eat my cancer please

[Slappie 9]

Common virus kills cancer

Quote

A common virus that is harmless to people can destroy cancerous cells in the body and might be developed into a new cancer therapy, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday.

The virus, called adeno-associated virus type 2, or AAV-2, infects an estimated 80 percent of the population.

"Our results suggest that adeno-associated virus type 2, which infects the majority of the population but has no known ill effects, kills multiple types of cancer cells yet has no effect on healthy cells," said Craig Meyers, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the Penn State College of Medicine in Pennsylvania.

"We believe that AAV-2 recognizes that the cancer cells are abnormal and destroys them. This suggests that AAV-2 has great potential to be developed as an anti-cancer agent," Meyers said in a statement.

He said at a meeting of the American Society for Virology that studies have shown women infected with AAV-2 who are also infected with a cancer-causing wart virus called HPV develop cervical cancer less frequently than uninfected women do.

AAV-2 is a small virus that cannot replicate itself without the help of another virus. But with the help of a second virus it kills cells.

For their study, Meyers and colleagues first infected a batch of human cells with HPV, some strains of which cause cervical cancer.

They then infected these cells and normal cells with AAV-2.

After six days, all the HPV-infected cells died.

The same thing happened with cervical, breast, prostate and squamous cell tumor cells.

All are cancers of the epithelial cells, which include skin cells and other cells that line the insides and outsides of organs.

"One of the most compelling findings is that AAV-2 appears to have no pathologic effects on healthy cells," Meyers said.

"So many cancer therapies are as poisonous to healthy cells as they are to cancer cells. A therapy that is able to distinguish between healthy and cancer cells could be less difficult to endure for those with cancer."

AAV-2 is being studied intensively as a gene therapy vector -- a virus modified to carry disease-correcting genes into the body. Gene therapy researchers favor it because it does not seem to cause disease or immune system reaction on its own.

Do you really think the cancer researchers and the companies that fund them are taking a serious look at this? Those companies and hospitals want a cure for cancer about as much as I want to have a baseball shoved up my ass. They would all go broke if there was a cure.... /rant off

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."

[wildcard451 0]

Quote

Do you really think the cancer researchers and the companies that fund them are taking a serious look at this? Those companies and hospitals want a cure for cancer about as much as I want to have a baseball shoved up my ass. They would all go broke if there was a cure.... /rant off

Oh fuck off. I bet that is exactly what every doctor in those hospitals thinks every time they diagnose another patient with cancer.

"Sweet, job security"

I know that's what I think every time I see a new one. Means I'll still have a job in a year when I graduate.

you can have your rant, I'll have mine.

[kelel01 1]

I'm with Brandon.

Wouldn't you rather be the guy who cured cancer and saved millions of lives, then that guy with a shitload of money?

I'm sure that there is not yet a solid cure for cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer's, and anything else that's terminal/chronic. I have more faith in people than to believe that there is, and that it's being withheld to make more money.

[BGill 0]

i agree with brandon as well.

even when breakthroughs come out, there is still buttloads of testing and whatnot that has to be done before it can even be considered being available for public use. they have to prove its effectiveness, prove its safety, document all side effects, and this all has to be done on human subjects, not just lab rats.

[narcimund 0]

You two optimists are both partially right, but you draw the wrong conclusion. Individuals in the health care community are indeed motivated by good will, like you said. Doctors do not celebrate the new cases of cancer and researchers would love the prestige and satisfaction of discoveries.

However, the institutions are not. The systems are motivated by fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. In fact, directors of a corporation are liable for losses caused by some kinds of decisions if they lose value for the shareholders. In principle, the board of Merck could be sued or even go to prison if they authorized the research that led to a cheap cure for cancer which resulted in massive losses in sales of expensive drugs. In practice, that sort of thing does happen.

And if you don't think that has a tremendous power over the activities of the doctors and researchers (through executives, managers, and grants) you're very naive.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Slappie 9]

As much as it pains me to say this, Narcimund actually grasps the content of my rant.

I understand what it's like to be the individual, be the one who has to face the cancer. So BACK THE FUCK UP! You can bash me all you like. My rant actually has merit and it's factual. You bleeding hearts can cry foul all you want, you do so KNOWING what I say makes sense as bad as it is.

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."

[wildcard451 0]

Quote

You two optimists are both partially right, but you draw the wrong conclusion. Individuals in the health care community are indeed motivated by good will, like you said. Doctors do not celebrate the new cases of cancer and researchers would love the prestige and satisfaction of discoveries.

However, the institutions are not. The systems are motivated by fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. In fact, directors of a corporation are liable for losses caused by some kinds of decisions if they lose value for the shareholders. In principle, the board of Merck could be sued or even go to prison if they authorized the research that led to a cheap cure for cancer which resulted in massive losses in sales of expensive drugs. In practice, that sort of thing does happen.

And if you don't think that has a tremendous power over the activities of the doctors and researchers (through executives, managers, and grants) you're very naive.

I'm not an optimist, and certainly not naive. My rant was not personally directed at slappie. You are right about the way the system works, and it is a truly pathetic setup.

"Medical policies and procedures are made in a room by people wearing suits that have no interest in the care of patients whatsoever"
-Dr. S, one of my peds ER attendings. He's absolutely right.

[WrongWay 0]

Quote

Wouldn't you rather be the guy who cured cancer and saved millions of lives, then that guy with a shitload of money?

Something tells me that specific guy will be BOTH of those guys just by selling the technology.

Personally, I think any doctor that turns down a flat out CURE for something that has killed millions, is a money hungry bastard, and is obviously in their job for the wrong reasons.

And the way this thread is going, it probably should be moved to SC.

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.

[Slappie 9]

There was once a time in our not so distant past, hospitals and medical care were overseen my churches and people of the faith. That's when the people running the establishment cared about people.

Now it's all about the dollar... period.


As for the discovery, I think it's awesome. I'm very hopefull this is something that can actually help others.

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."

[Slappie 9]

Quote

And the way this thread is going, it probably should be moved to SC.

Hush your mouth! It was a breakthrough discovery I was posting about. I made a comment about the establishment, it was taken the wrong way by a couple. Shouldn't move my thread to SC because of that. Jeez

**edit**
Stupid enter key...

And you should know about "wrong ways"

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."

[WrongWay 0]

Quote

There was once a time in our not so distant past, hospitals and medical care were overseen my churches and people of the faith. That's when the people running the establishment cared about people.

Hardly. Just another way for the church to gain influence and power. Most of the people who have done more for our technology and science than others didn't believe in the church. Also, the church had a long history of doing all they can to disprove science that could help our species tremendously simply because it doesn't fit in their 2000 year old book, which makes their foundation weak, not fitting in these modern times.

If there's a reason that during that time doctors cared more, it's because as the last few hundred years have gone by, basic morals have gone slowly down the tubes as culture has changed, styles have changed, the invention of tv and it's progression, our role models, etc. etc. etc........not because of any involvement by any religious group.

Once again, yet another reason this should be moved to SC.

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.

[Slappie 9]

Ok Wrongway.. You are taking the discussion out of context and trying to get it moved. You are not thinking before you type. I'm not talking about "chruch" in the sense of religion. I'm talking about churches like St. Lukes, St Thomas, Methodists doesn't matter the religion. It was churches running the hospitals. Not business.. Oh and it was mostly .... get this.... NO PROFIT!

The chruches actually cared about the people they were treating and not about the money generated. It wasn't until big business got involved with medical care that money came before the patients care.

No go dig your head out and quit trying to move a subject to SC because you don't agree. You've not commented at all on the discovery I was first posting about. You latch onto the "socio-economic" comments I made at the tail end to rule your posts.

tsk tsk..

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."

[mailin 0]

I know this isn't going where you wanted it to Slappie... but I can't resist

I used to work for the largest employer in RI -Lifespan.

They're a not-for-profit network of hospitals.

I worked in the facilities department at Rhode Island Hospital, facilities development to be exact. The department was in charge of carrying out the facility master plan (a 15 year plan). I worked on the MP for RIH, but we had them for all the hospitals in the network (5 in total).

This plan included a new cancer center (just completed), a new ED (emergency department) and several parking 'structures'.

The master plan, which I helped write, was for 2.1 billion dollars, which the hospital funded with bonds.

The hospital itself has been profitable for 5 years - never 'in the red'. They were swimming in money. We got new CAD equipment every year to help us create new buildings and patient spaces.

You need to look at the bigger picture.

The money that they make seldomly goes to a greedy outcome. Most of the time they are put back into the hospital or go toward balancing out the free care most hospitals are REQUIRED BY LAW to give to citizens that walk in off the street.

It's not always the hospital that is to blame - but a mix of the insurance companies/drug companies and area politics. You wouldn't believe the governement agencies I had to meet with when trying to build the ED. The area it resides in is S. Providence, a run down disgusting area of the city - and the welfare-ridden citizens of that area were worried that the new ED would create an 'eye-sore' - even more so than the 5 rows of crack houses on the south side of the employee parking lot

Ah, capitalism at its best

It's not as black and white as you think it is, unfortunately


Jen

Arianna Frances

[Slappie 9]

Well it got moved so screw it nothing I can do about it.

The thread wasn't based on my smartass comments at the end. It was about the discovery that could actually "cure cancer" well some anyways in certain patients.

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."

[billvon 2,471]

>Do you really think the cancer researchers and the companies that
>fund them are taking a serious look at this?

Yes and yes. Since the current infections do not cure cancer reliably, there is work to be done - and once done, that work can be sold as a treatment. It may be another strain of AAV-2, or a different virus. The idea of a pathogen specific to an aberrant mutation of human tissue has been around for a long time.

>Those companies and
>hospitals want a cure for cancer about as much as I want to have a
>baseball shoved up my ass. They would all go broke if there was
>a cure....

The organization that comes up with a cure for cancer - even if it's a mutated virus - will be rolling in dough. A good incentive for them. And the researcher that finds it will be assured of money and worldwide fame for the rest of his or her life, so that's another good incentive.

[WrongWay 0]

Quote

Ok Wrongway.. You are taking the discussion out of context and trying to get it moved. You are not thinking before you type. I'm not talking about "chruch" in the sense of religion. I'm talking about churches like St. Lukes, St Thomas, Methodists doesn't matter the religion. It was churches running the hospitals. Not business.. Oh and it was mostly .... get this.... NO PROFIT!

The chruches actually cared about the people they were treating and not about the money generated. It wasn't until big business got involved with medical care that money came before the patients care.

No go dig your head out and quit trying to move a subject to SC because you don't agree. You've not commented at all on the discovery I was first posting about. You latch onto the "socio-economic" comments I made at the tail end to rule your posts.

tsk tsk..

Yes, sir.

Whiner. JK.

Fwiw though, I agree with you on the fact that as a whole, this could be a discovery that changes the world as we know it, and doctors should stop thinking about the thickness of their wallets and start thinking about why they wanted to get into the medical profession in the first place....to help people.

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.

[kelel01 1]

Kinda makes you wonder how we're not supposed to respond to his rant, though. Could it and the story be more contradictory?

"We might have found a cure for cancer! Oh, shit! Why'd we just say that? We're trying to bilk millions of Americans for their money whilst watching them die. Guess that plan's ruined."

[Slappie 9]

Quote

Kinda makes you wonder how we're not supposed to respond to his rant, though. Could it and the story be more contradictory?

"We might have found a cure for cancer! Oh, shit! Why'd we just say that? We're trying to bilk millions of Americans for their money whilst watching them die. Guess that plan's ruined."

Now that you put it that way... I just have to laugh.

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."

[Lindsey 0]

I think you're overlooking the fact that if a drug company creates a product that uses this virus successfully and reliably to cure cancer, they'll make LOTS of money.

But I think it's true that if people are unable to make money for the research and development of new medications, we won't see new medications come onto the market.

Peace~
linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Do you really think the cancer researchers and the companies that fund them are taking a serious look at this? Those companies and hospitals want a cure for cancer about as much as I want to have a baseball shoved up my ass. They would all go broke if there was a cure.... /rant off

As a former cancer researcher, I gotta say bullshit to this.

First of all, there ARE cures for cancer out there. People are now getting cured of cancer all the time.

I myself worked with using gene therapy to destroy tumors. We were using adenovirus, not AAV, but the principle is basically the same.

I get really pissed off when I hear people think that we scientists are somehow "holding back" from finding cures for diseases, because then supposedly we'd be out of a job. It's unbelievable that an adult could actually believe this horseshit.

If you think that scientists are deliberately withholding cures, and that finding cures for disease is easy, you are perfectly welcome to become a scientist yourself & show us how it's done.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[lisamariewillbe 1]

how does the adenovirus relate to adenocarcinoma? Is this still in process? Being tested? Which types of cancer? Is it for adenocarcinomas?

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Unfortunately it isn't very hard to find therapies that kill cancers in tissue cultures, and even in live mice, but most of these fail when you go to clinical trials. Years ago I worked on several plant compounds that looked great in the lab in tissue culture experiments, but in mice they either did nothing, or in some cases they killed the mice rather unpleasantly. Whole organisms are very complex, they have enzymes that metabolize and excrete toxins (the body sees all drugs as toxins), they have immune systems, tumors continue to mutate so therapies that worked for a while may fail, etc. Despite all these hurdles your chances of surviving most cancers are better now than ever because "armies" of researchers continue to plug away at the job.
The AAV-2 approach may turn out to be a useful one, but it will take years of lab and clinical trials to find out. At this point some things don't quite add up. Supposedly 80% of the human population has this virus already (according to an interview with Dr. Meyers on CNN). The virus is obviously moving from person to person efficiently (otherwise it would be much rarer), which means the second virus that it needs to replicate is also common. Despite this there is nothing like 80% of the human population that is immune to getting cervical, breast, prostrate, and squamous cell cancers. Obviously things don't work the same in people as they do in lab experiments. Maybe the reasons can be found and fixed, maybe not. If not you shouldn't ascribe it to some evil worldwide conspiracy without having much better evidence.
This is a good example of why people should keep their mouths shut until the research data is peer reviewed and published. Unfortunately all universities and hospitals are busy chasing donor dollars, and a cure for cancer is unbeatable for opening peoples wallets. All these institutions have publicity departments now that release this kind of half-baked information, and they don't give a damn about the damage that they do.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)