Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  2
Author: Subject: Cancer Cure
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 28-9-2013 at 21:28


Another complication is that most of the membrane proteins that are easily targeted don't seem distinguishable other than by altered expression levels. Many times intracellular machinery is much more difficult to target due to the membrane's relative impermeability to antibody proteins or bacteria due to their size. This makes selectivity awkward.

Also, as I implied above not only is the mutation a concern, but racial/gender/age/progression all alter genome or transcriptome, further individualizing. Treatments are essentially carried out in large sample groups currently due to expense and relative infancy of pharmacogenomics. There are also problems with systemic administration of bacteria or antibodies since they tend to thicken blood, which can be a real concern if the potency is not high enough or the dose cannot be regulated.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Trotsky
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 166
Registered: 6-2-2013
Location: US
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 3-10-2013 at 00:34


tl;dr

I suppose if you were to determine that your cancer cells expressed some protein no other cells were expressing, you could create an antibody that targeted cells expressing that protein. Simple right? More like obvious. If it were simple it would have been done and we'd have individualized vaccines administered once someone was diagnosed and genes sequenced.

I suppose it might be possible to transfect an expression vector into the cancerous cells which would then express the specific protein your antibody would target.

That raises the question of how you'd ever manage to transfect this vector into all of the cancer cells.

You'd either have to do that or make it so that the cells already containing the vector would be stronger and more prolific and powerful so they'd spread and the native cancer cells would fade out, then you'd vaccinate and kill off the transfected cells rapidly.

Quite possibly you'd just end up with two different cell lines.

I have a few other ideas for using the tech in different ways but I don't have them fully fleshed out. The real problem is how you'd get the vector into all of the cancer cells. Perhaps a virus could somehow be used... injected into the area, it could infect the cancer cells preferentially be killed using a vaccine easily enough, and those cells, now implanted with the vector also start expressing a gene targeted by another vaccine.

Very complicated and I don't see an answer. I can't believe I didn't cure cancer in five minutes of contemplation on an internet forum... ;)
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
morganism
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 105
Registered: 8-12-2012
Location: Az.
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 8-10-2013 at 12:58


I have been looking at this a lot lately, and it looks like the easiest way to do it, is to target the Krebs cycle of cell respiration, and just let the cells get back to respiration.

There are only a couple of cancer types that don't utilize glycolyzation.
(using sugars instead of ATP)

If you re-start the cellular respiration cycle of ATP production, then cancerous cells will re-express the targeting protiens that call in phages, and will be dissassembled by standard means.

To do this at home, search for : Liposomal Vit C
Then replace the ascorbic acid with citric acid, as it is more effective at creating ATP.

Best vid to explain the Krebs cycle is at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXHpTHb1MQM


targeting with radio isotopes will also target any cell that has potassium isotopes in it....
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
phlogiston
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1356
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline

Mood: pyrophoric

[*] posted on 8-10-2013 at 14:36


That's nonsense, and it could be dangerous. Imagine some poor easily-influenced soul begins to self-treat him/her selve with citric acid for cancer. You could kill someone. Leave diagnosing and treating life-threatening diseases to professionals.

The only part that makes sense (although it is poorly worded to put it mildly) is that, indeed, nearly all cancer cells are thought to rely on glycolysis rather than the Krebs cycle for their energy production.

In fact, a lot of excellent research is carried out to try to exploit this fact to treat cancer.

However...

You can't simply 'restart' the Krebs cycle with high concentrations of vitamin C or citric acid. And even if you could, it would probably not kill the cancer cells or revert them into non-cancerous cells. The flux through the Krebs cycle is tightly controlled by many different mechanisms. It would go way too far to discuss here, but any book on biochemistry would go into some detail on this (for instance Stryer's 'Biochemistry').

BTW, Glycolysis also generates ATP, just like the Krebs cycle. The mechanism is different though.

This sentence is completely unintelligable:
Quote:
cancerous cells will re-express the targeting protiens that call in phages, and will be dissassembled by standard means.


Even if I think "creatively", I have absolutely no clue as to what you are even -trying- to say here.

Quote:
targeting with radio isotopes will also target any cell that has potassium isotopes in it....


Care to explain how exactly?
This is nonsense.

[Edited on 8-10-2013 by phlogiston]




-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer
View user's profile View All Posts By User
FreeMirage
Harmless
*




Posts: 9
Registered: 22-9-2013
Member Is Offline

Mood: Ecstatic!

[*] posted on 12-10-2013 at 00:13


Ruthenium polypyridyl complexes do a splendid job of "tagging" cancerous cells.

http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/12/5/643.short?rss=1&...

Instead of trying to program a bacteria to eat these tagged cells, however, it's much easier to attach a functional group that's prone to radical cell-destroying reactions, expose the molecule to UV light once attached, and follow up with an antioxidant regimen (as Jesse Pinkman would put it: "Vitamin C, BITCH!"). It's called photo-reactive therapy and it's not very well-known about. Conspiracy!

Also, just because cannabis does a good job slowing down cancer doesn't make it a cure; it has however (along with Curcumin and Vitamin D) been implicated in preventing Alzheimer's disease. The only studies that disagree with this latter claim used THC analogues (big one used was HU210) as opposed to herbal cannabis itself. It certainly doesn't hurt though, if I were diagnosed with cancer I'd be hitting bongzilla like it owed me money.

To the OP, the problem with flesh eating bacteria is that they would probably cause sepsis (their waste material has to go somewhere) and they'd be hard to create. Doesn't mean you can't prove me wrong, though!

[Edited on 12-10-2013 by FreeMirage]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Pulverulescent
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 792
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!

[*] posted on 12-10-2013 at 06:34


Quote:
. . . if I were diagnosed with cancer I'd be hitting bongzilla like it owed me money.

Riiiight! I, however, think prevention is the key ─ "it certainly doesn't hurt" . . .




"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"

A Einstein
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Jmap science
Yet another ID of SimpleChemist-238
*




Posts: 40
Registered: 19-10-2013
Location: Florida
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 24-10-2013 at 15:08


Great flesh eat should good. What if you could make a virus to kill only the bad cells, or better yet the virus could reproduce in the cancer cell then kill it after a week or so. There for curing cancer after just throwing the culture in a water supply. Just like the descolata from speaker of the dead.
EMAIL: jmap2112@gmail.com

Give me credit if this works. Curing cancer could look good on a resume. LOL:D
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Chemosynthetic
Harmless
*




Posts: 19
Registered: 12-11-2013
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 12-11-2013 at 11:43


I lost my old password, but I would like to note that another name for photoreactive therapy is photodynamic therapy, and a lot of the work I have seen in it is hinging around new uses for dye compounds which absorb tuned light wavelengths from chromophores. Fascinating pharmacology.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
methyl_ethyl
Harmless
*




Posts: 13
Registered: 21-5-2006
Location: Estonia
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-12-2013 at 11:23


The thought of using targeted bacteria is likely a bit far off. Dealing with mutations in bacteria is a pain; even when certain genetic engineering steps have been taken care of to prevent DNA repair and recombination e.g. removal of the RecA gene amongst others. When dealing with bacteria; mutations are a pain, and monitoring mutations within a cell bank is not fun, in vivo this becomes even more of a problem. I certainly would not trust the technology available at this time in preventing a vaccination with radioactive flesh eating bacteria from going awry.

There is a wealth of targeted immunotherapies / monoclonal antibodies which either dump a cytotoxic payload once internalized to the targeted region of interest or utilize the bodies immune system to develop a specific immune response against cells which display the targeted antigen or what have you through ADCC, CDC, amongst other effector functions and biological pathways.

As stated previously each type of cancer has its own targets. If this was not the case "curing" cancer would be a much more facile process.

Using radioactivity as the mode of cell death is kind of passé as well, however widely utilized.

There are much better means of destroying cancer cells than flesh eating radioactive bacteria. Creating such a drug product would be virtually impossible from a safety perspective. I mean sure, you can reduce the virulance of certain bacteria in order to provide an immune response however in the OP's initial statements it sounds like they want to use the "flesh eating" properties of such a bacterium in order to provide some level of "anti-cancer response".

I personally think harnessing the bodies immune system is the optimal way of dealing with cancer, however if cytotoxic drugs are necessary they are usually attached to a targeted immunoglobulin via some bi-functional linker which is easily conjugated to specific amino acids on the immunoglobulin and which are cleaved / activated via some cellular process once internalized, thus reducing the likelihood of non-specific cytotoxicity.

Of course there are many possibilities ;)

much_love

methyl_ethyl



[Edited on 30-12-13 by methyl_ethyl]




Unipolar Mania.... it\'s good for life
View user's profile View All Posts By User
I Like Dots
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 69
Registered: 10-4-2013
Member Is Offline

Mood: frisky

[*] posted on 10-1-2014 at 18:17


"flesh eating bacteria" Is somewhat of a misnomer. The condition known as Necrotizing fasciitis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrotizing_fasciitis) is not caused by a single bacteria, many bacteria are capable of this. Common bacteria like strep, and staph(god help you if you get drug-resistant staph).

We live with these bacteria in and on our body daily, they only cause these infections in severely immune-compromised individuals. So the problem would be suppressing the immune system (of an already compromised person) and infecting them with this bacteria. Now if the bacteria only ate cancer cells that's great, but it also opens up the body to deadly pathogens normally reserved for AIDS patients.




View user's profile View All Posts By User
Baffled
Harmless
*




Posts: 16
Registered: 24-1-2014
Location: Milky way
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 31-1-2014 at 08:23


I remember someone talking about cannabis, this might not be the right thread but here it is anyway, we wouldn't want one for any dissease would we?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19406952/
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Bot0nist
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1559
Registered: 15-2-2011
Location: Right behind you.
Member Is Offline

Mood: Streching my cotyledons.

[*] posted on 31-1-2014 at 09:36


I Like Dots, I recently had a case of drug resistance staph in my finger a while ago. I posted pics and descriptions in a thread about strep. It was painfull and took a long time to heal, and did cause some necrosis. I not sure if god helped me, but a regime of very expensive and strong antibiotics did help me. Took over a month for it to heal up though. It sucked.

Sorry for OT reply.




U.T.F.S.E. and learn the joys of autodidacticism!


Don't judge each day only by the harvest you reap, but also by the seeds you sow.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Enkii
Harmless
*




Posts: 2
Registered: 14-2-2014
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 14-2-2014 at 09:13


a simple oggle search "34 medical links cannabis cures cancer" brings about some interesting results - ironic how GW pharma has patented naturally occurring chemicals (THC, CBD) which are both effective at inhibiting tumor cell growth
View user's profile View All Posts By User
forgottenpassword
National Hazard
****




Posts: 374
Registered: 12-12-2013
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 14-2-2014 at 11:01


A "simple google search" of most things followed by 'cancer cure' will give 'interesting' results.
Pepper: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en-US&ie=UTF-8&q=pep...
Mango: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en-US&ie=UTF-8&q=man...
Seaweed: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en-US&ie=UTF-8&q=can...
Etc etc. There are an infinite number of 'potential cures'.

One can 'confirm' any vague intuition with numerous scientific studies showing 'promising' results. Every one's a winner!
Find what you seek.

[Edited on 14-2-2014 by forgottenpassword]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Antiswat
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1624
Registered: 12-12-2012
Location: Dysrope (aka europe)
Member Is Offline

Mood: dangerously practical

[*] posted on 14-2-2014 at 15:34


THC works against brain tumors

''They found that THC eliminated the cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact.''

http://www.worldhealth.net/news/thc_initiates_brain_cancer_c...

there is a patent on curing AIDS aswell, but youknow ... there celebrities out there, that has been seen RECENTLY KISSING WITH SOME RANDOM PERSON!!
my mind is on an infinite loop of blowing apart, incredible news, ground breaking, ground SHATTERING - RECULTURALIZATING




~25 drops = 1mL @dH2O viscocity - STP
Truth is ever growing - but without context theres barely any such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_table
http://www.trimen.pl/witek/calculators/stezenia.html
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Chemosynthetic
Harmless
*




Posts: 19
Registered: 12-11-2013
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 14-2-2014 at 19:12


Oh, I forgot to mention that some of the problems facing PDT are lack of bioavailability or targeting, and pain during use. I have had the opportunity to watch procedures using it at work.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  2

  Go To Top