Possible cure for cancer found? "Australian scientists kill cancer cells with "trojan horse"

[Joemonkey]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: amdhunter
Oh well, even if it works; there is no money in a cure. Expect this news to disappear off the face of the planet/internet soon enough.

Explain the HPV vaccine then genius.

He can't. It's just cool to say the "no money in a cure" line in threads like this.

Think though, if we do find a cure for cancer how many other people will be out of a job! All those researchers, doctors, drug companies, pharmacists, and oncologists would be out on the street, the economy would take an even BIGGER dump than it has now!

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: amdhunter
Oh well, even if it works; there is no money in a cure. Expect this news to disappear off the face of the planet/internet soon enough.

Provided an actual cure for cancer existed, the company that owned it would stand to make TONS of money. Owning the cure and the rights would mean they could charge $10k (relatively reasonable price) per person and still make tens of billions every year, and they would need essentially zero dollars for cancer research. Millions of new cancer cases develop every year, so any cure wouldn't be the end of cancer forever. I'm sure all pharmaceutical companies would love to have a cure for cancer.

 

[Gibson486]

I will be happy if this does work (I really hope there is a cure...it saddens me when a glimmer of hope is shot away with bad results), but at the same time I will be saddened because I wish it would have come sooner....

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Joemonkey

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: amdhunter
Oh well, even if it works; there is no money in a cure. Expect this news to disappear off the face of the planet/internet soon enough.

Explain the HPV vaccine then genius.

He can't. It's just cool to say the "no money in a cure" line in threads like this.

Think though, if we do find a cure for cancer how many other people will be out of a job! All those researchers, doctors, drug companies, pharmacists, and oncologists would be out on the street, the economy would take an even BIGGER dump than it has now!

"Consequently, follow-up drug treatments can fail. The tumors thus become untreatable and continue to flourish, ultimately killing the patient," said Brahmbhatt.

"We want to be part of moving toward a time when cancers can be managed as a chronic disease rather than being regarded as a death sentence," he said.

Yeah, that sounds cheap...

 

[her209]

Also heard on the news the other day that a breast cancer drug was also developed that inhibits the cancer cells from being able to repair themselves.

 

[TecHNooB]

I'd like to see one of these breakthroughs actually make a large impact on curing cancer. Like an official statement that we can now cure cancer without the 28 weeks later

 

[Unheard]

Originally posted by: Gibson486
I will be happy if this does work (I really hope there is a cure...it saddens me when a glimmer of hope is shot away with bad results), but at the same time I will be saddened because I wish it would have come sooner....

You and me both.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Sea Moose
last good thing to come out the land of Aus was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01NHcTM5IA4

I think cure for cancer will boost our rep a bit?

Amazing. They can cure cancer, but they don't know how to make a link work.

ZV

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: mk52
They should use death row inmates as human test subjects in such drug trials.

Pay back society and accelerate medical discoveries -> win win

Sounds like 1939.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Sea Moose
last good thing to come out the land of Aus was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01NHcTM5IA4

I think cure for cancer will boost our rep a bit?

Amazing. They can cure cancer, but they don't know how to make a link work.

ZV

Or is he trying to tell us something?

 

[BW86]

awesome :thumbsup:

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: Sea Moose
AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE! wait the lab is in Melbourne? cure might as well come from europe, they are all fags down there



Take a few days off for that blast.

ATOT Moderator ElFenix

:thumbsup: mod

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: mk52
They should use death row inmates as human test subjects in such drug trials.

Pay back society and accelerate medical discoveries -> win win

It would be nice, were it not for that whole cruel and unusual punishment thing.

 

[Gibsons]

It still has the same targeting problem that every approach in these "may be a cure" articles has. They're using antibodies for their targeting, so nothing particularly new there. If there were a really good way to specifically target cancer cells, we would have had a cure a very long time ago.

Could possibly result in improved treatment for some cancers. But won't be useful at all against others.

 

[WA261]

Hmm..there are stories all of the time about cancer cures. It would be great if this one actually worked.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Sounds promising. Hopefully it works in humans.

I don't trust you *stares at username*

lol

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
It still has the same targeting problem that every approach in these "may be a cure" articles has. They're using antibodies for their targeting, so nothing particularly new there. If there were a really good way to specifically target cancer cells, we would have had a cure a very long time ago.

Could possibly result in improved treatment for some cancers. But won't be useful at all against others.

Explain further, please?

I didn't see a mention of antibodies in the article...

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: Sea Moose
AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE! wait the lab is in Melbourne? cure might as well come from europe, they are all fags down there



Take a few days off for that blast.

ATOT Moderator ElFenix

:thumbsup: mod

x2

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Gibsons
It still has the same targeting problem that every approach in these "may be a cure" articles has. They're using antibodies for their targeting, so nothing particularly new there. If there were a really good way to specifically target cancer cells, we would have had a cure a very long time ago.

Could possibly result in improved treatment for some cancers. But won't be useful at all against others.

Explain further, please?

I didn't see a mention of antibodies in the article...

There are all kinds of ways to kill cells. bazillions. The trick is killing tumor cells, ALL tumor cells, and leaving host cells alone. That's a Nobel.

The article doesn't mention it because it's popular press...

In the research article (in Nature Biotechnology), they state (pardon the formatting it's from the PDF):

We used BsAb to target recombinant minicells to tumor cells,
as described previously9. One arm of these antibodies recognizes
the O-polysaccharide component of the minicell surface lipopolysaccharide
and the other, a tumor-preferential cell surface?receptor,
such as the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), which is
overexpressed in several cancers19

BsAb = bi-specific antibodies.
So, EGFR is expressed on some cancer cells and you can target those cells with antibodies. They used a human tumor cell line (uterine) known to express EGFR, put it into nude mice and used their approach to treat the mice. It's easier to be specific that way, as the mouse host cells don't express human EGFR.

Not all tumors have a convenient marker on their surface. There are cytotoxic antibody approaches that have been available for years (I would a assume some against EGFR) and have been used with mixed results.

The other thing I'd worry about is an immune response against these mini cells. The minicells are basically bacterial and contain some really highly immunogenic molecules, including the lipopolysaccharide they mention. This won't be a problem in nude mice, but could be a problem in anything with a functional immune system. I didn't read closely enough to see if they addressed that.

EDIT: On closer reading, they do address the immunity problem, but only have some preliminary data.

Also for the conspiracy nutjob wackos who pollute every cancer thread, this tidbit under Acknowledgements:

"The authors dedicate this paper to R.M.G.?s mother, who died of metastatic renal cell carcinoma on August 5, 2008."

RMG is Robert M Graham, one of the authors.

 

[irishScott]

Hope it works out, but keep in mind there have been thousands of "promising" cures for cancer over the last few decades that never materialized. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Gibsons
It still has the same targeting problem that every approach in these "may be a cure" articles has. They're using antibodies for their targeting, so nothing particularly new there. If there were a really good way to specifically target cancer cells, we would have had a cure a very long time ago.

Could possibly result in improved treatment for some cancers. But won't be useful at all against others.

Explain further, please?

I didn't see a mention of antibodies in the article...

There are all kinds of ways to kill cells. bazillions. The trick is killing tumor cells, ALL tumor cells, and leaving host cells alone. That's a Nobel.

The article doesn't mention it because it's popular press...

In the research article (in Nature Biotechnology), they state (pardon the formatting it's from the PDF):

We used BsAb to target recombinant minicells to tumor cells,
as described previously9. One arm of these antibodies recognizes
the O-polysaccharide component of the minicell surface lipopolysaccharide
and the other, a tumor-preferential cell surface?receptor,
such as the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), which is
overexpressed in several cancers19

BsAb = bi-specific antibodies.
So, EGFR is expressed on some cancer cells and you can target those cells with antibodies. They used a human tumor cell line (uterine) known to express EGFR, put it into nude mice and used their approach to treat the mice. It's easier to be specific that way, as the mouse host cells don't express human EGFR.

Not all tumors have a convenient marker on their surface. There are cytotoxic antibody approaches that have been available for years (I would a assume some against EGFR) and have been used with mixed results.

The other thing I'd worry about is an immune response against these mini cells. The minicells are basically bacterial and contain some really highly immunogenic molecules, including the lipopolysaccharide they mention. This won't be a problem in nude mice, but could be a problem in anything with a functional immune system. I didn't read closely enough to see if they addressed that.

That, and they didn't reference metastasized cancer at all. My mom has so much cancer in her intestines that to remove it, even if the cancer was specifically targeted, would mean her intestines would be shredded.

 

[Mo0o]

Doesnt seem that impressive. These supposed silverbullet cancer drugs are getting more and more common. It can only target cancers that express EGFR. Sounds like the Trastuzumab-DM1 that's supposedly in trials right now where they link herceptin w/ a cytotoxic drug and its suppose to be some uber magic bullet for HER2+ breast cancers

 

[Sea Moose]

Bump - I fixed my posts

 

[Candymancan21]

12 years to late for my dad sadly..

 

[Sea Moose]

Originally posted by: Candymancan21
12 years to late for my dad sadly..

Im sorry to hear this