New wonder drug matches and kills all kinds of cancer (NY Post)

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
From my personal experience, academic lab/research are all shameless about how significant their discovery/result is. They talk about new era and novelties. In actuality, CD47 has been long discovered and an antagonistic antibody against this well-known surface marker is easily developed. It might be true that tumor cells subside when the antibody is used, but unless they publish their experiments and controls, we should not take this too seriously.

The future of cancer is far away and bleak. Just by developing an antibody against ONE surface receptor will definitely not do the trick. Most cancer that needs to be treated has already developed stem cell characteristics, which means even if one of them is still left, they will keep on proliferating and metathesizing. Furthermore, everybody's immunity is different; every tumor micro-environment is different, and every type of cancer cells are different from each other (and they keep on changing!). Thus, a "miracle drug" will never happen, at least not in the next 100 years.

Personally, I believe the only way to eliminate cancer is to facilitate the detection of cancer (most cancer is detected at stage IV or beyond, where the 5 year survival rate is generally less than 5%), or discover as many of those surface marker (like CD47) as possible and use combination of antibodies coupled with drug to achieve multi-specific recognition. There is also a need to standardize the drug treatment procedure so the most specific antibody is delivered and monitor the activity/proliferation of T-killer cells and T-reg cells so the body's own immunity can be evaluated and harnessed.

I am an aspiring oncologist.
 
chongli04us said:
From my personal experience, academic lab/research are all shameless about how significant their discovery/result is. They talk about new era and novelties. In actuality, CD47 has been long discovered and an antagonistic antibody against this well-known surface marker is easily developed. It might be true that tumor cells subside when the antibody is used, but unless they publish their experiments and controls, we should not take this too seriously.

The future of cancer is far away and bleak. Just by developing an antibody against ONE surface receptor will definitely not do the trick. Most cancer that needs to be treated has already developed stem cell characteristics, which means even if one of them is still left, they will keep on proliferating and metathesizing. Furthermore, everybody's immunity is different; every tumor micro-environment is different, and every type of cancer cells are different from each other (and they keep on changing!). Thus, a "miracle drug" will never happen, at least not in the next 100 years.

Personally, I believe the only way to eliminate cancer is to facilitate the detection of cancer (most cancer is detected at stage IV or beyond, where the 5 year survival rate is generally less than 5%), or discover as many of those surface marker (like CD47) as possible and use combination of antibodies coupled with drug to achieve multi-specific recognition. There is also a need to standardize the drug treatment procedure so the most specific antibody is delivered and monitor the activity/proliferation of T-killer cells and T-reg cells so the body's own immunity can be evaluated and harnessed.

I am an aspiring oncologist.
Click to expand...

tumblr_lfskbtLUR51qbs1cu.gif
 
chongli04us said:
From my personal experience, academic lab/research are all shameless about how significant their discovery/result is. They talk about new era and novelties. In actuality, CD47 has been long discovered and an antagonistic antibody against this well-known surface marker is easily developed. It might be true that tumor cells subside when the antibody is used, but unless they publish their experiments and controls, we should not take this too seriously.

The future of cancer is far away and bleak. Just by developing an antibody against ONE surface receptor will definitely not do the trick. Most cancer that needs to be treated has already developed stem cell characteristics, which means even if one of them is still left, they will keep on proliferating and metathesizing. Furthermore, everybody's immunity is different; every tumor micro-environment is different, and every type of cancer cells are different from each other (and they keep on changing!). Thus, a "miracle drug" will never happen, at least not in the next 100 years.

Personally, I believe the only way to eliminate cancer is to facilitate the detection of cancer (most cancer is detected at stage IV or beyond, where the 5 year survival rate is generally less than 5%), or discover as many of those surface marker (like CD47) as possible and use combination of antibodies coupled with drug to achieve multi-specific recognition. There is also a need to standardize the drug treatment procedure so the most specific antibody is delivered and monitor the activity/proliferation of T-killer cells and T-reg cells so the body's own immunity can be evaluated and harnessed.

I am an aspiring oncologist.
Click to expand...

Then you need to learn the difference between metathesizing and, what you likely meant to say, metastasizing.
 
Last edited:
chongli04us said:
From my personal experience, academic lab/research are all shameless about how significant their discovery/result is. They talk about new era and novelties. In actuality, CD47 has been long discovered and an antagonistic antibody against this well-known surface marker is easily developed. It might be true that tumor cells subside when the antibody is used, but unless they publish their experiments and controls, we should not take this too seriously.

The future of cancer is far away and bleak. Just by developing an antibody against ONE surface receptor will definitely not do the trick. Most cancer that needs to be treated has already developed stem cell characteristics, which means even if one of them is still left, they will keep on proliferating and metathesizing. Furthermore, everybody's immunity is different; every tumor micro-environment is different, and every type of cancer cells are different from each other (and they keep on changing!). Thus, a "miracle drug" will never happen, at least not in the next 100 years.

Personally, I believe the only way to eliminate cancer is to facilitate the detection of cancer (most cancer is detected at stage IV or beyond, where the 5 year survival rate is generally less than 5%), or discover as many of those surface marker (like CD47) as possible and use combination of antibodies coupled with drug to achieve multi-specific recognition. There is also a need to standardize the drug treatment procedure so the most specific antibody is delivered and monitor the activity/proliferation of T-killer cells and T-reg cells so the body's own immunity can be evaluated and harnessed.

I am an aspiring oncologist.
Click to expand...

It's called pubmed, use it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23690610?dopt=Abstract&otool=stanford

i'll let you look up the rest of your science on there too...
 
The ny post is quite possibly the least respectible newspaper out there, along with the daily mail and the london star. You'd think that a cure for cancer would merit at least an abstract in science
 
B.s. They come out with this stuff every year. Take what u hear from sources Luke this with a mountain of salt.
 
chongli04us said:
From my personal experience, academic lab/research are all shameless about how significant their discovery/result is. They talk about new era and novelties.
Click to expand...

And in my personal experience in epidemiology and public health, it isn't the academic and research folk that are exaggerating their research results. It tends to be the news media looking for an eye catching line that makes big claims and leaps sometimes only tangentially related to the actual study which also irritates the researchers. Heck for the first 5-10 minutes of all of my epidemiology methods I grad lectures we'd go over a news media article on an epi study and point out the flaws in reporting, sometimes going back to the original to see just how different the results and discussion sections were from the news article.

See exhibit A for a humorous but accurate description of this process:

phd051809s.gif
 
chongli04us said:
From my personal experience, academic lab/research are all shameless about how significant their discovery/result is. They talk about new era and novelties. In actuality, CD47 has been long discovered and an antagonistic antibody against this well-known surface marker is easily developed. It might be true that tumor cells subside when the antibody is used, but unless they publish their experiments and controls, we should not take this too seriously.

The future of cancer is far away and bleak. Just by developing an antibody against ONE surface receptor will definitely not do the trick. Most cancer that needs to be treated has already developed stem cell characteristics, which means even if one of them is still left, they will keep on proliferating and metathesizing. Furthermore, everybody's immunity is different; every tumor micro-environment is different, and every type of cancer cells are different from each other (and they keep on changing!). Thus, a "miracle drug" will never happen, at least not in the next 100 years.

Personally, I believe the only way to eliminate cancer is to facilitate the detection of cancer (most cancer is detected at stage IV or beyond, where the 5 year survival rate is generally less than 5%), or discover as many of those surface marker (like CD47) as possible and use combination of antibodies coupled with drug to achieve multi-specific recognition. There is also a need to standardize the drug treatment procedure so the most specific antibody is delivered and monitor the activity/proliferation of T-killer cells and T-reg cells so the body's own immunity can be evaluated and harnessed.

I am an aspiring oncologist.
Click to expand...

Im not saying this research is indeed revolutionary but in order for human trials to commence the research had to be backed up pretty heavily with strong data. Might be worth noting future oncologist.
 
def1 said:
Im not saying this research is indeed revolutionary but in order for human trials to commence the research had to be backed up pretty heavily with strong data. Might be worth noting future oncologist.
Click to expand...

You might want to look into what clinical trial means. Clinical trial has 4 stages. First stage does not require the drug to work. In fact, 2 out of every 13 cancer drugs out there made it to the second stage. Now, I don't doubt that this result merits clinical trial, and it might possibly become an effective drug around 2022, about 8 years after the clinical trial commences. Usually from the beginning of research til the drug comes out to the market takes 10-15 years.

However, all I am saying is this will not be the cure for cancer. Not even close. You should read about CD47, I am sure googling it would help. It is nothing more than a receptor that down regulates immunity. There are hundreds of cell surface marker out there (and more and more are discovered every year; I am working on discovering one right now) that either enhances or decreases our body's immune system. It is this balance between them that allows our T-cells to attack foreign substances, while keeping them off of the good stuff like vessel walls or your neurons. For someone who have just discovered ONE of those receptors, claiming that it is a miracle drug that can possibly cure cancer is wrong and quite unethical.

I can guarantee you that the only way to beat cancer lies in what I said in my previous post, which you can find couple of posts up, which complains about off-topic stuff like how I used metathesizing or naive comments about clinical trial.
 
:beat:

OP, always doubt these sensationalist titles. If it's big enough, there will be a paper or discussion about the paper where you can find a more meaningful view of it than a regurgitation from a third-rate news source.
 
IncognitoGuy said:
OP, always doubt these sensationalist titles. If it's big enough, there will be a paper or discussion about the paper where you can find a more meaningful view of it than a regurgitation from a third-rate news source.
Click to expand...

Oh believe me, I don't put stock in these kinds of articles either. If I had a nickel for every time cancer, Alzheimer's, etc. have been "cured"...
 
I'm not saying it's the end all but Dr. Weissman is a very prestigious researcher at Stanford. As someone who has worked with this project I can tell you that it is very legitimate and in combination with other treatments will hopefully make a difference. I don't recommend getting all of your cancer updated from ny times but you don't have to discount research just because it gets public attention.

Every little bit counts.
Sorry that was a bit high winded but there's nothing wrong with a little hope.
 
Plue00 said:
These kinds of drugs come out all the time. They then send them to other labs across the US/World and they find a bunch of flaws in them.

I remember in my old lab, my PI was always given the new "miracle" drug to test, which didn't work or had really bad side effects.
Click to expand...

Fact. I was a student researcher in pediatric oncology for 1.5 years, and we had supposed "golden bullets" being offered to my P.I. all the time. Just because something can kill (or in this case identify) all types of cancer doesn't make it a miracle drug. There are probably hundreds of drugs out there that can do that. The issue is all the other factors, variables, and requirements for an effective chemotherapeutic agent, and there are a TONNNN of them.

Whether or not this drug has worked out some of those kinks already, I'm not sure, but I'm guessing there's still a lot of work and testing to be done.
 
Planes2Doc said:
You also have quacks touting their magical cures while claiming that the cancer "industry" is one big conspiracy theory, like Burzynski and his anti-neoplastons.
Click to expand...

Burzynski does not call the industry a conspiracy theory, some of his supporters do. His cures are not magical, apparently the anti-neoplastons are combinations of chemo drugs.
 
The NY Post is not the place where legitimate news stories are broken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Battleing Cancer
Replies
9
Views
836
Goro
Goro
S
  • Question Question
3 Year Old Drug Misdemeanor
Replies
8
Views
1K
-smacked-
S
S
Arrested and wondering how it’ll affect me
Replies
10
Views
996
Med Ed
Med Ed
TibiaOrNotTibia
Timeline of Submission and IIs
Replies
9
Views
1K
TibiaOrNotTibia
TibiaOrNotTibia
capybaracarbonara
Pre- and Post-WL LOI
Replies
5
Views
691
capybaracarbonara
capybaracarbonara
Top