[jq0AFTTC]

“If I come down with a glioblastoma, I will demand that it be done on myself,” he told the Bee." Do you think YOU know more about brain cancer than these neuroscientists ?

I concur with these pioneers

For your information, these patients in all likelihood would have died "naturally"
there is NO TREATMENT...except .......

[abouthotels]

Do you think YOU know more about brain cancer than these neuroscientists ?

And yet YOU think YOU know more than the medical profession en masse.

[KneefeZes]

And yet YOU think YOU know more than the medical profession en masse. Rational thought is rare nowadays

Irrationality, delusion, illusion and self interests rule, OK ?

The logic of these neuroscientists is:
glioblastoma (brain tumour) is seen as self
bacteria are seen as invaders
so the introduction of specific bacteria (which most probably were susceptible to available antibiotics, chosen as such) to the site of the glioblastoma was hoped to cause an immune response..... and maybe destruction of the tumour by the body AND the bacteria in combination

Personally I would not think it would work
but when death is inevitable why not try

next time maybe try a different bacteria

Where do you think medicine came from ?

[Grieryaliny]

Actually mine was a serious question.

On the face of it, it seems to go against all that I had thought was known, so there must be something basic I do not understand, beyond the business of ethics committees and permissions.

It seems an incredibly risky thing to do.

I could understand the risk if it were an arm or a leg wound, then that limb could be sacrificed if the hypothesis proved not to be right in a particular circumstance.

Does anyone know of the case from "real" research findings about what the hypothesis really was?

It can't be a simple as the local newspaper is saying, although that is all I have at this point.

I'll do a google search later too.
bbl

[LxtdK9i4]

Actually mine was a serious question.

On the face of it, it seems to go against all that I had thought was known, so there must be something basic I do not understand, beyond the business of ethics committees and permissions.

It seems an incredibly risky thing to do.

I could understand the risk if it were an arm or a leg wound, then that limb could be sacrificed if the hypothesis proved not to be right in a particular circumstance.

Does anyone know of the case from "real" research findings about what the hypothesis really was?

It can't be a simple as the local newspaper is saying, although that is all I have at this point.

I'll do a google search later too.
bbl

Cancerous cells should be cleaned up by the immune system before causing disease - there's a whole surveillance mechanism etc.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/u...esystem/page32

I suppose their hypothesis was that an infection may activate the surveillance pathways that have malfunctioned, and begin to remove the cancer - the link above explains, basically.

An early idea of what the researchers might have been trying to replicate - Coley toxins (useful background etc).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1888599/

[spoddersedpn]

JJ, I think I read about that previously. From memory it was an experimental technique, and a last ditch one at that. Maybe they are loopy, but I think that it is possible they thought they were allowed to try it. Not enough info in that article.

[posimoka]

JJ, I think I read about that previously. From memory it was an experimental technique, and a last ditch one at that. Maybe they are loopy, but I think that it is possible they thought they were allowed to try it. Not enough info in that article.

Answers and more referring to the USA researchers involved, a good read.

http://www.nature.com/news/can-bacte...cancer-1.11080

[HoqCBYMl]

Thanks for all the extra information .. I have a much better handle on it now (which wouldn't be hard, but still )

[MaraReenece]

On the face of it, it seems to go against all that I had thought was known, so there must be something basic I do not understand, beyond the business of ethics committees and permissions.

It's not that unusual an idea if you consider the bacteria to be something of an adjuvant.

Adjuvants are commonly added to vaccines to irritate the immune system into a more vigorous response, this could be seen as a more aggressive form of adjuvant to stimulate the immune system.

Years ago I got told a story by a Croatian man who told me in his home village there was once a woman dying of cancer, the doctor visited her in what should have been her dying days only to find her working in the garden, the doctor went to the husband and asked how this could be because the last time the doctor saw the woman she was bedridden and on deaths door.

After much prising the man said he couldn't bear to see his wife suffering so much and he decided to end her misery by feeding her rat poison in her food, to his surprise the wife started getting better until she was able to get out of bed and was seemingly cured.

I thought this story was a load of cobblers, but it is interesting to consider the possibility that there might be some poison/bacteria out there that could trigger an immune response that would wake the immune system up to recognising, and dealing with, the cancer.

I say good on the neurologists and the patients who agreed to this trial.

[Chooriwrocaxz]

It's not that unusual an idea if you consider the bacteria to be something of an adjuvant.

Adjuvants are commonly added to vaccines to irritate the immune system into a more vigorous response, this could be seen as a more aggressive form of adjuvant to stimulate the immune system.

Years ago I got told a story by a Croatian man who told me in his home village there was once a woman dying of cancer, the doctor visited her in what should have been her dying days only to find her working in the garden, the doctor went to the husband and asked how this could be because the last time the doctor saw the woman she was bedridden and on deaths door.

After much prising the man said he couldn't bear to see his wife suffering so much and he decided to end her misery by feeding her rat poison in her food, to his surprise the wife started getting better until she was able to get out of bed and was seemingly cured.

I thought this story was a load of cobblers, but it is interesting to consider the possibility that there might be some poison/bacteria out there that could trigger an immune response that would wake the immune system up to recognising, and dealing with, the cancer.

I say good on the neurologists and the patients who agreed to this trial.

I still say that storys of a load of cobblers.

[chuecafresss]

If they were using an arsenic compound as rat poison, maybe a grain of truth. In my desk study of arsenic in groundwater in the Mekong Delta, I came across references to the use of high, but non-lethal, doses of arsenic in the treatment of some forms of cancer.

[avaiptutt]

"
Abstract

Although arsenic can be poisonous, and chronic arsenic exposure from industrial or natural sources can cause serious toxicity, arsenic has been used therapeutically for more than 2,400 years. Thomas Fowler's potassium bicarbonate-based solution of arsenic trioxide (As2O3) was used empirically to treat a variety of disorders, and in 1878, was reported to reduce white blood cell counts in two normal individuals and one with “leucocythemia.” Salvarsan, an organic arsenical for treating syphilis and trypanosomiasis, was developed in 1910 by Paul Ehrlich. In the 1930s, arsenic was reported to be effective in chronic myelogenous leukemia. After a decline in the use of arsenic during the mid-20th century, reports from China described a high proportion of hematologic responses in patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who were treated with arsenic trioxide. Randomized clinical trials in the U.S. led to FDA approval of arsenic trioxide for relapsed or refractory APL in September 2000."
http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.o...uppl_2/1.short

Also http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrar...3354.full.html and there are hints that it can be used in the treatment of some brain cancers (work by Aykut Uren, Georgetown University).

[JAMES PIETERSE]

Was going on the warfarin based rodenticides.

[Greapyjeory]

Was going on the warfarin based rodenticides.

They ain't gonna cure no cancer, fer sure.

[Borzopayn]

I just have to post it: More ways of killing a rat besides sucking its brains out through its bum.

[economex]

If they were using an arsenic compound as rat poison, maybe a grain of truth. In my desk study of arsenic in groundwater in the Mekong Delta, I came across references to the use of high, but non-lethal, doses of arsenic in the treatment of some forms of cancer.

Yea, probably misdiagnosed.

Arsenic trioxide is used in the treatments of leukemia afaik, there are some clinical trials running on it at the moment too.

[ViktorialHDY]

Yea, probably misdiagnosed.

Arsenic trioxide is used in the treatments of leukemia afaik, there are some clinical trials running on it at the moment too.

See my subsequent post, poiky.

[Aluback]

It's been believed that, like walking and talking, fighting viral infections is something children will develop when they get older. But a U-M study suggests the natural ability to fight infection is there early on.

Scientists learned key cell signals inhibit the growth of essential immune cells early in life. Blocking this signaling could lead to improving an infant's response to infection, according to the study published online ahead of print in Nature Immunity.

"What happens at early age is that natural killer cells, like many other immune cells, do not complete their functional maturation until adulthood," says study senior author Yasmina Laouar, Ph.D., assistant professor in the U-M Department of Microbiology and Immunology.

"During this time we are left with an immature immune system that cannot protect us against infections, the reason why newborns and infants are more prone to infection," she says.

There is a large gap in understanding infant immunity, specifically why the natural killer cell responses are deficient.
Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-0...rowth.html#jCp Infant infection (plastic immune system) is inbuilt...... I wonder why; NOT !!!

I suspect that breast feeding has a lot to do with this
If would be unfortunate if the infant's immune system turned against the mother's input.

Playing without knowing... especially if you are playing with the masses can be unfortunate.

I wonder, what is the percentage of infants that receive years of breast milk today ???

Vaccination is no substitute.

[Lauramalina]

Since you've supposedly had qualis in micro, you should remember that breast milk transfers antibodies to the baby.


Also looking at the article, I'm thinking that may be having a lack of NK cells may be a benefit for babies, in terms of getting the specific immune defences to work as well as possibly allowing for faster cell growth in babies.


Just a hypothesis nothing more, feel free to shoot it down with evidence.

[egexgfczc]

breast milk transfers antibodies to the baby. ah ha.... well Nature has a surprise in store; NOT !

Maybe, just maybe, you get what you deserve

Socrates: Beware your wishes.