Gene Therapy May Work

[callalily]

Hello all,

I tried 2 times to reply to Bill Denton's last post re the above but
for some reason the msg wasn't going thru so I will answer here.

First of all, Bill, why do you speak in such a cocksure tone when you
say definitively that gene therapy of this kind won't work for the men
here? Are you a scientist, geneticist, doctor or expert on anything
else relating to this topic.

When I am forced to write scientific stuff I do quote the "literature".

And I don't know why you are so motivated to tell me and the other
people here that a promising new treatment won't work for them.

In fact, I have read a couple of articles on this subject but I am
going to resist the temptation to mention specifics except to quote a
scientist who said:

"The penis is the ideal organ for gene therapy."

[From "Future Strategies for treating ED" by Rajfer et al (2002) and
"Neuroregenerative Strategies after RP" by Dean et al. (2005) both in
Reviews in Urology journal.]

One way this gene therapy could help is that it does the same thing as
Viagra, i.e., relaxes the smooth muscles of the penis so that blood
could flow in to the chambers, only this treatment does so in a better
way. It would require the patient to come in once every 6 mos. for a
shot and maybe even more important, allow for smooth muscle relaxation
and hence, erection, spontaneously, on arousal. Men whose (erectile)
nerves are not too damaged can benefit from this treatment.

Second, I think Bill's argument goes like this: This gene therapy has
to do with smooth muscle relaxation of the chambers of the penis which
is a step needed to get an erection. But many people here have nerve
damage and the message to the cavernosal nerves of the penis won't be
transmitted because the "wiring" is faulty. So what this therapy
addresses is moot because the process will never get that far because
of the interrupted signal.

[First you said this type of ED "has nothing do w/the nerve network
that goes from the brain to the penis." Then, in the next breath, you
said that what Pca pts. have is "neural."]

Well getting the smooth muscles of the chambers (cavernosa) of the
penis to relax to allow for inflow of blood can be done differently,
potentially. Let's says there is a gene in the cavernosal nerves that
secretes a protein which switches on a button that tells the penile
muscles to relax. Well, with gene therapy, you might be able to inject
a substance into the cavernosal nerves that will cause a particular
gene to do just that.

This means that even if your "wiring" is faulty, e.g., damaged erectile
nerves, you can still get to the same endpoint: smooth muscles in penis
relax, blood flows in and voila, you have an erection.

Treatments like injections bypass the wiring altogether.

Best to all and please dont make me do this again.

Leah

[callalily]

Hello,

Sorry for the redundancy. I thought my previous msg (written twice)
didn't go through.

> Leah

[I.P. Freely]

callalily wrote:
> And I don't know why you are so motivated to tell me and the other
> people here that a promising new treatment won't work for them.

Without even following the thread, I can think of three answers right
off the bat:

1. Even in just the 30 months I've been reading about PC, I've seen MANY
"cures" and promises thereof for what ails us. We'll believe it when we
see it proved in studies of 10,000 men over a decade. Until then it's
mostly just more snake oil, worth consideration only if it's proved
harmless . . . which, or course, takes 10,000 men and 10 years. The guys
and their gals who have been here for 12 years are far more cynical than
I, for good reason.

2. Bill's as sharp as a penile injection needle. If he saw something in
the plan that precludes its utility to most of us, I'll take his word
for it and spend my time on something more promising (or fun). Even if
he's ultimately proved wrong in early large-scale testing, the procedure
will still not be widely available until long after that, so no harm, no
foul, no wasted treatment opportunities. Debating hypothetical
treatments is masturbatory and full of undeliverable promises, much like
many of us will be until we DO find the right ED therapy.

3. If it actually worked and was readily available, it would be
headlines shouted from rooftops and bedrooms. Until then, it's just
another wild idea that may be of use to our sons.

I.P.

[Dave P]

Of course Gene Therapy will one day work. So will vaccines as well 3-5
other treatments to prevent and destroy PCA.

Have any of you visited a research center, university or Bio Tech firm
recently. I have. We are on the cutting edge of PCa technology and
finding things out daily. These people aren't frustrated - their
excited. They all state we are close to beating PCa and it could
happen at any time - and when it does they won't be surprised. The cure
is coming folks and it could be here as you read this.

Remember, friends, its about hope. You have to have hope. Hope is a
good thing, maybe the best of things. And no good thing never dies.

10,000/10 years,no. 1 day - 1 treatment/drug, a cure, yes.

Dave P


I.P. Freely wrote:
> callalily wrote:
> > And I don't know why you are so motivated to tell me and the other
> > people here that a promising new treatment won't work for them.
>
> Without even following the thread, I can think of three answers right
> off the bat:
>
> 1. Even in just the 30 months I've been reading about PC, I've seen MANY
> "cures" and promises thereof for what ails us. We'll believe it when we
> see it proved in studies of 10,000 men over a decade. Until then it's
> mostly just more snake oil, worth consideration only if it's proved
> harmless . . . which, or course, takes 10,000 men and 10 years. The guys
> and their gals who have been here for 12 years are far more cynical than
> I, for good reason.
>
> 2. Bill's as sharp as a penile injection needle. If he saw something in
> the plan that precludes its utility to most of us, I'll take his word
> for it and spend my time on something more promising (or fun). Even if
> he's ultimately proved wrong in early large-scale testing, the procedure
> will still not be widely available until long after that, so no harm, no
> foul, no wasted treatment opportunities. Debating hypothetical
> treatments is masturbatory and full of undeliverable promises, much like
> many of us will be until we DO find the right ED therapy.
>
> 3. If it actually worked and was readily available, it would be
> headlines shouted from rooftops and bedrooms. Until then, it's just
> another wild idea that may be of use to our sons.
>
> I.P.

[Bill]

"Bill's as sharp as a penile injection needle."

I.P., [I think] my mother would be proud ... but if she were alive I
still don't think I'd tell her that! :-) Thanks.

I also think there is great promise w/ gene therapy - for lots of
conditions - not to mention stem cell research, but, yes, this one is a
long way off even if it works for us. They finished the Phase 1 trial
w/ 6, count 'em, 6 men. 3 dose levels, all safe. FWIW only 1 of the 6
got any benefit, but the dose was probably too low. W/ our FDA I'd say
the chance of seeing this in clinical use in 5 years is not great.

Bill Denton
RP 2/12/02
PSA 1.10
Memphis

[dave perry]

I've worked in research centers and for many years I was at a facility
that fed at the public trough and I've been witness to the excited
frenzy you describe as far back as forty years ago. I hope the
excitement you saw is truly warranted but I've seen too much excitement
expressed mostly to promote stock sales or to attain government and
private grants. Who's going to give money to someone or buy stock in a
company that says "Well, we're working on it but it might not happen in
our lifetimes." Certainly the paths they're on using genes, stem
cells, and smart bombs that target only bad cells are promising ways to
go and I wish them well both for my future and the future of all
victims of these diseases, but we have all heard the phrase "we are
close to beating ...." many times during the last four decades.
Dave Perry
Dave P wrote:
> Of course Gene Therapy will one day work. So will vaccines as well 3-5
> other treatments to prevent and destroy PCA.
>
> Have any of you visited a research center, university or Bio Tech firm
> recently. I have. We are on the cutting edge of PCa technology and
> finding things out daily. These people aren't frustrated - their
> excited. They all state we are close to beating PCa and it could
> happen at any time - and when it does they won't be surprised. The cure
> is coming folks and it could be here as you read this.
>
> Remember, friends, its about hope. You have to have hope. Hope is a
> good thing, maybe the best of things. And no good thing never dies.
>
> 10,000/10 years,no. 1 day - 1 treatment/drug, a cure, yes.
>
> Dave P
>
>
> I.P. Freely wrote:
> > callalily wrote:
> > > And I don't know why you are so motivated to tell me and the other
> > > people here that a promising new treatment won't work for them.
> >
> > Without even following the thread, I can think of three answers right
> > off the bat:
> >
> > 1. Even in just the 30 months I've been reading about PC, I've seen MANY
> > "cures" and promises thereof for what ails us. We'll believe it when we
> > see it proved in studies of 10,000 men over a decade. Until then it's
> > mostly just more snake oil, worth consideration only if it's proved
> > harmless . . . which, or course, takes 10,000 men and 10 years. The guys
> > and their gals who have been here for 12 years are far more cynical than
> > I, for good reason.
> >
> > 2. Bill's as sharp as a penile injection needle. If he saw something in
> > the plan that precludes its utility to most of us, I'll take his word
> > for it and spend my time on something more promising (or fun). Even if
> > he's ultimately proved wrong in early large-scale testing, the procedure
> > will still not be widely available until long after that, so no harm, no
> > foul, no wasted treatment opportunities. Debating hypothetical
> > treatments is masturbatory and full of undeliverable promises, much like
> > many of us will be until we DO find the right ED therapy.
> >
> > 3. If it actually worked and was readily available, it would be
> > headlines shouted from rooftops and bedrooms. Until then, it's just
> > another wild idea that may be of use to our sons.
> >
> > I.P.

[Dave P]

I agree. I have heard them also.

I do have hope that something better is on it's way.

Dave P

dave perry wrote:
> I've worked in research centers and for many years I was at a facility
> that fed at the public trough and I've been witness to the excited
> frenzy you describe as far back as forty years ago. I hope the
> excitement you saw is truly warranted but I've seen too much excitement
> expressed mostly to promote stock sales or to attain government and
> private grants. Who's going to give money to someone or buy stock in a
> company that says "Well, we're working on it but it might not happen in
> our lifetimes." Certainly the paths they're on using genes, stem
> cells, and smart bombs that target only bad cells are promising ways to
> go and I wish them well both for my future and the future of all
> victims of these diseases, but we have all heard the phrase "we are
> close to beating ...." many times during the last four decades.
> Dave Perry
> Dave P wrote:
> > Of course Gene Therapy will one day work. So will vaccines as well 3-5
> > other treatments to prevent and destroy PCA.
> >
> > Have any of you visited a research center, university or Bio Tech firm
> > recently. I have. We are on the cutting edge of PCa technology and
> > finding things out daily. These people aren't frustrated - their
> > excited. They all state we are close to beating PCa and it could
> > happen at any time - and when it does they won't be surprised. The cure
> > is coming folks and it could be here as you read this.
> >
> > Remember, friends, its about hope. You have to have hope. Hope is a
> > good thing, maybe the best of things. And no good thing never dies.
> >
> > 10,000/10 years,no. 1 day - 1 treatment/drug, a cure, yes.
> >
> > Dave P
> >
> >
> > I.P. Freely wrote:
> > > callalily wrote:
> > > > And I don't know why you are so motivated to tell me and the other
> > > > people here that a promising new treatment won't work for them.
> > >
> > > Without even following the thread, I can think of three answers right
> > > off the bat:
> > >
> > > 1. Even in just the 30 months I've been reading about PC, I've seen MANY
> > > "cures" and promises thereof for what ails us. We'll believe it when we
> > > see it proved in studies of 10,000 men over a decade. Until then it's
> > > mostly just more snake oil, worth consideration only if it's proved
> > > harmless . . . which, or course, takes 10,000 men and 10 years. The guys
> > > and their gals who have been here for 12 years are far more cynical than
> > > I, for good reason.
> > >
> > > 2. Bill's as sharp as a penile injection needle. If he saw something in
> > > the plan that precludes its utility to most of us, I'll take his word
> > > for it and spend my time on something more promising (or fun). Even if
> > > he's ultimately proved wrong in early large-scale testing, the procedure
> > > will still not be widely available until long after that, so no harm, no
> > > foul, no wasted treatment opportunities. Debating hypothetical
> > > treatments is masturbatory and full of undeliverable promises, much like
> > > many of us will be until we DO find the right ED therapy.
> > >
> > > 3. If it actually worked and was readily available, it would be
> > > headlines shouted from rooftops and bedrooms. Until then, it's just
> > > another wild idea that may be of use to our sons.
> > >
> > > I.P.

[callalily]

Dear IP:

I.P. Freely wrote:
>
> Without even following the thread, I can think of three answers right
> off the bat:

Would you, as a soldier, go into battle without a gun or a helmet? I
think not.

So I don't think you should comment on anything you haven't read --
you're just not equipped to. Or, using the above analogy, you're
jumpin' into this little skirmish "buck nekkid."

> 1. Even in just the 30 months I've been reading about PC, I've seen MANY
> "cures" and promises thereof for what ails us. We'll believe it when we
> see it proved in studies of 10,000 men over a decade. Until then it's
> mostly just more snake oil

If you don't want to read any of these posts you don't have to. I
usually skip over them myself unless something catches my attention.
The fact that a lot of this stuff won't pan out doesn't mean you should
throw out the baby with the bathwater. Every useful treatment we now
have started out as somebody's "snake oil."

> 2. Bill's as sharp as a penile injection needle. If he saw something in
> the plan that precludes its utility to most of us, I'll take his word
> for it and spend my time on something more promising (or fun).

Based on his previous posts I think Bill is both sensible and "sharp"
but that doesn't mean he's inphallible. Nobody is. You have a good
brain, too, IP, but it seems that most of the time you're just showing
us your sharp tongue.

Debating hypothetical treatments is masturbatory . . .

I agree with you and that's why I was surprised that somebody would
choose to pick apart something of this sort that I'd posted when there
was nothing obviously sleazy about it.
>
> 3. If it actually worked and was readily available, it would be
> headlines shouted from rooftops and bedrooms. Until then, it's just
> another wild idea that may be of use to our sons.

Nobody said it worked and that it was readily available. You don't
have to be a Pollyanna but you're doing yourself a disservice to assume
there's nothing being worked on now that can have an effect on your own
life. Chances are something will work out. And negativity doesn't
help the immune system.

Leah

[I.P. Freely]

callalily wrote:
> Dear IP:
>
> I.P. Freely wrote:
>> Without even following the thread, I can think of three answers right
>> off the bat:
>
> Would you, as a soldier, go into battle without a gun or a helmet? I
> think not.
>
> So I don't think you should comment on anything you haven't read --
> you're just not equipped to. Or, using the above analogy, you're
> jumpin' into this little skirmish "buck nekkid."

Oh. And you have prostate cancer?

You asked a question. I offered some possible answers. If you keep
following Mary's lead and personally criticizing people who respond to
your questions, your responses will dwindle to zip.

> If you don't want to read any of these posts you don't have to.

Didn't say I hadn't read any of them, just that I hadn't followed the
thread.

> I usually skip over them myself unless something catches my attention.

But that's not OK for me?

> The fact that a lot of this stuff won't pan out doesn't mean you should
> throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I'm throwing out nothing. I'm just offering reasons why Bill -- and many
of the rest of us -- don't get EXCITED about new tx ideas at the idea
stage.

> I was surprised that somebody would
> choose to pick apart something of this sort that I'd posted when there
> was nothing obviously sleazy about it.

And who said there was? We just try to be objective, that includes
examining things closely. Bill knows far, FAR more about PC than I -- or
you -- so when he says some idea doesn't fly, I'll accept that until it
becomes a decision factor down the road. Anything offered in any forum
is by definition fair game for dissection and analysis, and that goes
double for treatment ideas offered to a cancer forum. We don't TAKE it
personally, and most of us don't GET personal about it.

> you're doing yourself a disservice to assume there's nothing being
> worked on now that can have an effect on your own life.

I have NO idea where you got that idea from. In fact I just listed three
promising new technologies last week with their potential fruition
timetables of 2, 5 and 7 years -- soon enough to help many of us. Leah,
if you'd concentrate more on the MESSAGES posted here and less on the
MESSENGERS, you'd encounter less opposition.

> negativity doesn't help the immune system.

Objectivity is not negativity.

I.P.