Skip to comments.One Drug to Shrink All Tumors
Posted on 05/31/2012 1:16:07 AM PDT by neverdem
A single drug can shrink or cure human breast, ovary, colon, bladder, brain, liver, and prostate tumors that have been transplanted into mice, researchers have found. The treatment, an antibody that blocks a "do not eat" signal normally displayed on tumor cells, coaxes the immune system to destroy the cancer cells.
A decade ago, biologist Irving Weissman of the Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, discovered that leukemia cells produce higher levels of a protein called CD47 than do healthy cells. CD47, he and other scientists found, is also displayed on healthy blood cells; it's a marker that blocks the immune system from destroying them as they circulate. Cancers take advantage of this flag to trick the immune system into ignoring them. In the past few years, Weissman's lab showed that blocking CD47 with an antibody cured some cases of lymphomas and leukemias in mice by stimulating the immune system to recognize the cancer cells as invaders. Now, he and colleagues have shown that the CD47-blocking antibody may have a far wider impact than just blood cancers.
"What we've shown is that CD47 isn't just important on leukemias and lymphomas," says Weissman. "It's on every single human primary tumor that we tested." Moreover, Weissman's lab found that cancer cells always had higher levels of CD47 than did healthy cells. How much CD47 a tumor made could predict the survival odds of a patient.
To determine whether blocking CD47 was beneficial, the scientists exposed tumor cells to macrophages, a type of immune cell, and anti-CD47 molecules in petri dishes. Without the drug, the macrophages ignored the cancerous cells. But when the CD47 (antibody) was present, the macrophages engulfed and destroyed cancer cells from all tumor types.
Next, the team transplanted human tumors into the feet of mice, where tumors can be easily monitored. When they treated the rodents with anti-CD47, the tumors shrank and did not spread to the rest of the body. In mice given human bladder cancer tumors, for example, 10 of 10 untreated mice had cancer that spread to their lymph nodes. Only one of 10 mice treated with anti-CD47 had a lymph node with signs of cancer. Moreover, the implanted tumor often got smaller after treatment -- colon cancers transplanted into the mice shrank to less than one-third of their original size, on average. And in five mice with breast cancer tumors, anti-CD47 eliminated all signs of the cancer cells, and the animals remained cancer-free 4 months after the treatment stopped.
"We showed that even after the tumor has taken hold, the antibody can either cure the tumor or slow its growth and prevent metastasis," says Weissman.
Although macrophages also attacked blood cells expressing CD47 when mice were given the antibody, the researchers found that the decrease in blood cells was short-lived; the animals turned up production of new blood cells to replace those they lost from the treatment, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Cancer researcher Tyler Jacks of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge says that although the new study is promising, more research is needed to see whether the results hold true in humans. "The microenvironment of a real tumor is quite a bit more complicated than the microenvironment of a transplanted tumor," he notes, "and it's possible that a real tumor has additional immune suppressing effects."
Another important question, Jacks says, is how CD47 antibodies would complement existing treatments. "In what ways might they work together and in what ways might they be antagonistic?" Using anti-CD47 in addition to chemotherapy, for example, could be counterproductive if the stress from chemotherapy causes normal cells to produce more CD47 than usual.
Weissman's team has received a $20 million grant from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine to move the findings from mouse studies to human safety tests. "We have enough data already," says Weissman, "that I can say I'm confident that this will move to phase I human trials."
If Dr. Weissman and his team were on to something that could possibly be a “cure”, you could rest assured his research would disapear along with Dr. Weissman and his team.
There is huge money in treating cancer, not in curing it.
Genetic programming has alwas been the solution to cancer. Turning off the CD47 “do not attack me” flag makes progress on that front.
“There is huge money in treating cancer, not in curing it.”
Isn’t it a shame and a sin that we live in a society that a statement like yours is true.
i would agree with CapnJack ... people have A LOT invested in ‘managing’ cancer.. not curing it.
i really hope Weissman and his team have the research spread across the net, just in case.
There is huge money in treating cancer, not in curing it.
Ohhhh, how right you are. I hate the ribbons and walks and cancer charities because the $ and attention airways goes in the wrong direction. Oncology can be barbaric today.
Cancer can’t be cured because it isn’t a disease. Its a catch-all term to describe a form of cell mutation that is far greater in its diversity than even cancer researchers thought until a few years ago.
Until then, genetics and “personalised therapy” was the holy grail.
That is, until evolution stepped in.
When they began sequencing the genomes of tumors they found that not only are different tumors entirely different animals genetically, but the same genetic diversity exists within different parts of the same tumor due to the fact that cancer evolves rapidly (makes sense when you consider the basic error is in speeded up DNA replication) as it grows.. even with the same tumor.
Thus, a needle biopsy of a tumor of clinically significant size is going to yield a genetic profile that is inconsistent with other parts of the tumor.
Once you add distant metastasis to the problem, the complexities multiply.
As for the foil hat nonsense.. there was tons of money in “managing” polio and TB too, yet I don’t recall hearing about sudden disappearances of vaccine researchers and people doing trials on antibiotic regimens.
Unfortunately its exactly because cancer is so difficult to treat that there is such a vast amount of misunderstanding, funding foolishness and blatant quackery in the field.
Thank God that I’m a 10 year cancer survivor, one day at a time. I have a wonderful Oncology doctor.
You cynics disgust me.
Okay, so now they have found a drug to kill cancer. It will probably be horribly expensive.
Inexpensive, available without a prescription, and it kills cancer.
Yes. Fund research, get research. Reward cures, get cures.
All tax money dedicated to medical research should go into reward funds. Have a bunch of doctors define “cure,” and give out prizes for first, second and third place.
Quack cancer cure. It has never been proven sucessful in any test.
essiac’s purported effect on cancer has been reviewed by several major medical and scientific bodies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society. All have found no evidence that essiac has any effect against cancer. The U.S. FDA described essiac as a “Fake Cancer ‘Cure’ Consumers Should Avoid”. Researchers at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center wrote that essiac “has not been shown to treat or prevent cancer” and that its use should be avoided.
^ Barrett, Stephen (July 27, 2010). “Questionable Cancer Therapies: Essiac”. Quackwatch. Retrieved July 5, 2011.
^ a b c d “Patient Information: Essiac/Flor Essence”. National Cancer Institute. July 21, 2010. Retrieved July 5, 2011.
^ a b “187 Fake Cancer “Cures” Consumers Should Avoid”. Guidance, Compliance & Regulatory Information. USFDA. Retrieved 24 May 2011.
^ “Essiac tea”. American Cancer Society - Complementary and Alternative Medicine. American Cancer Society. Retrieved 24 May 2011.
^ “Essiac”. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. March 10, 2011. Retrieved July 5, 2011.
the ‘one minute’ cure, i.e., hydrogen peroxide therapy has a decent record of fighting cancer, and can be done at home and is relatively inexpensive.....
No one is going to dispute that antioxidants like essiac, green/black/white tea are good for you and can have a cumulative positive effect on outcomes when combined with diet and lifestyle changes.
Quackery begins at the point people begin thinking this means the recommendations of oncologists and cancer surgeons should be discarded in favor of a jaunt down to the natural foods store.
It can be a fatal mistake.
Absolutely. WifeOfZeugma is 6 months free of a really nasty breast cancer. I am not sure that I'd submit to the treatment, having seen it up close. A hundred years from now, we'll look at today's chemo treatments, the same way we look at 18th century use of bloodletting and leeches.
P.S. The CD in CD47 stands for cluster of differentiation.
P.P.S. Just ignore the ignorant and cynical comments on the thread.
It should be promising!
The same methodology has been used in a clinic in Baja since the early ‘60s, although its probably not the same substance. The U.S. marshals burned their office down in San Francisco for doing it there.
The fatal mistake in every case is giving in to the quackery of the oncologists.
“Conventional” therapy is totally ineffective as to curing cancer. Within 5-6 years almost all are dead, or dying of metastatic cancer.
Cancer is a sugar disease that capitalizes on the anerobic conditions created by chronic elevated glucose.
The cure ultimately requires conquering the sugar. In the short term, a good balanced diet will usually cause the tumors to recede, but a true cure is a less than 49 HCG score constantly maintained.
>> “There is huge money in treating cancer, not in curing it.” <<
The ‘huge’ money is in the drugs, and so far, none of them has a lasting effect. Cures don’t buy airplanes and yachts, but drugs do.
>> “Cancer cant be cured because it isnt a disease. Its a catch-all term to describe a form of cell mutation that is far greater in its diversity than even cancer researchers thought until a few years ago.” <<
That qualifies as the most ignorant statement ever made about cancer.
Cancer tumors are a collection of undifferentiated cells, much like stem cells. The thing that makes them deadly is that they thrive on the conditions created by a bad diet.
Without chronic elevated blood glucose, cancer is a very low probability disease. The current cancer ‘epidemic’ is due to the fact that well over half of our population has chronic high glucose levels, mostly caused by consuming non-animal fats that render our cells literally waterproof, thus incapable of ingesting and burning the sugar.
Drop the Crisco, and the poly-unsaturated vegetable oils, and replace them with natural saturated fats, both animal, and vegetable, and you’re on your way to cancer-proofing your body.
>> “Thank God that Im a 10 year cancer survivor, one day at a time” <<
You may have won the lottery, but maybe not.
Find out by getting a Navarro HCG urine test and know for sure. Blood tests are not sensitive enough to even get close. It would be sad to go as long as you have only to suddenly lose.
Also get your glucose level tested for a realistic level (not 80).
>> “Quack cancer cure. It has never been proven sucessful in any test.” <<
Essaic has cured thousands of cancer, and many other conditions. It rarely fails if the original formula is used, and a common sense diet followed. Most of the documented failures are due to the fact that the patient had already essentially been killed by conventional quackery.
Steven Barrett has been forced to surrender his medical license, and owes millions in court judgements for his false and misleading attacks.
Essaic has never been ‘tested’ by anyone.
The so-called tests used a deviant formula, and didn’t follow the attendant protocol of use. (this is standard proceedure for the medical establishment)
Yours may be the worst!
The hidden truth is dog poop enemas are the only cure all others are just greedy money making scams. My oncologist who lost his child to cancer sacrificed him for the money. How about the doctor i know whom lost his wife. Was he just too lazy to pick up the dog poop and was addicted to Crisco? He must be a jew and I didn't even know it. To think all he had to do is pick up some free dot feces and throw away the sugar and Crisco.
Wow. And when I say people are idiots, my comment gets pulled. I stand by my pulled comment. The ignorance on this thread is *#%sing amazing
When I found money donated to the Lung Association or the Heart Association came back to me in the form of commercials that couldn't get a nonsmoker to not light up, I quit sending them money.
I wasn't donating to be propagandized (I got all that information in the flyer asking for a donation), but to support research.
I am so sorry for what your wife went through.
I say exactly what you say, that chemo will one day be seen as barbaric as leeches and bloodletting.
So glad there are doctors out there trying to heal cancer by strengthening the patient’s immune system and health. They are functioning at total risk because mainstream oncology — and governments — fight these brave medical experts and attempt to suppress this life saving info.
Thanks for the ping!
Accusing me of ignorance and recommending the use of saturated animal fat for cancer prevention in the same post is quite an, er, accomplishment.
It takes quite a bit these days to get me to raise my eyebrows, but you have succeeded where many have failed.
I’m an expat DO practising in the UK. I moved to take part in trials of lifestyle intervention in people with coronary artery disease (mostly post-MI/bypass/stent patients) and I have a special place in my heart for people who think animal fat is good for you.
I have no problem with people who make a lifestyle choice to eat a porterhouse dripping in bernaise sauce and creamed potatoes for dinner every day, consequences be damned, but I find it really pathetic that so many people are desperate for some one to tell them its healthy.
You don’t have to look far to find whole populations were the staples are refined carbs and whose cancer and CAD rates are far lower than the western EU and US as a whole and those who adopt the “traditional” meat and potatoes western diet especially.
For some reason the first part didn’t erase the first time
We’re all going to the slab eventually.
Modern medicine can help you get there a bit later and having had a better quality of life than you might have experienced otherwise. Nothing more.
Not only is animal fat not a good thing, but olive oil and other subs only look like a reasonable alternative because they’re replacing something far worse.
Its possible to reverse the progression of heart disease with a low fat diet in which animal and saturated fats play no role at all. Its not a matter of opinion or marketing, its been demonstrated in clinical trials. These diets have also been shown to positively affect epigenetics, telomere shortening, colon cancer outcomes etc.
I like a chunk of cheese or a slab of grilled beef as much as the next guy, but pretending its some sort of preventative rather than an indulgence is over the top.
I realize that you do believe what you post, but you have been grossly mislead.
Animal fats are the key to proper metabolism through the maintenance of permeability of our cell membranes. Vegetable fats destroy that permeability, especially poly-unsaturated veg fats.
The elevated blood glucose that results from use of vegetable oils is the proximate cause of most of the serious degenerative diseases that have popped up in modern times.
Try searching for evidence supporting the use of vegetable oils. It doesn’t exist; all you’ll find is reference to ‘studies’ that consist of much opinion, and manipulation of other’s data, but no empirical foundation. It’s all been an ad campaign from start to finish.
You’re Welcome, Alamo-Girl!
Have they tested this on lung cancers yet?