'Universal' vaccine that could beat 90% of cancers is tested on humans for first time
interpolator
A vaccine that targets a molecule present in 90 percent of all cancers, has been tested on humans for the first time, according to researchers who found that all the blood cancer patients tested in the trial had greater immunity to the disease after receiving the drug.
Results have yet to be formally published, but if the findings are confirmed in future trials then the vaccine could be on the market in six years.
The clinical trial was conducted at the Hadassah Medical Centre in Jerusalem and consisted of ten patients with multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer that affects plasma cells in bone marrow, have now received the vaccine.
Researchers from the drug maker Vaxil Biotheraputics and Tel Aviv University said that seven of the patients who have finished treatment all had significantly greater immunity against cancer cells compared to before they were given the vaccine, and three of the patients in the study are now free of the condition.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20120409/9473/cancer-immucin-vaccine-clinical-trial-research.htm
Updated without a daily mail article because it seems that was an issue?
Replies
I'm unsure of the standard testing time for vaccines (is 8 years a reasonable timeframe?) but just throwing it out there right now doesn't sound safe at all.
Though seriously I do want this to go forward.
Also, keep in mind that when you read these articles, saying something "works" on 90% of cancers can mean as little as the patient died after 9 months vs 3 months. Cancer care generally measures success based on how long a patient survives post treatment, not whether the patient is 100% cured and cancer free.
Not that this isnt exciting research, but it's best to keep things in context.
also...for a more reputable source than the dailymail:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21570434
I don't know what to believe on this, Sir Paul M. Nurse in an interview said it would be impossible to come up such a wide covering vaccine on the account that cancer is just a name for a myriad of different diseases that all have different genetic triggers.
My Dad had real close call recently, he had a purple mark removed from his hand last month that turned out to be the earliest stage of skin cancer.
Thank god he got it checked, he was just literally about to leave the doctors room for a regular appointment when he just happened to glance the mark on his hand reaching for the door.
He had a work mate who kept telling him to go get it checked because he'd had the same once. So luckily he was cured just by having a biopsy. It just goes to show that awareness of symptoms and getting things checked early is half the battle.
....
In all truth, I think it's completely backwards to try to cure something after you've gotten it. Sure, it would be nice, but they should all really be talking about prevention, and how to never GET cancer to begin with by eating well and living a healthy life. But there's no money in that field, I suppose. People really do think cancer is just the "luck of the draw", and that you, as an individual, play no role in its development. Which is such a ridiculous assumption.
I read a book recently about how cancer could actually be a survival mechanism for your body- where your insides become so acidic that the cells have to mutate to even keep you alive for any longer. Super interesting book, by Andreas Moritz. I think Scientists really should look into it more. Because nothing in this world is "out to get us", but that's really what we view cancer as. There must be a reason for these cells to mutate. Is it a survival mechanism? I don't know, but why find out? Just eat well and live a healthy life, and your chances of getting cancer will probably be even greater than 90% less.
you mean that guy ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LioJYFFO2VU
$17.95 per stone, a real bargain!
Just because he sells those stones does not make him any less credible.
There are many different kinds of cancer, and unless you're a chain smoker or a big fan of leathery brown skin sunbathing you're going to have little control over it.
Diet and obesity are an environmental factors that contribute to cancer death in only 30-35% of cases (not 90% like you stated), some cancers are even caused by viruses. If almost all cases of cancer are cause by their environment or genetics, how can it be a health bodily function?
There's evidence some peoples bodies are better at fighting tumors/cancers/mutations, are these people fighting off a "survival mechanism"? Damaged dna = cancer, they are not potentially beneficial mutations cause by natural selection that can be passed down.
Just because are bodies do something or is setup a certain way does not mean its beneficial. Lets take our eyes for example, we have nerves in front of light receptors, this creates a blind spot at the optic nerve. Octopuses have nerves under the light receptors, so no blind spots. Is there a benefit for having the nerves block part of our vision? No. We also have a nerve that takes an extreme detour loop up and down the neck, called the recurrent laryngeal nerve. There is no reason for the extra detour and could be considered evolutionary baggage.
I think you need to pick better books next time, sounds like purest, finest bullshit.
cancer might be a nature's over-population management mechanism, but I'm not sure anyone affected will be relieved by this.
Fingers crossed for this development, I'm especially glad it doesn't come from the US, so patients will be less likely milked all their money out of them and left with a 30 years long loan.
And I said nothing about it being a natural form of depopulation; I said that it is your body's attempt at maintaining life in a difficult and acidic environment. What about that doesn't make sense?
And Zac, check out "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Dr. Weston Price. It's all about how Diet is what breaks down DNA, and damages it, and how it's cumulative over many generations. So, if your grandfather only ate bacon, well, he may have lived to be 112, but sooner or later, it'll cause some health issues for someone. Like British people's teeth; all that bread eaten throughout history took its toll. It's really one of my favorite books on diet, with great pictures and really fantastic explanations of all of it. He was a dentist, so most of it focuses on dental issues and skull malformations.
And no, they aren't fighting off a defense mechanism- they are healing. It's there to help you survive, until you can get rid of the acidity, keep in mind. So, if the acidic environment goes away because of the body's own efforts, the cancer dies off. Because it's no longer needed for the body to survive.
Cancer cures now just kill the cells through brute force, which, no matter what the truth, is not a good thing. If this vaccine effectively targets only cancerous cells, and has no deleterious effects, well, it may just be worthwhile. (And I do think finding a cure is worthwhile) But I doubt it will be able to claim either statement.
And I agree, not everything is beneficial just because it is natural. But, if you guys were to read the book, you'd see all the evidence, which I don't readily have access to for my argument. It really is quite good, and he cites lots and lots of sources- most of which are fairly credible.
The first cases of cancer that we know of were from a couple of pharoahs. They sat around all day, ate large rich meals, and probably didn't get out much. Maybe the cases in poor people weren't reported, true. But then, look at the year 1900, during which the chances of getting cancer were less than one in a hundred (or, according to some sources, less than one in a thousand), where now we are one in three. Clearly something is wrong, regardless of whether it was 1/100 or 1/1000. And the life expectancy back then was only 20 years less than what it is now, so don't say that they didn't live long enough to develop cancer. Because lots of people get cancer before hitting fifty. The risk for getting colon cancer, alone, under 50 is 3%. I couldn't find a more general statistic, but Colorectal cancer only comes in third place in most areas. Behind Prostate and Lung cancer. So, let's say, for the sake of a figure, that prostate cancer is 4% and Lung Cancer is 5%. This would leave the percentage at 12%. Throw in 5% for all the other cancers, and you're at 17%. That's probably a modest figure, too. I mean, it's a fake figure, so I can't say with any certainty, but I can't imagine it being any lower than 10%. I don't think anyone can argue against the rates increasing- even mainstream cancer studies say so.
Processed foods, sitting around all day, wearing sunscreen. And always carrying around cellphones (the radiation standards for phones haven't been changed since the 1980s).. It's all not good, whether it causes cancer or not.
We're digging our own graves as always. And that's really what I'll leave it at, because arguing anything other than the generally accepted at polycount is like walking through a lion's den. I love polycount with all my heart, but I should really know better by now. I'll stay away in the future, and stick to posting art, like a good boy.
People did not live anywhere near as long as they do now.
Which is the whole point, a ton of different things can cause the cancer, and the body continually repairs damages caused by different factors, but when the cancer is actually there and growing no amount of crystals will make it go away.
Sunscreen is there to protect people from the damages caused by the uv radiation from the sun, that can eventually lead to cancer.
Don't even get me started on cellphones, which when we look at what it has actually done to help people stay connected or quickly call for help, suddenly saves more lives than it hypothetically kills through magic cancer.
How?, We're basically overpopulating the earth and living much longer, we're an evolutionary success unless we eventually nuke ourselves out of existance.
Nuh uh! It doesn't work like that, the only one that leaves a discussion at polycount will be the last remaining guy alive!
About vaccine. I hope it will bear fruits. Some of the theories I read here are just bonkers >.< . Not every book by some guy with diploma must be legit. All in all cancer is a disease. Evolution brung us to a point were we are doing what we can to defeat cancer. Now fighting cancer is really devastating for sick person. I really hope its not some bullshit story.
Killing off mutated or infected cells through apoptosis (which can be induced either by the cell's own mechanisms or by another cell) is actually a mechanism to defend the body!
Really interesting research, a couple of months ago I enrolled in a course for my bachelor called "Genetherapy, Cancer and AIDS" and that was quite depressing. We really have to be careful to not get our hopes up too high, since this disease is a son of a bitch.
rest of your post generally makes no sense to me, nothing personal, it's just your reference is way too sloppy on factbase
> Sunscreen is there to protect people from the damages caused by the uv radiation from the sun, that can eventually lead to cancer.
to be completely honest, sunscreen is there to milk sunbathing lovers.
it does reflect UVB radiation that is causing sunburns; it doesn't however do a thing to UVA and UVC - those penetrate skin deeper and actually cause long-lasting cell-damage.
fun fact: foundation make up does a better job at reflecting over 90 % of UV rays, all three types (look up titanium dioxide)
British teeth are fine, we just don't fuck about with them to 'correct' them when nothing's medically wrong. Too much bread...
I thought most of the good ones were UVA and UVB, but I get your point about the milking on subathing people as much as people dieting so that they can eat unhealthy foods.
A thin layer of clothing like a t-shirt will do an even better job at protecting you.
On the other side we also need some of that radiation from the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunscreen_controversy
yep, white cotton does a good job, see traditional Arab clothing for men - it's all white, since they're supposed to spend lots of time outdoors.
it effectively covers most of their skin.
lol, get fucked...
Didn't a few people die ( very horrificly and slowly) during drug tests a few years ago in England? There's a reason why these things take so long
Actually, it's more that PC is generally intolerant of bullshit. If you're trying to make an argument on cancer from a scientific perspective, I'd recommend looking into more than a single book from the 1930s. Science changes. You don't get to pick and choose what you believe, you need to look at all available evidence. Just because you like the book doesn't make it true or up to date.
I feel like I need to correct some misinformation before someone starts believing this stuff:
- Mutations are only passed on if they happen to your reproductive cells. Your grandpa eating bacon isn't going to give you bacon related cancer. That's complete crap. He's going to become obese and get cancer. This is because fat produces excess levels of hormones (which relates to cell growth...cancer = growth), and causes the body to be in a chronic state of inflammation, another risk factor.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/obesity
- Cancer is NOT a defense mechanism. It has nothing to do with body pH. Cells don't mutate in order to adapt to the environment. That's natural selection and it happens over generations...it doesn't work like you saw on the Ninja Turtles. It's caused by oxidation of the DNA, causing base pairs to become rearranged or knocked out of place, which essentially causes a change in the body's "computer code". These happen all the time even in healthy people and the body's defenses kills the cells to correct the error. When you get an infinite loop error in that code related to cell reproduction or cell death that the body has trouble recognizing, you end up with cancer. What the vaccine aims to do is give the immune system a more effective "cancer vision" so it can identify cancer cells with better accuracy, and go do it's job.
Now...your message...that people should improve their diet and excercise because it's causing the much higher cancer rates today, I agree with 100%. But do some research and back it up with real facts.
This Moritz guy sounds like a quack. In a person with cancer, the body tries everything it can to fight against the cancer and remove the cells. To suggest cancer is a survival mechanism is just stupid.
Tumors/cancer are unrestrained growth that happens when the genes which tell a cell to stop growing are damaged or malfunction. Other genes watch those mechanisms and will tell a cell to undergo programmed cell death ("apoptosis") if they start growing inappropriately. If both mechanisms are broken, you get a tumor. These genes can be damaged through multiple mechanisms: highly reactive oxygen species can damage DNA; chemical carcinogens can do the same; mutations sometimes just happen. Our machinery isn't perfect. With the billions of cells in your body, these genes are damaged somewhere in your body probably every day. The problem occurs when you get multiple mutations in one cell - and one cell is all you need to develop cancer.
As for this vaccine - I hope it pans out to be as successful as this early trial may indicate. At the very least, it may be useful in treatment of a small subset of cancers. Never forget that safety is extremely important in the medical field. Medications have complex (and many times unpredictable or long-term) interactions with the body. It would be irresponsible to release something like this without proper study.
Tl;dr - the body is very well-tuned to fight and avoid cancer. When one cell goes bad, that's all it takes.
Source: Worked in a laboratory which studied the free radical hypothesis of cancer genesis & I am a 3rd year pharmacy student
Yeah! what the hell happened to that story? I remember it was like 2004 or 5, a load of people took this trial and within a day most of them were sent into a coma, one of them had an enlarged head from swelling up really bad and a younger guy started having heart problems.
It was on the news for about a day, from what I experienced there was no follow up it seemed to be a story that just disappeared really quick. So they all died?
If it's by 2020 or 2080 it should happen eventually! (crosses fingers)
Then again we haven't found a cure for common cold yet so we might be waiting a long while...
stay at home in your bed
Most likely because there are so many different viruses behind common cold, and they change often. :P
We can create a vaccine for one of many common colds, and then it would be useless already, or body is the best one size fits all cure so far.
at least flu epidemics are largely the product of media hype these days, unlike end of XIX - early XX centuries.
The media does like to hype the end of the world, but in reality we don't really know how hard stuff will hit until the dust has settled.
LoL the worst thing about that comment and this thread is I just got finished watching that movie again last night, Talk about coincidence.
:poly122: