TexasCHLforum.com

Was reading about this yesterday. A great leap of progress, most certainly.

Amazing.

saw that article on tv last night, wasn't that the coolest thing!!!!! we were just amazed! my 19 year old was cheering! she said "now they need to do that for all the other cancers!"

SewTexas wrote:saw that article on tv last night, wasn't that the coolest thing!!!!! we were just amazed! my 19 year old was cheering! she said "now they need to do that for all the other cancers!"

Who would have thought that the HIV virus could lead to a cure for cancer. Maybe it could also lead to a vaccine.

We saw this on the news too.... This is the kinda stuff that makes my wife stay in the biochemistry and genetics field. Just really, really cool stuff.

Here's to hoping they keep advancing!

$1000 says it just quietly goes away. Big pharma can't make money off of cures, only treatment. I've had friends in research that have found new ways to combat diabetes, only to have it all the research taken away / "borrowed" by BMS, AZ, Novo Nordisk, etc.

pbwalker wrote:$1000 says it just quietly goes away. Big pharma can't make money off of cures, only treatment. I've had friends in research that have found new ways to combat diabetes, only to have it all the research taken away / "borrowed" by BMS, AZ, Novo Nordisk, etc.

I hope you're wrong. There we always be diseases and illnesses to treat.

I think that money can be made from cures and prevention - the polio vaccine is a good example. Even though this vaccine was developed many years ago, I think that there are still many people in the medical research field who do not have money as their primary motivator.

I know first hand how terrible this disease is and cancer in general. This is an amazing discovery. I pray they have more success with it among the other cancer types. It's probably the biggest advance in leukemia treatment in the past 10 years. We need more people who choose biochemistry as a profession. Hindsight is 20/20 if I knew then what I know now, my career path may have been very different.

I think they are messing around in a mine field with this one. The Burzynski method has nearly an 85% cure rate on some very aggressive and "untreatable" cancers.

Dragonfighter wrote:I think they are messing around in a mine field with this one. The Burzynski method has nearly an 85% cure rate on some very aggressive and "untreatable" cancers.

85% is less than 100%...

The most difficult piece to solve for is finding a cure for the disease that doesn't cause collateral damage. The cure at times can be worse for the patient than the disease itself. I have friends who have passed away in full remission due to organ damage as a result of the cancer treatment protocol. I have not fully regained my strength and I still have bouts of fatigue but otherwise healthy. I'm hoping the new technologies reduce the after affects and cure this mess so no one else has to go through it.

urnoodle wrote:The most difficult piece to solve for is finding a cure for the disease that doesn't cause collateral damage. The cure at times can be worse for the patient than the disease itself. I have friends who have passed away in full remission due to organ damage as a result of the cancer treatment protocol. I have not fully regained my strength and I still have bouts of fatigue but otherwise healthy. I'm hoping the new technologies reduce the after affects and cure this mess so no one else has to go through it.

Good point. When Burzynski introduced his antineoplastin therapy (no side effects by the way) he was only allowed to study patients who were "dead". The patients had a particular type of incurable brain cancer and had to have completed a full "traditional" battery. He cured patient, after patient but several died from damage by radiation or from organ failure due to the chemo.