Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Scientists cure cancer but no one cares?
- Thread starter chrono1081
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I hope that a similar passion and willingness of what we see in the hacking community is applied into the medical research.
The jailbraking and unlocking of iOS devices is an impressive model of collaboration and sharing of new knowledge that obtains results, without initial motivation for profits, those come afterwards as side benefits.
The human body and bioscience are nothing like computers and software created by humans, and there are still plenty of unknowns, despite this I think more could be done.
The jailbraking and unlocking of iOS devices is an impressive model of collaboration and sharing of new knowledge that obtains results, without initial motivation for profits, those come afterwards as side benefits.
The human body and bioscience are nothing like computers and software created by humans, and there are still plenty of unknowns, despite this I think more could be done.
There is a huge problem IMHO with the academic publishing environment (read: very expensive to publish, very expensive to access), and I have philosophical issues with medical research that is conducted by or funded by large pharmaceutical corporations.
But, I will point out that there are open access requirements when grants are funded by the NIH (http://publicaccess.nih.gov/), and there do exist excellent (open access) journals for publishing results (http://www.plos.org/).
I could not agree more.
Upon seeing the title of the thread, I simply felt like posting a brief comment
There are several research groups out of NIH that know exactly how the path to stopping (or curing as it were) 'common cold'. A few things stop the process from being offered in the US.
Profit...which blocks a lot of research progress; patent greed - where different corporate elements (like Monsanto and Bayer) hold key protein and genetic products and won't let them be released without ridiculous profiteering; and last but certainly not the least is the Fear riddled boobs who understand little about how Genetics work - but will claim that scientists through political pressure will
cause mutant clones of us to be built to control the world....or some such nonsense - and these people like the tea baggers seems to have money on their side - so their politics rule the day. Not that I disagree that companies like
Monsanto cannot be trusted with anything of that potential....but that it blocks the good for the fear of evil.
The existent of the Human Genome project along with the not so well know Cancer Genome Atlas project should clue us all into the reality that 'cures' are and can be available.
Now granted the term 'cure' is a misnomer - but it's a term that a layman will understand - so I use it. A Virus like the Cold is 'cured' through blockers at the genetic level. IOWs we shut the open door in our cells that allow a Virus to enter. At this point it is more like a locksmith who has to see the door before he can make a key...but it can and is done currently. Breast Cancer is a bit more complicated since the discovery that this kind of cancer isn't a single bad guy mutating cells but 7 or 8 different diseases attacking the lungs and cellular structure on multiple levels. It's very complicated to deal with - but can be dealt with none the less.
As for calling me out...really? To me this is just open discussion...if anyone applies critical thinking to the subject matter all the better!<G>
I understand why you think this, as this kind of thinking was explicitly marketed (and believed) by many scientists and politicians when talking about the human genome project. I don't have time at the moment go into depth, but "cures" aren't just lurking in the sequence data. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here on the nature of genes, genetics, disease, and the somewhat mythical idea of biological determinism. It ain't that simple.
Edit: I say this as someone who works on large scale medical and population sequencing projects.
Last edited:
Once again, thanks so much for taking the time to post such well informed and informative information. I'm afraid you are, unfortunately, preaching to the choir. Those who are convinced that there is a conspiracy to keep people sick won't bother to read post such as yours. Facts only get in the way of paranoid beliefs.
Also, you are dealing with unbelievably ridiculous tripe (sorry for the animal product pun
), as below...Yup, no meat, no milk - no cancer. Yup...
Cracking the genetic codeof a virus (like the common cold) would provide all sorts of information to thousands of other viruses that attack us. The hows and whys are very important information. So as to lowering profit - your statement says you have no idea how commoditized and competitive the research market has become. First off it's not this simple step of finding a cure and bada-bing you have a marketable product. For something as complicated as a cold virus investigation will reveal that 20 or 30 companies 'own' the proteins and DNA strains of the currently identified components of a cold virus. Which means that to provide a 'cure' a single individual has to license 50 or so patents on different elements of a 'cold'. And it means that companies like Bayer or Monsanto will actually allow the license to be acquired. For example Bayer has been blocking access to many of the company owned elements that have to do with blood born cancers (like tumors) with economic pressure - meaning they ask ridiculous amounts of money for access - which means smaller less wealthy research organizations cannot afford to use them....which means 'cures' aren't offered.
This is a common but highly erroneous belief that is held by a lot of people. It's not like the old days of looking for Polio or Smallpox vaccines....the medical research market isn't like Oil Wildcatters...where a cure shows up and people just race to the finish line to get credit. There are more corporations with an interest in the Genetic coding levels of all these diseases than there has ever been and the are capitalistic about it. They want to profit off of diseases not cure them.
And then there are countries like China...for example...who couldn't give two ***** about what the USA protects or finds...so the US doesn't share the top end genetic research with them. US Corporate research goes to great lengths to block access to any of their info - so they don't lose profits.
And the many companies that are backing these researchers...they often have their own greed driven agenda's. Johnson and Johnson...nice guys right...they give us Children's Tylenol and other children's drugs to help out parents...why on earth when they are making $4 or $5 billion a year off cold 'medicines' would they ever release a product that could stop those sales? They won't.
It's not in their nature to do so.
Yup, no meat, no milk - no cancer. Yup...
And no breathing Chernobyl, Kyshtym and Fukushima particles either.
Whoops, too late you say? Sorry.
I don't misunderstand it at all. Of course they aren't lurking around...but the possibility once the various viruses and bacteria are decoded is enormous.
And if you follow anyone such as Dr.Austin and his approach to Evolutionary Biology...well then I agree it can get a bit of a 'mythical' nature.<G>
But I stil stand by my previous statement that the path to 'cures' is in the Genome projects. When we understand how 'stuff' works (not just cataloging what they are mind you) we can open the door to understanding why they work and what we can do to stop them - if indeed we still think stopping them is the right path.
Words cannot describe the level of FAIL in that sentence...
Yeah, I know. It sounds crazy but its true.
Think about it this way. There is not a drug in the world that can cure diabetes. However, if you eat well and exercise, it will disappear.
The drug companies do not want the public knowing this.
This is 100% incorrect. Do you honestly think that thousands upon thousands of deaths could be prevented every year if cancer patients simply changed their diets? In fact, many have tried and very few saw any health benefits (fewer still had their lives spared). For goodness' sake, this is exactly what Steve Jobs tried, but his disease continued to progress.
If you took the time to watch that movie, you should take the time to read this:
And that's written by someone who already believes in "the power of diet and lifestyle to trump illness" (which is probably more than I would endorse, at least). I might use the phrase 'stave off' myself.
Yup, no meat, no milk - no cancer. Yup...
Although I think the idea is presented in an easily ridiculed way most of the time - the real research behind eliminating meats and dairy as a method of cancer prevention warrant some thought.
It's not the meat or the dairy...it's the vast range of pharmaceuticals and chemicals added to the animals on their way to becoming a consumable product that hurts us and potentially can cause some diseases.
The real advice to follow is 'everything in moderation'.
Actually I did research in a group specialising in work on enzymes, and my group was negotiating for a joint venture with pharmaceutical companies. I don't pretend the pharmaceutical industry is a lovely and caring world, but it's quite different from public perception. Also remember that a great deal of research comes from the academic world too.
No it isn't. Show me a peer reviewed, scientific paper published in a reputable journal that states removing meat/dairy will stop/cure cancer.
£10 says you come back with an unreliable secondary source.
Last edited:
Well I certainly believe there is value in understanding sequence level variation; I have effectively dedicated my life to this stuff. I just think the public had/has been lead astray when it comes to the ease with which we can turn this information into actionable medical information. Furthermore, most people don't grasp the incredible complexity of the genome, the problems of clinical and genetic heterogeneity, and the fact that epigenetic and environmental* factors play an incredible role in human development and health.
*Environment being everything from local cellular environment to the place you live to socio-economic factors.
No problem on the info. Sharing information falls under the parameters of patent law-- in terms of industry, no one wants to share their secrets and discoveries if they can attribute a monetary value to them, which they always can, since information is power. It would be akin to apple sending sony their new phone six months before the product announcement. Any insight gained cost them money as well, so sharing information would be like giving away all of your advantages in a race-- no one wants to do that. If information were freely shared within industry there would be zero incentive to innovate--as it stands the best system is patents, where information is not freely shared but disclosed and covered by law for a set period of time. It's the balance between both sides-- industry doesn't have to share all of the secrets and knowledge that gave them the competitive edge, but at the same time some of that information is publicly presented in the form of a patent. Make no mistake though; industry scientists do publish to journals too, it's just that the content shared within is not deemed vital to their business practices and thus is typically of lesser importance or novelty. For example, if a company like Pfizer were to obtain a crystal structure for a kinase implicated in cancer, they would never share it via patents or publications-- information like that is almost priceless from a commercial standpoint.
On the flip side, there is an "open source medical movement"... it's called publishing. Academia publishes everything, industry publishes some--it's about as open as it's going to get, sadly. The issue is that research costs money--a lot more than the development of software. Accordingly that knowledge intrinsically has more value. Academia buffers this zone by still acquiring patents (and then publishing); this allows them to openly share their research while still maintaing rights. Industry doesn't have this luxury-- if they were to publish on everything they patented, far too much valuable information would be released; generics companies would have a head start on patent circumvention and thus the originator would lose some of the IP exlusitivity, thus costing them money. If everything were to be published they might never regain the money they put into researching the product through market invasion, thus breaking the cycle and making copy-cat production the only lucrative venture, destroying innovation.
As per the WHO...at the risk of getting too political I'll refrain from talking too much about it. I think the WHO is too political (ironically) and is more grounded in politics than science, and seeks to use medicine as a crux to prop up others agendas. In my opinion they care more about themselves and the relevant UN nations than the people they're supposed to be helping/supporting.
Tell me how that went when you get cancer. In the meantime, I'll be enjoying my meat and dairy. Since you clearly didn't read my previous postings, I'll keep this succinct: there is a huge amount of money in a cure; a movie (that's biased no less) does not provide real scientific details and is not a trusted source; the idea of no dairy/meat curing and preventing cancer is absolutely ludicrous-- words cannot aptly describe how dumb that sentiment is. That said, I have a feeling you don't want to listen to me anyways, and thus ignored everything I wrote thus far.
Generics companies are essentially the jail breaking community-- they seek to reduce the effect that the originator has over their IP in the open market by providing a cheaper alternative. Just like Apple fighting JBing, research driven companies do the same against generics in order to maintain their market advantage and profits. Academia also participates in this deconstruction-- often much work is done with therapeutics released to market by the academic institutions looking for more answers or other uses not pursued or considered by the originator.
I'm torn. I know exactly where you're coming from. In most cases it's not expensive to publish-- if you have connections, memberships, or other perks you can easily get into journals of all sizes, and many of the best journal are borderline free. That said, I think all publishing should be free-- you are giving them material to publish-- they don't have to create any content at all, just aggregate and sort it. If anything they should be paying you; knowledge is money, and you're freely giving them knowledge. On the tail end we have access costs, which quite frankly are ****ing absurd. I'm fortunate enough to have access to a large array of journals for free, but sometimes this net doesn't cover everything, and I'm forced to proverbially bite the bullet. $31.50 for 24 hour access to ONE ARTICLE is absolutely NUTS (thanks Elsiver!).
I don't share your dislike of pharma funded medical research, in fact I rather like it-- I think it drives the progression of medical science (at least faster than academia), and helps us to obtain solutions that are more economically and scientifically elegant than proposed solutions from noncommercial sources. That said, the issue of ethics comes into play more so than academia, and it's essential that they "play fair" and are honest about their results and findings. So far they seem to be doing okay with this, mostly thanks to federal regulations.... however those regulations need to be tweaked some in my opinion as some of the "requirements" have nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with being overtly afraid of litigation in a tort happy society. That's just my opinion though; I can see why you take issue.
Not a problemI could not agree more.
Upon seeing the title of the thread, I simply felt like posting a brief comment
Good to see a fellow scientist.
I think I'll just respond paragraph by paragraph in order to make this more organized and manageable. To start off, I have little respect for those at the NIH. Call it a bias, but in my experience I have found that those who are planted in government positions of science often are those who cannot find a job elsewhere; accordingly they perform "research" driven by personal agendas and politics, not good scientific practice. Of course this is stereotyping, as I'm aware of some decent scientists there, but in general they don't seem to have a good track record. The fact that the NIH claims to "know" something that the industry does not is quite laughable really.
Profit actually increases research progress. It DRIVES research, and is the reason for half of our medication and understanding to this date. Like it or hate it, but nothing motivates man like money. There's differing philosophies on wether a selfish person helps or hinders the advancement of mankind of course, but in the end the allure of money ultimately is what drives therapeutics forward (with academia covering the rest). I talked about profit and cost before in my previous posts; please read them if you didn't. Patents are there to protect investment-- scientific discoveries cost a lot of money. While it may seem like patent greed to you, keep in mind that there's two things to consider: 1) a patent is not indefinite, and 2) a patent discloses a method by which they achieved their product. It means that half of their work is laid out for people to see. A patent doesn't stop academic research in that area either-- labs can pursue and prod, and follow Monsanto's footsteps; the limitations lie in the commercial viability of such research-- they can't sell or pursue their results without licensing.
Moving on, you mention the big evil company that every Ag person loves or hates, Monsanto. Are suicide terminator seeds good or bad? I'd say a little of both. Is roundup ready crops good or bad? I'd say neither. Regardless of your love or hate of Monsanto, I think it's safe to say that they don't hold key protein and genetic products it's seeds, not therapeutics. Again though they're patents, they expire. As long as they don't hold copyrights there won't be an issue for scientific advancement. That said, it's time for a qualifier: I don't think all genetic constructs should be patenable, which is a tricky task in itself. Should synthetic constructs be patented? Yes. Should naturally occurring constructs be? No. Just my opinion though-- again with patents they have a maximum lifetime.
Just so you know, I'm all for genetic engineering. I love pDNA, miRNA, siRNA they're all good tools to solve different problems, with the key being selection of the proper tool for the job. If you read my previous posts you'd see that gene delivery is indeed approaching human therapeutic status Mark David and his company out at Caltech is in Phase III with his CD-polymer. If he succeeds he'll be the first company to sell siRNA constructs for use in man.
To be fair, I too have worked in gene and drug delivery, and that has highlighted it's limitations for me. Gene delivery (or genetic material delivery) is NOT the silver bullet everyone thinks it is. It's another tool; nothing more. The human genome project helped to map out our genetic cluster****. It's not the holy grail of answers, however--the same goes for the cancer genome project . the issue lies in how and where the mutations occur. Are they hereditary? Are they environmental? How many mutations did it take? What pathways are implicated? How many oncogenes are propagating it? Is it translocations post fertilization? Is it point mutations? Is there a progenitor cell? What stem cells are implicated if at all? Migration events? I can go on and on. The issue is that cancer is so complicated and has so many forms the cancer genome atlas will only show the correlations between GENETIC causes, and not even all of them. In order to be accurate you need to pull multiple cell cultures from everywhere--the cause of the cancer could be over or under regulation of another marker somewhere else in the body that could be a result of an environmental mutation that then triggered a loophole in one stable mutation already present in the originator cell. If you just pull the tumor graft and sequence it you would never know that; you would only know the sequencing of the tumor. There's other complications too, regulation being key. Just because it's in your genome doesn't mean it's actively being translated or is the cause of the cancer; the state of the epigenome (if you believe in it) and other signaling factors also influence expression and thus the genotype of the cell.
You're trying to describe genetic knockdown in your next paragraph, but I don't know wether you understand it or not. Clarification of your scientific background would be appreciated so I could tenor my position appropriately-- if you understand the science I can get into more nitty gritty detail and specifics. You start by saying that you can "cure" ailments through blockers at the genetic level. This would imply either pDNA over expression to flood your genetic change or siRNA knockdown of existing RNA through an activated RISC complex (and DICER) which CAN work (but isn't a cure-all since you can never transfect all your cells, especially the progenitor cells). However then you talk about "shutting the doors in our cells" that allow viruses to enter. Here's the issue; many viruses don't need "doors" to enter. While it's true that some do bind to receptors to dock, it's also true that some do not, or use "doors" that are essential to everyday cell function and signaling. Accordingly you cannot simply stop the production of said receptor proteins via siRNA or genetic modification--doing so could be fatal. The same goes for changing the conformational state; again if anything else required that door the cell could die. Use of small molecule inhibitors suffer the same limitations. Lets say though that you managed to identify a receptor that is non essential for cell function that the virus is dependent upon for docking and you knock it down (or knock out). It would work initially, but viruses are just like your immune system, they constantly adapt to survive. In a short segment of time your virus of interest could again mutate, this time to dock to the mutated receptor, or if the receptor was knocked out, a different receptor could be adapted. It suffers the same issues as retrovirals given time (sometimes a short amount), the virus can adapt, thus negating that treatment choice. In this regard therapeutics are really nothing more than a game of cat and mouse we see this even in antibacterial agents that many thought would always work. Look at all the resistant strains in circulation today. Penicillin used to be the catch all; it isn't anymore by a long shot. Even bacteria adapt, though at a much slower rate than viruses.
You then transition right from viruses to cancer. Cancer is even more complicated than viruses since its a disease of self. Again, immortalization events means that apoptosis cannot be conceived, at which point oncogenes and other wonky things start to go on. It can be dealt with, yes, but not in the ways you think. For both viruses and cancer you describe simple one shot solutions that don't exist. "Shutting the door" as you say is no different than the viral inhibitor that was supposed to stop the injection machinery, which failed due to rapid mutation. Specific cancer treatment at the genetic level of characterization is far more complicated than you try to make it seem it's not just a key and lock model (receptor and agonist). Thus is the push for personalized medicine . for example some kinase inhibitors work for a certain morphology of lung cancer, and that's it. They don't work for anything else. In order to accurately and properly treat cancer you're going to need a broad array of solutions to cover a wide set of morphologies, often with overlap in a drug cocktail.
I'm also not trying to discourage opposing arguments you just came off rather strongly for seeming so uncertain about the underlying science. Critical thinking is undoubtedly good.
Not a problem. I enjoy educating people and engaging in (civilized) debate from time to time... when I'm not too lazy.Once again, thanks so much for taking the time to post such well informed and informative information. I'm afraid you are, unfortunately, preaching to the choir. Those who are convinced that there is a conspiracy to keep people sick won't bother to read post such as yours. Facts only get in the way of paranoid beliefs.
Also, you are dealing with unbelievably ridiculous tripe (sorry for the animal product pun
Hey Darkplanets could you comment on the discovery of nanotechnology that has been used to create tiny particles that attack cancer cells while leaving healthy ones alone. I read about it here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6646581.stm
Do think that there is any promise in this type of cancer therapy in the near future?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6646581.stm
Do think that there is any promise in this type of cancer therapy in the near future?
With over 120 different classifications for Cancer, they will be designing for some time yet.
With over 120 different classifications for Cancer, they will be designing for some time yet.
Spot on.
The article was pretty bare so I don't know about the specifics... haven't heard about it before either, which doesn't surprise me. Everyone markets their drug as some magical fairytale cure-all. In this case that article was published back in '07 -- if they had any success we would probably be hearing about phase II/III trials by now... chances are it failed in man.
Here's my issues with the system:
1) Overtly complicated -- GM bacteria loaded with drug tagged with Ab.... yuck. If by small cells they meant liposomes, then it's been tried before and is more feasible than bacteria for loading control and size.
2) Bacteria could undergo a plasmid exchange from something else and re-activate or change forms.
3) The premise of fusion with the membrane to dump the drugs is a little... optimistic. That would therefore imply macropinocytosis or phagocytosis, which no one wants to use. They don't list size. Unless it's a liposome of course.
4) Injecting a foreign bacteria into man is a sure-fire way to get a huge immune response. This is probably the number one reason it might have failed.
5) Ab targeting cancer? Possible, but only cancer? Unlikely. Cancer is a disease of self... that's like using folate targeting (ala Phil Low)-- even though you get cancer tagging a majority of the time it's still not that selective.
6) Ab source... if it's not human you're going to get an immune response to those Ab on the particle. Sounds like a mess.
Just my initial thoughts. It's not that it's not possible; it just seems like a bad system. I would hedge more money on liposome treatments with Ab conjugated lipids -- Doxil is a doxorubicin loaded liposome (no Ab) used for cancer currently.
Which is what I was saying, and why I say there in lies the bottleneck to actually 'curing' anything these days.
Monsanto is a big company with divisions that own various human genetics and other elemental bits. They are not out of the market by any means - although I will say how Monsanto is involved is hidden very well.... if you follow them out to China, Indian and Indonesia it's apparent they are involved. It's true they don't conduct any sort of human genetic research in the US as far as I know.
I agree that human genetics should be 'at will' regarding ownership. But then how unscrupolous scientist and researchers can be when profit is to be derived can be defined with two words; Henrietta Lacks. Her Cancer Cells have generated (and continue to generate) millions of dollars. Her family continues to live without a single dime coming to them. Yet Lack's cells have created many breakthroughs. It's a sign of how unconscionable business and research can be when there is money to be made.
Yes...and Mr.David represents the good side of genetic engineering. However you do make a great qualifier when you say 'selection of the proper tool for the job'. I'm a big supporter of genetic engineering...I have a hard time with the fear mongering that occurs when those words are partnered. Take early Stem Cell research. I understand how people could skew their thinking seeing how science has been less than honorable...but I dislike it none the less because the 99.5% of research that is ethically conducted is damaged by the .5% that don't.
I disagree. I believe that Gene Delivery is the marker for future success.
It is in essence the stuck door that has finally been pushed open that allows researchers to go outside the norms.
Cancer is complicated - and each cancer discovered is more often than not found to be a community of cancers in a co-op. That we now know this information with some certainty is a direct result of both THGP and TCGA.
As for stopping or preventing cancers through gene therapy...well I guess that depends on how the methodology is approached. Blood based cancers (like your tumor) can and are being knocked down with 'smart bomb' type nanobots.
In the US that is mostly done on animal subjects - but go to France, China or India where human volunteers are routinely tested and things are quite a bit more positive.
Yes I get it...the Virus as the Cockroach of the cell society. There is plenty of research proof of rapid mutation onset viruses. But we should still approach viruses (and cancers for that matter) with thinking that we can crack their codes. Unless of course you subscribe to viruses being randomly generated with no traceable relationships.
In both cases...science has been using game theory instead of logic theory to combat these diseases. Massive blasts...it's like we are in a Cold War situation with disease. Because of that short sighted approach we are in a precarious position with viruses and bacteria.
A few years ago a friend of mine was dying of advanced stomach cancer. Towards the end of his life, his family started grasping at every "cure" for cancer out there that someone would suggest, with some hope that something would work. Several of these were crackpot ideas from questionable sources which cost the family a fair amount of money and were sold with the promise that they worked for some unknown person and that "the man" doesn't want the people to know. The fact these "treatments" even exist perpetuates the myth that these cures work among the general public.
Now I am not saying that there is no cure or treatment for cancer. Some things work in some situations. But frankly, there are people out there who take advantage of families who are about to loose loved ones by spewing false hopes and selling false dreams.
Now I am not saying that there is no cure or treatment for cancer. Some things work in some situations. But frankly, there are people out there who take advantage of families who are about to loose loved ones by spewing false hopes and selling false dreams.
No, the public doesn't want to eat right and exercise. It's too much work.
While lifestyle does bring on/accelerate disease, being human is a terminal condition (even in vegan triatheletes).
As for the pharma/medical conspiracy theorists... (shakes head)
It has to be something that requires constant treatment, something you can patent, and that makes money if you want to fix it with today's medical doctors.
If you want to cure it, you have to cure it yourself by doing your own research. I suggest if you have cancer to address it with the medical community like a normal person but try the crazy stuff you hear about like no meat and milk or lots of carrot juice or whatever. You don't have to just pick one path or delay the medical treatment and wait to see what your treatment does. Share your treatment with your doctor so that it doesn't interfere with their treatment.
If you want to cure it, you have to cure it yourself by doing your own research. I suggest if you have cancer to address it with the medical community like a normal person but try the crazy stuff you hear about like no meat and milk or lots of carrot juice or whatever. You don't have to just pick one path or delay the medical treatment and wait to see what your treatment does. Share your treatment with your doctor so that it doesn't interfere with their treatment.