7 ms·
Injecting the flu vaccine into a tumor gets the immune system to attack it
- deepsun 7y agoInjecting anything bad to cells gets immune system to attack them. The problem is how to selectively inject it to cells you need, no?
- k__ 7y agoReally? I assumed vaccines wouldn't destroy healthy tissue.
- wanderr 7y agoTumors aren't healthy tissue. My guess is that an immune system on high alert in an area is more likely to notice bad stuff that otherwise gets ignored. One effective way to get your immune system to kill warts is to induce a low grade infection in the wart. The immune system will "notice" the virus and kill it. If you just freeze them off they are likely to reappear elsewhere because the virus is still present.
- JohnJamesRambo 7y agoHow do you induce an infection in a wart?
- zapdrive 7y agoAsking for a friend, right?
- JohnJamesRambo 7y agoNo I just wonder how.
- wanderr 7y agoThere are probably multiple ways but the way I read about is to use a pumice stone to scrape away the top layer of skin - doesn't hurt because the skin is dead, and then keep it covered with something like duct tape to prevent it from breathing/healing normally & quickly.
- sjg007 7y agoFreezing them also turns on the immune response.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago> Tumors aren't healthy tissue. Well, they're tissue that isn't fulfilling its design goals. They're perfectly healthy, sadly.
- gshdg 7y agoVaccines don’t destroy tissue, period. They activate the immune system, which may or may not react to the vaccine by destroying tissue.
- Wowfunhappy 7y agoIn the article: > The use of melanoma cells is informative, as these cells cannot be infected by the influenza virus. So this system also provides a test of whether the tumor cells themselves have to be infected in order to increase the immune response to them. Apparently they do not. Having an active influenza virus infection reduced the ability of the melanoma cells to establish themselves in the lung. The effect isn't limited to the location of the infection, though, as tumors in the lung that wasn't infected were also inhibited. The effects were similar when breast cancer cells were placed into the lung, as well.
- sjg007 7y agoAwesome news. This gives a lot oh hope for solid tumors.
- syntaxing 7y agoIt's important to note they're using an active form of a flu vaccine for this experiment. I was originally wondering how they can do this with an inactive vaccine (which all flu vaccine used on humans are(?)). Nevertheless, this sounds really awesome!
- emptybits 7y agoFor influenza, humans may receive either inactived vaccines (e.g. common shot) or live attenuated vaccines (e.g. nasal spray).[1] I assume whether a live virus is attenuated in research like TFA depends on the hypothesis they're testing. ? [1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/how-fluvaccine-made.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/how-fluvaccine-made.htm
- dannykwells 7y agoFor those interested in this approach, I encourage you to read about the OG cancer immunotherapy, Coley's toxins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coley%27s_toxins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coley%27s_toxins Approaches like this have been tried for a long time. Some of the best are using actual viruses, such as oncolytic viruses - see this recent article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28886381 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28886381
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- g82918 7y agoAs a non-native speaker, I see OG and think "original grandfather", and that apparently isn't super far off, what does this mean? Sorry for the redirect.
- VeninVidiaVicii 7y agoOriginally OG meant "original gangster", but now it has come to mean something like an early adaptation.
- dmix 7y agoIt’s means the original players or the previously dominant people/organizations which laid out the foundation.
- mendelmaleh 7y agoI just read it as "original"
- fenomas 7y agoI've read a number of times over the years that OG was 80s slang for "old guy" (or "an old G"), and that the 90s Ice T song was a play on the older usage. Don't know if there are any citations though.
- nvrspyx 7y ago
- asdfologist 7y agoGreat, now cancer patients will start getting autism as well. /s
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- hinkley 7y agoI would have guessed that the adjuvants were responsible, but it turns out that adjuvants were negatively correlated with reduced tumor growth.
- hinkley 7y agoSomeone didn’t read the article.
- zapzupnz 7y agoDid you reply to yourself? Why?
- Spare_account 7y agoHackernews comments can only be edited for a few minutes after posting them. If you have a change of heart two hours later, replying is one way to update future readers.
- hinkley 7y agoNo. > Oddly, this wasn't true for every flu vaccine. Some vaccines contain chemicals that enhance the immune system's memory, promoting the formation of a long-term response to pathogens (called adjuvants). When a vaccine containing one of these chemicals was used, the immune system wasn't stimulated to limit the tumors' growth. I didn’t have a change of heart. It says that in the article, near the bottom. People downvote weird shit here.
- Spare_account 7y agoOh, you were commenting on the downvotes. When you made that comment, you hadn't been greyed out so it wasn't obvious. Commenting on downvotes is against HN policy.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- hanniabu 7y agoThe same thing is being done with polio. https://www.curetoday.com/articles/poliovirus-extends-survival-for-patients-with-glioblastoma-in-early-phase-trial https://www.curetoday.com/articles/poliovirus-extends-surviv...
- temptemptemp111 7y agoBecause vaccines make you sick.
- haffi112 7y agoThis raises the question of whether infections trigger our bodies to get rid of bad cells such as cancerous cells as the immune system handles it? If we are never sick in a clean environment does the cancer rate go up? Has this been studied?
- aszantu 7y ago#inmice
- aruggirello 7y agoWho knows, maybe in tapeworms too.
- Vaslo 7y agoI read stories like this that are so promising and then never hear about them again. And people close to us keep dying from it.
- imglorp 7y agoTrying to be observant and not cynical here, but it appears the incentives of the medical system are not always aligned with curing cancer. In the current system, pharma won't funnel it unless there's billions in payoff, while medical oncology, imaging, and radiation are making out like bandits in the current system. How many ads a week do you encounter for "cancer treatment centers"? We're left with government and charity funding for research, which are both minuscule compared to the above.
- rayiner 7y agoThis makes no sense. Whoever invents a cure for cancer will have the market cornered and make a ton of money. Drug companies have tremendous incentives to do that. This isn’t a theoretical economic point. It’s exactly what’s happening with Hep C.
- justsid 7y agoNot only that, but someone living past 30 is probably going to need a bunch more health treatments in life. Sure you can milk the dying cancer patient one time a lot, but that’s that then. A cancer survivor is coming back to pay more money to live even longer later.
- rhoyerboat 7y agoassuming the cure isn't open-source/ otherwise impossible to patent and is basically garage-fab easy. ~84K for a course of hep C meds? insulin costing ~6k per patient per year? i see an incredible incentive to provide a more cost-effective treatment yes, but also see that drug companies have incredible incentives to suppress research they cannot control.
- redis_mlc 7y ago
- thrower123 7y agoWow, finally a reason to get flu shots.