The Contrarian Who Cures Cancers (quantamagazine.org) 51
Claudia Dreifus, writing for Quanta magazine: When I first met the immunology researcher James P. Allison in 2014, he was just becoming an icon. Columbia University had brought him to its campus to present him with the Louisa Gross Horwitz Prize for the new type of cancer therapy he had developed. Instead of trying to burn, poison or surgically remove malignant cells from the body, his treatment mobilized a patient's immune system to destroy them. During his talk at the award ceremony, Allison explained that three years earlier, the Food and Drug Administration had approved the antibody drug he had developed, ipilimumab, for use against late-stage metastatic melanoma, which is among the deadliest of cancers. Some of the terminal patients who had participated in earlier trials, he reported, had gained a decade of life. As he described how his drug had changed the prognosis for some of these patients -- it was effective for about 20% of them -- tears came to his eyes.
In all my years on a science beat, I'd never seen a researcher cry. Allison, with his long gray hair and his loose-fitting clothes, struck me as among the most interesting figures in the scientific world. Speaking with him later, I sensed that he was someone deeply original, extremely confident of his intellectual powers and unafraid to go where they took him -- the exact qualities it takes to invent a paradigm-shifting cancer treatment. Allison's drug wasn't the first or only form of immunotherapy; scientists have worked on anticancer vaccines, for example, for decades. What made Allison's "immune checkpoint therapy" unique was that it used antibodies to unlock the immune system's potential to kill cancer cells. This approach is the culmination of Allison's highly accomplished immunology career.
In the early 1980s, he identified the receptor that allows the immune system's T cells to recognize the antigens of infected or abnormal cells. A decade later, he showed that T cells also need a signal from a "costimulatory" molecule to launch their attacks. Then Allison and his colleagues discovered that a molecule called cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) acts as a checkpoint, or built-in brake, on T cells. They could remove the brake and set T cells loose against cancer cells with an antibody -- ipilimumab -- that inhibited the CTLA-4 checkpoint.
In all my years on a science beat, I'd never seen a researcher cry. Allison, with his long gray hair and his loose-fitting clothes, struck me as among the most interesting figures in the scientific world. Speaking with him later, I sensed that he was someone deeply original, extremely confident of his intellectual powers and unafraid to go where they took him -- the exact qualities it takes to invent a paradigm-shifting cancer treatment. Allison's drug wasn't the first or only form of immunotherapy; scientists have worked on anticancer vaccines, for example, for decades. What made Allison's "immune checkpoint therapy" unique was that it used antibodies to unlock the immune system's potential to kill cancer cells. This approach is the culmination of Allison's highly accomplished immunology career.
In the early 1980s, he identified the receptor that allows the immune system's T cells to recognize the antigens of infected or abnormal cells. A decade later, he showed that T cells also need a signal from a "costimulatory" molecule to launch their attacks. Then Allison and his colleagues discovered that a molecule called cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) acts as a checkpoint, or built-in brake, on T cells. They could remove the brake and set T cells loose against cancer cells with an antibody -- ipilimumab -- that inhibited the CTLA-4 checkpoint.
The real travesty... (Score:5, Informative)
Is that far more people know more about someone that recently died and threw air containers through fixed rings as a crowd looks on.
Far fewer people are going to know the name of someone that saved lives tucked away in a lab somewhere.
Kudos to the work this individual has brought to the field of medicine!
Re:The real travesty... (Score:5, Interesting)
In other interviews, Allison describe the reaction to his research conducted in the 80's as being completely disconnected from the idea of delivering a cure, and it all would have been largely overlooked, if Allison himself had not decided to spend the next couple decades working on it.
This really demonstrates how many of our research efforts are broken and way to dependent on following the direction of leaders who fail to listen to what their 'workers' are seeing
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but that is just how humans like to do things... get politics involved. It usually does take individuals like this to move us forward because once a certain idea becomes entrenched, it becomes monolithic and counter productive to science itself.
I really hate that humans institutionalize everything we lay our hands on... because someone feels like they need to control it.
Re:The real travesty... (Score:4, Interesting)
> way to dependent on following the direction of leaders who fail to listen to what their 'workers' are seeing
Who is the "leader" in this case, for whom he was a "worker"? Who was paying for the research?
Seems to me there's three likelihoods:
1) A federal research grant - in which case it's pretty much "blue sky" research and there's no real "goal" per-se. Find stuff out with faith that someone will do something with it if it's useful - there's usually not any real leader to be found
2) Side project using slush funds from the university or other grants - in which case, again, no leader.
3) Some medical/pharmaceutical company - in which case we're lucky the results weren't actively buried - a cancer cure is far less profitable than years of treatment, so there's not really any incentive to invest limited research funds into something that's going to undermine existing profit centers rather than create new ones.
Meanwhile, what would you suggest some supposed "leaders" should have done? Force other researchers to abandon their own work to chase his pipe dream they could care less about? Sounds like he's had funding to continue his research, and once he showed he could actually use it to develop a cure, he started getting greater accolades and funding.
I hate to say it, but revolutionary new possibliities are a dime a dozen, and most of them end up being dead ends. That's a big part of why the system works the way it does - individual researchers driven by their own passion chase probable dead ends, along with whatever assistants they can entice (and afford). It's generally not until they show that they have something with genuinely useful applications (for medical research: conclusively useful human, or at least animal, trials) that anyone gets really interested. Until then it's pretty much impossible to tell if you're dealing with an actual breakthrough, or just a promising-looking pipe dream that will suck down decades of funding to no good effect. Especially not if you're one of the bureaucrats with your hands on the purse strings rather than an expert in the field. And even field experts will tend to be blinded by orthodoxy when confronted by revolutionary approached - so putting them in charge of the purse strings wouldn't necessarily be an improvement.
Science as a sport [Re:The real travesty...] (Score:3)
Sports moves faster than science.
You tune in a sports broadcast, and after two hours or so of viewing, somebody has won. It's exciting in real time.
Science, it takes a decade to really see who has won, and even then, it's often not clear who won, or even where the goalposts were.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately for us, we have people like you who are writing articles like this that keep us informed of these individuals. Keep up the good work! I agree, these people are largely unrecognized, you should write more articles like this.
Re: (Score:1)
someone that recently died and threw air containers through fixed rings
Wow, surreal! Who is this magical dead guy you speak of?
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, surreal! Who is this magical dead guy you speak of?
I'm not sure, but I heard that he was named after beef. Which makes sense, since beef was named a long time ago.
Re:Cures can be harmful to your health. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
He is just another Youtube nutjob conspiracy theorist.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Is there any evidence at all that medical researchers are being murdered? What kind of nonsense are you spouting?
Why do you really think a Presidential candidate like Tulsi Gabbard does not gain traction regardless of her qualifications? Because her isolationist policies would massively impact Death and Profits. Don't screw with the Military Industrial Complex.
Why do you really think you've never heard of this cancer research, even though it's been going on for years? Because any semi-effective cure would massively impact Death and Profits. Don't screw with the Cancer Industrial Complex.
Why do you really think the
Re: Cures can be harmful to your health. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh right, now I remember the great doctor massacre of 1972, when 15 doctors were killed mysteriously after curing giardia. They died and took the cure with them. So mysterious, now doctors are afraid to do research, and never announce things like curing cancers.
Giardia has never killed millions of humans, nor has it been eradicated with cures. Giardia treatments did not create a massive multi-trillion dollar global industry employing tens of thousands of humans. And to date, no one has announced a cure for cancer.
Death and Profits. Ironically enough, your example is rather shitty, and does not address either of those two obvious priorities.
Re: Cures can be harmful to your health. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Puh!
I was scared you had cought me!
Re: (Score:2)
My example is mocking you. Because there has never been a doctor massacre.
Your example was shitty because it did not matter that it was false which was rather obvious. The danger is created when you start screwing with Death and Profits, which neither were targeted at scale.
See what happens when the first poor soul tries to stand up and announce a cure for cancer that impacts that entire industry. We already have an idea as to the true power of greed and corruption by merely observing what we will do to perpetuate warmongering. Eradicate tens of thousands of jobs and trillions
Re: Cures can be harmful to your health. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, don't fall for my trolling and get angry. Just give an example of doctors who were murdered.
Not that it would ever make global headlines, but do you honestly think this kind of shit simply never happens?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0... [nytimes.com]
Three researchers in Mexico were reported missing on the same day as Dr. Bradstreet. Two otherwise healthy doctors were found dead on the same day (Fathers Day). 8 days later a holistic doctor found with a bullet in her head. Hell of a "suicide" problem it seems with alternative/holistic practitioners who threaten Death and
Re: (Score:2)
Not that it would ever make global headlines, but do you honestly think this kind of shit simply never happens? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]... [wikipedia.org] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0 [nytimes.com]... [nytimes.com]
That's better
Re: (Score:2)
Gabbard has little traction because people making noise in the Democrat party are all unhinged and mostly corrupt. The press, being even more unhinged and almost as corrupt, pays attention to people like themselves. Gabbard doesn't qualify.
There are hundreds of cancer research programs and tens of thousands of cancer researchers each promoting his own idea. You expect repeated press coverage of every theory, most of which are not going to be markedly successful? Why?
If you want to learn about cancer researc
Re: (Score:2)
There are hundreds of cancer research programs and tens of thousands of cancer researchers each promoting his own idea. You expect repeated press coverage of every theory, most of which are not going to be markedly successful? Why?
I wasn't talking about people broadcasting some theory that could create yet another source of perpetual revenue for the Cancer Industry while not really doing jack shit to eradicate cancer altogether. Those "cures" likely happen every year, because Profits.
I was talking about anyone who may actually discover a true cure for cancer that could be cheaply made and distributed to the planet that hosts this global killer. That will likely never happen, because Death is no longer merely a natural side effect o
Re:Cures can be harmful to your health. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only relevant point here is whether you can point to any actual examples of medical researchers dying under suspicious circumstances. If you can't point to evidence of actual foul play, arguing that there is a motive for foul play is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be dumb. The vaping industry IS big tobacco. They own the vaping firms. Juul for example is partially owned by Altria (which is Phillip Morris)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you really think a Presidential candidate like Tulsi Gabbard does not gain traction regardless of her qualifications?
Because she says things that are batshit insane.
Why do you really think you've never heard of this cancer research, even though it's been going on for years?
Because it's a highly technical subject regarding relatively early research. The responsible thing is to not spread it far and wide until you know it actually works.
Why do you really think they tried to shut the entire vaping industry down after a dozen deaths while Big Tobacco is allowed to kill 1200 Americans every single day?
Because those dying from vaping were relatively healthy and young. Those dying from Big Tobacco have used it for decades and are relatively old and unhealthy. Also, anti-tobacco extremists are out to kill anything that puts nicotine in a good light.
Alcohol? Opioids? Government stamp of approval for sure! Cannabis? No way. That shit doesn't cause Deaths, and you're massively screwing with Profits.
This is the fallout from the failure of prohibi
Re:Cures can be harmful to your health. (Score:5, Informative)
Funny thing, instead of burying him in a shallow grave, they eventually awarded him with a Nobel Prize and executive position at large cancer treatment center.
Maybe you should switch from aluminum to tin foil for headware
James Patrick Allison is an American immunologist and Nobel laureate who holds the position of professor and chair of immunology and executive director of immunotherapy platform at the MD Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas. His discoveries have led to new cancer treatments for the deadliest cancers. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing, instead of burying him in a shallow grave, they eventually awarded him with a Nobel Prize and executive position at large cancer treatment center.
Well duh, of course they did. He didn't create a preventative cure for cancer, just a treatment. They can still make plenty of money off that, so he was awarded accordingly.
Re: (Score:3)
Those bass turds! That's how they get you. Heaping praise, recognition and rewards for your life long efforts. Then BOOM! You are famous and no longer have time to save humanity from itself.
Just watch, next they'll want him to waste time by passing on what he learned; further diluting the time remaining in his elder years. Those bass turds!
Re: (Score:2)
instead of burying him in a shallow grave,
ALSO: as well as finding a possible cancer cure, he also successfully tested a zombie cure on himself. That's why he's so smart ... always looking for BRAinzzzz.
I'll just let myself out.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing, instead of burying him in a shallow grave, they eventually awarded him with a Nobel Prize and executive position at large cancer treatment center.
Maybe you should switch from aluminum to tin foil for headware
James Patrick Allison is an American immunologist and Nobel laureate who holds the position of professor and chair of immunology and executive director of immunotherapy platform at the MD Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas. His discoveries have led to new cancer treatments for the deadliest cancers. [wikipedia.org]
If you present a perpetual treatment that generates massive profits forever and continues to allow cancer to exist, you will of course be welcome with open arms by the Cancer Industrial Complex.
If you present a cure...well let's just say we know why he's welcome with open arms. For now.
Re: (Score:2)
If you present a perpetual treatment that generates massive profits forever and continues to allow cancer to exist
That's not how this works. It kills the cancer. AKA, a cure.
Re: (Score:2)
If you present a perpetual treatment that generates massive profits forever and continues to allow cancer to exist
That's not how this works. It kills the cancer. AKA, a cure.
I am never cured of the common cold. We merely treat it when someone becomes infected, but we sure as hell don't have a solution to prevent it from happening or completely eradicate it along with the risk of it ever returning. And since checkpoint inhibitor therapy and approved drugs target many types of cancer, we should be able to see a considerable decline in these rates since 2011. And yet every future prediction of cancer rates it is increasing across the board.
Here's another way of looking at it; A
Re: (Score:2)
I am never cured of the common cold.
Yes, actually you are. An individual infection of the common cold does indeed end and all of that virus in your body has been killed by your immune system.
So why do you catch another common cold? Because the virus mutates extremely rapidly. Your immune system hasn't seen that newly-mutated form of the virus before, and you go through the process again.
And yet every future prediction of cancer rates it is increasing across the board.
Well, those predictions are based on current medical treatments. This article is about a new treatment. It's not part of those predictions.
Are we still poking "survivors" with a 5 or 10-year long stick, warning them about remission for years?
Yes, that is
Re: (Score:3)
Murder seems a pointless personal risk to take - the corporate veil doesn't protect against felony charges, end the current executives are generally unlikely to be around long enough to care that much. Treatment profits are always being undercut by new treatments from your competitors - and even from your own labs, since you don't want to hand the entire business to the first competitor that comes up with something better and catches you with your pants down.
Now, getting funding for a cure is a different q
Re: (Score:2)
As for death rates, I really doubt anyone objects. A cancer cure has two possibilities: You'll cure working age people who will then go on to be more productive and boost the economy, or you cure old people, who will probably die soon enough from something else. Even if you're curing poor layabouts on the dole - you're saving the dole a boatload of money, and pretty much everyone likes that.
Actually new medicine is now mostly a net negative for society as a business. Old people might die "soon" but they're very expensive, here's a graph [mediearkiv.nho.no] that's in Norwegian but it's net wealth transfer distributed by age 0-100, the data is ten years old by now but not much has changed or if anything it's worse. We invest a lot in children (public schools, child support etc.), a bit in students (public universities etc.), we pay taxes a while to make up for it and then we go into retirement. Now this is Norway s
Re: (Score:2)
The huge increase in cost towards the end of life is indeed a problem, but it's pretty much independent of new medicine. If you're 30, new medicine is going to let you recover better, faster, and/or cheaper and get on with being a productive citizen. If you could take a relatively pill for a few weeks or months and cure cancer, that's a pretty clear win against much more expensive ongoing treatments. Stack up a bunch of such treatments, and start cutting social funding on the really expensive ones, and y
we could have been here 30 years ago (Score:1)
See Ken Burns Netflix documentary about Cancer for more.
In most cases, the experts in any given field are not helping people at all.
Re: (Score:1)
But cancer researchers didn't like immunotherapy because it wasn't intellectually interesting. See Ken Burns Netflix documentary about Cancer for more. In most cases, the experts in any given field are not helping people at all.
Which is odd to me because how cells use chemicals to communicate is stupidly interesting IMO. I mean, a virus is something that hacks our cells to replicate itself along those same communication channels. That is amazing! Our immune system has so many checks of these systems, including looking at the communication channels to detect known bad proteins so it knows who to eat.
I'll have to watch that documentary to learn more. Thanks for the suggestion!
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Ever be a professor at a university and find you are the target of nutjobs the world over explaining how their new "discovery" will revolutionize your field? The experts in any given field are helping by sifting out the nutjobs and just plain incorrect research. Go get a science education before you show you know nothing about it.
Immune system disorder (Score:2)
So can we say that the skin cancer is not a disease of the skin, but an immune system disorder?
Re:Immune system disorder (Score:4)
In that the immune system fails to detect and/or kill the malfunctioning skin cells? Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, you can view every disease as an immune system failure. That doesn't mean it's a disorder. It's the difference between working as designed, and working as desired. If you program for a living, you understand the difference.
Use in reverse to turn off autoimmune diseases? (Score:3)
Very much a layman on this subject, but reading details in the summary about the discoveries of how the immune system gets activated, made me think, could this same knowledge be used to tell the immune system to stop when it was attacking the wrong thing? Like in rheumatoid arthritis?
Re: (Score:2)
How do we patent his ideas? (Score:2)
Without a patent, his ideas are useless.
Just like that Dutch student team which found a way to cure cancer with soda/backing power but could find a way to patent it.