The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Likely Cure for Cancer Discovered - Will Smith Preparing
Mai-Kero
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080627/cancer_trial_080627/20080628?hub=TopStories
So, as it turns out, The Science has discovered something that, according to the limited trial that was completed, cures 100% of all malignant tumors, breast, cervical, and prostate cancer in mice. A human trial will conclude within three months.
So, basically, Granulocytes are awesome and hey you know what if we put them in people, they kill cancer with their violence.
What do you guys think? Will this actually happen? Is it fake? Will it blend? Will it cross-over into new cures for other things that suck?
So, as it turns out, The Science has discovered something that, according to the limited trial that was completed, cures 100% of all malignant tumors, breast, cervical, and prostate cancer in mice. A human trial will conclude within three months.
American researchers will soon start a human trial to determine whether a treatment that can eradicate cancer in mice will do the same in people.
The treatment will transfuse specific white blood cells, called granulocytes, into patients with advanced forms of cancer. The granulocytes will come from healthy young people with immune systems that produce cells that have high levels of anti-cancer activity.
In the animal studies, white blood cells from cancer-resistant mice cured all lab mice who had malignant tumours. The cells have also been able to kill cervical, prostate and breast cancer tumour cells in Petri dish tests.
"All the mice we treated were 100 per cent cured," lead researcher Dr. Zheng Cui told CTV News. "So that was very surprising for us."
Cui, an associate professor of pathology at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center in North Carolina, will announce the study Saturday at the Understanding Aging conference in Los Angeles.
Granulocytes account for about 60 per cent of all white blood cells in the human body. The scientists already know, via a small study of human volunteers, that granulocytes from people under the age of 50 are most effective at killing cancer cells.
The study will begin with 22 cancer patients for whom conventional treatment has been unsuccessful. The researchers say that they will know within three months if the treatment will work in humans.
Cancer researchers worldwide will be watching the tests closely.
"Certainly in the mouse, being able to do these things is quite remarkable and very exciting," said Dr. Ronan Foley of the Juravinski Cancer Centre in Hamilton, Ont. "Oftentimes when it is translated into the human situation it doesn't work as well. But that doesn't mean it isn't going to work."
So, basically, Granulocytes are awesome and hey you know what if we put them in people, they kill cancer with their violence.
What do you guys think? Will this actually happen? Is it fake? Will it blend? Will it cross-over into new cures for other things that suck?
Mai-Kero on
0
Posts
Still, progress is a good thing
i give it such a wide range because i once read about all the stages shit like this goes through, but i can't remember how long the process actually takes
and since there have been like 4 announcements saying that they think they've found a cure for cancer, i'm willing to bet it's just a matter of time until this shit becomes publicly available
most of all, most of all
someone said true love was dead
but i'm bound to fall
bound to fall for you
oh what can i do
Easy to say when you aren't suffering from cancer.
True, but it's also easy to demand the death penalty when it's your wife who's been murdered. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Edit: Oh god let's not debate the death penalty in this thread.
Doubt it, the first company to come out with an end-all drug for Cancer would get massive press and make $texas since everyone gets cancer given enough time.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
You're honestly arguing against a cure for cancer? I mean, I realize we have population problems, but that shouldn't stop us from curing cancer if we can. That's like saying we shouldn't have found a cure for smallpox or polio because, hey, it kept the world population down.
look at all these sci-fi books and movies, we are so far behind
over population will help that
or maybe the government will encourage us to all become homosexual, ala joe haldeman's vision.
most of all, most of all
someone said true love was dead
but i'm bound to fall
bound to fall for you
oh what can i do
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but my best guess is that you're saying Malthusian mass starvation is preferable to cancer. They both suck, and I wouldn't want either to happen. I do think that, as medical technology becomes increasingly sophisticated, we're going to have to think about ways to keep the population under control humanely. It would be lovely if the discovery of a cure for cancer prompted people to push for better family planning education for instance.
I remember one of my professors made a mathematical model to try to figure out optimum levels of immunotherapy and chemotherapy a few years back, but the little I saw of it was far too complicated for me.
Really?
I'm not against curing cancer. That was a dumb thing to say. Now all I'm saying is that overpopulation is a concern when people live longer, and in retrospect that probably belongs in its own thread. I take it back.
I am saying that cancer is an epidemic of the sort that there is not really a great reason to have a preference between the two.
It's not that malthusian mass starvation is preferable to cancer so much that getting cancer is crap-luck from nature that society should try it's best to minimize. Starvation is something that an individual or a society at least has some sort of modicum of control over.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
Stop this right now before I beat you. Don't turn this into a goddamn Malthus thread. People are still going to die even if you cure cancer, and even though increasing life expectancy increases the population it is not something that even remotely necessarily causes it to spiral out of control.
Right. Gotcha. Duly noted.
God Damn Splicers.....
What I don't get is, there are shit loads of people who have been given chemotherapy or whatever and it doesn't work. These people are told point blank they are being taken off their treatment (because its causing more harm then good), are taken off their treatment, and are left to die.
I realize when testing pharmaceuticals or new surgeries they want Healthy patients so they can make their numbers look good.
But in all seriousness. Why the Fuck don't they offer all these "promising" treatments to people who have been told they are dying of cancer and standard treatments won't or haven't worked?
Edit: OK that came off more hostile then I intended. But am I the only one with Family currenlty dying of cancer?
They don't want 'healthy people so their numbers look goodo_O' but people in the end stages of cancer, or suffering from inoperable/untreatable tumors rarely make good test subjects.
'promising' drugs have to be tested for efficacy and safety, otherwise they could make things worse and end up costing a lot of money in the process
Population problems are more of a supply-side thing than a demand one.
Does anyone have a master list of possible cancer cures or just great, cutting-edge advancements in cancer treatments? I remember something about a protein receptors that all cancers have and using that to fight it. And then there was something about starving the tumor of oxygen.
You don't say, "Hey! We have this new exciting treatment that could just maybe save you. Would you like to have it?"
It's more along the lines of, "There's a clinical trial going on and we can get you in on it. It may or may not save you, but it's a better shot than you have otherwise. Sign this waiver saying that you know it's not FDA approved and it just might cause harm to you, but you're willing to do it anyway."
So that they can have your sweet blood and your sweet social security taxes.
This is the first thing I thought of too, dgs. My mom's cousin has been fighting breast cancer for a few years now and it looks like she's finally losing the battle. My heart goes out to you.
It's a procedure, you can make money off of it.
Also, no fucking secret pharma cabal is keeping cures hidden. You know why? Because there are a trillion goddamn diseases and new ones every day. They don't have to micromanage that end of the business.
When someone gets shot in the middle of their unveiling of the Panacea, that's when you suspect these people.
I would think that the FDA doesn't let them do this. There is probably a maximum amount of trial patients they can use. Otherwise, for every promising cancer cure you'd get thousands of people in the trials. It would be both dangerous and unmanageable. Not to mention cost, and the need to closely monitor the trial patients. That wouldn't be possible with a huge group.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Well, yeah. Clinical trials usually go to one or a few hospitals or places that provide medical care and they choose enough people to get a statistically significant sample.