Posted on 02/05/2018 7:13:59 AM PST by mac_truck
Injecting minute amounts of two immune-stimulating agents directly into solid tumors in mice can eliminate all traces of cancer in the animals, including distant, untreated metastases, according to a study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine.
The approach works for many different types of cancers, including those that arise spontaneously, the study found.
The researchers believe the local application of very small amounts of the agents could serve as a rapid and relatively inexpensive cancer therapy that is unlikely to cause the adverse side effects often seen with bodywide immune stimulation.
"When we use these two agents together, we see the elimination of tumors all over the body," said Ronald Levy, MD, professor of oncology. "This approach bypasses the need to identify tumor-specific immune targets and doesn't require wholesale activation of the immune system or customization of a patient's immune cells."
One agent is currently already approved for use in humans; the other has been tested for human use in several unrelated clinical trials. A clinical trial was launched in January to test the effect of the treatment in patients with lymphoma.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
The title calls it a vaccine and vaccines are immune modulators too.
Patents run out. I am on a couple of them. Without patents to protect the work product, innovation would die. Patents are not monopolies by definition.
The reporter does not know what he is writing about, must not have read his own article.
A bullet is an immune modulator by your definition.
Not my definition. All vaccines, of which there are dozens of types, are immune modulators. Explain to me how they are not.
Of course patents are monopolies. Be serious. And innovation is driven by profit, not by the privilege to threaten violence. Patents just redirect and distort where R & D investment goes. There was plenty of innovation before patents existed. Some European countries didn’t have anything like intellectual “property” until as late as the 1950’s. We didn’t even have software patents until the 1980’s.
If patents are monopolies provide some reference, a working definition. You are simply making up your own definition. That isn’t going to get it. Do I need to show you the definitions or can you look them up for yourself?
Google monopoloy definition
Patents are designed to keep people and countries with your attitude from stealing the fruits of their labor. The lazy always seek something for nothing.
Well that’s an opinion. But you do concede that patents are monopolies now. Right?
No. Patents, like all monopolies, are designed to raise the price of the patented item. Which brings us back to my original point. This new cancer vaccine will not be cheap, even if it is cheap to produce.
Why concede that which is not true. Making up your own definition is your definition, or de facto opinion, of what the word should mean. Monopoly refers to a sector or industry dominated by one corporation, firm or entity.
Monopolies can be considered an extreme result of free market capitalism: Absent any restriction or restraints, a single company or group an enterprise becomes big enough to own all or nearly all of the market (goods, supplies, commodities, infrastructure and assets) for a particular type of product or service.
Prove yourself by providing a definition from the glossary of a standard business text. I’m not interested in your personal definition. You have a personal axe to grind against anyone that makes make more money than is personally acceptable to you. This is the leftist attitude. I’ve heard it a thousand times.
I didn't give you a personal definition. I gave you google. I even hot linked it for you. It is you who are making up your own definition. Show me where you are quoting all that you typed. Why didn't you?
Investipedia is the business site. Google is a search engine, a very left wing search engine.
Investipedia is an online magazine. Google doesn't write dictionary definitions. They subscribe to dictionary services.
Sheesh!
Perhaps you will feel better about Dictionary.com...
The discussion is not about the defn of monopoly. It’s about patent rights that keep thieves from stealing discoveries. It is analogous to secure facilities to keep out the thieves. Find the definition of patent and what it is for. You never had a patent but you may have had property. Do you not expect to keep thieves out of it? Why don’t you stick with the left wing sites. you are simply not going to cheat people, steal, or beg your way to the next handout without giving something in return. Stop being so childish.
Patents have nothing to do with stealing since ideas are not property. Patents are a legal means of using the threat of force in order to artificially raise prices. They are monopolies. For this reason, the new cancer treatment will not be cheap to patients, even if it is cheap to produce.
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.