Cancer Cure!?!

[Berzerker]

https://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-...ew-cancer-vaccine-completely-wipes-out-tumors

Scientists at Stanford University have developed a cancer 'vaccine' made from two immune-boosting agents-- CpG oligonucleotide, and an antibody that binds to tumors-- that can completely eliminate all traces of cancer in mice that were genetically modified to develop a variety of different tumors. Of the 90 mice tested in the study, 87 were cancer-free after only one treatment. Although three of the mice later showed a recurrence, after a second treatment they were also cured, according to a Stanford Medicine press release.


Amazingly, the approach worked for many different types of cancers, including breast, colon, as well as melanoma, and the method should work, in principle, on any tumor that can be infiltrated by the immune system.

"When we use these two agents together, we see the elimination of tumors all over the body," said senior researcher, oncologist Ronald Levy.

Will the economy collapse? If thats the 'price' we pay, its worth it... Actually, I imagine the corporations profiting from the causes of cancer will be smiling - big tobacco and chemical companies probably want a cure to the effects of their toxins so users hang around longer.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Every study done on mice has to have a massive asterisk next to the results. Far too often the mice-model testing progresses no further than the mice. Let's hope this is the rare exception.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Why wouldnt it be worth it ? Each medical advance, each scientific advance is worth it
We just have to manage the transition and implementation of these new technology in a reasonable and logical way

If people dont want these new technology it should be voluntary, e.g Mormons with blood transfusions

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Big pharma will never let this see the light of day. There is way too much money in cancer research, and they have far too much to lose if this really does prove to be a cancer cure.

And if it really does see the light of day, then it will probably cost so much that the average cancer patient would go bankrupt trying to pay for it. And it probably still wouldn't be enough.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Hundreds of tests have been done regarding the effects of fasting (short term starvation in the scientific world) on cancer cell growth and medication and all have shown that not only are patients affected less negatively by the medication (meaning they can take higher doses than normal w/o risk), but also the growth of cancer cells is slowed down.

No one cares though. You can do a cursory google scholar search and have all the data available, but you won't ever see your doctor advocate for it. It sounds too new-agey and non-scientific so it's simply dismissed. There is no lobby for it so there is no significant amount of money for research.

Really, the pharma enterprises control exactly the direction "modern medicine" develops, because they are the ones able to do grand-scale research that no public university ever could fund.

 

[Hrothbern]

but you won't ever see your doctor advocate for it

There has been done a poll among doctors with the question: "would you go for chemotherapy when you have cancer yourself ?"
The majority of the doctors said no.

 

[The_J]

Big pharma will never let this see the light of day. There is way too much money in cancer research, and they have far too much to lose if this really does prove to be a cancer cure.

It has already seen the light of the day o_O. It's published.
And the first one to develop an efficient process to produce the antibodies will make a fecalton of money.
If the necessary clinical trial works out, for sure.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Hundreds of tests have been done regarding the effects of fasting (short term starvation in the scientific world) on cancer cell growth and medication and all have shown that not only are patients affected less negatively by the medication (meaning they can take higher doses than normal w/o risk), but also the growth of cancer cells is slowed down.

No one cares though. You can do a cursory google scholar search and have all the data available, but you won't ever see your doctor advocate for it. It sounds too new-agey and non-scientific so it's simply dismissed. There is no lobby for it so there is no significant amount of money for research.

Really, the pharma enterprises control exactly the direction "modern medicine" develops, because they are the ones able to do grand-scale research that no public university ever could fund.

Their influence on the available literature and what literature is produced is extremely annoying.

The comical but sad thing is rejecting things that "sound new agey and non-scientific" when they are backed by evidence, presumably THE primary driver of science.

I'm also not sure I'd as readily believe the point you're trying to make, except for experiencing it myself when messing with thyroid replacement medications and their influence on weight. Literature on that sucks, it's hard to get most doctors to even listen, yet somehow it's a widespread complaint. As a test case, I put on a large amount of weight on identical caloric intake (I measured it even before) in the span of a few months since going on replacement. This is normally a significant red flag for medication in medicine, but nope not in this case apparently, widespread complaints about it be ****. So I did my own research, switched to an older version, and managed to lose most of the weight again, hmm.

Speaking of mice/rats, this was also a fascinating test case. You'll hear people claim T2 hormones do nothing. However, there are human test cases (bodybuilders) who intentionally take this stuff, becoming an experiment on their own. Some of the T2 types are TSH-suppressive...and TSH is the leading diagnostic tool to recognize thyroid issues. If something not in the current pharm-standard treatment allegedly does nothing, why does it influence the lead diagnostic tool to nearly the same degree as the mainline treatment? In rats they also found metabolic effects, but as pointed out earlier in this thread, mice/rats have limits in applicability. That research also somehow died out in the 1990's.

Needless to say, I'm not too impressed by how the incentives influence the research done. Best we can hope for is someone defects to monopolize on something as life changing as this OP post if it applies to humans. Sucky as that is, it's better than it getting buried, and things DO get buried.

 

[innonimatu]

Hundreds of tests have been done regarding the effects of fasting (short term starvation in the scientific world) on cancer cell growth and medication and all have shown that not only are patients affected less negatively by the medication (meaning they can take higher doses than normal w/o risk), but also the growth of cancer cells is slowed down.

No one cares though. You can do a cursory google scholar search and have all the data available, but you won't ever see your doctor advocate for it. It sounds too new-agey and non-scientific so it's simply dismissed. There is no lobby for it so there is no significant amount of money for research.

Wasn't it Steve Jobs who believed in fasting and other new-age stuff as cancer treatment? We know how it went for him.

We do know that the immune system suppresses a lot of potential cancers, so I guess there is hope in trying to improve on that.

 

[Synobun]

Wasn't it Steve Jobs who believed in fasting and other new-age stuff as cancer treatment? We know how it went for him.

We do know that the immune system suppresses a lot of potential cancers, so I guess there is hope in trying to improve on that.

A bit of a minor correction, but Steve Jobs originally held the belief that his new-age treatments could serve as a replacement for chemotherapy and the like. Yung's point was more that some tactics could assist alongside accepted treatments.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Yes, the entire point was that it made traditional chemotherapy both more effective, due to taking a higher dosage of meds, and less harsh on the patient, reducing the side-effects of the treatment.

 

[Berzerker]

Hundreds of tests have been done regarding the effects of fasting (short term starvation in the scientific world) on cancer cell growth and medication and all have shown that not only are patients affected less negatively by the medication (meaning they can take higher doses than normal w/o risk), but also the growth of cancer cells is slowed down.

No one cares though. You can do a cursory google scholar search and have all the data available, but you won't ever see your doctor advocate for it. It sounds too new-agey and non-scientific so it's simply dismissed. There is no lobby for it so there is no significant amount of money for research.

Really, the pharma enterprises control exactly the direction "modern medicine" develops, because they are the ones able to do grand-scale research that no public university ever could fund.

Do cancer cells require more energy? I've heard cancer love sugar... Maybe when a person starves the cancer cells are generally more prone to dying first because they depend on a healthy body supplying their more prolific needs. I read somewhere a while back Vita C is not a good cancer killer because it actually makes the cells more healthy. There's definitely a link between fat and cancer. But wouldn't people dying from cancer be in essence starving? Wouldn't the cancer suffer the more the person deteriorates? On the other hand, if the immunity system is trying to slow or kill cancer cells, it needs to be operating as normal too, I'd think. Maybe there's a happy medium between fasting too much thereby weakening the immune system and eating enough for cancer cells to continue proliferating.

 

[Hrothbern]

Do cancer cells require more energy? I've heard cancer love sugar... Maybe when a person starves the cancer cells are generally more prone to dying first because they depend on a healthy body supplying their more prolific needs. I read somewhere a while back Vita C is not a good cancer killer because it actually makes the cells more healthy. There's definitely a link between fat and cancer. But wouldn't people dying from cancer be in essence starving? Wouldn't the cancer suffer the more the person deteriorates? On the other hand, if the immunity system is trying to slow or kill cancer cells, it needs to be operating as normal too, I'd think. Maybe there's a happy medium between fasting too much thereby weakening the immune system and eating enough for cancer cells to continue proliferating.

Cancer as a disease is when there are growing more cancer cells than are killed by your body or encouraged to kill themselves.

To bring that to the sharpest point.
A normal healthy body (also of younger people) generates all the time cancercells from mutations.
some are eliminated while still one cell... some eliminated after one division to two cell, some becoming a small clump before eliminated, and some growing into real cancertissue, real tumors before eliminated.
That's all a natural process of your body.
The bigger the clump is, the more difficult it becomes for your body to tackle the situation.

Cancercell clumps will compete with the rest of your body for oxygen and nutrients, cancer tissue will try to log in to your bloodvessel system, etc, etc.
Cancer remedies (not the surgery) aim at improving that competition to the benefit of healthy cells
and there low blood sugar (Otto Wartburg), fasting, reducing growth hormones, not getting pregnant (lowers immunity system), higher activity of T-cells, labelling cancer cells, preventing those cancertissue bloodvessels, etc, etc, etc come in, besides the many other methods to shift the balance.
Because there are so many kinds of cancers, and there is so much basic diversity between humans in their metabolism, there are almost undendless amounts of kinds of treatment possible, tuning and tweaking necessary.
Making it imo almost impossible to do general statements.

But the basic position is that the continuous generation of cancer cells is like a companion of your life.
Your general health and some genetic factors deciding over the balance between generation and killing.

my 2 cents

 

[Hygro]

Mouse healthcare is incredible these days.

 

[Commodore]

Wasn't it Steve Jobs who believed in fasting and other new-age stuff as cancer treatment? We know how it went for him.

Oh snap!

 

[Berzerker]

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-02-aging-immune-age-related-cancer.html

as we age the thymus shrinks - and apparently the thymus produces t cells that run around looking for cancer cells... The thymus shrinks faster in men than women.

 

[Hrothbern]

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-02-aging-immune-age-related-cancer.html

as we age the thymus shrinks - and apparently the thymus produces t cells that run around looking for cancer cells... The thymus shrinks faster in men than women.

Good article
Basically it states cautiously that a model describing the increase of cancer NOT by the increase of mutations, BUT by a decrease of T-cells, fits much better the observed reality of ageing people and gender.
Cautiously because the conventional wisdom at public level is that it all turns around preventing that one cell to get too many mutations. Which is a bit like thinking that you prevent getting the flu by going in a sterile room, instead of aiming for and having the health to tackle the intruder.


Hereby noted that your body while ageing is compensating in a natural way her decreased "vacuumcleaning" ability by reducing the production of growth factors.
Growth factors play a big role as well, because they help small cancer cell lumps to grow faster to bigger lumps that are more difficult to tackle.
A lifestyle-diet that increases the amount of growth factors made: high protein (high amino acid Methionin), high Body Builder supplements for growing more muscle, high exercise, high skin (wrinkles !) improveming supplements-diet with IGF-1, etc.
Your body will normally balance and optimise it all.
At youth a lot of growth hormones for growth, during early fertile period a lot for productivity and a physical strong body, and after that less and less growth hormones, just enough to repair your organs at a balanced rate against disadvantages.

As an interesting sidenote:
per 10 cm longer body (more growth factors in your past), your chance to die from cancer increases with approx 16%.
As if there is in your body a memory of the amount of growth hormones in your life.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

the more of your posts I read the more I believe you're some longbearded sage role-playing as a dutchman.

actually, that's exactly what zarathustra would be doing would he be alive in the 21st century.

 

[Hrothbern]

the more of your posts I read the more I believe you're some longbearded sage role-playing as a dutchman.

actually, that's exactly what zarathustra would be doing would he be alive in the 21st century.

Just wait until I have finished my book "Elfwort the traveller"

 

[Samson]

I looked at the source paper, and it says:

Both of these stimuli are in clinical trials as single agents and could likely be combined at great benefit for cancer patients.

It seems to me that there is very little in the way of rapid progress to human trials.