Scientists Find Treatment to Kill Every Kind of Cancer Tumor

Phage
reply to post by iamhobo

 

The good side (really good side) of this is that it uses a very different process than chemotherapy. Chemo doesn't so much destroy cancer cells as keeping them from reproducing. This stuff allows the body's own defense system to actually attack the abnormal cells.

It's also impressive that it seems to work on a variety of cancers.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Chemotherapy uses are proven in humans to kill cancer tumors/cells depending on the type of cancerous tumors versus the stage that it's in will determine the effects of chemo.A stage caught at its early stage also a tumor at its early stage,chemotherapy and Radiation treatment have been proven on paper to be quite effective.Do a little research on cancer and the treatments that have been known to scientists and mankind to be effective in the treatments of cancer or it's tumors and you to will see to the facts behind it.My gosh people where talking about some research that has been done on mice.Am I missing something here,aren't our reproductive systems differ and our Huge body versus their little torsos function totally different.We ARE HUMAN PEOPLE NOT A LITTLE TEST RESEARCH PROJECT.Now it's suppose to destroy all forms of cancer saving creatures lives.Now let's say that they do find some brainless project to administer on and it doesn't work as expected.Now if it's intentions are to save lives it might that it be it would take lives.Wake up and smell the coffee!! Hello??

reply to post by Zackery

Do a little research on cancer and the treatments that have been known to scientists and mankind to be effective in the treatments of cancer or it's tumors and you to will see to the facts behind it.

Yes. I know. I was cured of cancer by way of chemotherapy. I did quite a bit of research before undergoing therapy. I have a pretty good understanding of the theory.

Now if it's intentions are to save lives it might that it be it would take lives.

That's why clinical trials are being prepared. To see if it's effective in humans. To see what side effects it may have.

reply to post by Oaktree

No money in a cure.

You said it. The money is in the medicine. Besides, I don't see anyone struggling to remove all the carcinogens from our environment. As long as they keep pumping cancer causing agents into our bodies, I don't really see the point in a cure.

"You're cured, now go eat and drink and breathe some more polluted swill. We'll be waiting."

Zackery
My gosh people where talking about some research that has been done on mice.Am I missing something here,aren't our reproductive systems differ and our Huge body versus their little torsos function totally different.We ARE HUMAN PEOPLE NOT A LITTLE TEST RESEARCH PROJECT.Now it's suppose to destroy all forms of cancer saving creatures lives.

The use of chemotherapy to treat cancer began at the start of the 20th century with attempts to narrow the universe of chemicals that might affect the disease by developing methods to screen chemicals using transplantable tumors in rodents.

A History of Cancer Chemotherapy

reply to post by iamhobo


Does this mean it stops the immune system all together or is it selective on cancer only?

Maybe, if it's that safe. But that applies to everything, doesn't it? Why produce any new drugs at all?

reply to post by Phage

Point is, if/when it becomes available, it will be in the form of a prohibitor/inhibitor or suppressant, rather than a cure.
Take 2 pills daily for the rest of your life, or die.
That is not a cure, anymore than Allegra "cures" one of an allergy.

But why would preventative medication (assuming there may be such a thing) be less profitable?

Preventative medication would (more than likely) be derived from the research/trials which led to the cure.
The information contained would be protected, and (possible) preventative medication would only be developed once patents expired.
I did not mean to imply they wouldn't be profitable, only that the profit may not go to the ex-patent holder.

reply to post by Oaktree

Point is, if/when it becomes available, it will be in the form of a prohibitor/inhibitor or suppressant, rather than a cure.

And you know this, how?

Take 2 pills daily for the rest of your life, or die.

I stopped chemotherapy 27 years ago. My cancer went away. My cancer did not come back. I didn't die.

Preventative medication would (more than likely) be derived from the research/trials which led to the cure.

Why? The treatment is based on inhibiting the production of a substance which cancer cells produce. It has nothing to do with why cells become cancerous.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


It does not stop the immune system. It actually allows the immune system to block a protein called CD47.

CD47 sends a signal to the immune system to not attack it, thus allowing cancer to grow and take over. With this treatment blocking that signal, the immune system can now attack it appropriately and kill the cancer cells.

reply to post by iamhobo


Great post, OP. We can never have too much good news these days.

Phage
reply to post by Zackery

 

Do a little research on cancer and the treatments that have been known to scientists and mankind to be effective in the treatments of cancer or it's tumors and you to will see to the facts behind it.

Yes. I know. I was cured of cancer by way of chemotherapy. I did quite a bit of research before undergoing therapy. I have a pretty good understanding of the theory.

Now if it's intentions are to save lives it might that it be it would take lives.

That's why clinical trials are being prepared. To see if it's effective in humans. To see what side effects it may have.

edit on 3/27/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

First you should seek very much needed approval as well as to do research on what ingredients and the amounts that would be effective and wouldn't harm humans.We're talking about the average 130-160 average cancer patient by research versus a mice weighing an ounce at the most.It probably should take years or maybe decades to possibly come up with a correct formula.But know not in AMERICA.We test on 1.Animals 2.Trials and research on humans 3.Get approvals through some nobodies 4.Prescribe to patients 5.Sicken patients and even bring death 6.We're seeing numerous GOLDBERG commercials sueing for a faulty Medicine/Drug and issuing financial payments from The Makers to administer to the affected for slow death.What a reward.Let's think before jumping to conclusions and speak facts about this situation.I'm a Doc myself.

reply to post by Zackery

First you should seek very much needed approval as well as to do research on what ingredients and the amounts that would be effective and wouldn't harm humans.

Yes. That's what clinical trials are about.

Unfortunately, the process of preparing for human clinical trials is long. The initial experiments were done in animals and the animal versions of anti-CD47 antibody cannot be used in humans. So researchers first have to create a "humanized" antibody to CD47, then the production of antibody must be scaled up in a sterile facility of the kind that is used to create other pharmaceutical products. Finally, clinical trials must be designed so that the data they generate will produce a valid scientific result, and the trials must be approved by regulatory officials.

All of this takes time.

stemcell.stanford.edu...

reply to post by Phage

It's also impressive that it seems to work on a variety of cancers.

This statement got me thinking...

Would this not be a possible indicator that all types of cancers actually share some kind of common denominator ?!

If this research turns out to be the real deal, and as an added bonus discover that there actually is a common denominator with cancers...



Wow, this would literally be world changing.

reply to post by deadcalm

Ahhh...the semantics police. What I should have said is that they would pay any price IF they could afford it. But whether they can or not, will not stop the drug companies for charging through the roof for this. I have no doubt that a family would take out a second mortgage or even sell their home if it meant that they could save a loved one's life.

Cancer, Heart Disease, Alzheimers, the list goes on...
Many of us have lost those we love, the pain is excruciating.

However, while we all struggle to afford the treatments that allow for a few more days/weeks/months with the ones we love, the actual cures always seem to be just over the horizon.

reply to post by CranialSponge

Would this not be a possible indicator that all types of cancers actually share some kind of common denominator ?!

That common denominator, in this case, is the presence of CD47.

reply to post by Phage

That common denominator, in this case, is the presence of CD47.

So it seems thus far.

If this turns out to be the case for any and all cancer "types"... they've just made the discovery of the millenium.




Hate to get the hopes up though, I prefer to err on the side of caution with these "medical breakthroughs". However, I can't help but think of how many people I know that this could give them a chance at life again in the very near future if these trials are successful.

I am invested in a company who is having some success with a drug that shortens telomerase. Supposedly this keeps it from reproducing and eventually kills it. This company is currently dealing with some side effect issues, though it appears that they are not serious and fully reversible. That is the danger of all these experimental drugs...what else do they damage other than cancer?

reply to post by CranialSponge

Hate to get the hopes up though, I prefer to err on the side of caution with these "medical breakthroughs".

Indeed. It is far too soon to classify this in that manner. As I said in my first post, "encouraging."

As with all treatments, results will probably vary. For me chemo did the trick even though I was at a fairly advanced stage. Others are not as fortunate as I.

Phage
reply to post by Zackery

 

First you should seek very much needed approval as well as to do research on what ingredients and the amounts that would be effective and wouldn't harm humans.

Yes. That's what clinical trials are about.

Unfortunately, the process of preparing for human clinical trials is long. The initial experiments were done in animals and the animal versions of anti-CD47 antibody cannot be used in humans. So researchers first have to create a "humanized" antibody to CD47, then the production of antibody must be scaled up in a sterile facility of the kind that is used to create other pharmaceutical products. Finally, clinical trials must be designed so that the data they generate will produce a valid scientific result, and the trials must be approved by regulatory officials.

All of this takes time.

stemcell.stanford.edu...

edit on 3/27/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

HUMANS!! I repeat humans.Why trial,administer,pay suit settlements from a research/medicine slowly killing a person.Human Cruelty.Boy my mouth just keep repeating its self just like History.Your showing my a breakthrough on a new chemo or med that may possilbly be introduced with know knowledge on record of such harm it would cause.It looks as if we as researchers and scientists or maybe the FDA would learn and pay close attention to THEIR deadly and costly,non-effective to-date new research and new trials on meds.Let's keep it modern.Because for this last decade nothing has been proven to work but tends to be costly and deadly!! All of this I repeat are proven facts a not a costly trial after trial! Murder after murder!Do you get it now? Hello!!

reply to post by Zackery

Do you get it now?

No, "doctor". I guess I don't.
Your rant style is a bit to dense to extract much meaning.

The tone of the conversation is getting a little heated and personal. Please keep it civil.

Blaine91555
Forum Moderator