Posted on 07/11/2013 11:38:50 AM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda
New wonder drug matches and kills all kinds of cancer — human testing starts 2014
By MICHAEL BLAUSTEIN Last Updated: 2:03 PM, July 11, 2013 Posted: 12:55 PM, July 11, 2013
Stanford researchers are on track to begin human trials of a potentially potent new weapon against cancer, and would-be participants are flooding in following the Post’s initial report on the discovery.
The progress comes just two months after the groundbreaking study by Dr Irv Weissman, who developed an antibody that breaks down a cancer's defense mechanisms in the body.
A protein called CD47 tells the body not to "eat" the cancer, but the antibody developed by Dr Weissman blocks CD47 and frees up immune cells called macrophages — which can then engulf the deadly cells.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Thanks for the ping!
You’re Welcome, Alamo-Girl!
Yes, CTIX has made terrific progress so far in the Phase 1 trial. Hope the end results are successful
Been in it for over a year so far.....
I’ve been in (and out) over the last 8 months or so. Recently added significantly at 1.65. So far, so good with the phase 1 trial. And they have more than one product in the pipeline. And with the interest from Dana Farber, MD Anderson, etc., I feel they are on to something big.
LOL whatever you wish to believe. There is neither the time nor space to explain it all.
The Heritage Foundation and many other institutions have published many works that address the issues address. If you so desire, you can go education yourself.
FYI, blanket anti-government views are Libertarian
you jumped to conclusion. I above all desire a limited government as defined by our Founders.
Within the context of today's government, it would seem that most Conservatives views of government would be perceived by the left as "anti-government".
I am very anti-what-our-government-is-today.com :)
I suggest you study the history of the FDA, and the horrors that happened before the FDA was instituted. The idea that companies would keep extensive records without the FDA requiring it is rather naive.
B.S. Again, there have been many great thinkers who have written how the market could do in superior manner what the FDA today does. Yes the market solution would involve government writing new laws (not new regulations). The government's important role is setting the minimal law to allow the market to move forward without fraud...
What is missing for most people who view the FDA is a positive is "what is unseen." We do not know exactly "how" the market would have solved the issues you address, but nevertheless they would happen in a truly free society.
We will never know because the government prevents the solution from ever appearing.
Think back to the 80's with the brick phones. Could anyone envision the smart phones we have today? the internet? the relentless CPU advancement following Moore's law? Few people could.
Those advancements happened in a relatively free marketplace.
Likewise, we can rationally assume that solutions to problems you assume the FDA today solves, could more creatively, less expensively and much more efficiently than the FDA.
Outside of it's Constitional limits, there is nothing the government touches, that it doesn't corrupt and destroy.
Have a nice day....
I have no timing skills so I just hold it.
If we have good results with K I expect triple digits in 1 - 3 years.
I really like the management team and the lady they just added has been working with them for 4 years.... I think she did the heavy lifting in the lab on Prurisol.
She has options on over 1/2 million shares!
What is missing for most people who view the FDA is a positive is "what is unseen." We do not know exactly "how" the market would have solved the issues you address, but nevertheless they would happen in a truly free society.
The problem with those thinkers is that they are trying to write about something which they barely understand. Nor do most people understand the overwhelming complexities of drug R&D, animal and human testing, and the monumental task of uncovering rare serious adverse effects if they occur.
The market is good at eliminating problems where there is a clear and direct cause-and-effect relationship. You buy a new pasta-maker, and it breaks after a few days. You take it back to the store and get a replacement. The replacement breaks a few days later. You get a refund. The company making the pasta maker will fold if the products you purchased were typical of their product quality. Drugs that have successfully gone through clinical trials never have simple cause and effects; unearthing rare side effects is like trying to find the needle in a haystack. This is not a problem that can be addressed by relatively simple market mechanisms.
I think we can be fairly certain from historical evidence that the market is not capable of regulating the pharmaceutical industry. If the market were capable of doing so, it is doubtful the FDA would have ever been established.
Agencies such as the FDA, USDA, EPA, CDC, etc., exist because of the constitutional mandate for the government to promote the general welfare of citizens. There are problems with certain politicians using the bona fide constitutional functions of these agencies to push their own authoritarian agendas (e.g. using them to force restaurants to only serve their narrow idea of "healthy" food). The way to handle those problems is to address corruption in politics, not to get rid of the legitimate agencies that politicians misuse.
Here is a history of the FDA. Notice how the market did not handle issues of drug safety prior to the FDA, and how snake oil salesmen thrived in its absence. Also notice how FDA policies encourage drug manufacturers to develop drugs to cure rare diseases for which they have no market incentive to develop.
You're welcome!
And no one wants to talk about Cannabis Oil. Can’t have that. Funny thing about Cannabis is that it’s the one alternative treatment that HAS been put through the ringer.
Lol!!!
Treatments like this are very nice in principle. In practice it needs to not attack healthy cells in the same manner or almost as badly. Of course I hope it works but I’ve seen enough hucksterism in the cancer field to be cautious and want proof. We can now cure cancer in mice, what, 50000 ways?
Hey if I was king you could have as much cannabis oil as you wanted, but you’d be responsible for what you did with it (or the doctor who prescribed it would be).
If only the docs were responsible for the drugs they prescribe now. But since there isn't a single documented death from cannabis that I'm aware of I'd say its fairly safe. But, I'm a buyer beware kinda guy.
Well this meme of zero “pot deaths” gets trotted around a lot but it ain’t true. A death might get technically attributed to a heart attack when the triggering event was the tachycardia caused by pot, for instance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.