Potentially groundbreaking cancer therapy has 'extraordinary' results

[webfact]

Potentially groundbreaking cancer therapy has 'extraordinary' results



LONDON: -- Scientists say tests of a potentially groundbreaking new cancer therapy have had “extraordinary” results.

More than 90 percent of terminally ill Leukemia patients tested have reportedly gone into remission.

The therapy involves taking patients’ white blood cells, modifying them and putting them back.

However, the data has not yet been reviewed. Two patients are said to have died during testing after suffering an extreme immune response.

Lead scientist Professor Stanley Riddell labelled the early data “unprecendented”.

He told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that all other treatments had failed in the patients tested and they had only initially been given only two to five months to live.

-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-02-17

[ezzra]

Any news concerning new breakthrough fighting cancer is good news, although cancer is a myriad of

many different forms of the disease, any movement forward how little it is, it's a good movement....

[Johpa]

CAR T-Cell therapy is not breaking news. Just use Google. It is pretty sci-fi stuff. They remove your t-cells, then modify them with a chimeric monoclonal antibody to recognize a protein (e.g. CD-19), and then re-inject the cells into the patient.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Johpa

[atyclb]

not sci fi at all. science

[empireboy]

Why is it that only the expensive options are ever hailed and the numerous in-expensive therapies that work get scandalised?

Oh! maybe it's because Big Pharma can't monetise the inexpensive ones!

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

Why is it that only the expensive options are ever hailed and the numerous in-expensive therapies that work get scandalised?

Oh! maybe it's because Big Pharma can't monetise the inexpensive ones!

Can you please share with us what these inexpensive cancer cures are? I am sure at least 30% of the population would be interested.

[empireboy]

Why is it that only the expensive options are ever hailed and the numerous in-expensive therapies that work get scandalised?

Oh! maybe it's because Big Pharma can't monetise the inexpensive ones!

Can you please share with us what these inexpensive cancer cures are? I am sure at least 30% of the population would be interested.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

I am not a doctor and neither am I making any medical claims.

Anyone who spends time online can make themselves aware of a number of options. But here are a couple I am familiar with.

1. I recall seeing a Ray Martin show in Australia a few years back (Ray is a renown TV Show Host in Oz) where he interviewed a Medical Doctor and former Executive of the Oncology Research Association. The doctor had begun treating patients with a non-invasive, painless, radio-wave based therapy that within a two week period put patients into remission. At the time, cost around AU$2,000 per patient. The results were 100% if I recall correctly.

The average orthodox cancer treatment today costs around $350,000.

2. Go to this website to see another even less expensive option: http://www.cancertutor.com/simoncini/

Hope this helps!

[TPI]

Anything that helps fight the big 'C' is a step in the right direction, it doesn't need "sharp shooters" from the wings!

[partington]

Why is it that only the expensive options are ever hailed and the numerous in-expensive therapies that work get scandalised?

Oh! maybe it's because Big Pharma can't monetise the inexpensive ones!

Can you please share with us what these inexpensive cancer cures are? I am sure at least 30% of the population would be interested.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

I am not a doctor and neither am I making any medical claims.

Anyone who spends time online can make themselves aware of a number of options. But here are a couple I am familiar with.

1. I recall seeing a Ray Martin show in Australia a few years back (Ray is a renown TV Show Host in Oz) where he interviewed a Medical Doctor and former Executive of the Oncology Research Association. The doctor had begun treating patients with a non-invasive, painless, radio-wave based therapy that within a two week period put patients into remission. At the time, cost around AU$2,000 per patient. The results were 100% if I recall correctly.

The average orthodox cancer treatment today costs around $350,000.

2. Go to this website to see another even less expensive option: [/size]

http://www.cancertutor.com/simoncini/

Hope this helps!

Seriously anyone who disparages the results of a clinical trial that is based on methods and discoveries made by different research labs around the world, each working on a small consecutive step that leads to improvements which are then adopted by other labs, and each step of which has been announced and discussed at research conferences every year going back to 2005, and before, and published as dozens of individual research papers since then, so that all the steps can be traced and validated, and instead believes a man who went on a TV talk show and says he can 100% cure cancer with radio waves, must have something seriously wrong with their cognitive ability!

Edited February 17, 2016 by partington

[partington]

CAR T-Cell therapy is not breaking news. Just use Google. It is pretty sci-fi stuff. They remove your t-cells, then modify them with a chimeric monoclonal antibody to recognize a protein (e.g. CD-19), and then re-inject the cells into the patient.

In fact they do a genetic modification of these cells with a retrovirus, and it is the modification of their genes that causes them to express this modified anti-cancer cell receptor when they are injected back into the body.

Of course some people do not like the idea of modifying genes, and so will object to this. And this is a single cancer; each cancer has different genetic origins and so will require a different treatment. This is why modifying different genes is one of the most powerful approaches available.

[empireboy]

Why is it that only the expensive options are ever hailed and the numerous in-expensive therapies that work get scandalised?

Oh! maybe it's because Big Pharma can't monetise the inexpensive ones!

Can you please share with us what these inexpensive cancer cures are? I am sure at least 30% of the population would be interested.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

I am not a doctor and neither am I making any medical claims.

Anyone who spends time online can make themselves aware of a number of options. But here are a couple I am familiar with.

1. I recall seeing a Ray Martin show in Australia a few years back (Ray is a renown TV Show Host in Oz) where he interviewed a Medical Doctor and former Executive of the Oncology Research Association. The doctor had begun treating patients with a non-invasive, painless, radio-wave based therapy that within a two week period put patients into remission. At the time, cost around AU$2,000 per patient. The results were 100% if I recall correctly.

The average orthodox cancer treatment today costs around $350,000.

2. Go to this website to see another even less expensive option: [/size]

http://www.cancertutor.com/simoncini/

Hope this helps!

Seriously anyone who disparages the results of a clinical trial that is based on methods and discoveries made by different research labs around the world, each working on a small consecutive step that leads to improvements which are then adopted by other labs, and each step of which has been announced and discussed at research conferences every year going back to 2005, and before, and published as dozens of individual research papers since then, so that all the steps can be traced and validated, and instead believes a man who went on a TV talk show and says he can 100% cure cancer with radio waves, must have something seriously wrong with their cognitive ability!

Yes CLEARLY you are an authority and, I am the fool you assert me to be.

Thank you for bringing to the attention of the world!

You should go far!

I hope soon!

Edited February 17, 2016 by empireboy

[empireboy]

Why is it that only the expensive options are ever hailed and the numerous in-expensive therapies that work get scandalised?

Oh! maybe it's because Big Pharma can't monetise the inexpensive ones!

Can you please share with us what these inexpensive cancer cures are? I am sure at least 30% of the population would be interested.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

I am not a doctor and neither am I making any medical claims.

Anyone who spends time online can make themselves aware of a number of options. But here are a couple I am familiar with.

1. I recall seeing a Ray Martin show in Australia a few years back (Ray is a renown TV Show Host in Oz) where he interviewed a Medical Doctor and former Executive of the Oncology Research Association. The doctor had begun treating patients with a non-invasive, painless, radio-wave based therapy that within a two week period put patients into remission. At the time, cost around AU$2,000 per patient. The results were 100% if I recall correctly.

The average orthodox cancer treatment today costs around $350,000.

2. Go to this website to see another even less expensive option: http://www.cancertutor.com/simoncini/

Hope this helps!

[Rancid]

Cancer is a shocking thing to have, people are faced with the difficult choice of going natural or chemo. Natural often works if not too advanced. Chemo has a miserable 3% success rate, but fear after talking with the doctor often makes this the choice. In fact the survival rate of cancer doing nothing whatsoever is better than chemo.

Don't expect a "cure" for two reasons. One that cancers differ as they are a systemic lifestyle problem, nor something you just catch. Two is that Big Pharma doesn't want a cure, it wants the cash flow from its very expensive treatments.

[lucky11]

Nowhere near as impressive as GcMAF though!!

[Scott]

This topic is about a specific breakthrough for a specific type of cancer. Please stay on topic and the topic isn't about alternative treatments for cancer. It's about a gene-therapy type approach.

Off-topic posts removed.

[Johpa]

CAR T-cell is not just for "a specific type of cancer" although most of the early research and clinical trials have focused upon blood cancers such as leukemias and lymphomas. The therapy is still in relatively early clinical trial stages. Participants in these clinical trials have already failed to respond to existing therapies or their cancers have returned (refractory) from a period of remission. This new therapy has seen some very optimistic responses from patients suffering with some of the leukemias but there have also been some serious side-effects, including some fatalities in earlier trials. Since the thalidomide tragedies of the 1950s the American FDA and its European counterparts proceed with an abundance of caution with such new drugs and therapies. But the trend is clear and that within say another decade these new therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, signal inhibitors and the like will finally be able to place chemotherapy largely into the dustbin of history for most patients. And since most of these new drugs and therapies largely work with your own immune system I highly recommend reading, if you have the misfortune to need such information and despite the fact that there will be entire chapters undecipherable upon the first reading, the book "Undergraduate Immunology" by Erridge, an affordable e-book that can serve as an introduction to understanding what is going on in the body with your immune system.

[coulson]

Why is it that only the expensive options are ever hailed and the numerous in-expensive therapies that work get scandalised?

Oh! maybe it's because Big Pharma can't monetise the inexpensive ones!

There's another one i won't mention....

On a similar note, sickens me that vaporizing nicotine is becoming increasingly outlawed, GCC just banned ecigs last month.

It goes without saying that any new methods of acquiring the essential drug in a manner most smokers could adapt to is cautioned as *too early to tell - need more studies* yet general opinion within the medical community are consistent that vaping could not possibly be worse than the amount of carcinogens people inhale from a cigarette.

It's ok though, the increased prices and graphic warnings will eventually put people off........

[katana]

Back since the 1960s, stories periodically appear in the press about some new wonder drug that's in trials and will finally be the cure for cancer. The drug then fails to live up to its early promise and things go quiet until the next new drug in research comes along.

Unfortunately, expect this will be the same.

[timendres]

Cancer is a shocking thing to have, people are faced with the difficult choice of going natural or chemo. Natural often works if not too advanced. Chemo has a miserable 3% success rate, but fear after talking with the doctor often makes this the choice. In fact the survival rate of cancer doing nothing whatsoever is better than chemo.

Don't expect a "cure" for two reasons. One that cancers differ as they are a systemic lifestyle problem, nor something you just catch. Two is that Big Pharma doesn't want a cure, it wants the cash flow from its very expensive treatments.

Ah, yes. The Evil Big Pharma argument rears it's head again. But nobody is ranting about Big Apple and their $100B dollar horde generated with overpriced iPhones. We don't hear anything about the 10's or 100's of millions Big Pharma has to spend to satisfy agencies like the FDA. Nothing about torte laws they leave them exposed to law suits of many millions.

As others have indicated, cancer is a complex problem that is unlikely to have a simple cure. But I can assure you that if any Big Pharma company discovered such a cure, it would be on the market as soon as possible. It would be nearly impossible to contain such a discovery, and the competitive nature of the industry would force action.

I would never try to say that there are no greedy money grabbers in the industry, but they exist in every industry. There are certainly examples of greedy a-holes in the pharma industry (Shkreli being the most recent example), but these are the exception, not the rule.

Big Pharma cures disease and saves lives. And they are in business to make a profit. And let's hope that they continue to make those profits. Otherwise, we will see a future where we are begging them to come back.

That said, unlike the iPhone, medical treatment is a much more complex topic with human lives involved. Clearly, we would all like the best medical treatment for free. But bankrupting the companies that bring us the drugs, treatments and technologies that improve our lives is not the solution.

[empireboy]

Why is it that only the expensive options are ever hailed and the numerous in-expensive therapies that work get scandalised?

Oh! maybe it's because Big Pharma can't monetise the inexpensive ones!

Can you please share with us what these inexpensive cancer cures are? I am sure at least 30% of the population would be interested.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

I am not a doctor and neither am I making any medical claims.

Anyone who spends time online can make themselves aware of a number of options. But here are a couple I am familiar with.

1. I recall seeing a Ray Martin show in Australia a few years back (Ray is a renown TV Show Host in Oz) where he interviewed a Medical Doctor and former Executive of the Oncology Research Association. The doctor had begun treating patients with a non-invasive, painless, radio-wave based therapy that within a two week period put patients into remission. At the time, cost around AU$2,000 per patient. The results were 100% if I recall correctly.

The average orthodox cancer treatment today costs around $350,000.

2. Go to this website to see another even less expensive option: [/size]

http://www.cancertutor.com/simoncini/

Hope this helps!

Seriously anyone who disparages the results of a clinical trial that is based on methods and discoveries made by different research labs around the world, each working on a small consecutive step that leads to improvements which are then adopted by other labs, and each step of which has been announced and discussed at research conferences every year going back to 2005, and before, and published as dozens of individual research papers since then, so that all the steps can be traced and validated, and instead believes a man who went on a TV talk show and says he can 100% cure cancer with radio waves, must have something seriously wrong with their cognitive ability!

I assume you also unilaterally include in your "slap!" the TV channel and, Ray Martin and, their team of lawyers that would have reviewed potential liabilities and other issues with a fine-tooth-comb before they considered airing such a show?

Is it possible you should get your own cognitive tubes cleaned out? Maybe the bias is with you? Just asking...

Please also note, I am not promoting an either-or approach, but an inclusive one. Mine was a question not an arrogant assertion!

To be clear... I say it's great that ANYBODY is working against cancer!

But just follow the money trail and you see so often that Big Business bullies the rest irrespective of how genuine their effects may be! How can that be good for the war on cancer!?

BTW, the particular show I saw, the Cancer Research Council executive WERE invited to research the claims scientifically and independently... they refused!

Hmmm... I smell a rat! Don't you find that bigoted and very UN-SCIENTIFIC approach just smells bad!?