Slashdot Mirror
Killing Cancer By Retraining the Patient's Immune System
An anonymous reader writes "There's an interesting story on CNN about the University of Pennsylvania's human trial results on curing intractable cancer by retraining the patient's own immune system. Quoting: 'Nick Wilkins was diagnosed with leukemia when he was 4 years old, and when the cancer kept bouncing back, impervious to all the different treatments the doctors tried, his father sat him down for a talk. John Wilkins explained to Nick, who was by then 14, that doctors had tried chemotherapy, radiation, even a bone marrow transplant from his sister. ... A few months later, Nick traveled from his home in Virginia to Philadelphia to become a part of the experiment. This new therapy was decidedly different from the treatments he'd received before: Instead of attacking his cancer with poisons like chemotherapy and radiation, the Philadelphia doctors taught Nick's own immune cells to become more adept at killing the cancer. Two months later, he emerged cancer-free. It's been six months since Nick, now 15, received the personalized cell therapy, and doctors still can find no trace of leukemia in his system. ... Twenty-one other young people received the same treatment at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and 18 of them, like Nick, went into complete remission -- one of them has been disease-free for 20 months.'"
I think it is a bit premature to consider his cancer has been "killed" but good luck to him and good luck to the researchers with their Slashverisment.
AIDS
Cancer gets cured about once a decade, sometimes by real doctors, sometimes by "quacks." I could show stats from real doctors with similar results to this one, which never saw the light of day once it was discovered (or rediscovered).
People don't actually like creativity, even in medicine:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/12/creativity_is_rejected_teachers_and_bosses_don_t_value_out_of_the_box_thinking.html
In medicine, innovative things happen all the time. When *you* go to the doctor, you get the same ol' thing that has been done since 1952.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
"curing intractable cancer" If it can be cured, it's not intractable.
ENDS _TEXT
I would be most interested to know why it doesn't work, when it doesn't work.....
I have been reading about this for about 7 years so nice to see it being deployed.
California Stem Cell, Inc. has been doing a similar project since about 2005 in training white blood cells of a patient to recognize malignant melanoma cells out side the body, growing large numbers of those white blood cells and then reinjecting them back into the patient. To date they have achieved some very high remission/cure rates. They have FDA clearance pending but not yet issued. The process was originally developed by doctors at Hoag Hospital in Newport Beach, CA as I recall from a speach.
www.californiastemcell.com
Just kidding,
Medical world 1 - (cancer = western highly refined diet) 3789411354
My wife was part of a stage 3 melanoma study for the drug Ipilimumab (brand name Yervoy), an immunotherapy drug that inhibits the signal mechanism used by the immune system to turn off an attack. So any metastatic cells floating around her body would not be able to masquerade as normal cells by flying the right protein flag. Unfortunately, halfway through the trial she had a major reaction that caused brain swelling, requiring her to be hospitalized twice. Fortunately, she survived the side effects and the oncologist believes she had enough of the juice to get most of the benefit. Without the drug, we were looking at 50% survival rate for 5 years. The study is still in progress, so no idea how Ipilimumab will improve the odds.
There is research out there claiming green tea, spices like tumeric, and just eating better can have dramatic results. I would like to see some serious research by respected oncologists into the efficacy of simple life changes like that, instead of study after study pushing big pharma's insanely expensive drugs (thankfully covered by the trial in our case) that cause side effects potentially more dangerous than the disease they are intended to treat.
I don't know if reprogramming T-Cells like in TFA is more or less dangerous than conventional immunotherapy. Cancer makes people desperate enough to take some pretty big treatment risks. I certainly appreciate the fact that oncologists are aggressive in their mission to save lives, but I wish we had more non-fringe research into potentially good treatments that were also cheap and safe.
But I hope this therapy works out. Progress against cancer is made one step at a time.
I am sure you can lower the risk with dietary choices. But in fact genetic mutations that lead to cancer do just happen - that is more physics than choice.
Here it is, folks: the key to preventing cancer and saving countless lives, provided by "Reliable Windmill".
You have to avoid everything to avoid cancer. There are causes, but there are far too many known causes to avoid (let alone unknown), and most of them have absolutely nothing to do with western decadence and are not avoided by the latest fad in fake ancient eastern holistic advice. You can be following your advice to the t and still get cancer.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
If you can genetically engineer cancer-killing T-cells, couldn't you just inject those into healthy patients (i.e. all the rest of us) as well, as a sort of immunization, just like you can get vaccination against influenza or tetanus?
But if you go to prison and or jail then you get healthcare.
where they still fund some basic research. Here in America, where we're all taxed to the max and the "Job Creators" are just too underpaid to make more jobs ($4400/hr? How could anyone live off that?) we've pretty much stopped funding basic research. I know several doctors that moved to Europe not to escape over regulation (ha!) but because nobody here would pay for their research. With the Universities becoming a paid racket ($40,000 for in state tuition? not enough, it goes up ever year) we're not even getting that anymore (can't have those evil tenured professors runnin' round spreadin' lies anyway)...
:(.
Basically, American is the wealthiest country on the planet and we're hoarding it
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This article sounds interesting at first glance, but there's nearly nothing to learn from it. You stick genes into T-cells and then they go about killing cancer? What genes do you put in them, what do the genes do, what is it about the cancer cells that lets the T-cells know that they're not healthy!? There's been a lot of interest in using the immune system to target only cancer cells, and if something like this is working to this extent then it's definitely newsworthy, but 'we stick genes in them and they kill all the cancer' is not news--it's handwaving.
At least give us a name of a researcher responsible for the technique, or the specific name of the technique itself, so that we can look up the information ourselves. Saying that there's an awesome new technique discovered and we're not going to be told how it works is like dangling a carrot in front of our noses without letting us eat it. Incredibly frustrating.
But this is good news. We can in fact teach the human immune cells to recognize the threats. In fact it already does, it's why a lot of cancers pop up later in life. But if we bolster the immune system we could see cancer eradicated.
A very close friend was supposed to go through this treatment almost two years ago. Unfortunately for him, you need to be is pretty good shape before this is begun and his cancer was spreading to various places in his body and he was never quite to the point where the doctors felt he could tolerate a new form of treatment. All I could think of was that the oncologists were stuck in a deadly game of whackamole; hit that place where the cancer was discovered and it popped up somewhere else. When the cancer spread to his brain, it was all over. By then his estimated of survival was, maybe, six weeks and he lasted less than a week after the discovery of it having gotten into the brain. Maybe if the original "We got it in time, there's nothing in the lymph nodes"[*] had been followed up with this treatment he'd still be around. When it was discovered to have returned it was probably already too late.
[*] -- The cancer that was discovered a couple of years ago was found to be the same one that he'd had surgery/chemo for years earlier. My feeling is that `clean' lymph nodes are probably a false hope. What evidence is there that cancer always leaves a trace in the lymph nodes anyway?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I listened to the VP of marketing from Calif. Stem Cell recount that their limited trial of stage 4 melanoma patients had something like a 90% survival rate, which is astounding.
I know they are now getting ready to do a final 3rd clinical trial which is needed before final FDA clearance.
if researchers find a way to transform cancer from near-death sentence into a condition that people and their doctors can manage for decades, much as they do many other medical conditions today, then that's close enough to a "cure" as any of us could reasonably hope for. Or is that too difficult a concept for the average person on this myopia-infested site to handle?
The difference is that a treatment with ongoing costs is more like life support than like a cure. Insulin is not a "cure" for diabetes mellitus caused by pancreatic failure (type I). Nor is metformin a "cure" for diabetes mellitus caused by insulin resistance (type II). But I still agree with you that an upgrade from a horrible disease to a condition managed through life support is worthwhile.
A cure for cancer would make the patient a potential user of more drugs for conditions acquired later in life, such as drugs to control erectile dysfunction, drugs to increase bone density, drugs to control autoimmune arthritis, etc.
Even if there are cures, few can ever afford them
The next generation can more easily afford the generic knockoff of the cure once the patent has expired.
companies are great at thinking long term. Look at gerrymandering in the United States. It took 20 years for the Republican party to completely take control of the State Legislatures and use that control to redraw the districts. Look at Hostess Bakery, that spent 10 years dismantling their Union.
If anything, companies are great at screwing us in the long term. Now, doing _good_ in the long term. You're right, that just doesn't happen.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease
Cancer doesn't just happen. If you can, avoid all the synthetic chemicals you get in your system from your food and environment. Avoid processed foods, and those full of food colorings, sweeteners, preservatives, and others. Get rid of all the plastics from your kitchen, and if you can, avoid food that comes in plastic containers, especially wet foods with extreme shelf life that sit and soak in the plastic container for months before being consumed. Put more fat, protein and fiber in your diet and get rid of the carb. Avoid the typical western high-carb diet which is rocket fuel for cancer cells.
Yes, that's why all of Asia has extremely high incidence of cancer, because they eat nothing but carbs. Oh, wait...
Cancer does in fact "just happen" all the time. In fact you have cancerous cells inside you right now. Normally, the immune system targets them and kills them. Sometimes they get out of control, which we refer to as "having cancer".
All those things you mention are just loosely correlated risk factors. But by all means keep ignorantly telling everyone you know how to prevent all forms of cancer. It's hilarious.
And it is why all of the CONservatives are so excited about this treatment. The rich get a cancer cure while us peons still die.
A death which is faster, but even more painful?
I previously understood that personalized therapy could not get approved by FDA because it was impossible to perform studies on a large number of people (since the treatment is for one). I am glad it is nonetheless used, but what changed?
It's strange how the conspiracy theorists believe that companies are capable of taking the long view.
If the CEO of Pfizer knows he can put out a drug that will make them shit-tons of money for five years before the patents run out and it goes generic, he's going to fucking do it, and then retire after four and a half years.
No way are they going to hold back on that line of research in the hopes of selling marginal treatments forever, because if they tried that, then sooner or later someone else would figure it out and their marginal treatments would become worthless.
The body already kills most cancer cells before they reproduce. A healthy body will be more successful at killing cancer cells than a weak body, and one of the things that promotes a healthy body is eating well. Nutrient-poor foods like cookies, candy, and carbonated soft drinks make it tougher for the body to stay healthy. It doesn't take esoteric diets to eat well, just eat a reasoned variety of quality fresh foods and the odds of not getting cancer improve. There are no guarantees.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
As a further note, check out http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/what-is-the-hpv-virus. Some researchers at the University of Newcastle (iirc) developed a vaccination for the HPV virus which will, in theory, reduce the chances of getting certain cancers. Avoiding carbs and eating more fat, protein and fiber wont stop that virus and the associated cancers.
Other things that you should avoid if you want to reduce your risk of getting cancer include:
Bananas
99.9% of all electrical equipment (circuit boards and components can often leach out hydrocarbons and other chemicals which may increase your risk of cancer)
Internal combustion engines, or more specifically, combustion byproducts of most fuels
Modern building materials
Ancient building materials
Food
Oxygen
Sunlight
Space
Stray cosmic radiation
Magnetic and electrical fields
War
(and so on)
I have a friend whose son, Sam, is dying of leukemia. He's gone into remission and then relapsed multiple times. This time they tried various treatments, but nothing worked. The doctors finally said there's nothing they can do. He's going to die. Sam is only 7 years old. Can you imagine having to tell your seven year old that they are going to die soon? As a parent, that's something I hope to NEVER have to do and something that I hope no parent ever has to tell their child again.
Here's my friend's blog if you want to read more about Sam: http://supermansamuel.blogspot.com/
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
You're an idiot. Learn to interpret, and don't put words in my mouth to create an opportunity to assert yourself like this. The essence of my post is that if you strive to reduce the presence of dangerous synthetic chemicals in your body then you will significantly reduce the chances that you contract "out-of-control cancer".
Signature intentionally left blank.
because they eat nothing but carbs. Oh, wait.
Not saying you're entirely wrong, but are you familiar with rice?
You're probably just a moderately talented troll, but I'll respond anyway.
Skin cancer tends to be of near ZERO concern, for instance (save in those nations where cancer scare propaganda runs out of control, like the USA and Australia) because skin cells have little to ZERO opportunity to travel to sensitive parts of your inner body. No 'cancerous' tumour on the surface of your body can harm you significantly there. The cancer cells need to get 'inside' to do real harm.
Skin needs blood. Metastasis can happen directly via the blood vessels that supply the cancerous skin.
Systemically, it would seem obvious that there are forms of cancer (in other words, cell types and locations) that will always be near impossible to 'treat' usefully. One would need a machine that could 'scan' the entire body, mapping EVERY cell, and then have a means to SAFELY get to cell clusters identified as 'cancerous' and safely kill those cells. However, micro-tumours in key organs would, as you may imagine, be unthinkably hard to 'kill' unless one had some magic '3D' 'zapping' technology that could safely place disruptive energy into precisely the location of the cancer cells, without harming the cells around them.
Seems you missed the summary and the article here. Your immune system happens to do that job for the most part. The mentioned treatment improves your odds of success significantly.
I'll agree that there are many simple ways to reduce the odds of getting cancer, but sometimes someone will smoke two packs a day, have a bucket of cornbread and lard for breakfast, and drink a fifth of whiskey a day, and die at 108 of a motorcycle accident, while someone may follow the clean living guide to the letter and die of cancer at 22.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Like my stepfather. He was a P.E. teacher. He did not smoke, ate reasonably healthily, exercised regularly, and drank in moderation.
He died of complications, due to his treatment for hairy cell leukemia.
And this after surviving testicular cancer.
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
You would have to show that the long-term income from these medications (whose use is only potential) would exceed that of the long-term use of the cancer treatment (whose purchase is now all but guaranteed).
After having read this post, I thought for a moment and came up with other motivations: Your competitor has come up with a cure that would make your long-term treatment obsolete, and you want your own cure. Or your competitor has come up with a less expensive long-term treatment, and you want to make it obsolete. This could be as simple as a generic version of the treatment that you brought to market a decade and a half ago.