Ultimate cancer cure - please review

[EternalSceptic]

Hi all,

I am not speaking about alternative medicine, teas, zappers and similar BS, just about an idea. Here goes:

We have already a perfect cure for all sorts of cancer. It is my immune system. And yours.
Whenever cancer cells of any type of cancer from another person enter my body my immune system will detect and destroy them. That is the reason why nobody can be infected by the cancer of somebody else. This is a proven medical fact AFAIK.
Unfortunately my immune system cannot detect and heal my own cancer (if I had cancer, which is at the moment fortunately not the case).

Now I was thinking about a way how we can unse that fact as a universally useable cancer therapy and my idea is as follows:

Let's assume I have a friend with cancer and our blood parameters are compatible. First we transfer a small amount, some 200 ml of his blood into my body. My immune system will detect them and T-cells ("killer cells") will attack and destroy them. My immune system is now alert and ready to quickly attack following cancer cells of this type.
Next we connect our blood districts (? Blutkreislauf in german) by continuously transferring blood from my friend to me, probably from arm vene to arm vene, and transferring the same amount at the same time back from me to him, maybe from leg vene to leg vene. Thus a certain amount of his blood, loaded with cancer cells is permanently flowing through my body and will be cleaned from these cells by my immune system, and part of my blood is flowing through his system, probably (hopefully) carrying T-cells from my immune system which (again hopefully) will attack cancer cells in his body.

That'S the idea. And now I ask you for sort of a "preliminary peer review". Please bring in any argument against the idea, be it medical, ethik, legal, or whatever. Pleasse remain serious and, if possible add a reason, proof or similar to your arguments.

TIA

[PixyMisa]

Hi all,

I am not speaking about alternative medicine, teas, zappers and similar BS, just about an idea. Here goes:

We have already a perfect cure for all sorts of cancer. It is my immune system. And yours.
Whenever cancer cells of any type of cancer from another person enter my body my immune system will detect and destroy them. That is the reason why nobody can be infected by the cancer of somebody else. This is a proven medical fact AFAIK.
I don't think this is correct. Aren't cancerous cells routinely implanted in mice in lab tests for anti-cancer drugs?

[Graham Jackman]

If both donor and recipient are compatible, it is unlikely, that the recipient will recognise the cancer cells as foreign. Unless they cancer cells express some unusual antigen, it is unlikely that either donor or recipient will react.

[EternalSceptic]

This is the information which I got from the information service of the german centre for cancer investigation:

http://www.krebsinformationsdienst.de/themen/risiken/ansteckung.php

Krebs ist keine ansteckende oder übertragbare Erkrankung wie etwa eine Grippe oder AIDS. Krebspatienten selbst sind nicht infektiös, Tumorzellen sind unter normalen Bedingungen nicht von einem Menschen auf den anderen übertragbar. Beim normalen Umgang mit Krebspatienten in der Familie, am Arbeitsplatz oder in der medizinischen Versorgung ist niemand gefährdet.

Zwar gibt es verschiedene Krankheitserreger, die eine Rolle bei der Krebsentstehung spielen können. Fachleute schätzen, dass weltweit rund 20 Prozent aller Krebsfälle infektionsbedingt sind; für Deutschland gehen sie von einer niedrigeren Rate aus (hier eine Pressemitteilung des Deutschen Krebsforschungszentrums www.dkfz.de/de/presse/pressemitteilungen/2002/dkfz_pm_02_34.php). Bei den in Deutschland häufigsten Krebserkrankungen, also Darmkrebs, Prostatakrebs, Brustkrebs und Lungenkrebs, spielen Krankheitserreger nach bisherigem Kenntnisstand auf keinen Fall eine Rolle.

Ansteckend ist zudem höchstens die Infektion, die in Frage kommende Krankheitserreger auslösen, nie die Tumorerkrankung, die eine Spätfolge sein kann, aber nicht muss. Selbst wenn die mit der Krebsentstehung in Verbindung gebrachten Krankheitserreger direkt von Mensch zu Mensch übertragbar sind, so müssen viele weitere Faktoren hinzu kommen, bis das Erbmaterial einer Zelle durch Keime so geschädigt wird, dass sie tatsächlich zur Tumorzelle wird.

Google translation:

Cancer is not contagious or communicable disease such as a flu or AIDS. Cancer patients themselves are not infectious, tumor cells under normal conditions not of a people on the other transferable. During normal dealing with cancer patients in the family, at work or in the medical care is no danger.

While there are various pathogens, which may play a role in cancer development. Experts estimate that around 20 percent of all cancer cases are due to pathogens; for Germany a lower rate is estimated (here, a press release from the German Cancer Research Center www.dkfz.de/de/presse/pressemitteilungen/2002/dkfz_pm_02_34.php). Among the most common cancers in Germany, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer and lung cancer, pathogens after previous knowledge don't play a role.

contagious is only the infection, which eligible pathogens trigger, never the tumour disease, which may be a late consequence, but not necessarily. Even if pathogens which are brought in conjunction with the cancer are transferable directly from person to person, there are so many other factors must be added to the genetic material of a cell by germs until it is so damaged that it actually contributes to tumor cell.

This institute is the central cancer investigation facility in germany, so I am confident that the information therein is correct

[Smackety]

If a person's immune system cannot recognize the cancer, it is likely because the cancerous cells are nearly identical to healthy cells. Convincing the immune system to attack the cancer cells is only half the battle - how can the antibodies be prevented from destroying all the (nearly identical) healthy cells at the same time?
If we can get the immune system to recognize and attack only the cancer cells, we would then try to boost the immune response. You do have an interesting method for boosting immune response, it would be interesting to see it researched.

[EternalSceptic]

This is correct for the patients immune system and his cancer cells, but my immune system will see his cancer cells not specifcally as cancer cells. For my immune system these cells are simply foreign protein and attacked as such. That is how I understand it.
A problem could be that my killercells, as soon as they enter the patients body trigger an autoimmune reaction which could be dangerous for the patient.

[EternalSceptic]

@Graham Jackman:

I just meant "blood compatible" - same blood group and RH - factor. My friends cancer cells would still be detected as foreign protein, I think. Otherwise I could not be immune against somebody elses cancer.

Monozygotic twins could be an exception methinks

[PixyMisa]

Cancer is not contagious or communicable disease such as a flu or AIDS. Cancer patients themselves are not infectious, tumor cells under normal conditions not of a people on the other transferable. During normal dealing with cancer patients in the family, at work or in the medical care is no danger.
All of this is accurate, but it doesn't mean what you are suggesting.

There is no normal mechanism for cancer cells to transfer themselves to other people. But if you deliberately take some cancer cells from one person (or mouse) and implant them in another person (or mouse), the cancer can indeed grow in the new host body.

As I said, this is a common lab technique. Also, Bones and House both had episodes revolving around this, so it must be true. ;)

[PixyMisa]

Just going back to your original statement:Whenever cancer cells of any type of cancer from another person enter my body my immune system will detect and destroy them. That is the reason why nobody can be infected by the cancer of somebody else.
The primary reason cancer isn't infectious is that the cancer cells of other people don't enter your body. How would they? Unless, say, you connected the circulatory system of a cancer patient to your own.

[EternalSceptic]

Ok, I see. This will indeed make the whole idea impossible.

However-

I just found in the same article which I cited above a sentence near the end which says that one cannot be infected with cancer even if cancer cells are transferred during a blood - trannsfusion by chance "because the cancer cells will be detected as foreign matter"

Here is the original:

Von einem Tumor abgelöste Krebszellen werden vom Körper normalerweise nicht ausgeschieden. Mit Krebs kann man sich also beispielsweise nicht an Bettwäsche eines Patienten oder beim Reinigen einer Toilette anstecken, die ein Patient benutzt hat. Selbst sexuelle Kontakte führen nicht zu einer Übertragung, die ein Risiko für den Partner darstellen würde. Der Kontakt mit Körperflüssigkeiten und offenen Wunden bei der Pflege oder das versehentliche Stechen mit einer Injektionsnadel sind gemäß allgemeiner Aussage von Experten ebenfalls nicht gefährlich.

Tumorzellen verhalten sich nicht wie Krankheitserreger: Sie haben keine „Strategien“ entwickelt, mit der sie sich wie Viren oder Bakterien gezielt in einen fremden Körper einnisten könnten, sie sind nicht „infektiös“.
Das Immunsystem eines Menschen, der mit Tumorzellen in Kontakt kommt, erkennt die Zellen des Krebspatienten zudem als „fremd“ und vernichtet sie.

it is in the last sentence
(translated)
The immune system of a human who comes into contact with tumorcells recognizes the cells of the patient furthermore as foreign and destroys them.

I will try to get more information on this aspect - either the information we have now is contradictory (which I doubt) or there are distinct conditions for planting cancer cells into certain parts of a body vs into the blood. Let's leave that point open for the moment.

[quarky]

Interesting thinking, EternalSceptic.
Even if its wrong, I commend you.

[blutoski]

That'S the idea. And now I ask you for sort of a "preliminary peer review". Please bring in any argument against the idea, be it medical, ethik, legal, or whatever. Pleasse remain serious and, if possible add a reason, proof or similar to your arguments.

There are two problems:

1. Cancer cells are not just floating around in the bloodstream. Even leukemia is usually cancer in the bone. Tumours are tough to access because they are often very compressed.

2. If your immune system is exposed to the other patient's blood, it is also being exposed to all the cells in his blood, and probably all the cells in his body. If the immune system has established an attack on his cancer cells, it has certainly established an attack on the more common cells, such as white and red blood cells, and probably entire tissues in his body. It's like giving a patient the worst case of lupus ever recorded, and would probably kill him within days.

[EternalSceptic]

ad 1)

True, with one minor disagreeing: Usually tumors and metastases are very exposed to the blood flow, many of them even tend to intensify the growth of "blutgefäße" into the tumor

ad 2)

If I understand correctly what I have read in the last days this happens frequently when "Stammzellen" (blood cells which are not yet fully developed) are transferred to a patient. The usual therapy is with drugs which suppress the immune reaction and are normally used with organ-transplantations. I don't think the immune system of the "doanator" will attack blood cells of the patient. This would render every blood transfusion as extremely dangerous. The abovementioned transfer of Stammzellen looks similar to my approach. The goal is to "modify" the patients immune system so that it recognizes and attacks his cancer cells.
The problem you mention is called "Graft-versus-Host-Reaction" and appears very often when, after the "Stammzellen" are transferred another transfer of the T-cells of the donator is made in order to enhance the immune reaction of the patient against the cancer.

A major difference between this procedure and my idea is, that in the procedure I suggest the donators immune system is alerted of the cancer cells of the patient and will produce specific "weapons" while the other method floods the patiens body with the unspecialized form of the donators immune capabilities.

However I am not sure whether there is really a significant difference except that the patients blood is additionally cleaned from cancer cells while it is in the donators body.

Anyway the whole thing is right now not more than an idea and I am not going to make the mistake to ignore what experts have to say and i am not willing to make the mistake to "jump to conclusions".

Please go on with your critique, but allow me to respond slowly - reading, asking, thinking, reading again... takes some time. And understanding takes even more time.

[EternalSceptic]

Interesting thinking, EternalSceptic.
Even if its wrong, I commend you.

Thank you very much :)
It won't hurt much if it is wrong. Much worse would be if it is right but impossible to perform because of some side effect.

[blutoski]

See: anti-cancer antibodies.

ad 2)

If I understand correctly what I have read in the last days this happens frequently when "Stammzellen" (blood cells which are not yet fully developed) are transferred to a patient. The usual therapy is with drugs which suppress the immune reaction and are normally used with organ-transplantations. I don't think the immune system of the "doanator" will attack blood cells of the patient. This would render every blood transfusion as extremely dangerous.

There are different types of cells in blood. Platelets and RBCs do not have an MHC-I, so are less recognizeable as 'other' to the host's immune system. They also only live a couple of days, so while there is a recognition effect, there is not enough time to mount a response. However, all other cell types in the blood will develop an aggressive response quite quickly.

This isn't a problem for transfusions, becuase fortuntaely, it's the RBCs and platelets that provide the perfusion and coagulation that is critically absent in a bleeding patient.

In the case of patients who receive routine transfusions, rejection is a huge problem. The reason it's unpredictable is that you'd have to get the same donor twice to get an aggressive reaction the second time. If subsequent donors have 'similar' MHCs, the immune response is milder, but not zero. And you're doing it in two directions, by the sound of it. The donor will have immune factors from the patient attacking his tissues.

In your proposed scenario, it sounds like the patient will have repeated exposure to the healthy patient's cells - exactly the situation that triggers the problem above - which means their immune system will mount a response both in the body, and through the transferred blood.




The problem you mention is called "Graft-versus-Host-Reaction" and appears very often when, after the "Stammzellen" are transferred another transfer of the T-cells of the donator is made in order to enhance the immune reaction of the patient against the cancer.

Ya lost me. I think I need a diagram. I don't know how stem cells got into this.





A major difference between this procedure and my idea is, that in the procedure I suggest the donators immune system is alerted of the cancer cells of the patient and will produce specific "weapons" while the other method floods the patiens body with the unspecialized form of the donators immune capabilities.

I'd try antibody injections. We do this today. Provoke rabbits with snake venom, collect the antibodies, and voila: antitoxin.

We actually have been able to cultivate human tumours in rabbits, and collect the antibodies produced by the rabbit's immune response. This was the origin of the 'cancer vaccine' hype in the '90s. It didn't work in clinical trials, but there's ongoing research.

[blutoski]

I also think you're missing the problem of specificity: why do you think the donor's immune system would produce antibodies that are so specific for the patient's cancer cells that the patient's other cells will not also be targetted?

This is the key problem already: tumour cells resemble healthy cells so much that not even the host's body can recognize them as a threat.

[DRBUZZ0]

Um so let me see if I understand this here...

the proposal is that we hook the circulatory systems of two people up to eachother and that way they can share blood and their respective immune systems will reject the tissue of the other person thus causing a massive mutual auto-immune reaction whereby the white blood cells from person A and person B (one of whom has cancer) repeatedly attack eachother and the tissues from the other person, including, but not limited to the cancer?

[EternalSceptic]

@blotoski:

Shame on you, you have destroyed my beautiful idea :)

Seriously, that was what I expected, the idea was so simple that somebody _must_ have had it before.

I did not know about the problem with repeated transfusions from the same donor.

One more question: my firstl idea was to do the tranfers just once - one transfusion from the patient, wait some time, the one transfusion back to the patient. After what I have read in this thread this will not work. Could you give some detailed explanation what would happen in that case? (From your previous posts I guess that you are a medical doctor or immunebiologist).

[Graham Jackman]

@blotoski:

Shame on you, you have destroyed my beautiful idea :)

Seriously, that was what I expected, the idea was so simple that somebody _must_ have had it before.

I did not know about the problem with repeated transfusions from the same donor.

One more question: my firstl idea was to do the tranfers just once - one transfusion from the patient, wait some time, the one transfusion back to the patient. After what I have read in this thread this will not work. Could you give some detailed explanation what would happen in that case? (From your previous posts I guess that you are a medical doctor or immunebiologist).

It won't be the first or last beautiful idea that crashes and burns. There are two main problems with your suggestion. First that the cancer cells are so similar to the normal cells, that if the patient doesn't recognise them as foreign, it's unlikely that the second person will. The second problem is that if the patient has a form of cancer, where cells circulate freely to some extent, then the second person may well develop cancer from the transfused cells. Don't look for me to volunteer.

[blutoski]

One more question: my firstl idea was to do the tranfers just once - one transfusion from the patient, wait some time, the one transfusion back to the patient. After what I have read in this thread this will not work. Could you give some detailed explanation what would happen in that case? (From your previous posts I guess that you are a medical doctor or immunebiologist).

I still think I need a diagram to understand, but my impression is that you're taking blood from a patient, transfusing into a volunteer, then waiting awhile. After a delay, you're transferring some blood from the volunteer back to the patient.

I would expect that the first transfusion will result in an immune response from the volunteer, directed against most of the patient's cells. The volunteer's immune system will now remember the patient's cells, and be better prepared to mount a future attack. Some of this capacity will be in B cells circulating in the volunteer's blood.

When a portion of this volunteer's blood is transfused into the patient, two things will happen:

1. the patient's immune system will attack the volunteer's cells
2. the volunteer's B cells will remember the patient cells, and attempt to destroy them

The key, again, is to figure out how any mechanism can be devised that will distinguish between a healthy versus cancerous cell. Cancer cells are just human cells that are behaving differently, rather than exhibiting a unique surface. There are some exceptions.

[Ixion]

Being an immunologist, and having previously done research on breast cancer, I think I can shed some light on the subject. Eternalsceptic, your original idea was to transfer some of his blood to your body, "prime" your immune system, and transfer your blood back into his to fight the cancer. There are many many reasons why this would not work, all founded deeply in immunology. First of all, Rh factors and blood types are only the tip of the iceberg for compatibility. You would likely not share most of your MHC with your friend, and although platelets and red blood cells do not carry MHC, the rest of your white blood cells do. This is important for several reasons:
1. Your cells will recognize his proteins as foreign, and attack them, healthy and cancerous alike.
2. Your cells will not recognize his cancerous proteins as any more foreign than the rest. This is due to MHC antigen presentation. When an immune response is mounted by cytotoxic T cells (they used to be called "killer" T cells, but that term is now obsolete), they rely on "seeing" the foreign protein being presented on the MHC molecule, and are trained during development on which proteins are normal and which are foreign. Since your MHC is different than his, your cells cannot recognize his MHC and tell normal from foreign.
3. This is the basis for graft-versus-host disease and is the cause of reactions from blood transfusions. Basically your immune systems go to war with each other and make you sick, independantly of the illness you are already suffering. Graft-versus-host disease is more limited today due to isolation of platelets and red blood cells for transfusions, and immunosuppresive drugs for organ transplants.
Blutoski is correct in that your cells will always remember the recipient's cells and will attack them all the time.
There are several other comments I want to address also. First, there are "liquid" tumors as well as solid ones. Although leukemias and lymphomas do seem to congregate in bone marrow at first, as well as myelomas, eventually they leak out and permeate your vasculature, creating liquid tumors of sorts. Secondly, concerning access to tumor sites, many times tumors are inaccessible, which is true. However, just as often to tumor is accessible, but tumor cells have many mutations that block the immune system. Some of these mutations include loss of protein receptors, immunosuppressive extracellular factors which neutralize immune cells in the tumor environment, and hypoxia. Quite often you will find many types of immune cells that have been recruited to the tumor site to fight the infection, but they have become neutralized or inactivated once they arrive. Finally, for the comment about cancer studies in mice, generally, these mice are inbred to be genetically identical (resembling twins). This is the best way to empirically test different cancers and treatments, because you can change one variable at a time, while keeping all other conditions identical. Sorry for the long post, but I hope this clears things up a little.

[Nursefoxfire]

Being an immunologist, and having previously done research on breast cancer, I think I can shed some light on the subject. Eternalsceptic, your original idea was to transfer some of his blood to your body, "prime" your immune system, and transfer your blood back into his to fight the cancer. There are many many reasons why this would not work, all founded deeply in immunology. First of all, Rh factors and blood types are only the tip of the iceberg for compatibility. You would likely not share most of your MHC with your friend, and although platelets and red blood cells do not carry MHC, the rest of your white blood cells do. This is important for several reasons:
1. Your cells will recognize his proteins as foreign, and attack them, healthy and cancerous alike.
2. Your cells will not recognize his cancerous proteins as any more foreign than the rest. This is due to MHC antigen presentation. When an immune response is mounted by cytotoxic T cells (they used to be called "killer" T cells, but that term is now obsolete), they rely on "seeing" the foreign protein being presented on the MHC molecule, and are trained during development on which proteins are normal and which are foreign. Since your MHC is different than his, your cells cannot recognize his MHC and tell normal from foreign.
3. This is the basis for graft-versus-host disease and is the cause of reactions from blood transfusions. Basically your immune systems go to war with each other and make you sick, independantly of the illness you are already suffering. Graft-versus-host disease is more limited today due to isolation of platelets and red blood cells for transfusions, and immunosuppresive drugs for organ transplants.
Blutoski is correct in that your cells will always remember the recipient's cells and will attack them all the time.
There are several other comments I want to address also. First, there are "liquid" tumors as well as solid ones. Although leukemias and lymphomas do seem to congregate in bone marrow at first, as well as myelomas, eventually they leak out and permeate your vasculature, creating liquid tumors of sorts. Secondly, concerning access to tumor sites, many times tumors are inaccessible, which is true. However, just as often to tumor is accessible, but tumor cells have many mutations that block the immune system. Some of these mutations include loss of protein receptors, immunosuppressive extracellular factors which neutralize immune cells in the tumor environment, and hypoxia. Quite often you will find many types of immune cells that have been recruited to the tumor site to fight the infection, but they have become neutralized or inactivated once they arrive. Finally, for the comment about cancer studies in mice, generally, these mice are inbred to be genetically identical (resembling twins). This is the best way to empirically test different cancers and treatments, because you can change one variable at a time, while keeping all other conditions identical. Sorry for the long post, but I hope this clears things up a little.

Are you sure you're a doctor? I actually understood a lot of what you were saying! :p

[Ixion]

Are you sure you're a doctor? I actually understood a lot of what you were saying! :p

Not a doctor, a research scientist, but nevertheless, this is my profession of interest. Glad I helped! :D

[Iamme]

Ixion,

Are there any cancer publications out there where they list every question ever raised about a specific cancer, and addressed those questions?This approach could help researchers, and even lay people, perhaps come up with new key questions that could be looked into.

[quarky]

Tasmanian Devils have recently been found to have a contagious cancer.They spread it through biting each other. Interesting article in this month's Harper's magazine. Tumors evolve.

[Ixion]

As far as I know, there is not a specific publication that addresses questions and answers about a specific cancer. With that being said, I think one of the most important cancer resources for scientists and laypeople alike is the American Association of Cancer Research (AACR). You do not have to be a scientist or an American to be a member, but there is an annual membership fee. They host dozens of meetings and conventions every year regarding cancer research as well as peer reviewed publications on cancer. They have survivor support resources and host the largest cancer convention in the world, the Annual AACR Meeting (it was coincidentally cancelled in 2004 because it was scheduled to be held in Toronto, and two weeks before the meeting, the Toronto SARS epidemic broke there).
Here is a link to their page: AACR (http://www.aacr.org/)
Also the National Cancer Institute (NCI) is a great resource: NCI (http://www.cancer.gov/)
The NCI provides information about specific cancers and incidence levels as well as information on any clinical trials involving that cancer type.

The Tasmanian Devil story is a sad one. Scientists are not sure of the cause, but if I had to take a guess, I would suspect the papilloma virus (the same that causes warts, and cervical cancer). Although this is only one of many possibilities, papilloma viruses are ubiquitous, and infect many species. Tasmanian devils are very genetically similar amongst their population, so if one deadly strain made its way in, it could cause extinction in the species. Hopefully someone will find the cause and create a vaccine.

[quarky]

I don't suppose there's any way to teach the devil's to stop biting each other?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Excuse me folks, there are many infectious viruses that cause cancer. So claiming cancer is not contagious is not exactly correct. The Tas Devil example is even more directly contagious as has been mentioned.

Carry on....

[Skeptic Ginger]

I saw this program yesterday that fits right in this thread.

Vaccines Targeting Breast and Ovarian Cancer (http://www.uwtv.org/programs/displayevent.aspx?rID=2516&fID=1469)
Research over the last decade has demonstrated that human tumors are immunogenic and that cancer patients can have immune responses specific for their tumors. At the same time, many mechanisms have been identified that act to limit the tumor specific immune response. Cancer vaccines may have the potential to stimulate tumor immunity to levels that have an impact on tumor growth. The development and testing of cancer vaccines may lead someday to the ability to use the immune system to prevent the first development of cancer or of relapse in patients who have been previously treated.

It is a one hour science lecture, originally given in 2006, that you can view online or if you have cable and are in the Seattle area it will air on UWTV a couple more times this weekend.

Absolutely fascinating stuff. It is amazing what we could be doing if we weren't wasting time and resources on war and woo.

For those who just want to see what the lecture is about without spending an hour on it, here are some related research articles.

Generation of immunity to the HER-2/neu oncogenic protein in patients with breast and ovarian cancer using a peptide-based vaccine (http://breast-cancer-research.com/paperreport/bcr-1999-66631)

Breast cancer vaccines: maximizing cancer treatment by tapping into host immunity (http://erc.endocrinology-journals.org/cgi/content/full/12/1/1) This link also has a wealth of info on tumor immune system interactions, as does the lecture.

Breast and Ovarian Cancer-Specific Cytotoxic T Lymphocytes Recognize the Same HER2/Neu-Derived Peptide (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/2/432)

[Chris Haynes]

Excuse me folks, there are many infectious viruses that cause cancer. So claiming cancer is not contagious is not exactly correct. The Tas Devil example is even more directly contagious as has been mentioned.

Carry on....

Hepatitis B is just one example, along with human papillomavirus, and there may be others. Who knows?

Oh, wait... that is why people study science, to figure these things out.

[ErkDemon]

Hi all,
That is the reason why nobody can be infected by the cancer of somebody else. This is a proven medical fact AFAIK.

Actually, there's an icky canine uterine cancer that has been found to be spread between dogs. Someone started genetically-testing the cancers and found that the cancer cells were closely related even though the dogs weren't - the cancer cells weren't directly related to the animals that they were found in. So it seems that this particular cancer has mutated into a sexually transmitted disease: cells gets transferred between animals and then exploit the uterine environment to attach and grow into new tumors that then shed cells to be transferred again.
It exploits a loophole in the immune system that stops a mother's immune system from attacking a fetus.

"X-Files" territory.

Like I said, icky. Sorry if you were just about to eat. :(

[Iamme]

Have researchers tried experimenting with causing tumors to be cold (no, not freezing them and killing ALL tissue)...rather, to put some cold-rod into the tumor site and causing body temp at the site to lower to a critical level where a regular cell might survive, based on the fact it needs less blood, but the tumor cell cannot handle the cold as well and finally gives up dividing weird and dies.

My sister has breast cancer and I have notebook and paper by my bed and I lay there thinking and jot down ideas. I can't hardly believe that if enough questions were raised about cancer, and enough experiments were done, since the beginning of when cancer researchers started taking trying to figure out cancer, on a serious level, that they have not truly solved it yet. Sure, they have made great progress with certain cancers. But what I am talking about is a real cure where they could stop any cancer, even Stage 5, dead in it's tracks. ANY cancer. THAT is a cure.

I watched a show last night where they showed the world's most perfect robotic quadraped (Japanese made, I guess). [A thread could be made of this thing. Truly remarkable-lifelike, and it is truly amazing.] Someone on the show mentioned that it is too bad that if we have the brains to come up with such a thing as that, that they haven't been able to cure cancer. And I knew what he meant.

[Ixion]

Don't ever remember saying that cancer was not contagious, although your statement is not totally correct. There ARE many agents that are contagious and can cause cancer. However, cancer is a side-effect of the infection, based on mutation of the host genome.

I saw this program yesterday that fits right in this thread.

Vaccines Targeting Breast and Ovarian Cancer (http://www.uwtv.org/programs/displayevent.aspx?rID=2516&fID=1469)

It is a one hour science lecture, originally given in 2006, that you can view online or if you have cable and are in the Seattle area it will air on UWTV a couple more times this weekend.

Absolutely fascinating stuff. It is amazing what we could be doing if we weren't wasting time and resources on war and woo.

For those who just want to see what the lecture is about without spending an hour on it, here are some related research articles.

Generation of immunity to the HER-2/neu oncogenic protein in patients with breast and ovarian cancer using a peptide-based vaccine (http://breast-cancer-research.com/paperreport/bcr-1999-66631)

Breast cancer vaccines: maximizing cancer treatment by tapping into host immunity (http://erc.endocrinology-journals.org/cgi/content/full/12/1/1) This link also has a wealth of info on tumor immune system interactions, as does the lecture.

Breast and Ovarian Cancer-Specific Cytotoxic T Lymphocytes Recognize the Same HER2/Neu-Derived Peptide (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/2/432)

Interesting you should quote papers and a talk from Nora Disis. My work on breast cancer research stems directly from her work.

[ErkDemon]

The Tasmanian Devil story is a sad one. Scientists are not sure of the cause, but if I had to take a guess, I would suspect the papilloma virus (the same that causes warts, and cervical cancer). Although this is only one of many possibilities, papilloma viruses are ubiquitous, and infect many species. Tasmanian devils are very genetically similar amongst their population, so if one deadly strain made its way in, it could cause extinction in the species. Hopefully someone will find the cause and create a vaccine.

I understood that the current thinking was that because the Taz population is so genetically similar, cancer cells from one animal introduced to another through a bite might survive and multiply to form new tumours without being identified as "foreign" and attacked by the second animal's immune system.

If that's what's happening, then it really is a special case of a transmissable cancer (only between very closely-related animals with face tumours who insist on biting each other on the face), and vaccine solutions won't work.

If there was more genetic diversity in the Tazzies, or they bit each other somewhere other than on the face, then it'd probably peter out of its own accord. I think they're hoping to put some non-tumoured tazzies into captivity and release them again once the wild tazzies have bitten each other to extinction.

[quarky]

two other mammals come to mind when discussing genetic similarity:

cheetahs and north american beavers.

I wonder how they're doing, as far as tumors?

[Mister Earl]

A maybe better idea occurs to me. Once a good-enough supersplicer is engineered, we could infect the host with this virus, and have it designed to continually re-write the host's DNA to match the host's unaltered version. There's some small risk to this, of course (random mutation of the splicer itself), but this can be negated by factoring in a certain lifespan to the supersplicer itself. The upside to this method is that any damage done to the DNA, cancer-originated or not, would be repaired.

[jli]

Unfortunately my immune system cannot detect and heal my own cancer

Actually some cancers do elicit an immunological response. For example there are cancers in the colon in which the microscope reveals quite heavy infiltration with lymphocytes (Tumors with high levels of microsatellite instability - long story). The response doesn´t cure these cancers, but they have a lesser tendency to metastasize - even if they appear very aggressive in the microscope (poorly differentiated)