Thread: My “Eureka” moment. A cure for cancer.

Suggesting a scientific approach and method for the medical treatment of tumorous cancer.

Summary

A scientific approach and method for the medical treatment and cure for tumorous cancer disease is suggested and described.

The desired performance characteristics of suitable types of biological agents and pharmaceutical drugs and an appropriate method of employing those agents and drugs for the treatment and cure of cancer is described.

Caution

Neither the selection of specific agents and drugs, nor the determination of the optimal treatment regimes are described herein because the details for how best to implement the author’s general approach and method to cure cancer still require further research by the scientific and medical community which it is hoped this scientific paper will inform and inspire.

So the reader should be cautioned that the author does not herein publish detailed suggestions for oncologists to prescribe for their cancer patients which pills to pop when. The author is a scientist who is trying to find a cure for everyone one day, not a doctor who can cure someone today.

Invitation to informed discussion

This is claimed to be a realistic scientific paper, not a snake-oil-style cure-all claim. This may not be obvious to everyone because I am an amateur independent scientist, neither employed as a scientist, nor published in traditional scientific journals.

I have published widely on the internet on mostly non-scientific topics and I am accustomed to debating my ideas on-line and so I’m quite comfortable inviting replies perhaps as helpful comments and criticisms from fellow scientists and I can also take questions from any cancer specialists, doctors or other informed parties who take an educated interest in such matters.

Approach and method

One type of biological agent and 3 types of drugs are utilised in 2 distinct treatment phases, perhaps with an intermission between phase 1 and phase 2 of the treatment to review that the goals of phase 1 treatment have been reached before moving on to phase 2.

Treatment Phase 1

It is proposed that phase 1 use a mild anaerobic biological agent (with the suggestion that this is mostly likely to be a selection of a mild, treatable, non-drug-resistant anaerobic bacteria, sourced from a well-characterised laboratory specimen) with which the cancer patient is purposefully infected and 1 type of drug, matched to be a known effective treatment capable in high doses of eliminating the selected bio-agent from the body or in small doses to moderate the intensity of the infection.

During phase 1 treatment, after purposeful infection with the known mild anaerobic bio-agent, the anti-bio-agent drug is administered but only sufficiently to moderate and limit the intensity and systemic effects of the intended mild infection on the patient yet not overly administered to the point that the bio-agent is destroyed in-vivo before it has it has completed the designed treatment objectives of phase 1 treatment.

In phase 1 of treatment, the expectation would be that the patient’s own immune response will be fighting the bio-agent and so the course of the infection must be monitored and bio-agent and drug doses continuously adjusted to maintain a mild infection.

The objectives of phase 1 treatment

The bio-agent is selected with intention that the infection should establish itself in any anaerobic cores of cancer tumours and be supervised there while the infection attacks and in due course kills those cancerous body cells in any and all anaerobic tumour cores in the patient’s body.

The mild anaerobic bio-agent is selected and managed in-vivo so that it cannot be active, only dormant, in most of the aerobic environments of the body which are routinely supplied with oxygen via the blood, and so an appropriate selection and controlled bio-agent should not harm typical body cells so long as the infection is constrained to be mild with limited systemic effects on the body.

The selected bio-agent is not intended to harm those cancer cells which are growing and dividing in an aerobic environment whether in peripheral parts of all tumours or in aerobic tumour cores which are have grown their own blood supply vessels.

The dangers of a failed phase 1 treatment

Too much bio-agent

Inappropriate selection of a drug-resistant bio-agent, neglecting to moderate the intensity of the infection with sufficient drugs or a patient’s weak immune system failing to eliminate the infection at the conclusion of phase 1 of treatment could lead to a run-away infection causing serious and life-threatening infection or death.

Too little bio-agent

Administering insufficient bio-agent, over-use of drugs or a particularly active immune system could lead to the bio-agent failing to establish itself in all anaerobic tumour cores and a failed attempted phase 1 treatment leaving viable anaerobic tumour cores which would inevitably wreck the hopes for a successful outcome to any attempted phase 2 treatment.

Treatment phase 2

It is proposed that two types of pharmaceutical drug are employed in phase 2 treatment and let’s call them type H drugs ("H" for “Halt cell division!” ) and Type K drugs ("K" for “Kill diving cells”).

Type H drugs - Halt cell division!

At this time, the author does not know if type H drugs are ever used in medicine or indeed are even yet known to medical or biological science. However, this author does not want to wait for that research to be done but rather feels that a “Eureka” moment must be seized and acted upon and the time to publish is now.

Administered on their own, type H drugs are apparently useless medically and apparently harmful so such type H drugs may not have been developed and produced for medical purposes and so may never be available to use medically until someone explains what such drugs could be used for. One of the main points of this paper is to make the case for producing type H drugs so that if they are not now available, the pharmaceutical industry can get busy making them available! What is described here is what H-type drugs are supposed to be able to do.

Type H-drugs utilise and are intended temporarily to saturate the normal cell-signalling pathways which instruct normal cells not to divide. Normal cells with the exception of cancer cells pay heed to such cell to cell signals and it is the defining characteristic of a cancer cell that it ignores such signals not to divide and keeps on dividing regardless.

The purpose of administering a H-type drug is to temporarily overload the normal signals and order an artificial system-wide cessation of all normal cell division in the body. Accordingly, normal cells which frequently divide - skin cells, intestinal wall cells, immune response cells, bone marrow cells, reproductive organ cells etc are tricked into stopping dividing temporarily, so long as the H-type drug is administered.

Type-H drugs operate in a pharmaceutically reversible way and when the H-type drug clears from the body then the normal body cells which have dutifully followed the artificial signals and temporarily ceased dividing then go back to their normal operation without any permanent damage to the cell.

Clearly, the administration of type-H drugs weakens the body systematically which depends on routine cell division and for so long as type H remains in-vivo then harm to the body’s health will accumulate.

Type-H drugs don’t do the body any good on their own. Not only that, but for the purpose of treating cancer, type-H drugs do nothing directly to cancer cells either which are oblivious to the cell signalling pathways which type-H drugs are designed to stimulate.

Type K drugs - Kill dividing cells

In order to understand the utility of type-H drugs one has to consider their medical use in conjunction with Type K ( “Kill dividing cells” ) drugs. Type K drugs are known to medical science. They have been used to try to treat cancer but the problem with them is that they tend to kill all dividing cells, not just cancer cells.

OK, well the smarter reader will see by now where we are going with Type H drugs. After administration of a Type H drug which suspends normal cell division but does not affect cancer cell division, the administration of the Type K drug is now a no-brainer. The dividing cancer cells get killed by the Type K drug. The normally dividing cells don’t get killed by the Type K drug because they are no longer dividing thanks to the administration of the Type H drug.

After the dividing cancer cells have died all that remains to be done is to clear the Type K drug from the body while the Type H drug is still in operation. Then later it is safe to discontinue the Type H drug at which point the body will resume normal cell division, free from cancer.

The dangers of a failed phase 2 treatment

The patient will be rendered vulnerable to infectious disease because of the predictable effect of the Type H drug which will prevent parts of the immune system from responding to infections. Worse case of course is that an opportunist infection may kill the patient.

If the Type H drug is not as effective as intended, if the dose is too low, if it is too quickly cleared from the body then the Type K drug will kill normally dividing body cells as well which cripple multiple body functions which depend on dividing cells and worst case kill the patient.

Without a successful phase 1 treatment which has previously killed anaerobic tumour cores, phase 2 treatment will only kill cancer cells dividing in aerobic environments leaving any and all remaining viable anaerobic tumour cores to provide an inexhaustible supply of cancer cells into the aerobic parts of the body. Phase 2 on its own cannot cure cancer; only after a successful phase 1 can it do that.

Conclusion

The Type H drugs are the biggest uncertainly in the author’s mind but if they can be sourced and can work as described then conceptually this looks like an excellent scientific approach and method for the cure of tumorous cancers.

Credits

Thank you to all those from whom I have learned so much.

Dedication

This cure for cancer paper is dedicated to my mother who lives still and to the memory of all my friends and relatives who have died from cancer for whom this cure is too little and too late.

This cure for cancer paper is also dedicated to Condoleezza Rice who has inspired me to understand that I may not be able to control my circumstances as a scientist without employment as such but I can control how I react to my circumstances. Condi’s mother also died from cancer and she has participated in Race for the Cure events.



Prizes.

I do not want the Nobel Prize for Medicine or indeed any Nobel prize so long as Sweden remains governed as a kingdom. I want nothing from the Swedish King nor from any King nor Queen.

I am a republican and only wish to receive prizes, awards or recognition while living or posthumously from republics or at least from non “royal” institutions which find themselves in the unfortunate circumstance of operating as I do inside a country currently governed as a kingdom.

Are you using Diatomaceous Earth?

Sorry just got out of a thread with it, couldn't resist.

Given the extremely vague and general properties of your "cure", I don't think you have to worry about a bunch of liberal royals throwing money and trophies at you any time soon.

Cure for cancer:
1) Obtain a magic wand.
2) Wave it.
3) Make a wish.

Oh, PS: I don't want any particualr recognition for this, just lots of money.
And a big house with a swimming pool.
Near a Guinness brewery.
And a decent bookshop.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

It is proposed that phase 1 use a mild anaerobic biological agent (with the suggestion that this is mostly likely to be a selection of a mild, treatable, non-drug-resistant anaerobic bacteria, sourced from a well-characterised laboratory specimen) with which the cancer patient is purposefully infected and 1 type of drug, matched to be a known effective treatment capable in high doses of eliminating the selected bio-agent from the body or in small doses to moderate the intensity of the infection.

What are the genus and species name of this strain? And what is the chemical compound that has to be administrated?

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

It is proposed that two types of pharmaceutical drug are employed in phase 2 treatment and let’s call them type H drugs ("H" for “Halt cell division!” ) and Type K drugs ("K" for “Kill diving cells”).

By whom is it proposed?

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Type H-drugs utilise and are intended temporarily to saturate the normal cell-signalling pathways which instruct normal cells not to divide. Normal cells with the exception of cancer cells pay heed to such cell to cell signals and it is the defining characteristic of a cancer cell that it ignores such signals not to divide and keeps on dividing regardless.
The purpose of administering a H-type drug is to temporarily overload the normal signals and order an artificial system-wide cessation of all normal cell division in the body. Accordingly, normal cells which frequently divide - skin cells, intestinal wall cells, immune response cells, bone marrow cells, reproductive organ cells etc are tricked into stopping dividing temporarily, so long as the H-type drug is administered.

Yes, but what are the mechanisms behind the cessation of general cell division?

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Type-H drugs don’t do the body any good on their own. Not only that, but for the purpose of treating cancer, type-H drugs do nothing directly to cancer cells either which are oblivious to the cell signalling pathways which type-H drugs are designed to stimulate.

I cannot imagine that such a compound (if it exists) has medical and clinical significance:

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

One of the main points of this paper is to make the case for producing type H drugs so that if they are not now available, the pharmaceutical industry can get busy making them available!

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

In order to understand the utility of type-H drugs one has to consider their medical use in conjunction with Type K ( “Kill dividing cells” ) drugs. Type K drugs are known to medical science. They have been used to try to treat cancer but the problem with them is that they tend to kill all dividing cells, not just cancer cells.

[Citation needed]

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

After administration of a Type H drug which suspends normal cell division but does not affect cancer cell division, the administration of the Type K drug is now a no-brainer. The dividing cancer cells get killed by the Type K drug. The normally dividing cells don’t get killed by the Type K drug because they are no longer dividing thanks to the administration of the Type H drug.

After the dividing cancer cells have died all that remains to be done is to clear the Type K drug from the body while the Type H drug is still in operation. Then later it is safe to discontinue the Type H drug at which point the body will resume normal cell division, free from cancer.

And what is the name of this Type K drug?

At this time, the author does not know if type H drugs are ever used in medicine or indeed are even yet known to medical or biological science. However, this author does not want to wait for that research to be done but rather feels that a “Eureka” moment must be seized and acted upon and the time to publish is now.

It seems that the proposal boils down to 'we do all this with unknown and undeveloped compounds. Here's the idea, now develop what's needed.'

Not much different than 'and here a miracle happens'.

Prizes.

I do not want the Nobel Prize for Medicine or indeed any Nobel prize so long as Sweden remains governed as a kingdom. I want nothing from the Swedish King nor from any King nor Queen.

I am a republican and only wish to receive prizes, awards or recognition while living or posthumously from republics or at least from non “royal” institutions which find themselves in the unfortunate circumstance of operating as I do inside a country currently governed as a kingdom.

This strikes me as a self aggrandizing crank.

I have a better idea:
We give cancer patients a drug that cures them of cancer.

Unlike the previous visionaries in this thread, I DO want fame and riches.

I didn't know the Underpants Gnomes were moving into the pharmaceutical business.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

It is proposed that phase 1 use a mild anaerobic biological agent (with the suggestion that this is mostly likely to be a selection of a mild, treatable, non-drug-resistant anaerobic bacteria, sourced from a well-characterised laboratory specimen) with which the cancer patient is purposefully infected and 1 type of drug, matched to be a known effective treatment capable in high doses of eliminating the selected bio-agent from the body or in small doses to moderate the intensity of the infection.

What are the genus and species name of this strain? And what is the chemical compound that has to be administrated?

Thank you for the most detailed and serious response so far which I am giving priority to responding to your valid questions.

As I posted in my OP,

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Caution

Neither the selection of specific agents and drugs, nor the determination of the optimal treatment regimes are described herein because the details for how best to implement the author’s general approach and method to cure cancer still require further research by the scientific and medical community which it is hoped this scientific paper will inform and inspire.

So I am not even proposing a specific species of anaerobic micro-organism as "the best" pick of anaerobe, never mind the strain of species nor the best drug to administer to moderate the infection to a tolerably mild infection.

Your question I suggest is a vital and central research question which ought to have good answers for research scientists to determine.

For now I will simply note that over 99% of the bacteria in the gut are anaerobes

Now, not all will be natural bio-agents, performing a useful biological function for the host animal, but some will be.

Just because an anaerobic microorganism is not currently functioning as a natural bio-agent, but on occasion as a disease-causing organism, that doesn't mean it can't be conscripted to operate as an artificial bio-agent.

So the candidate species of anaerobes are out there. The subtlety will be in picking the most appropriate organism and strain of said organism to function as the best artificial bio-agent for this medical treatment. The bio-agent to select would be one from those which are strict or obligate anaerobes.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

It is proposed that two types of pharmaceutical drug are employed in phase 2 treatment and let’s call them type H drugs ("H" for “Halt cell division!” ) and Type K drugs ("K" for “Kill diving cells”).

By whom is it proposed?

By the author of this paper, this OP we are replying to, myself, Mr Peter Dow. I propose it right here and now. Sorry if my third person language threw you a bit there.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Type H-drugs utilise and are intended temporarily to saturate the normal cell-signalling pathways which instruct normal cells not to divide. Normal cells with the exception of cancer cells pay heed to such cell to cell signals and it is the defining characteristic of a cancer cell that it ignores such signals not to divide and keeps on dividing regardless.
The purpose of administering a H-type drug is to temporarily overload the normal signals and order an artificial system-wide cessation of all normal cell division in the body. Accordingly, normal cells which frequently divide - skin cells, intestinal wall cells, immune response cells, bone marrow cells, reproductive organ cells etc are tricked into stopping dividing temporarily, so long as the H-type drug is administered.

Yes, but what are the mechanisms behind the cessation of general cell division?

The mechanism proposed would be much the same mechanism that frequently dividing cells use to suspend dividing for a time, only the H drug would be designed or intended to usurp or overrule the natural divide-/don't-divide mechanism which controls the timing of cell division.

If there is such an H type drug known to science (but unknown to myself) then clearly it matters not so much what the mechanism is, since we'd already have the drug we need and exactly how it operated would be an interesting but academic question.

If however no such drug is currently known to science then it would indeed help the pharmaceutical industry tremendously to have a detailed knowledge of the mechanism of the control of cell division so that a drug could be designed to hijack the mechanism and switch normal cell division off.

So your question is indeed a valid question but it is not a question that I can answer.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Type-H drugs don’t do the body any good on their own. Not only that, but for the purpose of treating cancer, type-H drugs do nothing directly to cancer cells either which are oblivious to the cell signalling pathways which type-H drugs are designed to stimulate.

I cannot imagine that such a compound (if it exists) has medical and clinical significance:

It is precisely my point that your prejudice would be typical for the pharmaceutical industry which may be precisely the reason that such a compound has not been researched or produced. No-one yet, apart from myself, sees the use of such a drug.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

One of the main points of this paper is to make the case for producing type H drugs so that if they are not now available, the pharmaceutical industry can get busy making them available!

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

In order to understand the utility of type-H drugs one has to consider their medical use in conjunction with Type K ( “Kill dividing cells” ) drugs. Type K drugs are known to medical science. They have been used to try to treat cancer but the problem with them is that they tend to kill all dividing cells, not just cancer cells.

[Citation needed]

Wikpedia: Chemotherapy.

- the bit about "traditional chemotherapy" in the 2nd paragraph of the introduction. Do you need me to quote it in full?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

After administration of a Type H drug which suspends normal cell division but does not affect cancer cell division, the administration of the Type K drug is now a no-brainer. The dividing cancer cells get killed by the Type K drug. The normally dividing cells don’t get killed by the Type K drug because they are no longer dividing thanks to the administration of the Type H drug.

After the dividing cancer cells have died all that remains to be done is to clear the Type K drug from the body while the Type H drug is still in operation. Then later it is safe to discontinue the Type H drug at which point the body will resume normal cell division, free from cancer.

And what is the name of this Type K drug?

Oh I don't have a favourite Type K drug in mind. Any one of those classic chemotherapy drugs that do the killing-dividing-cells job would work well enough I believe. As to what's the best one to pick? Maybe the cheapest of them which will be one of those which is out of patent and so nowadays the drugs companies produce and sell relatively cheaply. The drugs companies can make their big profits on the new H type drug if that is required to be invented, discovered and produced as a new drug.

This seems like the classic having your plumber do your brain surgery.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Oh, PS: I don't want any particualr recognition for this, just lots of money.
And a big house with a swimming pool.
Near a Guinness brewery.
And a decent bookshop.

Wow, you want what I want. This is uncanny. I had to check whether my diary was missing. And indeed it was. Because I don't keep a diary. But if I did, that list would probably be in it.

I'm not going to waste time breaking down the post, but you're basically saying, "Create a microbe that kills cancer and give me credit."

I don't get the point of this thread.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I'm not going to waste time breaking down the post, but you're basically saying, "Create a microbe that kills cancer and give me credit."
I don't get the point of this thread.

I think he is expressing the revolutionary new idea that we should try to cure cancer with medicine.
The world will never be the same again.

As Alfred Wegner once said, when puzzled by the biogeographical diversity of life and placement of similar fossils on different continents, "Someone should figure this sh*t out. Where's my prize?"

Peter Dow, I applaud your effort and I'm sorry for the round dismissals it garnered. I think you'd better employ stealth, milking people with apparently isolated questions. Like, "Does anaerobic bacteria affect intestinal tumours in any way?" Build a private checklist. Then present larger components of your proposal, with peoples' own admissions for backup. Once you have people conceding "sure I said X and Y but I don't think YX..." your ideas will have their own momentum. Champions will arise.

The idea is already in the works and has been for a long while:

Engineering Trojan-horse bacteria to fight cancer

JG is right, so I reconsidered my post and decided to remove my commentary.

I actually had a mentally ill grandmother, so I don't find the video that funny.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

So I am not even proposing a specific species of anaerobic micro-organism as "the best" pick of anaerobe, never mind the strain of species nor the best drug to administer to moderate the infection to a tolerably mild infection.

Your question I suggest is a vital and central research question which ought to have good answers for research scientists to determine.

Genetic modifications of human gut bacteria (e.g. E. coli) might be a solution.
But despite the strain you are going to use, how is this strain going to "establish itself in any anaerobic cores of cancer tumours and be supervised there while the infection attacks and in due course kills those cancerous body cells in any and all anaerobic tumour cores in the patient’s body"?

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

It is precisely my point that your prejudice would be typical for the pharmaceutical industry which may be precisely the reason that such a compound has not been researched or produced. No-one yet, apart from myself, sees the use of such a drug.

There is no single trail of prejudice in my previous reply.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

- the bit about "traditional chemotherapy" in the 2nd paragraph of the introduction. Do you need me to quote it in full?

No, that is not necessary.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Oh I don't have a favourite Type K drug in mind. Any one of those classic chemotherapy drugs that do the killing-dividing-cells job would work well enough I believe. As to what's the best one to pick? Maybe the cheapest of them which will be one of those which is out of patent and so nowadays the drugs companies produce and sell relatively cheaply.

Which are these classic chemotherapy drugs?

jg is right so I removed my commentary.

Moderator Comment: Pong has offered useful advice. Cogito Ergo Sum is pursuing a reasoned line of questioning that should aid Peter in seeing weaknesses in his proposal. I request that other members refrain from hostile comments about the weight of the proposal and from further observations about Peter's political notions. We can take those aspects as read. Thank you.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Moderator Comment: Pong has offered useful advice. Cogito Ergo Sum is pursuing a reasoned line of questioning that should aid Peter in seeing weaknesses in his proposal. I request that other members refrain from hostile comments about the weight of the proposal and from further observations about Peter's political notions. We can take those aspects as read. Thank you.

I would be more inclined to agree if not for the post history of this particular member. Some of his stuff has been borderline crazy.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by John Galt

Moderator Comment: Pong has offered useful advice. Cogito Ergo Sum is pursuing a reasoned line of questioning that should aid Peter in seeing weaknesses in his proposal. I request that other members refrain from hostile comments about the weight of the proposal and from further observations about Peter's political notions. We can take those aspects as read. Thank you.

I would be more inclined to agree if not for the post history of this particular member. Some of his stuff has been borderline crazy.

That figures. If you google Peter Dow [no really: try it!] all sorts of very strange stuff appears. This person is, well, not exactly a shrinking violet, shall we say, in a number of aspects of life. I'm surprised he has time to find a cure for cancer.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I'm not going to waste time breaking down the post, but you're basically saying, "Create a microbe that kills cancer and give me credit."

I don't get the point of this thread.

You mean like this?

Doctors use engineered HIV to kill leukemia cells in child - Health - MiamiHerald.com

If this is what Dow is referring to. someone else already beat him to it and he will not be getting the credit.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by John Galt

Moderator Comment: Pong has offered useful advice. Cogito Ergo Sum is pursuing a reasoned line of questioning that should aid Peter in seeing weaknesses in his proposal. I request that other members refrain from hostile comments about the weight of the proposal and from further observations about Peter's political notions. We can take those aspects as read. Thank you.

I would be more inclined to agree if not for the post history of this particular member. Some of his stuff has been borderline crazy.

That figures. If you google Peter Dow [no really: try it!] all sorts of very strange stuff appears. This person is, well, not exactly a shrinking violet, shall we say, in a number of aspects of life. I'm surprised he has time to find a cure for cancer.

He's been very grandiose in his discussions on here about his public conduct. It's really a fairly entertaining read if you have nothing better to do.

OK, I know very little about cancer, and this post is all very vague, but if I understand the OP, the basic idea - (which by the way does not need two pages of self aggrandising pseudo scientific waffle to state - have a word with yourself) - is:

1. Stop all cells dividing.
2. The cancer cells will ignore this and continue dividing.
3. Apply drugs that kill dividing cells.

Have I got that right? (I didn't understand the bacteria/immune system bit).

So points 1. and 2. are a different idea to the present method of treating cancer, which is simply point 3; "kill all dividing cells", is it not? - via chemotherapy - which kills good cells too and therefore makes people very ill, and their hair fall out etc.

Assuming that appropriate drugs could be found; would this work?

What would the effect on the body be if one stopped all cells dividing - do some cells need to divide to maintain life, (for example red and white blood cells?), or can it be completely suspended for say a month or two?

Originally Posted by One beer

So points 1. and 2. are a different idea to the present method of treating cancer, which is simply point 3; "kill all dividing cells", is it not?

Modern drugs are generally far more targeted than that. (I think that may be another problem with the OP, it isn't clear he knows much about modern treatments for cancer nor the large amounts of research being carried out on different possible treatments.)

Every type of cancer is different.

Cancer isn't a single disease but a category of hundreds of diseases, there will never be a single cure for all cancers.

Each cancer we are faced with must be dealt with in a different way.

Originally Posted by Pong

Peter Dow, I applaud your effort and I'm sorry for the round dismissals it garnered.

Thank you and no need for you to be sorry.

Originally Posted by Pong

I think you'd better employ stealth, milking people with apparently isolated questions. Like, "Does anaerobic bacteria affect intestinal tumours in any way?" Build a private checklist. Then present larger components of your proposal, with peoples' own admissions for backup. Once you have people conceding "sure I said X and Y but I don't think YX..." your ideas will have their own momentum. Champions will arise.

Like I said in my OP.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

I have published widely on the internet on mostly non-scientific topics and I am accustomed to debating my ideas on-line and so I’m quite comfortable inviting replies

Though that doesn't mean that every reply will elicit a response from me.

I think a forum which is robust enough to tolerate non-stealthy debate is better than one which is too fragile to allow people to tell it like they see it.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

The idea is already in the works and has been for a long while:

Engineering Trojan-horse bacteria to fight cancer

Well one of the many ideas in my approach are "already in the works and has been for a long while"

Specifically this idea, from your linked to source -

A promising new strategy is to recruit anaerobic bacteria that preferentially colonize and proliferate in the hypoxic environment of tumors.

That is an old idea common to many approaches which differ a lot in other parts of their approaches.

That common idea as quoted is only perhaps half of the ideas in the phase 1 treatment of my approach.

Phase 1 itself contains at most only half of the ideas in my whole approach which describes a 2nd phase of treatment which would be necessary to complete a permanent cure in many types of cancers.

Well one of the many ideas in my approach are "already in the works and has been for a long while"

So your ideas aren't your's, and what you present is too vague have any value.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

I think a forum which is robust enough to tolerate non-stealthy debate is better than one which too fragile to allow people to tell it like they see it.

I quite heartily agree, within the context that people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.

And to be on-topic with the OP;

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

So I am not even proposing a specific species of anaerobic micro-organism as "the best" pick of anaerobe, never mind the strain of species nor the best drug to administer to moderate the infection to a tolerably mild infection.

Your question I suggest is a vital and central research question which ought to have good answers for research scientists to determine.

Genetic modifications of human gut bacteria (e.g. E. coli) might be a solution.

Indeed genetic modifications of human gut bacteria, or indeed the native gut bacteria as they come might be part of a solution though perhaps E. coli, as a facultative anaerobe, is not the best pick because any facultative anaerobe used for this could thrive outside the confines of the hypoxic environments of tumour cores to spread infection to the oxygenated rest of the body.

So you'd probably have to use so much anti-bio-agent drug to keep E. coli in check throughout the body that it would be too weak to do much in the tumour cores.

Instead, consider using the obligate anaerobes that are to be found in the human gut.

We should note that Wikipedia describes researchers using the obligate anaerobe gut bacteria Clostridium novyi.

Wikipedia - Experimental Cancer Treatments - Bacterial treatments

and in more detail here,

Clostridium novyi-NT - Potential Therapeutic Uses in Cancer

wherein research using a genetically modified "NT" strain is referenced.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

But despite the strain you are going to use, how is this strain going to "establish itself in any anaerobic cores of cancer tumours and be supervised there while the infection attacks and in due course kills those cancerous body cells in any and all anaerobic tumour cores in the patient’s body"?

Well the bio-agent needs to be injected into the body. Live bio-agents, such as bacteria, are opportunists so they will establish themselves to the maximum they can wherever they can so there should be no problem in getting the infection established in the tumours. The concerns would rather be not allowing the infection to become too quickly established and pose a threat to the patient's general health.

With my approach, the infection requires supervision and appropriate anti-bio-agent drugs administered to keep the systemic effects of the infection mild enough for the body to cope with.

So the supervision would be done by the doctor or specialist nurses most likely in a specialist ward of a hospital.

There will be a bit of a learning curve for the anti-cancer teams to adapt to using a live bio-agent as part of a treatment which doesn't have nearly as predictable a progress as a drug only regime, because bacteria can multiply very rapidly in a favourable environment and patients will have tumours of varying numbers and sizes so each patient will require individually tailored amounts of anti-bio-agent drug doses to match the course of the infection in their body.

So it is not as simple as popping a pill that's for sure.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

It is precisely my point that your prejudice would be typical for the pharmaceutical industry which may be precisely the reason that such a compound has not been researched or produced. No-one yet, apart from myself, sees the use of such a drug.

There is no single trail of prejudice in my previous reply.

There wasn't? Isn't this prejudging the utility of type H drugs?

I cannot imagine that such a compound (if it exists) has medical and clinical significance:

Well, shall we call it a failure of imagination, an inability to think out of the box or at least not to have got to this Eureka moment before I did?

Were people before Archimedes prejudiced about the scientific measuring utility of dunking things in water? Or did their imagination not see as far as Archimedes's, or was it simply that someone had to have that Eureka moment first and it happened to be Archimedes and no shame on those who came before him?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

- the bit about "traditional chemotherapy" in the 2nd paragraph of the introduction. Do you need me to quote it in full?

No, that is not necessary.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Oh I don't have a favourite Type K drug in mind. Any one of those classic chemotherapy drugs that do the killing-dividing-cells job would work well enough I believe. As to what's the best one to pick? Maybe the cheapest of them which will be one of those which is out of patent and so nowadays the drugs companies produce and sell relatively cheaply.

Which are these classic chemotherapy drugs?

Well I didn't have any particular chemotherapy drugs in mind. Wikipedia lists a number of common anti-cancer drugs in a table

Wikipedia: Chemotherapy - Treatment strategies

My guess is any one of those, or similar would do the type K drug job well enough.

I don't know the particulars of those drugs so I wouldn't be a position to recommend which would be best one to pick. The type K drug is not really the difficult part of the phase 2 drug treatment. The type K drug has a relatively easy job to do and we have plenty of drugs already that can do that.

The tricky part of phase 2 treatment will be sourcing suitable type H drugs.

Can I just add a bit more to what I said previously about the mechanism of action of type H drugs in reply to this -

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Type H-drugs utilise and are intended temporarily to saturate the normal cell-signalling pathways which instruct normal cells not to divide. Normal cells with the exception of cancer cells pay heed to such cell to cell signals and it is the defining characteristic of a cancer cell that it ignores such signals not to divide and keeps on dividing regardless.
The purpose of administering a H-type drug is to temporarily overload the normal signals and order an artificial system-wide cessation of all normal cell division in the body. Accordingly, normal cells which frequently divide - skin cells, intestinal wall cells, immune response cells, bone marrow cells, reproductive organ cells etc are tricked into stopping dividing temporarily, so long as the H-type drug is administered.

Yes, but what are the mechanisms behind the cessation of general cell division?

The mechanism proposed would be much the same mechanism that frequently dividing cells use to suspend dividing for a time, only the H drug would be designed or intended to usurp or overrule the natural divide-/don't-divide mechanism which controls the timing of cell division.

If there is such an H type drug known to science (but unknown to myself) then clearly it matters not so much what the mechanism is, since we'd already have the drug we need and exactly how it operated would be an interesting but academic question.

If however no such drug is currently known to science then it would indeed help the pharmaceutical industry tremendously to have a detailed knowledge of the mechanism of the control of cell division so that a drug could be designed to hijack the mechanism and switch normal cell division off.

So your question is indeed a valid question but it is not a question that I can answer.

Specifically the mechanisms behind the cessation of general cell division which the type H drugs must target are those which usually control cellular division of cells.

The type H drugs work by interfering with the control mechanisms which the body uses to stimulate or start cell division at certain times and under certain conditions and to suppress or stop cell division at other times and that interference would be designed to jam the control mechanism so as to stop cell division so long as the drug is in the body.

Many types of cancer cells divide regardless of the body's control mechanisms - such cancer cell division isn't started selectively so it can't be stopped either naturally by the body's control mechanisms or artificially by pharmaceutical drugs.

So I presume growth factor mechanisms would be suitable targets for targeting by the type H drugs.

Wikipedia: Growth factor

So for example, typical normal cells will wait for the appropriate growth factor to attach itself to the corresponding growth factor receptor on the cell's surface before initiating cell division.

Many types of cancer have cancer cells which will divide regardless of whether there is the appropriate growth factor attached to the cancer cell's corresponding growth factor receptor or not.

One obvious approach the drug developer could take would be to design a type H drug which mimics the growth factor receptor's shape and thus will selectively bind to the corresponding growth factor. If there is a lot more of the type H drug in the extra cellular fluid than there are cell growth factor receptors then the growth factor would be mopped up and leave none free in the extra cellular fluid to be available to bind to the cells' growth factor receptors, thus preventing normal cell growth from being initiated.

Originally Posted by One beer

OK, I know very little about cancer, and this post is all very vague, but if I understand the OP, the basic idea - (which by the way does not need two pages of self aggrandising pseudo scientific waffle to state - have a word with yourself) - is:

1. Stop all cells dividing.
2. The cancer cells will ignore this and continue dividing.
3. Apply drugs that kill dividing cells.

Have I got that right?

That's broadly the phase 2 treatment in a nutshell yes.

Originally Posted by One beer

(I didn't understand the bacteria/immune system bit).

Well that would be phase 1 of the treatment which involves sending a live bug medicine into the middle of cancer tumours that the phase 2 treatment can't reach. In beer terms think of Heineken Lager adverts claiming "to refresh the parts other beers cannot reach".

Originally Posted by One beer

So points 1. and 2. are a different idea to the present method of treating cancer, which is simply point 3; "kill all dividing cells", is it not? - via chemotherapy - which kills good cells too and therefore makes people very ill, and their hair fall out etc.

Yup, you've got it.

Originally Posted by One beer

Assuming that appropriate drugs could be found; would this work?

Yes.

Originally Posted by One beer

What would the effect on the body be if one stopped all cells dividing - do some cells need to divide to maintain life, (for example red and white blood cells?), or can it be completely suspended for say a month or two?

It depends on the type of cell. Some cells have relatively short life spans and need replenishing quickly if their job is to be done. On the other hand, some such frequently diving cells support functions that don't need to do their job all the time and the body can manage for a time without that particular organ being active.

For example, gut wall cells only live for a few days and so the gut wall would become very weak and unable to do its job safely within a few days without cell division but on the other hand, you don't need to eat every day - it is possible to starve yourself for days, maybe weeks, especially if you can drink fluids or have an intravenous drip with nutrients supplied that way.

So one could imagine doctors closing down the patient's digestive system for a longer time, using other drugs to stop acid secretion and sterilize the gut so that a weak gut wall would not be too much of a problem so long as appropriate medical management is given.

In the case of red blood cells they last on average of about 100 to 120 days so a month or two would be OK for those. However, white blood cells last from 6 to 16 days and I assume that they live a time which depends on how much infection fighting each cell has to do. On the other hand, if the patient is in a well managed sterile bubble in hospital then there's less of a chance of getting an infection and needing those white blood cells.

So you are right to be concerned about the dangers - it's not ideal by any means to shut down cell division but it would be worth it to beat cancer.

Originally Posted by mikema63

Every type of cancer is different.

Cancer isn't a single disease but a category of hundreds of diseases, there will never be a single cure for all cancers.

Each cancer we are faced with must be dealt with in a different way.

I haven't claimed that this approach would cure all cancers.

One limitation of the simple approach in phase 2 of shutting down all normal cell division in the body would be with those cancer types which are cancerous not so much because the cancer cells divide abnormally but because the cancer cells don't die or undergo programmed cell death called "apoptosis" normally and are abnormally immortal.

Such normally dividing but abnormally immortal cells would cease dividing if an all-body-tissue type H drugs dose was given and so such cancers wouldn't be killed by the K type drug and such a broad-brush approach wouldn't achieve the cure in phase 2, only the benefits of the treatment in phase 1.

However, it has recently occurred to me that there is still a prospect for a more customised version of my approach working even against many such normally dividing abnormally immortal cancers where the H type drugs comprise of a mixture of different type H drugs, one such type H drug for each tissue type of cell growth factor which needs to be shut down.

To beat the cancer of cells from tissue type X in a normally dividing abnormally immortal cell cancer, you'd omit the specific type H drug for the tissue type X growth factor from the type H drugs dose given to that patient and simply intend to kill all dividing cells of tissue type X, which would certainly cause damage to normal cells of tissue type X but maybe that again is a price worth paying to beat the cancer?

Again, the type H drugs are the biggest unknown at this point but I'd be hopeful that this approach could treat a very large number of cancers indeed, though I would never claim to be able to cure "all" cancers with this approach, no.

Do you have any suggestion for how any of these drugs should be created or administered?
Do you have any suggestions for which drugs to use?
Do you have any specifics?

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Do you have any suggestion for how any of these drugs should be created or administered?

Do you have any suggestions for which drugs to use?

Sure.

Well let's consider the drugs required.

Phase 1

The anti-bio-agent drug which would be a common antibiotic which is most effective against the selected bio-agent which in turn is selected so as to be easy to treat.

How Created? Hospitals have many available pharmaceutical suppliers for common antibiotics.
How Administered? I favour administering via intravenous drip because that can be quickly adjusted to suit the varying requirements of moderating the infection.

Phase 2

Type H drugs would have to be invented and created by pharmaceutical companies probably in association with universities and government and private medical research bodies.

How Created? New drug research and development by governments, universities and big pharmaceutical companies.
How Administered? How much and how frequently the type H drugs would require to be administered is a big unknown before the drugs have even been designed. Possibly given by intravenous injection.


Type K drugs which would be one selected from the commonly available anticancer chemotherapy drugs.

How Created? Hospitals have many available pharmaceutical suppliers for the common anticancer chemotherapy drugs
How Administered? Intravenous injection. Oral pills may not be suitable considering that the digestive tract will be out of commission due to the requirements of managing the effects of the H type drugs.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Do you have any specifics?

I am describing an approach and a general method to cure many cancers but as I said in the OP, I'm not able to be specific about which pill to pop when to cure cancer, no.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Do you have any suggestion for how any of these drugs should be created or administered?

Do you have any suggestions for which drugs to use?

Sure.

Well let's consider the drugs required.

Phase 1

The anti-bio-agent drug which would be a common antibiotic which is most effective against the selected bio-agent which in turn is selected so as to be easy to treat.

How Created? Hospitals have many available pharmaceutical suppliers for common antibiotics.
How Administered? I favour administering via intravenous drip because that can be quickly adjusted to suit the varying requirements of moderating the infection.

Phase 2

Type H drugs would have to be invented and created by pharmaceutical companies probably in association with universities and government and private medical research bodies.

How Created? New drug research and development by governments, universities and big pharmaceutical companies.
How Administered? How much and how frequently the type H drugs would require to be administered is a big unknown before the drugs have even been designed. Possibly given by intravenous injection.


Type K drugs which would be one selected from the commonly available anticancer chemotherapy drugs.

How Created? Hospitals have many available pharmaceutical suppliers for the common anticancer chemotherapy drugs
How Administered? Intravenous injection. Oral pills may not be suitable considering that the digestive tract will be out of commission due to the requirements of managing the effects of the H type drugs.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Do you have any specifics?

I am describing an approach and a general method to cure many cancers but as I said in the OP, I'm not able to be specific about which pill to pop when to cure cancer, no.

So, what are you "bringing to the table" then?
What new information do you have?

Your treatment seems to consist of using two drugs - which oncologists already use to treat cancer - and a third drug that doesn't yet exist.
The only novel aspect of your suggestion is the third drug, which is unknown.
I do not see much difference between your suggestion and "Treat cancer with drugs that kill cancer - but I don't know which drugs to use".

This is just plain insulting, rude, and without merit.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

So you'd probably have to use so much anti-bio-agent drug to keep E. coli in check throughout the body that it would be too weak to do much in the tumour cores.

Instead, consider using the obligate anaerobes that are to be found in the human gut.

We should note that Wikipedia describes researchers using the obligate anaerobe gut bacteria Clostridium novyi.

Wikipedia - Experimental Cancer Treatments - Bacterial treatments

and in more detail here,

Clostridium novyi-NT - Potential Therapeutic Uses in Cancer

wherein research using a genetically modified "NT" strain is referenced.

The C. novyi-NT seems to be a subject of extensive research. It is worth further investigation.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Well the bio-agent needs to be injected into the body. Live bio-agents, such as bacteria, are opportunists so they will establish themselves to the maximum they can wherever they can so there should be no problem in getting the infection established in the tumours. The concerns would rather be not allowing the infection to become too quickly established and pose a threat to the patient's general health.

With my approach, the infection requires supervision and appropriate anti-bio-agent drugs administered to keep the systemic effects of the infection mild enough for the body to cope with.

So the supervision would be done by the doctor or specialist nurses most likely in a specialist ward of a hospital.

There will be a bit of a learning curve for the anti-cancer teams to adapt to using a live bio-agent as part of a treatment which doesn't have nearly as predictable a progress as a drug only regime, because bacteria can multiply very rapidly in a favourable environment and patients will have tumours of varying numbers and sizes so each patient will require individually tailored amounts of anti-bio-agent drug doses to match the course of the infection in their body.

So it is not as simple as popping a pill that's for sure.

Is an (intravenous) injection a viable method to 'cure' all tumorous cancers? Or are there limitations?

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Specifically the mechanisms behind the cessation of general cell division which the type H drugs must target are those which usually control cellular division of cells.

The type H drugs work by interfering with the control mechanisms which the body uses to stimulate or start cell division at certain times and under certain conditions and to suppress or stop cell division at other times and that interference would be designed to jam the control mechanism so as to stop cell division so long as the drug is in the body.

Many types of cancer cells divide regardless of the body's control mechanisms - such cancer cell division isn't started selectively so it can't be stopped either naturally by the body's control mechanisms or artificially by pharmaceutical drugs.

So I presume growth factor mechanisms would be suitable targets for targeting by the type H drugs.

Wikipedia: Growth factor

So for example, typical normal cells will wait for the appropriate growth factor to attach itself to the corresponding growth factor receptor on the cell's surface before initiating cell division.

Many types of cancer have cancer cells which will divide regardless of whether there is the appropriate growth factor attached to the cancer cell's corresponding growth factor receptor or not.

One obvious approach the drug developer could take would be to design a type H drug which mimics the growth factor receptor's shape and thus will selectively bind to the corresponding growth factor. If there is a lot more of the type H drug in the extra cellular fluid than there are cell growth factor receptors then the growth factor would be mopped up and leave none free in the extra cellular fluid to be available to bind to the cells' growth factor receptors, thus preventing normal cell growth from being initiated.

Interesting idea. How were you planning to produce those artificial growth factor receptors? Via genetically engineered bacteria?

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Do you have any suggestion for how any of these drugs should be created or administered?

Do you have any suggestions for which drugs to use?

Sure.

Well let's consider the drugs required.

Phase 1

The anti-bio-agent drug which would be a common antibiotic which is most effective against the selected bio-agent which in turn is selected so as to be easy to treat.

How Created? Hospitals have many available pharmaceutical suppliers for common antibiotics.
How Administered? I favour administering via intravenous drip because that can be quickly adjusted to suit the varying requirements of moderating the infection.

Phase 2

Type H drugs would have to be invented and created by pharmaceutical companies probably in association with universities and government and private medical research bodies.

How Created? New drug research and development by governments, universities and big pharmaceutical companies.
How Administered? How much and how frequently the type H drugs would require to be administered is a big unknown before the drugs have even been designed. Possibly given by intravenous injection.


Type K drugs which would be one selected from the commonly available anticancer chemotherapy drugs.

How Created? Hospitals have many available pharmaceutical suppliers for the common anticancer chemotherapy drugs
How Administered? Intravenous injection. Oral pills may not be suitable considering that the digestive tract will be out of commission due to the requirements of managing the effects of the H type drugs.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Do you have any specifics?

I am describing an approach and a general method to cure many cancers but as I said in the OP, I'm not able to be specific about which pill to pop when to cure cancer, no.

So, what are you "bringing to the table" then?

What, one can't bring a new approach to the table?

Originally Posted by RedPanda

What new information do you have?

The approach outlined in my OP and elaborated upon in my subsequent posts.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Your treatment seems to consist of using two drugs - which oncologists already use to treat cancer - and a third drug that doesn't yet exist.

Well you are not summarizing my approach at all accurately.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

The only novel aspect of your suggestion is the third drug, which is unknown.

No, that's not the only novel aspect of my approach and it not a third "drug" but a third type of drug.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

I do not see much difference between your suggestion and "Treat cancer with drugs that kill cancer - but I don't know which drugs to use".

Well clearly there's too much information in my approach for you to absorb so quickly. I am guessing that medical science is not your particular area of scientific expertise?

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Well clearly there's too much information in my approach for you to absorb so quickly.

That has to be the funniest thing I have seen in a long time.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Originally Posted by RedPanda

What new information do you have?

The approach outlined in my OP and elaborated upon in my subsequent posts.

Your outline consists of:
Phase 1:

Using antibiotics (which are already used when treating cancer).

Phase 2:

Using an unknown drug.

Using chemotherapy (which is already used when treating cancer).

.
Have I missed out anything?
What else does your approach contribute other than "Using an unknown drug"?
Please be specific.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Your treatment seems to consist of using two drugs - which oncologists already use to treat cancer - and a third drug that doesn't yet exist.

Well you are not summarizing my approach at all accurately.

In what way is it not accurate?
Please be specific.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Originally Posted by RedPanda

The only novel aspect of your suggestion is the third drug, which is unknown.

No, that's not the only novel aspect of my approach and it not a third "drug" but a third type of drug.

Ok - so what else is novel apart from the use of a completely unknown third type of drug?
Please be specific.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Originally Posted by RedPanda

I do not see much difference between your suggestion and "Treat cancer with drugs that kill cancer - but I don't know which drugs to use".

Well clearly there's too much information in my approach for you to absorb so quickly. I am guessing that medical science is not your particular area of scientific expertise?

Do you have a medical degree then?

Well - whatever - you should easily be able to explain what new information you are providing, as it is definitely not a case of "too much information".
But please be specific.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

So you'd probably have to use so much anti-bio-agent drug to keep E. coli in check throughout the body that it would be too weak to do much in the tumour cores.

Instead, consider using the obligate anaerobes that are to be found in the human gut.

We should note that Wikipedia describes researchers using the obligate anaerobe gut bacteria Clostridium novyi.

Wikipedia - Experimental Cancer Treatments - Bacterial treatments

and in more detail here,

Clostridium novyi-NT - Potential Therapeutic Uses in Cancer

wherein research using a genetically modified "NT" strain is referenced.

The C. novyi-NT seems to be a subject of extensive research. It is worth further investigation.

It appears to be a strong candidate for a phase 1 treatment bio-agent but medical scientists need to keep our eyes on the big picture which must include a phase 2 treatment to deliver cures in most cases rather than just partial remissions caused by tumour reductions followed by relapses and even more tumours because the bio-agent can't kill growing and dividing cancer cells which are the most dangerous in the long term.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Well the bio-agent needs to be injected into the body. Live bio-agents, such as bacteria, are opportunists so they will establish themselves to the maximum they can wherever they can so there should be no problem in getting the infection established in the tumours. The concerns would rather be not allowing the infection to become too quickly established and pose a threat to the patient's general health.

With my approach, the infection requires supervision and appropriate anti-bio-agent drugs administered to keep the systemic effects of the infection mild enough for the body to cope with.

So the supervision would be done by the doctor or specialist nurses most likely in a specialist ward of a hospital.

There will be a bit of a learning curve for the anti-cancer teams to adapt to using a live bio-agent as part of a treatment which doesn't have nearly as predictable a progress as a drug only regime, because bacteria can multiply very rapidly in a favourable environment and patients will have tumours of varying numbers and sizes so each patient will require individually tailored amounts of anti-bio-agent drug doses to match the course of the infection in their body.

So it is not as simple as popping a pill that's for sure.

Is an (intravenous) injection a viable method to 'cure' all tumorous cancers? Or are there limitations?

I am struggling to grasp the context of your question. I appreciate you have quoted my text which also used the word "injection" but the method I have described is not at all adequately characterised by the words "an (intravenous) injection".

I haven't claimed that my approach would cure all tumorous cancers. Yes there are limitations of my approach but those would not be (as far as I can see at present) at all related to the method of introducing the bio-agents or drugs into the body for phase 1 treatment but maybe I haven't understood the context of your question?

What exactly is it you are asking about?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Specifically the mechanisms behind the cessation of general cell division which the type H drugs must target are those which usually control cellular division of cells.

The type H drugs work by interfering with the control mechanisms which the body uses to stimulate or start cell division at certain times and under certain conditions and to suppress or stop cell division at other times and that interference would be designed to jam the control mechanism so as to stop cell division so long as the drug is in the body.

Many types of cancer cells divide regardless of the body's control mechanisms - such cancer cell division isn't started selectively so it can't be stopped either naturally by the body's control mechanisms or artificially by pharmaceutical drugs.

So I presume growth factor mechanisms would be suitable targets for targeting by the type H drugs.

Wikipedia: Growth factor

So for example, typical normal cells will wait for the appropriate growth factor to attach itself to the corresponding growth factor receptor on the cell's surface before initiating cell division.

Many types of cancer have cancer cells which will divide regardless of whether there is the appropriate growth factor attached to the cancer cell's corresponding growth factor receptor or not.

One obvious approach the drug developer could take would be to design a type H drug which mimics the growth factor receptor's shape and thus will selectively bind to the corresponding growth factor. If there is a lot more of the type H drug in the extra cellular fluid than there are cell growth factor receptors then the growth factor would be mopped up and leave none free in the extra cellular fluid to be available to bind to the cells' growth factor receptors, thus preventing normal cell growth from being initiated.

Interesting idea.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

How were you planning to produce those artificial growth factor receptors? Via genetically engineered bacteria?

Oh I've not considered that as yet. The important task for me is to describe the function of those type H drugs and it is really a big task to get those who could produce new drugs, namely the pharmaceutical industry professionals, to want to produce them.

The task for medical scientists is to get big pharma to want to produce type H drugs. Once they want to do it, they'll find a way and they won't be in the least interested in my advice as regards to my plans for producing their new drugs.

To be pedantic about this, where you describe type H drugs as "artificial growth factor receptors" might be confusing to someone who hasn't understood the concept of type H drugs in detail. It's not the best use of language for clarity and getting people to understand this.

"Artificial growth factor blockers" would be a better description for type H drugs.

The type H drugs, whilst binding with growth factors in a biochemical manner which is very similar to how growth factor receptors bind with growth factors, nevertheless don't "receive" growth factors functionally, meaning they don't use the growth factor to grow cells. Rather, the bind of growth factor with the type H drug is antagonist to the growth factor's natural purpose to cause growth; functionally the drugs stop growth so "blocker" is a better word than "receptor".

The important task for me is to describe the function of those type H drugs

Total nonsense.

Here's an interesting link from 2005:

"A first-of-its-kind drug effectively targets a molecule that fuels cancer cells and shows promise for stopping the growth of tumors in their tracks. The drug, Sphingomab, may even completely wipe out some tumors -- all while leaving healthy tissue alone, early laboratory and animal studies show."

Novel Drug Stops Cancer Growth

(The article is quite specific.)

Moderator Request: phDemon and AlexG, if you have nothing useful to contribute to this thread then don't contribute anything to it. I refer you to my post, #23, earlier. As valued members of the forum I am confident you will wish to assist me in this matter. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

I am struggling to grasp the context of your question. I appreciate you have quoted my text which also used the word "injection" but the method I have described is not at all adequately characterised by the words "an (intravenous) injection".

I haven't claimed that my approach would cure all tumorous cancers. Yes there are limitations of my approach but those would not be (as far as I can see at present) at all related to the method of introducing the bio-agents or drugs into the body for phase 1 treatment but maybe I haven't understood the context of your question?

What exactly is it you are asking about?

You have stated that the bio-agent must be injected in the patient.
I was asking if injecting this into the cardiovascular system is an appropriate procedure for a wide variety of tumors.
I questioned if an injection would be effective, regardless of the type of tumor.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Originally Posted by RedPanda

What new information do you have?

The approach outlined in my OP and elaborated upon in my subsequent posts.

Your outline consists of:
Phase 1:

Using antibiotics (which are already used when treating cancer).

Phase 2:

Using an unknown drug.

Using chemotherapy (which is already used when treating cancer).

Not really. That's your "outline" not mine.

Your outline is, at best, a summary of my reply post #39 which was a reply to your question about the creation and administration of the drugs to be used and asking which drugs?

Your outline is, at worst, a poor summary of my reply post #39 degraded by substituting my words "type H" with the word "unknown" so as to avoid and to dismiss any further consideration of my OP's description of what the type H drugs' functional purpose is.

Either way, at best or worse, it's not remotely an outline of my approach.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Have I missed out anything?

Yes.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

What else does your approach contribute other than "Using an unknown drug"?

Please be specific.

Well try reading all the other words in my OP other than "the author does not know if type H drugs are ever used in medicine or indeed are even yet known to medical or biological science" and maybe you'll find out.

You could try reading what else the OP says about type H drugs.

Another specific example would be that your "outline" doesn't mention the bio-agent used in phase 1, which wasn't mentioned by me in post #39 because you hadn't asked about it.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Your treatment seems to consist of using two drugs - which oncologists already use to treat cancer - and a third drug that doesn't yet exist.

Well you are not summarizing my approach at all accurately.

In what way is it not accurate?
Please be specific.

My approach would involve using antibiotics to control an anti-cancer bio-agent but the use of any bio-agent, bacteria or whatever, is still an experimental anti-cancer treatment, as far as I know, not routinely used by oncologists today. Sure oncologists may well use antibiotics to control unwanted infection as any doctor typically would but not as per phase 1 of my approach.

My approach does not recommend there to be just a "third drug", not just one further single pharmaceutical chemical but rather the expectation as regards the use of type H drugs is that it is more likely to be the administration of a mixture of type H drugs. It's not inconceivable that one single drug may have utility to stop normal cell division everywhere in the body. Such a single drug would certainly be of interest but my guess would be that we are looking at a cocktail of H type drugs being required.

It is not accurate to summarize my approach by identifying the H type drugs as "doesn't exist yet". The OP names this class of drugs as "H type drugs" and H stands for "Halt cell division!", meaning they are drugs which halt normal cell division.

In a recent post, I suggested "artificial growth factor blockers" as a name which reveals more about the proposed biochemical mode of action of those drugs.

There are many ways to summarize the type H drugs which are helpful, useful and accurate but insisting on saying "unknown" / "does not exist" whilst this may be true - you don't know, medical science today may not know - it is not an accurate summary of my approach. It may be an accurate summary of your current very narrow view of H type drugs but it is not an accurate summary of my approach.

Treatments consist of more than the drugs used - they also consist of how and when those drugs are used, to what end - that's all a part of the treatment. Just naming the drugs doesn't summarize the treatment regime. I did that in my OP. You've never done that well.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Originally Posted by RedPanda

The only novel aspect of your suggestion is the third drug, which is unknown.

No, that's not the only novel aspect of my approach and it not a third "drug" but a third type of drug.

Ok - so what else is novel apart from the use of a completely unknown third type of drug?
Please be specific.

Perhaps the phasing of the treatments, phase 1 killing non-dividing cancer cells followed by phase 2 killing dividing cancer cells. That may not be entirely novel to every medical scientist - possibly you could find a google link to someone who has done that experimentally already but my hunch would be that such a 2 phase approach is new or fairly novel.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Originally Posted by RedPanda

I do not see much difference between your suggestion and "Treat cancer with drugs that kill cancer - but I don't know which drugs to use".

Well clearly there's too much information in my approach for you to absorb so quickly. I am guessing that medical science is not your particular area of scientific expertise?

Do you have a medical degree then?

No. I have a computer science degree from the University of Edinburgh in 1982. I did begin courses in medical science subsequently but didn't receive a degree level qualification in that.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Well - whatever - you should easily be able to explain what new information you are providing, as it is definitely not a case of "too much information".
But please be specific.

I have been specific about my approach but what is new does seem to be too much information for you to take in at once.

You don't seem to have grasped the concept of the phase 2 treatment in a back-of-the-envelope / in-a-nutshell way, as for example one beer has grasped the essence of the approach's phase 2.

Originally Posted by One beer

OK, I know very little about cancer, and this post is all very vague, but if I understand the OP, the basic idea - (which by the way does not need two pages of self aggrandising pseudo scientific waffle to state - have a word with yourself) - is:

1. Stop all cells dividing.
2. The cancer cells will ignore this and continue dividing.
3. Apply drugs that kill dividing cells.

Have I got that right? (I didn't understand the bacteria/immune system bit).

So points 1. and 2. are a different idea to the present method of treating cancer, which is simply point 3; "kill all dividing cells", is it not? - via chemotherapy - which kills good cells too and therefore makes people very ill, and their hair fall out etc.

Assuming that appropriate drugs could be found; would this work?

What would the effect on the body be if one stopped all cells dividing - do some cells need to divide to maintain life, (for example red and white blood cells?), or can it be completely suspended for say a month or two?

One beer "got it" in a way you don't seem to have and went on to ask a relevant question. Maybe you should ask him to explain it to you?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Given the extremely vague and general properties of your "cure", I don't think you have to worry about a bunch of liberal royals throwing money and trophies at you any time soon.

They gave Obama the Peace prize.

I asked you to be specific - but instead you continued to be vague.
You have provided nothing new.


Which kinds of treatments should be used? "bio-agent, bacteria or whatever"
You don't know.

Which specific drugs should be used? "Type H drugs" "Type K drugs"
You don't know.

Which specific bacteria should be used? "a selection of a mild, treatable, non-drug-resistant anaerobic bacteria, sourced from a well-characterised laboratory specimen"
You don't know.

What treatment regime should be used? "my guess would be that we are looking at a cocktail of H type drugs being required"
You don't know.


You have provided no specifics - all you have is hand-waving and wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

I am guessing that medical science is not your particular area of scientific expertise?

Do you have a medical degree then?

No. I have a computer science degree from the University of Edinburgh in 1982. I did begin courses in medical science subsequently but didn't receive a degree level qualification in that.

I am guessing that medical science is not your particular area of scientific expertise?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

I am struggling to grasp the context of your question. I appreciate you have quoted my text which also used the word "injection" but the method I have described is not at all adequately characterised by the words "an (intravenous) injection".

I haven't claimed that my approach would cure all tumorous cancers. Yes there are limitations of my approach but those would not be (as far as I can see at present) at all related to the method of introducing the bio-agents or drugs into the body for phase 1 treatment but maybe I haven't understood the context of your question?

What exactly is it you are asking about?

You have stated that the bio-agent must be injected in the patient.

Well it must be got into the patient somehow if it is going to do any good. It won't cure cancer sitting in vitro, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

I was asking if injecting this into the cardiovascular system is an appropriate procedure for a wide variety of tumors.

Yes I would have thought that's a reasonable default procedure; it's what to do if there wasn't an obvious better place to inject the bio-agent.

The plan with that is that the bio-agent would circulate around the bloodstream, kind of like millions of seeds floating down a river, and some would take root and begin to grow wherever they can, and with bio-agents which are obligate anaerobes that's only going to be somewhere hypoxic, hopefully as we plan in the hypoxic tumour cores but mindful that a live micro-organism will grow anywhere it can.

Are you inviting me to comment about alternative methods of introducing the bio-agent into the body? I've not given a lot of thought to that question but here's my first thoughts if you are interested.

Injecting the bio-agent directly into core of the the most convenient tumour? Well you could do that and it would be just as good a place if not better to introduce the bio-agent as a random vein in most cases I would have thought.

Asking the patient to swallow the bio-agent? The trouble with that is that the gut is excellent at keeping gut anaerobes confined. So that's no good.

Inhaling the bio-agent? That might be a suitable option if most of the tumours of concern were situated in the lung maybe. If it's a bio-agent which has been derived from a native species which is able to infect people by air-borne coughs and sneezes etc. then maybe.

I suppose if there was a brain tumour that didn't have a direct blood supply but was getting all its nutrients via the cerebrospinal fluid and there was a concern that the bio-agent or the anti-bio-agent antibiotic couldn't cross the blood / brain barrier then you could consider injecting into the cerebrospinal fluid as a better option for both bio-agent and anti-bio-agent anti-biotic as and when required.

In general tumours without a blood or equivalent supply bringing oxygen and nutrients to them will die of their own accord so the dangerous tumours are going to be ones with blood etc. supplies.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

I questioned if an injection would be effective, regardless of the type of tumor.

Well I would expect that the injection method would be as effective or more effective than other methods of introducing the bio-agent but really it's a question with a number of variables so I can't be completely certain about that in all cases. If you want to run an example by me then I can consider that.

Of course whether all types of tumour would be effected significantly or at all by phase 1 treatment is a different question.

Some tumours don't have hypoxic cores because they are too small or have grown their own blood vessels as quickly as they have grown themselves so haven't outgrown their blood supply and are getting all the oxygen they need and have no hypoxic areas within them.

The big limitation with anaerobic infections is that they don't effect the periphery or rim of any tumour because such areas are always well supplied with oxygen. Those areas of tumours, and for some tumours that means the whole of the tumour, are not targets for phase 1 treatment in this approach.

So long as we are only expecting phase 1 treatment goals from phase 1 treatment then I think the type of tumour, whether that be colon or kidney or liver or whatever, would not matter, could not invalidate injection as a suitable method of introducing the bio-agent.

I'm curious as to why you think injection as a particular mode of introducing the bio-agent could possibly impose a limitation to the effectiveness of this phase of treatment that isn't intrinsic to the fact of using a bio-agent? Is there some consideration I am missing here?

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Yes I would have thought that's a reasonable default procedure; it's what to do if there wasn't an obvious better place to inject the bio-agent.

The plan with that is that the bio-agent would circulate around the bloodstream, kind of like millions of seeds floating down a river, and some would take root and begin to grow wherever they can, and with bio-agents which are obligate anaerobes that's only going to be somewhere hypoxic, hopefully as we plan in the hypoxic tumour cores but mindful that a live micro-organism will grow anywhere it can.

Are you inviting me to comment about alternative methods of introducing the bio-agent into the body? I've not given a lot of thought to that question but here's my first thoughts if you are interested.

Injecting the bio-agent directly into core of the the most convenient tumour? Well you could do that and it would be just as good a place if not better to introduce the bio-agent as a random vein in most cases I would have thought.

Asking the patient to swallow the bio-agent? The trouble with that is that the gut is excellent at keeping gut anaerobes confined. So that's no good.

Inhaling the bio-agent? That might be a suitable option if most of the tumours of concern were situated in the lung maybe. If it's a bio-agent which has been derived from a native species which is able to infect people by air-borne coughs and sneezes etc. then maybe.

I suppose if there was a brain tumour that didn't have a direct blood supply but was getting all its nutrients via the cerebrospinal fluid and there was a concern that the bio-agent or the anti-bio-agent antibiotic couldn't cross the blood / brain barrier then you could consider injecting into the cerebrospinal fluid as a better option for both bio-agent and anti-bio-agent anti-biotic as and when required.

In general tumours without a blood or equivalent supply bringing oxygen and nutrients to them will die of their own accord so the dangerous tumours are going to be ones with blood etc. supplies.

When I read about your idea to inject it, I was thinking about specifically about brain tumors and the possible failure to deliver the substances to the brain tumor due to the blood/brain barrier. However, given the fact that you have also pointed it out and have proposed an alternative route (via the CSF), I cannot think of any other difficulties that might arise from injections.

In fact, I have run out of questions.

All this is beginning to make me puke.
I was diagnosed with cancer over 6 years ago (2007).
The hospital recommended prayer (2008).
Then it was implied that I only had so long as I had metastasis (2008).
Further I was told told it would be terminal (2010).
I have had quite a bit of treatment (hormones and radiotherapy).
No treatment now for over 2 years.

Guess what? I am writing this.
Could have died in the meantime of heart or stroke or whatever.

I am just off for a round of golf followed by a jog.

All I can say is trust the oncologists - but also do your bit if you get cancer.
And I did not pray...

I think the problem here, Peter is that in proposing a simple and possibly new (I don't know), methodology for treating cancer, which is possibly a very good idea, you have written it as though it was a scientific paper - i.e. full of facts and/or discoveries.

However; It isn't, and you haven't actually proposed what the drugs should be - but you never said you would or could - it is just the methodology you are suggesting?

I think I get where you are coming from, But having dressed it up in the way you have, and by your general style of using ten words where one would have done, you have confused people. Also, the way you have gone about this has led some people to think that you think you are cleverer than you are, if I can put it that way without meaning to be unkind.

A much simpler summary, (a bit like I did) of your proposal, and a question from you asking if anyone could see any pitfalls with your idea or knew of anything similar might have got you a better response on here. The bit about the Nobel prize and Sweden was a major miscalculation.

Regards,

OB.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

I asked you to be specific - but instead you continued to be vague.
You have provided nothing new.


Which kinds of treatments should be used? "bio-agent, bacteria or whatever"
You don't know.

Which specific drugs should be used? "Type H drugs" "Type K drugs"
You don't know.

Which specific bacteria should be used? "a selection of a mild, treatable, non-drug-resistant anaerobic bacteria, sourced from a well-characterised laboratory specimen"
You don't know.

What treatment regime should be used? "my guess would be that we are looking at a cocktail of H type drugs being required"
You don't know.


You have provided no specifics - all you have is hand-waving and wishful thinking.

It's an approach and a method. Like a building a tunnel under a river or channel and using it to cross is a different approach to crossing such as using ferries.

Someone proposes a different approach because he or she believes it is a better approach in some way.

Now, you can understand or misunderstand the approach, you can agree or disagree with it, in principle, or in practice.

But when someone proposes building a tunnel instead you ask - "Which specific tunnel boring machine should be used? You don't know."

The exact tunnel boring machine which is used doesn't invalidate the approach of deciding to build a tunnel and cross that way.

You are getting hung up on the details and misunderstanding that what is being proposed is a new approach and method to cure cancer.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

I am guessing that medical science is not your particular area of scientific expertise?

Do you have a medical degree then?

No. I have a computer science degree from the University of Edinburgh in 1982. I did begin courses in medical science subsequently but didn't receive a degree level qualification in that.

I am guessing that medical science is not your particular area of scientific expertise?

Well I'll leave history to judge that question.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Well I'll leave history to judge that question.

I thought history (or your university) had already judged that.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

But when someone proposes building a tunnel instead you ask - "Which specific tunnel boring machine should be used? You don't know."

The exact tunnel boring machine which is used doesn't invalidate the approach of deciding to build a tunnel and cross that way.

It might well do just that.

For example I could propose just building a tunnel through the Earth to the other side, then pumping all the air out. This method of transportation is 100% free - you just drop a capsule and it freefalls to the other side of the Earth with no energy expended. It would allow crossing the entire planet in 42 minutes with no energy expended, no surface space taken up, no air pollution, no anything.

If you don't want to go straight through you can curve the tunnel a bit. This requires some sort of guidance (say, a maglev working against the walls of the tunnel) but it's not a big deal, and you still need no energy other than the energy used to keep you away from the walls. In fact you can go from any point on the planet to any other point and it always takes approximately 42 minutes.

(I don't want a Nobel prize for this, BTW. But if you feel my solving the world's long distance transportation problem is worth something, I will accept honorariums in excess of $10K in a special fund I have set up.)

Now, you might object "but how do we dig a tunnel like this? Don't you have to go through the center of the Earth, which is very high pressure molten iron at almost 10,000 degrees F? There is no known technology that can do anything like that!"

Would such an objection be valid, in your opinion? Or is my fame and fortune being withheld unfairly?

<deleted>
billlvon's reply is much better.

Originally Posted by One beer

I think the problem here, Peter is that in proposing a simple and possibly new (I don't know), methodology for treating cancer, which is possibly a very good idea, you have written it as though it was a scientific paper - i.e. full of facts and/or discoveries.

However; It isn't,

Well I may well have discovered this new approach. Maybe someone discovered it before me, maybe not.

When Archimedes had his "Eureka" moment when in the bath he suddenly thought of how to measure the volume of a complicated shaped object by submerging it in water and measuring the water displaced, he had invented a way of doing something that was new and useful. He had discovered something in a moment, that he had been - and many other learned men and women of his age had been - thinking about for years.

Now he didn't present a scientific paper maybe but that didn't invalidate his discovery.

Originally Posted by One beer

and you haven't actually proposed what the drugs should be - but you never said you would or could - it is just the methodology you are suggesting?

I have proposed the function of a new class drugs of which can be manufactured which I've named Type H drugs that could be instrumental in curing cancer. I've also suggested pharmaceutical modes of action against cell growth factors and I've explained how those drugs would act together with conventional chemotherapy drugs to effect a permanent cure.

The selection of the other common drugs used in phase 1 and 2 is a trivial matter, though explaining the necessity for such a phased treatment approach is not trivial and again part of my approach to curing cancer.

Originally Posted by One beer

I think I get where you are coming from, But having dressed it up in the way you have, and by your general style of using ten words where one would have done, you have confused people. Also, the way you have gone about this has led some people to think that you think you are cleverer than you are, if I can put it that way without meaning to be unkind.

A much simpler summary, (a bit like I did) of your proposal, and a question from you asking if anyone could see any pitfalls with your idea or knew of anything similar might have got you a better response on here. The bit about the Nobel prize and Sweden was a major miscalculation.

Regards,

OB.

I may have discovered how to cure cancer. If so, that's valuable. That's worth a prize or two.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

I've discovered how to cure cancer.

So, if you had a medical facility and a patient with cancer - you could cure them?
No?
I thought not.

You have not discovered how to cure cancer.
You have merely said "Give them drugs that cure them of cancer".

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Well I'll leave history to judge that question.

I thought history (or your university) had already judged that.

A fictional story about Jesus.

Jesus after being convicted of blasphemy by the Jewish religious court, the Sanhedrin, and subsequently sentenced to death by crucifixion by the Roman governor Pilate was struggling his way along the Via Dolorosa carrying the heavy cross upon which he was soon to be crucified.

A young boy shouts out from the crowd to Jesus - "I'm guessing that divinity is not your area of expertise?".

Jesus replies, "Well I'll leave history to judge that question".

The boy replies, "I thought history (or the Sanhedrin) had already judged that".

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

I've discovered how to cure cancer.

So, if you had a medical facility and a patient with cancer - you could cure them?
No?
I thought not.

You have not discovered how to cure cancer.
You have merely said "Give them drugs that cure them of cancer".

If I had big pharma, a medical facility and patients with most common kinds of cancer (there are a few intractable kinds of cancer which this approach is not good against) - I believe that I could cure most of them, maybe all depending on what other complications they had. I mean if a patient has cancer and some other disease that means they are too fragile for my treatment then not then but otherwise, sure.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

I've discovered how to cure cancer.

So, if you had a medical facility and a patient with cancer - you could cure them?
No?
I thought not.

You have not discovered how to cure cancer.
You have merely said "Give them drugs that cure them of cancer".

If I had big pharma, a medical facility and patients with most common kinds of cancer (there are a few intractable kinds of cancer which this approach is not good against) - I believe that I could cure most of them, maybe all depending on what other complications they had. I mean if a patient has cancer and some other disease that means they are too fragile for my treatment then not then but otherwise, sure.

That confident, are you? Well, what are you waiting for? Contact somebody with your idea.

Exactly - if you are so confident of your claims why are you telling a science forum? Go to "Big Pharma" or better still have a look at this list of leading cancer hospitals world-wide who also have research units. They would love to hear from you. If you have any problems finding their contact details let me know - I am a whizz at information mining from the internet.

I will wait to see your name in next years Nobel listing......

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

When Archimedes had his "Eureka" moment

You mean when Archimedes famously said, "Hey guys, I've got an idea: if you, like, submerge something in something else, I'm sure you could do some math or something to work something out! Shit, I'm going to be famous for ever for this! I just need someone to work out the details...."

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Well I'll leave history to judge that question.

I thought history (or your university) had already judged that.

A fictional story about Jesus.

Jesus after being convicted of blasphemy by the Jewish religious court, the Sanhedrin, and subsequently sentenced to death by crucifixion by the Roman governor Pilate was struggling his way along the Via Dolorosa carrying the heavy cross upon which he was soon to be crucified.

A young boy shouts out from the crowd to Jesus - "I'm guessing that divinity is not your area of expertise?".

Jesus replies, "Well I'll leave history to judge that question".

The boy replies, "I thought history (or the Sanhedrin) had already judged that".

I'm sure there is a name for this sort of delusional behavior.

GO to STANFORD, UCSF, or JOHN HOPKINS for that matter! Put your proof in a place that can prove or disprove you.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Type H drugs - Halt cell division!

At this time, the author does not know if type H drugs are ever used in medicine or indeed are even yet known to medical or biological science. However, this author does not want to wait for that research to be done but rather feels that a “Eureka” moment must be seized and acted upon and the time to publish is now.

It appears that what I have referred to as "Type H drugs" and "growth factor blockers" look to be my redundant names for "growth factor inhibitors" (half a million hits on google!) and "growth factor receptor inhibitors". (700,000 hits!). Though I note that "growth factor blocker" and "growth factor blockers" appear to be getting hundreds of thousands of hits now too - I thought I had tried that search term earlier and got nothing, maybe my typo or some problem with google?) Wow, 1.8 million hits for "growth factor receptor blockers"!

{Those are hits with the quotes included in the search term so those should be hits for the exact phrase. Sorry but my google links were playing up and I've removed them so you'll have to use your own initiative, perhaps copy and paste the search terms into your search box}

Inhibitors / blockers - same difference so I am content to use any of the names "Growth factor inhibitors" or "Growth factor receptor inhibitors" or "Growth factor blockers" or "Growth factor receptor blockers" from now on for this class of drugs.

So that's actually very encouraging for the early adoption of my approach to cure cancer because the drugs needed are not as "unknown" and "do not exist", as a class of drugs, after all.

That's not to say that all such growth factor blocker / inhibitor drugs which would be needed for the successful adoption of my approach are now available but it looks like some are available and hopefully the rest will be made available eventually.

I've found this wikipedia link -

EGFR inhibitor - redirecting to - Epidermal growth factor receptor - Clinical applications

There doesn't yet seem to be a general Wikipedia page for "Growth factor inhibitor" or "Growth factor receptor inhibitor" or "Growth factor blocker" or "Growth factor receptor blocker". So that's something for me and other Wikipedia editors to think about coming up with. If we can at least start talking in a structured way about this class of drugs then that'll be progress.

I do believe that the OP is just trying to make a name for himself by using this forum for a bit of free publicity for his half baked ideas. He knows that he would have to pay for them to be published in a scientific journal.
Only today have I been hearing of a magical cure for cancer which was peer reviewed and published in many science journals. This involved the alleged properties of lichens to kill cancer cells. Problem is it was probably poisonous and it would kill all the good cells and even the body with it.
I get worried that people afflicted by cancer might get to this thread and be diverted from the only choice they need to make which is to go and see their doctor and put their total faith in the oncologists.

Peter; I've tried to help you, but you either have an ego the size of Saturn, or you are Aspergers/Autistic or have mental issues.

If it's the former; you need to sort yourself out - (after all, you failed or dropped out of your Medical Science degree), if it's the latter two; you need help.


I say again; what you have been talking about is just an idea which would take only a small paragraph to explain.

You don't know if "your" idea has been thought of already by the thousands of cancer specialists in the world. You don't know if it would work. You don't know what drugs would be useful to try.

You really need to ascertain these things before shouting your mouth off, and writing as though you are a cancer professor and talking about Nobel prizes.


OB

Content removed as per John Galts post above.

Abstract
A new 2-phase treatment to cure cancer is proposed.

Phase 1 would use a live bio-agent paired with a moderating anti-bio-agent drug to target and kill hypoxic cancer tumour cores.

Phase 2 would employ 2 drug types - firstly a mixture of drugs of the growth factor inhibitor type, some (perhaps most) yet to be developed, would be required to halt selectively all normal cell division but not halt the characteristically aberrant cancer cell division and secondly, conventional chemotherapy drugs would be used to target and kill only the dividing cancer cells.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

There doesn't yet seem to be a general Wikipedia page for "Growth factor inhibitor" or "Growth factor receptor inhibitor" or "Growth factor blocker" or "Growth factor receptor blocker". So that's something for me and other Wikipedia editors to think about coming up with. If we can at least start talking in a structured way about this class of drugs then that'll be progress.

Update -

Wikipedia: Growth factor receptor inhibitor

Very weak proposal suggest more pseudoscience than anything else.

Moved.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

There doesn't yet seem to be a general Wikipedia page for "Growth factor inhibitor" or "Growth factor receptor inhibitor" or "Growth factor blocker" or "Growth factor receptor blocker". So that's something for me and other Wikipedia editors to think about coming up with. If we can at least start talking in a structured way about this class of drugs then that'll be progress.

Update -

Wikipedia: Growth factor receptor inhibitor

Why have you written that article (according to the View History section),
if you could have provided that information in your proposal?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Why have you written that article (according to the View History section),
if you could have provided that information in your proposal?

To give his idea spurious credibility. But hang on, it has lots of that already.

Originally Posted by Strange

To give his idea spurious credibility. But hang on, it has lots of that already.

It seems incredibly spurious.
Is that the same thing?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Very weak proposal suggest more pseudoscience than anything else.

Moved.

Talk among yourselves. I don't do "pseudoscience" so this is my last post in this thread.


Unsubscribed.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Very weak proposal suggest more pseudoscience than anything else.

Moved.

Talk among yourselves. I don't do "pseudoscience" so this is my last post in this thread.


Unsubscribed.

Mr. Dow, your posts here and elsewhere are disturbingly suggestive of someone with a need to seek professional care. If it is possible for you to set aside your grandiosity for a moment and at least consider the possibility that you might benefit from speaking with someone, I urge you to do it.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

Talk among yourselves. I don't do "pseudoscience" so this is my last post in this thread.

Unsubscribed.

I find it hard to believe it is so easy to shut him up. I though we were stuck with this idiocy.

I am only an amateur psychologist, but I think that Peter Dow has unresolved issues regarding his failure or ejection from his Medical Sciences degree.

He is attempting to prove himself worthy and better than his peers on the course he was ejected from.

Peter, for the last time; get some professional help.


OB

Originally Posted by Strange

I didn't know the Underpants Gnomes were moving into the pharmaceutical business.

You are *cough* assuming that the gnomes wear underpants.

I want proof!! Show me your source!! *glare* and the source had better have been published!!! *double glare*