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".

Charm, you missed the spirit of my post and from the tone of your post and your insulting way of expressing yourself that doesn't surprise me at all.

In fact I'd just think about changing your handle because if your post is indicative to the amount of "charm" you have you're in real danger of being sued for false advertising.

If you hadn't noticed I'm not selling anything, I'm looking for insight, information and discussion. I've promoted courteous conversation, which from the sound of your post is beyond you. Keep your insults off my topic and a tip for you, when asking for donations in your signature you may get more by not being a jerk.

Come on guys, this is no place for squabbles, this is our place for comfort not tension.One thing I bet none of us believe in is to be some thing you aren't or you don't belive in. All opinions are invaluable . Have a good day and smile.

Jim you are awesome and have helped me in so many ways I can't begin to express my gratitude to you. Being new here and looking for acceptance and understanding, I've really appreciated your posts.

Markus, I love reading your insights and intelligent responses, your posts are what I expect from my inquiries.

But I don't expect nor appreciate being called brain damaged and gullible and then told I'm insulting just for a small "funny" statement at the end of my thought. This coming from a veteran on this forum.

This kind of thing has been discussed here since the very first forum postings almost a decade ago. We have seen tons of animal model ideas that never panned out into the real world in that period of time after an interesting start. People in this thread have said it clearly - we are not mice. Animal models most of the time do not translate to humans 100%.

New posters to the board who haven't been here for the YEARS that Charm, Gary, Mark or I have been posting about these things should read some of the thousands of posts on an idea before they jump on others. Three of us have some scientific background, and we have no reason to squash good ideas or the "spirit" of posters looking for (and needing) medical help now. Believe me since 2000 I have known too many oral cancer patients that are no longer with us. I REALLY wish there was a magic bullet or something on the horizon that would change all this.

The problem is that most of the posters that come here do not understand the ethics of how drugs come to market to PROTECT the American public from drugs, devices, treatments, ideas, etc., that might hurt them. We are not lab rats. The FDA has protocols that are designed to prevent harm for a reason. If trials in animals, or early phase trials in humans do not pan out, the research dies for lack of funding and results. Simple as that. No one is letting the "cure" languish on the sidelines so that the status quo can stay the same. There just is no "news story value" in talking about promising things that didn't work out; so the press releases which are usually put out by researchers looking for additional funding, drug companies pumping their stock through their upcoming product pipeline etc. and created all the hype in the beginning, die, from both a lack of general interest perspective, and a company/researcher benefit. None of these things warrant someone doing a story on why the idea died. Particularly the company or researcher that wrote the first press release. They have nothing to gain to come out with yet another press release telling the public that their idea did not pan out. The scientific community knows because the failure of the idea THAT WAS ORIGINALLY FUNDED BY YOUR TAX DOLLARS, has to be published, not abandoned. But these are not picked up by the general media because that does not serve their purpose.

Invariably someone digs up one of these left over research things from the web (which spiders and catalogs everything ever put up, and goes back forever and a day), and posts about it without looking for, finding, researching, or referencing all other articles explaining why "that something" was necessarily abandoned, and for the reasons stated above, can't find a story about why it died as an idea in the general media. That is usually the case. There was no INITAL problems in the idea, but eventually it did exhibit some, or it had side effects that negated the positive. The idea goes dead.

Now left out in cyber space with no closing comments, it is found by someone who thinks it is a conspiracy to keep everyone paying doctors, hospitals, pharma co's, or whatever, or they just don't have all the information, who puts it on a blog where it gets a new breath of life to start circulating again, even though it is a dead idea.

New issue, particularly for new posters. I'm not excited about the tone that some have taken on this board, particularly new posters that haven't taken the time to read all the many many old posts, where these kinds of abandoned research ideas were gone over ad nauseum. But these same people are quick to point out an issue they have with the attitude of someone who has hundreds of helpful posts to help others. Shooting quick from the hip seldom does anyone justice. We have a enough tension on these boards with death, pain, fear, hopelessness, and more and don't need to add this kind of BS to the mix. That does not belong here. We're all in the same boat. And it's a damn leaking thing to boot. Flaming people on this board is not welcome, statements like someone should get sued for false advertising about their name, are not helpful, and do not move positive ideas forward. If you don't like someone here, don't post to their threads. Put something out there that has holes in it from a research standpoint, and you can count on people to point it out. If that bothers you, that is not the problem of the person that offers the ideas of why something is incorrect, it is in the mind of the reader. This tone stops here. This thread is closed.

Well thank you to those of you for the PM's of anger, and disappointment with my posting and position. Thank you also for being pissed that I closed the thread before you got your two cents worth in. As an administrator, Gary, Mark, or I can close any thread that we feel is getting nasty or drifting off into something not palatable. In retrospect I should have let this one stay open so I could copy and post here what was sent to me. Man has this crowd changed.

OCF can't be everything to everyone. It can't be a free for all. Someone has to draw lines, so therefore it isn't a democracy - though the lines are seldom drawn. To the person who said they wanted to go elsewhere, I wish you well in finding a group of people who are as knowledgeable and giving as the people on this board. And oh yeah... thanks for making my day just so f^&*(+g wonderful that I stayed up till 1AM trying to explain something about how this kind of research gets left behind in the web world in a simple, rational, manner, after spending my entire day in airports coming back from lecturing on oral cancer. Please no posts defending me or attacking me today. Let's let this one go.