Results 1 to 5 of 5
Nanobees
  1. #1
    Toady Lickspittle Guest

    Default Nanobees


    Watching a Nova rerun last night, I saw an interesting
    feature on nanobees. They seemed to say there would soon be
    clinical trials in the works, but searching the usual links
    didn't turn up any that I could find.

    Is anyone familiar with this approach to killing prostate
    cancer cells? Nova certainly made it seem like a magic
    bullet.

    I did a cursory search for it on previous posts here, but
    again turned up nothing.

    Thanks,

    Toady

  2. #2
    Alan Meyer Guest

    Default Re: Nanobees

    On 01/28/2011 11:03 AM, Toady Lickspittle wrote:
    >
    > Watching a Nova rerun last night, I saw an interesting
    > feature on nanobees. They seemed to say there would soon be
    > clinical trials in the works, but searching the usual links
    > didn't turn up any that I could find.
    >
    > Is anyone familiar with this approach to killing prostate
    > cancer cells? Nova certainly made it seem like a magic
    > bullet.
    >
    > I did a cursory search for it on previous posts here, but
    > again turned up nothing.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Toady


    I just found a useful web page describing them at the National Cancer
    Institute:

    http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/servi...ances/nanobees

    I haven't seen the Nova show. The NCI article indicates that in the
    experiments "tumor growth was reduced by 25%" for breast cancer in mice
    and 87% for melanoma in mice. I don't know how to interpret that. Does
    it mean that tumors continued to grow 75% as fast as in untreated
    animals with breast cancer? Or does it mean there was a reduction in
    tumor size?

    In any case, I think the so-called "targeted" therapies have great
    promise, but it will take years to develop them. They are targeted in
    the sense that they deliver toxic cell killing poisons to the tumor
    cells rather than to all cells - which is what most chemotherapies do.

    The actual toxins delivered could be bee poison, as in this case,
    traditional chemotherapeutic agents, or even radioactive particles -
    which is what Alpharadin does. But for the concept to progress, a LOT
    more research is needed on targeting. We need techniques that can
    filter through 10^14 human cells to find the small fraction that are
    cancerous. We need them to avoid the healthy cells. We need them to be
    able to hold their poisons until they actually bind to the targeted
    cells and release the poisons into the targeted cells, not just in their
    vicinity. We need them to find most or all of the targeted cells, and
    not just a few of them. Rocket science is a piece of cake compared to this.

    But I think we (meaning the human community, not those of us old folks
    in this group) will get there someday. I have great faith in the power
    of science and the ability of smart people to figure things out.

    Who knows, maybe one of our granddaughters will develop this into a
    practical technology 40 years from today, saving a billion lives in the
    future.

    Alan

  3. #3
    williefromphillie is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1

    Default

    pfizer is testing a serum like injection in the last half of 2010 here in the US-----the results are very promising. W

  4. #4
    Toady Lickspittle Guest

    Default Re: Nanobees

    On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:01:36 -0500, Alan Meyer
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On 01/28/2011 11:03 AM, Toady Lickspittle wrote:
    >>
    >> Watching a Nova rerun last night, I saw an interesting
    >> feature on nanobees. They seemed to say there would soon be
    >> clinical trials in the works, but searching the usual links
    >> didn't turn up any that I could find.
    >>
    >> Is anyone familiar with this approach to killing prostate
    >> cancer cells? Nova certainly made it seem like a magic
    >> bullet.
    >>


    < with snips>

    >I just found a useful web page describing them at the National Cancer
    >Institute:
    >
    >http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/servi...ances/nanobees
    >
    >
    >In any case, I think the so-called "targeted" therapies have great
    >promise, but it will take years to develop them. They are targeted in
    >the sense that they deliver toxic cell killing poisons to the tumor
    >cells rather than to all cells - which is what most chemotherapies do.
    >
    >The actual toxins delivered could be bee poison, as in this case,
    >traditional chemotherapeutic agents, or even radioactive particles -
    >which is what Alpharadin does. But for the concept to progress, a LOT
    >more research is needed on targeting. We need techniques that can
    >filter through 10^14 human cells to find the small fraction that are
    >cancerous. We need them to avoid the healthy cells. We need them to be
    >able to hold their poisons until they actually bind to the targeted
    >cells and release the poisons into the targeted cells, not just in their
    >vicinity. We need them to find most or all of the targeted cells, and
    >not just a few of them. Rocket science is a piece of cake compared to this.
    >
    > Alan


    Thanks. I have been (albeit slowly) reading a lot of the
    messages from earler years here. I saw threads about "GVAX",
    which seems to be (have been?) another magic bullet along
    the lines of nanobees.

    Trying to follow up, I saw trials were to be held at
    Hopkins:

    http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/kimmel_cancer_center/

    Pretty sparce coverage there, except for one stunning
    success with a lady and her pancreatic cancer.

    Then, everything seems to die out with this news blurb:

    http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....052&highlight=

    Tiny url: http://tinyurl.com/6rxddj

    There, all seems canceled because of deaths, but the victims
    appear to be from GVAX combined with Taxotere, so I don't
    follow the logic. Am I reading it wrong, or was GVAX
    directly responsible for the failures?

    Has anyone been following GVAX since that time? Is such
    therapy a dead issue now?

    Sorry to be a pest with all this, but I am still relatively
    uninformed on matters, compared with most of you.

    Toady

  5. #5
    Alan Meyer Guest

    Default Re: Nanobees

    On 01/31/2011 11:17 AM, Toady Lickspittle wrote:

    >...
    > Then, everything seems to die out with this news blurb:
    >
    > http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....052&highlight=
    >
    > Tiny url: http://tinyurl.com/6rxddj
    >
    > There, all seems canceled because of deaths, but the victims
    > appear to be from GVAX combined with Taxotere, so I don't
    > follow the logic. Am I reading it wrong, or was GVAX
    > directly responsible for the failures?
    >
    > Has anyone been following GVAX since that time? Is such
    > therapy a dead issue now?

    ....

    I haven't followed GVAX and don't know anything about it. From looking
    at the URL you posted it appears that the trial results were worse than
    disappointing. I have no doubt that the company did try to figure out
    what went wrong, but I imagine that they limited their efforts. No one
    wants to spend millions of dollars on post mortems for a drug that
    doesn't look good. They preferred to spend their money on research that
    looks better.

    However, immunotherapy is hardly dead. Provenge is a "cancer vaccine".
    More are under development.

    Alan

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28