Reuters reports on a promising innovation in cancer therapy, which has yielded 100% survival rates among cancer-stricken mice.
The therapy, published in the latest Nature Biotechnology journal, sees mini-cells called EDVs (EnGenelC Delivery Vehicle) attach and enter the cancer cell.
The first wave of mini-cells release ribonucleic acid molecules, called siRNA, which switch off the production of proteins that make the cancer cell resistant to chemotherapy.
A second wave of EDV cells is then accepted by the cancer cell and releases chemotherapy drugs, killing the cancer cell.
"The beauty is that our EDVs operate like 'Trojan Horses.' They arrive at the gates of the affected cells and are always allowed in," said [Dr. Jennifer] MacDiarmid.
"We are playing the rogue cells at their own game. They switch-on the gene to produce the protein to resist drugs, and we are switching-off the gene which, in turn, enables the drugs to enter." ...
The Nature report said the mini-cells were "well tolerated with no adverse side effects or deaths in any of the actively treated animals, despite repeated dosing."
Human trials will start next week in Australia. Could this be the beginnng of the end for cancer?
"I also think some gratitude is in order toward the researchers who've devoted their careers to fighting this disease."
I am sorry they devoted their lives with so little to show for it. If I were a cancer researcher I would have given up or changed course by now. I am not the only person saying there are problems with the cancer industry.
And the people you know who are doing well with chemo might not ever have had cancer to begin with. Most cases of treatable cancer result from over diagnosis, making the cancer industry look like a great hero.
Posted by: realpc | July 01, 2009 at 05:08 PM
Real Pc, in all fairness you have not given a shred of evidence in favour of your view point. You talked about the opinion of alternative science, and what influenced your ideas, and how everyone is deluded in the fight against cancer, but you know the real truth.
Also, it's very brave to dismiss the idea of three extra years' life when you don't have the disease. My grandfather has just been told he needs chemo. Would my family and I rather have three more years with him having chemo? Damn straight.
However, I'm not just having a go but I'd like you to please list your top three pieces of evidence which point towards proving your argument.
Posted by: The Major | July 01, 2009 at 05:21 PM
I already explained pretty carefully why the effectiveness of chemo might be all or mostly a statistical illusion. It might not extend life 3 years after all. I mentioned lead-time bias and over diagnosis, which are understood and acknowledged by mainstream medical researchers.
What I am saying is just something most people don't want to think about. You like the secure feeling you get from knowing the medical industry is competent and honest.
So continue believing whatever makes you feel good. The problem is, as I said, that time and money are being wasted.
Posted by: realpc | July 01, 2009 at 07:58 PM
Real PC, I mean actual evidence. Statistics, studies, even anecdotal evidence. Just list the three strongest pieces.
Posted by: The Major | July 02, 2009 at 03:52 PM