• 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 "vaccine" to start clinical trails

Cheetah

Master Poster
Cheetah
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
2,934
Location
South Africa
This really sounds too good to be true.

Injecting microgram amounts of two immune stimulating agents (unmethylated CG–enriched oligodeoxynucleotide (CpG)—a Toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) ligand—and anti-OX40) into a tumor triggers a T cell response, specific to the tumor. This not only destroys the tumor that was injected, but also other secondary untreated tumors throughout the body.
This was done in mice.
The great thing is that the treatment is generic and does not have to be "tuned" to the specific cancer. It is also cheap and effective against a wide range of cancers, sounds like you just need a tumor to inject.

Eradication of spontaneous malignancy by local immunotherapy

and

Cancer 'vaccine' eliminates tumors in mice, researchers find

:)
 
It sounds very likely that once the immune system has been activated against a tumor, it will attack similar (!) tumors in other parts of the body.
However, the problem with these 'vaccines' is that they often trigger the immune system to attack things that they weren't meant to attack ...
 
They cured the world of Cancer and were hailed as heroes, then, their vaccine started turning humans into Zombies. Bruce Willis. Keifer Sutherland. It's the action-packed, post-apocalyptic thriller of the Summer. Only in theaters.
 
This will probably end up being one of those things you hear about, but never gets approved.
 
Last edited:
They had the cure for cancer, but the FDA refused to approve their planet-saving invention. Jeff Goldblum and Jodie Foster light up the screen in this fast-paced medical drama. Book now!
 
Octavo said:
They cured the world of Cancer and were hailed as heroes, then, their vaccine started turning humans into Zombies. Bruce Willis. Keifer Sutherland. It's the action-packed, post-apocalyptic thriller of the Summer. Only in theaters.
Click to expand...

I think you're pitching that about 20 years too late, going by the casting.
 
mike81 said:
This will probably end up being one of those things you hear about, but never gets approved.
Click to expand...

I continue to be amazed by how often I overhear conversations about how scientists and medical doctors have the cure for cancer (presumably all cancers) but don't make it public because it would end all the money they are making now from treating it. I've tried a number of ways of explaining the real situation when I have felt comfortable putting in my 2 cents (e.g. when it's been relatives or acquaintances). I've explained how cancer has many different forms, that there has been great progress in treating many of them, that such a conspiracy would require secrecy and participation by millions of people, including many who have and will die of cancer themselves, etc. But what I've finally settled on is just asking them: if a medical doctor is currently charging someone $100,000s for a cancer therapy that is drawn-out, painful, damaging, and ultimately often unsuccessful, how much would the same patient be willing to pay the doctor for the quick, simple cure that they are convinced is being hidden? I would easily pay double- wouldn't you? Why would this hypothetical cure lose them money?

Of course if the conspiracy nuts are convinced the cure is something like blending bananas with almonds and cumin and drinking it under the light of the full moon, all bets are off.
 
dann said:
It sounds very likely that once the immune system has been activated against a tumor, it will attack similar (!) tumors in other parts of the body.
However, the problem with these 'vaccines' is that they often trigger the immune system to attack things that they weren't meant to attack ...
Click to expand...
Everything is a trade off, with cancer. Radiation and chemotherapy have the same issue. You take these cures when the other options look even worse.
 
It’s the difficulty you face when attempting to make any kind of vaccine: You may inadvertently trigger auto-immune responses. However, it is much riskier when you try to make anti-cancer vaccines because they are meant to trigger the immune system to attack parts of your own body ’gone rogue’, i.e. the tumors.
 
Giordano said:
I continue to be amazed by how often I overhear conversations about how scientists and medical doctors have the cure for cancer (presumably all cancers) but don't make it public because it would end all the money they are making now from treating it. I've tried a number of ways of explaining the real situation when I have felt comfortable putting in my 2 cents (e.g. when it's been relatives or acquaintances). I've explained how cancer has many different forms, that there has been great progress in treating many of them, that such a conspiracy would require secrecy and participation by millions of people, including many who have and will die of cancer themselves, etc. But what I've finally settled on is just asking them: if a medical doctor is currently charging someone $100,000s for a cancer therapy that is drawn-out, painful, damaging, and ultimately often unsuccessful, how much would the same patient be willing to pay the doctor for the quick, simple cure that they are convinced is being hidden? I would easily pay double- wouldn't you? Why would this hypothetical cure lose them money?

Of course if the conspiracy nuts are convinced the cure is something like blending bananas with almonds and cumin and drinking it under the light of the full moon, all bets are off.
Click to expand...


Don't get me wrong, I don't think there is some conspiracy. It just seems like every time I read something that sounds promising about curing some disease, nothing seems to come of it.
 
dann said:
It’s the difficulty you face when attempting to make any kind of vaccine: You may inadvertently trigger auto-immune responses. However, it is much riskier when you try to make anti-cancer vaccines because they are meant to trigger the immune system to attack parts of your own body ’gone rogue’, i.e. the tumors.
Click to expand...

This was my first thought. Of course, if you already have a tumor(s), you might not care about that risk.
 
From the first link:

Autoimmune toxicities are a common complication of systemically administered immune checkpoint antibodies. In contrast, direct injection of the antibodies into the tumor at very low doses can avoid these side effects. In our experiments, in situ injection of microgram quantities of immune stimulants and checkpoint antibodies proved to be sufficient to induce the required local immune modulation, resulting in a systemic antitumor immune response.
Click to expand...

Also the immune response is very antigen specific, which is good news.

I hope it pans out, we'll see.
 
mike81 said:
Don't get me wrong, I don't think there is some conspiracy. It just seems like every time I read something that sounds promising about curing some disease, nothing seems to come of it.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the nature of the business. Curing diseases is HARD

And so you do experiments to try to find ways to do it. And if you are lucky, you find something promising. And if you are double lucky, that gets turns out to work.

This is a new approach. It's basically the first time that a cancer vaccine is even promising.

Take it for what it is, and, indeed, don't be surprised if it fizzles, but it is absolutely exciting news. I hope it works out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom