Anyone know about this and want to weigh in on it? From what I understand the human trials of this have been delayed by the FDA due to "bioethics" concerns, whatever the hell that means.

I find it disheartening though that the possible cure for cancer can't get funding and the FDA is delaying this. when they have found this treatment has cured cancer in mice over the last 10 years yet we can't get the human trials going...what's going on here I guess, anybody know? I want to know more about this therapy if anyone has any info on it I'd love to hear more

Maybe it's time to get on our Representatives and Senators in D.C. THey all have email addresses so it's right in front of us.

Hi,

Saw your post on Leukocyte Infusion Therapy. I get e-mails from Medical News and there is an article on this subject. Scientists at Wake Forest Medical Center are going to do human trials on this treatment. Read Link Below. If you have problems, I can cut and paste article here.

Leukocyte InFusion Therapy Begins Clinical Trial Following Cancer 'Cure' In Mice Scientists at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center are about to embark on a human trial to test whether a new cancer treatment will be as effective at eradicating cancer in humans as it has proven to be in mice... To read the full article, please go to:http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/113261.php

Mice are not humans!
Just because something works in mice does not mean that this is also true for humans. Amongst other things we have a different metabolism and it is also not clear what type of mouse they used. (I did not go into the original research).

One thing that concerns me about the above article..
What type of malignancy are we talking about? Also if you read the PNAS paper:
".... mice resist very high doses of cancer cells that are lethal to WT mice even at low doses"
I.e. they inject mice with cancer cells.

Clearly we are talking about a model system here. While this is fascinating and it looks promising to use the innate immunity system to fight cancer, this needs to be fully researched.
This is happening now. I am looking forward to the results of this study. There is one thing that nags me, people with cancer have received blood transfusions. According to the above some of them should have benefitted from this (unless you need fresh cells)?

M

[quote=Markus]There is one thing that nags me, people with cancer have received blood transfusions. According to the above some of them should have benefitted from this (unless you need fresh cells)?
[/quote]

According to the article they find mice with immune systems that have strong cancer fighting properties. Up until now the human transfusions you speak of have not been done with this consideration in mind. You really should read the article.

However as you say these are "mice" and not humans.

KenK- since the article you have linked was posted the FDA has stopped the human trials that the article alluded too.


Markus- please read the research done by the Wake Forest team. It isn't just about blood transfusions and the science, even though done with mice is solid. Find people genetically resistant to cancer and use their immune systems to boost those who have cancer.

People with cancer don't have the time to wait around for the "bioethical" crap.

Hello again,

You know, I didn't even notice the date of this article. I too wonder what that means "bioethics"! I guess I got excited when I read the article without even looking at the date!

Sounded so encouraging.

Linda K (wife of Ken K)

My husband had head/neck cancer and now has gone five years with no further problems. It will be 5 yrs. in August!

Mike T.
Re my quote:
->> If you get a full blood transfusion you will automatically get also white blood cells (including granulocytes, macrophages etc) UNLESS the blood was processed by leukoreduction. The question then is this. Do you need fresh cells for this activity and how frequent is the super donor? My point is unless this is very rare or you actually need fresh cells (both are possibilities) it should have been detected since transfusions are not uncommon in cancer patients.
PS (if you read out of 500 volunteers 100 people will be asked to donate... that does not sound that rare to me)


EricS:
Is is not that simple.
First of all the article (above) was adapted from a PRESS RELEASE!! (=propaganda). This is hardly a place to get the real scoop. Also it is not clear what malignancies they talk about. The 2006 PNAS paper refers to just 3 mouse cancer cell lines.

Some mice are resistant to these cancer cell lines while "normal" mice are not.
You also should have a close look at their own web site http://www1.wfubmc.edu/tumorbio/srmouse/part3.htm
First of all these mice are twins, they are genetically identical except for SR/CR mutation ! Read the caveat after that statement.
Then also look at their figure 6. They inject the MUTANT mouse and the NORMAL mouse with an EXTERNAL cancer cell line. The normal mouse develops cancer the mutant does not. Then they harvest the leukocytes of the mutant mouse and inject that into the normal mouse.
The tumors cell lines used were identical and it is the experienced mutant leukocytes that did the killing. A key point is that these mice are twins, you could transplant legs etc between them without any rejection. Another point is that the tumors were externally introduced, this is not how we get it. We make them ourselves, unfortunately.

I find the idea extremely interesting but I also think that much more research is needed. There are a couple of strange things going on here.

A) why is there no update in the publications past 2006?
B) I could not find recent papers on the subject by the lead investigator.
C) His collaborator (head of unit) with whom he had several papers has an updated CV.... yet there is not a single publication past the 2006 PNAS paper with his collaborator?
D) dead links


M

Markus, it's never that simple, I was paraphrasing of course. The article above I've actually never read until now, but of course I agree it's propaganda....to a point.

I've followed Dr. Cui's research for a while now, and the paper that you refer to is just one procedure done in the 10 years of research since they discovered the cancer resistant mouse. They've gone as far as they can go with mice...move on to humans and let's see if this stuff works.

I agree with you on several things, the deadlinks on Wake Forests websites, updated material, I couldn't find any communication from Dr. Cui after the FDA put a halt on human trials. In the papers I've read however the procedure cured mice afflicted with advanced terminal cancers, whether artificially induced or naturally occuring, the tumors are a part of the living system at that point and is killing the system.

In any case, this type of approach I think has merrit to work, they genetically engineered 40% of the offspring of the original mouse to be cancer resistant...and used those mice to cure the cancer (artificially induced or not) in other mice.

My question is like yours...what happened? I hate to think of conspiracies but cancer is a big business, I don't know about you but my treatment was insanely expensive ($15k/cisplatin dose) I can't help but think "conspiracy theory"

I love the feedback Markus, keep it coming.

If I hear one more "conspiracy" theory, I will begin to believe that Cancer causes major brain damage. You have to be either exceptionally gullible or watch too many bad made for TV movies to seriously think that there is any conspiracy to withold or keep secret a cure for cancer. Since Brian and Gary's extensive refutations of the recurrent conspiracy theory (which is used by every quack and fraud to explain why their miracle cure is just about ready but supressed by the FDA, big pharm, alien overlords) inherent logical inconsistencies has no apparent effect, let me use a real life example of how a real life conspiracy has failed to stop the truth of a simpler cure becoming known and spread.
There is no bigger money maker for hospitals and surgeons and medical suppliers than Heart Disease operations such as triple, double bypasses, angiograms, angioplasties and implanting stents. The public is totally sold on their medical necessity. Most cardiologists are simply plumbers with an MD. When the South Beach Diet Doctor discovered that plain old statins worked as well or better than all of the above and published his South Beach Heart book, it wasn't long before the facts and results backed him up. Even Newsweek had a long article about the split in cardiology over this and the grudging recognition that the much cheaper statins do the trick. Before I got the cancer, I was diagnosed with substantial arterial blockage requiring surgery immediately. I knew better. Now for a cost to me of literally a dollar a day, I don' need to pay for angioplasty, stents or bypass operations all of which are much more profitable to the real life conspiracy of cardiologists.
My point is not whether or not LIT works, it;s that if LIT were valid, it wouldn't be being suppressed by a conspiracy.
I neither know or care about another cure for mouse cancer. That problem has been solved so many times, by so many drugs that it's a meaningless criteria.
We are all impatient for a cure. I am partial to hi tech magic like gold nanoparticles which is also not ready for prime time. Please, let's dream, let's share promising approaches, but don't insult us with "CONSPIRACY".