SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1337
In U.S. First, Scientists Safely Edit Cancer Patients' Cells With CRISPR
On Wednesday, U.S. scientists announced that they used the gene-editing tool CRISPR to modify the cells of cancer patients — a first in the United States — and that so far, the technique appears to be safe. It's too early to tell whether the edited cells will help patients live longer, but researchers think the approach looks promising and is an important first step for using CRISPR against other diseases.
There's an incredible amount of optimism around using CRISPR to treat or possibly cure a wide range of genetic disorders and cancers by snipping out detrimental strands of DNA from cells. The technology has drawn the attention of high-profile investors, including billionaire Sean Parker, co-founder of Napster and an early investor in Facebook, who helped fund the study. The idea is that CRISPR could eliminate disease at its source, rather than just alleviating symptoms, as the vast majority of pharmaceuticals on the market do. But CRISPR is a relatively new tool, and it is unclear how safe it is for human treatment. While experiments in animal subjects have looked promising, this new research gives scientists the first glimpse of how CRISPR will perform in people.
So far three cancer patients in the United States have received the experimental CRISPR treatment, which involved extracting certain immune cells — called T cells — from the blood, editing them in the lab, and infusing them back into the body. T cells are the body's natural mechanism for fighting infections and other foreign invaders, including tumors. But the reason cancer can persist in the body is because it can hide from the immune system, going undetected by these T cells. In this trailblazing study, the first proposed use of CRISPR in humans, researchers used CRISPR to supercharge patients' T cells by removing three genes that interfere with the immune cells' ability to bind to cancer cells and kill them.
Plans for this study were first reported in 2016 when an advisory group at the U.S. National Institutes of Health gave researchers at the University of Pennsylvania the green light. The first two patients were treated this April, and ultimately the study is slated to include 18 total patients with multiple myeloma, sarcoma, or melanoma whose cancers have relapsed or not responded to traditional cancer treatments, like chemotherapy or radiation.
(Score: 3, Touché) by janrinok on Sunday November 10 2019, @08:58AM (6 children)
And who, please tell, still hands out cyanide capsules in this day and age? If you are referring to spies then they account for a miniscule fraction of human beings on this earth. Secondly, that chemicals were produced for one purpose but have since been used for others is not a bad thing. Many of our modern day treatments have been identified after using the substance for an entirely different reason beforehand. You are free to decline such treatments if you wish, but do come back to us in the unfortunate event that you subsequently suffer from cancer and let us know how you feel having declined chemotherapy.
I am sure that many of us here know people who have suffered or are suffering from various cancers and recognise that, despite not being perfect, chemotherapy can contribute to an extended life expectancy and significant improvement in the patient's condition in many cases.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 10 2019, @10:30AM (5 children)
I've met so many people who say their spouses were killed by chemo. All those deaths are chalked about to "cancer" so no one can even see the mortality rate.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 10 2019, @02:14PM
Yeah, and Steve Jobs was killed by roots and berries.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Spamalope on Sunday November 10 2019, @02:36PM (1 child)
And the chemo made them hurt the whole time they were dying.
I watched someone loose mental faculties with the chemo treatments. They were sharp immediately before, and didn't have any problems that'd affect brain function prior to the chemo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 10 2019, @06:56PM
Yes, that is what I mean. The chemo death is often worse and comes sooner than the cancer death would have, but they get away with attributing it to cancer. So no one can make an informed decision.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Sunday November 10 2019, @03:06PM (1 child)
And there are probably millions who have had chemotherapy and lived a lot longer than they would have done otherwise. You 'meeting' people doesn't actually constitute convincing evidence. Can you cite a medical paper supporting what you believe? What were the results of the trials that convince you that it was the chemo that killed them and not, oh I don't know, cancer? The fact that they were on chemo (usually for quite a long period) could perhaps account for the deterioration in their condition?
I'm afraid your claims are providing as much to support them as the anti-vaxers have to support their own beliefs. You do know that everyone who breathes will eventually die - perhaps it is the oxygen that is killing them?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 10 2019, @05:04PM
Unfortunately the medical literature is so messed up that anecdotes are more reliable than what they generate.