I really hope this is not another one of those false cures. It's time we made some real big-news progress against this horrible collection of ailments we call cancer.
For those who don't want to read through the lengthy human interest story wrapping the news here, from a quick read I gathered they're basically modifying T-Cells:
> In their natural state, T cells usually aren’t able to kill tumor cells, partly because they can’t latch on strongly enough. But June was fascinated by scientific papers showing it was possible to change this. A few researchers—first an Israeli named Zelig Eshhar in the ’80s, then other investigators around the world—had discovered that you could force a T cell to stick to a tumor cell and kill it. To pull this off, you built an “engineered T cell”—a T cell never before seen in nature. You altered the T cell’s genetic blueprint by injecting a new gene into the cell. The new gene would tell it to build a new molecular limb. The limb, called a “chimeric antigen receptor,” would sit partly inside the cell and partly outside, and it could send signals either in or out. One signal it could send was: kill. Another was: replicate.
> June loved this approach. So elegant. Put the immune system on steroids. What if you could train the body to fight cancer on its own? What if, instead of replacing a patient’s immune system (as in a bone-marrow transplant) or pumping him full of poison (chemo), you could just borrow some cells, tweak them, and infuse them back into the patient? In theory, the engineered cells would stay alive in the blood, replenishing themselves, killing any tumors that recurred. It occurred to June that one infusion could last a lifetime.
It seems this research has been going on for 10+ years. How many people have died because of the glacial regulatory pace of cancer research?
There's a book I can't recommend highly enough called "the emperor of maladies" and it's a history of cancer up to ~2008. It's pretty depressing in a lot of ways (both the disease itself and the history of the fight against it), but it's one of the most fascinating books I've read in years.
The kind of trade offs re: safety vs "getting things done" comes up quite a bit. The key optimism I pulled out of it was that cancer research is progressing exponentially, but this is harder to see because the general public only sees through the lens of "cured/not cured". But I think most cancer researchers would say "progress is being made, and faster than ever before with increasing velocity". Then again, the cure was around the corner in the 70s.
But yeah, cancer is bad news and a disease many of us will be forced to face in our lifetimes...
The vast majority of new treatments fail in Phase 2 - that is, in showing effectiveness in a human model. A huge chunk of the remainder fail in phase 3.
People whine about how slow the pace of research is, but that's not because clinical trials are so slow - it's because most drugs fail. The vast majority of drugs that work in animal models get bounced in Phase 1 (when they show unacceptable toxicity in humans so great it can't be dosed) or Phase 2 (where it just shows no effectiveness in humans at all - not even some level of effectiveness that fails in cost/benefit analysis). this is the problem with people complaining "But every delay kills people!"
No. You don't know going in whether it's going to work - that's why you're doing a trial. And from a naive position, the probability is pretty clear that it's very unlikely it's going to work. There's absolutely no reason to think any particular drug is worthwhile, and every to worry about its side-effects. With a sample size of 12, this one may yet became a last-ditch drug with toxicities worse than chem/rad. We don't know yet. Using this is an example of over-cautiousness is ridiculous.
Additionally, the slowest part here wasn't the clinical science - it was the basic science. Gene therapy has been a failure for decades, and we've been repeatedly going at it to try and get it to work. It's not as though this is the first clinical trial for a gene therapy: it's just one of the first to be worth anything.
>Gene therapy has been a failure for decades, and we've been repeatedly going at it to try and get it to work. It's not as though this is the first clinical trial for a gene therapy: it's just one of the first to be worth anything.
Glybera is a gene therapy which has been approved for medical use.
Your post is misleading. You're not providing counter-evidence for the 'failure for decades' claim, and are in fact confirming the 'one of the first' part.
Yes, it has been approved, but only very recently, in late 2012. It is also the first such drug that has been approved (and to date, the only one), and this happened under 'exceptional circumstances'. The usual standard of supporting evidence was forgone because the disease it treats is so rare. The company is explicitly required to supply further supporting evidence, and the rules for its use are very strict.[1]
And even the Cancer drugs that "work" and are registered only improve stuff like PFS and OS (overall survival) a couple of months in most cases. Cancer treatments tend to work for some time until the illness finds a new pathway rendering the treatment ineffective. It's frankly pretty depressing to look at the survival curves with and without a new drug. You don't save many people anyway.
You really can't make such statements about "cancer". Stage II lung cancer? You will probably die in a few months, surviving five years isn't very likely. Stage 4b Hodgkin's lymphoma at the age of 18? You have a decent chance of getting to know your grand children.
You presume the new treatment will save more lives than the current one. Without adequate research and testing, this is an unsupported presumption. It's as likely to do more harm than good if the preliminary research isn't done.
We have the regulations we do because we caused harm in the past. They didn't spring fully formed from the minds of regulators, they happened because researchers killed and maimed people by not doing the necessary verification before human trials began.
any way you slice it people are going to die and make grave errors. but open transactions between researchers and free human beings would have drugs evolving much faster than unaccountable and corruptible overlords. reputation systems could replace much of their most important functionality.
> reputation systems could replace much of their most important functionality.
I'll start believing this once you show that a "reputation system" (don't these already exist?) actually does anything to stop quacks from peddling diluted water as a cure-all.
If you relied on reputation alone to regulate the medical market, feel-good snake oil treatments would prosper at the expense of legitimate medical advancement.
Do you honestly believe that people with a fatal illness, dealing with people offering a "cure" for that fatal illness, are free to make a rational choice?
You have cancer. You are going to die. Having a terminal illness changes the risk/reward beyond the bounds that most people can imagine. Even so, it seems that most people can make a reasonable decision, as long as the worst of the snake-oil peddlers are kept out. Here are your choices.
Do nothing. Make your time. You are going to die pretty soon. Try to make yourself and your family comfortable.
Take what treatment your insurer allows. You die more slowly, with a small chance of remission, but also with a small chance that the treatment will kill you sooner. Maybe your won't consume your family's assets.
Take what treatment you can afford. Die even more slowly (probably), with a small (but probably better) chance of remission, but also with a small chance that the treatment will kill you sooner. You may consume all your assets, and or incur huge debt/bankrupt your family.
Get yourself into an experimental trial. There is some chance that you will be in the control group (if one is used) in which case, you will die. There is some chance to suffer some adverse reaction in which case, you may be removed from the trial, back to step 1. There is some chance to suffer some catastrophic adverse reaction, in which case you will die, and if you are unlucky the death will be worse than death by cancer/chemo. There is some remote chance the treatment will work as good or marginally better than existing treatments, you win, congratulations. There is some very extremely remote chance the treatment will work amazingly (as in fairy-tale amazing) well, epic win. It may cost little or nothing, but who cares what it cost, you're alive and you just helped save the lives of many others.
Thanks, but I'd rather have medical research systems designed by scientists than libertarians. Free markets are not a panacea, and it's dangerous to think of them as such. In fact, the medical community used to be such a place, and it was dominated by quacks and snake oil salesmen.
you also have to consider that rushing through the trial stages can cause mistakes which leads to the treatment looking like it's ineffective. When this happens, it loses funding any may not then be developed further.
There are cases where early results from a trial were so promising that both sides (of a double-blind trial) were put on the treatment.
eg:
A new prostate cancer drug trial has been so successful doctors have decided to stop it early.
Medics at London's Royal Marsden Hospital were testing a powerful alpha radiation drug on 461 people while another group of the same number were being treated with a dummy drug.
Patients taking the new drug experienced less pain, side effects and lived longer.
Researchers were so astounded with the results they decided to stop the trial and started treating all 922 patients taking part in the study because they said it would be unethical not to.
Yes, but this has to be built into the experiment, or at least considered in the statistical analysis. You cannot just stop something when it's statistically significant.
You have to be extremely careful about this, otherwise you can end up with much worse significance than simple analysis would suggest (and then that kills people).
Yeah, "Stop when the results are positive" is one of the classic ways to fudge a study. Twelve patients (the number mentioned in the article) is way, way premature to end this early.
In this case, it's not even the regulatory environment. As the article mentions, the treatment is as fantastically expensive as it is fantastic. A lot of the skepticism isn't that it can't work, but that it might be too expensive to be viable.
Why has it taken 10 years? Because this stuff is really hard. Is there red tape in science? Sure. But even if all the red tape were removed, science would still move incrementally forward at a slow and steady pace.
Most areas of research are simply not mature enough to move forward at the exponential pace that computer technology leaped forward into our society. What is required? More hard work!
I'm baffled by the HN title of this article. There is no place in the article that claims a 100% success rate for curing leukemia.
The title is: "Has Carl June Found a Key to Fighting Cancer?"
Fighting cancer and curing it are hugely different. Yes, this is a human interest story that outlines the success of a particular patient using a particular method, it's great, but it seems disingenuous to use the title that is here.
Sorry about that. I can see how its unclear in the way it reads. I shortened a more descriptive title and lost the meaning. I was originally referring to how dramatic the treatment has been for those it has been effective in. I have updated the title.
> I'm baffled by the HN title of this article. There is no place in the article that claims a 100% success rate for curing leukemia.
> The title is: "Has Carl June Found a Key to Fighting Cancer?"
And here we see the other side of not being able to change (editorialize) titles. I can see both sides of the argument, but I think this example forms a good reason to disallow giving articles different titles.
You can downmod comments (and flag them too!), but you can only flag submissions no matter how much karma you have, which is why you've never seen a story with <= 0 points!
This certainly seems like a very interesting and double-edged sword of a treatment. The engineered T-cells nuke the tumors, which is a good thing. But if I'm reading this right, the large amount of cytokine that gets released from such a rapid destruction also wreaks havoc on your kidneys and could itself be fatal. It sounds like an all-or-nothing treatment that you either sweat out or succumb to. Apparently there's a drug (tocilizumab) that essentially acts as an undo button by taming the engineered T-cells and avoiding such fatalities, but then you're back to square one. It looks like the Penn team has partnered with Novartis to study the engineered T-cells and (I'm guessing) develop a method to tailor the engineered T-cell growth rate to a magnitude the kidneys can manage.
Cytokine storms are fairly well-understood complications of various infectious diseases like Spanish Flu, SARS, and Hantavirus. There's no perfect cure for them, but there are a number of treatments that seem to help, and research into that benefits a number of other deadly ailments other than this cancer treatment. This is not a phenomena unique to this treatment.
One answer that immediately struck me was generally in medicine if something is on a decline, waiting for it to get worse is not a wise choice. On the other hand at research time, administering something that might simply kill someone or confuse them into not taking a known existing "good" treatment path because they're experimenting has some ethical issues (unless you're into patent medicine, fads, faith healing, homeopathy, crystal healing, that type of thing).
So in the long run, rather than sitting around waiting for the tumors to weigh 7 pounds because every other current treatment failed as per the article examples, this might be an early treatment option. Certainly "processing" 7 pounds of dead tumor is going to be hard on your biochemistry. But years or months earlier in the progress of the disease, a couple grams of dead tissue, maybe even less, eh, no big deal.
Gangrene of a leg, today, well that's gonna be a tough one. Minor infection of a toenail six months earlier, eh, no problemo.
The interesting part of the human interest puff piece is they ran several trials and of course only the successes get any commentary. Curious what happened with the failures, ranging from no effect to maybe the treatment killed them. Although the journalist thinks what happened to the most successful patient will define the future of this treatment, in the real world, what happened to those folks where it didn't work is likely to define the future. Compared to the amount of ink spilled about baseball, not much was mentioned, which sounds like good news...
I googled around looking at the opposite direction, are t-cells small enough to get flushed out by dialysis? Could not get a straight answer. There must be a lot of money to be made in dialysis; there are a lot of "popular science" type articles about it. My guess is we'd have to try a level of indirection, red blood cells aren't lost, so relative size of t-cells vs red blood cells would probably answer that.
The other idea I have is MDs are not overly dumb, so if its possible for natural or artificial kidneys to filter the bad stuff to the outside while keeping the good stuff inside, they would probably just absolutely flood the patient with IV fluid. The original article was very detailed about the experience; this didn't make the article, so I don't think they were doing it.
If this treatment proves 100% successful against a given kind of cancer, and the procedure is developed to the mass-production stage, I would imagine we'd start getting cancer. Then you'd only get the tiny initial tumors nuked and correspondingly not suffer cytokine storms when large amounts of cancer tissue dies at once.
> Human trials having 75% success rating for curing leukemia
Please do not use the word "cure" when talking about cancer. The article's submitter invented this headline -- the article doesn't support it in any way. In fact, it says this: "Scientists don’t talk about “curing” cancer. A cure is the hope so great, so seemingly out of reach, that it must never be invoked. They’ve built a wall around the word."
Not using the word cure is superstitious claptrap.
If I get cancer I want a cure. If anybody in my family gets cancer I want them cured.
This wariness of using the word cure is just because of the idiots in this world. People who can't understand percentages and possibilities. People who believe that anecdotes prove a point.
And this is exactly why they don't use the word cure: None of our current approaches to fighting cancer are particularly good as cures. They remove enough of the cancerous cells that with luck the cancer won't regrow.
But unlike a lot of diseases where we can usually pretty much guarantee that we wiped it out, we can usually do no such thing with cancer.
A cure has a vastly stronger expectation.
The day remission is something that happens in so few cases it's a rounding error, we can start talking about it being a cure.
"The day remission is something that happens in so few cases it's a rounding error"
No, it merely has to be about as reliable as a "cure for pneumonia". It doesn't have to exceed that limit and approach a "cure for a laceration" or a "cure for appendicitis" both of which basically don't spontaneously reappear (assuming surgical removal of appendix)
> No, it merely has to be about as reliable as a "cure for pneumonia".
You're overlooking something very important -- we know what causes pneumonia, but we don't know what causes cancer. When we treat pneumonia, we're treating a cause. When we treat cancer, we're treating a symptom.
The reason for "remission not cure" is because we don't have any way to definitively say there won't be a recurrence, and this will remain true until we fully understand cancer.
Sure we know what causes cancer, uncontrolled growth of a mutated cell!
I see where you're coming from, but the differences between pneumonia and cancer aren't as great as you think.
If you have pneumonia, they give you an antibiotic. They can test for the presence of the pathogen, but they can't ever say you are "cured". Take c. difficile infections. They treat the symptoms, but you can "relapse".
In cancer you can test for the presence of the mutated cells (minimum residual disease). Often what they'll do is count the mutated cells from a biopsy, and with this current treatment, the number of remaining cells is less than the lower limit of detection.
Of course, this is only true in the liquid cancers. Solid tumor cancers don't work the same way.
> Sure we know what causes cancer, uncontrolled growth of a mutated cell!
That is an effect, not a cause. Your claim is like saying that auto accidents are caused by cars getting too close together. That's only a symptom of an underlying cause.
> I see where you're coming from, but the differences between pneumonia and cancer aren't as great as you think.
We know what causes pneumonia. Because of this, we can suggest behaviors that will prevent it before the fact, we can identify it unambiguously, and we can cure it after the fact. This isn't true about cancer -- we don't know what causes it, therefore we cannot proactively prevent it, we can't identify it very efficiently (there are always false negatives and positives) and we cannot cure it. There's no comparison.
> They can test for the presence of the pathogen, but they can't ever say you are "cured".
Of course they can. In infectious disease, they can test for the presence of the causative pathogen -- no pathogen, no disease. In cancer, to do this, we would first need to identify the cause. But we don't know the cause, we only know the effect.
> In cancer you can test for the presence of the mutated cells (minimum residual disease).
This is like saying we can test for the presence of a car crash by measuring bent bumpers and inflated airbags. That measures effects, not causes.
> Often what they'll do is count the mutated cells from a biopsy, and with this current treatment, the number of remaining cells is less than the lower limit of detection.
Counting abnormal cells only reveals how little we know. We detect cancer by detecting abnormal cell growth. We measure progress in symptomatic treatment by counting abnormal cells. We declare a remission by making that count approach zero using agents that kill abnormal cells. There are any number of cases where the count of cancerous cells was below the limit of detection, but still caused a recurrence.
In 1979, smallpox was declared to have been globally eradicated. How? By identifying the responsible pathogen, then systematically destroying it everywhere it appeared. This was only possible because we know what caused smallpox, and we could treat the cause, not the symptoms. Because of what we knew, we were able to call smallpox permanently cured.
We cannot do this with cancer, because we don't know enough about how it works. All we can do is tell people to avoid risky behaviors, behaviors that, for often-unclear reasons, increase one's chance to contract this disease. Then, once the disease's symptoms appear, we have crude methods to deal with it, like trying to kill the cell masses that represent the disease's primary symptom.
Based on a comparison with other diseases, cancer treatment is unbelievably primitive -- it would be like treating a finger infection by cutting off a person's hand. And guess what? Before germ theory and before antibiotics, that was the treatment -- cut off the infected limb before the infection spread through the body.
The reason we don't tell people they're cured of cancer is because of science. In science, there are no fairy tales -- everything depends on evidence. And we don't have the evidence science requires to declare cancer cured.
This argument appears to revolve around a very unconventional definition of the word "cure". It may be technically correct inside the oncology community or related affinity / fundraising industry group to use an alternative definition, but the original debate was about insiders using the word "cure" with the general public, where its probably vital to use the general public's definition as opposed to made up definitions. That said, I typed "definition of cure" into google and the response humorously was the exact opposite of the claimed definition, "Verb Relieve (a person or animal) of the symptoms of a disease or condition" solely focused around relieving symptoms, not total scientific analysis of the entire situation or root cause analysis or any of that much more complicated stuff.
Its OK to have a near religious belief in unusual definitions; its just useless when trying to talk to the general public, especially if they operate under the logical opposite of your personal definition. I believe this is a "Startup Lesson". Redefine words for yourself and folks in your affinity group all you want, but trying it with the general public is likely not to work very well.
For example of what the general public defines as a cure, examine the 1850-whatever cholera outbreak in London. The prevailing theory of "bad air" was pretty much blown away when statistical analysis pointed to one particular water well, which had its handle removed. That outbreak of cholera was successfully cured, without understanding much other than it had nothing to do with air and apparently revolved around the use of one particular water well.
> This argument appears to revolve around a very unconventional definition of the word "cure".
It's not at all unconventional -- in fact, it is the most common definition, and cancer doesn't meet it, which is why medical ethicists insist on "remission".
The point is that, given the public's common understanding of the word "cure", i.e. that after treatment a particular disease has been eradicated, cancer cannot be cured, only placed in remission.
> That outbreak of cholera was successfully cured ...
Now you're desperately trying to inject this word into sentences where it has no place. The cholera outbreak was stopped, but the problem of identifying the cause remained, just as with cancer. Therefore, no cure -- it's the wrong word.
Another example would be to respond to a Plague outbreak by moving to the country, as Newton did. Is that a cure? Of course not -- it's a survival strategy, but it has no depth or insight.
Remember that Semmelweiss was unable to get doctors to wash their hands, even though he had excellent statistical support for his suggestion, because he couldn't explain why his suggestion worked.
> Its OK to have a near religious belief in unusual definitions; its just useless when trying to talk to the general public, especially if they operate under the logical opposite of your personal definition.
Thank you for making the exact point I have been trying to make, to wit: in fairness we must pay attention to the public's understanding of this quotidian term. Most diseases that have treatments in modern medicine, also have cures. Cancer doesn't. To claim otherwise is to violate medical ethics.
Hey, I see what you're saying, but I don't think most scientists approach it that way.
Pneumonia is not cured by testing for the presence of the pathogen. You are given antibiotics (chemotherapy) and when you get better, you are cured. In fact, many people who never get pneumonia with test positive for the pathogen. Why don't they get sick? We don't know.
So? That's a state of our knowledge. When we learn more about cancer and find a way to treat the underlying causes, we will have actual cures: treatments which result in complete remission in >95% of cases.
This will happen. It may take the tools provided by molecular nanotechnology, and a generation of oncological research, but it will. To accept that cancer is special is irrational deathism.
> When we learn more about cancer and find a way to treat the underlying causes, we will have actual cures: treatments which result in complete remission in >95% of cases.
You clearly haven't decided what position you're taking. A cure is not remission in 95% of cases. A cure is a cure, with no chance of a recurrence if there is no further exposure to the responsible pathogen. Take malaria, for example -- do you think malaria victims experience spontaneous recurrences, far from the anopheles mosquito and its hitchhiker, plasmodium falciparum?
> To accept that cancer is special is irrational deathism.
In modern scientific medicine, anything we don't understand is special and deserves our attention. We don't understand cancer and it's deadly. Therefore it's special for perfectly scientific reasons.
To call cancer just another disease is simply irrational -- and dangerous thinking.
And you clearly don't know how medical statistics work. Take the simple flu shot: chance of developing Guillain-Barre syndrome from the vaccination is about 1 in a million, and about 1 in 20 of those die from complications (odds are better if you seek prompt treatment). Does the flu shot provide benefit 100% of the time? No: in some cases it's killed people.
So it goes with even the most advanced, futuristic cancer treatments. There will always be cases where the treatment kills the patient, or fails to affect the disease in any way. It will be the job of medical research to make those rare cases rarer.
And by the way, if cancer is not a disease, then what the heck is it?
> Not using the word cure is superstitious claptrap.
Not using the word cure is the rational response to the fact that there is no cure for cancer -- there is only remission.
> If I get cancer I want a cure. If anybody in my family gets cancer I want them cured.
You just changed the subject. Wanting a cure, and having a cure, are obviously different topics.
> This wariness of using the word cure is just because of the idiots in this world.
So scientists, and medical ethicists, are idiots. Good for you -- I prefer it when a person reveals his ignorance without beating around the bush.
> People who believe that anecdotes prove a point.
It is you who are relying on anecdotes. Scientists evaluate evidence, and the evidence says there is no cure. Anyone who claims otherwise is deluding himself.
I never said that this article was about a cure. I was responding to the quote: "A cure is the hope so great, so seemingly out of reach, that it must never be invoked"
I was responding to the fact that people seem scared to hope. There is no cure yet (probably). But to not hope that somebody has just found a cure is just silly.
I would highly recommend "The Emperor of All Maladies" for anyone seeking a more solid understanding of cancer. I really didn't know much about cancer and treatments until reading this book, and now I feel like I at least have a general understanding. I read it after a family friend succumbed to cancer and I realized that I knew very little about the entire disease.
My take away at the end of the book was that for all of the "war on cancer" hyperbole going back to the 50s, up until the mid-90s, we just didn't know enough about cancer to really be fighting it. I feel a lot more optimistic about the next 50 years of cancer research than the previous 50.
The real headline here: "Has Carl June Found a Key to Fighting Cancer?" If a headline asks a question, the answer is virtually always "no" or "not yet," but the paper wanted to run a story anyway.
Actually, I was presently surprised that the answer was not the resounding "no" I expected, but instead a "kind of (for a layman's definition of cure, for a certain kind of cancer)".
Micromet was developing a set of bi-functional antibodies that pretty much accomplished this same thing. That is directing the immune system to tumors. One side of the antibody would bind the tumor, while the other bound the T-cells. They were bought out by Merck a year or two ago and I believe the therapies are in clinical trials. You can read about the antibodies here: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/69/12/4941.full.pd...
The added benefit here is that the antibodies can be produced en masse and delivered as a drug rather than reprogramming the person's T-cells.
This is an interesting precursor to curing cancer. What will happen to the leukaemia industrial complex? The charities? the specialists? the drugs? Will they all just close shop and go home?
I think you shouldn't allow yourself to become too cynical, even when you see bad examples like the komen foundation. I have no doubt the vast vast majority of doctors and charity employees that treat or support leukemia patients would be delighted (in particular, I'd bet many volunteers have been personally affected) to declare victory and either retrain for different diseases or find another hobby.
edit: for an example rather than a hypothetical, see polio
edit2: also, if this works, an enormous chunk of doctors, medical researchers, and scientists are going to drop whatever they're doing and frantically attempt to apply this technique to every cancer one can think of
All the cancers have one thing in common: unregulated cell growth. Any victory against one type of cancer is a step forward that may help us one day find a permanent cure for all types of cancer. Besides, Leukemia is amongst the most common types, so I don't get the cynicism of some people in this thread.
Leukemia doesn't affect many enough people in reproductive age to cause a population explosion. Basically, no medical advance can cause population explosion in the rich world: there are very few people dying from disease in reproductive ages there. Making people who would otherwise die at 55 live through 95 does not make a population explosion because they won't have any kids anyways.
Stories like these not only show that cancer research edges us ever so slightly towards solving one of the world's biggest problems, but also shows to us the ever upward curve of human innovation. The path to an engineered humanity may seem unspiritual and mechanized to some, but to me it expositions one of the true beauties of our existence - that is, we are our own antibodies. Stories like these inspire and nurture the best in us. Keep at it Carl June - you are a true hacker.
I wonder what happened to those 3 unlucky guys for who it didn't work. Were they just too physically weakened+had too much tumors to survive the resulting cytokine storm, leaving the doctors with a grim choice between letting patient die of cancer by suppressing T-cells too much, or from cytokine storm by not suppressing them enough? Or there was simply no result from these T-cells, like they failed to multiply to work, or failed to work after multiplying?
Would a reduction of 70%, like it cites for one of the failures of the treatment, cause the patient's condition to improve a bit, or would it be effectively the same?
Man, that's a collection of utter bullshit. There's nothing lower than preying on the hopes of potentially terminal patients. That last link is sick, there's hundreds of commenters begging for help.
I've sat in the oncology ward at the Royal Melbourne Hospital for a solid six months and watched scores of patients undergoing the most diabolical treatments anybody could ever conceive. People so blasted by the chemotherapy drugs that they can't even be visited, lest their damaged immune system succumbs to even the weakest of infections. I sat with someone as they dripped blood because there was a severe shortage of platelets and they had none of their own to clot with.
If there was a better solution, we'd be using it.
You also linked to a site claiming that Autism is caused by vaccinations.
I've read that story a dozen times. There must be some template out there, you just have to find one of those miracle cures and interview the well meaning, eloquent and chatismatic serial killer who promotes his snake oil to desperate people.
But for heavens sake, don't ruin your hit piece with basic background checks.
I am guessing that, without reading it, you summarily dismissed it as identical to other sham stories and go off rant about them all as a collective, not realizing there is a ton of evidence to back up marijuana's role in fighting cancer. And then, of course, this being in the internet and all, you insult the intelligence of the poster. All because it doesn't fit in your world view.
Well done, indeed. You have demonstrated you are steeped deeply in the internet culture.
I'am steeped deeply in having fucking cancer. This is the reason why I am a little invested in such discussions.
There are less than a handful of publications about cannabis as cancer treatment, all of them about preclinical research.
That's not a ton of evidence. That's just an incredibly small step away from nothing. It does not, for fucks sake, justify advertising this stuff to people who can't think straight because they scared out of their minds.
>Not only is cancer not caused by DNA damage, but safe and gentle natural medicine cancer treatments exist that can revert cancer cells into normal cells. This was first done in the 1930s, but the technology was shut down by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is essentially the "police force" of the ultra-wealthy and politically-connected drug companies.
> When you kill all of the microbes inside of a cancer cell, the cancer cell will revert into a normal cell because there is nothing to block the production of ATP energy. This is the ideal way to cure cancer because there are no dead cells and no debris from dead cells.
And another from the same website.
> Autism is caused by microbes (e.g. infections in the stomach) and/or metals, such as mercury. They are usually in the stomach, colon, gut, call it what you want. The source of the micobes is usually vaccinations, which will be discussed in the next section.
It's like a cesspit of misinformed medical garbage.
It's an interesting bit of human behaviour really. When faced with the knowledge that they are being besieged with malignant cells, people tend to try and find any material that gives some assurance and kind words. The booklets they give you in oncology aren't particularly reassuring, and I haven't even been more than on the slideline with them.
You can almost attribute the death of Steve Jobs to this sort of material. His form of pancreatic cancer was, according to his biography, quite treatable with conventional medicine. He instead went off the path and tried to combat it with diet and behaviour, and by the time it became too much for him, the window for conventional medicine was over.
So if we were to brand it "natural" chemotherapy, we could contest these Quacksalbers?
I'm actually serious about this. Marketing is powerful stuff, and leaving it in the hand of insane people isn't going to fix the problem we have with them.
I'm pretty sure you could get some of the best in the field onto it (after all, it's against cancer), and significantly cut into their target market, making business hell for them. I know it sounds equally crazy, but i think this issue calls for alternate solutions.
'Natural' products appeal to people who apparently have a distrust of technology, drug companies, etc. I think the notion of natural breakfast cereal, or natural processed products is hilarious to begin with (where exactly is this in nature?). I think if you label a product as natural it is pretty out of touch with the actual definition and intention of the word.
I'm not sure that I agree though that diluting the word natural is the best course of putting the hucksters out of business. We already have a lot of that, and people still buy into natural cures and food without any scientific backing whatsoever.
Perhaps we need more aggressive public education in skepticism and rational thinking?
Maybe. I think part of this fear of technology is scary is that is seems like magic to most people. And I believe that's partially caused by scientists not selling themselves properly. I'm actually glad they don't, because they are doing best. But here's the part where skilled marketers can do a lot of good.
The word natural is the only working homeopathic. The more you dilute it, the stronger it seems to become. Hell, there are "Natural Taste Malboros" out there, with their packaging resembling coarse brown paper. They aren't exactly healthier, are they?
Yes, more aggressive public education in skepticism and rational thinking will certainly help to an extent, but it's preaching to the reformed. For those children which have been indoctrinated by their parents that science isn't to be trusted, and that technology is trying to repress us? It'll just play into that narrative. Australia is withdrawing child benefits from people not vaccinating their children. How long do you think it will take till that's another selling point on those anti-vac sites?
> And I believe that's partially caused by scientists not selling themselves properly.
From a public relations perspective, yes, that makes sense. But from a professional perspective it's a non-starter, because scientists are trained to doubt everything, including their own work. Scientists who become boosters for science itself end up being shunned by other scientists -- witness Carl Sagan's inability to be inducted into the National Academy of Science, thought to result from his science popularization activities.
So don't count on scientists to be public science representatives or boosters -- it conflicts with scientific skepticism and objectivity, normally thought to be a "good thing".
Secret knowledge is appealing. If 99% of the sheeple are being duped by the puppet masters, the politicians, the corporate interests, the bankers, and you and you alone know the true shape of the world, then you are special, you are powerful, you are cleverer than everyone else.
For those who don't want to read through the lengthy human interest story wrapping the news here, from a quick read I gathered they're basically modifying T-Cells:
> In their natural state, T cells usually aren’t able to kill tumor cells, partly because they can’t latch on strongly enough. But June was fascinated by scientific papers showing it was possible to change this. A few researchers—first an Israeli named Zelig Eshhar in the ’80s, then other investigators around the world—had discovered that you could force a T cell to stick to a tumor cell and kill it. To pull this off, you built an “engineered T cell”—a T cell never before seen in nature. You altered the T cell’s genetic blueprint by injecting a new gene into the cell. The new gene would tell it to build a new molecular limb. The limb, called a “chimeric antigen receptor,” would sit partly inside the cell and partly outside, and it could send signals either in or out. One signal it could send was: kill. Another was: replicate.
> June loved this approach. So elegant. Put the immune system on steroids. What if you could train the body to fight cancer on its own? What if, instead of replacing a patient’s immune system (as in a bone-marrow transplant) or pumping him full of poison (chemo), you could just borrow some cells, tweak them, and infuse them back into the patient? In theory, the engineered cells would stay alive in the blood, replenishing themselves, killing any tumors that recurred. It occurred to June that one infusion could last a lifetime.
It seems this research has been going on for 10+ years. How many people have died because of the glacial regulatory pace of cancer research?