Quake3World

dangerous...possibly i think.

shit, poor old MK though this said cure for HepC in 5 years

As long as the markers only attract to cancer cells by a unique identifier I don't see it being dangerous

Cool news.

*goes out and buys cigarettes*

I've heard about this before... it's very promising. There are other similar techniques. I doubt cancer will be considered much of a problem in another 10-20 years.

I'll know a scientist (and will be working with him in the upcoming year) who works on a very similar technique. The idea has a lot of potential, so it's good to see it doing well in clinical trials. Actually, I kind of hope it doesn't go too well... It's one potential area I wanted to focus on in my thesis. If it works, I won't be able to credit myself for it.

To say it's a cure for all cancers is misleading, though -- I don't see how it could work for lymphomas unless radiation and tranplants are used.

hmmmmm

I've been waiting for werldhed to pop in and give his opinion. The article may be a bit sensational, but it sounds promising however you spin it.

Massive Quasars wrote:I waiting for werldhed to pop in and give his opinion. The article may be a bit sensational, but it sounds promising however you spin it.

done! :icon25:

(just to clarify, I do think this is exceptionally sensational and I believe it will work. Geebs and tnf will probably have something to say about my opinion, though.)

The only problem is, in vitro and in vivo results don't always match up. But it's exciting news, and a thoroughly "sensible" approach to the problem.

I wonder about risks of tumour lysis, though: i.e, does this technique induce apoptosis or just chew through everythig in its way?

werldhed wrote:To say it's a cure for all cancers is misleading, though -- I don't see how it could work for lymphomas unless radiation and tranplants are used.

Care to explain that a little for us laymen? Why are lymphomas different?

Actually, can you explain that to the pros as well? I don't know either

Fender wrote:

werldhed wrote:To say it's a cure for all cancers is misleading, though -- I don't see how it could work for lymphomas unless radiation and tranplants are used.

Care to explain that a little for us laymen? Why are lymphomas different?

Well, lymphomas are cancers of the immune system. Leukemia, for example, causes your white blood cells (WBCs) to grow out of control. If they're planning to take a patient's WBCs and modify them to target the cancerous WBCs, there could be a problem. Theoretically, you could take donor WBCs (noncancerous) and modify them to attack the cancerous ones, but that requires radiation and transplantation, anyway, so it's just as harsh on the body as regular cancer treatments.
For solid tumors, it would have great potential, though.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medical ... wsid=22098

Thoughts on this?

I've heard of that before, and I think it has potential, too. I've talked with geneticists who disagree (and some who agree), but I think it can work. Then again, I don't know much about genetics.

werldhed wrote:

Fender wrote:

werldhed wrote:To say it's a cure for all cancers is misleading, though -- I don't see how it could work for lymphomas unless radiation and tranplants are used.

Care to explain that a little for us laymen? Why are lymphomas different?

Well, lymphomas are cancers of the immune system. Leukemia, for example, causes your white blood cells (WBCs) to grow out of control. If they're planning to take a patient's WBCs and modify them to target the cancerous WBCs, there could be a problem. Theoretically, you could take donor WBCs (noncancerous) and modify them to attack the cancerous ones, but that requires radiation and transplantation, anyway, so it's just as harsh on the body as regular cancer treatments.
For solid tumors, it would have great potential, though.

Well, it wouldn't necessarily require total body irradiation; I guess it would depend on which markers you chose to target, although I agree you'd have to be pretty selective if it was T-cell disease. Anyway, the TBI isn't as bad as the graft-versus-host disease, which would be nice to eliminate

Geebs wrote:

werldhed wrote: Well, lymphomas are cancers of the immune system. Leukemia, for example, causes your white blood cells (WBCs) to grow out of control. If they're planning to take a patient's WBCs and modify them to target the cancerous WBCs, there could be a problem. Theoretically, you could take donor WBCs (noncancerous) and modify them to attack the cancerous ones, but that requires radiation and transplantation, anyway, so it's just as harsh on the body as regular cancer treatments.
For solid tumors, it would have great potential, though.

Well, it wouldn't necessarily require total body irradiation; I guess it would depend on which markers you chose to target, although I agree you'd have to be pretty selective if it was T-cell disease. Anyway, the TBI isn't as bad as the graft-versus-host disease, which would be nice to eliminate

That's true. GVHD was mainly what I was thinking about. That will come into play if you use a transplant, which I think you'd have to. I guess I meant that I don't see how you could use a patient's T-cells to target their own leukemia.

About £250,000 is needed through the Christie Appeal to pay for nurses with specialist training, research doctors and equipment.

Jesus Christ someone pay the man. This sounds very promising.

Games cost more than ten times that to develop.

WOOO FUCKING HOOOO

**buys 20 fags**

TNF will tell us if it works or not

in TNF i trust

I've heard somewhere GTA San Andreas cost 50 million $$$ to develop

Thats freaking awesome. Sucks it couldn't have come ~8 years ago for my dad

SplishSplash wrote:I've heard somewhere GTA San Andreas cost 50 million $$$ to develop

I would venture a guess that it cost a lot because all the developers knew it would be a hit after the first few and demanded a better share of profits.