Cancer Cured in Mice
#31
Posted 11 May 2006 - 11:01 PM
The Winding Road to the Discovery of the SR/CR mice
"We also heard cheers from people who claimed that they also had a similar gene, since their families had no cancer for many generations and some family members even lived cancer-free to very old ages despite being lifelong heavy smokers."
I wonder if he took their names down? I would bet against it.
#32
Posted 12 May 2006 - 03:33 AM
Question B. Are there people we can safely say are "cancer-resistant", and has anyone
looked at their leukocytes? (Lots of difficult technical issues here as I
understand it... as with Question A)
His answer: I do not know who these people would be and if they were found, their cancer resistance might well be for reasons other than surveillance. I suppose any centenarian would be considered cancer resistant, but the possibilities and the difficulties of investigation seem staggering. Downs syndrome patients are cancer resistant, but the explanation probably has to do with their high levels of anti angiogenesis factors.
Question D. Regression of moles in young people has been proposed as possible visible
evidence of immunosurveillance (Cui and Willingham, 2002). Has anyone tried to
culture proliferating melanocytes from moles?
His answer: All types of new growths tend to regress in the young-- again, the possible reasons seem endless, but are fun to think about.
E. In the rare cases of spontaneous remission of advanced tumors, did anyone
collect blood from these people? (And, again, would it do any good to look at
the leukocytes?)
His answer: Don't know
F. A friend of mine (with whom I've been having an online discussion of the
Hicks paper) wonders: "...why would immune systems have had enough time to
evolve their exceptional sophistication against exogenous infection, but not at
all against endogenous infection (cancer)?" Any comment on this?
His answer: This is your most interesting question. Why would an immune reaction be more likely against ones own cancer than against ones own liver? But then, autoimmunity is fairly common. I am inclined to think that the immune system did not evolve merely for our benefit but probably more for the benefit of the countless species which live in and on us; it evolved to provide the optimum environment for invaders providing nourishment and often protection in an adverse world. It was designed to ensure that we would seldom be inadvertently killed but that we would survive at least until a new host could be found. Most cancers do not survive the death of the host so the cancer has little incentive or ability to select either for against the hosts immune system. The regulation and control of growth are such important functions that I personally doubt that these functions would rely to any great extent upon the immune system.
#33
Posted 12 May 2006 - 04:18 AM
#34
Posted 12 May 2006 - 04:19 AM
should actually suggest that cancer is in the category of "invaders" that we do want to throw out, and that "don't want" to get thrown out at all, so maybe this is a fancy way of saying "cancer is smarter than evolution (of the immune system)", which is still the only explanation I lean towards buying.Most cancers do not survive the death of the host so the cancer has little incentive or ability to select either for against the hosts immune system
Above, he might be talking about symbiosis, but it seems pretty clear that while we are young, our immune system can differentiate very well between things it likes and things it doesn't like. Whether cancer dies from being killed by leukocytes or as a consequence of the death of the human that it infests simply makes no difference to the rest of the world. So there should be no "conspiracies" of any kind that would result in a "permission" of cancer by the immune system.
Is also a confusing question, because the above-mentioned speculation is well-known and reasonable, that tumors, due to their aberrant gene-expression, might present unique immunological signatures, which may in principle be recognized by innate "pattern recognition" receptors or adaptive T-cell receptors and antibodies. I have a question about the latter: Have cancer patients been found to make ineffective antibodies against tumor antigens, and if so, can it be used for diagnosis? (e.g. in a manner similar to HIV tests)Why would an immune reaction be more likely against ones own cancer than against ones own liver?
#35
Posted 12 May 2006 - 07:14 AM
#36
Posted 09 November 2008 - 11:24 AM
From the save Chris Heward thread.
Shortly after Aging 08, Zheng’s trial was put on hold by the FDA for certain bioethical concerns they had, and has been on hold since. Unfortunately, it is quite normal for this agency to charge ahead with the speed of a glacier.
#38
Posted 09 November 2008 - 11:47 AM
There are all awesome videos but number 5 is the most dramatic - it is the one Cui called the "smart bomb".
#39
Posted 10 November 2008 - 11:30 PM
1) do those cancer-resistant mice live longer than their controls ?
i rapidly watched the presentation, without really seeing such data.
If no data is available, it could typically be tested with MPrize @ home
If they don't live longer despite fighting cancer, it means that they have drawbacks that we should care about.
2) what about Gammagard ® ("purified immunoglobulin G (IgG) derived from large pools of human plasma,")?
Michael posted in MF (http://mfoundation.o...read.php?t=1082) that it seems (seems) to cope wih Alzheimer; i would guess that it would have the same anti-cancer potential (to a lesser extent, probably) as granulocytes from cancer-resistant people?
#40
Posted 10 November 2008 - 11:36 PM
1) do those cancer-resistant mice live longer than their controls ?
i rapidly watched the presentation, without really seeing such data.
If no data is available, it could typically be tested with MPrize @ home
If they don't live longer despite fighting cancer, it means that they have drawbacks that we should care about.
2) what about Gammagard ® ("purified immunoglobulin G (IgG) derived from large pools of human plasma,")?
Michael posted in MF (http://mfoundation.o...read.php?t=1082) that it seems (seems) to cope wih Alzheimer; i would guess that it would have the same anti-cancer potential (to a lesser extent, probably) as granulocytes from cancer-resistant people?
#41
Posted 11 November 2008 - 10:28 PM
Considering the controls are the mice who DO get cancer and die within a few weeks, then the answer is yes. If you're asking whether the cancer-resistant mice live longer than mice without the cancer-killing activity who also happen to not get cancer, I don't think that has been studied, but I could be wrong. This would probably involve studying a large population of both cancer-resistant mice and non-cancer-resistant mice, determining the cause of death for every mouse and then calculating the average lifespan for each group.1) do those cancer-resistant mice live longer than their controls ?
#42
Posted 14 November 2008 - 11:28 PM
Appearently it is easy to know if mice have the cancer killing activity, so it is easy to make the 2 groups. The thing is that we would probably need to get the groups from Zheng Cui's lab. Mprize @ home is a suggestion in case they don't plan to do the lifespan test themselves. Anyone in contact with them?
Edited by AgeVivo, 14 November 2008 - 11:37 PM.
#43
Posted 20 November 2008 - 08:25 AM
#44
Posted 20 November 2008 - 07:55 PM
#45
Posted 23 November 2008 - 10:39 PM
I see what you mean. Your question is: "appart from cancer, does this 'cancer-resistance' have other good or bad effects", which is indeed not obvious to answer.Right, but as I was trying to say, after you separate the mice into the two groups, you then must discount any deaths related to cancer. It would skew the results as you're trying to determine whether or not the cancer-resistance somehow bestows a measurable increase in lifespan. (It's already a given that mice without cancer will live longer than mice with cancer.)
My question is a lot simpler: "does this 'cancer-resistance' overall extend lifespan?" (by how much?) I ask this question:
- because I am skeptical when 'cures' are found. Eg mice overexpressing p53 have less risk of cancer...but are short-lived!
- because if 'cancer-resistant' mice live approx 50% longer, that's a number we want to know
For this the 2 groups are sufficient => if anyone knows Zhen Cui, ask him about the lifespan
Edited by AgeVivo, 23 November 2008 - 10:40 PM.
#46
Posted 30 November 2008 - 11:37 PM
- Clinical trial interrupted
Zheng Cui's contact information and research is here: http://www1.wfubmc.e...faculty/cui.htmI attempted to contact Zheng Cui by email but I got an auto-response saying he was out of the office. Has anyone found out why the FDA put a stop to this promising research.
It says
However the link to the clinical tral, which was working 2 weeks ago, doesn't work anymore, it is nowhere said why.a new clinical trial is under way at Wake Forest University to test this novel cancer therapy, termed "Leukocyte Infusion Therapy" or LIFT. This clinical trial has met all regulatory requirements including approval by the Wake Forest University School of Medicine's Institutional Review Board (IRB) and been granted an IND (Investigational New Drug) status by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Zheng Cui's website says things about it. So appearently the lifespan test has not been done per say but first result indicate that we shouldn't expect very long nor very short lifespans.My question is a lot simpler: "does this 'cancer-resistance' overall extend lifespan?" (by how much?) I ask this question:
- because I am skeptical when 'cures' are found. Eg mice overexpressing p53 have less risk of cancer...but are short-lived!
- because if 'cancer-resistant' mice live approx 50% longer, that's a number we want to know
For this the 2 groups are sufficient => if anyone knows Zhen Cui, ask him about the lifespan
http://www1.wfubmc.e...mouse/part1.htm[/url]"]SR/CR Mice are Healthy and Live a Normal Lifespan
The type of mouse in which this resistance mechanism was first studied, BALB/c mice, have a normal lifespan of around 2 years. An important question in the study of the cancer resistance mechanism was whether the resistant mice were healthy. So far, studies of these mice have not shown any shortening of their lifespans. In fact, the original mouse with this trait which had been injected with large numbers of cancer cells many times during its life lived to be 26 months old and had many offspring.
(...) the SR/CR mice have shown no signs of (...) autoimmune complications.
Based on other information on http://www1.wfubmc.e...mouse/part1.htm as far as i understand there would be 2 ways to technically do the lifespan test correctly:
1) cancer resistance: resistant versus non resistant mice are distinguish at young age based on in vitro analyses, resistant mice are being injected a tumor such that they keep their resistance throughout their life, both groups are then monitored without additional experiments until death
2) cancer vaccination: 2 normal groups of BALB/c mice are monitored. every year, one receives purified immune cells from the cancer-resistant mice, the other one receives cells from normal mice.
Edited by AgeVivo, 30 November 2008 - 11:42 PM.
#47
Posted 23 January 2009 - 06:29 AM
However the link to the clinical tral, which was working 2 weeks ago, doesn't work anymore, it is nowhere said why.a new clinical trial is under way at Wake Forest University to test this novel cancer therapy, termed "Leukocyte Infusion Therapy" or LIFT. This clinical trial has met all regulatory requirements including approval by the Wake Forest University School of Medicine's Institutional Review Board (IRB) and been granted an IND (Investigational New Drug) status by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Just some more links on it.
About the experiment: http://www.medicalne...cles/113261.php
I guess this is the page about the clinical trial you were referring to: http://clinicaltrial...0...Open&rank=1
This is indeed a very interesting research.
#48
Posted 23 January 2009 - 08:15 AM
#49
Posted 24 January 2009 - 12:02 PM
#50
Posted 26 January 2009 - 06:56 AM
See this link:
http://www.wesh.com/...673/detail.html
#51
Posted 26 January 2009 - 11:56 AM
#52
Posted 26 January 2009 - 09:36 PM
I recorded today's call at Ustream. Nothing special, just a lady telling me to talk to the PR Department.
#53
Posted 26 January 2009 - 09:49 PM
#54
Posted 27 January 2009 - 10:20 PM
here is some more about cancer http://www.medicalne...cles/123682.phpThanks for putting the links to Chris Heward's case, as I know they were trying to convey other people's immunities to cancer to him. I don't know why the trial was stopped, but surely more are being planned here in the states or elsewhere. There is much promise in this area, it has been known for a while that some humans have immunity to cancer. There is hope that real cures for cancer will be created in the next few decades.
#55
Posted 05 February 2009 - 07:28 PM
In a previous discussion, Klein and his coauthors identified five kinds of anticancer mechanisms. The first type is immunological, which applies to virus-associated cancers. For instance, researchers have compared the antibody responses of the squirrel monkey and the marmoset when infected with Herpesvirus saimri, a virus that is endogenous to squirrel monkeys but that the marmoset never encounters. When exposed to the virus, the marmosets, but not the squirrel monkeys, develop rapidly growing lymphomas. The researchers found a striking difference in the timing of each animal’s antibody response. In the tumor-resistant squirrel monkeys, the antibodies rose to a high level just three days after the infection, but, for the marmosets, the response took three weeks. By that time, the marmosets already had a rapidly growing virus-driven lymphoma. Research has shown that such immunological responses are influenced by genetic variation.
Cui has proven quite conclusively that immunological suppression of cancer in mice exists, just need to find out why his trial in humans was shut down.
#56
Posted 06 February 2009 - 05:22 PM
Here is the study:
http://www.springerl...33vv72t5/<br />
I doubt you're going to find any convincing evidence for why the trial was shut down, but Cui was criticized by other scientists before the trial even began. People were bitching because he couldn't explain WHY what he was doing was effective, therefore, some reasoned that because he didn't know what was going on, he couldn't effectively predict what MIGHT happen negatively.
It's all bullshit. I understand that some treatments might have negative side effects, but so does dying from cancer.
Let people control their own destiny, especially those who are dying anyways.
BTW, Heward died about 3 weeks ago...
#57
Posted 06 February 2009 - 05:40 PM
Those helping Chris Heward stated that the trial was on hold for certain "bio-ethical" concerns. I would imagine that the concerns have something to do with potential GVHD, and that is a (somewhat) valid concern. Scientist in Japan did an allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation transplant on a guy with metastatic colon cancer. The transplant took and he had a remarkable GVT (graft vs tumor) response and survived for something close to 65 months (longer than most people live with metastatic CRC). Unfortunately, he developed GVHD and it killed his liver.
Here is the study:
http://www.springerl...33vv72t5/<br />
I doubt you're going to find any convincing evidence for why the trial was shut down, but Cui was criticized by other scientists before the trial even began. People were bitching because he couldn't explain WHY what he was doing was effective, therefore, some reasoned that because he didn't know what was going on, he couldn't effectively predict what MIGHT happen negatively.
It's all bullshit. I understand that some treatments might have negative side effects, but so does dying from cancer.
Let people control their own destiny, especially those who are dying anyways.
BTW, Heward died about 3 weeks ago...
Yes it is indeed BS if this is the real reason. People who are too afraid to allow new approaches that may change history but that may cause some minimal setbacks (comparing to the potential benefit!) always use "bioethics" as their damned excuse.
Furthermore, who are they to tell people who are dying of cancer and who are willing to try anything -even if it kills them before cancer would- what to do? Hypocritical sons of bitches, let THEY die of cancer and stop constraining those who want to have the freedom to try whatever the hell they want with THEIR OWN bodies to save themselves.
Edited by forever freedom, 06 February 2009 - 05:45 PM.
#58
Posted 06 February 2009 - 08:08 PM
Edited by theone, 06 February 2009 - 08:11 PM.
#60
Posted 11 February 2009 - 01:31 AM
That's very good news. It's always reassuring to know that the good people will not cease to try to make the world a better place despite the retrogrades who try to halt -willingly or unwillingly- advancement.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users