Its a start:"Genetically engineered virus kills liver cancer"...plus other stuff

2»

Comments

  • vinaykumar
    vinaykumar Member Posts: 66 Member

    give them a break tony

    only joking, but they have to put gas in the corporate jet and for all the conferences in exostic locations.

    in big pharma defence, they do have a heart, they gave me $26000 worth of folfox for free on compassionate grounds early on when it was not covered by national health.

    not sure if thats good or bad.

     

    i have this love hate relationship with big pharma, i love the off label drugs the design so we can use them. that takes cash, researchers, testing etc etc.

    i hate all the bad things they do.

    i personally skip the big pharma issue and focus on my key care objectives, big pharma is a difficult target, dc vaccines are an easy medical product to implement i think.

    its not a drug, its a therapy, so it does not really interfere with big pharma.

    i can see a day, when all resections get a vaccine shot or shots, then if you recurr well it might be another vaccine, when that therapy is exhuasted if it fails, you may well progress to chemo folfox etc etc. its possible to change the mix of these therapies. it just makes so much sense to try immunotherapy as a 1st line not a last resort as you are accessing the immune system before its damaged.

    hugs,

    pete

    ps i wonder why the american cancer society does not take a leadership role in this area, are we members of the society, are they obliged to listen to our concerns as members, do we have a vote, a voice as a community ? i wonder. no pressure, no hostility, just curious.

    i have been going through

    i have been going through promising cancer treatment and came up with something called the GIFT / LIFT therapy which was thought to be the cure for cancer but the promised trails never materialsed in a big  way.

     

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http://voices.yahoo.com/cure-cancer-lift-treatment-now-entering-human-1617883.html&ei=PhEbUfjzOsSPrgfd7YCYCQ&usg=AFQjCNEp4ao86EuTGh6qJt4rdgG-WXM2pg&sig2=DkA0tqwJbkYd0mU6b7Fctg&bvm=bv.42261806,d.bmk

     

    http://voices.yahoo.com/cure-cancer-lift-treatment-now-entering-human-1617883.html?cat=70

     

    http://www.wakehealth.edu/Research/Tumor-Biology/Zheng-Cui,-MD-PhD.htm

     

    it looks like this company (www.munogenics.com  ) is trying to do the trails but is short on funding again .....i wonder why such promising treatments are held up for funding 

     

     

    now it seems this company is appealing for funds for research...

     

    http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/munogenics-g-i-f-t-project

  • renw
    renw Member Posts: 282 Member

    give them a break tony

    only joking, but they have to put gas in the corporate jet and for all the conferences in exostic locations.

    in big pharma defence, they do have a heart, they gave me $26000 worth of folfox for free on compassionate grounds early on when it was not covered by national health.

    not sure if thats good or bad.

     

    i have this love hate relationship with big pharma, i love the off label drugs the design so we can use them. that takes cash, researchers, testing etc etc.

    i hate all the bad things they do.

    i personally skip the big pharma issue and focus on my key care objectives, big pharma is a difficult target, dc vaccines are an easy medical product to implement i think.

    its not a drug, its a therapy, so it does not really interfere with big pharma.

    i can see a day, when all resections get a vaccine shot or shots, then if you recurr well it might be another vaccine, when that therapy is exhuasted if it fails, you may well progress to chemo folfox etc etc. its possible to change the mix of these therapies. it just makes so much sense to try immunotherapy as a 1st line not a last resort as you are accessing the immune system before its damaged.

    hugs,

    pete

    ps i wonder why the american cancer society does not take a leadership role in this area, are we members of the society, are they obliged to listen to our concerns as members, do we have a vote, a voice as a community ? i wonder. no pressure, no hostility, just curious.

    The CEO of any company has
    The CEO of any company has the responsibility to maximize the profits for its shareholders. Finding and releasing an effective cancer cure would be extremely bad for business when there are billions to make from ongoing chemo treatments.

    I simply don't believe that if big pharma earning billions from chemo drugs had a cure for cancer that they would make it available. Hell, they probably have a cure already.
  • renw
    renw Member Posts: 282 Member

    Sorry Tedd

    But getting a patent on a virus (or plant) that hasn't been modified genetically can't be done, at least from my research that appears to be the case, please send me a link showing otherwise.

    No conspiracy, just cold hard economic facts. Of course there is no conspiracy to kill people there is also no desire to cure people unless there is a profit in it, or am I wrong on that?

    NDV is not 'anecdotal' look at the research from the past 40+ years, maybe even contact the researchers as I have.

    Prof. Schirmacher 

    Prof. Csatary

    Prof. Slavin

    I have read Prof. Schirrmachers response in the literature to 'new patented' oncolytic virus's being discovered and his sheer disbelief that NDV is being ignored even after proven saftey and excellent results.

    The system is flawed and driven by $$$, sad but true.

    Also isn't it true that in the last three years alone 'Big Pharma' has paid over $11,000,000,000, in fines!!! that  11 billion could have done a lot for cancer research.

    "In all, 26 companies, including eight of the 10 top players in the global industry, have been found to be acting dishonestly. The scale of the wrongdoing, revealed for the first time, has undermined public and professional trust in the industry and is holding back clinical progress, according to two papers published in today's New England Journal of Medicine. Leading lawyers have warned that the multibillion-dollar fines are not enough to change the industry's behaviour."

    GlaxoSmithKline were fined a
    GlaxoSmithKline were fined a record 3 billion. It is speculated that they earned 5 billion as a result of their activities. Even with the fine, that still leaves 2b, which is a decent profit so why not rinse and repeat?
  • coloCan
    coloCan Member Posts: 1,944 Member
    renw said:

    The CEO of any company has
    The CEO of any company has the responsibility to maximize the profits for its shareholders. Finding and releasing an effective cancer cure would be extremely bad for business when there are billions to make from ongoing chemo treatments.

    I simply don't believe that if big pharma earning billions from chemo drugs had a cure for cancer that they would make it available. Hell, they probably have a cure already.

    as i started this post with the liver, check this out

    (but hold the bacon)

    www.mayoclinic.org/news2013-rst/7303.html

    and from the same source as the above,there's this

    www.jci.org/articles/view/65188

    (tho i have no idea what most of this one means)

     

  • tachilders
    tachilders Member Posts: 313
    renw said:

    The CEO of any company has
    The CEO of any company has the responsibility to maximize the profits for its shareholders. Finding and releasing an effective cancer cure would be extremely bad for business when there are billions to make from ongoing chemo treatments.

    I simply don't believe that if big pharma earning billions from chemo drugs had a cure for cancer that they would make it available. Hell, they probably have a cure already.

    Believe me, if big pharma had

    Believe me, if big pharma had a cure for cancer they would sell it.  Your market is still everyone who gets cancer, and if you had a vaccine that would prevent cancer, your market would be everyone in the world.  The money made off of a cure would be many times higher than treating cancer.

    Tedd

  • Sundanceh
    Sundanceh Member Posts: 4,392 Member

    Believe me, if big pharma had

    Believe me, if big pharma had a cure for cancer they would sell it.  Your market is still everyone who gets cancer, and if you had a vaccine that would prevent cancer, your market would be everyone in the world.  The money made off of a cure would be many times higher than treating cancer.

    Tedd

    Exactly, Tedd

    If they can charge what they charge for treatments....how much do you think The Cure would cost?  You got it right....they could ask anything they wanted for it.  

    In today's leaky world, how long do we really think The Cure would be kept a secret?  None of those people hiding the cure from everyone never had their loved ones or someone they know with cancer and not give them The Cure? 

    We're that airtight as a society that we can closet that kind of information?

    Here's really the big problem with all of this...The Cure isn't coming...not in the way that we expect it to...because Cure connotates this image of one size fits all...

    Besides all of the various strains of any individual cancer...like adeocarcinoma vs signet cell vs lynch....we can't even cure one of these...how are we possibly going to cure all of the subsets within each cancer....all the way up and down the cancer line?

    And even if we get that right...it will always boil down to the same argument...We All React Differently...and as such any positive response would vary individual by individual.

    What will probably happen is that some form of treatment will be created that works on some of us - but not everyone. 

    The individuality of each individual will be the deciding factor as to who responds and who does not.

    Something better, something different....but not one End All - Be All...

    But there is not going to be one "blanket effect" treatment that you take and then voila.

     

     

  • coloCan
    coloCan Member Posts: 1,944 Member
    Sundanceh said:

    Exactly, Tedd

    If they can charge what they charge for treatments....how much do you think The Cure would cost?  You got it right....they could ask anything they wanted for it.  

    In today's leaky world, how long do we really think The Cure would be kept a secret?  None of those people hiding the cure from everyone never had their loved ones or someone they know with cancer and not give them The Cure? 

    We're that airtight as a society that we can closet that kind of information?

    Here's really the big problem with all of this...The Cure isn't coming...not in the way that we expect it to...because Cure connotates this image of one size fits all...

    Besides all of the various strains of any individual cancer...like adeocarcinoma vs signet cell vs lynch....we can't even cure one of these...how are we possibly going to cure all of the subsets within each cancer....all the way up and down the cancer line?

    And even if we get that right...it will always boil down to the same argument...We All React Differently...and as such any positive response would vary individual by individual.

    What will probably happen is that some form of treatment will be created that works on some of us - but not everyone. 

    The individuality of each individual will be the deciding factor as to who responds and who does not.

    Something better, something different....but not one End All - Be All...

    But there is not going to be one "blanket effect" treatment that you take and then voila.

     

     

    There will NEVER be a "cure" due to the propensity of humanity

    to over and over again continue to destroy this planet; there is NO unpolluted air,water or soil anywhere and this is sixty years after "Silent Spring"!Research what GMOs are already doing to every life form that comes in contact with these gov't approved poisons (EXCEPT the insects they were meant to kill,whhich are adapting,like cancer cells do under chemo sometimes), which will also cause cancer as more people become more exposed to them.....Cancer is too complex for there to be one,sole cure,if you ask me

  • tachilders
    tachilders Member Posts: 313
    Sundanceh said:

    Exactly, Tedd

    If they can charge what they charge for treatments....how much do you think The Cure would cost?  You got it right....they could ask anything they wanted for it.  

    In today's leaky world, how long do we really think The Cure would be kept a secret?  None of those people hiding the cure from everyone never had their loved ones or someone they know with cancer and not give them The Cure? 

    We're that airtight as a society that we can closet that kind of information?

    Here's really the big problem with all of this...The Cure isn't coming...not in the way that we expect it to...because Cure connotates this image of one size fits all...

    Besides all of the various strains of any individual cancer...like adeocarcinoma vs signet cell vs lynch....we can't even cure one of these...how are we possibly going to cure all of the subsets within each cancer....all the way up and down the cancer line?

    And even if we get that right...it will always boil down to the same argument...We All React Differently...and as such any positive response would vary individual by individual.

    What will probably happen is that some form of treatment will be created that works on some of us - but not everyone. 

    The individuality of each individual will be the deciding factor as to who responds and who does not.

    Something better, something different....but not one End All - Be All...

    But there is not going to be one "blanket effect" treatment that you take and then voila.

     

     

    The most likely "cure" will

    The most likely "cure" will be a completely customized vaccine made specifically against your specific cancer type.  Of course, that currently would take over a year to develop, and would likely cost close to a million dollars to develop, even if it could be developed.  The main problem is that our cancer cells are able to avoid detection by the immune system as foreign, and thus are not targeted for death like they should be by the immune system.  Therefore, we need to develop a way to get the immune system to recognize these cancer cells as foreign and destroy them, which is where the viruses come in.  If you can get a virus to infect the cancer cell, the cancer cell will display the viral proteins/antigens on its surface, allowing the immune system to recognize the cancer cell as foreign and destroy it.  Right now, we simply don't have a virus available that will infect only cancer cells, and every type of cancer cells.  The beauty of a cancer vaccine is that the immune system has memory, so if the cancer cell ever comes back, the immune system will recognize it and kill it all over again.  Unfortunately, we are likely 10 or more years from this technolgy being readily available and approved for use by FDA (might be closer to 20 years or never if we can't get a vaccine that works broadly enough)....

     

    My company is currently working on an antibody therapy to treat canine (dog) lymphoma, similar to Removab and anti-lymphoma antibodies for humans that are being worked on.  Actually, another animal health company just released an anti-lymphoma antibody for dogs, but i haven't seen the data on how well it works.  Part of the problem is that many studies for these therapies are run on people that have failed every other therapy, and are near death with completely shot immune systems.

    Tedd

  • pete43lost_at_sea
    pete43lost_at_sea Member Posts: 3,900 Member

    The most likely "cure" will

    The most likely "cure" will be a completely customized vaccine made specifically against your specific cancer type.  Of course, that currently would take over a year to develop, and would likely cost close to a million dollars to develop, even if it could be developed.  The main problem is that our cancer cells are able to avoid detection by the immune system as foreign, and thus are not targeted for death like they should be by the immune system.  Therefore, we need to develop a way to get the immune system to recognize these cancer cells as foreign and destroy them, which is where the viruses come in.  If you can get a virus to infect the cancer cell, the cancer cell will display the viral proteins/antigens on its surface, allowing the immune system to recognize the cancer cell as foreign and destroy it.  Right now, we simply don't have a virus available that will infect only cancer cells, and every type of cancer cells.  The beauty of a cancer vaccine is that the immune system has memory, so if the cancer cell ever comes back, the immune system will recognize it and kill it all over again.  Unfortunately, we are likely 10 or more years from this technolgy being readily available and approved for use by FDA (might be closer to 20 years or never if we can't get a vaccine that works broadly enough)....

     

    My company is currently working on an antibody therapy to treat canine (dog) lymphoma, similar to Removab and anti-lymphoma antibodies for humans that are being worked on.  Actually, another animal health company just released an anti-lymphoma antibody for dogs, but i haven't seen the data on how well it works.  Part of the problem is that many studies for these therapies are run on people that have failed every other therapy, and are near death with completely shot immune systems.

    Tedd

    you got the science correct but missed one little point

    lets call it super ndv, the i have has been mutated

    its used to infect all my tumour cells, the vaccine is trained to go after and eat ndv tagged cells. its working right now i pray, i get the cea score tomorrow.

    ted, lets run the study on us, before we get close to the end.

    i think its worth a shot mate, i hope i see you or any healthy colorectal tourists to try some immunotherapy before hardcore systemic chemo.

    i could type 100 pages about whats going down each day, the science, the logistics, its all fun, challenging and rewarding. it keeps my mind away from anything scary.

    the intensity to pull these therapies together is extreme. thats the hardest thing i think about my little path, its bloody hard.

    i watched soccer tonight in the smokers bar with a friendly bunch of germans. they bought my a schnaps, i had to skull it. it was good.

    the first schanp in a long time. going off the air for a fews days, driving into clinics, exploring the forests and saunas, and helping my first cancer friend goto duderstadt, i catch up with you guys when i am back online. i am giving them some gcmaf yogurt for a week, i got heaps.

    hugs,

    pete

  • coloCan
    coloCan Member Posts: 1,944 Member

    The most likely "cure" will

    The most likely "cure" will be a completely customized vaccine made specifically against your specific cancer type.  Of course, that currently would take over a year to develop, and would likely cost close to a million dollars to develop, even if it could be developed.  The main problem is that our cancer cells are able to avoid detection by the immune system as foreign, and thus are not targeted for death like they should be by the immune system.  Therefore, we need to develop a way to get the immune system to recognize these cancer cells as foreign and destroy them, which is where the viruses come in.  If you can get a virus to infect the cancer cell, the cancer cell will display the viral proteins/antigens on its surface, allowing the immune system to recognize the cancer cell as foreign and destroy it.  Right now, we simply don't have a virus available that will infect only cancer cells, and every type of cancer cells.  The beauty of a cancer vaccine is that the immune system has memory, so if the cancer cell ever comes back, the immune system will recognize it and kill it all over again.  Unfortunately, we are likely 10 or more years from this technolgy being readily available and approved for use by FDA (might be closer to 20 years or never if we can't get a vaccine that works broadly enough)....

     

    My company is currently working on an antibody therapy to treat canine (dog) lymphoma, similar to Removab and anti-lymphoma antibodies for humans that are being worked on.  Actually, another animal health company just released an anti-lymphoma antibody for dogs, but i haven't seen the data on how well it works.  Part of the problem is that many studies for these therapies are run on people that have failed every other therapy, and are near death with completely shot immune systems.

    Tedd

    as an example of immune "memory"

    (tho here not with cancer)

    http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2013/february/dirt.html

     

     

     

  • vinaykumar
    vinaykumar Member Posts: 66 Member

    The most likely "cure" will

    The most likely "cure" will be a completely customized vaccine made specifically against your specific cancer type.  Of course, that currently would take over a year to develop, and would likely cost close to a million dollars to develop, even if it could be developed.  The main problem is that our cancer cells are able to avoid detection by the immune system as foreign, and thus are not targeted for death like they should be by the immune system.  Therefore, we need to develop a way to get the immune system to recognize these cancer cells as foreign and destroy them, which is where the viruses come in.  If you can get a virus to infect the cancer cell, the cancer cell will display the viral proteins/antigens on its surface, allowing the immune system to recognize the cancer cell as foreign and destroy it.  Right now, we simply don't have a virus available that will infect only cancer cells, and every type of cancer cells.  The beauty of a cancer vaccine is that the immune system has memory, so if the cancer cell ever comes back, the immune system will recognize it and kill it all over again.  Unfortunately, we are likely 10 or more years from this technolgy being readily available and approved for use by FDA (might be closer to 20 years or never if we can't get a vaccine that works broadly enough)....

     

    My company is currently working on an antibody therapy to treat canine (dog) lymphoma, similar to Removab and anti-lymphoma antibodies for humans that are being worked on.  Actually, another animal health company just released an anti-lymphoma antibody for dogs, but i haven't seen the data on how well it works.  Part of the problem is that many studies for these therapies are run on people that have failed every other therapy, and are near death with completely shot immune systems.

    Tedd

    here is another approach

    here is another approach being tried out

     

    http://www.cancerresearch.org/real-stories/scientists/jeffrey-chou-making-colorectal-cancer-more-vulnerable-to-immune-control/

     

    http://cancerimmunity.org/v13p3/