"Research reveals that significantly more genetic mutations lead to colon cancer", than previously t

coloCan

at:newswise.com/articles/view/578736?print-article

"Researchers at UT Southwestern Medical center say there are at least70 genetic mutations involved in the formation of colon cancer,far more than scientists previously thought." and implications pertaining to treatments........

Buckwirth

(hopefully) live link
Genetic Mutations

John23

Behind the scenes

Just a quick sampling:

http://www.texaswatchdog.org/

http://blog.chron.com

http://dallashealthcare.blogspot.com

It's always fun to check the "honesty level" of those we might want to trust.

Best health to all,

John

pete43lost_at_sea

John23 said:

Behind the scenes

Just a quick sampling:

http://www.texaswatchdog.org/

http://blog.chron.com

http://dallashealthcare.blogspot.com

It's always fun to check the "honesty level" of those we might want to trust.

Best health to all,

John

good point john
who can we trust ?

i wonder if they are hiding something ?

the research is interesing.

it implies current treatments are missing pathways.

hugs,

pete

Buckwirth

John23 said:

Behind the scenes

Just a quick sampling:

http://www.texaswatchdog.org/

http://blog.chron.com

http://dallashealthcare.blogspot.com

It's always fun to check the "honesty level" of those we might want to trust.

Best health to all,

John

Not to worry John
Isaac Newton was a racist, so gravity does not exist.

We don't assess the value of ideas based on the person who has them, we assess the value of ideas based on the evidence for or against them. The fact that an organization is involved in unethical billing practices does not make their research any better or worse, in fact, the review process is in place to make sure that the research is what matters, not where the research came from.

coloCan

Buckwirth said:

Not to worry John
Isaac Newton was a racist, so gravity does not exist.

We don't assess the value of ideas based on the person who has them, we assess the value of ideas based on the evidence for or against them. The fact that an organization is involved in unethical billing practices does not make their research any better or worse, in fact, the review process is in place to make sure that the research is what matters, not where the research came from.

An employee from MSK was recently arrested for appropriating
and reselling for personal gain hospital supplies (printer toner? --i don't recall exactly)....Surely this cannot detract from the valuable work done by all the others employed at MSK...Likewise,tho i don't personally know the researchers involved in the article cited i do believe their conclusions valid regardless of whatever financial shennanigans perpetuated by administrators of that hospital.....While at times one hears of researchers/scientists falsifying data,etc and the sponsor or underwriter of some studies may exert unwarranted influence on conclusions reached, i try to avoid as much as possible such tainted info.....

John23

Buckwirth said:

Not to worry John
Isaac Newton was a racist, so gravity does not exist.

We don't assess the value of ideas based on the person who has them, we assess the value of ideas based on the evidence for or against them. The fact that an organization is involved in unethical billing practices does not make their research any better or worse, in fact, the review process is in place to make sure that the research is what matters, not where the research came from.

Blake -

Re:
"The fact that an organization is involved in unethical billing
practices does not make their research any better or worse,"

How about: Evidence backing ideas are often offset by "motives.

A simple hypothetical:

Members of the insurance industry realize that increased insurance
premium charges can be applied to those that can be deemed as
members of a "high risk" group.

The companies "donate" large sums of funds to help produce
"proof" that there can be a genetic marker to indicate a higher
risk of getting cancer.

The "research" institution needs funds to operate, and welcomes
the chartering of any industry to do the research for them.

Was that too "far fetched"? It's unfortunate, but that is exactly
what occurs on a daily basis.

The industry that pays for the research, owns that research.
The reports that follow, are the property of the ones paying
for it; they can release, change, alter, or omit any part of the
report they desire, without legal obligation.

All too often, there is no need to alter or omit; the institution
providing the research, provides what is desired by the industry.

If my thinking were prejudiced, I would apologize and move on,
but when the institution involved has a background of impropriety,
there is more than enough reason to doubt the integrity of the
research reports involved.

Proving that cancer is a genetic issue that can be indicated
at an early age, when there are absolutely no other indications
that cancer will ever be a problem... can prove to be very
lucrative data to sport by any insurance or credit agency.

When you want to see the truth of anything, simply follow
the money trail.

Best of health to you!

John

Buckwirth

John23 said:

Blake -

Re:
"The fact that an organization is involved in unethical billing
practices does not make their research any better or worse,"

How about: Evidence backing ideas are often offset by "motives.

A simple hypothetical:

Members of the insurance industry realize that increased insurance
premium charges can be applied to those that can be deemed as
members of a "high risk" group.

The companies "donate" large sums of funds to help produce
"proof" that there can be a genetic marker to indicate a higher
risk of getting cancer.

The "research" institution needs funds to operate, and welcomes
the chartering of any industry to do the research for them.

Was that too "far fetched"? It's unfortunate, but that is exactly
what occurs on a daily basis.

The industry that pays for the research, owns that research.
The reports that follow, are the property of the ones paying
for it; they can release, change, alter, or omit any part of the
report they desire, without legal obligation.

All too often, there is no need to alter or omit; the institution
providing the research, provides what is desired by the industry.

If my thinking were prejudiced, I would apologize and move on,
but when the institution involved has a background of impropriety,
there is more than enough reason to doubt the integrity of the
research reports involved.

Proving that cancer is a genetic issue that can be indicated
at an early age, when there are absolutely no other indications
that cancer will ever be a problem... can prove to be very
lucrative data to sport by any insurance or credit agency.

When you want to see the truth of anything, simply follow
the money trail.

Best of health to you!

John

John,
You miss the point here (and it makes your hypothetical situation moot).

This is not looking for genetic marker, it is noting genetic mutations that cause a normal cell to become a cancer cell. For the most part, these are not identifiable without a biopsy of the cancerous cell to begin with.

One thing this is not about is lynch syndrome, though it may help with eventual treatments as the final product is pretty much the same regardless.

No testing to find at an early age, just information needed if we are going to find a way to an effective life saving treatment.

So, no evil insurance company plot.

Look up Gleevec. This has been a very successful treatment for chronic myelogenous leukemia, and it works by blocking a protein at the chromosomal level. Currently, this is the track that holds the most promise for a "cure", though it is more a treatment as chronic disease. Those with CML take Gleevec continuously, with minimal side effects, and it sends the disease into complete remission, usually permanently.

Discovering Gleevec first required a good understanding of what chromosome had mutated, which is what the good researchers at UT Southwestern have done here, with a Government grant BTW, not an industry funded one.

John23

Buckwirth said:

John,
You miss the point here (and it makes your hypothetical situation moot).

This is not looking for genetic marker, it is noting genetic mutations that cause a normal cell to become a cancer cell. For the most part, these are not identifiable without a biopsy of the cancerous cell to begin with.

One thing this is not about is lynch syndrome, though it may help with eventual treatments as the final product is pretty much the same regardless.

No testing to find at an early age, just information needed if we are going to find a way to an effective life saving treatment.

So, no evil insurance company plot.

Look up Gleevec. This has been a very successful treatment for chronic myelogenous leukemia, and it works by blocking a protein at the chromosomal level. Currently, this is the track that holds the most promise for a "cure", though it is more a treatment as chronic disease. Those with CML take Gleevec continuously, with minimal side effects, and it sends the disease into complete remission, usually permanently.

Discovering Gleevec first required a good understanding of what chromosome had mutated, which is what the good researchers at UT Southwestern have done here, with a Government grant BTW, not an industry funded one.

Gleevec.

"Gleevec® Side Effects
A recent study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine,
publicized the disturbing side effects – heart failure and
problems in remodeling bones – some Gleevec® patients have
experienced.

The study recommended that all patients taking Gleevec® be
closely monitored for these dangerous side effects. Those who
have taken the drug before the study was publicized in July 2006,
however, might not have had the benefit of this monitoring – and
may have suffered from dangerous side effects, including heart
failure. If you or a loved one has taken Gleevec® and have
suffered bone- or heart-related side effects, you may be able to
pursue a claim against the manufacturer, Swiss drugmaker Novartis
Pharmaceuticals."

Gleevec® Side Effects

----------
Fredrick L. Dunn, M.D.
Associate Professor of Internal Medicine
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas

Fredrick L. Dunn, M.D. was the Head of Clinical Research for
Metabolism and Endocrinology at Tularik, Inc, where he led the
successful phase 2a “proof of concept” study for T-131 (now
INT-131). At Tularik, he was responsible for the clinical
development of a number of metabolic compounds in diabetes,
obesity and dyslipidemia.Dr. Dunn has over 10 years of
experience in the pharmaceutical industry, including positions at
Novartis Pharmaceuticals as Global Head, Diabetes Clinical
Research, and at Merck & Co as Executive Director, Academic and
Professional Affairs. Prior to joining industry, Dr. Dunn served
on the faculties of the Joslin Diabetes Center (Boston), Harvard
Medical School and Duke University Medical Center. He received
his medical degree from the University of Illinois at Chicago,
and completed his residency in Internal Medicine and fellowship
in Endocrinology and Metabolism at the University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas. After the acquisition of
Tularik by Amgen, Inc, Dr. Dunn returned to an academic position
where he is currently Associate Professor of Internal Medicine at
the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.
------------

Life's good; everyone plays nice.

My best, as always,

John

Buckwirth

John23 said:

Gleevec.

"Gleevec® Side Effects
A recent study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine,
publicized the disturbing side effects – heart failure and
problems in remodeling bones – some Gleevec® patients have
experienced.

The study recommended that all patients taking Gleevec® be
closely monitored for these dangerous side effects. Those who
have taken the drug before the study was publicized in July 2006,
however, might not have had the benefit of this monitoring – and
may have suffered from dangerous side effects, including heart
failure. If you or a loved one has taken Gleevec® and have
suffered bone- or heart-related side effects, you may be able to
pursue a claim against the manufacturer, Swiss drugmaker Novartis
Pharmaceuticals."

Gleevec® Side Effects

----------
Fredrick L. Dunn, M.D.
Associate Professor of Internal Medicine
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas

Fredrick L. Dunn, M.D. was the Head of Clinical Research for
Metabolism and Endocrinology at Tularik, Inc, where he led the
successful phase 2a “proof of concept” study for T-131 (now
INT-131). At Tularik, he was responsible for the clinical
development of a number of metabolic compounds in diabetes,
obesity and dyslipidemia.Dr. Dunn has over 10 years of
experience in the pharmaceutical industry, including positions at
Novartis Pharmaceuticals as Global Head, Diabetes Clinical
Research, and at Merck & Co as Executive Director, Academic and
Professional Affairs. Prior to joining industry, Dr. Dunn served
on the faculties of the Joslin Diabetes Center (Boston), Harvard
Medical School and Duke University Medical Center. He received
his medical degree from the University of Illinois at Chicago,
and completed his residency in Internal Medicine and fellowship
in Endocrinology and Metabolism at the University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas. After the acquisition of
Tularik by Amgen, Inc, Dr. Dunn returned to an academic position
where he is currently Associate Professor of Internal Medicine at
the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.
------------

Life's good; everyone plays nice.

My best, as always,

John

Wow!
A researcher once worked for a pharma company!

I am shocked, shocked to find gambling in this establishment!

My point remains, the study was not funded by any pharma company

and play nice John, I did not say no side effects, I said minimal.

For those with MCL, the drug is a miracle. There were fewer than 5,000 patients dx in year, and the survival rate was poor. Since Gleevec, the five year survival rate is about 90%.

The drug company did not even want to invest in the clinical studies, the cancer was so rare.

I would take those risks any day of week if they were offered to me.