3 ms·

You want to fix cancer, don't wait for the scientists. They are hobbled by regulation. Be an engineer: get out there and make one of the viable solutions work,

You want to fix cancer, don't wait for the scientists. They are hobbled by regulation. Be an engineer: get out there and make one of the viable solutions work, and make it work outside the US, because you'll never get approval from the FDA for a reasonable amount of money - money that could to towards making something work rather than the normal nonsense. The best present tack for dealing with cancer is granulocyte therapy. It works very, very well, but because researchers can't yet say why it works it's pretty hard to get trials going in the US. I think there's only one right now. But somewhere out there, for as far as we can see near every cancer, there's someone with an immune system that can kill it. http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/04/the-state-of-leukocyte-or-granulocyte-transplants-to-kill-cancer.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/04/the-state-of-leuk... But at a cost of $100k per patient in a formal trial, and with researchers willing to go to bat on this one, getting something going in Asia shouldn't be out of the possibility for a few million dollars. The philosophy of all new medical development should be "get it done outside the US". Seriously. See: http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/05/31/open-cures-an-initiative-to-speed-clinical-development-of-longevity-science/ http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/05/31/open-cures-an-initiative... http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/05/envisaging-a-world-without-the-fda.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/05/envisaging-a-worl... http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2007/03/whose-life-is-it-anyway.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2007/03/whose-life-is-it-...

carbocation 15y ago
> because researchers can't yet say why it works it's pretty hard to get trials going in the US That can't be right. We use plenty of drugs with unknown mechanisms of action. Here's a list: 4-Aminosalicylic acid Alendronate Ambroxol Arsenic trioxide Becaplermin Bexarotene Chloral hydrate Clofazimine Dactinomycin (RNA synthesis inhibitor) Dapsone (folic acid synthesis inhibitor) Diethyl carbamazine Diethyl ether Diloxanide Dinitric oxide Ethambutol Gentian violet Ginkgolides Griseofulvin Halofantrine Halothane Hydrazinophthalazine Limefantrine (antimalarial; prevents haem polymerization) Levetiracetam Mebendazole Methyl-(5-amino-4-oxopentanoate) Niclosamide Pentamidine Podophyllotoxin Procarbazine Selenium sulphide Source: http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n10/full/nrd2132.html http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n10/full/nrd2132.html
- reasonattlm 15y ago
  Per Zheng Cui, the chief obstacle to fundraising for development was that he didn't have a molecular mechanism of operation in hand and explained. I have no reference to hand for that; it might have been in email. The funded work looking into this, where it exists at all, is presently largely focused on finding that mechanism and thus doing away with the need for donor cells. e.g. http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/12/seeking-funding-to-explain-granulocyte-cancer-therapy.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/12/seeking-funding-t...
  - timr 15y ago
    "Per Zheng Cui, the chief obstacle to fundraising for development was that he didn't have a molecular mechanism of operation in hand and explained." When you hear people complaining about this, it's a good sign that they're on the extreme margins of whatever field of study they're in, or that they're getting too far ahead of themselves (i.e. trying to pursue clinical studies before basic scientific facts are known). The "mechanism of action" becomes much more important to reviewers when your evidence for efficacy is weak and/or the thing you're advocating tends to go against established scientific theory. Sometimes the medical establishment is conservative, but this is a feature, not a bug.
shasta 15y ago
This advise would be much more credible coming fro a cancer researcher diagnosed with cancer

carbocation 15y ago

> because researchers can't yet say why it works it's pretty hard to get trials going in the US That can't be right. We use plenty of drugs with unknown mechanisms of action. Here's a list: 4-Aminosalicylic acid Alendronate Ambroxol Arsenic trioxide Becaplermin Bexarotene Chloral hydrate Clofazimine Dactinomycin (RNA synthesis inhibitor) Dapsone (folic acid synthesis inhibitor) Diethyl carbamazine Diethyl ether Diloxanide Dinitric oxide Ethambutol Gentian violet Ginkgolides Griseofulvin Halofantrine Halothane Hydrazinophthalazine Limefantrine (antimalarial; prevents haem polymerization) Levetiracetam Mebendazole Methyl-(5-amino-4-oxopentanoate) Niclosamide Pentamidine Podophyllotoxin Procarbazine Selenium sulphide Source: http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n10/full/nrd2132.html http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n10/full/nrd2132.html

reasonattlm 15y ago
Per Zheng Cui, the chief obstacle to fundraising for development was that he didn't have a molecular mechanism of operation in hand and explained. I have no reference to hand for that; it might have been in email. The funded work looking into this, where it exists at all, is presently largely focused on finding that mechanism and thus doing away with the need for donor cells. e.g. http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/12/seeking-funding-to-explain-granulocyte-cancer-therapy.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/12/seeking-funding-t...
- timr 15y ago
  "Per Zheng Cui, the chief obstacle to fundraising for development was that he didn't have a molecular mechanism of operation in hand and explained." When you hear people complaining about this, it's a good sign that they're on the extreme margins of whatever field of study they're in, or that they're getting too far ahead of themselves (i.e. trying to pursue clinical studies before basic scientific facts are known). The "mechanism of action" becomes much more important to reviewers when your evidence for efficacy is weak and/or the thing you're advocating tends to go against established scientific theory. Sometimes the medical establishment is conservative, but this is a feature, not a bug.

shasta 15y ago

This advise would be much more credible coming fro a cancer researcher diagnosed with cancer