Real Cancer Cure Miracle

[robinson]

If you want to debate the rules, see this.

Back on topic, do you have anything to say about the points made?

I think the science and idea behind this amazing feat of science is fantastic. I suggested such an idea 20 years ago, during the AIDS panic, to a top oncologist. He looked at me like I was insane or something.

Since cancer, Aids, and a host of other diseases are a result of the immune system not working right, why not boost the immune system, rather than treat the disease?

In this case, one could actually say, "We boosted his immune system, and the cancer is gone." And it doesn't sound woo!

 

[ponderingturtle]

From US News & World ReportNow this is bound to lead to cancer patients seeking out bees and poison ivy. I wonder if there was any real evidence behind that statement or if the researcher realizes how quickly people latch on to magic bullets.

I am not sure how much I would trust such a mathmaticaly illiterate doctor though

Maybe there were 10 cells in the body that were very good, sort of a smart bomb against the melanoma, but they weren't enough," Trisal explained. "The bee sting or poison ivy multiplied these smart bombs one thousand times so suddenly this army of 10 became an army of a billion."

10*1000=1000000000?

 

[krazyKemist]

"Designer" cancer cures = $$$$$

My concern is that, even if ulitmately proven successful (noting Robinson's concerns), the broad applicability of such therapies will be cost prohibitive.

-Dr. Imago

Until we automate/standardize them. A few years ago, synthetic vaccines (which are peptides made by classical or solid-phase organic synthesis) were totally unthinkable cost-wise, even in a rich country. Now, they are pioneered by Cuba using technology developped in a university in my country (Canada) ! Said technology could also make the synthesis of certain HIV antivirals cheaper and affordable by third-world countries.

'Designer' or personnalized cures are probably in the close future of cancer treatment.

 

[krazyKemist]

I think the science and idea behind this amazing feat of science is fantastic. I suggested such an idea 20 years ago, during the AIDS panic, to a top oncologist. He looked at me like I was insane or something.

Since cancer, Aids, and a host of other diseases are a result of the immune system not working right, why not boost the immune system, rather than treat the disease?

In this case, one could actually say, "We boosted his immune system, and the cancer is gone." And it doesn't sound woo!

Actually, it still is woo, in the sense that it is a whoolly oversimplification. A more correct expression would be that you vaccine against the cancer, in the sense than you initiate and/or amplify a specific immune response against it. That is already done for some cancers with monoclonal antibodies.

But it is not a magic bullet. What about cancers or metastases of the brain or testicle, where the normal immune response is not allowed ? What about cancers which do not display known specific surface antigens ?

Approaches to cancer treatment must be multipronged for maximal efficacy. Think of it as a parasite fighting an evolutionary battle against all you can throw at it, your own immune response included.

 

[robinson]

I was speaking about Melanoma, as the articles stated.

But to bring up the issue nobody wants to touch, without controls, or placebos, how do we know it was as they said? Without proper controls, they don't know what really happened. People have remission of late stage cancer. Without CD4 cells being injected.

Many other issues as well.

What happens if you clone all the Cd4 cells and re-introduce them? Would a huge infusion of memory cells benefit? Until proper science is done, there is a lot that is unknown about this.

And that problem where eight out out nine died rather than getting rid of the cancer ...

 

[krazyKemist]

I was speaking about Melanoma, as the articles stated.

But to bring up the issue nobody wants to touch, without controls, or placebos, how do we know it was as they said? Without proper controls, they don't know what really happened. People have remission of late stage cancer. Without CD4 cells being injected.

Think of it as a case study. Or a preliminary study. In that case (we're talking about a spectacular result), what this means is that it is worth further exploration. With controls (but it's unethical to use 'no treatment' as control for cancer clinicals; that might complicate issues, since most chemos are immunosuppressive).

Actually, things are pretty confused right now as to the understanding of the role of the immune system in cancer. On the one hand, we have this type of result, monoclonal antibodies, and spontaneous remission of advanced cases. On the other hand, we have pretty good evidence that components of the immune system play an important role in metastasis, by helping cancer cells get into blood circulation. That's why I'm very doubtful about this type of approach. To the point that I'm not sure that one of the projects in my group, the development of chemo agents that are non-toxic for normal lymphocytes, is such a great idea. Maybe immunosuppression is actually a feature of chemo, not a disadvantage, in preventing metastases, which are usually the most dangerous event in cancer.

What happens if you clone all the Cd4 cells and re-introduce them? Would a huge infusion of memory cells benefit? Until proper science is done, there is a lot that is unknown about this.

And that problem where eight out out nine died rather than getting rid of the cancer ...

I don't think increasing all CD4 would be a good idea. Especially if you don't even know if some of them will actually target the cancer cells. You might amplify an undesirable cytotoxic reaction to disastrous levels.

As to the lack on consistancy of the treatment, well, all cancers are different. More than that, tumors are usually highly heterogenous. The cells they are made of might have different hormonal receptors, different surface antigens. And those with different surface antigens will necesserily evade the immune response you have amplified/initiated. Or alternatively, they might evade it using the so-called immune-privileged sites.

 

[Capsid]

I'd assumed that the CD4 cells are helper T cells that stimulate the cytotoxic CD8+ T cells to kill the cancer cells. How do the monoclonal antibody treatments work btw? Is that an ADCC mechanism?

This approach is not without precedent as autologous dendritic cell therapy has been used with some success for several years now.

 

[krazyKemist]

I'd assumed that the CD4 cells are helper T cells that stimulate the cytotoxic CD8+ T cells to kill the cancer cells.

I understood that much. But if there are CD4 targetted to a cancer in a patient's sample, what else might be there ? What if there are some targetted to, say, epitelial cells of his arteries ? Nerves ? Langerans islands ? If there are, you might well transform inoffensive background destruction into large scale damage that cannot be repaired. In other words, trigger a very dangerous autoimmune disease.

How do the monoclonal antibody treatments work btw? Is that an ADCC mechanism?

The one I know about is targetted at advanced, metastatic breast cancer and was the first monoclonal antibody ever approved, rituximab. This one seems to be using the ADCC mechanism.

 

[Capsid]

I understood that much. But if there are CD4 targetted to a cancer in a patient's sample, what else might be there ? What if there are some targetted to, say, epitelial cells of his arteries ? Nerves ? Langerans islands ? If there are, you might well transform inoffensive background destruction into large scale damage that cannot be repaired. In other words, trigger a very dangerous autoimmune disease.

The antigenic target is very specific for cancer (NYO-ES-1), that is unlikely to trigger autoimmunity.

 

[krazyKemist]

The antigenic target is very specific for cancer (NYO-ES-1), that is unlikely to trigger autoimmunity.

Yes, I know. I was responding to Robinson's idea of cloning all the CD4 and reinjecting them. I though that was what you were refering to. My bad.

 

[Capsid]

Yes, I know. I was responding to Robinson's idea of cloning all the CD4 and reinjecting them. I though that was what you were refering to. My bad.

The NY-ESO-1 specific CD4+ cells are clonal in the majority anyway.

 

[Dr. Imago]

And I can't believe you really think Robinson has a point that these researchers were too sloppy with controls in their research to know the treatment was effective and not something else.

Reproduce it in an independent lab and I will retract.

~Dr. Imago

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am not sure how much I would trust such a mathmaticaly illiterate doctor though



10*1000=1000000000?

Besides the fact this is a news report and not anyone's actual research, Dr. Vijay Trisal, assistant professor of surgical oncology at City of Hope Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif. who the reporter was quoting has absolutely nothing to do with the Hutch or this research. Apparently Trisal is an oncology doc that I would guess the reporter was using to add background information on spontaneous tumor regression. I wouldn't count anything he said here as more than wild speculation. Reporters, of course, are not too keen on telling the difference.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Reproduce it in an independent lab and I will retract.

~Dr. Imago

I don't care if you retract anything.

This is what the research summary says:

We developed an in vitro method for isolating and expanding autologous CD4+ T-cell clones with specificity for the melanoma-associated antigen NY-ESO-1. We infused these cells into a patient with refractory metastatic melanoma who had not undergone any previous conditioning or cytokine treatment. We show that the transferred CD4+ T cells mediated a durable clinical remission and led to endogenous responses against melanoma antigens other than NY-ESO-1.

These are the researchers whose names are on the research:
Naomi N. Hunder, M.D., Herschel Wallen, M.D., Jianhong Cao, Ph.D., Deborah W. Hendricks, B.Sc., John Z. Reilly, B.Sc., Rebecca Rodmyre, B.Sc., Achim Jungbluth, M.D., Sacha Gnjatic, Ph.D., John A. Thompson, M.D., and Cassian Yee, M.D.

And these are the affiliated organizations:
From the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (N.N.H., H.W., J.C., D.W.H., J.Z.R., R.R., C.Y.) and the University of Washington (J.A.T., C.Y.) — both in Seattle; and the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research (New York Branch), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York (A.J., S.G.).

If you really think robinson's comment on not seeing any controls was valid then that makes you look as foolish as he looks. What does it even mean? That the patient's tumors regressed spontaneously and it was just a coincidence?

This wasn't a random controlled trial of a couple dozen patients. It was a study that was developing the technique and the technique looks very promising. They cured a patent with terminal end stage metastatic melanoma.

The researchers said very clearly, this was one of 9 (I believe) patients and the only one where success was achieved. They did not to my knowledge overstate the success nor understate the further work that is needed.

Robinson's comment underscored his ignorance of what this study was even about. And you want to join him?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was speaking about Melanoma, as the articles stated.

But to bring up the issue nobody wants to touch, without controls, or placebos, how do we know it was as they said? Without proper controls, they don't know what really happened. People have remission of late stage cancer. Without CD4 cells being injected.......

You haven't even made the slightest attempt to see why your comment was so absurd. You'd think the first thing one might do is find out why something that seems so obvious to you (IE research 101) would not be a part of this study.

Possible answers to such an inquiry:

1) Robinson is a genius and the Hutch researchers are ignorant.
2) Robinson doesn't understand what this research was all about.

 

[Beth]

Calling science and research a "Miracle" doesn't seem right.

I think miracle fits here. On the other hand, I think miracles happen every day. Constantly, all around the world. For example, I consider each and every human baby born a miracle. Low standards for miracles, you say? Perhaps. Or perhaps I just like to remind myself how marvelous and unexpected simply being alive and conscious is. Each new baby is a new and unique example of that.

What these guys have done qualifies as a miracle in my book. It's a totally amazing thing that we humans are capable of these kinds of achievments.

Indeed. But rich people with cancer will pay anything no to die. OK, poor people would too, but anything is a lot.

In fact, it is such a desire, not to die, that leads terminal cases to try anything, even if it is woo as can be. What have they got to lose?

In an ironic sort of way, many people with cancer have already reported "cures" from DCA. There scientific method is pretty much the same as the one in the OP. "We did this, and a few people who did it, there cancer went away." Of course the same problem exists with there stories as the "Miracle" noted here. No controls, no double blind, and a very small group.

Big difference would be, it cost almost nothing
by comparison.

Big difference is, their report is a lot more credible. We are talking about cancer specialists, who see more cases of these diseases than anybody I personally know, and how they assess the patient and his recovery. Like it or not, that carries a lot more weight than my cousin's mother-in-law's friend in Texas. Or some anonymous poster on the internet.

I was speaking about Melanoma, as the articles stated.

But to bring up the issue nobody wants to touch, without controls, or placebos, how do we know it was as they said? Without proper controls, they don't know what really happened. People have remission of late stage cancer. Without CD4 cells being injected.

Many other issues as well.

What happens if you clone all the Cd4 cells and re-introduce them? Would a huge infusion of memory cells benefit? Until proper science is done, there is a lot that is unknown about this.

And that problem where eight out out nine died rather than getting rid of the cancer ...

These guys have a preliminary study. They were only testing it for safety and efficacy. If they had gotten no recoveries, they might still be going on to the next stage. They just wouldn't be publishing the result.

My thoughts on the bee stings and poison ivy relation: It seems quite possible to me that revving up the immune system would result in a possible T-cell developing that recognizes the cancer as something to be dealt with and begins reproducing itself. But perhaps the chances of actually getting that T-cell going is, perhaps only 1 in 500 or 1000. That could make poisson ivy and bee stings attractive to cancer patients.

Perhaps what these scientists have produced is an improvement to a 1 in 10 chance of getting those billions of T-cells going to attack the cancer. If so, that's an improvement worth celebrating. But your right that from this study, we can't tell yet. Their next report will likely be worth reading. Hopefully, it will show the same kind of success.

 

[robinson]

Big difference is, their report is a lot more credible. We are talking about cancer specialists, who see more cases of these diseases than anybody I personally know, and how they assess the patient and his recovery. Like it or not, that carries a lot more weight than my cousin's mother-in-law's friend in Texas. Or some anonymous poster on the internet.

Many of the case studies on DCA are done under the supervision and care of an oncologist. Almost all of them in fact. Because DCA is a very safe molecule, and can't hurt you, (if used correctly), adding it to current cancer treatments is done with the knowledge of the treating Physician.

Which is what makes this so interesting. Skeptigurl wants us to say, "if you throw a hammer through a window" you don't need blinding, controls, peer review, repeatability, all that scientific stuff.

Because you did this, and this happened. Which is exactly the same reasoning many alternative therapies and treatments use. You don't need double blind/placebo controlled large scale studies to know something works. You do it, and you see what happens. End of story.

These guys have a preliminary study. They were only testing it for safety and efficacy. If they had gotten no recoveries, they might still be going on to the next stage. They just wouldn't be publishing the result.

Not true. Several years ago another study was done, almost the same method, which used 19 patients, (none of whom survived, but one showed a small improvement), which was published. Not publishing your results in work like this is almost criminal, in regards to advancing science. It wasn't the same researchers who did the previous study. People build off of each others work.

Failures are just as important as succeeding in science. We learn what not to do.

My thoughts on the bee stings and poison ivy relation: It seems quite possible to me that revving up the immune system would result in a possible T-cell developing that recognizes the cancer as something to be dealt with and begins reproducing itself. But perhaps the chances of actually getting that T-cell going is, perhaps only 1 in 500 or 1000. That could make poison ivy and bee stings attractive to cancer patients.

I've never heard of this bee stings and poison ivy stuff before. I have heard of many cases where something stimulated the persons immune system, and they got rid of incurable cancers. There are many cases of that happening.

Knowing a Doctor is injecting you with a miracle, probably would have a powerful placebo effect. It could even trigger an immune response, even if it wasn't anything but saline. Which is why we do double blind/placebo controlled studies, to know what is really happening, side effects, dangers, etc etc yadda yadda yadda.

What I find hilarious, is that the people who insist that you can't know if something works, unless you jump through all those hoops, are now embracing this, as if it is a miracle. Except Dr. Imago, who seems most wise.

One case does not prove anything.

If you accept the same level of evidence in other cases, as in this case, there are hundreds of things that work. That have no evidence other than, "we did this, and this happened. It is a miracle!".

 

[Beth]

One case does not prove anything.

If you accept the same level of evidence in other cases, as in this case, there are hundreds of things that work. That have no evidence other than, "we did this, and this happened. It is a miracle!".

Okay. I can't argue with you here. It doesn't prove anything. It only points in what might be a promising direction. And I still think miracle is a good word for it. Why not? Spontaneous remission of any sort is often termed a miracle.

 

[robinson]

No kidding. There currently is a well documented case in Australia, that may lead to someone being named a Saint because of it.

 

[robinson]

Now, to argue the other side of the coin, which is the obvious thing, if you do a medical procedure, a lot of times you do know that what you did worked. Because you did this, and this happened. If you did nothing, most likely it wouldn't have happened.

Surgery and other related procedures are the most obvious. Giving saline, heat, cold, cleaning a wound, many practical things have never been tested, as in double blind/placebo controlled studies, with large groups of people. Such testing is not required for many things.

But sometimes, as in the case of a few surgeries, such testing does show the procedure is useless, or worse, a dangerous and expensive procedure that does nothing.

It is, without a doubt, one of those things that can divide people. Where do you draw the line?