What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Scientists find Holy Grail vs cancer tumors. Clinical trials in 2014? (1 Viewer)

Wingnut

Footballguy
Im not sure why, but this story from a year ago is being picked up by a bunch of sites recently...after the article theres a release from Stanford that was updated in January 2014 that says clinical trials may start this year.

http://nypost.com/2013/03/27/one-drug-to-rule-them-all-researchers-find-treatment-that-kills-every-kind-of-cancer-tumor/

Scientists find treatment to kill every kind of cancer tumor

Researchers might have found the Holy Grail in the war against cancer, a miracle drug that has killed every kind of cancer tumor it has come in contact with.

The drug works by blocking a protein called CD47 that is essentially a “do not eat” signal to the body’s immune system, according to Science Magazine.

This protein is produced in healthy blood cells but researchers at Stanford University found that cancer cells produced an inordinate amount of the protein thus tricking the immune system into not destroying the harmful cells.

With this observation in mind, the researchers built an antibody that blocked cancer’s CD47 so that the body’s immune system attacked the dangerous cells.

So far, researchers have used the antibody in mice with human breast, ovary, colon, bladder, brain, liver and prostate tumors transplanted into them. In each of the cases the antibody forced the mice’s immune system to kill the cancer cells.

“We showed that even after the tumor has taken hold, the antibody can either cure the tumor or slow its growth and prevent metastasis,” said biologist Irving Weissman of the Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California.

One side effect of the treatment was that healthy cells were subjected to short-term attacks by the mice’s immune system, but the effect was nothing in comparison to the damage done to the cancer cells.

Weissman’s group recently received a $20 million dollar grant to move their research from mouse to human safety testing.

From the Stanford release: http://stemcell.stanford.edu/CD47/

Clinical Trials in humans

After the successful outcomes of the experiments testing the use of anti-CD47 antibodies against human cancers transplanted into mice, plans were immediately begun to start clinical trials in humans. Unfortunately, the process of preparing for human clinical trials is long. The initial experiments were done in animals and the animal versions of anti-CD47 antibody cannot be used in humans. So researchers first have to create a "humanized" antibody to CD47, then the production of antibody must be scaled up in a sterile facility of the kind that is used to create other pharmaceutical products. Finally, clinical trials must be designed so that the data they generate will produce a valid scientific result, and the trials must be approved by regulatory officials.

All of this takes time.

For the last year, many people have been working to make clinical trials possible. We are now hopeful that the first human clinical trials of anti-CD47 antibody will take place at Stanford in mid-2014, if all goes well. Clinical trials may also be done in the United Kingdom.

As we get closer to clinical trials, we will start posting information about enrollments on this page.

(1/14/14) Update on the anti-CD47 cancer therapy clinical trials

Researchers and staff at Stanford are continuing to work hard preparing the groundwork for the clinical trials of our anti-CD47 antibody as a cancer therapy. We are anticipating the start of clinical trials sometime in the first half of this year, though unforeseen delays may yet slow that progress. As we get closer to the start of the clinical trials, we will be posting information about eligibility for the trials and how to apply.

There has been a huge amount of interest in these trials from patients and their families and friends. However, we feel compelled to emphasize that, as is typical of FDA phase I clinical trials, the first tests of this therapy will be very small safety trials involving only a very few patients. Unfortunately, this means only a tiny fraction of those interested will be admitted to the first phase I clinical trials. Accordingly, we are urging patients to continue exploring existing treatments and other clinical trials.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems interesting, but scientists have cured mice tumors many times over and the results rarely transfer over to humans. Hopefully, this one breaks the pattern.

 
Wow this sounds promising. A quick search gives me SCTPF as the company working on this and their price is only 46 cents....

 
I'm pretty convinced that targeted immunotherapy is going to make most if not all forms of cancer a treatable, manageable disease in the next 5-10 years.

 
hope it works... love and praise to those scientists that quietly do the work in the shadows to hopefully bring us a cure to an ugly disease one day.

 
Obviously I think everyone would like to see this succeed. Everyone has been directly or indirectly affected by cancer and it sucks. Would be one of the greatest finds of all-time if it does succeed.

 
Seems interesting, but scientists have cured mice tumors many times over and the results rarely transfer over to humans. Hopefully, this one breaks the pattern.
This is a very different proposition. It's not killing the tumor - it's negating the tumor's defense so that the both can do its job. This one may very well be different.

 
brohans i hope like nothing else that this is true and they make it happen take that to the bank brohans

 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/05/15/womans-cancer-killed-by-measles-virus-in-unprecedented-trial/?tid=pm_pop

Woman’s cancer killed by measles virus in unprecedented trialHer name is Stacy Erholtz. For years, the 50-year-old mom from Pequot Lakes, Minn., battled myeloma, a blood cancer that affects bone marrow. She had few options left.

She had been through chemotherapy treatments and two stem cell transplants. But it wasn’t enough. Soon, scans showed she had tumors growing all over her body.

One grew on her forehead, destroying a bone in her skull and pushing on her brain. Her children named it Evan, her doctor said. Cancer had infiltrated her bone marrow.

_____________________________________

“Thirty-six hours after the virus infusion was finished, she told me, ‘Evan has started shrinking,’” Russell said. Over the next several weeks, the tumor on her forehead disappeared completely and, over time, the other tumors in her body did, too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LOVE reading stuff like this. Please please please.
Why? Outside of curing cancer related illness in children, it is a way to thin an overcrowded world. Why does anyone want to live to 130? Do you think you'll be a good driver? Cancer is a reality, aging is actually cancer and it will kill us all someday. Not trying to be insensitive either, cancer impacts everyone as our loved ones are afflicted by it. That's the natural progression though, intervening is unwise IMHO. Too many people already, curing 1st world cancer is a means to an excruciating end.

 
LOVE reading stuff like this. Please please please.
Why? Outside of curing cancer related illness in children, it is a way to thin an overcrowded world. Why does anyone want to live to 130? Do you think you'll be a good driver? Cancer is a reality, aging is actually cancer and it will kill us all someday. Not trying to be insensitive either, cancer impacts everyone as our loved ones are afflicted by it. That's the natural progression though, intervening is unwise IMHO. Too many people already, curing 1st world cancer is a means to an excruciating end.
Not so much insensitive as you are stupid.

While I agree that overpopulation is a huge problem, you serioulsy can't think of any better ways to deal with that issue that letting people rot away a miserable death by cancer?

You caught me fisherman, now throw me back in.

 
LOVE reading stuff like this. Please please please.
Why? Outside of curing cancer related illness in children, it is a way to thin an overcrowded world. Why does anyone want to live to 130? Do you think you'll be a good driver? Cancer is a reality, aging is actually cancer and it will kill us all someday. Not trying to be insensitive either, cancer impacts everyone as our loved ones are afflicted by it. That's the natural progression though, intervening is unwise IMHO. Too many people already, curing 1st world cancer is a means to an excruciating end.
I will take intentionally stupid posts by an obscure alias for $1000.

 
LOVE reading stuff like this. Please please please.
Why? Outside of curing cancer related illness in children, it is a way to thin an overcrowded world. Why does anyone want to live to 130? Do you think you'll be a good driver? Cancer is a reality, aging is actually cancer and it will kill us all someday. Not trying to be insensitive either, cancer impacts everyone as our loved ones are afflicted by it. That's the natural progression though, intervening is unwise IMHO. Too many people already, curing 1st world cancer is a means to an excruciating end.
#### nature. #### the natural progression.

I want my mother back.

 
LOVE reading stuff like this. Please please please.
Why? Outside of curing cancer related illness in children, it is a way to thin an overcrowded world. Why does anyone want to live to 130? Do you think you'll be a good driver? Cancer is a reality, aging is actually cancer and it will kill us all someday. Not trying to be insensitive either, cancer impacts everyone as our loved ones are afflicted by it. That's the natural progression though, intervening is unwise IMHO. Too many people already, curing 1st world cancer is a means to an excruciating end.
#### nature. #### the natural progression.

I want my mother back.
I'm with Sand on this, I've lost plenty of loved ones to this ####, I want them back and I want to keep the ones I have now! Just learned a few weeks ago a close friend of mine from HS has inoperable brain cancer and about 3-8 months to live a very miserable existence. She just celebrated her last birthday 2 weeks ago.

 
We dont have the infra-structure created to handle people living healthy with doubled life spans. No way anything like this will be allowed to hit the market.

 
The sad thing is that big pharma companies would do everything possible to keep this from being produced if it worked.
Such bull####. And :fishing:
IDK what is fishing about it... It is an accurate and realistic statement... Big pharma would rather treat conditions instead of curing them. If there is a cure for all cancer, they lose trillions on their oncology drugs.

It is completely ####ed up and bull#### and some of these CEO's are the scum of Earth, but it is real.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:blackdot:

A few years ago there was an Asian high school girl that made a discovery similar to this. I think she was on TV or MSN.com or something. I vaguely remember her saying she was applying to/or would attend Stanford.

I wonder if it's the same person.

 
Its not just big pharma. The whole economic structure of healthcare is centered around using the services and technology offered. It has nothing to do with staying away from the services. There are no reimbursement structures which incent non users. People being sick is what keeps the money printing.

Ive negotiated, created and implemented high dollar healthcare reimbursement methodologies for 20 years. I'm jaded and cynical but not crazy.

 
Its not just big pharma. The whole economic structure of healthcare is centered around using the services and technology offered. It has nothing to do with staying away from the services. There are no reimbursement structures which incent non users. People being sick is what keeps the money printing.

Ive negotiated, created and implemented high dollar healthcare reimbursement methodologies for 20 years. I'm jaded and cynical but not crazy.
False, well at least false up until the ACA. Non-users got lower premiums. That's a reimbursement back to the individual, though, not the company - likely not what you meant.

 
When Anthem BCBS of Ohio and Cleveland Clinic negotiate terms they could give a #### that John Doe got $25 off his premium for going to the gym twice a week and lied on his open enrollment application that he's a non-smoker. And if you think that the lowered premiums arent finding their way back into the system you're mistaken.

 
When Anthem BCBS of Ohio and Cleveland Clinic negotiate terms they could give a #### that John Doe got $25 off his premium for going to the gym twice a week and lied on his open enrollment application that he's a non-smoker. And if you think that the lowered premiums arent finding their way back into the system you're mistaken.
Pre-ACA there was no open enrollment application - they were underwritten.

I've had lower rates for years because of having a good health rating on my policy. That saved premium has not found it wasn't back into the system from me, possibly from others, but not from me. My total health care expenditure in the past 3 years has been well under $500, likely under $200 as I can only recall going to the Dr. once.

 
When Anthem BCBS of Ohio and Cleveland Clinic negotiate terms they could give a #### that John Doe got $25 off his premium for going to the gym twice a week and lied on his open enrollment application that he's a non-smoker. And if you think that the lowered premiums arent finding their way back into the system you're mistaken.
Pre-ACA there was no open enrollment application - they were underwritten.

I've had lower rates for years because of having a good health rating on my policy. That saved premium has not found it wasn't back into the system from me, possibly from others, but not from me. My total health care expenditure in the past 3 years has been well under $500, likely under $200 as I can only recall going to the Dr. once.
Ok, but in that time medical trend has gone up x% a year so that the boken ankle you might have suffered in 2010 which lets say would have cost you $900 is now going to cost you $1500 or $2000. So your lowered premium has not bought you, the individual, lowered access into the system. It's simply cost you less to be on the sidelines until you actually need it.

 
I'm sure every oncology clinic in existence would love to see cancer cured if they could be reimbursed for the outcome. Meaning that instead of the current backward system where only the maintenance of the condition through 'per click charges' accrued through use of services is reimbursed and instead, be paid for the healthy outcome using the savings of that person no longer needing oncology services as the basis of the reimbursement. That methodology and funding mechanism doesn't exist currently.

 
Officer Pete Malloy said:
Funkley said:
Officer Pete Malloy said:
Funkley said:
Lofl. Another person who believes the big business of healthcare is to help people. Grow up.
And yet somehow they do help people. Crazy how that works out.
Lol. For a fee and with the idea that they will be back. There is no clinic set up on the business principle that people will come in once and never come back.
Okie dokie!
You can't be this naive.
 
Officer Pete Malloy said:
Funkley said:
Officer Pete Malloy said:
Funkley said:
Lofl. Another person who believes the big business of healthcare is to help people. Grow up.
And yet somehow they do help people. Crazy how that works out.
Lol. For a fee and with the idea that they will be back. There is no clinic set up on the business principle that people will come in once and never come back.
Okie dokie!
You can't be this naive.
You betcha!

 
brohans who are arguing about healthcare polotics in here thanks for crapping it up here is what i say i hope that they cure this disease everyone of us would have someone that they would want back from a parent to a sibling to a kid to you name it it goes on and on and i have seen to many folksi know go down to it and it bugs the hell out and its one that i pray on every chance i get so join the old swcer in saying screw you cancer and say a prayer or have a good thought that they make this work take that to the bank brohans

 
Funkley said:
Its not just big pharma. The whole economic structure of healthcare is centered around using the services and technology offered. It has nothing to do with staying away from the services. There are no reimbursement structures which incent non users. People being sick is what keeps the money printing.

Ive negotiated, created and implemented high dollar healthcare reimbursement methodologies for 20 years. I'm jaded and cynical but not crazy.
So, you think a 6 month to 2 year treatment of a 40 year old with terminal cancer is more attractive financially than the additional 50 years of treatment they'll be able to sell that individual if they cure the cancer?

 
Funkley said:
Its not just big pharma. The whole economic structure of healthcare is centered around using the services and technology offered. It has nothing to do with staying away from the services. There are no reimbursement structures which incent non users. People being sick is what keeps the money printing.

Ive negotiated, created and implemented high dollar healthcare reimbursement methodologies for 20 years. I'm jaded and cynical but not crazy.
So, you think a 6 month to 2 year treatment of a 40 year old with terminal cancer is more attractive financially than the additional 50 years of treatment they'll be able to sell that individual if they cure the cancer?
To the healthplan collecting premiums, no. To the oncology group trying to keep the lights on, yes. To the home health agency which is only in business to take care of the currently sick person, yes. To the radiology group who is only in business to view the regular scans of the condition, yes. And what longterm "treatment" will result from a cure? One office visit every year or two to check remission doesn't keep the lights on.

 
Funkley said:
Its not just big pharma. The whole economic structure of healthcare is centered around using the services and technology offered. It has nothing to do with staying away from the services. There are no reimbursement structures which incent non users. People being sick is what keeps the money printing.

Ive negotiated, created and implemented high dollar healthcare reimbursement methodologies for 20 years. I'm jaded and cynical but not crazy.
So, you think a 6 month to 2 year treatment of a 40 year old with terminal cancer is more attractive financially than the additional 50 years of treatment they'll be able to sell that individual if they cure the cancer?
To the healthplan collecting premiums, no. To the oncology group trying to keep the lights on, yes. To the home health agency which is only in business to take care of the currently sick person, yes. To the radiology group who is only in business to view the regular scans of the condition, yes. And what longterm "treatment" will result from a cure? One office visit every year or two to check remission doesn't keep the lights on.
How about every other disease that individual is going to face in his lifetime? How about the exponentially increased health costs that he'll incur past the age of 60 including additional cancer treatments?

 
I say in on a 4 hour meeting with 3 different health tech VCs in the room. Combined experience was 100 years. Combined capital backing these men was somewhere between 500Mil and 2Bil. What I heard of the industry would make your blood boil. And these men were trying to change the current incentive system.

 
I'm sure every oncology clinic in existence would love to see cancer cured if they could be reimbursed for the outcome. Meaning that instead of the current backward system where only the maintenance of the condition through 'per click charges' accrued through use of services is reimbursed and instead, be paid for the healthy outcome using the savings of that person no longer needing oncology services as the basis of the reimbursement. That methodology and funding mechanism doesn't exist currently.
Fixed. You may be in the industry, or maybe you're just fishing, but you have NO idea what you're talking about. I had to spend the better part of half a year in an oncology unit with my mom, and I guarantee you, no matter how much you think they're making, there is nothing they would like more than to see cancer cured. I honestly believe that most of them would gladly give up their professions entirely if it meant having a cure for this ####.

 
I'm sure every oncology clinic in existence would love to see cancer cured if they could be reimbursed for the outcome. Meaning that instead of the current backward system where only the maintenance of the condition through 'per click charges' accrued through use of services is reimbursed and instead, be paid for the healthy outcome using the savings of that person no longer needing oncology services as the basis of the reimbursement. That methodology and funding mechanism doesn't exist currently.
Fixed. You may be in the industry, or maybe you're just fishing, but you have NO idea what you're talking about. I had to spend the better part of half a year in an oncology unit with my mom, and I guarantee you, no matter how much you think they're making, there is nothing they would like more than to see cancer cured. I honestly believe that most of them would gladly give up their professions entirely if it meant having a cure for this ####.
Jesus Tim, read much? Go back and look at my first post. I said "big business of healthcare". This debate has nothing to do with the staff that took care of your Mom or my family so save your indignation.

Those people, on the front lines, are toiling in this same broken system.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top