Published research article

One of these days researchers will accidently create completely indestructible, immortal mice.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I'm becoming very jaded about these kinds of breakthroughs. I've been reading about them for 15 years on the Internet - and yet - treatment is still horrific chemo and radiation. And so many people still dieing before their time.

So, while I don't give up hope completely, I cynically view these kinds of PR exercises as more about raising funds for an IPO, boosting stock prices etc - than an actual breakthrough.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Cancer' to 'Cancer, Research, Cure, Israel, Tel Aviv, Science' - edited by littledragon_79

Not even upvoting this. "horrific chemo and radiation" is a huge industry. A cure now would guarantee our financial collapse here in America. And for what? To reverse the second largest population controller we've got? F that.

Edit: Yes this is me being facetious. Guess my ironic humor is weak as of late, apologies.

>> ^Enzoblue:
Not even upvoting this. "horrific chemo and radiation" is a huge industry. A cure now would guarantee our financial collapse here in America. And for what? To reverse the second largest population controller we've got? F that.


I guess if the chemo was focused exclusively on the crotch area, we'd have THE greatest population controller. Perhaps chemo should be *mandatory* to those in perfect health as well. Then the economy could rebound like an 19-year-old freshman just out of a long-term high school relationship. YOU, Sir, are brilliant. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

nothing will happen. PETA will bomb the research facility

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126056.html

One of the obstacles to applying the discovery to all forms of cancer is that the medicine is registered as a patent of an American pharmaceutical company. Tel Aviv University's technology transfer company, Ramot, has secured a usage patent enabling it to develop the drug to treat only breast cancer.

The future development of the drug depends on the goodwill of the American company, or on another company developing a similar substance.

"We really want to develop this drug, but there are some completely non-scientific obstacles," Cohen-Armon said. "I hope the research doesn't fade away because of that."

>> ^Enzoblue:
Not even upvoting this. "horrific chemo and radiation" is a huge industry. A cure now would guarantee our financial collapse here in America.

I suppose that is an argument against technological advance? I weep for our cotton loom operators. If you want to see some economic disruption, wait until in vitro meat destroys the worldwide cattle industry.


And for what? To reverse the second largest population controller we've got? F that.

The best one we have is urbanization, and that one actually affects the number of children people have, as opposed to people dying long after producing offspring.

Check out the world's population growth by region... most of it is due to terrible living conditions. In many places sex is the only real form of entertainment. Once an area becomes urbanized the fertility rate tends to drop to replacement.

Seems half-cocked in my opinion - There are little promising discoveries like this every year. The game being played is tooting the horn to attract funding.

Moving on.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT!

First of all, this has only worked on 2 breast cancer cell lines, meaning that it only works for the clones of the cells derived from 2 specific individuals, in an artificial laboratory setting. Will this work in people, and can it be adapted to the myriad of different mutations that cause breast cancer, nobody knows. The paper concludes that they have "outline[d] a new therapeutic approach", which means just that: they have taken the first baby steps towards something that might work, after many, many years and billions and billions of dollars of research..... maybe.

Anyways, nothing to get excited about. If this was a huge Nobel winning breakthrough, it wouldn't have been published in a journal as small as Breast Cancer Research.

Science makes me happy. :-D

In reply to this comment by mentality:
First of all, this has only worked on 2 breast cancer cell lines, meaning that it only works for the clones of the cells derived from 2 specific individuals, in an artificial laboratory setting. Will this work in people, and can it be adapted to the myriad of different mutations that cause breast cancer, nobody knows. The paper concludes that they have "outline[d] a new therapeutic approach", which means just that: they have taken the first baby steps towards something that might work, after many, many years and billions and billions of dollars of research..... maybe.

Anyways, nothing to get excited about. If this was a huge Nobel winning breakthrough, it wouldn't have been published in a journal as small as Breast Cancer Research.

Look, if you can't derive happiness from even two strains of cancer cells being selectively killed off, (without proof of it not working on others) I suspect there is little to derive happiness from. Let's be enthusiastic about this eh?

What pharma company would be dumb enough to Cure cancer?
Their profits depend on endless ineffective Treatment.

> What pharma company would be dumb enough to Cure cancer?

Non American Ones

>> ^Truckchase:
Look, if you can't derive happiness from even two strains of cancer cells being selectively killed off, (without proof of it not working on others) I suspect there is little to derive happiness from. Let's be enthusiastic about this eh?


If you were to make a 2-minute news blip promoting the discovery every time results like these, at such an early stage, were published, then you would need a 1-hour news special every week

This is merely a shameless attempt to publically promote a single possible approach toward more effective cancer treatment midst a sea of similar discoveries.

I'm all for news stories that spur interrest and promote the biomedical sciences and the incredible breakthroughs that are being made on a yearly basis. But this is, unfortunately, not one of them.

^ I agree with Mysling. I think your title is very, very misleading. Calling it a breakthrough is so premature.

Not only that, but breast cancer is already treatable (e.g. herceptin) and think researchers would benefit looking into more difficult cancer cell lines to combat (e.g. cervical).

>> ^Truckchase:
In reply to this comment by mentality:
Look, if you can't derive happiness from even two strains of cancer cells being selectively killed off, (without proof of it not working on others) I suspect there is little to derive happiness from. Let's be enthusiastic about this eh?


Look, it's not 2 "strains" of cancer. You don't "catch" these particular "strains" of cancer from someone else like you do with bacteria or viruses. Everyone's cancer is unique to that individual. It's unlikely that someone with breast cancer will have the SAME EXACT mutations as those that spawned the specific cell lines used in the experiment. Plus, No one knows how well these immortal cell lines, grown for generations in petri dishes, correlate with the original cancer in a person. And all they've done so far are some mouse experiments. It's still FAR away and a shitton of money and work required before it can work in people, maaybe. Don't hold your breath.

And again, if this was something to get enthusiastic about, it wouldn't be in the journal "Breast Cancer Research".

>> ^Psychologic:
Check out the world's population growth by region... most of it is due to terrible living conditions. In many places sex is the only real form of entertainment. Once an area becomes urbanized the fertility rate tends to drop to replacement.

Ah no. Sex isn't used as a form of entertainment it's used as a form of keeping your family alive, bringing in the crops, and feeing the family by having working livable hands. This is the core growth of humanity and why people in poor regions have large numbers of kids. This is the same reason why when you go back 70 years, having a farm with 8 kids was still the norm in North America and Europe.

It's not that hard to figure out, and there's been so much research on that it's all over the place.

I know the cure for cancer, send me a private message if you need it

I've heard it all so far.

Carbon nanotubes genetically marked to target cancer cells which, once bonded, are heated by IR radiation which causes the cells to die.

A cheap industrial chemical easily manufactured when dosed in to cancer cells causes them to reactivate the genetic 'flag' which causes the bodies immune system to destroy them.

etc etc

These annoucements are, sad to say, a dime a dozen. Until the theory and promising animal trials convert to successful human trials, we are stuck with what we currently have.

Which sucks, I'd like to know where some of these promising treatments ended up. Funny how all mention of them tends to disappear weeks after they make it on to a news show...

This discussion reminds me of the Science Life Cycle:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/ScienceNewsCycle.gif

Sad, but true.

>> ^mentality:
>> ^Truckchase:
In reply to this comment by mentality:
Look, if you can't derive happiness from even two strains of cancer cells being selectively killed off, (without proof of it not working on others) I suspect there is little to derive happiness from. Let's be enthusiastic about this eh?

Look, it's not 2 "strains" of cancer. You don't "catch" these particular "strains" of cancer from someone else like you do with bacteria or viruses. Everyone's cancer is unique to that individual. It's unlikely that someone with breast cancer will have the SAME EXACT mutations as those that spawned the specific cell lines used in the experiment. Plus, No one knows how well these immortal cell lines, grown for generations in petri dishes, correlate with the original cancer in a person. And all they've done so far are some mouse experiments. It's still FAR away and a shitton of money and work required before it can work in people, maaybe. Don't hold your breath.
And again, if this was something to get enthusiastic about, it wouldn't be in the journal "Breast Cancer Research".


We all know that, my point is that there isn't anything inherently negative about these findings, so perhaps deriving a bit of short term happiness from the prospect may be more beneficial to one's overall mental picture. If you're trying to level-set the expectations of those viewing this video, I can say with a reasonable level of certainty that nobody thinks cancer is cured, or even impacted. That being said, I made that post on Sat, when I generally tend to be happier. Now that it's Monday this whole thing sucks. ;-D

I'm becoming very jaded about these kinds of breakthroughs. I've been reading about them for 15 years on the Internet

This. If I had a nickel for every cancer 'breakthrough' that's been talked up... Yawn.