Scientists Engineer Cancer-Killing Stem Cells 46
A reader writes with news that medical researchers from Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital have successfully cultivated stem cells that will kill brain cancer cells in mice without damaging healthy cells. "They used genetic engineering to make stem cells that spewed out cancer-killing toxins, but, crucially, were also able to resist the effects of the poison they were producing. ... In animal tests, the stem cells were surrounded in gel and placed at the site of the brain tumor after it had been removed. Their cancer cells then died as they had no defense against the toxins (abstract)." The next step in the research is to try the treatment on humans. Chris Mason, a professor of regenerative medicine, said, "This is a clever study, which signals the beginning of the next wave of therapies. It shows you can attack solid tumors by putting mini pharmacies inside the patient which deliver the toxic payload direct to the tumor. Cells can do so much. This is the way the future is going to be."
Stem cells designed to kill brain cells (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Oblig. xkcd. [xkcd.com]
Zombie Apocalypse? (Score:1)
Sure sounds like a perfect candidate for it. Rots a hole from the brain cavity to the mouth, then biting people infects them with the 'cancer stopping' drugs leading to them become a 'brainless rabid' vector for further infections.
Only difference is I doubt they'll look quite as scary as they try and depict them in movies, making it even worse and more likely to lure people close for further infections.
Science trumps Sci-Fi daily, but rarely in as dramatic or impressive a fashion.
Ok, but then... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...how do we kill the stem cells?
Testify to Congress that they have chemical weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone close to me died of Liver Cancer (Score:2)
Someone close to me died of Liver Cancer. I wish we had a treatment like this before he died.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone close to me died of Liver Cancer. I wish we had a treatment like this before he died.
My wife Susan died of a brain tumor, a Glioblastoma Multiforme [wikipedia.org], almost 9 years ago (January 13, 2006), just 7 weeks after initial diagnosis. The tumor was right next to her brain stem. Even if not a cure, something like this might have helped her live long enough for other treatments to work more. We had been together for only 20 years and it was over just like that, but I know I was lucky to have her in my life for even that short a span and especially to have those last 7 weeks together.
Remember Sue... [tumblr.com]
Skipping some steps (Score:4, Informative)
The article says " In animal tests, the stem cells were surrounded in gel and placed at the site of the brain tumor after it had been removed. Their cancer cells then died as they had no defense against the toxins (abstract)." The next step in the research is to try the treatment on humans."
They're missing a few steps. How about the next step is to try the treatment in live mice and see if continuous chemotherapy has harmful effects on their brains? How about animal models in the same order as humans (e.g. monkeys) before you try it in humans?
Re:Skipping some steps (Score:5, Informative)
It's poorly worded, but if you read TFA carefully, they did use the treatment in live mice. They surgically removed the tumor, then put the stem cells at the site of where the tumor had been and they killed the remaining cancer cells. The article also contradicts itself in first saying that the next step is testing on humans, and later saying the next step is testing a number of different techniques with it on mice with glioblastoma. Unfortunately the paper itself is behind a paywall.
Re: (Score:1)
Animal testing is next to useless but too much money involved for the researchers to admit it.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the animal. The closer the animal is to the target, the more likely results are relevant. Mice are a poor choice if you're looking for something to be safe and effective in humans because they're not even primates. But heck, at least they're placentals.
But you're right. Many drugs that worked in mice don't work in humans, or are toxic or have unacceptable side effects in humans. We can presume it is the other way around too. Hundreds of drugs have been rejected because they weren't effec
Re: (Score:2)
There's no profit in curing cancer. Big pharmaceutical conglomerates will find a way to shut down this research.
Well then, please explain why "Big Pharma" has delivered cures for multiple kinds of cancer over the last couple of decades.
Go ahead, we're all waiting...
Re: (Score:2)
Well then, please explain why "Big Pharma" has delivered cures for multiple kinds of cancer over the last couple of decades.
Go ahead, we're all waiting...
Imatinib.
Sofosbuvir. (remember, the endgame of hep c is liver cancer, so this is both a viral cure and a cancer cure by preventing that outcome)
That's off the top of my head. I'd put effort into searching for more, but we both know you're just going to move the goalposts.
Re: (Score:2)
That's off the top of my head. I'd put effort into searching for more, but we both know you're just going to move the goalposts.
Seems like you're replying to the wrong person...
Re: (Score:3)
It's true. I misparsed the quote block while reading your post. Enjoy the violent agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
No, a competent reader wouldn't spitefully request a lmgtfy.com link. Go ahead and try Google. Hell, sofosbuvir is in the mainstream media, ffs.
I provided two examples of big pharma drugs that can cure cancer, the evidence for which is trivially confirmable. I didn't bother giving links, because as I said, most people making these aspersions against big pharma and their alleged "non cure" conspiracies have already made up their minds and won't be convinced by facts or peer-reviewed studies.
Re: (Score:2)
Here are the results of the goddamn clinical trial for sofosbuvir, which were published in JAMA, you lazy fuck:
http://www.gilead.com/news/pre... [gilead.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You lack reading comprehension. You seem dead set on requesting something like this, so here you go:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sofosbuvi... [lmgtfy.com]
Surprise, the results are right there, without any need for you to feign some sort of difficulty trying to locate them on pubmed. It's almost like you're being deliberately disingenuous. Oh wait, it's not "almost like".
You're free to presume that a patient who has had their hep c cured is still prone to develop liver carcinoma/cirrhosis, but now the burden of proof is on you t
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what evidence has convinced you there is a link between hep-c and liver carcinoma?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22hepati... [lmgtfy.com]
Can't decide if you're being deliberately dense or are just ignorant. You will note also the WHO link on the first page of results, among the plethora of other confirmations. The burden of proof is on you if you believe there is no link between hep c and liver cancer (what do you think these people are dying of, anyway?). This is like asserting there is no link between bacterial infection and otitis media.
Furthermore, if you're asserting that patients cured of hep c remain
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, we're done if you aren't going to believe the plethora of evidence that is trivially available. Hepatitis C can cause liver cancer. I mean, at this point you are asserting that everyone, the WHO included, is delusional or is in on a vast conspiracy.
This is not something that gets cited to a handful of peer reviewed studies (which you will reject anyway) when the causal relationship is known and was elucidated a long time ago.
Oh look, more trivial googling.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/... [nih.gov]
You are askin
Re:The bottom line (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow... didn't have to read very far before I found somebody regurgitating *THIS* conspiracy theory again... of course, like most conspiracy theories, any otherwise entirely logical refutations are attributed as being part of "the cover up", and are excluded from consideration, preventing actual critical analysis.
There are problems with the pharmaceutical industries in North America, but this is not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no profit in curing cancer.
Then why are big pharmaceutical conglomerates spending so much money to find cures for cancer?
Re: (Score:2)
Because there is huge money in research and drug development?
Re: (Score:1)
Bingo.
Wade Wilson, eat your heart out. (Score:2)
Is it really new? (Score:2)
Gerry Potter's research led to what he calls "pro-drug paradigm" that is it's not a drug, it's turned into a drug by something, then becomes active.
I met one of this guys friends in Starbucks once and we became good friends and he explained a bunch of this stuff to me. Here's the short version:
The Cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP1B1 [1] only occurs in cancer cells [2][3]. When certain phytoallexins such as resveratrol and salvestrol are ingested these phytoalexins are converted by the P450 enzyme into piceatannol
Avoid damanging healthy cells (Score:2)
slice & dice (Score:2)
Brain cancer and the 29 yer old giving up (Score:1)
Allow for voluntary human trials (Score:1)