NationStates Jolt Archive

A scientist was apparently ANNOYED when the drug she was testing destroyed cancer cultures...

WASHINGTON - Her carefully cultured cells were dead and Katherine Schaefer was annoyed, but just a few minutes later, the researcher realized she had stumbled onto a potential new cancer treatment.

Schaefer and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York believe they have discovered a new way to attack tumors that have learned how to evade existing drugs.

Tests in mice suggest the compound helps break down the cell walls of tumors, almost like destroying a tumor cell’s “skeleton”.

The researchers will test the new compound for safety and hope they can develop it to treat cancers such as colon cancer, esophageal cancer, liver and skin cancers.

“I was using these cancer cells as models of the normal intestine,” Schaefer said in a telephone interview.

Normal human cells are difficult to grow and study in the lab, because they tend to die. But cancer cells live much longer and are harder to kill, so scientists often use them.

Schaefer was looking for drugs to treat the inflammation seen in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, both of which cause pain and diarrhea.
She was testing a compound called a PPAR-gamma modulator. It would never normally have been thought of as a cancer drug, or in fact a drug of any kind

Scientists: Just because they graduated, doesn't mean they catch on faster than you would.

Shit! This stuff kills cancer!

...


*pause*

...

Whoa! This stuff kills cancer!!!

:)

Yeah so we have a cure for cancer now.

Nobody in the media except for the writer in that article knows about it, apparently.

Here's a link for those who would like to read the rest of the article:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=7006BC554A1A9DE85C416551C10368E2

Serendipity = awesome.

Still in the testing stage though. It will be years before humans get to have a chance to benefit from this potential treatment. Besides, these "scientists" will look for ways to make money first and get a good cancer treatment to the public second.

I thought you were talking about that chickflick.


A colleague overheard her complaining. "The co-author on my paper said,' Did I hear you say you killed some cancer?' I said 'Oh', and took a closer look."


Lawl. "God dammit, I killed my cancer." "... wait, what?" "Oh shit I killed cancer."

Yeah so we have a cure for cancer now.

Nobody in the media except for the writer in that article knows about it, apparently.

Doesn't make my bowels any less inflamed. :(

They're not irritated that cancer might be just about cured now if the new drug is safe. They're irritated that their intestinal model was destroyed. I know because I can read and I read the article.

Still in the testing stage though. It will be years before humans get to have a chance to benefit from this potential treatment. Besides, these "scientists" will look for ways to make money first and get a good cancer treatment to the public second.

Well, first they have to make sure it isn't too good. It can't cure cancer quickly. If at all. It must either put it in remission, or take a long treatment regimen over months or years to cure it. There's no money to be made on a pill that eradicates cancer quickly.

Second, they need to make sure it doesn't kill or maim more people than the pharmaceutical companies can buy off or settle with out of court. They don't want a class-action lawsuit on their hands.

Finally, if it's still too cheap, they need to do more research into it's side-effects and other potential uses and abuses so they have justification for a huge mark-up over it's production cost.

:)

seriously I can imagine this conversation:

"god damn it, this shit killed all my cancer cells!"

"um, excuse me, did you just say that you found a drug that kills cancer cells?"

"yeah, it destroyed my whole experiment!"

"yes but didn't it...you know....kill cancer?"

"yeah, aren't you listening? That's the proble.......oh"

Yeah so we have a cure for cancer now.

Nobody in the media except for the writer in that article knows about it, apparently.
We have many cures for various types of cancer...

What we really need is a vaccine for a whole bunch of cancers, too. Hopefully that'll come soon.

Well, first they have to make sure it isn't too good. It can't cure cancer quickly. If at all. It must either put it in remission, or take a long treatment regimen over months or years to cure it. There's no money to be made on a pill that eradicates cancer quickly.

Second, they need to make sure it doesn't kill or maim more people than the pharmaceutical companies can buy off or settle with out of court. They don't want a class-action lawsuit on their hands.

Finally, if it's still too cheap, they need to do more research into it's side-effects and other potential uses and abuses so they have justification for a huge mark-up over it's production cost.

:)

You have finely detailed what I have been trying to settle in my mind into some kind of order. I thank you.

*bows*

:)

man... i hope it's proven to be safe for humans.


and this only proves that once more, that discoveries are usually by accident!

We have many cures for various types of cancer...

What we really need is a vaccine for a whole bunch of cancers, too. Hopefully that'll come soon.

I'm not a medical expert, I'm sure demi, bottle or fass can speak on this better than I can, but I don't think we can create a vaccine for cancer, because a vaccine is a pre-emptive measure that creates an immunity to something. Cancer isn't like a virus which you can innoculate against, it's a mutation of cells, so you can't force an immunity to it.

Correct me folks if I'm wrong but I think one of the reasons cancer is so damned dangerous is because your immune system doesn't really recognize it as "foreign" and therefore leaves it mostly alone, which means a vaccine would be useless.

We have many cures for various types of cancer...

What we really need is a vaccine for a whole bunch of cancers, too. Hopefully that'll come soon.

ho rly. I suppose that kemotherapy is just for fun, then, hm?

We have many cures for various types of cancer...

What we really need is a vaccine for a whole bunch of cancers, too. Hopefully that'll come soon.


Having a wife with cancer, doctors have told us that they dont like to use the word "cure" for cancer.

I'm not a medical expert, I'm sure demi, bottle or fass can speak on this better than I can, but I don't think we can create a vaccine for cancer, because a vaccine is a pre-emptive measure that creates an immunity to something. Cancer isn't like a virus which you can innoculate against, it's a mutation of cells, so you can't force an immunity to it.

Correct me folks if I'm wrong but I think one of the reasons cancer is so damned dangerous is because your immune system doesn't really recognize it as "foreign" and therefore leaves it mostly alone, which means a vaccine would be useless.

Unless you could introduce something to 'train' your immune system to recognize cancer cells or something that prevents cellular mutation. Though the latter isn't really a vaccine, I'd probably call it one for simplicity's sake. *nod*

I'm not a medical expert, I'm sure demi, bottle or fass can speak on this better than I can, but I don't think we can create a vaccine for cancer, because a vaccine is a pre-emptive measure that creates an immunity to something. Cancer isn't like a virus which you can innoculate against, it's a mutation of cells, so you can't force an immunity to it.

Correct me folks if I'm wrong but I think one of the reasons cancer is so damned dangerous is because your immune system doesn't really recognize it as "foreign" and therefore leaves it mostly alone, which means a vaccine would be useless.

I know you're part right at least. I was reading an article in the NY Times a few months ago that talked about the connection between aging and cancer--seems the two are linked. The body's aging is a defense mechanism against cancer or something like that.

Having a wife with cancer, doctors have told us that they dont like to use the word "cure" for cancer.

I'm sure they don't. Makes their wallet ache.

P.S.: Sorry to hear that. I wish her well. *nod*

seriously I can imagine this conversation:

"god damn it, this shit killed all my cancer cells!"

"um, excuse me, did you just say that you found a drug that kills cancer cells?"

"yeah, it destroyed my whole experiment!"

"yes but didn't it...you know....kill cancer?"

"yeah, aren't you listening? That's the proble.......oh"
"But they were my little babies. :("

That is a possible response you know. Many scientists are not all there. :p

I'm not a medical expert, I'm sure demi, bottle or fass can speak on this better than I can, but I don't think we can create a vaccine for cancer, because a vaccine is a pre-emptive measure that creates an immunity to something. Cancer isn't like a virus which you can innoculate against, it's a mutation of cells, so you can't force an immunity to it.

Correct me folks if I'm wrong but I think one of the reasons cancer is so damned dangerous is because your immune system doesn't really recognize it as "foreign" and therefore leaves it mostly alone, which means a vaccine would be useless.

Well there is a vaccine for HPV which is a possible cause of cervicel cancer but I agree with you really.

I'm especially excited about the nanotechnology they are working on to create bio-meds that will specifically target and destroy cancer cells.

I know you're part right at least. I was reading an article in the NY Times a few months ago that talked about the connection between aging and cancer--seems the two are linked. The body's aging is a defense mechanism against cancer or something like that.

body aging is a DEFENSE mechanism against cancer? Buh? My whole understanding about cancer is mostly it's an "older person's disease" (note I say MOSTLY, exceptions abound, of course) because the longer you live, the more likely it is for your body to break down.

Has to do I think with cell division. Every time a cell divides it has a chance to lose, or alter some genetic material. The longer you live, the more divisions the cells in your body go through, and the more likely it is for one of them to flip out and turn into a cancer cell (of course it's chance, a newborn could get it, but just more likely the longer you live).

in fact i heard somewhere that everyone, EVERYONE has "cancer" in them, certain cells that have mutated beyond normalcy. What makes the "cancer" that we all have different from the cancer that kills is that the cancer that kills divides very fast.

I volunteered for an aquatic rescue aquarium and I remember learning that sea animals in captivity tend to develop problems that you don't see animals in nature having, such as cancer, because they live longer in captivity to develop those health problems.

I'm sure they don't. Makes their wallet ache.

P.S.: Sorry to hear that. I wish her well. *nod*


Well its just that they use the term "remission" because the patient has a high risk of that cancer still being in the body and reactivating or whatever.

and thanks :) she is coming thru chemotherapy quite well - hopefully the treatment she just had was the past - she is going to get a PT scan this friday and we'll see if she still needs more chemo or can move onto radiation, which will be every day for a month excluding weekends. Oh, and the radiation of course can possibly give her cancer too. :rolleyes:

As I recall, Fleming was a little peeved when that darn fungus got into his bacterial cultures, too. :)

They're not irritated that cancer might be just about cured now if the new drug is safe. They're irritated that their intestinal model was destroyed. I know because I can read and I read the article.

so you can read an article, but apparently you can't read an OP. giggles at you then. o_0

An accident gave us penicillin and if an accident gives us a cancer drug, then, well, I guess I can't complain.

An accident gave us penicillin and if an accident gives us a cancer drug, then, well, I guess I can't complain.

Quick! Everyone fuck around with a chemistry set, maybe we'll cure AIDS!

Quick! Everyone fuck around with a chemistry set, maybe we'll cure AIDS!

Holy crap! I just developed Super AIDS! We're all screwed!

Makes me think of Asimov.


The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'"

Accidents make for wonderful discoveries.

The Chinese use the same word for crisis as they do for opportunity...

Makes me think of Asimov. I would've thought it was "oops"

Accidents make for wonderful discoveries.

The Chinese use the same word for crisis as they do for opportunity...

I'm fairly certain that if Mitch Hedberg were alive today, he would have come up with a joke for this.

Something along the lines of

"Yknow, the Chinese use the same word for crisis as they do for opportunity. Just yesterday, I had the opportunity to throw away a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich that had fallen on the floor."

I'm fairly certain that if Mitch Hedberg were alive today, he would have come up with a joke for this.

Something along the lines of

"Yknow, the Chinese use the same word for crisis as they do for opportunity. Just yesterday, I had the opportunity to throw away a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich that had fallen on the floor."

Mitch Hedberg, RIP...in fact that is exactly something he would say.

"escalators never really break down, they just become stairs. The sign would say 'escators temporarily stairs, sorry for the convenience.'"

I'm sure he's very popular up in Heaven. Sold-out shows every night where he just talks about finding lint in odd places.

God I loved that man. I listened to way too much of his stand-up not to be able to replicate his style somewhat, so I randomly come up with things in my head that I think he would say.

Having a wife with cancer, doctors have told us that they dont like to use the word "cure" for cancer.
Oh, OK.

Hope it's going alright for your wife, and if she moves onto radiotherapy, then best of luck with that, too!



And @whoever said there can never be a vaccine for any kind of cancer - IIRC there is a vaccine for cervical cancer (am I right on this? - I think there was a debate in some US state or other on whether it should be mandatory).

Oh, OK.

Hope it's going alright for your wife, and if she moves onto radiotherapy, then best of luck with that, too!



And @whoever said there can never be a vaccine for any kind of cancer - IIRC there is a vaccine for cervical cancer (am I right on this? - I think there was a debate in some US state or other on whether it should be mandatory).

There's a vaccine for the Human Papilloma (sp?) Virus, which is a primary cause of Cervical cancer. Not a universal cause, but a primary cause.

Accidents make for wonderful discoveries.

so what kind of "accident" occured when man discovered that Cow's Milk was human safe... [jk] :D

And @whoever said there can never be a vaccine for any kind of cancer - IIRC there is a vaccine for cervical cancer (am I right on this? - I think there was a debate in some US state or other on whether it should be mandatory).

No.

There's a vaccine for HPV, a virus that can cause cervical cancer. You can have a vaccine for a virus, certainly. But in this case it's not a vaccine for the cancer, it's a vaccine to boost immunity to a virus that can cause (but is not the only cause) cervical cancer.

Oh, OK.

Hope it's going alright for your wife, and if she moves onto radiotherapy, then best of luck with that, too!



And @whoever said there can never be a vaccine for any kind of cancer - IIRC there is a vaccine for cervical cancer (am I right on this? - I think there was a debate in some US state or other on whether it should be mandatory).

thank you!

I did mention that vaccine you are talkign about earlier in the thread, which is actually a vaccine for HPV which may be a cause for cervical cancer.

so what kind of "accident" occured when man discovered that Cow's Milk was human safe... [jk] :D

Accidentally leaving the village pervert with the village cow.

No.

There's a vaccine for HPV, a virus that can cause cervical cancer. You can have a vaccine for a virus, certainly. But in this case it's not a vaccine for the cancer, it's a vaccine to boost immunity to a virus that can cause (but is not the only cause) cervical cancer.
Oh, OK.

Thanks for informing me on the matter!

No.

There's a vaccine for HPV, a virus that can cause cervical cancer. You can have a vaccine for a virus, certainly. But in this case it's not a vaccine for the cancer, it's a vaccine to boost immunity to a virus that can cause (but is not the only cause) cervical cancer.

Exactly - if there exists a certain virus that eats your leg off, and I create a vaccine for that virus, then I have prevented that virus from infecting someone. I have not prevented that person from having his leg amputated somehow. Same thing with HPV vaccine.

I'm not a medical expert, I'm sure demi, bottle or fass can speak on this better than I can, but I don't think we can create a vaccine for cancer, because a vaccine is a pre-emptive measure that creates an immunity to something. Cancer isn't like a virus which you can innoculate against, it's a mutation of cells, so you can't force an immunity to it.

Correct me folks if I'm wrong

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/cancervaccine

Alrighty then. Sorry about just the link, but I can't be arsed to write anything of my own when that page summarises it nicely. Long story short: there are therapeutic cancer vaccines.

Accidentally leaving the village pervert with the village cow.

This conversation has officially gone way to far.

A scientist was apparently ANNOYED when the drug she was testing destroyed cancer cultures...

Scientists: Just because they graduated, doesn't mean they catch on faster than you would.

Weird, but cool.