And We Have It - The Cure For Cancers

Joseph C.

100 kW
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
1,797
Location
Ireland
They kept this very quiet in order to make sure pharmaceutical companies didn't get any patents. They already have it in tablet form and people are getting cured.

I wonder what this will mean for declining populations. With people living much longer I'd imagine the birthrate will drop even more.


http://www.sciencecodex.com/new_general_concept_for_the_treatment_of_cancer-131015

New general concept for the treatment of cancer

posted by news on april 2, 2014 - 5:30pm

New general concept for the treatment of cancer
A team of researchers from five Swedish universities, led by Karolinska Institutet and the Science for Life Laboratory, have identified a new way of treating cancer. The concept is presented in the journal Nature and is based on inhibiting a specific enzyme called MTH1, which cancer cells, unlike normal cells, require for survival. Without this enzyme, oxidized nucleotides are incorporated into DNA, resulting in lethal DNA double-strand breaks in cancer cells.

"To accelerate the development of this treatment principle and to proceed with clinical trials in patients as quickly as possible, we are working with an open innovation model. Even before publication, we have sent out MTH1 inhibitors to a range of research groups worldwide", says Thomas Helleday, holder of the Söderberg Professorship at Karolinska Institutet, who heads the study.

In recent decades, the development of new anticancer agents has focused on targeting specific genetic defects in cancer cells. These are often effective initially, but are troubled with rapid resistance emerging. In the current study, the researchers present a general enzymatic activity that all cancers tested rely on and that seems to be independent of the genetic changes found in specific cancers. The research team shows that all the investigated cancer tumours need the MTH1 enzyme to survive. In this way, cancer cells differ from normal cells, which do not need this enzyme.

"The concept is built on that cancer cells have an altered metabolism, resulting in oxidation of nucleotide building blocks", says Thomas Helleday."MTH1 sanitises the oxidized building blocks, preventing the oxidative stress to be incorporated into DNA and becoming DNA damage. This allows replication in cancer cells so they can divide and multiply. With an MTH1 inhibitor, the enzyme is blocked and damaged nucleotides enter DNA, causing damage and kill cancer cells. Normal cells do not need MTH1 as they have regulated metabolism preventing damage of nucleotide building blocks. Finding a general enzymatic activity required only for cancer cells to survive opens up a whole new way of treating cancer,"


Dr. Thomas Helleday of Karolinska Institutet and his colleagues have identified a new way of treating cancer by inhibiting the enzyme MTH1, which cancer cells require for survival.

(Photo Credit: Ulf Sirborn)

To take the treatment concept to towards a clinical application, the scientists have taken a multidisciplinary collaboration strategy with researchers from five Swedish universities. They have produced a potent MTH1 inhibitor that selectively kills cancer cells in the tumours that have been surgically removed from skin cancer patients. Dr Roger Olofsson Bagge is a surgeon at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, and also affiliated with the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg:

"When we saw that the tumour from one of my melanoma patients who has developed resistance to all the current treatment actually responded very well to the treatment, we were extremely happy. It's rare that you get to experience and witness such a breakthrough," he says.

However, a lot of work remains to be done before it is time for clinical trials, which is likely to take at least one or two years, according to Thomas Helleday. In another article published in the same issue of Nature parts of the Swedish research team, together with collaborators in Austria and the UK present results showing that even previously identified substances that kill cancer cells work by inhibiting the MTH1 enzyme, something which has not been realised until now.

"That existing anticancer agents hit the MTH1 shows that the concept really works. Now that we understand the mechanism, we can develop very selective inhibitors", says Thomas Helleday.
 
Joseph C. said:
They kept this very quiet in order to make sure pharmaceutical companies didn't get any patents. They already have it in tablet form and people are getting cured.

I wonder what this will mean for declining populations. With people living much longer I'd imagine the birthrate will drop even more.

I just wonder why you say that "they kept this quiet". Probably all inventors will keep their inventions quiet until they have gathered enough evidence to file a patent. They just published in Nature, announcing to the whole wide world that this drug may work and that it will take 2 years before even a single patient will be exposed to their drug.

For full disclosure, I am working for big pharma (Novartis) and part of the team that is responsible for bringing a life-saving drug to patients as soon as possible. Let me tell you, I feel really privileged!

And in the end, it is not so much about "living longer", but also about improving quality of life. I personally think that improving QoL also improves your sex life, so that for fertile patients it would mean birthrates would go up..... :lol:
 
Please, note that no patients have been treated yet. The Nature publication only mentioned that tumor tissue from a patient was transposed to animals. These animals showed a reduction in tumor size.
 
hjns said:
Please, note that no patients have been treated yet. The Nature publication only mentioned that tumor tissue from a patient was transposed to animals. These animals showed a reduction in tumor size.

Ah I thought it was in vivo. Point well made. My comment about keeping it quiet was based on treating people.

No as the quality of life improves birth rates drop. Look at the birthrates in regions of high mortality. It's through the roof.

I have mixed feelings about pharmaceutical companies. I don't like how they can manipulate the publication of trials and can cherry-pick only those that make their product look good and cover-up negative side-effects. I also don't like the deals they do with doctors and psychologists to push their drugs on patients. Finally, I'm not a fan of pushing medications that are ineffective such as statins.

Having said all that, of course they perform an invaluable service and their work in vaccines has saved millions of lives. And much of their efforts are very worthy and necessary. I just think that they need to be regulated with an iron fist to prevent abuses like those outlined above.

Edit: On reflection, in the case of stuff like statins perhaps people are as much to blame as anyone. Perhaps there is a much greater appetite for magical drugs than there is for telling people to simply eat more fibre to lower their cholesterol. Then again if doctors insisted that their patients eat properly rather than giving them ineffective treatments that appetite may not exist. Which goes back to pharmaceutical companies offering kickbacks.
 
There have been some very significant break thoughs in cancer treatment research, I remember reading this the day it was released back in Feb 2011, their share price multiplied by 11.75x within the week.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Research Update: Positive Leukaemia Model Study

Sareum (AIM: SAR), the specialist cancer drug discovery business, is pleased to announce positive results from its pre-clinical in-vivo efficacy studies into acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), the most common form of adult leukaemia.

A recent study for Sareum’s Aurora+FLT3 Kinase programme showed that the leukaemia regressed to such an extent that no detectable cancer could be found in any of the cases treated (ten in total) with a Sareum compound. By comparison, leukaemia increased five to fifteen fold in the study examples treated without Sareum’s compound. At six weeks following treatment, no detectable cancer could be found in two of the ten examples dosed with the Sareum compound. In the remaining eight treated examples, the average time taken for the leukaemia to increase 5-fold was six weeks, compared to two weeks in the untreated cases.

Sareum’s CEO, Dr Tim Mitchell, commented: “The results of Sareum’s study compare very favourably with those from similar pre-clinical studies published for Aurora kinase inhibitors currently undergoing clinical trials. We look forward to presenting the data to potential licencees. 350,000 people a year are diagnosed with leukaemia and we are very pleased to be contributing to the search for a cure for this disease”.

---------------------------------------------

So a cure for some Leukaemia strains was found 3 years ago, it is still not available!! it would seem that money and patents are more important to the pharma companies than peoples lives.
 
"Parsortix" is another one worth looking at. it is a device than can filter blood to remove CTC's.
 
Joseph C. said:
Ah I thought it was in vivo. Point well made. My comment about keeping it quiet was based on treating people.

No as the quality of life improves birth rates drop. Look at the birthrates in regions of high mortality. It's through the roof.

I have mixed feelings about pharmaceutical companies. I don't like how they can manipulate the publication of trials and can cherry-pick only those that make their product look good and cover-up negative side-effects. I also don't like the deals they do with doctors and psychologists to push their drugs on patients. Finally, I'm not a fan of pushing medications that are ineffective such as statins.

Having said all that, of course they perform an invaluable service and their work in vaccines has saved millions of lives. And much of their efforts are very worthy and necessary. I just think that they need to be regulated with an iron fist to prevent abuses like those outlined above.

There are bad people everywhere, certainly also in pharma. I agree with the need for regulation, and fully support that. Having said that, ensuring compliance with all the regulations is a full time job for a small army of people in most pharma companies now..... I also agree that it is bad to push drugs and/or cover up side-effects. Fortunately, in order to get an approval to market a new drug, US FDA actually demands to get the actual database to perform their own analyses. That makes it next to impossible to hide any side effects.

I just would like to make another comment. I think statins in itself are good. They really seem to work even in preventing cerebral events, and most heart failure (HF) patients will get them as part of standard treatment. However, there are soo many different statins out there, with only minor advantages of one over the other. That makes it difficult to choose which one to prescribe, apart from looking at the lowest price.

Nice to look at the population stats around increase in birth rates with increase in mortality. I fully agree with these observations on a global scale. However, I just tried to put myself in the skin of a HF patient. Imagine that every time you are trying to exercise, you get dyspnoic. That would have a disastrous effect on your libido and sex drive. Improving that, i.e., improving QoL would certainly improve my sex drive.....
 
Tench said:
There have been some very significant break thoughs in cancer treatment research, I remember reading this the day it was released back in Feb 2011, their share price multiplied by 11.75x within the week.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Research Update: Positive Leukaemia Model Study
---------------------------------------------

So a cure for some Leukaemia strains was found 3 years ago, it is still not available!! it would seem that money and patents are more important to the pharma companies than peoples lives.

Hi Tench,

I hear what you are saying. Note that I have absolutely no knowledge about the specific products that were mentioned.

However, do you have any idea how long it takes to get from bench to bedside? After performing typical phase 1 studies (what is the highest tolerated dose, what are the most important safety issues), which will take typically 1-2 years, you must perform one or more phase 2 studies (what is the most effective dose); another 2 years. And even if you have found an effective dose, you must perform a pivotal phase 3 "confirmatory" study where you have to demonstrate a statistically significant difference on a clinically relevant endpoint compared to a relevant comparative treatment. These studies can take 3 to 5 years.

Note that all these studies are needed in order for health authorities to even look at the new drug.

Admittedly, in oncology, some of these studies can be combined or can be shorter. However, I am definitely not surprised that after 3 years there is still nothing available to patients. Even in oncology.

Note that from pharma point of view, there is a strong incentive to bring the drug to market as soon as possible. As you may be aware, every drug will run out of patent at a certain point in time. Loss of patent means loss of exclusivity. Loss of exclusivity means loss of high price. Therefore, the sooner the new drug is on the market, the more money the company can make.

And yes, that money goes to a lot of well paid pharma executive. But I am proud to say that almost 25% of Novartis revenues goes back to research and development of new drugs. That is more than any other company that I know of.
 
I think it will probably take five years before it hits the pharmacies. It will be sped through as quickly as possible and if it works even half as well as it suggests all other cancer treatments will be rendered obsolete.
 
Tench said:
So a cure for some Leukaemia strains was found 3 years ago, it is still not available!! it would seem that money and patents are more important to the pharma companies than peoples lives.

I have also worked on another Novartis Drug to treat Chronic Myeloid Leukemia. It is very expensive, but it works.

Wikipedia said:
Imatinib was invented in the late 1990s by scientists at Ciba-Geigy (which merged with Sandoz in 1996 to become Novartis), in a team led by biochemist Nicholas Lydon and that included Elisabeth Buchdunger and Jürg Zimmerman[39] and its use to treat CML was driven by oncologist Brian Druker of Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU).[40] Other major contributions to imatinib development were made by Carlo Gambacorti-Passerini, a physician scientist and hematologist at University of Milano Bicocca, Italy, John Goldman at Hammersmith Hospital in London, UK, and later on by Charles Sawyers of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.[41]Druker led the clinical trials confirming its efficacy in CML.[42]

Wikipedia said:
The first clinical trial of Gleevec took place in 1998 and the drug received FDA approval in May 2001, only two and a half months after the new drug application was submitted.[39][53] On the same month it made the cover of TIME magazine as a "bullet" to be used against cancer. Druker, Lydon and Sawyers received the Lasker-DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award in 2009 for "converting a fatal cancer into a manageable chronic condition".[41]
 
This is the real cure for cancer. I am conducting as much research as I can. Please, don't ask me to conduct more, I am doing as much as I possibly can....

[youtube]x2bffpN876Q[/youtube]
 
I don't joke around about cancer. I had cancer twice , Maligment Melanoma. I've been taking B17 / bitter apricots seeds and digestive enzymes since my second recurrence over two years ago and am currently able to keep everything at bay. Anyone with cancer should read the book "World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17"
 
Back
Top