Cancer Cured? (Stanford) |
||
|
Cancer cured? (Stanford)
well, hopefully it works and the antibodies don't go rogue and decide to attack/encase normal cells. this could be really good or REALLY bad. if they can't keep it under control it could kill the patient.
Ragnarok.Sekundes said: » The questions I have is, this about the anti-CD47 antibody that you'd give the patients. That signal given by CD47 must exist for something else too. It's likely not just many cancerous cell's shields from the body's immune system but probably has other interactions that may be important, so by blocking it are we allowing our immune system to attack other things in the body or perhaps blocking certain interactions? There are two drawbacks to this: 1) Existing bodily functions that rely on CD47 antibody will be disrupted. They have not been determined yet nor how much an impact it will cause. 2) Brain cancer cells are not reproduced. However, it can still destroy the cancerous cells. Keep in mind the antibodies themselves do not repair your body thus it would not directly result in an zombie apocalypse. I think one of the reasons why a treatment or cure can be hard to find is because if a company can't patent something, then it can't make it's investment back on the cost of the research and testing needed to look in it in the first place. So they won't bother to test it. It would have to be found on accident or publicly funded and it's hard to get public funding without prior research showing a possible connection.
There are many unknowns in how the body works, it could be something simple or it could be just plain impossible to find a chemical or process that would take care of it, at least yet. Gimp said: » I haven't been affected by cancer as much as other people in their own lives so I could be biased...but I'm leery(always have been) of magic bullets. I think it's great they made a special antibody(how and out of what?) to be administered to the body(that won't get eaten by it) to then tell the white blood cells distinguish the cancer cells to be able to eat them(and hopefully not the cancer free cells in the process). Lacking obviously in the knowledge of science for this area, it's just something we won't know until it's tried and tested because of the factor of the human body and know the consequences a few months to a decade and a half later... Is the antibody like normal medicine that has it's own side effects in exchange for the effect that we hope to achieve or is it something more dangerous that can cause more harm than good in the process? Bismarck.Hsieh said: » Ragnarok.Sekundes said: » The questions I have is, this about the anti-CD47 antibody that you'd give the patients. That signal given by CD47 must exist for something else too. It's likely not just many cancerous cell's shields from the body's immune system but probably has other interactions that may be important, so by blocking it are we allowing our immune system to attack other things in the body or perhaps blocking certain interactions? There are two drawbacks to this: 1) Existing bodily functions that rely on CD47 antibody will be disrupted. They have not been determined yet nor how much an impact it will cause. 2) Brain cancer cells are not reproduced. However, it can still destroy the cancerous cells. Keep in mind the antibodies themselves do not repair your body thus it would not directly result in an zombie apocalypse. Not quite. HHMI had a nice news brief on this. CD47 is a marker that macrophages see on cells in your body and say ok I won't destroy you because you're supposed to be here. Cancerous cells also tend to have a surface marker called calreticulin which would normally provoke a macrophage to kill them. Because CD47 is also present in these calreticulin high cells the macrophages leave them alone. By treating these patients with a CD47 antibody they are in effect blocking the macrophages from seeing CD47 on any cell in your body... however, macrophages won't attack cells that don't also express something to indicate that they're foreign (so they will only target the calreticulin high cells and not healthy ones). Will this cure cancer? Only if every cancerous cell is calreticulin high or has some other marker that macrophages recognize. I found the large discrepancy between the lolPost headline and the headline of the Stanford press release rather amusing.
This: New wonder drug matches and kills all kinds of cancer — human testing starts 2014 vs this: Anti-CD47 antibody may offer new route to successful cancer vaccination http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2013/may/cd47.html Reminds me of this comic
Actually, Steve Jobs had a very treatable form of pancreatic cancer but he decided to be stupid and not treat it with radiation and chemo, and instead ate a macrobiotic diet for a year or two. By that time, the cancer spread and became terminal. It was his life and therefore, his choice but he could have been here now but for a poor judgement call. His wealth did allow him to string out the dying for a very long time however.
Back to the OP's post, I work at a pharmaceutical company that does mostly discovery and feasibility of existing drugs in new models and occasionally new chemicals (in Apple land strangely enough). So I'll say, sounds good bro but I'm not holding my breath. I've heard too many stories of magical unicorn piss that's going to "change the world" and the world hasn't changed that much yet. But it would be nice, for sure. Even if it doesn't work, hopefully it's a step in the right direction. Cuz cancer sucks donkey balls. RIP friends and family lost to the big C. Ragnarok.Sekundes said: » I think one of the reasons why a treatment or cure can be hard to find is because if a company can't patent something, then it can't make it's investment back on the cost of the research and testing needed to look in it in the first place. So they won't bother to test it. It would have to be found on accident or publicly funded and it's hard to get public funding without prior research showing a possible connection. There are many unknowns in how the body works, it could be something simple or it could be just plain impossible to find a chemical or process that would take care of it, at least yet. Asura.Hoshiku said: » Bismarck.Hsieh said: » Ragnarok.Sekundes said: » The questions I have is, this about the anti-CD47 antibody that you'd give the patients. That signal given by CD47 must exist for something else too. It's likely not just many cancerous cell's shields from the body's immune system but probably has other interactions that may be important, so by blocking it are we allowing our immune system to attack other things in the body or perhaps blocking certain interactions? There are two drawbacks to this: 1) Existing bodily functions that rely on CD47 antibody will be disrupted. They have not been determined yet nor how much an impact it will cause. 2) Brain cancer cells are not reproduced. However, it can still destroy the cancerous cells. Keep in mind the antibodies themselves do not repair your body thus it would not directly result in an zombie apocalypse. Not quite. HHMI had a nice news brief on this. CD47 is a marker that macrophages see on cells in your body and say ok I won't destroy you because you're supposed to be here. Cancerous cells also tend to have a surface marker called calreticulin which would normally provoke a macrophage to kill them. Because CD47 is also present in these calreticulin high cells the macrophages leave them alone. By treating these patients with a CD47 antibody they are in effect blocking the macrophages from seeing CD47 on any cell in your body... however, macrophages won't attack cells that don't also express something to indicate that they're foreign (so they will only target the calreticulin high cells and not healthy ones). Will this cure cancer? Only if every cancerous cell is calreticulin high or has some other marker that macrophages recognize. Hsieh is right, patent's the easy part. Getting approval is a beeeyotch and a half.
You go through feasibility and PK studies, Phase I studies, Phase II(b) studies, get approval to start Phase III studies, do those, and IF (a big if) all those studies and clinical trials are successful and give you the numbers you need, then you submit an NDA to ask for FDA's approval. You (and everyplace you had the pivotal clinical trial) gets audited up the ***, and they examine the tens of thousands of pages of data you submit with a microscope. The submission alone costs over a million dollars not counting the manhours of work putting it together. THEN maybe you get approval (usually takes a year). But usually they issue a Complete Response Letter saying they want more info and to resubmit later. It's rare these days to approval on first submit. Then once you get approved, you have to fire up supply chain, negotiate with all the health insurances for price and to get on their lists, get manufacturing, and months later do you make a sale. It's usually a $100 million dollar process for a simple thing much much more for a whole new drug that's never been proven before. For things you can patent yeah. I should have been more specific but I was thinking about stuff you can't patent or is already patented by others. If you had reason to believe that sunflower seeds might cure cancer you can't exactly make money off the discovery even if you take it further and start testing. So you're stuck in the new market if you want funding.
Yeah sure... was one of the first things that came up when I googled 'CD47 Weissman' For what it's worth I'm a postdoc in an immunology lab though lol. http://www.hhmi.org/sites/default/files/mouse_hunger.pdf
It's one of the box articles instead of the main feature. aren't journalists supposed to have some expertise in what they're writing about? I could have written a more factually accurate article that what the nyp did.
Thought nyp was more of a tabloid really?
Hsieh: Thanks for the information to clarify by the antibody being "eaten" I should have said eaten by the white blood cells themselves after injection or surgery not ingestion.
The antibodies weren't eaten. There are a number of different types of cells in the immune system, not just "white blood cells".
What they found is that if cancer cells release CD47 which instructs the immune system not to attack the cancer. By introducing antibodies that block the cancer created CD47 pathway at some point, macrophages were able to engulf and break down some of the cancer tissue. Once the macrophages broke down the tissue, they presented antigens to the t-cells which activated and attacked cancer tissue. Ragnarok.Corres said: » Quetzalcoatl.Kenrusai said: » Obesity needs a cure ! Start by closing down terrible fast-food restaurants like McDonalds. Then, idk, create some drug that eats fat, or something. Apparently healthy food is quite a lot higher in price than let's say a cheeseburger. If that is true then you would have a huge impact when you close them down. Or even force them so sell healthier food for the exact same price. Did I hear the word "CHEAP"?!. $8 for a McD meal that don't even come with a *** piece of tomato is not call cheap. I can get a Beef w/ Broccoli + a Soda for less than $5 at the Chinese take out place. I wouldn't call Chinese food healthy.
Siren.Knivesz said: » Quetzalcoatl.Kenrusai said: » Obesity needs a cure ! Start by closing down terrible fast-food restaurants like McDonalds. Then, idk, create some drug that eats fat, or something. But then The US won't be the fattest country in the world anymore!! That's like the only statistic we still lead the world in today. Mexico is fatter than America now I think here in America people are trying to get healthier and lose weight (including myself), and with shows like the Biggest Loser and all the "keep healthy" campaigns, I think it's finally starting to kick in for some people. I'm not saying it is healthy, at least is better and cheaper than your so called cheap fast food crap. When it is way over priced at least in nyc, the same McD meal in Hong Kong cost like 22-23 HKD which is less than $3 USD. Their cost of living isnt much lower than NYC and I call that price CHEAP.
I'll agree that McDonald's really isn't all that cheap, relative to other similar options, unless you're just grabbing a snack off the dollar menu or they have some kind of special deal. If I considering an 8 dollar meal at McDonald's, I'd rather just go to Chipotle (owned by McDonald's >_>).
Siren.Kyte said: » I'll agree that McDonald's really isn't all that cheap, relative to other similar options, unless you're just grabbing a snack off the dollar menu or they have some kind of special deal. If I considering an 8 dollar meal at McDonald's, I'd rather just go to Chipotle (owned by McDonald's >_>). More likely I'd buy some meat and make my own burgers. Tastes good. :) I'm assuming that in that situation I want something prepared and I want something fast.
Yeah, why I said I'd rather go to a local place or Sonic.
Or even Burger King. Just tastes better than McDonalds. Oh man burgers! Asian turkeyburgers are amazing. http://allrecipes.com/recipe/asian-turkey-burgers-2/
Ragnarok.Corres said: » New wonder drug matches and kills all kinds of cancer — human testing starts 2014 Quote: Stanford researchers are on track to begin human trials of a potentially potent new weapon against cancer, and would-be participants are flooding in following the Post’s initial report on the discovery. The progress comes just two months after the groundbreaking study by Dr Irv Weissman, who developed an antibody that breaks down a cancer's defense mechanisms in the body. A protein called CD47 tells the body not to "eat" the cancer, but the antibody developed by Dr Weissman blocks CD47 and frees up immune cells called macrophages — which can then engulf the deadly cells. The new research shows the miraculous macrophages effectively act as intelligence gatherers for the body, pointing out cancerous cells to cancer-fighting "killer T" cells. The T cells then "learn" to hunt down and attack the cancer, the researchers claim. “It was completely unexpected that CD8+ T (killer T) cells would be mobilized when macrophages engulfed the cancer cells in the presence of CD47-blocking antibodies,” said MD/PhD student Diane Tseng, who works with Dr. Weissman. The clinical implications of the process could be profound in the war on cancer. When macrophages present "killer T" cells with a patient's cancer, the T cells become attuned to the unique molecular markers on the cancer. This turns them into a personalized cancer vaccine. “Because T cells are sensitized to attack a patient’s particular cancer, the administration of CD47-blocking antibodies in a sense could act as a personalized vaccination against that cancer,” Tseng said. The team of researchers at Stanford plan on starting a small 10-100 person phase I clinical human trial of the cancer therapy in 2014. What are your opinions about that? My Grandfather died because of Cancer, that was however i even got to know him. My Partner in life had Breast Cancer. Luckily it wasn't too late to save her very breast. A not close Aunt to me, died of Cancer last year. If it works let us hope that it doesn't cost about 100k Wild-onions. too bad there is more than one type of cancer. Cancer drugs are about as effective as hiv meds. The minute the condition mutates, onto next treatment option. People need to get this idea of a universal cancer cure out of their head. I grab Sonic 90% of the time I want fast food, but that's partially because it's the only one within walking distance of my house. I don't have spend gas just to cross the highway safely and I burn some of calories the meal is gonna put back :)
OT: I foresee a potential side effect of it causing T-cells to attack healthy cells causing all sorts of auto-immune crap. Kinda like how medication for stuff like blood pressure has "death" as a side effect. "At least he was cured of X-cancer!!" tbh wish this could of been found in the 80s. my biological father died when i was a year old due to liver cancer so i never realy knew him, plus seen to many people loose others to it.
but never the less, its a good sign of things to come It would really be wonderful if there was a cure for cancer. Both my paternal grandparents died of it. But it's probably a pipe dream, because:
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » too bad there is more than one type of cancer. Cancer drugs are about as effective as hiv meds. The minute the condition mutates, onto next treatment option. So what we really need is something concrete to prevent people from getting cancer in the first place. |
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||