Cancer cure: can this be possible?
I have no idea whether this is stunning, wonderful news that will come true, or something that will fizzle. It would be tremendously wonderful if it was the former:
A small team of Israeli scientists think they might have found the first complete cure for cancer.
“We believe we will offer in a year’s time a complete cure for cancer,” said Dan Aridor, of a new treatment being developed by his company, Accelerated Evolution Biotechnologies Ltd. (AEBi), which was founded in 2000 in the ITEK incubator in the Weizmann Science Park. AEBi developed the SoAP platform, which provides functional leads to very difficult targets.
Please read the whole thing.
Cold Fusion.
This is what comes up when I put the name of that company into PubMed’s search function.
No mention of cancer. Sounds like bullshit. Another Theranos ?
Cure cancer with this one weird semitic trick!
That’s a load off my mind. My grandmother wanted me to become a doctor and cure cancer.
Given what i know about genetics…
its not possible..
it is akin to having a pill solve all social ills
cancer is not one thing
and it has a purpose outside the limits of our persons…
organo-genesis..
i can even show you the math, and how it works..
easily simulated… (note, no one else has one that works)
oh well…
I can also burst the bubble for living to 300
i guess once they discovered we can accept the blueprint wrong model and never ever question it, global warming models would do the same, and not have to mean anything either…
however there is a model that works
and its in front of everyone, not all that hard either
but it requires a few shifts in concepts…
heh… Temple grandin said to hack the genome and i did
Temple grandin and others never said what you could do if you did
not like anyone would hear from a freak…
normal people like Bernie Madoff are easier to trust…
heh
I have read this article with a great interest, since I for about 7 years studied cell biology and for 3 years worked in cancer research lab, and after this, in cell immunology lab. In my experience, this is the first popular article in biomed research written with full command of relevant terminology and containing no scientific mistakes that I could detect. That is very, very rare indeed. The approach is sound and can just work. Only actual experiment, of course, can validate or disprove these theoretical considerations.
I am a little more hopeful than other commenters that this approach might work. It may need further research and development. Our understanding of cellular mechanisms has increased greatly. My husband, a molecular biologist, is also not ready to throw out the idea.
Artfuldgr, of course, all cancers are different, but they still have some common features that make them cancers. One of these features, practically universal across all kinds of malignant cell growth, are expression on their surfaces of so-called embrionic antigens which are never expressed in non-malignant adult cells. The method proposed cleverly used this difference to target such cells, no matter are they fast growing (as all cytostatic agents do) or not, thus killing cancer stem cells, the main source of relapse after even successful chemotherapy or X-ray irradiation.
Mike, the relevance of this company to the research at hand is in the last sentence of the the publication you sited: “design principles for constructing useful synthetic assembly-line multienzymes.” That is exactly what the authors proposed. The method is universal and can be applied to a host of problems, for example, to the synthesis of the new antibiotics. But the authors of the work we here discuss used it for producing assembly-line of cell-killing multyenzymes, and then use this weapon in combination with a delivery system consisting of a special type of virus armed with target-recognizing receptors. It is not a single weapon, but a whole weapon system, with a warhead, a delivery vehicle and guidance system with a precision target recognition.
Aside from whether or not they can produce a cure for cancer is the problem of the timing of them announcing their claim.
They say that they will produce this cure in one year.
So, is it that they are not yet quite sure that they have a cure and need a year more of work and/or human trials to make sure, or that they need one more year to produce large quantities of a pill or a vaccine?
Or, do they need financing to do the further work to produce the cure and, thus, their public announcement?
Science fiction writers have often written about revolutionary, earth shattering, paradigm destroying scientific and technological breakthroughs and, from what I can see, the consensus of many of them seems to be that once word gets out/you announce that you have a treatment, gizmo, technology, or gadget that will radically alter the current economic, cultural, or political structure, there will be people and organizations that will come after you, either to suppress or to steal what you have found/created.
Thus, the best approach would appear to be to stay quiet and under the radar until you have the item in hand, ready to go, have already made all of the arrangements for it’s distribution, and taken all the necessary security precautions to protect both it and you.
Sounds like they may be a little naive in announcing their breakthrough–if breakthrough it is–so early in the game.
I looked into the background of this company. It seems that the original seed capital was provided by a Nigerian prince. Wonder if I have shares in this venture through him. 😉
The closest that I have seen was the work of a famous Pediatric surgeon named Judah Folkman, and ,as everybody (at least internists) knows, surgeons are mechanics and know nothing about science. Therefore, his discovery of the principle of angiogenesis as an approach to cancer therapy was dismissed.
More than 30 years ago, Judah Folkman found a revolutionary new way to think about cancer. He postulated that in order to survive and grow, tumors require blood vessels, and that by cutting off that blood supply, a cancer could be starved into remission. What began as a revolutionary approach to cancer has evolved into one of the most exciting areas of scientific inquiry today. Over the years, Folkman and a growing team of researchers have isolated the proteins and unraveled the processes that regulate angiogenesis. Meanwhile, a new generation of angiogenesis research has emerged as well, widening the field into new areas of human disease and deepening it to examine the underlying biological processes responsible for those diseases.
At first, his results could not be duplicated. It is quite a story.
He died at only 74.
Snow on Pine: Yes, they need financing just to continue their research. That is how things are done in Israel. Nobody there has enough capital to deliver the end product on the market, but they have technoparks, incubators for start-ups. Lots of them. They do not sell tangible things, only ideas and patents. If some biomed or farma company became interested, it buys the start-up for a pittance with a good chances to have 1000% profit on investment. And The Weizmann Institute of Science is one of the world’s leading multidisciplinary basic research institutions in the natural and exact sciences with a stellar reputation. It is not some trick or quirk why Israel is called start-up nation: this is the only business model which works if you have a lot of ideas and very little money to develop them into marketable products.
CNBC contacted the company about the one-year claim and received this email reply:
Does anybody here have an idea of a cost of advancing a new drug on the market? The price tag begins at about $3 bln. Only transnational farm corporations have money for such task. That is why no new antibiotics emerged in the last 15 years. Too risky even for farma giants.
Ann: Exactly. Most of the cost in drug research is the cost of the human trials.
ok sergey, you win…
I came up with a chip to search for SNPs orders or magnitude faster
the building i was working in, was with Schadt he of Illumina sequencing fame
my friend, was the keeper of the gene databases…
my son, honors in genetics, left med for military
soooo… i dont really care…
as the guys in med cant even give a cogent model of genetic systems
heck, they dont even get that a structure can have properties not of any of its parts
they dont get that systems have natures above the parts too
and they dont get tons of stuff
like another common thing with cancers… is how they are beneficial as well as bad
also, my studies in AI and self organizing systems, i solved the french flag problem
and made wonderful models of this stuff that work.. [the french flag will tell you why they metastisis!]
[edited by n-n]
Let’s hope. I read this article just after returning from being with family during surgery to remove cancer. It’d be nice never to have to do that again.
Fun fact.
Dr. Folkman’s brother-in-law was a prominent medical researcher as well.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/obituaries/2018/02/28/arthur-moss-who-pioneered-heart-treatments-dies/KaKxquPsgUP1u4I8GL0sZN/story.html
I’m encouraged that some people here who seem to have a far better understanding of the science than I do think this may not be bunk. I hope it’s real.
I too hope it’s real, but as soon as I read the post, just like Art Deco, the first thing I thought was – “Cold Fusion”.
Here is a great OT for you all on Kamala Harris from 2016:
https://www.city-journal.org/html/next-obama-14181.html
We may need all the ammo we can get.
Neo said please, so I read it. I wish I really knew something about phage display, but it does surprise me a bit that oligopeptides that are as short as what they’re talking about (12 residues is pretty short – I used to do research on somewhat longer little fellas about 30 residues long) could have such specific action either alone or in sets of three. But I’ve been out of touch with the field of peptide chemistry for some time.
I agree that the J. Post article was unusually clear, for a lay publication, in its description of the technical aspects.
We all hope it’s true but until proven otherwise, I’m going to put this in the too-good-to-be-true file.
I agree with GB. It looks like a sound hypothesis, but until the experimental data is in, that’s all it is. We’ll know in a year.
Expat, that was a troubling read. Harris is NOT to be trusted.
Nature, in this case cancer, will find a means to evade our science eventually, biological or otherwise. Get used to it. All things must pass.
windbag:
I hope your relative makes a full recovery.
I’m hopeful it is mostly real. And we won’t know in a year. Those time numbers are always far too optimistic.
I read elsewhere that scientific research such as this is part of what the BDS movement ends up targeting.
Here we go, O/T again. Speaking of BDS, Breitbart has an interview of Roseanne Barr done by their correspondent in Tel Aviv, and what she said did not indicate unmitigated approval of BDS either. Breitbart’s headline:
“Roseanne Barr: ‘We Have Hamas in Congress’”
https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2019/01/29/exclusive-roseanne-barr-we-have-hamas-in-congress/
From the story:
And more good stuff.
(The Great Foot has an interesting article on Miss Barr, if it can be believed. It does seem to track with what little I’ve vaguely known about her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseanne_Barr )
Neo, thanks. Pathology report says everything is good, so we’re thankful and hopeful.
Gee, I wonder if this cure proves itself and eliminates cancer, will the Muslim countries boycott the drug since it was produced in Israel?
My concern isn’t that this is too good to be true. My concern is that the massive industrial cancer complex will not allow this to happen. Think of everyone working away on their little corner of the cancer world, they don’t want to be left out in the cold. so it won’t be completely squashed, but if things happen it will be very slowly. Yes, I’m extremely cynical these days.
My concern is that the massive industrial cancer complex will not allow this to happen.
My professor of Surgery back in 1965 used to say “More people are living off cancer than dying from it.”
Chill out, folks! The guy said “We believe we will,” not “We will.”
I hope it works! And suspect it will help, a lot, but not for all, for some reason(s).
a) They use 3 targets — but there will still be times this isn’t enough
b) Like AIDS treatment, they use a “cocktail”; more likely to work on more folk, but still not all
c) hopefully few side effects; that’s part of what the human trials will show.
Thanks also to @sergey!
As regards cancer.inc: it not as if there aren’t any other diseases that need attention. Big cancer may have to fine a new line of work. And then the people that pay for treatment have a certain incentive for more cost effective solutions, other than “It sucks to be you. Nothing we can do.”
My concern is that the massive industrial cancer complex will not allow this to happen.
I think there are about 13,000 oncologists in the United States, or about 2% of the licensed physicians herein. I don’t think that’s all that massive.
Boy, I’d love to believe it. But I don’t. We’ll see in a couple of years.
Art Deco:
Dr. Arthur Moss taught me some cardiology as a medical student.
Dr. Judah Folkmann had a flash of insight into something very obvious, that all tissues require vascular perfusion, whether normal, benign or malignant. I remember how obvious his observation was when he first announced his thought, and felt it full of promise.
The know-nothings like “om” suck, a term which I do not use lightly.
There are only two ailments of man which can be (sometimes, sometimes not) cured: cancers and infectious diseases. Curing a cancer is a wonderful thing, emotionally, especially when that cancer is not a mere Stage I. And relieving suffering plus extending life is no small deal.
It sure beats the satisfactional hell out of whatever “om” does for a living. He likely preys on others, perhaps by “giving” (Hah!) advice in legal or financial realms. He might be a trial lawyer, an ambulance-chaser in the old parlance. Or a retail stockbroker who merely repeats what he has been told by his superiors, for a commission. Or, worst, he is an academic who cannot think straight, nor teach.
Mike K: your surgery prof in 1965 was an ass. There were fewer than 400 radiation oncologists in the entire USA then, and the few first-gen chemo agents were very toxic and generally ineffective. Surgeons did almost ALL the cancer work back then, and administered much of the chemo, so your prof. was indicting his own colleagues.
Medical oncology became a subspecialty Board with its first certifying exam in 1973. I passed it. But after two years of pouring chemo into patients, I bailed out because I couldn’t stand it any longer. I have to hand it to those who stood fast, developed the multi-drug protocols, and helped the new drugs like Adriamycin emerge.
Hmmm. The plot metastasizes (or appears to be metastasizing…):
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israelis-claiming-cancer-cure-say-they-cant-afford-to-publish-findings/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-tech-umbrella-irresponsible-cancer-cure-claim-damages-our-reputation/
But here’s some other pretty cool R&D (though not oncological), which might do in the meantime:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-firm-buys-israeli-maker-of-algae-mimicking-medical-adhesives/