Slashdot Mirror
New Anti-Cancer Drug Put Cancers To Sleep In Mice -- Permanently (medicalxpress.com)
"Australian scientists have taken a 'major step forward' in the world of cancer research," reports ABC (the national broadcaster of Australia). Long-time Slashdot reader Artem Tashkinov quotes an announcement from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research: In a world first, Melbourne scientists have discovered a new type of anti-cancer drug that can put cancer cells into a permanent sleep, without the harmful side-effects caused by conventional cancer therapies.
Published today in the journal Nature, the research reveals the first class of anti-cancer drugs that work by putting the cancer cell to sleep -- arresting tumour growth and spread without damaging the cells' DNA.
The new class of drugs could provide an exciting alternative for people with cancer, and has already shown great promise in halting cancer progression in models of blood and liver cancers, as well as in delaying cancer relapse.
One of the lead researchers says the new compounds "had already shown great promise in preclinical testing."
Published today in the journal Nature, the research reveals the first class of anti-cancer drugs that work by putting the cancer cell to sleep -- arresting tumour growth and spread without damaging the cells' DNA.
The new class of drugs could provide an exciting alternative for people with cancer, and has already shown great promise in halting cancer progression in models of blood and liver cancers, as well as in delaying cancer relapse.
One of the lead researchers says the new compounds "had already shown great promise in preclinical testing."
Show me the baby!
Sounds like taking this drug would be a great way to prevent cancer in the first place. A drug that healthy people have to take routinely for the rest of their lives to prevent substantial risk of death? Sound$ like a winner to me.
And when?
I question that wording. I don't think it's exciting. If human trials prove out, I don't know of anyone who would prefer traditional treatment, well except the drug companies.
This will probably be the most expensive drug in history if it does work with lesser side effects as existing treaments.
Didn't we all hire someone here on Slashdot to keep track of all the miracle cancer cures? This may have been in the late 90's.
Number of cancer cures announced in stories on Slashdot >= Number of flying-car-coming-tomorrow stories on Slashdot
Maybe it was me who we hired. I forget. I may have been the one who was supposed to keep track of the Alzheimer cure stories.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Carnt
Because due to "profit" reasons, it is usually the latter.
Which is very damn close to putting the gun on somebody's head and threatening to shoot as soon as the cash flow stops.
And don't even try the "research" argument. An AMA on Reddit made very clear what this "research" usually consists of: Finding some natural drug, that have been known by shamans or doctors for forever, purifying the active component, and tinkering with it, following the motto "I have no idea what I'm doing". (Seriously, I've heard from multiple chemists in such companies, that basically, they try varying modifications, until one turns out to have an interesting effect. ... They honestly can't tell in advance ... I'm OK with that. I'm just not OK with acting like it is oh-so scientific and skilled.)
If it fails to sell well under its main effect, they even declare the biggest side-effect the new main effect, and try to sell it that way. See: Viagra.
In any case, there is no correlation between the amount of work done to come up with the drug, and the amount of work people have to do, to pay for it. That's the problem. Patents were created, to make sure people could recoup the money from that work. After that, the ideas should and must be free, since the worth was already paid. But patents and the like got abused to take way more, by enforcing an artificial scarcity monopoly (... both of which major crimes ...) and not working one freaking bit for that additional money.
That is where the crime lies: Profit.
[Watch this comment go down and be called "socialist/communist" like a prescription crack whore when the prescription crack runs out. Despite it being just as well a "free market" argument. "I.P." laws are the epitome of anti-free-market.]
What is remarkable is that they claim to target any cancer. Cancer is hard to cure because it is as diverse as people.
TFA says they induced senescence - the lack of ability to divide - to cancer cells, but they do not tell us how they managed to target cancer cells only.
If you read the book, you'll see that scientists have cured cancer in mice for more 2 decades, but it never works in humans. Anyone foolish enough to believe the hype isn't thinking clearly and has a sad understanding of science.
.. worked against the Borg.
See Targeted alpha therapy. It would be well-developed today if not for a contingent of ignorant and foolish people resistant to progress in this area, many who hold thinly veiled anti-human beliefs often masquerading as environmentalism.
However, why cure disease, when big pharma can sell an expensive life-long drug treatment? Perhaps societies should be rethinking how they fund medicine, and direct it to improving human health instead of maximizing profit.
So you want to try that again? What the fuck are you talking about? This is not the Fox news audience.
mice could pay for the treatment. Of course this comes up every. few. years.
The lead managed not to name the researchers, the cancer drugs, or the cancer targets.
blah blah VAGUE blah blah VAGUE blah blah VAGUE
News for Nerds with jargon deficit disorder.
Mice are not humans, they just have better healthcare.
We are not mice. We are not rats. We are humans.
Our bodies and immune systems work differently than animals.
If we ever want to 'cure' cancer, we have to do human testing to see what works and what doesn't. It's the only true way to advance our medical science.
Suka baca Cerita Dewasa ataupun Nonton Bokep Online? ini kami sediakan tempatnya, langsung saja klik : Cerita Dewasa
All these breakthroughs are bad news for the government and HMO's / Health Insurance. ,means young workers must be taxed MORE or compulsory saving . Forget medical - old age survivors are big business.
Life expectancy for those with some savings is now 88 years odd and growing.
Ths places pressure on housing, and aged services, and angry voters over the magic age of 72 where many covers end. This
Cancer. Doctors previously knew cancers were just defective healing processes when they did not 'turn off' You cut your self - it heals, then stops healing - why?
This cure is verry very bad for surgeons, as many cancers develop later in life due to microplastics and methylmercury and assorted modern irritants. Being cancer suppressants/poisons are big business - if true this could be ruinious - hence no big pharma doing that line of research. Plus CRISPR.
In all healtcare premiums must rise because of this pissant dscovery, and if that dont get you, dementia care will. And this is why Obamacare must go, and the deplorables accept early death and suffering because they did not save enough. Average people do not deserve premium healthcare for free. Bring on Nembutol.
The cancer drug I will take when the time comes will be the new one announced by China that US and European pharma will angrily call a theft of its own IP. That's how I will know it's not just another bullshit folk remedy.
However, mice are not people: I think that cures that have shown to have quasi-miraculous effects on mice have, without exception, proved to be far, far less effective on people.
But there have been a lot of promising drug that just never panned out.
Gee Whiz Gee Whiz Gee Whiz Gee Whiz Gee Whiz Gee Whiz Gee Whiz
Um, don't hold your breath.
Is its too much to ask for a little bit of basic accuracy. Cancer cells do not ever "sleep". There are definitely growth factors encoded in their DNA, and growth-control genes that are missing, broken, or surpassed. But please, no sleep analogies, please.
They're near the Tasmanian Devils, why not help animals for a variation?
I know you cannot treat the ones in the wild, but if we get the cancer to become latent, maybe we have time to save more specimens from death until an effective cure is found -- and thus preserve gene varieties, which in turn would make the species stronger.
It must be one of the most horrible ways to die. And the lessons learned may one day help our own species.
Try to use method(s) to cure Senator McCain from his cancer...
It works by targeting mutations of the KAT6A and KAT6B - which are common in a variety of cancers.
When the cells are functioning normally they can be inhibited to put a cell into senescene (sleep) after specific functions are completed, but the mutations result in the these genes being permanently on and never going back to sleep.
Here is a good summary from the end of the nature article,
n summary, using high-throughput screening followed by medicinal chemistry optimization, in-cell assays, biochemical assessment of target engagement and tumour models in mice and fish, we have developed a novel class of inhibitors for a hitherto unexplored category of epigenetic regulators. These inhibitors engage the MYST family of lysine acetyltransferases in primary cells, specifically induce cell cycle exit and senescence, and are effective in preventing the progression of lymphoma in mice.
They didn't note (and don't seem to know) why it doesn't impact health cells but it apparently doesn't based on current testing.
. . . where it's been for the last 75 years