Killing Tumors With Viruses

[Kirk Freeman]

While science has known that viruses kill cancer tumors, now medicine is close to using it as a weapon that can target cancer cells.

Coming soon . . . a cancer vaccine. Oh, won't the INGO threads be fun!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/h...uited-and-flipped-as-cancer-killers.html?_r=1

 

[Lucas156]

"He exposed it repeatedly to cancer cells until a new viral mutant evolved with the ability to replicate in those cells." Maybe we will create a virus worse than cancer if thats even possible. It will be like resident evil?

 

[OneBadV8]

Isn't this the premise of the movie "I Am Legend"

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Maybe we will create a virus worse than cancer if thats even possible. It will be like resident evil?

I Am Legend and the premise of INGO's anti-science lobby.

Nooooo, don't cure cancer, you'll destroy humanity and give Will Smith yet another gig . . . the horror.

 

[eldirector]

Interesting that the first 2 replies reference movies, rather than anything in Real Life.

 

[mrjarrell]

More good news from the science front. Hopefully we can keep the Luddites at bay long enough for the research to pay off.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

There is no such thing as a 'cancer' cell, only cells of the host which grow rapidly without respect to other cells, a group of such cells, causing harm to the host, is a malignant tumor. All cancer drugs do is target those rapidly dividing cells, which are easy to target given their rapid growth rate. Guess what also divides as rapidly as 'cancer' cells? Fetuses. Again, I am all for serious cures. A supposed viral vaccine, without knowing the mechanism of action, is something I would never undertake, especially at this early stage.

They say 'we've cured it!' and people want jump to the front of the line for an unproven treatment. Boggles my mind. Give me some actual data to work with before asking me to support something this radical.

 

[88GT]

Hey, I'm all for it. We've done worse as a species.

There is no such thing as a 'cancer' cell, only cells of the host which grow rapidly without respect to other cells, a group of such cells, causing harm to the host, is a malignant tumor. All cancer drugs do is target those rapidly dividing cells, which are easy to target given their rapid growth rate. Guess what also divides as rapidly as 'cancer' cells? Fetuses. Again, I am all for serious cures. A supposed viral vaccine, without knowing the mechanism of action, is something I would never undertake, especially at this early stage.

They say 'we've cured it!' and people want jump to the front of the line for an unproven treatment. Boggles my mind. Give me some actual data to work with before asking me to support something this radical.

Well, let's clarify a few things.

Rapid growth is not the defining feature of cancerous cells. Unregulated division and growth is. It's why your fetus analogy doesn't have any point in the discussion since rapid is relative. Unregulated is not.

Whether or not there is such a thing as a cancer cell is a matter of semantics. Given that cells with unregulated division and growth ARE physically distinguishable from their regulated counterparts, I think one could easily make an argument that a cancer cell is one that has experienced an alteration in the DNA of the cell that results in the unregulated division and/or growth of the cell.

Perhaps a more literally correct description would be cancerous cell, since the actual type of cell doesn't change. A cancerous liver cell is still a liver cell. A cancerous lung cell is still a lung cell. In that regard, there is no such thing as a unique type of foreign cell that is "CANCER" that invades and destroys normal body tissues.

But ask anybody who's had cancer if he gives a rat's ass about this little detail and I'm betting he'll look at you like you're stupid.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Interesting that the first 2 replies reference movies, rather than anything in Real Life.

Where do you think the anti-Science lobby gets its training? From Killer Tomatoes!

 

[Lucas156]

Interesting that the first 2 replies reference movies, rather than anything in Real Life.

I wonder if cancer was as prominent back in the day when the only thing people ate was what they actually grew in their backyards or what they could kill. All the genetically modified foods we eat loaded with the sugars used in rat poison and other contents from God knows what is not normal.

 

[88GT]

I wonder if cancer was as prominent back in the day when the only thing people ate was what they actually grew in their backyards or what they could kill. All the genetically modified foods we eat loaded with the sugars used in rat poison and other contents from God knows what is not normal.

One must be cautious about prevalence and incidence across different time periods though because diagnostic capabilities alone can appear to change the incidence of a particular malady even though the actual numbers haven't changed.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Hey, I'm all for it. We've done worse as a species.



Well, let's clarify a few things.

Rapid growth is not the defining feature of cancerous cells. Unregulated division and growth is. It's why your fetus analogy doesn't have any point in the discussion since rapid is relative. Unregulated is not.

Whether or not there is such a thing as a cancer cell is a matter of semantics. Given that cells with unregulated division and growth ARE physically distinguishable from their regulated counterparts, I think one could easily make an argument that a cancer cell is one that has experienced an alteration in the DNA of the cell that results in the unregulated division and/or growth of the cell.

Perhaps a more literally correct description would be cancerous cell, since the actual type of cell doesn't change. A cancerous liver cell is still a liver cell. A cancerous lung cell is still a lung cell. In that regard, there is no such thing as a unique type of foreign cell that is "CANCER" that invades and destroys normal body tissues.

But ask anybody who's had cancer if he gives a rat's ass about this little detail and I'm betting he'll look at you like you're stupid.

Actually, the fetus example is a direct parallel - almost all chemotherapy agents are hazardous drugs, but, particularly, most are teratogenic or present a known risk of teratogenicity. Taxol, for instance, cannot distinguish between the rapidly dividing cells of a fetus and those of an adenocarcinoma, due to its mechanism of action. There are differences of action between different types of cytotoxic agents, and due to differing mechanisms of action, some drugs are able to target cells with certain markers or receptors, which is why those drugs cost more (in addition to being newer). They exert effect with direct specificity on a receptor or pathway or protein or process of synthesis/division. Anthracyclines act different from taxanes, which act differently from, say, vinca alkaloids, which are all each different from things like monoclonal antibodies like Herceptin or Erbitux. Subpar insolence notwithstanding, this is all verifiable. This is also why women who are pregnant should not be on chemotherapy of any kind, even regimens without probable teratogenic effect. No body of literature supports the safe carriage of a child while taking almost any chemotherapy agent(s).

Additionally, carcinogens don't merely mutate DNA alone, they can also alter proteins, RNA, even cell bodies themselves, such as mitochondria. But, you're right, there is no such thing as 'cancer' as most people understand it, just altered cells.

Given the huge risks the current drugs in this field possess, and the potentially severe toxicities, why would you ask people to rush toward an unproven course of treatment? If the principle behind this is sound, we'll know after studies have been done, according to scientific principle and the scientific method. This hope-and-wish sort of rush to the front of the line is what got us tragedies like pregnant women taking L-thalidomide.
Might I suggest all of the eager beavers on here perhaps settle down, as one way or another, science will, as always, sort this out. We'll know soon enough. What's the rush, friends?

Point: what's your point?

 

[eatsnopaste]

even if it kills or even slows the growth of cancer cells, it may give someone a rash so we must BAN IT! Did you not read the word VACCINE in the story? Eat right, drink magic juice and swing a dead cat over your head at midnight during a full moon...that has always worked for me!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I wonder if cancer was as prominent back in the day when the only thing people ate was what they actually grew in their backyards or what they could kill.

Cancer was the least of your worries as you usually died from an infection from eating food out of your backyard.

Many people had no idea that it could kill them. Heck, on INGO I had to ejamakate people on what nightsoil is.

Hudson Institute > The Hidden Dangers in Organic Food

 

[bobzilla]

One must be cautious about prevalence and incidence across different time periods though because diagnostic capabilities alone can appear to change the incidence of a particular malady even though the actual numbers haven't changed.

This. "back then" they didn't even know it was cancer that killed Pa or Ma. She just got the chills an up an died on us.

 

[88GT]

Point: what's your point?

That you had an illogical sequence of statements having nothing to do with each other. That the fact that other tissues in the body have rapid cell division doesn't make them cancerous. That you failed to make the proper connection between the rapid division characteristic of cancer cells and the fact that cancer drugs tend to target based on this characteristic, assuming that was your rationale for introducing the fetus connection in the first place. That if we're defining a cancer cell, mentioning that fetal cells also divide rapidly IS moot. That your post presented the idea a cancer cell was a fabrication because you failed to stipulate exactly what defined a cancer cell.

In short, that you were imprecise and ambiguous, and that the carelessness with which you presented the information leaves it open for those without the relevant education to draw incorrect conclusions from your statements.

 

[eldirector]

I wonder if cancer was as prominent back in the day when the only thing people ate was what they actually grew in their backyards or what they could kill. All the genetically modified foods we eat loaded with the sugars used in rat poison and other contents from God knows what is not normal.

Cancer was not a prominent "back in the day" simply because folks didn't live long enough to get cancer.

I'm mostly serious. In the late 1800's, life expectancy was about 65 years. Today it is 75+ years.

Add in all of the other common causes of death "back in the day" (accidents, communicable diseases, etc...), and it wasn't old age that was going to get you.

Not saying that our diets don't need improved! But we ARE much healthier today than our grandparent's generation was. That let's us live linger, and die of something more interesting.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Add in all of the other common causes of death "back in the day" (accidents, communicable diseases, etc...), and it wasn't old age that was going to get you.

I had a greatgreatgrandmother who died in her early 30s from a cow kick in Owen County.

Ban cows! For the children . . . and the greatgreatgrandmothers.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Cancer was not a prominent "back in the day" simply because folks didn't live long enough to get cancer.

I'm mostly serious. In the late 1800's, life expectancy was about 65 years. Today it is 75+ years.

Add in all of the other common causes of death "back in the day" (accidents, communicable diseases, etc...), and it wasn't old age that was going to get you.

Not saying that our diets don't need improved! But we ARE much healthier today than our grandparent's generation was. That let's us live linger, and die of something more interesting.

Exactly. Although life expectancy wasn't even that high. Also, turns out, the longer you live, the older you can expect to be. Weird huh?

Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2004 — Infoplease.com

At birth, in 1850, your life expectancy was 38 years. Assuming you survived birth. Infant mortality was QUITE high back then.

In the 40s it was about 63 (hence the 62 for SS benefits, as it was never meant to actually pay out.)

And so on and so forth. Today, if you survive birth, you can reasonably expect to live to be 75 and die of multiple maladies.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

That you had an illogical sequence of statements having nothing to do with each other. That the fact that other tissues in the body have rapid cell division doesn't make them cancerous. That you failed to make the proper connection between the rapid division characteristic of cancer cells and the fact that cancer drugs tend to target based on this characteristic, assuming that was your rationale for introducing the fetus connection in the first place. That if we're defining a cancer cell, mentioning that fetal cells also divide rapidly IS moot. That your post presented the idea a cancer cell was a fabrication because you failed to stipulate exactly what defined a cancer cell.

In short, that you were imprecise and ambiguous, and that the carelessness with which you presented the information leaves it open for those without the relevant education to draw incorrect conclusions from your statements.

"Without regard to other cells" is very clearly a statement regarding unregulated growth. While we do not see how could this be any more clear, your Majesty, in future we shall always try to dumb down our language to the basest among Us.