• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cancer: Cured?

It's a theory (and a reasonable one) but far from proven.

A medical theory, like most science-based theories, are not to be confused with "guesses."


...In 1909, a scientist by the name of Paul Ehrlich proposed that the incidence of cancer would be much greater were it not for the vigilance of our immune defense system in identifying and eliminating nascent tumor cells. This suggestion gave birth to the generally accepted concept that the immune system plays a vital role in the identification and elimination of transformed cells. About 50 years later, two scientists, Lewis Thomas and Frank MacFarlane Burnet, took Paul Ehrlich’s original idea a step further and proposed that a special type of immune cell called a T cell was the pivotal sentinel in the immune system’s response against cancer. This elaboration led to the coinage of the term “immune surveillance or immunosurveillance” to describe the concept whereby the immune system is on perpetual alert against transformed cells.

As dictated by the scientific method, theories must in the course of time either
withstand rigorous experimental testing, crumble and be discarded or be improved upon. This basic requirement brought the theory of immunosurveillance under severe attack and great controversy when scientists like Osías Stutman showed in the 1970s that mice supposedly lacking an intact immune system (so-called nude mice) did not become more susceptible to tumor growth as predicted by the theory.

Thus, the theory of immunosurveillance remained controversial until an important scientific article entitled “IFN-gamma and lymphocytes prevent primary tumor development and shape tumor immunogenicity” was published in the journal Nature on April 26, 2001. This breakthrough article was authored by Robert D. Schreiber, Ph.D., and his colleagues at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, in collaboration with Lloyd J. Old, M.D., of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. The experimental evidence presented in their paper unambiguously showed that the immune system can and often does prevent tumors from developing, and thus plays a strong protective role against cancer. These researchers also uncovered important new insights regarding the immune system and tumor development that they dubbed “immunoediting.”...

http://www.cancerresearch.org/CRI/m...nd-the-Immune-System-The-Vital-Connection.pdf

This isn't to say that the immune system is the end all, be all, of cancer research and understanding, merely that the understanding of how the immune system interacts with cancer is very important to our modern understandings of how precancerous tissues come into existence and survive to become cancerous growths.
 
It's a theory (and a reasonable one) but far from proven.

To add to what Trakar said, not only is it proven and fairly well understood, but there is a cancer therapy that is effectively a vaccine (PROVENGE), and many more are in clinical trials.

There are also natural and modified viruses that selectively attack and destroy certain types of cancer cells, and several of those are in clinical trials. So potential cancers are also sometimes stopped because we get a minor viral infection.
 
Thanks all, I stand corrected. (That's a first, no really!) That's what I get for hearing something second-hand and not researching it like I should have.
 
No problemo. If there isn't sound science behind it, I'm often skeptical of it.

I know that people who take immune suppressing drugs, like heart transplant patients, suffer terribly from cancers, because their immune system can't fight off what would usually be a minor thing. They have to take the drugs to keep from rejecting the heart of course, so it's a devil's bargain.
 
To add to what Trakar said, not only is it proven and fairly well understood, but there is a cancer therapy that is effectively a vaccine (PROVENGE), and many more are in clinical trials.

There are also natural and modified viruses that selectively attack and destroy certain types of cancer cells, and several of those are in clinical trials. So potential cancers are also sometimes stopped because we get a minor viral infection.

These vaccines may be one of the big near-term advances in prevention.
 
These vaccines may be one of the big near-term advances in prevention.

And in treatment. I think in fifteen years vaccine or similar immune enhancement + cancer killing virus + things we use now (surgery, chemo, radiation) will be soc for most cancers. The first two in many cases will have very minor side effects relative to their benefits.
 
Needs a lot more testing and trials, because I have serious doubt.

After hearing dozens of "The cure for cancer has been found" statements from people with ambiguous background and anecdotal medicine, it's hard to see how one could "rule them all."

That being said, if it does go through rough testing, I think it could be very good.

Here's a more reliable link...

http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2013/may/cd47.html
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom