I'm friends with an immunology professor who has worked in the field in the US and is friends with several scientists tied to big-name pharmaceutical companies. They said that there is a possibility that these companies already have the final cure for cancer but that it's clearly much more profitable to keep a long-drawn battle for patients than having a one-shot miracle cure, because regardless of costs, the ethical implications would be huge, especially for people with less advantageous economical means around the world.

My personal/professional opinion is that cancer is too much of a complex disease to be able to figure out, not the core of it, but rather the complication. To connect this to what _Ocean Drive_ said about diabetes type 1, the problem is that although we know the function of cell, it's hard to program it in vitro to do a certain protein/function.

I do not hold part on either side, just wanted to throw this in.

My aunt, 45 years of age died last week of brain-cancer (glioblastoma multiforme), leaving behind a 10-year old son and a husband. Ever since her diagnosis in late 2013, the family invsted roughly 60.000€ (65.000 $) trying to beat it, although this cancer form is incurable.


Food for thought: http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jan2011/nci-12.htm

I'm sorry for your loss.

In the video, they explain that there's 300 types of cancer, and only certain methods and virii will work for certain cancers, but again, if this just cured one or two types in 50% of cases, that would probably save billions a year in cancer costs for patients globally.

The other thing is this is about concept; it's about harnessing a genetically engineered virus to attack cancer cells, rather than poisoning the body and hoping the cancer cells die before the host does.

I too have spoken to several doctors I know who are involved in a large Stem Cell research program here in LA and they too believe cancer "cures" are already known but big pharma need time to maneuver themselves in to market position (i.e ween us off the technologies which they still have money to be made from) before they will release them. They explain the long trials and approval process for any drug is actually an advantage to them in this case.

It's the same reason we're not all driving electric cars; the technology exists, it has done for over 100 years, but the car industry is so entwined with oil, that they have no interest making it happen faster and then a small company with big funding comes along like Tesla and puts market pressure on them. Imagine if say GM used all it's resources to just focus on an electric car (rather than killing it when they happened to nail it the first time, and then offering us the $40k Chevy Volt lol).

The concept is fantastic, but it's really curious as to which degree it can be implemented. Aggressive cancer cells replicate at an extremely fast rate, the more aggressive it is, the less characteristic the degree of anaplasia (condition whereby cells lose the morphological characteristics of mature cells) is present. So basically this virus would need to be able to identify all types of "broken" cells and destroy them. It's not simply a cancer/non-cancer cells issue.

To engineer a virus to such a degree where it's possible to read beyond the white/black of our cells is pretty incomprehensible to me. Not to mention the heaps of complications such as necrosis, neoformation vessels, but those can already be fixed with current non-citostatic medication.

I know that some months ago they were proposing a type of mechanisms where gold nano-particles would attack the core of cancer cells.

quote:

They explain the long trials and approval process for any drug is actually an advantage to them in this case.

Yea...it's funny though. In the US almost anything can be lobbied but not faster drug-approval. I guess the FDA are untouchable :P

Cancer is truly the hold grail of research.

You're right, but I think the approach of using differently engineered viruses for different cancers that manifest and replicate in differnt ways is going to be the key.

In the vid, one of the methods is to use the virus to make radioactive iodine bind to the cancer cells, thus killing them but not the surrounding or alternative tissues. Another was harnessing the virus to make the body itself (via white blood cells) attack the tumorous growths.

It's not about one vaccine to fir them all, but more about an approach of harnessing something that would normally infect us, infect a specific type of cell, in this cancer.

The FDA will actually allow fast tracking via their FTD program but the problem is it that it requires far more bureaucracy - you have to meet far more frequently and many more times with FDA officials, the burden of paperwork increases 5 fold and the dumb thing is, all these are costs to the developer.

You'd think that if you come up with something that meets the FTD criteria (it's for a serious and life-threatening condition, the initial trials have shown measurable promise, decreasing a clinically significant toxicity of an available treatment etc), the FDA would themselves put more effort in to take the burden off the developer but sadly it's not the case. Some smaller biotech firms simply don't have the resources to get through the FTD program.

Apparently last year there were less than 100 applications

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I think the approach of using differently engineered viruses for different cancers that manifest and replicate in differnt ways is going to be the key.[quote] I believe that eventually it will come down to cheap and fast methods of prophylaxis. The miracle cure for cancer...seems a bit too unrealistic. [quote]In the vid, one of the methods is to use the virus to make radioactive iodine bind to the cancer cells, thus killing them but not the surrounding or alternative tissues. Another was harnessing the virus to make the body itself (via white blood cells) attack the tumorous growths... infect a specific type of cell, in this cancer.

That's the problem, cancer-cells although being mutated are still viewed as 'self'. To engineer such a virus would be a next to impossible task - yet I digress, the experts know better than me it will be interesting to see how it progresses.

quote:

The FDA will actually allow fast tracking via their FTD program but the problem is it that it requires far more bureaucracy - you have to meet far more frequently and many more times with FDA officials, the burden of paperwork increases 5 fold and the dumb thing is, all these are costs to the developer. You'd think that if you come up with something that meets the FTD criteria (it's for a serious and life-threatening condition, the initial trials have shown measurable promise, decreasing a clinically significant toxicity of an available treatment etc), the FDA would themselves put more effort in to take the burden off the developer but sadly it's not the case. Some smaller biotech firms simply don't have the resources to get through the FTD program. Apparently last year there were less than 100 applications

From what I've read, most of these small-time labs wielding a profitable result end up being incorporated into the bigger firms. Buy-overs.

Speaking of pharmaceuticals, what the fuck happened to Fledz??