# Cancer Vaccine



## Gahars (Nov 14, 2011)

Holy shit. I'll let the article speak for itself.



> *	Breakthrough: Israel Develops Cancer Vaccine*
> 
> 53KShare​
> 
> ...



...Holy shit.

Now, this seems like it would only prevent cancers from coming back instead of preventing it in the first place, but still. This is a pretty big breakthrough if it pans out.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: We're living in the future!


Source


----------



## Sc4rFac3d (Nov 14, 2011)

Now just gimme my cure for hair loss and I'm set for any future disasters


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 14, 2011)

Someone please explain to me in layman's terms what that article just said so I am clear?


----------



## Gahars (Nov 14, 2011)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Someone please explain to me in layman's terms what that article just said so I am clear?



Basically, it seems that small cancerous growths can be kept in check before they grow large and tumorous by the immune system when given this vaccine.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 14, 2011)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Someone please explain to me in layman's terms what that article just said so I am clear?



This drug works like a cross between a vaccine and chemo. It trains your white cells to dispose of mutated body cells that cancers consist of, impeding their progress or even removing smaller ones. Bigger ones will still require chemo or surgery, but with this the probability of a relapse is severely lowered if not nullified.

I'd like to see this tested for a bit longer than 7 years though, and perhaps with a massive patiets group.


----------



## Canonbeat234 (Nov 14, 2011)

How we go again with the expenses of the FDA approval to put this into the market. It sucks that medicine is nothing more than a temporary pill till it gets pulled off the market.


----------



## geminisama (Nov 14, 2011)

This is how I am Legend started, count me out!!1


----------



## Gahars (Nov 14, 2011)

Canonbeat234 said:


> How we go again with the expenses of the FDA approval to put this into the market. It sucks that medicine is nothing more than a temporary pill till it gets pulled off the market.



Um... what?

Seriously...... what?


----------



## s4mid4re (Nov 14, 2011)

Gahars said:


> Hyro-Sama said:
> 
> 
> > Someone please explain to me in layman's terms what that article just said so I am clear?
> ...





Foxi4 said:


> Hyro-Sama said:
> 
> 
> > Someone please explain to me in layman's terms what that article just said so I am clear?
> ...


Thanks for the sum, guys 

So it's not really a 'cure' but does aid in stopping growth/getting rid of minor cancer. O-O
Nonetheless, it's a great advancement for humans!


----------



## chyyran (Nov 14, 2011)

Before reading: I am Legend
After reading: I am Legend and Resident Evil

I'm scared.. but if people don't start turning into hairless zombies, then, yay 

Couldn't this tech be used for purposes, similar to RE?


----------



## Canonbeat234 (Nov 14, 2011)

Gahars said:


> Canonbeat234 said:
> 
> 
> > How we go again with the expenses of the FDA approval to put this into the market. It sucks that medicine is nothing more than a temporary pill till it gets pulled off the market.
> ...



Read it on google if you don't believe me. It must be FDA approved before it can go into the pharmaceutical market.


----------



## Midna (Nov 14, 2011)

Punyman said:


> Before reading: I am Legend
> After reading: I am Legend and Resident Evil
> 
> I'm scared.. but if people don't start turning into hairless zombies, then, yay
> ...


I sort of hope people don't actually mean posts like this.

Every time there's a breakthrough in AI the comments are filled with "skynet". Every time robotics advances people think "the matrix". And every time there's a medical breakthrough it's "zombies". You guys do know none of these are really plausible, right?


----------



## Jakob95 (Nov 14, 2011)

Canonbeat234 said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > Canonbeat234 said:
> ...



Why does it have to be FDA approved if its made in a different country?  If I go to that country and get the vaccine?


----------



## chyyran (Nov 14, 2011)

Midna said:


> Punyman said:
> 
> 
> > Before reading: I am Legend
> ...



Well, according to my understanding, this vaccine teaches the T-Cells to kill a certain type of cell. Zombies aren't really plausible, but use as some type of bioweapon causing death or cell/tissue damage, you can't deny that.


----------



## Canonbeat234 (Nov 14, 2011)

Jakob95 said:


> Canonbeat234 said:
> 
> 
> > Gahars said:
> ...



Okay you're right if it only originates from that country alone and destined for that procedure in Israel only! If they plan to take it globally to the market it needs to be FDA approved.


----------



## junkerde (Nov 14, 2011)

too much reading timey wimey scientificy stuff.


----------



## Ace (Nov 14, 2011)

Midna said:


> I sort of hope people don't actually mean posts like this.
> 
> Every time there's a breakthrough in AI the comments are filled with "skynet". Every time robotics advances people think "the matrix". And every time there's a medical breakthrough it's "zombies". You guys do know none of these are really plausible, right?


Eh, people simply get too damaged by Hollywood...

That aside, it'd take massive research and patient testing to get this anywhere, and considering the high risks with cancer, it's probably not gonna happen. It'll be sad, but it'll likely be the truth.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 14, 2011)

Canonbeat234 said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > Canonbeat234 said:
> ...



I was referring to the fact that your typing made your post damn near incomprehensible.

As for the fact that something must be approved by the FDA to go on the market (in the US, of course)... um, no shit.


----------



## petspaps (Nov 14, 2011)

drugs are good and all but yer im more worried about the mutations afterward.... and if they become more resistant and all that. i mean there are no reaaaallll cures just temporary ko's until the next gen


----------



## Midna (Nov 14, 2011)

Punyman said:


> Midna said:
> 
> 
> > Punyman said:
> ...


There are plenty of deadly poisons and bio weapons in the mix. Just because this one could potentially be used to kill you doesn't mean your enemies don't already have far better ways


----------



## Canonbeat234 (Nov 14, 2011)

Gahars said:


> Canonbeat234 said:
> 
> 
> > Gahars said:
> ...



Last time I explain myself to a witty core.


----------



## Midna (Nov 14, 2011)

petspaps said:


> drugs are good and all but yer im more worried about the mutations afterward.... and if they become more resistant and all that. i mean there are no reaaaallll cures just temporary ko's until the next gen


Erm... What
Cancer doesn't mutate. Did you think it was a virus?


----------



## Gahars (Nov 14, 2011)

Midna said:


> petspaps said:
> 
> 
> > drugs are good and all but yer im more worried about the mutations afterward.... and if they become more resistant and all that. i mean there are no reaaaallll cures just temporary ko's until the next gen
> ...



Err... to be fair, cancer itself is a mutation. So... yeah.


----------



## Midna (Nov 14, 2011)

Gahars said:


> Midna said:
> 
> 
> > petspaps said:
> ...


I was going to say that, but it would have detracted from the point. So, um, we're scared that mutated cells might mutate?


----------



## Gahars (Nov 14, 2011)

Midna said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > Midna said:
> ...



Hm... This seems like it would have more to do with the Department of Redundancy Department than any zombie apocalypse. 

Unless there were multiple, simultaneous zombie apocalypses.


----------



## philip11 (Nov 14, 2011)

Amazing How much you can do when you put your mind to it


----------



## Hop2089 (Nov 14, 2011)

There's going to be side effects to this most likely but nothing like chemo, that stuff just wrecks you and doesn't always cure the cancer.


----------



## junkerde (Nov 14, 2011)

I Am Legend 2.0


----------



## notmeanymore (Nov 14, 2011)

First post needs the source.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 14, 2011)

TehSkull said:


> First post needs the source.



And that is fixed.

Edit: And seriously, the amount of zombie references (and ones to I Am Legend in particular) is getting a bit ridiculous. They could invent a more efficient Q-Tip and people will somehow connect it to a popular film where the majority of mankind was exterminated.


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Nov 14, 2011)

As a third year pharmacy student currently in a biotech and genomics class, I can say that this article is more hype then reality. People have been trying this approach for years. While it should work in theory, it has many problems in reality, such as lack of selectivity for tumor cells.   Even if this trial pans out, the likelihood of it being universal against cancer is extremely unlikely; its more likely to be effective against a specific type. The only cancer vaccines that actually work and aren't viral based (so, something like prostavac) work only because they are highly selective for specific tumor surface antigens. These also tend to be more theraputic then preventive.

EDIT: It should also be noted that while many cancer types do overexpress MUC1, that doesn't mean it's entirely unique to them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 14, 2011)

As a third year pharmacy student you should probably know the difference between targeting a specific cancer cell, which is a composition of proteins, which are a composition of molecules, an approach that was checked out before and yeilded uninteresting results, and targeting a molecule that is present in the majority of cancer cells, which is a composition of atoms, what was never tried before. You should also know that in this case the word "vaccine" is used out of a lack of a better term, because such a contraption actually has little to do with vaccines whatsoever.

I can assure you that students of the third year, who are in the process of writting their BA work, know jack s*it about what they're talking about and actually start to add 2+2 during their 2-year Master's course. You've only licked the iceberg, grab a shovel.

You did make a good call on the uniqueness of MUC1, it's entirely possible that some patients have body cells that contain this molecule aswell. It's also entirely possible that this treatment will yeild better results then Chemo anyways. It's also entirely possible it will make the patient's state worse. That's why we have experiments and statistics.


----------



## Midna (Nov 14, 2011)

OUCH.


----------



## DroRox (Nov 14, 2011)

Curing cancer would be a horrible, horrible thing to do.


----------



## Qtis (Nov 14, 2011)

Compared to the side effect of certain medicine/treatment for cancer at present, the option here isn't that bad. Hopefully at least something good comes out of this. I doubt that any medicine could actually cause a zombification in any way by itself. Turning one into a vegetable and still be alive is another thing..

-Qtis


----------



## Bladexdsl (Nov 14, 2011)

tl'dr
so which cancer does this cure?


----------



## Veho (Nov 14, 2011)

I tried looking for more info on this vaccine, and this news hasn't been reported or repeated by any reputable news source yet. The top hits on Google are "Conservative News Central", "Atlas Shrugs (fight Islamization)", "Bare Naked Islam (It isn't Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you.)" and some supposed medical news blog that reported this in an article titled "Medical Conspiracies". 

I'm not saying the news aren't true, but there are a dozen vaccines undergoing clinical trials around the world, so another one isn't really news unless/until it proves effective.


----------



## petspaps (Nov 14, 2011)

Gahars said:


> Midna said:
> 
> 
> > Gahars said:
> ...



no id be scared if they mutated differently that how they do now


----------



## Elrinth (Nov 14, 2011)

Instead of selecting a specific cancer, maybe they could concentrate on figuring out everything which normally exists within a human and reject anything else which shouldn't be there.
That is don't allow anything to grow in the body except the stuff which is suppose to be in a healthy host.

Obviously easier said than done. But they should really check up such research.


----------



## Densetsu (Nov 14, 2011)

Assuming this news is reputable, if the MUC1 receptor is found on only 90% of cancer cells, then there's still the other 10% of cancers on which this drug will be ineffective.  Overuse of this drug could cause the eradication of cancers containing MUC1, but then we'd be left with cancers that _don't_ have MUC1 receptors.  Those would of course proliferate in the cancer patient and then he/she would be right back to having an untreatable cancer.

I guess this would have to be used in combination with existing therapies so that the other treatments can zap whatever this new drug can't.

I'm cautiously optimistic about this treatment, but I still have to take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Nov 14, 2011)

Foxi4 said:


> As a third year pharmacy student you should probably know the difference between targeting a specific cancer cell, which is a composition of proteins, which are a composition of molecules, an approach that was checked out before and yeilded uninteresting results, and targeting a molecule that is present in the majority of cancer cells, which is a composition of atoms, what was never tried before. You should also know that in this case the word "vaccine" is used out of a lack of a better term, because such a contraption actually has little to do with vaccines whatsoever.
> 
> I can assure you that students of the third year, who are in the process of writting their BA work, know jack s*it about what they're talking about and actually start to add 2+2 during their 2-year Master's course. You've only licked the iceberg, grab a shovel.
> 
> You did make a good call on the uniqueness of MUC1, it's entirely possible that some patients have body cells that contain this molecule aswell. It's also entirely possible that this treatment will yeild better results then Chemo anyways. It's also entirely possible it will make the patient's state worse. That's why we have experiments and statistics.



And I can assure you that you are wrong. A MUC-1 vaccine is not some brand new idea, they had clinical trials for them back in 2004 and perodically since then. They all failed. It's not even a unique idea at the present, CVAC-301 is also currently in clinical trials. The company behind that obviously doesn't have as good a PR firm.

I'm so glad you told me things were made of atoms, I obviously never learned that in chem, organic chem, bio chem, or med chem.

EDIT: Looking breifly just now I found a MUC-1 trial from 2001, which failed in mice. Might even be earlier attempts if I bothered to keep looking. Point still is, it certainly hasn't "never been tried before".


----------



## overlord00 (Nov 14, 2011)

I'd like to put forward the notion that big discoveries have the ability to be "lost" and or swept under the carpet by big pharma...
There's more money treating the ailment than there is curing it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 14, 2011)

mysticwaterfall said:


> And I can assure you that you are wrong. A MUC-1 vaccine is not some brand new idea, they had clinical trials for them back in 2004 and perodically since then. They all failed. It's not even a unique idea at the present, CVAC-301 is also currently in clinical trials. The company behind that obviously doesn't have as good a PR firm.
> 
> I'm so glad you told me things were made of atoms, I obviously never learned that in chem, organic chem, bio chem, or med chem.



Now, now - let's not mix facts here. Anti-Muc1 vaccines were tested, that much is correct, but you have to specify what "kind" of vaccines they were. What was being tested so far are vaccines based on glycosylated peptides, mixtures of MUC1 with QS-21 and peptides of organic origin. ImMucin is based on a synthetic signal peptide, and that's worth mentioning.

I'm not lecturing you, I'm pointing at what you're missing in the equation.


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Nov 14, 2011)

Which granted, solves a few problems and has allowed it to get furthur then most other vaccines that have been tried, and may even make it successful in this trial. But promoting it as some wonder treatment for "90% of cancers" is pure hype and you know it. At best it will work in a few cancers. Not that that is a bad thing, but people seem to miss that point.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 14, 2011)

I'm not entirely sure if "curing" is the point here.



> “It’s a really big thing,” says Levy, a biotechnology entrepreneur who was formerly CEO for Biokine Therapeutics. “If you give chemo, apart from the really nasty side effects, what often happens is that cancer becomes immune [to it]. The tumor likes to mutate and develops an ability to hide from the treatment. Our vaccines are also designed to overcome that problem.”



The idea behind this particular "vaccine" is only causing an increase in survivability, slowing down the spread of cancer cells and inhibiting their mutation. When you think of it that way, you can somehow guess where they got the 90% from. It's not a cure, it just keeps your immunological system up and running during radio and chemo (if those are necessary).


----------



## ThePowerOutage (Nov 14, 2011)

Will we every get a thread about a Cancer treatment where the Zombie Apocalypse isn't brought up?
At worst, this treatment would make your immune system turn against the body.
But that would kill you before you turned into a zombie.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 14, 2011)

DroRox said:


> Curing cancer would be a horrible, horrible thing to do.



How so? You have absolutely no basis on which to backup your conceited statement. I can't tell if you're trolling or just being a douche.

I have a friend whose family suffers from Li-Fraumei Syndrome (his grandfather has it, his mom died from it, his great-grandfather died from it) now his children may be missing the p53 tumor suppressor gene.  Heck, he has just went through chemo after learning the brain tumor they thought they got rid of came back, but in a more potentially serious location.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 14, 2011)

the_randomizer said:


> DroRox said:
> 
> 
> > Curing cancer would be a horrible, horrible thing to do.
> ...



If someone chooses to be an asshole, there are actually numerous arguments to support his thesis.

1. The globe is currently over-populated, any kind of a medical breakthrough leads to making the problem worse.
2. The population of earth is becoming increasingly old. The longer the life expectancy is, the longer people draw various benefits. There is a shift in "Young and Working to Old and Retired ratio" and it is changing rapidly, causing numerous economical problems.
3. Overpopulation also leads to polution, and by proxy, the Glasshouse Effect, commonly known as Global Warming.
4. A larger population requires larger ammounts of sustinence, which also means that smaller farms will have to be replaced by massive ones, on which animal cruelty is fairly common.
5. Larger firms generally employ less people than numerous smaller outposts due to the fact that machines do most of the work a physical worker normally would. That by proxy leads to higher unemployment rates.
6. Those food shortages will also mirror onto a decrease in charity work in third world countries, increasing the casualty rates of the poorest for the benefit of the more wealthy.
7. A larger population needs more space for living. Old settlements need to be modernized and enlarged while new settlements need to be built, so for obvious reasons, deforestation is rampant.

...I just started and I already have 7 arguments. See? Being a d*ck is fun!


----------



## AlanJohn (Nov 14, 2011)

DroRox said:


> Curing cancer would be a horrible, horrible thing to do.


Are you retarded?


----------



## Another World (Nov 14, 2011)

i like most of what they have to say except for the part where its designed so you have to get a shot every few months. it makes me wonder if it really needs to be given that way or if they are just making sure they get paid.

i doubt this shot will be cheap and it will probably be a long time before its FDA approved and insurance companies cover it.

-another world


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Nov 14, 2011)

It would be hard to know exactly without seeing the data, but in general there is nothing supicious about needing repeated injections. Long term immune response is a lot harder to produce then short term.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 14, 2011)

mysticwaterfall said:


> It would be hard to know exactly without seeing the data, but in general there is nothing supicious about needing repeated injections. Long term immune response is a lot harder to produce then short term.



Not only that - seeing that it is suggested this therapy is to be used in conjunction with radio or chemo, which obviously handicap your immune system, the response is further delayed. I assume that the freshly-stimulated T-Cells require repeated stimulus to engage in mitosis and multiply.


----------



## KingAsix (Nov 14, 2011)

geminisama said:


> This is how I am Legend started, count me out!!1



LMAO!!! I stop reading the post when I read this......Gotta point though lol. My laugh for the day


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 14, 2011)

*several decades earlier* OH MY GOODNESS, ELECTRICITY! We took Zeus's power for ourselves, we shall be damned for all eternity! *panic*


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 14, 2011)

Well, I guess what they say is true, arguing on the internet is like attending the Special Olympics; win or lose, you're still retarded.  Arguing with Foxi4 is like trying to disprove the existence of the sun. 



Alan John said:


> DroRox said:
> 
> 
> > Curing cancer would be a horrible, horrible thing to do.
> ...



Yes, he seems to be.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 14, 2011)

I see that you haven't picked up the undertones of satire in my post - shame on you.

I was showing by negative argumentation that he's being unreasonable. On the same basis I could say that cows burp, thus exhale methane, thus should be killed at once as they contribute to the glasshouse effect.

Shame on you.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Nov 14, 2011)

If this is free from any unfavorably side effects, I really hope this gets successfully globalized.


----------



## OJClock (Nov 15, 2011)

if you take cancer as something natural that happens once people reach an unnatural age, then yes it is a good thing.
try telling that to someone with cancer or someone with a relative who has cancer and you bet they won't agree and for good reason.
this seems to me like a whole lot of hype about something which hasn't been properly tested yet


----------



## emugirl1994 (Nov 15, 2011)

OJClock said:


> if you take cancer as something natural that happens once people reach an unnatural age, then yes it is a good thing.
> try telling that to someone with cancer or someone with a relative who has cancer and you bet they won't agree and for good reason.
> this seems to me like a whole lot of hype about something which hasn't been properly tested yet



Sigh, none of you men know about how the Gardisal vaccine works. Young girls and women are at risk of getting the HPV virus, which can lead to cervical cancer. This vaccine is given in a series of shots, spaced out in intervals of 3 months. I know from first hand experience because I have gotten the Gardisal shot (the 1 Less campaign). My guess is that you need a series of this anti-cancer vaccine so that it's time-released, otherwise the body will reject it if given in a large amount all at once.

And as a rebuttal OJClock, anyone who has cancer will do ANYTHING to extend their lifetime. I, too know from experience, as my grandpa died from lung cancer. He was diagnosed as having stage 3 lung cancer, and given less than a year to live. Knowing that chemotherapy might extend his life, he chose to do treatments. Chemo did no good for him though, as the cancer soon spread to his bones, other organs, and brain. Trust me, cancer patients are desperate to fight off death and will stop at nothing to continue their fight.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 15, 2011)

Yes, us MEN have no idea what cancer REALLY is. We're "just" extremely prone to prostate cancer, which unlike a breast cancer, is hard to surgically remove. Woman, please - cancer is cancer. They be all equally nasty.

By the way, the HPV vaccines are shrouded in a mist of doubt lately, aren't they? Lots of'em had "unpleasant" side effects. Not that I wouldn't take one if I wanted to avoid cancer - I sure would. I'd just research which one I actually want.


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Nov 15, 2011)

For one thing, Gardasil is effective in men as well as women. For another thing, This "cancer vaccine" and the Gardasil are completly different. Gardasil uses standard vaccine techniques (ie, using viral components) to produce long lasting immunity to a virus.  This vaccine on the other hand, doesn't give you any immunity at all. As I and foxi previously said, all it does is produce a short term immune response, and not immunity, so you need continued injections to get continued effect. It's like comparing apple and oranges. There both fruit, they both come from trees, that's about it. So Gardasil was preatty bad example to pick all around.


----------

