Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Measles Virus Puts Woman's Cancer Into Remission

Soulskill posted about 2 months ago | from the fighting-fire-with-slightly-cooler-fire dept.

Medicine 74

clm1970 sends news that researchers from Mayo Clinic have successfully put a patient's cancer into remission using a modified measles virus. The researchers are quick to note that further trials are needed to determine whether these results are repeatable. Here are the two academic papers. "Multiple myeloma in a 49-year-old woman seemed to disappear after she received an extremely high-dose injection of a measles virus engineered to kill the cancer cells. Multiple myeloma affects immune cells called plasma cells, which concentrate in the soft tissue, or marrow, inside bones. A second woman also with multiple myeloma began responding to the therapy, but her cancer eventually returned. Four other patients who received the high-dose therapy had no response. .. [Dr. Stephen Russell] and colleagues believe the two women who showed some response had few or no circulating measles antibodies, which might eliminate the engineered virus before it has a chance to kill the cancer cells. The therapy will now enter a mid-stage trial to see whether more patients with low circulating antibodies respond to high-doses of the virus, he said."

cancel ×

74 comments

GMO!!1!! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47021775)

This has to stop before it gets out of control

I knew an old lady who swallowed a fly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47021787)

I don't know why, she swallowed a fly.

Oh just perfect (5, Funny)

hsmith (818216) | about 2 months ago | (#47021803)

How we are going to give adults autism too.

Re:Oh just perfect (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 months ago | (#47023979)

Exactly! Are we sure he's doctor? [xkcd.com]

K. S. Kyosuke = "Run, Forrest: RUN!" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47024145)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47024177)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

Re:Oh just perfect (1)

hot soldering iron (800102) | about 2 months ago | (#47026047)

Too late, I've already got Asperger Syndrome (autism-lite), so that makes me immune to the full-blown version. Right?

Damnit! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47021805)

So now the MMR vaccine causes cancer, as well as autism?

Re:Damnit! (2)

tuck182 (43130) | about 2 months ago | (#47022129)

I don't believe that "put into remission" and "caused" are anywhere near the same thing.

Re:Damnit! (1)

Chikungunya (2998457) | about 2 months ago | (#47022301)

Measles virus is the one that apparently puts the cancer into remission. If the MMR vaccine stops the virus, then the vaccine "causes" cancer.

Re: Damnit! (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 2 months ago | (#47022629)

We are making fun of vaccine denialists/anti-vaxxers and you are trying to bring in rationality.

You might want to check your vaccine history.

Re:Damnit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47031367)

I don't believe that "put into remission" and "caused" are anywhere near the same thing.

And I don't believe I said anything like that. But if you disagree, then please, explain how I did.

Just keep in mind that I am talking about the vaccine, while TFS is talking about the virus.

Damnit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47023291)

But Autism cures Cancer.

It's the Rubella that screws up the balance. Need to contract Rabies to fix that. The Cancer will kill off the Rabies.

There was another step, but the guy demonstrating it died before he told me what it was.

Autopsy showed he died of natural causes.

Re:Damnit! (1)

ttucker (2884057) | about 2 months ago | (#47024415)

The Cancer will kill off the Rabies.

I think that people who have died of rabies probably would have wished that were true. It really is not a laughing matter.

Re: Damnit! (1)

Buck Feta (3531099) | about 2 months ago | (#47025523)

Step 1: Get cancer Step 2: Get measels Step 3: Get rabies Step 4: ??? Step 5: Profit!

Yup, Nothing new here. Move along. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47021821)

We've know about this technology since the middle ages. Good to see it's still being researched.

Re:Yup, Nothing new here. Move along. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47022085)

Not directly. Microorganisms were not a known thing back then. Disease were thought to have been caused by foul air, or evil spirits.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (1)

Nerrd (1094283) | about 2 months ago | (#47021831)

I just can't help asking myself, What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 months ago | (#47022033)

The neat thing about terminal cancer patients is that the answer is "Not much that would be worse than the alternative."

It's...very liberating.

Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47022099)

The poster meant what could possibly go wrong for the rest of the population.

Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (1)

Nerrd (1094283) | about 2 months ago | (#47022141)

Exactly.

Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 months ago | (#47022405)

The poster meant what could possibly go wrong for the rest of the population.

Oh, in that case, zombieism and ideopathic super-AIDS.

Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47024241)

The solution is to create a dinosaur apocalypse to counter a zombie apocalypse. Problem solved, end of story.

Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (5, Interesting)

radtea (464814) | about 2 months ago | (#47022159)

The neat thing about terminal cancer patients is that the answer is "Not much that would be worse than the alternative."

Conversely, this high bar makes it very difficult to improve on invasive but adequate treatments. Consider mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer: it works pretty well, and that makes it damned near impossible to test any alternative treatment that might work just as well or better, and which would certainly be less invasive.

I worked on a cancer-therapy project once and had the clever idea of applying the technique we were using--which was aimed at something that was incurable at the time--to certain kinds of breast cancer, which was just similar enough to be an interesting candidate for the technique. I talked to a breast cancer researcher and he said, "That's a really clever idea. It sounds plausible. I can't do anything with it." And then explained the above reasoning.

This means that we tend to focus on treatments for currently untreatable cancers, and once we have something that is semi-OK, the rate of improvement goes way down. It doesn't go to zero, by any means, but the incentives shift in a way that is both perfectly logical and kind of perverse.

Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (2)

the_humeister (922869) | about 2 months ago | (#47022553)

Conversely, this high bar makes it very difficult to improve on invasive but adequate treatments. Consider mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer: it works pretty well, and that makes it damned near impossible to test any alternative treatment that might work just as well or better, and which would certainly be less invasive.

We already do. It's called "lumpectomy with sentinel node biopsy" for small enough tumors. No need to take off the entire breast.

I worked on a cancer-therapy project once and had the clever idea of applying the technique we were using--which was aimed at something that was incurable at the time--to certain kinds of breast cancer, which was just similar enough to be an interesting candidate for the technique. I talked to a breast cancer researcher and he said, "That's a really clever idea. It sounds plausible. I can't do anything with it." And then explained the above reasoning.

This means that we tend to focus on treatments for currently untreatable cancers, and once we have something that is semi-OK, the rate of improvement goes way down. It doesn't go to zero, by any means, but the incentives shift in a way that is both perfectly logical and kind of perverse.

What technique were you doing? Surgical? Medical?

Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (2)

sirlark (1676276) | about 2 months ago | (#47023713)

This means that we tend to focus on treatments for currently untreatable cancers, and once we have something that is semi-OK, the rate of improvement goes way down. It doesn't go to zero, by any means, but the incentives shift in a way that is both perfectly logical and kind of perverse.

It's called the law of diminishing returns, and applies to nearly everything sadly

Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (1)

ponos (122721) | about 2 months ago | (#47027233)

[quote]
The neat thing about terminal cancer patients is that the answer is "Not much that would be worse than the alternative."
[/quote]

Needless, excessive suffering can be worse in some ways. At some point, futile treatments only serve to maintain an illusion of hope. That illusion is, of course, important in some ways, but can come at an unreasonable price.

cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47021839)

now we know how the government fine tuned cancer for the masses

Profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47021843)

Sure, but can corporations make money from the possible cancer treatments?

If the answer is 'no' or 'not enough money', time to shut down the cancer research funding.

I Am Legend? (4, Funny)

The_Other_Kelly (44440) | about 2 months ago | (#47021853)

I know what happens now ... Vampires, end of world, bad acting, dead dogs and lots of dodgy special effect monsters.

And Emma Thompson. So not all bad ...

You're "late to the party"... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47024163)

I beat you to the punch DAYS ago on this http://developers.slashdot.org... [slashdot.org]

* :)

Still - "Great minds, think alike..."

APK

P.S.=> The reason I noted it there in that link was since I use a direct quote of Emma Thompson (playing Dr. Alice Krippen) during my posts on hosts files @ their termination QUITE regularly of:

"The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND" ...

... apk

Next thing you know (1)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 months ago | (#47021869)

"Hi Im Will Smith! You might know me from such shows as Fresh Prince, Bad Boys and I am Legend ...."

Re:Next thing you know (1)

vandelais (164490) | about 2 months ago | (#47022037)

Your analogy makes no sense.
The vaccine is Dr. Phil and the cancer is DJ Jazzy Jeff getting thrown outta the house.

FUD (5, Informative)

godel_56 (1287256) | about 2 months ago | (#47021881)

Apart from all the misinformation being spread by the first half dozen anti-immunization posters, you did notice that these patients probably had otherwise incurable cancers, so any reasonable chance of a cure is worth taking.

Re:FUD (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47022125)

It's not about anti-immunization. It's about being short sighted about the ramifications of an alternate strain of measels. Look at the killer bees, a man made solution to honey production that went horribly wrong.

Re:FUD (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47022191)

Shut up. Three new deadly strains of Measles out in the open is well worth a cure for cancer. We can treat measles and even if there's a world-wide epidemic it's only the anti-vac people who will be effected. So it's a self-correcting problem.

Re:FUD (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 2 months ago | (#47022439)

I'm not sure if that was sarcasm or not...

Re:FUD (2)

darkonc (47285) | about 2 months ago | (#47023427)

Perhaps -- but right now, it looks like the treatment may work best on people who have not been vaccinated.

In other words, the anti-vac population may have yet anotther reason to tell people not to get their vaccination.

Re:FUD (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 months ago | (#47046603)

Perhaps -- but right now, it looks like the treatment may work best on people who have not been vaccinated.
In other words, the anti-vac population may have yet anotther reason to tell people not to get their vaccination.

The irony is that it also means you can't contract measles yourself, either, since contracting measles is pretty much the same as getting the vaccine. It's just the vaccine isn't as contagious nor as deadly as the real measles virus. Or as incapacitating - you can be out and about after getting the shot, but if you have measles, you'll feel just plain awful.

So once you've contracted measles, you'll have the measles antibody as well (the same as if you had a vaccination).

The problem is, to not get measles, you need a 90% vaccination rate.

So don't vaccinate and hope you don't get measles in case you get this cancer. But if you don't vaccinate and others follow you, once measles takes hold you'll get infected and your cancer treatment is less effective. Or vaccinate and your cancer treatment is less effective.

Re:FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47041807)

Any oncolytic virus (cancer-killing virus) is engineered so that it preferentially replicates in cancer cells. It wouldn't be very effective as a new strain of measles. Besides, this has been done before (although it didn't do quite so much against the cancer) in adenovirus (one of the viruses that can cause colds), among others. No new super killer strains of the cold have shown up.

Re:FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47023645)

Only - most people I know has got measles as an child, and so certain to have antibody's.
I know I had...

I guess only a small portion of today's population could be treated because of that - even if it works out to be a treatment.

Re:FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47090989)

Considering that it's an engineered virus only based on wild measles, I'm sure it would be trivial to change the antigens around enough that measles immunity from either vaccine or the wild disease would not alter the effectiveness of the treatment.

Neat... (5, Interesting)

mythosaz (572040) | about 2 months ago | (#47021883)

Multiple myeloma is forever.

My father's fighting multiple myeloma. He beat it into remission once with a marrow treatment, and after 5 years (which is about par for the course), it came back. Enough chemo pills to bankrupt a horse later, he's teetering on the brink of remission #2, but likely going to be taking a prophylactic/maintenance dose of chemo drugs until the next time it comes out of remission - which might be the cycle he's on for the rest of his life (which we now measure in +-5 year blocks).

There's a certain point in the process at which a painful year of chemo treatments or inpatient marrow treatments gambling for a 5-year remission in a 70-year old becomes a losing proposition, but knowing you can possibly press the snooze button on cancer through normal methods enough times that perhaps, perhaps, just get your Super Measles! shot someday for your next 5-years snooze is promising.

Here's hoping.

Re:Neat... (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 2 months ago | (#47021997)

Its always good to think there may be another option on the table.

Hope your dad keeps ahead of it.

Re:Neat... (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 2 months ago | (#47022043)

. Enough chemo pills to bankrupt a horse later

"bankrupt a horse" ? That's an odd expression.

I am sorry to hear about your father though. Here's hoping indeed!

Re:Neat... (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 2 months ago | (#47023017)

That's because you've never seen a horse's check book.

Re:Neat... (1)

twosat (1414337) | about 2 months ago | (#47023983)

My mother died of multiple myeloma nearly 5 years ago. She was told that she had about 18 months to live. She died after about 3 months when it spread to one of her lungs - something rare in a rare disease. Looking back on it, I'm kind of glad that she did not have to suffer a long, drawn-out sickness and slow death.

There's only one way this will end. (4, Funny)

russotto (537200) | about 2 months ago | (#47022005)

"...when wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death."

Wow! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47022035)

As a junior doctor in my first year of work, this fills me with such hope and joy. This isn't just cancer, its multiple myeloma. A cancer of the cells in your bone marrow which forces a single type of immune cell to go into overdrive, pouring out malformed antibodies. It ruins kidneys and breaks down bone, Google 'pepper pot skull'. A ferocious, fearsome disease. I'll always remember being a med student and seeing a patient with a particularly bad case talking to his too young kids about how the next bone marrow transplant was going to save his life for good and thinking to myself in abject sadness "No it won't." It was the first time I realised that disease doesn't discriminate, that disease is cruel, and that it kills good people and that there's nothing I can do about that.

Then people make things like this. When I look at the new monoclonal antibodies we're making, these virus therapies and miraculous molecules like imatinib I'm forced to wonder.. What death sentences today will be the inconveniences of tomorrow? I'm humbled by the genius of those who make these things for me to prescribe.

How about just avoiding most cancer? (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | about 2 months ago | (#47025595)

"Eat For Health - The Anti-Cancer Diet" https://www.drfuhrman.com/libr... [drfuhrman.com]

Especially mushrooms as discussed there...

Also look into iodine, vitamin D, and exercise (including to keep the lymph moving so it can do its job). And good sleep and various ways to relax (friends, music, laughter, nature walks, pets,etc.-- see Andrew Weil and also Blue Zones) and put the nervous system in a health-promoting state of mind as far as controlling the immune system.

And also avoiding toxins/radiation in food and the environment (including consumer products).

We need to learn about the role of some compounds or organisms found in moldy fruit and pond water (and mushrooms, as above, and also various herbs) that may also help the body deal with cancer. Our too clean environments may have their costs, since our bodies are adapted to live in a certain context of threats and opportunities.

Fasting can also sometimes help prevent cancer, since the body can selectively get rid of problematical cells first. Fasting also makes chemotherapy less bad because normal cells go into a sort of resting phase during fasting whereas the cancer cells keep growing and are more exposed to the chemotherapy toxins (not that the benefits of most chemotherapy seem worth the costs from what I read -- although some treatments may be worth it).

People are always getting cancerous cells, and most times their immune systems get rid of them. We nee do do what we can to boost the immune system (nutrition etc.) and also reduce the frequency of cells going rogue (toxins).

That said, sure it would be good to have better treatments for when people's immune systems fail to regulate their cancer cells. As you said, it is heart breaking to watch such a progression. And as Dr. Fuhrman says, once cancer is detected as a macro scale, it is iffy to get rid of if by means known today in most cases. So yes, better magic bullets would be great. But what we can do right now is try to minimize the need for magic bullets.

My guess as to why this measles treatment works is that cancer cells have shifted so much of their cellular pathways to replication that they are unable to defend at all against the measles virus, compared to other cells. This probably either causes them to self-destruct or tags them in some way that triggers the immune system. This effect is probably not specific to the measles virus but may well apply to any of many broad classes of virus.

Good luck with your career. Maybe someday something like this will take off (my proposal for better software for medical sensemaking):
https://www.newschallenge.org/... [newschallenge.org]
http://www.changemakers.com/di... [changemakers.com]
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

But.. (2)

slampman (301381) | about 2 months ago | (#47022039)

..Wasn't this how the new I am Legend started?

Headlines! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47022133)

Why can't the headline start with "ENGINEERED Measles Virus [...]". Be accurate.

Re:Headlines! (1)

RDW (41497) | about 2 months ago | (#47022533)

Why can't the headline start with "ENGINEERED Measles Virus [...]". Be accurate.

The engineering was incidental to the success of the treatment in these particular cases. The 'oncolytic' virus, already adapted to preferentially infect tumour cells just by growing it in tumour cell cultures, has indeed been engineered to express a protein that mediates iodine uptake into infected cells, but in the current study this was only used for tracing the infection with radioactive iodine. The tumour cells were killed by normal viral mechanisms. However, using a higher dose of radioactive iodine, they will in future also be able to target the infected cells with therapeutic levels of the radioisotope in much the same way that thyroid cancers are treated (thyroid cells naturally express the same protein).

Measles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47022217)

Why the fuck would you engineer a virus from a virus that everyone has been immunized for? Which genius thought that was a good idea? Why not use a virus that the immune system has difficulty fighting off and won't be purged? Herpes perhaps?

Re:Measles? (2)

RDW (41497) | about 2 months ago | (#47022401)

Why the fuck would you engineer a virus from a virus that everyone has been immunized for? Which genius thought that was a good idea? Why not use a virus that the immune system has difficulty fighting off and won't be purged? Herpes perhaps?

(a) They selected patients for treatment who already had low levels of measles antibodies. (b) This is only one of a range of oncolytic viruses (including herpes visues) being investigated. (c) The virus could be further engineered so that antibodies to vaccine or wild type strains do not bind it. (d) Other strategies could be used to hide the virus from the immune system, including the use of 'carrier cells'.

Re:Measles? (3, Informative)

Farmer Tim (530755) | about 2 months ago | (#47022957)

Answers:
1) Because if it escapes into the wild there's minimal chance of spreading with unforeseen (except possibly by Richard Matheson) consequences.
2) Someone who undoubtedly understands contagious disease control better than you and has to answer to a safety and ethics committee, which also undoubtedly understands contagious disease control better than you.
3) Because maybe you don't want it hanging around and moving on to other tissues after it's dealt with the target cancer...
4) ...or being transmitted by the patient for the rest of their life.

So a relatively harmless and not easily transmissible virus is the best choice for this experiment, even if it isn't the best choice for the individual patients involved.

A great reason not to get vaccinated! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47022233)

Those other four people's lives would have been saved if they only hadn't had antibodies against measles. Their MMR vaccination rendered this revolutionary, lifesaving therapy ineffective.

There's a moral here.

Measles down, cancer up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47022239)

Coincidence?

Re: Measles down, cancer up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47024549)

Yes

Viruses without common antibodies... (2)

muhula (621678) | about 2 months ago | (#47022355)

It's interesting that the treatment is hypothesized to have failed for people who already had measles antibodies. Perhaps the "extinct" viruses the CDC keeps around might be good for engineering future treatments.

Just like Gollum at Mount Doom! (1)

Jahoda (2715225) | about 2 months ago | (#47022503)

And here everyone thought the antivaxxers were crazy and dangerous and no good would come of their efforts!!!

Straight from an MM patient: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47022505)

Here's your Myeloma 101. It is incurable. Still. The Engineered, very high level Measles Vaccine is only good for those patients who have run out of all other options- have very,very little immune system and it still not proven as anything more than a treatment--She did develop another tumor more recently. But yes, it is better than being told, " Go Home and Put your things in order". That speech is the one the hard-working Myeloma doctors hate to give and they have to much too often.

The myeloma cell is a cancer of the plasma cell. Let me say this on how tough it is. If you chemo and irradiate your bones at high level for 7days, the only thing left is bone, plasma cells and.....the myeloma which doesn't know how to die (apoptosis) . It dissolves your bones throughout your body, flooding calcium killing your kidneys, and causes imaginable anemia. If you are lucky enough to survive that it will destroy your immune system. One friend's wife (a nurse) upon hearing that I was diagnosed with it in 2009, said " That is a most terrible way to die, you would wish to get Ebola instead". Not far off.

I have been through radiation treatments, two (2) stem cell treatments and the type of Novel Agents that the other post mentioned about his dad.
I wish him all the best. I gotta be a realist, but optimism springs eternal every week I go to my experimental infusion of a new antibody. The amazing hard work of the researchers and doctors coupled with an positive-thinking myeloma community keeps me going. And my wife, who has put up with more than anyone should endure.

Be Positive!
Mike

 

Re:Straight from an MM patient: (2)

tsa (15680) | about 2 months ago | (#47023657)

I don't intend to sound rude so please try and take my question seriously: if the treatment is so bad and it doesn't help, isn't it better to choose not to be treated and just die of the disease? It seems to me that saves you a lot of agony.

Re:Straight from an MM patient: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47024005)

Some who I have known (not just for MM , but also for cancers such as Pancreatic, etc) did choose to go that route. A friend's father just did that two weeks ago.

No, that is not being rude at all! It is a logical question, and I am sure the doctors respect the patients who choose to forgo the treatments. For my part, I am into this 5 years and doing comparatively well. I still work 5 days a week, Volunteer for a study one full day a week for the experimental infusion.

Here's the key: This is an individualized disease. Nearly every case different is some way(s). The key is individualized treatment. Maybe.

Mike

See also: Coley's Cancer-Killing Concoction (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | about 2 months ago | (#47028491)

http://soylentnews.org/comment... [soylentnews.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
http://www.damninteresting.com... [damninteresting.com]
"Furthermore, both radiotherapy and chemotherapy have an immune-suppressing side-effect. Since both treatments kill the rapidly dividing cells of the immune system along with the rapidly dividing cancer cells, both can be used together if care is taken. But immune-stimulating Coley's Toxins work entirely differently, and their effect would be cancelled out if used at the same time as high-dose immunosuppressant chemo- or radiotherapy. It became an either/or situation-- and in the end, the fashionable new treatments won out over Coleyâ(TM)s fiddly reworking of an ancient 'natural' remedy. "

Some other suggestions by me here (primarily nutritional, but also on fasting helping with chemotherapy):
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

More on mushrooms and preventing cancer as also mentioned:
http://articles.mercola.com/si... [mercola.com]

It is hard to know who to trust in the cancer industry to find, as you suggest, the best individualized treatment. It's certainly true that people selling alternative products and books (including Furhman, mentioned in my other post) have a conflict of interest. In general, the entire field of oncology is also sadly full of conflict of interest because oncologists make so much money by doing treatments.
https://www.burtongoldberg.com... [burtongoldberg.com]
"Here is a shocking fact you most likely did not know: Unlike other kinds of doctors, cancer doctors (oncologists) are allowed to profit from the sale of chemotherapy drugs. In fact, most of the annual income oncologists earn comes from the profit that they make from selling these highly toxic drugs to their patients."

And:
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/20... [kevinmd.com]
"And that is where oncologic decision making gets really messy. Because in the United States, at least, many oncologists make a good deal of their income selling drugs to their patients. ... Many oncologists vehemently deny being influenced by this financial conflict of interest. But such denials defy both logic and data. Oncologists would have to be superhuman not to be influenced, at least unconsciously, by such strong incentives. After all, there is often no single "best" way to treat any given tumor, and there's often good reason to believe that expensive new therapies might be better than older, cheaper treatments. In the face of such uncertainty, how could oncologists avoid being influenced by the knowledge that those promising expensive new treatments also help generate so much income?"

Integrative alternatives:
http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/PA... [drweil.com]

Regardless of the future, I wish you the best in making the most of each day like this celebrity with cancer:
http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]
http://www.people.com/people/a... [people.com]
"Resolved to face her last days with courage and humor, "I don't think of dying," says the actress, 73, who previously battled lung cancer in 2009. "I think of being here now.""

Good luck!

Stand Up to Cancer: Immunotherapy (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | about 2 months ago | (#47043555)

From a new campaign I just saw yesterday on the immune boosting theme: http://www.standup2cancer.org/... [standup2cancer.org]
---
The battle against cancer is hard fought and hard won, and often treatments are as debilitating as the disease itself. But inside each of us is the power to fight cancer: our immune system.
Stand Up To Cancer and the Cancer Research Institute have joined forces in one of the most promising new research areas, using the science of immunology to get our bodies' own natural defenses to fight the disease. Immunotherapy has the potential to significantly change the treatment of cancer as we know it. Stand Up with us. Together, we can impact millions of lives.
        Immunotherapy is a new class of cancer treatment that works to harness the innate powers of the immune system to fight cancer.
        From the preventive vaccine for cervical cancer to the first therapy ever proven to extend the lives of patients with metastatic melanoma, immunology has already led to major treatment breakthroughs for a number of cancers.
        Because of the immune system's unique properties, these therapies may hold greater potential than current treatment approaches to fight cancer more powerfully, to offer longer-term protection against the disease, to come with fewer side effects, and to benefit more patients with more cancer types.

known know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47022757)

This type of research, involving infectious disease and tumor remission is probably at least sixty years old. And this isn't the latest, best iteration, either.
I will let you do the research, although you didn't apparently/.

FFS people!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47023453)

WTF is with the 'publish via news report' for useless preliminary results!?!

RTFA: *1* person responded well to the treatment (out of *6*); *1* person 'began responding but ... the cancer returned'; and, *4* people had no response to the treatment.

*6* whole people of which *4* showed no response at all and *1* had a recurrence; and the headline is "Measles Virus Puts Woman's Cancer Into Remission" as if this is a miracle cure.

5/6 is piss poor results; we'll keep the Nobel Prize on standby ;(

Re:FFS people!!! (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 months ago | (#47023839)

Better than something like "no patients responded, several died as a result of the treatment"

Re:FFS people!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47024679)

Many do. Many go for treatments and die from septic shock or cannot tolerate chemo. I have known those too.
Cancer will affect nearly 55% of the US male population/ about 45% of the female.
 

Horrible (1)

tsa (15680) | about 2 months ago | (#47023629)

My non-existing god, she must feel horrible. Normal cancer treatment isn't nice to begin with and then this virus on top of that. I wish her strength.

uh oh... (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 months ago | (#47023831)

So getting the measles vaccination can stop you getting a cancer cure in the future... Although I suppose recovering from actually getting measles would give you the same antibodies.

Info for you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47030021)

The CDC reported a measles outbreak in a 100% documented vaccinated population. Studies show that children who received vaccinations were 14 times more likely to become learning disabled and develop asthma. There is virtually no asthma in unvaccinated children. Unvaccinated people are healthier, have higher disease resistance, and recover more rapidly from illness. There have never been any saftey studies done on vaccines that would meet the appropriate criteria. Donald Meserlian P.E. VOSI Chairman

“In 1978 a childhood immunisation initiative was begun. Individual states passed legislation requiring proof of immunisation for school entry at 5 and 6 years of age. They mandated vaccination and it resulted in a three fold increase in the reported incidents of whooping cough and indeed children developed whooping cough from the vaccines.” Dr. Vera Schiebner

“And it was clearly demonstrated that the only people who got smallpox twice were the vaccinated, and that there are far more cases of smallpox among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated, and these statistics are available.” Dr. Archie Kalokerinos, M.D. PhD

“In 1954 the Americans pushed forward a polio campaign. What happened within the first year was that to their horror they found that particularily one type of the polio vaccine was causing polio. Because the vaccine is not a killed virus, your giving polio in a partly killed form. They got rid of that particular type of the vaccine. Then they realized that all the forms of the polio vaccine caused polio. So what they did is redefine it. They only called it polio if you still had paralysis after 60 days. Now in most cases polio paralysis resolves after a few days. So that's how the statistics of polio went down. By changing the definitions.” Dr. David Ritchie

“Polio has not been eradicated by vaccination, it is lurking behind a redefinition and new diagnostic names like viral or aseptic meningitis...According to one of the 1997 issues of the MMWR there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral meningitis in the United States alone. That's where all those 30,000 - 50,000 cases of polio disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination” Dr. Vera Schiebner

The amazingly complex immune systems! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47086005)

Cancer seems to be a divide-to-conquer set of disorders. like so many things it is many diseases lumped together by common symptoms, but with radically different causes. Think of "consumption", "old age" and "wasting" once being legitimate causes of death. This is one more step toward understanding (and curing) cancers! Plus,retrospective (rather than prophylactic) treatment by vaccines is an exciting and relatively new approach to combating disease. Trailoring a virus to target specific types of cancer cell is exquisite. It is more personalised than a mass-produced drug. A drug is made to attack things that cancers are likely to have in common, whereas with modified virus there is potential to sample a particular cancer, then make a virus that specifically attacks those cells. So cool

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...