It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Brentiximab Vedotin removes cancer patient's 70 lethal tumours in 12 weeks

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Suffering from a rare and aggressive form of cancer, Ian Brooks was given only weeks to live.
With around 70 tumours throughout his body, doctors admitted they had almost run out of treatment options.
But incredibly Mr Brooks, 47, is now in ‘complete remission’ after he became the first person outside the US to receive a new tumour-busting drug.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... YiXnk



Scans of Mr Brook's body before and after treatment. The left shows him riddled with 60-70 tumours from Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. The right scan is 12 weeks after he became the first person outside the U.S. to have a pioneering cancer drug. The black dots are his kidney and his bladder


I think this is great news if confirmed. Glad for this guy and others that may benefit from this new medicin

edit on 26-2-2014 by CosmicDude because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicDude
 


This looks very interesting as an ADC drug but I have to wonder about costs. The patient set is about 12,000 per year, so did it cost 2.4 billion dollars (2 year target patient return market) to develop this drug? They quote a dosing that costs roughly $100k per patient so I have to wonder is this rational or is it simply greed and playing with self preservation instinct of people at their weakest hour? Another question that needs to be asked is, did they deduct the cancer grant money, the federal scientific grant money, the private grant money, a percentage of the tax refund they receive for their use of creative accounting, etc.? BTW, their patient numbers are for the US only, so those numbers can be at least doubled per year, so actually they would be looking at about 48k patients over 2 years and 4.8 billion dollars in costs for the R&D.

I've been in the R&D marketplace for about 30 years, these costs seem way to high to me.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


If you are attempting to say that $100k is too high for treating a cancer, I would have to ask where have you been?
My treatment for lymphoma about twelve years ago was more than double that. My late wife's treatment for breast cancer in 1995 era was $232k.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicDude
 


It has been reported quite widely and is now being made available through NHS thanks to the Cancer Drugs Fund


But consultants at The Christie were amazed when they looked at Mr Brooks’s scan just two weeks after his treatment and found it was clear of tumours.

The trial at The Christie has proved so successful that the drug - Brentuximab Vedotin - is now routinely available for NHS patients with the same rare condition through the Cancer Drugs Fund.


M.E.N.: Cancer patient becomes first outside US to trial new drug and is now in remission

Some Other Sources:
Metro: Wonder drug blasted my 70 tumours in two weeks
The Christie NHS - Brentuximab vedotin Pamphlet.pdf

This is truly fantastic news

edit on 26-2-2014 by MattC because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2014 by MattC because: changing source from DM (already in OP) to Metro



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


I think that a lot more money is spent everyday in less important things. Money will never be much if we can eradicate cancer forever



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Aliensun
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


If you are attempting to say that $100k is too high for treating a cancer, I would have to ask where have you been?
My treatment for lymphoma about twelve years ago was more than double that. My late wife's treatment for breast cancer in 1995 era was $232k.


Just because you, your wife and millions of other vulnerable people are routinely and cynically fleeced for the cost of your treatment and drugs doesn't mean the cost isn't outrageously too high.

It's ok though, some Humanitarian in India, with a love of people not money, will be along in a couple of weeks and produce the same drug for about $50 per 12 week course.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Wow! I hope this is true! Currently in America, you treat diseases - not cure them. We haven't cured anything in decades.


And to those who are only whining about cost - I lost my brother (in-law, but he was the brother I never had) last April to Pancreatic cancer. If I could have saved him, I would have given up my house, my cars, my 401k, the money I have in the bank and then take a loan for all the rest of the cost that I didn't have to pay for the cure.

Lose a brother...there is no amount of money that would be too much to have him back.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   

tallcool1
Wow! I hope this is true! Currently in America, you treat diseases - not cure them. We haven't cured anything in decades.


And to those who are only whining about cost - I lost my brother (in-law, but he was the brother I never had) last April to Pancreatic cancer. If I could have saved him, I would have given up my house, my cars, my 401k, the money I have in the bank and then take a loan for all the rest of the cost that I didn't have to pay for the cure.

Lose a brother...there is no amount of money that would be too much to have him back.


My condolences. I completely agree with you. If the government was working on this instead of the F-35, then it would be much more able to believe in. wish there were more people like you. hang in there.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Aliensun
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


If you are attempting to say that $100k is too high for treating a cancer, I would have to ask where have you been?
My treatment for lymphoma about twelve years ago was more than double that. My late wife's treatment for breast cancer in 1995 era was $232k.


All I am attempting to point out is that it appears that the R&D costs are in no way representative of the sale price. When big pharma over prices a medicine, you know who gets the excess profits right? Not the customers, not the employees, the shareholders get a little, but the CEO takes back up to hundreds of millions per year. I'm just saying that if they don't deduct the "free money" in the form of grants and tax refunds off the costs, then the price you or I pay is way overinflated.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   

CosmicDude
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


I think that a lot more money is spent everyday in less important things. Money will never be much if we can eradicate cancer forever


I am not saying that it's not important research and if the scientists received the lion's share of the profits for their work, well, maybe it's a good deal. But that isn't reality, the assclown sitting in the CEO's chair who probably never even looked down a microscope takes the big bucks. Personally I don't want to float some jackass CEO's yacht.

Every time one of these drugs is arbitrarily price inflated, your insurance costs go up and there is no guarantee that the drug they make will work. This new drug might be different and I hope it is for the people who need it, but someone has to explain to me why the price of drugs drops by as much as 95% as soon as it crosses the border of a third world country.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicDude
 


I wonder how much Dr Burzyinski charges when he cures cancer without chemotherapy or surgery? Anyone know?

Much Peace - Amanda



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Aliensun
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


If you are attempting to say that $100k is too high for treating a cancer, I would have to ask where have you been?
My treatment for lymphoma about twelve years ago was more than double that. My late wife's treatment for breast cancer in 1995 era was $232k.


Sad if anything. People should be able to get medical treatment without being in debt for the rest of their live. Governments spend so much money on military…

Also, spend money on grants, subsidies and tax credits for the pharm industry, and yet the people don't get any reduced medical costs.

Instead if you had government actually funding studies and rewarded successful drugs based on how well they performed, not how well they can be marketed to doctors, the medical and pharm establishment would improve. In other words, give them licenses and let the people pay for the cures they want.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Amanda5
reply to post by CosmicDude
 


I wonder how much Dr Burzyinski charges when he cures cancer without chemotherapy or surgery? Anyone know?

Much Peace - Amanda


Around $200,000 or $10k a month. But you might end up dead…


In March 2005, the Montreal Gazette reported that a five-year old girl, Raphaelle Lanterne, died after her parents went against medical advice and saw Burzynski.
In October 2003, The Gazette reported that the parents of Antonio Luk were looking for $200,000. I found that his foundation raised $30,000. Treatment was $10,000/month. Antonio died in 2004. Featured in the same article was teenager, Wesley Stefanik, another patient of Burzynski, who it seems also succumbed to his cancer.
On 29 September 2002, the Dallas Morning News reported that Burzynski patient Christian Titera’s costs were $13,000/month. The family raised $61,000. He died in April 2003.
On 21 April 2002, the New York Daily News reported that Taylor Mouzakes’ family was paying $10,000/month. Taylor died in 2006.
Mirjam Binnendyk, 24, went to Burzynski’s clinic, reports the Montreal Gazette in 2001, and she was happy with the treatment at the time, though the $200,000 price tag was an out-of-pocket expense. She appears to have died in 2008, but I have not been able to pin down the year.


skepticalhumanities.com...



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Wow, and there are not even holes where the tumors have been... In the lungs..

Sorry, I don't buy it (yet). Full recovery in only 12 weeks? Did somebody use SCP-500?..



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 05:07 AM
link   
from the page


WHAT IS BRENTUXIMAB?
The drug Adcetris, the trade name for Brentuximab Vedotin, is administered through a drip into the arm every three weeks for up to a year. Part of a new wave of targeted therapy, it homes in on a protein on the surface of cancer cells, where it sticks and delivers a drug that kills the cell. It is offered to patients who have no other options left, and trials show that in up to a third of cases it eradicates all signs of the cancer. It can still come back, but some patients have survived for more than three years, which has led to talk of a possible cure. Adcetris can have serious or possibly life-threatening side effects including a rare brain infection. It was given conditional approval by the European drug watchdog in 2012.


still has a side effect , but then again its the best choice there is for the patients



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicDude
 


To start with, it's spelt wrong.
The product is called Brentuximab
en.wikipedia.org...

Secondly ...



rentuximab vedotin was studied as monotherapy in 160 patients in two phase II trials. Across both trials, the most common adverse reactions (≥20%), regardless of causality, were chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (a progressive, enduring and often irreversible tingling numbness, intense pain, and hypersensitivity to cold, beginning in the hands and feet and sometimes involving the arms and legs), neutropenia (an immune system impairment), fatigue, nausea, anemia, upper respiratory tract infection, diarrhea, pyrexia, rash, thrombocytopenia, cough and vomiting



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


£1 - tub of baking soda

£50 - juicer
£10 - loadsa veg to juice

i wouldnt dream of putting a price on a life .. but i must agree that pharma are likely looking for a hugely inflated return, on their investments.... and pharma do more to cause toxins in our lives with their pesticides and chemical synthetic foods . make a load of money from killing us off .. then make more money from pretending to try save us ...

with all the millions spent on apparent 'cancer research' every year around the globe ... why, when my friend was diagnosed with cancer .. did they say of the only 2 options available, they are unable to do either, because he is too weak, and send him home to die ..

yet, I, who have zero medical expertise, was able to tell him loads of suggestions to 'aid' his body in recovering ..

1st off .. stop processed food right away .. start taking veg juice .. make every bite count .. give the body fuel it needs to repair

check your bodies ph .. faar too acidic as expected ... the veg juice will contribute to alkaline .. in mean time ... use some baking soda to aid in making your body alkaline ...

drink plenty filtered water ... check ph .. and go out for strolls often and take deep oxygen filled breaths ...

the list goes on and on .. as to the many ways we can help our bodies fight the cancer .. first off ceasing the toxins that cause it . body is always trying to detox .. but thanks to pharma and the likes .. it often takes toxins in at a faster rate than it can deal with them ..

when my friend went back weeks later .. and they wondered why, not only is he still alive, but why is his cancer now in remission ... when he tried to point out that he changed his diet from chemicals to natural stuff, and use £1 tub of baking soda .. the doctor said ,' fine if you want to embrace that voodoo stuff .. it was probably the steroids' ...

since he had enough strength now, and was getting better .. they decided he was strong enough to receive chemo now .. so they whacked him with that .. he said he feels like its killing him .. so stopped it ...

now .. he is dead anyway ... but to be fair .. he did go back to eating the poisons again .. and did not embrace the alternative medicines and 'aid' his body n healing, like jhe should have ... he was getting better .. and he got too cocky and went all out back to living as tho he didnt have cancer again ... so I don not think the alternative medicine or his body failed him ... i think he did ... tho i am not so sure the many synthetic antibiotics they kept giving him were really doing more good than bad ... again natural foods should be used for antibiotics ... the synthetic ones just go in there and wipe everything out .. all bacteria .. good and bad .. knocks the balance out completely ...

anyway ... they gave him 3 weeks .. he lived a further 8 month ..

so i would point out .. why .. with the millions of pounds and dollars in research every year ... were the doctors not only unable to suggest anything other than chemo or operate .. but when he was still showing up months later .. and teh doctors themselves admitted they didnt know why .. they refused to acknowledge anything beyond their education .. talk about blinkered ...

now i agree every life is too valuable to put a price on ...but, with regards to pharma.. and the people making these drugs ... i agree with bobs_uruncle ... there is no money to be made from a £1 tub of baking soda .. or whatever 'NATURAL' cures and aids there are ... for example .. the most effective .. showing people how to live without sugar and chemicals in every single bite of food they put in their body ...

i bet the elites and the food manufacturer directors etc dont eat their own poisons ... no .. thats for us to consume .. keep the population down .. and feed the chains of fast food burger shops .. and in turn feed all the other companies cashing in on the resulting obesity, and the plethora of other related health issues ...

i could go on and on all day about this ... and go right into the beginning when the pharmas banned whatever the natural plants farmers used to grow ( i darent name it incase my post or thread gets removed), back before it was practically outlawed by pharma, in place of the now all too common 'cotton farming', which, surprisingly, requires all their lovely pesticides .. ,ahhhhhh .. pesticide .. soo good for us and our environment .. and the 10 fold or more win win situation of getting to give us pharma drugs to help us with teh symptoms of their ever increasing pharma toxins ... of course, a more natural alternative medicine, ironically, was the very thing they outlawed prior to forcing cotton farming instead ... i think many people will see the ironic twist there, without me having to break ATS T^Cs and actually say it

anyway .. i need some breakfast now .. sorry for the novel



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Segenam
 


Hmmmm, "making your body alkaline with baking soda"




First, a little chemistry: A pH level measures how acid or alkaline something is. A pH of 0 is totally acidic, while a pH of 14 is completely alkaline. A pH of 7 is neutral. Those levels vary throughout your body. Your blood is slightly alkaline, with a pH between 7.35 and 7.45. Your stomach is very acidic, with a pH of 3.5 or below, so it can break down food. And your urine changes, depending on what you eat – that's how your body keeps the level in your blood steady.

The alkaline diet claims to help your body maintain its blood pH level. In fact, nothing you eat is going to substantially change the pH of your blood. Your body works to keep that level constant.

But the foods you're supposed to eat on the alkaline diet are good for you: lots of fruits and vegetables, and lots of water. Avoiding sugar, alcohol, and processed foods is healthy weight-loss advice, too.


www.webmd.com...



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


And how many die after chemotherapy and radiation and surgery? Lots die even after extensive cut and burn treatment. And Dr Burzyinski makes no promises. He provides an alternative and the testimonies are amazing and not to be discredited.

I am not going to research the statistics on cancer survivors because most people who have any aggressive cancers usually die with or without treatment.

My neighbour survived breast cancer. After a mammogram they told her she was all clear. She asked them to have a second look - and - there it was. Why did she tell them to take a second look - because - a psychic told her.

Much Peace ...



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Amanda5
 





Why did she tell them to take a second look - because - a psychic told her

How stupid must you be to want certainty ONLY after a "psychic" tells you?




top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join