Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

One Drug to Shrink All Tumors
ScienceNOW ^ | 26 March 2012 | Sarah C. P. Williams

Posted on 05/31/2012 1:16:07 AM PDT by neverdem

Enlarge Image
sn-tumors.jpg

Survivor. When mice with human tumors received doses of anti-CD47, which sets the immune system against tumor cells, the cancers shrank and disappeared.

Credit: Fotosearch

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."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Testing
KEYWORDS: cancer; cd47; cd47antibodies; immunology; monoclonalantibodies
I wouldn't call CD47 antibodies the Holy Grail of Oncology, but this looks promising.
1 posted on 05/31/2012 1:16:22 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


2 posted on 05/31/2012 1:53:03 AM PDT by CapnJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Genetic programming has alwas been the solution to cancer. Turning off the CD47 “do not attack me” flag makes progress on that front.


3 posted on 05/31/2012 2:15:35 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CapnJack

“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.


4 posted on 05/31/2012 2:47:42 AM PDT by depenzz (There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by sword. The other is by debt. John Adam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; CapnJack

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.


5 posted on 05/31/2012 2:49:15 AM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CapnJack

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.


6 posted on 05/31/2012 3:20:36 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CapnJack

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.


7 posted on 05/31/2012 4:29:21 AM PDT by gzzimlich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CapnJack

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.


8 posted on 05/31/2012 4:56:46 AM PDT by Bill S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Okay, so now they have found a drug to kill cancer. It will probably be horribly expensive.

Google “ESSIAC”

Inexpensive, available without a prescription, and it kills cancer.


9 posted on 05/31/2012 4:58:13 AM PDT by G-Bear (Always leave your clothes and weapons where you can find them in the dark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Neat! Thanks!


10 posted on 05/31/2012 5:02:43 AM PDT by Lazamataz (People who resort to Godwin's Law are just like Hitler.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CapnJack
There is huge money in treating cancer, not in curing it.
It's not just cancer. Jerry Lewis' muscular dystrophy telethon has averaged $45-$50 million a year for the last 45 years.
And what progress is there to show for almost half a century of "research?"
11 posted on 05/31/2012 5:09:00 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven

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.


12 posted on 05/31/2012 5:17:32 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Viva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: G-Bear

Google “ESSIAC”

Quack cancer cure. It has never been proven sucessful in any test.


13 posted on 05/31/2012 6:06:51 AM PDT by JAKraig (Surely my religion is at least as good as yours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: G-Bear

essiac’s purported effect on cancer has been reviewed by several major medical and scientific bodies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,[3] the National Cancer Institute,[2] and the American Cancer Society.[4] 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”.[3] 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.[5]

^ 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.


14 posted on 05/31/2012 6:56:02 AM PDT by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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.....


15 posted on 05/31/2012 6:58:01 AM PDT by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: G-Bear

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.


16 posted on 05/31/2012 7:01:48 AM PDT by gzzimlich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
Oncology can be barbaric today.

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.

17 posted on 05/31/2012 8:02:36 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mother Abigail; EBH; vetvetdoug; Smokin' Joe; Global2010; Battle Axe; null and void; ...
FReepmail me if you want on or off my combined microbiology/immunology ping list.

P.S. The CD in CD47 stands for cluster of differentiation.

P.P.S. Just ignore the ignorant and cynical comments on the thread.

18 posted on 05/31/2012 3:51:57 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


19 posted on 05/31/2012 4:39:01 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shimmer1

ping


20 posted on 05/31/2012 6:28:47 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1227 of our ObamaVacation from reality [and what dark chill/is gathering still/before the storm])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gzzimlich

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.


21 posted on 05/31/2012 6:44:17 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CapnJack

>> “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.
.


22 posted on 05/31/2012 6:47:28 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gzzimlich

>> “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.” <<

.
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.
.


23 posted on 05/31/2012 6:57:40 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bill S

>> “Thank God that I’m 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).


24 posted on 05/31/2012 7:04:36 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JAKraig

>> “Quack cancer cure. It has never been proven sucessful in any test.” <<

.
Foolish ignorance!

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.


25 posted on 05/31/2012 7:10:02 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: raygunfan

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)


27 posted on 05/31/2012 7:15:19 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Free_in_Alabama

Yours may be the worst!
.


28 posted on 05/31/2012 7:17:17 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
What is your technical or professional training? I consider your comments to be extreme ignorance at best and fatally moronic. You are an idiot an I pray to God not one single person listens to your fatal advice. If one person did I consider you guilty of manslaughter. Go to a thread where opinions doesn't result in fatalities you f’in moron.
29 posted on 05/31/2012 7:25:04 PM PDT by Free_in_Alabama (The average citizen is too lazy to steal from you, instead they are asking the government to do it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
I have been educated. I now believe dog pop enemas are a cure for cancer. Combined with skittles and iced tea. The key to the new treatment is in the dog poop and doing away with sugar and Crisco. Never mind that we have seen childhood leukemia go from fatal to 95% cure and the addition of monoclonal antibodies adding 20-30% increases to long term cures in the last 10 years. Lets ignore the fact that indolent lymphomas that were incurable are now being cured in the early stages. Don't even consider the fact that high dose chemo combined with all or auto BMT have significant cure rates and even have been found to cure other ailments and even possibly active Aids. Lets also ignore that some cutting edge trials going on today are showing even greater success while reducing toxicity. The research in things CD47 and the markers have a proven record. Also ignore the fact that there are now millions of cured cancer patients in the US alone. Those are long term cures! But we need a piss test and glucose measurements to verify we really are cured, not the fact that death would occur in months if not cured. Next you you be singing the praises of DCA as a cure all.

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

30 posted on 05/31/2012 7:52:28 PM PDT by Free_in_Alabama (The average citizen is too lazy to steal from you, instead they are asking the government to do it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
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.

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.

31 posted on 05/31/2012 11:36:57 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine; Fitzcarraldo; Covenantor; Mother Abigail; EBH; Dog Gone; ...

Ping....(Thanks, neverdem!)


32 posted on 05/31/2012 11:45:38 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

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.


33 posted on 06/01/2012 12:02:22 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Thanks for the ping!


34 posted on 06/01/2012 8:01:06 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

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.


35 posted on 06/01/2012 9:37:54 AM PDT by gzzimlich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: gzzimlich

For some reason the first part didn’t erase the first time

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/05/31/coconut-oil-for-healthy-heart.aspx?e_cid=20120531_DNL_art_1


37 posted on 06/01/2012 9:58:54 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

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.


38 posted on 06/01/2012 1:45:37 PM PDT by gzzimlich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: gzzimlich

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.


39 posted on 06/01/2012 2:52:49 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

You’re Welcome, Alamo-Girl!


40 posted on 06/01/2012 3:24:10 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Have they tested this on lung cancers yet?


41 posted on 06/02/2012 8:02:13 PM PDT by Domestic Church (AMDG ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson