4 ms·

If you are directing the immune system against cells that the body perceives as 'self', then simply boosting the system to the point it attacks a cancer will li

If you are directing the immune system against cells that the body perceives as 'self', then simply boosting the system to the point it attacks a cancer will likely be detrimental the patient. Cancers and other similar diseases are so difficult to address precisely because they are borne from a patient's own cells, own genome, and own systems. This therapy here is a very pointed mechanism to demonstrate to the immune system what is okay to attack, and what is not - a very particular and specific kind of guidance that a generalized 'boost' would not properly address. And in that way it actually is an elegant, precisely designed system in play here.

Mz 9y ago
Cancers and other similar diseases are so difficult to address precisely because My general understanding is that they are so difficult to address because we don't really understand them. I have a condition that gets partly explained as "overactive immune response." I really hate the concept of autoimmune diseases and I hope that someday it will be mocked as "god, what those barbaric idiots believed back in the day."
- jfarlow 9y ago
  'Cancer' is a huge umbrella term. Some cancers we know very well, many we do not. The one's being addressed by these therapies are well enough understood to target therapeutically. Some like cervical cancer, skin and lung cancer are well enough understood to in part be prevented. But under that umbrella the reason cancers are 'hard to treat' (from the perspective of a pharmaceutical education/industry/knowledgebase that had a century of success curing invading diseases) is because cancers do not present a 'differnece' that can be exploited biochemically. Cancers are by definition a mashup and amalgamation of the components that make up a human - again very much unlike a bacteria, viral or fungal infection. You are correct though that there is still a lot for us to learn. The technologies in this article are very much a glimpse of the next steps though.
  - Mz 9y ago
    That honestly does not fit with my understanding of the problem space. Granted my understanding of the problem space is as a layperson, not a medical professional. But I am a layperson who took care of a relative after their first mastectomy, I have multiple relatives who have had cancer, some of them repeatedly, and one relative was themselves Patient Zero in a cancer treatment study. So, it isn't like I have been unexposed entirely to the intricacies of cancer treatment. I don't really know how to effectively engage you, but I stand by my initial statement of: I would like to see a more elegant means to boost the immune function, without so much of the Dr. Frankenstein element. I think supporting the immune function is the way to go, but I think we need a lighter hand, not a heavier one. I don't really feel you are making points that invalidate that desire. Perhaps we just don't understand each other. If so, it is probably best to stop here rather than keep digging a deeper grave.
    - endocrinologist 9y ago
      Mz - sadly, having relatives that suffered from cancer does not give you any insight into the biochemistry and immunology behind it. If you oppose the "Frankenstein element," perhaps you should justify why, or provide some sort of technical analogy or suggestion. Opposing something you don't understand as it emotionally strikes you as too complex or unpleasant isn't a particularly good way to learn things and advance. Generally, it is better to remain silent and be though a fool than speak out (on a forum where nothing can be deleted) and remove all doubt.
      - Mz 9y ago
        Sure sure. http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2017/07/im-not-doctor-and-i-dont-play-one-on-tv.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2017/07/im-not-docto... Equally sadly, a brand spanking new account (created minutes ago and this its first comment) with a doctor-y title gives you even less credibility than I have and looks like trolling. Just an FYI.
        rubatuga 9y ago

Mz 9y ago

Cancers and other similar diseases are so difficult to address precisely because My general understanding is that they are so difficult to address because we don't really understand them. I have a condition that gets partly explained as "overactive immune response." I really hate the concept of autoimmune diseases and I hope that someday it will be mocked as "god, what those barbaric idiots believed back in the day."

jfarlow 9y ago
'Cancer' is a huge umbrella term. Some cancers we know very well, many we do not. The one's being addressed by these therapies are well enough understood to target therapeutically. Some like cervical cancer, skin and lung cancer are well enough understood to in part be prevented. But under that umbrella the reason cancers are 'hard to treat' (from the perspective of a pharmaceutical education/industry/knowledgebase that had a century of success curing invading diseases) is because cancers do not present a 'differnece' that can be exploited biochemically. Cancers are by definition a mashup and amalgamation of the components that make up a human - again very much unlike a bacteria, viral or fungal infection. You are correct though that there is still a lot for us to learn. The technologies in this article are very much a glimpse of the next steps though.
- Mz 9y ago
  That honestly does not fit with my understanding of the problem space. Granted my understanding of the problem space is as a layperson, not a medical professional. But I am a layperson who took care of a relative after their first mastectomy, I have multiple relatives who have had cancer, some of them repeatedly, and one relative was themselves Patient Zero in a cancer treatment study. So, it isn't like I have been unexposed entirely to the intricacies of cancer treatment. I don't really know how to effectively engage you, but I stand by my initial statement of: I would like to see a more elegant means to boost the immune function, without so much of the Dr. Frankenstein element. I think supporting the immune function is the way to go, but I think we need a lighter hand, not a heavier one. I don't really feel you are making points that invalidate that desire. Perhaps we just don't understand each other. If so, it is probably best to stop here rather than keep digging a deeper grave.
  - endocrinologist 9y ago
    Mz - sadly, having relatives that suffered from cancer does not give you any insight into the biochemistry and immunology behind it. If you oppose the "Frankenstein element," perhaps you should justify why, or provide some sort of technical analogy or suggestion. Opposing something you don't understand as it emotionally strikes you as too complex or unpleasant isn't a particularly good way to learn things and advance. Generally, it is better to remain silent and be though a fool than speak out (on a forum where nothing can be deleted) and remove all doubt.
    - Mz 9y ago
      Sure sure. http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2017/07/im-not-doctor-and-i-dont-play-one-on-tv.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2017/07/im-not-docto... Equally sadly, a brand spanking new account (created minutes ago and this its first comment) with a doctor-y title gives you even less credibility than I have and looks like trolling. Just an FYI.
      - rubatuga 9y ago