Salmonella is the new weapon against cancer - Polidicks

[Quote]Salmonella could be used in the war against cancer after it was found to trigger the body's own defence system against the disease.[/quote] [quote]Scientists have discovered that treating tumours with the Salmonella bacteria can induce an immune response that effectively kills cancer cells – and also vaccinates against further growth. Cancer cells are especially dangerous because they evade the body's immune system that usually tracks down and kills any abnormalities.Treating these cancer cells with salmonella effectively makes them "visible" to the body's immune cells and therefore open to attack. Researchers at the University of Milan have made the system work in mice in the laboratory and are now looking to carry out trials in humans next year. Dr Maria Rescigno said that the salmonella, which was in too low a dose to cause harm in itself, acted as a "red flag" highlighting dangerous cancer cells. She said the immune cells suddenly recognised and killed tumour cells in the mice. They also protected mice from cancer spreading to other parts of the body–a “vaccination” style preventive strategy. "We are very excited about the results," said Dr Rescigno who hopes that trials will begin in May. The work was published in the journal of Science Translational Medicine.[/quote] Source: [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7938993/Salmonella-is-the-new-weapon-against-cancer.html[/url] Awesome! :eng101:

So, to get rid of cells that decide to grow like crazy, you subject the cells to a virus that has the potential to kill? Cool.

-Snip-

There's been cases of viruses and bacteria who destroyed tumors to the point where the entire tumor would be gone.

wait, a cancer treatment that actually works? I must be missing something here.

[QUOTE=Barrowsx;23996162]So, to get rid of cells that decide to grow like crazy, you subject the cells to a virus that has the potential to kill? Cool.[/QUOTE] It's obviously not as simple as that.

[QUOTE=lulzbocks;23996272]It's obviously not as simple as that.[/QUOTE] The article pretty much said that the cells were subjected to salmonella and were then detectable by the immune system.

Modern medicine at its finest.

Even if it did work, the pharmaceutical companies wouldn't let it be used. Think about how much money they make from cancer. Remember my thread on Nanite technology having cured cancer? Hear anything recently? I wonder why.

brb smoking and eating charcoal

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;23996823]Even if it did work, the pharmaceutical companies wouldn't let it be used. Think about how much money they make from cancer. Remember my thread on Nanite technology having cured cancer? Hear anything recently? I wonder why.[/QUOTE] Oh but it has to be tested for another 20 years until they find some other cow to milk their money from.

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;23996823]Even if it did work, the pharmaceutical companies wouldn't let it be used. Think about how much money they make from cancer. Remember my thread on Nanite technology having cured cancer? Hear anything recently? I wonder why.[/QUOTE] the first company to find a cure for cancer would make[I] billions[/I] why would they hide something like that when they stand to profit so much from a vaccine or a treatment for [I]cancer[/I]?

Curing somebody only makes profit once. Spanning the treatment out over months (ie. chemo) is still more profitable in the long run, unless you charge an insane amount of money for the cure which would just increase the gap between the rich and poor.

Every other month there's a thread about "A New Way To Fight Cancer!". And then after that thread I never hear from that "method" ever again.

[QUOTE=Z3r0747;23997825]Curing somebody only makes profit once. Spanning the treatment out over months (ie. chemo) is still more profitable in the long run, unless you charge an insane amount of money for the cure which would just increase the gap between the rich and poor.[/QUOTE] And this, people, is why we need government run healthcare.

"Hurr durr, we don't have enough money so lets not give anyone the cure and instead use treatment that doesn't do shit :pseudo:"

Some guy I once knew who had cancer said I have salmonella for eating canned chicken.

but this still only helps against outside tumors. and radiation could already cure that.

[QUOTE=lolzone;24001046]but this still only helps against outside tumors. and radiation could already cure that.[/QUOTE] but it also stops it from spreading

It's like getting criminals to help rat out other criminals but in your body. Sounds a bit risky.

[QUOTE=Z3r0747;23997825]Curing somebody only makes profit once. Spanning the treatment out over months (ie. chemo) is still more profitable in the long run, unless you charge an insane amount of money for the cure which would just increase the gap between the rich and poor.[/QUOTE] The thing with cancer is that it isn't something you get once, get over and then never have to worry about even again.

My grandpa has lung cancer... Wonder if this will work for that IF they ever make it to human trials. :C

Vitamin B17...cure is here

Fuck yeah :science: Also, sorry to hear that Zero-Point. :frown:

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;23996823]Even if it did work, the pharmaceutical companies wouldn't let it be used. Think about how much money they make from cancer. Remember my thread on Nanite technology having cured cancer? Hear anything recently? I wonder why.[/QUOTE] Pharmaceutical companies need to work especially hard to find and produce new treatments/drugs or else be wiped out entirely. It now usually takes 12 years to get a product on the market after discovery which leaves them 8 years until their patent runs out. After the patent runs out, generic companies jump in and start making and selling the active ingredient for a fraction of the cost. When a new product takes more than $US800 million to produce then pharmaceutical companies can't be lazy if they hope to make a profit, especially with the amount of competition there is.

This one actually sounds viable and inexpensive.

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;23996823]Even if it did work, the pharmaceutical companies wouldn't let it be used. Think about how much money they make from cancer. Remember my thread on Nanite technology having cured cancer? Hear anything recently? I wonder why.[/QUOTE] Because this sort of thing takes time to go through this thing called clinical trials, you fucking retard. There isn't just one pharmaceutical company, there are many, and lots of them don't even make cancer drugs. Any company that doesn't currently make anti-carcinoma chemotherapeutics would [i]love[/i] to cure cancer and fuck over their competition. Aside from the compitition, we've practically cured one form of cancer: cervical cancer caused by HPV is quickly becoming eliminated, and you know who makes that cure? Merck. Do you know what Merck also makes? Chemotherapy agents, some that treated the very same cancer they market a cure for.

[QUOTE=Furioso;23997675]the first company to find a cure for cancer would make[I] billions[/I] why would they hide something like that when they stand to profit so much from a vaccine or a treatment for [I]cancer[/I]?[/QUOTE] The establishment does not allow monopolies, that is why.It is ultimately non-profitable and causes the market to destabilize. They don't care about our well-being, they only care about profit. If it was given to a public health care system, however, it would be awesome for all.

:science:

[QUOTE=Furioso;23997675]the first company to find a cure for cancer would make[I] billions[/I] why would they hide something like that when they stand to profit so much from a vaccine or a treatment for [I]cancer[/I]?[/QUOTE] Cancer is a billion dollar business. A patient who has cancer is more profitable than curing it altogether - it's more profitable in the long run. The last thing they need is a cure. It's all about money :)