digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at telegraph.co.uk

Cloned cells cure cancer patient

telegraph.co.uk — "Doctors took cells from the man's own defence system that were found to attack the cancer cells best, cloned them and injected back into his body, in a process known as "immunotherapy". After two years he is still free from the disease which had spread to his lymph nodes and one of his lungs."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • CaptHuggyFace, on 06/18/2008, -38/+14Wow, that's fantastic!
    I'll just be off to the store to stock up on some industrial-sized UV lights, generators, and hand grenades. You know what I'm talking about...
    • 4DFX, on 06/19/2008, -3/+31No, not really.
    • plainOldFool, on 06/19/2008, -7/+3Braainnnss....
    • robdiggity, on 06/19/2008, -2/+40'Fraid not. You might as well have said, "Icky icky fump furtle fargle mooooooooof," for all the sense that made.
      • caramba420, on 06/19/2008, -2/+8Don't you "icky icky fump furtle" ME, mister, or you'll get nice big dose of "snoofle wurtle zip zam"
      • sarixe, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2icky thump?
    • chuckDontSurf, on 06/19/2008, -0/+12I'm not sure if people just don't get the ref, or they just didn't like the movie. Probably both.
      • corrence, on 06/19/2008, -2/+15well just to point out, it's a "I am legend" reference, and the movie was terrible
      • mcrobles, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1Probably not as bad as Hancock is gonna be
    • hollycowlman, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1Yeah, I think you are saying that you suck.
    • pisceslad07, on 06/19/2008, -0/+8I am Legend?
    • identityxcrysis, on 06/19/2008, -2/+3Probably one of the first times I've seen the first comment on something NOT get +784 and instead get dug down.
    • Aieces, on 06/20/2008, -1/+0that was a brillent comment! I dont understand why it was dugg down
    • Nollykin, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Cell cloning research is not going to produce zombies. Nanotechnology, now there's a field to fear.
  • evan2024, on 06/18/2008, -4/+307that's the best cure for cancer I've seen on digg so far.
    • ZandorMonkeyBoy, on 06/19/2008, -19/+1Doesn't it seem that cures for cancer rank right up there with UFO sightings and Britney Spears upskirt shots in frequency?
    • slayernine, on 06/19/2008, -7/+42Well Cancer won't be cured until they find a method that is so complex small companies can't replicate it and they can keep the price impossibly high and make the same billions off cancer drugs that they are today...
      • bjornski, on 06/19/2008, -13/+9Exactly.

        There is no money in cures.

        The BIG money comes from continued treatments.

        Which is why I honestly never see a cure for cancer being made public in my lifetime. Same with many other diseases.

        It's just too damn profitable to continue treating them, and curing them would kill your golden goose.
        • masamunecyrus, on 06/19/2008, -2/+29If one company discovered a cure for a huge disease such as cancer or diabetes, they would mass produce it immediately. There is a much money to be made in prolonging the problem, but there is even more money to be made in having exclusive rights to a drug that millions of people want immediately.

          The world is not out to get you. -_-
        • bjornski, on 06/19/2008, -3/+8Nope. But the companies cornering the market on it are.
        • slvrbullet87, on 06/19/2008, -2/+6which is why i am just getting over polio

          /sarcasm
      • xutopia, on 06/19/2008, -0/+15If that was true then laser eye surgery would not exist.
        • ashfish, on 06/19/2008, -3/+7A lot people still need reading glasses after they have the surgery, its not a complete cure.
        • ashfish, on 06/19/2008, -1/+4Why am I being dugg down? The doctors that my friends and family have gone to for consultations or actual surgery all told them that there was a good chance that they'd need reading glasses. Now, I don't know anyone under 40 who's had the surgery because quite frankly I don't know many 30 year-olds who can drop a few thousand on surgery that isn't medically necessary. However, I haven't found the possibility of reading glasses to be a deterrent to getting the surgery, just a side effect.

          http://www.pennhealth.com/ency/article/007018.htm
          http://www.seewithlasik.com/docs/lasik-questions.h ...
          http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/sudden_presbyo ...
        • ferkranus, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5Comparing laser eye surgery and long-term cancer treatment is like comparing apples and oranges. I buy contacts and glasses - contacts are about $800/year and glasses are around $300/4 years. It's not that expensive. Cancer treatment? I don't have any numbers...but I can only imagine...
        • RedGreen1, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Where are you buying your contacts? A year supply hasn't ever cost me more than 200, and I'm pretty sure I pay well under that.
      • vfreak2, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3That is so true, I hate all the corruption in the chemical/medical/drug industry. It's horrible. They don't want to save lives, they want to make money.
      • davegkugler, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1The research was done at Fred Hutchinson in Seattle, which is a nonprofit.
        http://www.fhcrc.org/
    • OomBok, on 06/19/2008, -3/+231. Take cells from patient's body
      2. Clone and inject back into him
      3. ???????
      4. Cure cancer
      • erasedgod, on 06/19/2008, -3/+6Jesus, every time I see that reference, it has more question marks.
        • vignor2003, on 06/19/2008, -2/+13Reference, every time I see that question, it has more Jesus marks.
        • Serphyas, on 06/19/2008, -3/+11Question: every time I see Jesus, does he have more reference marks?
        • morgan26, on 06/19/2008, -3/+13Marx: every time he see's Jesus, he has more questions.
        • Vesuvias, on 06/19/2008, -6/+0My Braains... it hurrts...
      • Alegoo92, on 06/19/2008, -0/+43. Reenforce immuno-defenses
        ???
        • Laiden, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Who do you think you are? Some kind of ???????? translator? Get out of my sight.
      • thelock65, on 06/19/2008, -2/+115. I Am Legend
      • diabloenfuego, on 06/19/2008, -2/+05. Profit!

    • mleick, on 06/19/2008, -0/+7There wasn't cloning per se; they isolated Killer T cells (white blood cells) which were shown to attack cancer cells, cultured them using standard human cell methods and reinserted them into the blood stream.

      I'm sick of these ***** soft science telegraph articles, at least the AP has the balls to put some of the science in the article

      http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080619/D91CR780 ...
      original source (new england journal of medicine)
      http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/358/25/2 ...
    • TheNinjaJesus, on 06/19/2008, -1/+5So Will Smith is going to be the last person alive? D:
    • Tyrghast, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1"one of the"?
    • juckman, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2Chuck Norris' tears are number one.
      • docbob84, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0Nope. They *would be* but he's never cried.
    • rentmitchum, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2What a well put together comment.
    • julianrod, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1One that actually worked at least once, that is.
  • Tarree, on 06/19/2008, -3/+65This is the kind of stuff I read of in science fiction twenty years ago. Which means that it's about time for the real science to catch up.
    • theotheragentm, on 06/19/2008, -0/+6So where's my time traveling Delorean?
    • joeanon, on 06/19/2008, -4/+4Yea too bad it's like 20 years plus the negative 8 years of science Bush gave us.

    • gn0stik, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5Still no cure for .... oh wait.
  • chrissku, on 06/19/2008, -9/+126This is the best cancer cure I've seen all week!
  • elosorusso, on 06/19/2008, -1/+101"For this patient we were successful, but we would need to confirm the effectiveness of therapy in a larger study."

    Obviously exciting, but one recovery does not a cure make.
    • twiztidsinz, on 06/19/2008, -0/+11Well, in defense of the article and title, neither say 'cancer cure'.
      Also, since this is taking place on the cellular level, my non-professional guess is it would be more likely to work across the board.
    • dbizzell, on 06/19/2008, -2/+53If you say so Yoda
    • sk11, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5"A dramatic example of immunotherapy was reported two years ago by one pioneer of the field, Dr Steven Rosenberg of the US National Cancer Institute, who eradicated cancer from two dying men using genetically modified versions of their own cells."

      But yeah, there needs to be far more testing.
    • Lythium, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5FTA: " Dr Rosenberg told The Daily Telegraph the new work is an "interesting study that helps to confirm the effectiveness of cell transfer immunotherapy for treating cancer patients. We have now treated 93 patients with metastatic melanoma using their own anti-tumour cells with response rates up to 72 per cent.' "

      93 people is still a very small-scale study, but it's hardly just "one or two" people.
      • TheOtherOne135, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3I just want to know what "response rates up to 72 per cent" means.

        Does that mean that the treatment did *something* for at most 72 per cent of the patients (as in, it did nothing for 28 per cent, and not much for some others)?

        Or is the 72 per cent a measurement of the response in each patient (averaged out)?
        • twiztidsinz, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2I would guess that it means the rate of successfully treating the cancer for the people undergoing this treatment is around 72%.
        • Bugsdigg, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1It means that 73% of patients in the trial have responded to the treatment in some way. Exactly what counts as a "response" varies between trials; in this case, a patient has responded if their cancer mass has decreased beyond a predetermined threshold and stayed that way.
    • joeanon, on 06/19/2008, -2/+2Yea, I BET for that guy it makes a DAMN FINE cure.

    • hollycowlman, on 06/19/2008, -3/+3The cure is all good until his arm starts growing a ear
    • Alegoo92, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2That is the most arrogant way to say ANYTHING.
    • MxM111, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3immunotherapy is actually not new for treating cancer. In fact, it existed BEFORE chemo and radiation therapy, not in this shape of cause. The some microbes were introduced into a patient to induce reaction of the organism against them. At the same time, immune system fought cancer cells as well. Modern medicine prefers chemo/radiation therapy because you can combine treatments (immunotherapy is not compatible with those for the reason that they suppress the immune system). Nowadays, people rediscovering the method with new technological twists.
      • Bugsdigg, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3Very true.

        Chemo/irradiation is also preferred because immunology is a complex subject, which has only been expanded relatively recently. As such, chemo- and radiotherapies have traditionally ben easier for medics and researchers to understand, manipulate and predict.

        Now we understand more about the immune system (although we still have a very long way to go) and are better able to tinker with it, so this approach is expanding rapidly.
    • zardoz73, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Cancer is fickle. Some people make a rapid recovery and the cancer never comes back, while others who do the same treatments will shuffle off this coil very rapidly. A lot seems to do with simple willpower and positive attitude, which is hard to quantify scientifically.
  • matthew444, on 06/19/2008, -2/+12Wow! That is just amazing and so simple too! I think that the best ideas are always the ones right in front of our face :)
    • slvrbullet87, on 06/19/2008, -0/+13Yep cloning is the simplest thing ever
    • Orbmanelson, on 06/19/2008, -0/+0Yes, because using a T-cell from the patients own body is “Organically Keyed” to that persons immune system rather than some exotic pharm-chem pseudo recipe sledgehammer one size fits all guess work moneymaking potion which has an overwhelming failure rate. Ask someone who has cancer just how long they would like to see trials drag on. This is as close as we have come to an organic cure and it is high time it was implemented for whoever is in need of the procedure. With chemo drugs going for $2000.00+ per infusion, just figure out how much an average patient would use over the course of five years and make that the going rate for T-cell generation and give the money to the drug companies and they can make lollypops instead and give them away for free. The patient provides the genetic material for the cure! Wait! Stop making sense!
      • TheOtherOne135, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3The patient may provide the genetic material, but I guarantee there is plenty of money to be made in deciding which white cells to clone, then cloning them properly (making sure there's no contamination, etc.).

        There is also plenty of money (and lives) to be lost if someone rushes in and mucks up the cloning process, clones the wrong cells, or simply gives patients too large a load of white blood cells . . . .
    • Qumahlin, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2This idea really isn't new its just being applied now to specific cancers. There is a similar "cure" for aids that is in trials, but due to the cells needing to be cloned for each patient it's cost prohibitive and isn't feasible to easily treat large populaces so you won't soon see these cures coming to those who need them most, the poor and 3rd world countries.
      • Bugsdigg, on 06/19/2008, -0/+0Actually, you won't see conventional drug-based HIV/AIDScures for third world countries any time soon either.

        HIV has evolved into four clades (clade roughly means subspecies for a virus; similar level of difference between, say, a chihuahua and a doberman). All of Africa is dominated by two clades, the other two dominate the USA and Europe. Despite 80-90% of world HIV cases being in Africa, guess which clades all of the research money is going in to?

        Lots of fascinating stuff on the World Health Organisation's webstwo ite for everyone who's interested.
  • stephenhacking, on 06/19/2008, -17/+11And the ideas rite in front of our face are usually the hardest to implement.
  • frenchi, on 06/19/2008, -12/+9Digg comes up with cures to all our incurable diseases every week. This one seems like a great one!
  • alpha88, on 06/19/2008, -2/+8Very exciting if it would work in most situations, although I'm afraid to find out how much it would cost.
    • kakwakas, on 06/19/2008, -1/+4I'm sure it can't be much more than chemo therapy.
      • abaird986, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2how are you sure?
      • Lythium, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3FTA: "However, the treatment could prove extremely expensive and scientists say that more research is needed to prove its effectiveness." I can definitely see how cloning tens of thousands of cells would be more expensive than radiation/chemo, _especially_ if you consider that they have to be grown anew for each individual.
        • TheOtherOne135, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Grown individually, plus it's essential that you make sure that each cloning "vat" is entirely uncontaminated. . . . Can't have chemicals, bacteria, or other people's cells in there.
      • kjd84, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2If you or a loved one had cancer wouldn't you sell everything you have to pay for it?? I would!!
    • joeanon, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2National Health Care .. is what it should cost.
      • ScottishMcDuff, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0So, in other words, a whole bunch of (tax) money? I prefer to only have to pay for cures/treatment when I'm sick.
  • perhapsimcrazy, on 06/19/2008, -1/+56Science at its best, gentleman.
    • bjornski, on 06/19/2008, -13/+1But...but...but... science is all theories!

      If it wasn't in the Bible, it's not true! This goes against "God's" will!

      GODLY people don't rely on this "science" heathen stuff you talk about!

      THEY PRAY! "God" cures cancer all the time! Just watch Benny Hinn!
      • tehknotte, on 06/19/2008, -0/+9what the? this has nothing to do with religion. why are you trying to start an argument?
        • bjornski, on 06/19/2008, -7/+1Because cloning is wrong! It's not in the Bible!
        • xutopia, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Dude... off-topic. Not disagreeing with the sentiment but this isn't the place for these comments.
        • moethelawn, on 06/19/2008, -2/+4The Internet wasn't in the Bible either... so why are you using it?
        • dynelol, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5Because he's an attention whore.
        • trofeo, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1Sarcasm maybe?
        • feignNU, on 06/19/2008, -1/+0WHOOSH!!!
    • tehknotte, on 06/19/2008, -5/+2Ladies and gentleman, i am tonight's entertainment
  • dhaugen, on 06/19/2008, -8/+35what they didnt say is the donor for the cell was chuck norris
    • slayernine, on 06/19/2008, -6/+3So did they take it from his left or right testicle? And how did they get a needle through his impenetrable skin?
      • dhaugen, on 06/19/2008, -5/+2left, and they used a needle made of diamond
      • jayman488, on 06/19/2008, -1/+11the needle was made of Chuck Norris.
  • jayman488, on 06/19/2008, -8/+178Digg: Curing cancer weekly since 2004.
  • vegask, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2I wonder if this is similar to what Provenge is doing.
  • homer454, on 06/19/2008, -13/+8I Am Legend anyone?
    • LoveAndSeagulls, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5eh this is different. it's not a random virus that will spread and kill everybody. they're clones of already existing cells injected into the body.
    • bjornski, on 06/19/2008, -5/+3Lousy remake of a movie to help fund Scientology anyone?

      /I can't wait to avoid his latest one, "Hancock". Those super-powers? Yeah. Tom Cruise says that ANYONE who is truly "clear" can do that stuff!
      //***** Will Smith
      • kaplanfx, on 06/19/2008, -0/+6"I am legend (movie)" a remake of "The Omega Man", which is a remake of "The Last Man on Earth" which is based on "I am Legend (book)". So yeah, it's been done before.
      • bingostud722, on 06/19/2008, -2/+5Dude you suck at trolling
        • bjornski, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2Who is trolling?

          That's how I honestly feel.
        • leerayIG88, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3@bjornski

          Go back picking your nose!
      • nullx42, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3***** Tom Cruise.
    • Venge999, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1We need to get Will Smith on this to take on the bad CG zombies! He can save us.
  • sandiegodude, on 06/19/2008, -5/+7Meh, Digg effect coming into play. Getting XML error trying to load the page.

    Anyway, I'll believe it after it cures about 10,000 clinical trial patients. Until then, it could just be a fluke.
    • PimpinOnWelfare, on 06/19/2008, -2/+5That should be right around the time the early stages of rabies kick in ...
      • antonio97b, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I thought it was vampireism from I Am Legend.
  • Acuraracer32tl, on 06/19/2008, -2/+9I'm very curious own how this all works. Cancer is formed from defective DNA and starts to multiply when it goes through mitosis. How does injecting one's own cloned cells causes cancers to stop?
    • vinesun, on 06/19/2008, -0/+15The article is down now so I don't know what the specifics are but, basically, it sounds like what they did is isolate the cells of his immune system that have a high specificity for the cancer (which probably recognize defects caused by the mutations that you are talking about). Then, they clone these cells - cloning meaning that they are simply making more copies of these particular cells - then inject them back into the guy so that there are a lot more of these cancer-specific immune cells around. Thus, there are more cells around to attack & kill the tumor.
      • TheOtherOne135, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1Gotta wonder what having an overload of cancer-specific cells does to the rest of your immune system. Would stink to cure the cancer, but catch a nasty case of something that causes permanent impairments because your immune system was only oriented to kill the cancer that month . . .
        • Bugsdigg, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1It doesn't really work like that. Your immune system simply grows enough cells to meet demand, assuming that you're eating enough to provide it with nutrients. If you have two infections, it grows two sets of new cells. This isn't unlimited of course, but it's pretty robust.

          You're kind of right though, in that the immune response itself isn't great for the rest of the body. A prolonged, highly active immune response will make you feel terrible. In fact, most of the symptoms you've ever had from a virus (including every cold you've ever had) were side effects from your immune system's activities, not the virus itself.
    • twiztidsinz, on 06/19/2008, -1/+5Read the article maybe?

      "A cancer patient has made a full recovery after being injected with billions of his own immune cells in the first case of its kind, doctors have disclosed. ..... Doctors took cells from the man's own defence system that were found to attack the cancer cells best, cloned them and injected back into his body, in a process known as "immunotherapy"."
      • forcedfx, on 06/19/2008, -1/+9He probably would have if it wasn't down.
      • connorf, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1How the hell is this revolutionary? Haven't we been able to do this for years?
    • drh8, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2There are certian types of white blood cells ( I can't remember the name... maybe neoseniphils) that kill cancer cells. Cancer cells form all the time, but they get killed just like an infection. Problems arise when they don't get killed.
    • invictus13, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1cytotoxic t cells actually
  • bman85, on 06/19/2008, -9/+11Awesome... but wait - isn't cloning immoral, and should not be used for any reason?
    • LoveAndSeagulls, on 06/19/2008, -9/+4they're cloning certain types of cells. to try to cure cancer.
      who gives a ***** if it's saving a life
      • bman85, on 06/19/2008, -1/+10Wow you couldn't see sarcasm if it slapped you in the face.
        • ZenLa, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Maybe they are the type of person that closes their eyes when they get slapped in the face
    • vinesun, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1
      • twiztidsinz, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Explain how it is different?
        • vinesun, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4I deleted the comment ("cloning a cell is not the same as cloning an organism") 'cause I thought I might have missed the OP's sarcasm.

          Anyway, cloning a cell is just making more copies of it in culture - throw the cell into culture medium and let it grow on its own--pretty much the same idea as growing bacteria on petri dishes. Not as easy, but the same idea.

          Cloning a multicellular organism involves figuring out how to take one cell from the original and programming it or manipulating it so that it can form a completely new individual. What most people think of as cloning, in the sci-fi sense, is done by a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer which involves injecting the nucleus of a cell from the individual to be cloned into an egg cell and then transplanting it into a female--quite different from throwing a culture into an incubator. It's really a semantics issue - the process that "cloning a cell" refers to is not the same process that "cloning a human" refers to.
    • bman85, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Yeah I am all for cloning, stem cell research, all of it, just to clear up any confusion.
  • aseideman, on 06/19/2008, -9/+3They did this ***** two years ago??!! WTF? Can the Medical Field move any slower than this? TWO F-IN years ago and it's news today... People are dying by the millions but by all means, take it slow, do more "tests" - ***** idiots.
    • dupek11, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2And WTF were they supposed to say 2 years ago? Hurray! We can cure cancer if you are able to pay 500.000 USD for each patient, otherwise you are f*cked. Even rich countries would not be able to implement that kind of treatment on a large scale.
    • Bugsdigg, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3You'd prefer if they injected him, saw that he was ok after a week or two, then went ahead and did the same to a few more thousand people?

      ...then what happens when a year later the guy dies from unforseen side-effects? Extensive testing is what we rely on to make sure that you're not killed by the medicines themselves.

      Less dramatically, it's very unusual to publish cancer research after as little as two years. Scientific literature usually reports "5-year survival" - if a patient goes 5 years without the cancer reappearing or without unacceptable side-effects from the treatment, it's considered a cure. There are LOTS of failed therapies which looked great after a year, but 5 years later all the patients regress and are dead or dying just as before.
      • thrallie, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1I don't see anyone dieing from properly cloned cells from their own body. It's not even technically a "medicine". A proper study for this should take no more than 3 years.
        • TheOtherOne135, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1He was one of the original 9, or at least that's how it sounds from the article. They're now up to 93, in those 2 years. So NOW, finally, they have enough data to begin analyzing and releasing actual results.

          And it's certainly possible to die from cloned cells from your own body - too many of them in your blood stream means you got too much bulk in your blood. They'll bunch up and form a clot, and it can cause a heart attack or stroke. That's how the bicyclists can die from the stuff that increases the number of red blood cells in your blood. . .
    • CedEx, on 06/19/2008, -1/+0Don't you want them to make 100% sure they are not creating zombies as a side effect of this cure? Jeebus... get your head out of the sand!

      Tests > Zombies!
  • RSS14, on 06/19/2008, -0/+13Science FTW
    • gplpark92, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2NVIDIA's new Science 512MB FTW Edition
  • venuspcs, on 06/19/2008, -2/+14Okay: 1.) They didn't clone a person just a one of the persons cells that was able to kill the cancer cells.....2.) they cloned hundreds of thousands of that cell and then injected them back into the patient effectively giving him a massive dosage of cancer fighting cells that kicked the cancers ass like Chuck Norris kicks the bad guys asses.
  • klick37, on 06/19/2008, -7/+2Anyone here see I Am Legend?
    • xutopia, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Measles was in the movie... this is the person's own cells.
  • pulyx, on 06/19/2008, -6/+0And so it begins...
  • AronT, on 06/19/2008, -8/+2If they took cells from his defence system what will he do when he wants to remove his fence!?
  • Rockjock1473, on 06/19/2008, -0/+50Being an 8 year cancer patient and going through chemotherapy at its worse. Dugg
  • sk11, on 06/19/2008, -5/+9And to think evangelicals try their best to demonise biologists. This is the kind of work they should be allowed to get on with unhindered.
    • Jashobeam5, on 06/19/2008, -4/+2Wow you buy right into the false sterotypes of Evangelicals. They say as long as there is something better than making and killing babies to cure things, we should try that instead. Sounds reasonable to me.
    • SteelChicken, on 06/19/2008, -2/+3dont be stupid. no unborn babies were hurt in this experiment, so no ones up in arms. moron.
      • bluekross, on 06/19/2008, -2/+2I can see the headline now: "Sperm used to fight deadly disease"
      • sk11, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3You ***** idiots, evangelicals have already managed to get their creationist/I.D. ***** taught in biology classes. They won't stop until science lessons become bible classes. You can then kiss goodbye to further progress and advancement.

        Haven't you seen jesus camp?
        • ScottishMcDuff, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1I am a Southern Baptist from Alabama. At my high school, we were taught evolution. Intelligent Design was never brought up. So shut your damn mouth.

          Also, Jesus Camp is a skewed documentary that focuses on an ultra-conservative sect of Christianity. It would be like having a documentary titled "Muslim School" set in a madrasah.
        • sk11, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1Yeah, well I've personally met hundreds of evangelicals and they all say the same thing, that they want to erode biology and eventually the whole of science teaching in schools. They dream of turning the US and eventually everywhere else into christian theocracies, where speaking of evolution will become illegal. So, you don't know ***** you imbecile.
  • Elderon, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3I'm glad to see that this was succesful in this persons case, but what if the person does not produce cells that are attacking the cancer such as this person was able to do. Especially if it's someone who is immune compromised.
    • Aadain, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Hence the further study :)
    • Bugsdigg, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4Both very valid points.

      There is some really cool research going on at the moment to address these, but they're years away from getting into patients.

      The ones I know most about involve creating GM viruses, then using them to do some combination of:

      a) Modify the cancer cells (_only_ the cancer cells; selectivity is tricky but not impossible) to display a protein on their surface that the immune system can recognise and react to.
      b) Create antigen presenting cells (the cells which activate the rest of the immune system and teach it how to recognise and therefore attack any given threat) especially modified to stimulate an immune system to kill cancer cells it had previously been ignoring. This is basically what these scientists did.
      c) Modify cytotoxic T cells (a subset of the cells which actually do the cell killing) to reccognise cancer cells and attack them more strongly.


      This is a bit oversimplified and there's lots more cool stuff going on too, but I'm not in the mood to write an essay on Digg. Hope you find it interesting though!
      /cancer biology geek
      • LukeBeaumont, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Don't know why you were dugg down, all that is spot on.
  • plutarch, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Cancer cures are always "just around the corner" according to journalists. While I hope this therapy works as much as the next guy, we really shouldn't get our hopes up too much without more results from studies and clinical trials. It's also quite frustrating that these stories never provide a citation for the original literature.
  • Shoebox639, on 06/19/2008, -0/+6Cure is such a taboo word in the field of cancer research. But what they've done here is amazing.
    • Metasquares, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2It's because "cure" is such a taboo word in cancer research that one doesn't already exist!
  • schneb, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4No embryonic stems required.
  • dsaltus, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2if you think this is amazing look into dr. Burzynski's antineoplaston method. it will blow your mind.
    • TheUNS, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1From wikipedia:
      "Despite a number of presentations, peer reviewed papers, and ongoing studies, to date, Burzynski has not published any clinical trial results reviewed and accepted by the FDA for completed Phase II and III drug studies."

      And he was doing research on this from as far back as 1977:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82aw_Burzy% ...
  • leerayIG88, on 06/19/2008, -1/+710 years later, the patient develops super powers.
  • RedSaber, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Is there any major medical/biological/physical geek here at digg that can confirm this is not a publicity stunt or some bullcrap?

    Otherwise, great, Humans 1 Cancer 0
    • xutopia, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3IANAD but they're pretty clear that this isn't a cure-all. They've just proved that in one type of cancer that this method worked on one person. They were very clear that they should test this on a larger scale before saying they won the fight against cancer.
    • highlymodified, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4As a cancer researcher, I'd like to say that this is a very viable option, and it seems this guy is indeed cancer free because of it.

      However, the type of cells that require cloning for this kind of work may not occur in most cancers...and in the case of most leukemias, these types of cells are the ones killing you! Most conventional cancer therapies also destroy the immune system, so testing this will be extremely difficult: you will have to convince patients to abandon all better-proven therapies in favor of this one for a good clinical trial.

      Also, one guy doesn't really prove *****. But it's a real start, and hopefully this will progress the war on cancer...an enemy actually worth having a war on. :)
      • Bugsdigg, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2I'm a cancer researcher too. highlymodified is spot on.

        There is a lot of work in this area going on at the moment and this group has a strong publication record, so they're not cranks after publicity. It's a solid and genuinely promising result, but as highlymodified says, it's just one tiny trial and conducting bigger ones will be difficult, costly and time-consuming.

        Not impossible though, so who knows, it might bear fruit in a few years.
    • Quaterni0n, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3You mean: Humans 1 Cancer ~60 Million/year

      We have some catching up to do.
    • jster89, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Alerting the immune system to the presence of cancer cells has been used previously in other ways this is the first time it has been used to successfully treat metastasised malignant melanoma. Usually an incurable condition.
  • ahoyhoy1, on 06/19/2008, -3/+9Does having sex with my clone make me gay or is it just a better form of masturbation?
    • xutopia, on 06/19/2008, -0/+8Ask twins the same question.
      • ahoyhoy1, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Now...where do I find twins that ***** each other....
        I'm going to try Google image search, thanks for the heads up!
    • jtmitl, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2this question has haunted me for years...
  • WoollyMittens, on 06/19/2008, -6/+1It's very sad to read of such treatments, knowing they will for some odd reason never become mainstream. Oh well. At least it will give you something to be bitter about when you or a loved one is dying and you can't convince a doctor that a treatment exists.
  • mrzack, on 06/19/2008, -3/+2sounds pretty expensive. or he could eat some natural plant phytochemicals that have already been proven to cure cancer. cheaper too. basically it's the body's own ability that destroyed the cancer, and not any stupid garbage synthetic chemical drugs.
  • crichton101, on 06/19/2008, -0/+10I really hope the article comes back up soon( it was down at the time of my writing this). I'm really curious to read it and maybe see if I can force it upon the folks in charge of my mom's care, she has cancer, and it's spread from her breasts to her lungs. She's on an oxygen machine now, and is allergic to all forms of anesthetic so all the drugs to make her feel ok make her ill. It's a lose lose situation right now.
    • Ciryon, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4:( My mom has some bad cells forming in her uterus ..they just operated on her a couple of days ago. I can't even imagine how your family is feeling right now. Best of luck to you all mate
      • crichton101, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4Best of luck to your family as well, and thanks.
        • Bugsdigg, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1My very best wishes to both of your families.

          chrichton101 - bear in mind that cancer is a very diverse group of complex diseases. This article describes a positive result in ONE patient with a very specific form of skin cancer. It will likely not be applicable to your mother's condition.

          I work with a lot of doctors, and the cancer doctors are generally the best-informed about recent research. By all means stay informed yourself, but more than likely your mother is already receiving the best care possible. Hard to believe sometimes, but doctors are people too and not without empathy; they just have to keep their professional face on when talking to people in their care. They're doing their bsolute best, I assure you.
  • armyofbees, on 06/19/2008, -2/+2Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the fifth cylon!
    • BeyondDGrave, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1Bill is the fifth...

      ***SPOILER***
  • ceramufary, on 06/19/2008, -0/+7An acquaintance with ovarian cancer that looked terminal (chemo was not working) was able to get into a study doing this last year. She was in remission in nine weeks. We had actually just discussed the procedure in my Genetics class the week before she told me about it. Yay science! Also-- weirdly enough, Yay Medicaid, which paid for her to participate in the study.
  • BeyondDGrave, on 06/19/2008, -3/+2Like...Like a balloon, and then something bad happens...
  • Buzzpatrol, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5As long as you put $150.000 in a jar every time you smoke a cigarette you will totally be able to afford this treatment!
    • Jashobeam5, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1If smoking was the only cause of cancer, you would be on the mark. As it is, the best prevention of smoking related cancers is a parent who doesn't smoke and discusses the toxic nature of burning tobacco with thier kid from an early age. Kids who don't start are not likely to start smoking as adults. Almost every smoker I know had a parent who smoked or otherwise used tobacco and they started before age 18.
  • EdmontonEh, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3511 Years Cancer free!!! I would not wish chemotherapy on my worst enemy... DUGG!
    • SuperVepr308, on 06/19/2008, -0/+20I have had one relapse but I have been good for over a year now. Stay tough, my brother.
  • ClevelandBrown, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3Science be praised!
    • Quaterni0n, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1Yeah this science stuff is much more effective than sitting on your ass and praying.
  • SuperVepr308, on 06/19/2008, -0/+7That is ***** awesome. I pray for the day that we can all pronounce cancer a disease of the past.
  • hellbent88, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5digg cures cancer....agin
  • JamesMatt, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo immunotherapy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • bluekross, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Eh, I just hope there is suffecient treatment before I get it. It's genetic =/
  • cobophers, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2I guess I can finally put away my anti-cancer elixir: copiousamountsofbeer. Yes, its all one word.
  • SpeeZZ, on 06/19/2008, -5/+4Isn't this kind of what happened in I am Legend?

    I'd rather not be a zombie... Please.
  • goddessophia, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4I would need to see some numbers before I would believe anything... ONE trial means nothing... it could just be a remission of sorts. I have known of people who are so-called cured from cancer with different treatment options and a few years later it is back and with vengeance.
    • TheOtherOne135, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3They're up to 93 patients in the study now, with a "72 per cent response" rate. They didn't define what they meant by the response rate, but they've been studying it for 2 years now and are just releasing their initial results - and this guy's the poster boy for the initial results.
  • hollycowlman, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1I bet the dude was also taking some MLM junk. They always claim that stuff can do miraculous things.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.