- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 6/2/16 at 9:22 am to RedRifle
Just in time to hit the market in 2098!
Posted on 6/2/16 at 9:25 am to cbi8
quote:quote:
universal vaccine
This is not possible.
The writer of the article misinterprets a statement and uses the term universal vaccine. This staement by the researchers
quote:got translated into universal vaccine.
Thus, the nanoparticulate RNA immunotherapy approach introduced here may be regarded as a universally applicable novel vaccine class for cancer immunotherapy
The therapy RNA from the patients particular cancer cells to create a patient/cancer specific vaccine that causes the body's immune system to target the specific cancer with "killer" T cells.
A case of poor understanding of terms inducing a nonsensical statement about a very promising potential therapy.
Posted on 6/2/16 at 9:35 am to whodatfan
quote:
I work in the cancer field. Its not just drugs. Doctors, nurses, therapists, treatment centers, physicists, equipment, scanners, tx machines, etc. We are talking hundreds of billions per year in cancer tx.
Just think of the value a cure would have to the company who can produce it. Think about the insurance industry and their cost savings.
If profits were holding back a cure, how did chemotherapy come about? What about radiation? Wouldn't they just want to treat someone and milk them until their dead rather than the possibility of curing them? What about a mastectomy?
Posted on 6/2/16 at 9:40 am to RedRifle
I hate when paeople talk about "cancer" as if it is one thing.
Posted on 6/2/16 at 9:41 am to Hooligan's Ghost
quote:I agree. I know most of these pharma companies aren't saints who do this out of kindness, but that's crazy talk.
and would they do that to their own relatives, to themselves? I do know people who believe this, so strange
I'm sure there are no scientists working on a cure who have lost a loved one to cancer.
This post was edited on 6/2/16 at 9:46 am
Posted on 6/2/16 at 9:43 am to RedRifle
"While the patients' immune systems seemed to react, there was no evidence that their cancers went away as a result."
Posted on 6/2/16 at 9:44 am to TROLA
quote:No shite, I gave it up 3 weeks ago.
Just let me know when I can start smoking again
I'm jonesing for one when I drink still.
Posted on 6/2/16 at 9:48 am to Cosmo
quote:Seriously. . .the initial profit of curing cancer would outweigh any longterm loss.
ib4 somebody says drug companies have been sitting on this for years so they can profit off cancer
If I am a Pfizer. . .I move to a capitalist country, cure cancer, then I and all my board and top stockholders retire in our mansions made out of diamonds.
The profit motive for curing cancer outweighs the disincentive for treatment
UNLESS you are not the company who cures it
Posted on 6/2/16 at 9:53 am to RedRifle
Yep, although not universal. I've been fascinated since I first heard of this.
They use Polio and AIDs viruses to destroy the Cancer cells. I believe Duke Med center is injecting Polio into tumors in the brain and they are very close to using the word cured on a particular patient in the trial. I think UPenn is doing the same thing but with Lukemia in children, except they're using AIDs.
Basically the immune system cannot detect cancer cells so it does not kill them. But once the body senses Polio or AIDs it goes into full on war with the cells. So they attach those viral cells to the cancer cells, and the immune system crushes them. Apparently the end game is that the immune system is now tricked into thinking a cancer cell is an AIDs or Polio cell and kills it with the quickness, so regenerative cells are fought off when they appear.
They engineer the Polio and AIDs so they are non-reproductive and non-transferrable and are easily treatable and basically symptom free.
They use Polio and AIDs viruses to destroy the Cancer cells. I believe Duke Med center is injecting Polio into tumors in the brain and they are very close to using the word cured on a particular patient in the trial. I think UPenn is doing the same thing but with Lukemia in children, except they're using AIDs.
Basically the immune system cannot detect cancer cells so it does not kill them. But once the body senses Polio or AIDs it goes into full on war with the cells. So they attach those viral cells to the cancer cells, and the immune system crushes them. Apparently the end game is that the immune system is now tricked into thinking a cancer cell is an AIDs or Polio cell and kills it with the quickness, so regenerative cells are fought off when they appear.
They engineer the Polio and AIDs so they are non-reproductive and non-transferrable and are easily treatable and basically symptom free.
Posted on 6/2/16 at 9:53 am to ThatMakesSense
quote:
Didn't work out so well in the hit Will Smith flick, I am Legend.
Alternate ending ftw
Posted on 6/2/16 at 9:54 am to whodatfan
quote:
I work in the cancer field.
and you honestly think that someone is hiding "the cure"? If so, you clearly don't work in cancer research, perhaps in a treatment center.
Posted on 6/2/16 at 9:55 am to DirtyMikeandtheBoys
quote:
Yep, although not universal. I've been fascinated since I first heard of this.
We're living in a golden age of medicine, bio tech and research.
Posted on 6/2/16 at 9:59 am to DirtyMikeandtheBoys
That's pretty ingenious if it works, doesn't seem like a long term solution though.
Injecting polio and AIDS into children who's only illness is cancer seems like a bad idea, regardless of how much they claim it's been altered. Also, what's to prevent the immune system from getting overloaded and the person dying from a simple cold or something of the like?
I agree that it's a good step, identifying a problem, but the solution isn't a permanent one.
Injecting polio and AIDS into children who's only illness is cancer seems like a bad idea, regardless of how much they claim it's been altered. Also, what's to prevent the immune system from getting overloaded and the person dying from a simple cold or something of the like?
I agree that it's a good step, identifying a problem, but the solution isn't a permanent one.
Posted on 6/2/16 at 10:02 am to DirtyMikeandtheBoys
quote:
Yep, although not universal. I've been fascinated since I first heard of this.
They use Polio and AIDs viruses to destroy the Cancer cells. I believe Duke Med center is injecting Polio into tumors in the brain and they are very close to using the word cured on a particular patient in the trial. I think UPenn is doing the same thing but with Lukemia in children, except they're using AIDs.
Basically the immune system cannot detect cancer cells so it does not kill them. But once the body senses Polio or AIDs it goes into full on war with the cells. So they attach those viral cells to the cancer cells, and the immune system crushes them. Apparently the end game is that the immune system is now tricked into thinking a cancer cell is an AIDs or Polio cell and kills it with the quickness, so regenerative cells are fought off when they appear.
They engineer the Polio and AIDs so they are non-reproductive and non-transferrable and are easily treatable and basically symptom free.
This research has been ongoing for a long time, but every few months the media picks up on a "hot" term, e.g. universal, polio, immune system, and people get all excited. Utilizing viruses as either vectors to deliver a payload or as intrinsically cytotoxic elements is a few decades old, and these methods are still very far away from being anything close to a "standard of care" treatment for cancer.
The next big step will be monoclonal antibodies against immune regulatory processes, i.e. PDL1 and CTLA4. These are the drugs that you are now starting to see the commercials. Anything that ends in "-mab" is one of these drugs.
For a while, people thought that Kinase inhibitors were going to be the next big leap, but they now are relegated mainly to a secondary or tertiary treatment.
In truth, there will never be a universal cure for cancer; however, creating more treatments which are safe and tolerable will improve our ability to cure more cancers (prevention will always be the number one method for reducing prevalence, incidence, and fatalities).
This post was edited on 6/2/16 at 10:05 am
Posted on 6/2/16 at 10:06 am to Cosmo
quote:
ib4 somebody says drug companies have been sitting on this for years so they can profit off cancer
They make that claim as if a company who had a drug that cured cancer wouldn't profit from that
I work in pharmaceutical advertising and can confirm without a doubt that they try to get any advancement to market as quickly as possible. And if you have something novel, it's even more important to get out there before something else as effective as yours comes to market from a competitor. You get a patent for 20 years to make back the money you sunk into that drug and all the dozens and hundreds of other compounds that never saw the light of day.
Edit to add, if these companies actually do have the cure for cancer, why spend the hundreds of millions of dollars finding the cure and then sitting on it? The whole point of investing money in a compound is to hopefully bring it to market and make money.
And developing compounds isn't cheap, nor easy. So when you bring one to market, you need to cover a lot of losses.
LINK
quote:
In the United States, it takes an average of 12 years for an experimental drug to travel from the laboratory to your medicine cabinet. That is, if it makes it. Only 5 in 5,000 drugs that enter preclinical testing progress to human testing. One of these 5 drugs that are tested in people is approved. The chance for a new drug to actually make it to market is thus only 1 in 5,000. Not very good odds.
This post was edited on 6/2/16 at 10:11 am
Posted on 6/2/16 at 11:37 am to Chucktown_Badger
Also, I'm not sure vaccine is the right term...as a vaccine is used to prevent a specific ailment, and these people already had cancer.
Posted on 6/2/16 at 11:42 am to Chucktown_Badger
John Oliver on Science and the Media
I'm going to continue to post this every time it's applicable. So, probably a lot.
I'm going to continue to post this every time it's applicable. So, probably a lot.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News