Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Cure for Cancer May Have Been Found

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:03 PM
Original message
A Cure for Cancer May Have Been Found
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5284850.stm

Cancer cell 'executioner' found

Cancer cells keep dividing because the cell suicide process fails
Scientists have developed a way of "executing" cancer cells.
Healthy cells have a built-in process which means they commit suicide if something is wrong, a process which fails in cancer cells.

The University of Illinois team created a synthetic molecule which caused cancer cells to self-destruct.

<snip>

One of the hallmarks of cancer cells is their resistance to the body's cell suicide signals, which allow them to survive and develop into tumours.


The article is pretty exciting. Clinical trials on living humans haven't started yet, only on mice and human tumors in labs.



Scientific American article: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID...

Suicide is the regular mode of cell death. When cells reach the end of their useful life, internal mechanisms kick in and the cell automatically perishes, a process known as apoptosis. But in cancer cells this mechanism has often been genetically disabled or otherwise broken, allowing tumors to proliferate. Now researchers have found a way to reactivate programmed cell death and thereby treat cancer.

This would be wonderful news if it works out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. A cure for cancer in our life time
I hope it is time to save many who are already diagnosed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. watch Bush jump to take credit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
serryjw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. I'm a cynic....It will
never happen. Billions are made on cancer. IF a cure is available in the next decade it will not be in the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Exactly, they're never going to repeat the mistake they made with
polio. Imagine how many billions, maybe trillions, they lost over the years because that asshole Saulk went and actually cured the disease! :sarcasm:

Prolonged maintenance and symptomatic relief are endlessly profitable and provides a surefire mechanism to suck every last penny out of their accounts before they die. Fucking bottom feeders.

We have to get the insurance industry out of health care and heavily regulate/control the pharmaceutical industry, if we are to ever get the health care we are paying for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bperci108 Donating Member (969 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Perhaps the American people...
...are finally beginning to realize that Medicine For Profit is as bad an idea as News For Profit or Government For Profit.


Single-payer National Healthcare NOW!

Sorry...couldn't help myself there. :evilgrin:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #12
20. Salk didn't find a cure for polio he found a way to prevent it.
There always big money in cures, not so much in prevention. To add insult to injury, Salk refused to patent the vaccine so as much of it could be made as quickly and as cheaply as possible - he must have been a commie to show so little respect for capitalism. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #20
41. Thanks for the correction, you are absolutely right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
serryjw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
35. FDA and BIG Pharma
didn't exist in Saulk's day. There will be no 'cure' in my lifetime. We will be on the internet slow lane highway of maintenance and pain management. IF I was re-DX I would only do non transitional and lifestyle changes. NO MORE Chemo for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. I just hope Republicans don't line up to get it
they have been rejecting science for years.

And, besides, curing their cancer would go against God's will, right?



Aside from that, though, this sounds like it could be good news if it works out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Surya Gayatri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
4. Sounds like an amazing leap forward...
But, just watch the fundie anti-science rabble find some reason to fault

it--how will they twist this breakthrough into something to be feared? SG
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. But, but, but ..........
Edited on Mon Aug-28-06 04:13 PM by Cleita
human cancer tumors are alive and we must keep them alive at all costs! I hope the pro-life crowd doesn't go down this path.

It's too late for my mother, but I hope everyone else, whose mother is still alive, will benefit from this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. But the pro-lifers...
...only support the lives of the "unborn." And you know that the wingnuts really, really like executions. So the "execution of cells" seem like a good fit.

On the otherhand, they don't like those "suiciders" either. Mmmmm, tough call....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. We know they don't care about fully grown humans but they
Edited on Mon Aug-28-06 05:12 PM by Cleita
do care about unborn human cells. It seems that to be consistent in their beliefs they should rather kill the cancer patient than those clumps of human cells, that have the same evolutionary status of the blastocysts. This is something those in clerical collars should think about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
6. I hope they hurry it up.
Edited on Mon Aug-28-06 04:16 PM by panader0
On the other hand, while this "executioner" news sounds promising, Some cancer seems like it is the natural result of abuse to the body. My mother died from lung cancer, after smoking alot for sixty years. That's gotta cause cancer, I would think. I myself have several small melanomas cuased, I would think, by working outdoors for 36 years, mostly in Arizona. Medicine is a wonderful thing, but the body can only take so much. Have they got anything developed for cirrhosis yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kimmerspixelated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
7. The cure for cancer
has been around for a long time. "They" just don't want you to know about it. Extreme nutrional therapy is the answer. Keeping the body at an alkaline ph,(no disease can thrive) or with a macrobiotic diet, some of the super juices such as Goji, Acai, and one might try Frequensea. Nature in its abundance will help the body cure itself. Anything synthetic, any drug the FDA approves is suspect in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Nutrional therapy is right for some but not everyone. In conjunction with
allopathic medicine, it's quite effective in many instances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. Latest research shows no benefit from diets or supplements
A meta-analysis of 59 clinical trials of various dietary and supplemental treatments for cancer show no evidence of benefit. Telling cancer patients otherwise is not just irresponsible its dangerous.

http://www.emaxhealth.com/83/7104.html

Dietary Supplements and Cancer

There is little evidence that dietary modification or supplements such as vitamins improve the outcome for cancer patients, say researchers from the University of Bristol, UK.

...

Dr Steven Thomas and colleagues at the University of Bristol used electronic database searches to identify 59 trials that had investigated the effects of a diverse range of nutrition interventions in patients with a previous diagnosis of cancer or preinvasive lesions.

Dr Thomas said: "There is little current evidence that specific dietary interventions work, thus on this evidence we cannot recommend their widespread use in cancer management. Clinicians also need to be clear about the limited evidence and give reliable advice, particularly on Internet sites from which many patients with cancer may seek information."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tunkamerica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. They just weren't doing it correctly.
And it doesn't work if you're "measuring" "results". or being "objective".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Is that so?
Do tell, how should scientists be designing these trials? What "end points" should they be seeking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
serryjw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. RFLOL!
If you believe that, I will sell you the brooklym bridge
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #23
40. My dad's doc suggested latrile in conjunction w/ chemo
and Dad's as dead as he ever was.

The science simply does not support quicky-fixy diet stuff, regardless of Susan Sommers' protestations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
39. Right.... I bet you also thing garlic and lemon juice cures AIDS.
Just because there are abuses in the system doesn't mean all synthetic drugs are bad. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The chemists who design new drugs know what they are doing, it's corporate greed causing corners to be cut leading to drugs with too many side effects that is the problem. Don't get me wrong, I don't think all herbal treatments are snake oil, but they just need to be studied so we know the biochemistry so side effects can be minimized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
9. Very exciting
Kicking for hope! :kick: :kick: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
10. "Human tumors in labs"?
:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Please explain why you find that chilling.
Human tissue has been examined in labs for over a century. Human cancer tumors have been kept alive in labs since the 1930's, IIRC, definately since the 1950's. What is the problem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lividtiff Donating Member (25 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. That is true, but keep in mind
The Cell lines that are used in a laboratory have been modified from the original cells that were extracted from the tumor, and they are altered many times over the course of the research. Also, the cell lines are homogeneous and comprised of the same cells with teh same mutations. Many cancer's are made up of several different cell types with differing mutations. This means that research done on cancer cell lines done in the lab, may not translate well into a clinical setting. Also, the gene that they are activating is one that is found in ALL cells of the body. It will activate apoptosis in cells other than the tumor, and therefore may cause toxic side-effects. The research on this gene is too new to be called a "cure." Although, I agree it is very interesting and hopefully will lead to a new treatment for cancer patients.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. Yes, but why did the other poster put up the "chilling" icon?
Why are they scared of it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #21
45. Hi lividtiff!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #15
43. Tumors no longer need laboratory facilities to be kept alive.
Many are serving in the House and Senate today - some under Dr. Frist's supervision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
30. Yeah, I know. The spooky menace of science.
Edited on Mon Aug-28-06 06:06 PM by impeachdubya
driven, of course, by atheistic materialism and a stubborn refusal to let the church make all our decisions for us.


:eyes:


'Course, my dad died of lung cancer. Fucking rotten way to go, if you ask me. Human tumors in labs don't frighten me nearly as much as human tumors--- in humans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WindRavenX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
14. I don't believe in science
I believe in ID!


:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
16. And Bush will deny research dollars
No sense in protecting life - unless it is still in the womb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #16
44. Of course.
Why bother even reporting on this? Most common folk won't be givien access to the cure even if one is found.

Not enough zeroes next to the other numbers in your bank account?

Die.

Pretty simple. And these murderous thugs like it that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
17. Big Pharma doesn't want cures. Too much money in "maintenance"
Edited on Mon Aug-28-06 04:48 PM by Joanne98
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. A young woman diagnosed with breast cancer
recently told her doctor the same thing and refused treatment. Repeating the sales pitch from quack cure salesman.

Unfortunately, her 5 month old baby is going to grow up without a mother because she believed such ridiculous claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
19. All cells contain lysosomes, "suicide packets"
specifically meant to destroy the cell.

My guess is that this will be turned into a weapon before it's turned into a cure.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maveric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
26. And Big - Pharma will price 99% of all cancer patient out.
Only the wealthy will have access to it.
Just the RW way of "thinning out the herd".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeDuffy Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
27. And Mother Nature's response to the news??
Oh, __________!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
31. How long will it take before it actually hits the market though?
I don't know how long FDA testing and whatnot takes. But from what I've heard, it could be a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Yes, the FDA is really slow.
However, this is big enough that the political pressure will be strong to move it along. That may be why they went public, to create some pressure on the FDA. However, I must admit that I am speculating with no solid information beyond the articles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigBearJohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
34. Amidst all the BS today, it's so nice to hear some good news. Thanks! K/R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
36. DU Folding@home - we're helping...
from the Stanford Folding site

CANCER AND P53 . Half of all known cancers involve some mutation in p53, the so-called guardian of the cell. P53 is a tumor suppressor which signals for cell death if their DNA gets damaged. If these cells didn't die, their damaged DNA would lead to the strange and unusual growths found in cancer tumors and this growth would continue unchecked, until death. When p53 breaks down and does not fold correctly (or even perhaps if it doesn't fold quickly enough), then DNA damage goes unchecked and one can get cancer. We have been studying specific domains of p53 in order to predict mutations relevant in cancer and to study known cancer related mutants.

January 2005: Our first work on cancer has recently been published.

February 2005: We are expanding FAH's p53 work to other related p53 systems

July 2005:We are getting some interesting results from recent new FAH p53 projects.

October 2005: Two new sets of projects have completed and two new papers are being readied for peer reviewed publication.

November 2005: FAH researcher Dr. Lillian Chong presented her work on p53 at a lecture at the University of Pittsburgh.

December 2005: FAH researcher Dr. Lillian Chong presented her work on p53 at a lecture at Duke University.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
37. on what "morality" basis will the religiously insane and the repukes
kill this research in the US?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
38. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
42. My Biochemistry professor does cancer research.
In the General Cell Biology course I took in my first semester he had a big section of the biochemistry and physiology of cancer near the end of the course, very interesting stuff. IIRC he is currently researching cell division in cancer cells, what cancer is basically is a result of a mutation screwing up the genes that keep cells from cell division under control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 16th 2014, 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC