to hurt all the time, or to dislocate your shoulder by opening a jar of sweets. We googled around, and put a lot of footwork into avoiding quackery, and ended up discovering about hypermobility syndrome (now call JHS, where J = joint) purely by chance. The doctor had never heard of it and was interested in it up to a point.

    Basically, her DNA codes a few dodgy things that make her cartilage weak. Most people have JHS in some form or another but if two people with particular bad cases coincide to make a child, the child is *generally* worse. There's also an even worse form called EDS where sufferers are in a wheelchair from birth.

    This gives some sufferers chronic pain from being a baby while others just become good ballet dancers (huge amount of flexibility in the joints, which *can* wear the joints to the point that inflammation of tissue and joint damage results). My ex was a professional black belt karate instructor throughout most of her painful years (because flexing joints made them no worse, and was not a way to induce the pain - a clear sign that it *wasn't* arthritis from the very start.

    In the end, we gave up on all the doctors she'd had previously, and researched it ourselves. We hit at random upon a rare condition that had almost zero information on it at the time. Apparently there was one guy in the country doing research on the condition when we discovered it (and other sufferers we met up with describe him as one of the most arrogant and ignorant doctors they'd ever met - telling tiny slips of girls that were not far off transparency that they were obese and he wouldn't treat them, etc.).

    We FORCED her current doctor to refer us to a specialist. We were referred to a consultant who dealt with arthritis. However, he was bright enough to look and say instantly "You don't have arthritis, you have hypermobility" and write us off with a confirmed diagnosis that the doctor would at least accept to prescribe more suitable medication for (i.e. not arthritis medication which worsens the problem because the condition is the polar opposite of arthritis).

    Beyond that, she never got much help and still has the condition. Variably over the years she's been registered disabled and able to run a karate club (though not simultaneously - the condition is always present but the severity varies greatly with seemingly random triggers and even things like the weather).

    Bear in mind that all this happened in a country with free healthcare.

    - Doctors can't know everything.
    - Even those that are specialised in your area might not help you at all.
    - Even those who want to help often can't find out enough to get you to someone that helps.
    - Even those with a real interest on the cutting edge of research may be able to do no more than prescribe a painkiller and sign a form for you.
    - The human body is more complicated than any one person, or even group, can ever understand.

    But, that said, we went to great lengths to avoid quackery. At a residential weekend for sufferers, there was one true doctor who gave a short 10 minute presentation and then tried to escape before he got hounded for everyone's personal problems. 50% of the rest were salesmen trying to flog memory foam pillows and other junk to "help your condition". The other 50% were nothing more than charlatans (I shall never forget being in a Reiki healing class for moral support - against my will - and there being a ten-minute interlude between the instructor and a student where one "saw colours" with her eyes closed and then they discussed how insightful and "in-touch" with Reiki that made her while

  7. Re:Sweet, but the interesting implications are by LurkerXXX · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm sorry to hear about your dad, but please don't put uninformed stuff like this out there. Cancer isn't one disease, it's many. And some do have high survival rates. The others we are working on.

    http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/survival/latestrates/survival-statistics-for-the-most-common-cancers

  8. Re:doesn't this rely rather strongly on the novelt by BKX · · Score: 2

    Not to be all grammar Nazi (prepare for incoming grammar and spelling mistakes), but I think you meant "QUOT CAPITA TOT SENSUS". When I looked at your version, it made no sense (That head many counts.). Then I thought about it. "One head, many opinions"

  9. Re:doesn't this rely rather strongly on the novelt by fuzzybunny · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But think about it this way - a big part of the reason for sharing such information and making it commonly accessible is to enable the automation of pattern-finding.

    This is tough to do with patient records scattered through fifty thousand different hospital databases. With those 130,000 cases online, you're going to start seeing commonalities in various reactions to treatments, statistics, etc. which in turn will make it much easier for researchers to begin understanding what combinations of cures/treatments may or may not work - leaving the "weird" ones that don't fit into any patterns to the Jimmy Lins.

    --
    Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  10. Re:Actually it does work that way... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Medical professionals do not place their job security above the well-being of their patients; those who do get destroyed for malpractice. I hear this claim getting repeated about pharmacologists a lot here on Slashdot—that they don't want to cure diseases because palliative care is a better cash cow—and it just reflects immensely on how ignorant people become when they reduce everything to money.

    Doctors are primarily concerned with helping people. With few, anomalous exceptions, they want to eliminate disease and make the world a better place. There are plenty of ways to get a secure job that don't involve making a lifelong commitment to interacting with sick people (and for surgeons, the insides of sick people) on a regular if not daily basis. They also don't cost several extra years, nor the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars involved in tuition. You've clearly gotten them confused with IT managers.

    Furthermore, the few doctors who don't consider patient welfare to be their major drive are preoccupied with personal glory, which they already obtain through saving lives. Nothing could be better for them than saving lives even after they're dead. Curing a disease and inventing something that improves the quality or process of medical care both accomplish this.

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  11. Re:doesn't this rely rather strongly on the novelt by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

    I live in a country with universal health care, and glad I am of it too. I needed surgery at 17, and it was done fairly neatly and fairly efficiently. I had never had a job, so couldn't pay, and my parents had several other kids to look after, so wouldn't have much relished a US-style hospital bill....

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'