Immuno-Oncology Drug Research

Sorry about the last link to VP Biden, here is the right link   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGXrCerRQUw    I think with funding and more research in the Immunotherapy field we will be able to have even better survival graphs than the ones that were published in the last few months for Ipi 20%, 10 year survival and Nivo 5 year survival being around 40%. Best Wishes!!!Ed

Sorry about the last link to VP Biden, here is the right link   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGXrCerRQUw    I think with funding and more research in the Immunotherapy field we will be able to have even better survival graphs than the ones that were published in the last few months for Ipi 20%, 10 year survival and Nivo 5 year survival being around 40%. Best Wishes!!!Ed

Sorry about the last link to VP Biden, here is the right link   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGXrCerRQUw    I think with funding and more research in the Immunotherapy field we will be able to have even better survival graphs than the ones that were published in the last few months for Ipi 20%, 10 year survival and Nivo 5 year survival being around 40%. Best Wishes!!!Ed

Thanks for the links, Ed.  That first clip refers exactly to what I was talking about.  How immunotherapy was not taken seriously for YEARS as a legitimate area for funding and study for cancer treatment.  It is extremely difficult to get the attention of the folks handling the pursestrings with something that is radically different than the currently accepted approaches.  Immunotherapy was considered "proven" to not work (early vaccine trials).  Dedicated researchers and doctors were left out of serious discussion if they were interested in immunotherapy.  FINALLY, someone broke through and now immunotherapy is all anyone is interested in.  Prior to immunotherapy, it was all about chemotherapy.  The belief was you could get better results if you just found the right combinations or dosages or variations of chemotherapy but it was still all about chemotherapy.  I am hoping that now that they have their new focus on immunotherapy, they do not again become myopic with it to the exclusion of completely different ideas on how to approach cancer.  I am all for continued study of immunotherapy, combinations and dosages.  I just hope there is also funding available for other approaches as well.  I hate to see them put all their eggs in one basket.

Thanks for the links, Ed.  That first clip refers exactly to what I was talking about.  How immunotherapy was not taken seriously for YEARS as a legitimate area for funding and study for cancer treatment.  It is extremely difficult to get the attention of the folks handling the pursestrings with something that is radically different than the currently accepted approaches.  Immunotherapy was considered "proven" to not work (early vaccine trials).  Dedicated researchers and doctors were left out of serious discussion if they were interested in immunotherapy.  FINALLY, someone broke through and now immunotherapy is all anyone is interested in.  Prior to immunotherapy, it was all about chemotherapy.  The belief was you could get better results if you just found the right combinations or dosages or variations of chemotherapy but it was still all about chemotherapy.  I am hoping that now that they have their new focus on immunotherapy, they do not again become myopic with it to the exclusion of completely different ideas on how to approach cancer.  I am all for continued study of immunotherapy, combinations and dosages.  I just hope there is also funding available for other approaches as well.  I hate to see them put all their eggs in one basket.

Thanks for the links, Ed.  That first clip refers exactly to what I was talking about.  How immunotherapy was not taken seriously for YEARS as a legitimate area for funding and study for cancer treatment.  It is extremely difficult to get the attention of the folks handling the pursestrings with something that is radically different than the currently accepted approaches.  Immunotherapy was considered "proven" to not work (early vaccine trials).  Dedicated researchers and doctors were left out of serious discussion if they were interested in immunotherapy.  FINALLY, someone broke through and now immunotherapy is all anyone is interested in.  Prior to immunotherapy, it was all about chemotherapy.  The belief was you could get better results if you just found the right combinations or dosages or variations of chemotherapy but it was still all about chemotherapy.  I am hoping that now that they have their new focus on immunotherapy, they do not again become myopic with it to the exclusion of completely different ideas on how to approach cancer.  I am all for continued study of immunotherapy, combinations and dosages.  I just hope there is also funding available for other approaches as well.  I hate to see them put all their eggs in one basket.

I hope you are right, Celeste.  I hope they close no doors.  I would love to see someone take a fresh look at the work of John Beard, embryologist nominated for the Nobel prize in his field and the first to describe stem cells (he called them germ cells) and suggest that all cancers originate from stem cells.  He wrote a book in 1911 called The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer and it's Scientific Basis (still available on Amazon).  Even though some doctors had success treating tumors as he described, others did not so it was considered a scientific oddity.  He claimed the problem was with dosages and strength the unsuccessful doctors were using.  Just like early immunotherapy was ignored because early vaccines were not successful, his work was ignored because the results were inconsistent (also, M. Curie was convincing everyone at the time that X-Rays would cure all cancers).

I believe it is very possible some very good treatments to cancer have already been discovered but the individuals responsible failed to get the attention of the powers-that-be.  A good research scientist might do well to re-visit some of the older published papers on the topic.

I hope you are right, Celeste.  I hope they close no doors.  I would love to see someone take a fresh look at the work of John Beard, embryologist nominated for the Nobel prize in his field and the first to describe stem cells (he called them germ cells) and suggest that all cancers originate from stem cells.  He wrote a book in 1911 called The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer and it's Scientific Basis (still available on Amazon).  Even though some doctors had success treating tumors as he described, others did not so it was considered a scientific oddity.  He claimed the problem was with dosages and strength the unsuccessful doctors were using.  Just like early immunotherapy was ignored because early vaccines were not successful, his work was ignored because the results were inconsistent (also, M. Curie was convincing everyone at the time that X-Rays would cure all cancers).

I believe it is very possible some very good treatments to cancer have already been discovered but the individuals responsible failed to get the attention of the powers-that-be.  A good research scientist might do well to re-visit some of the older published papers on the topic.

Just for the record John Beard's theories of cancer being caused by pancreatic enzymes have no basis in reality and are ,in fact, the framework upon which many "cancer treatment " scams are based.We need real science for real people with real cancer.

Just for the record John Beard's theories of cancer being caused by pancreatic enzymes have no basis in reality and are ,in fact, the framework upon which many "cancer treatment " scams are based.We need real science for real people with real cancer.

To be clear, he did not believe cancer was caused by pancreatic enzymes.  He believed pancreatic enzymes could be used as an effective treatment in battling cancer.  Did you read his book yourself and come to your conclusions or are you relying on someone else's interpretation of his work?

To be clear, he did not believe cancer was caused by pancreatic enzymes.  He believed pancreatic enzymes could be used as an effective treatment in battling cancer.  Did you read his book yourself and come to your conclusions or are you relying on someone else's interpretation of his work?

To be clear, he did not believe cancer was caused by pancreatic enzymes.  He believed pancreatic enzymes could be used as an effective treatment in battling cancer.  Did you read his book yourself and come to your conclusions or are you relying on someone else's interpretation of his work?

Brent, you may disagree with John Beard's conclusions regarding cancer or with other people's interpretations of his work, but his work most definitely was "real science".  I'm glad the immunotherapy scientists finally overcame the bias against them in the scientific community.  Maybe other scientists will get their due now as well.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19116220

Brent, you may disagree with John Beard's conclusions regarding cancer or with other people's interpretations of his work, but his work most definitely was "real science".  I'm glad the immunotherapy scientists finally overcame the bias against them in the scientific community.  Maybe other scientists will get their due now as well.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19116220

Brent, you may disagree with John Beard's conclusions regarding cancer or with other people's interpretations of his work, but his work most definitely was "real science".  I'm glad the immunotherapy scientists finally overcame the bias against them in the scientific community.  Maybe other scientists will get their due now as well.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19116220

Just for the record John Beard's theories of cancer being caused by pancreatic enzymes have no basis in reality and are ,in fact, the framework upon which many "cancer treatment " scams are based.We need real science for real people with real cancer.

I hope you are right, Celeste.  I hope they close no doors.  I would love to see someone take a fresh look at the work of John Beard, embryologist nominated for the Nobel prize in his field and the first to describe stem cells (he called them germ cells) and suggest that all cancers originate from stem cells.  He wrote a book in 1911 called The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer and it's Scientific Basis (still available on Amazon).  Even though some doctors had success treating tumors as he described, others did not so it was considered a scientific oddity.  He claimed the problem was with dosages and strength the unsuccessful doctors were using.  Just like early immunotherapy was ignored because early vaccines were not successful, his work was ignored because the results were inconsistent (also, M. Curie was convincing everyone at the time that X-Rays would cure all cancers).

I believe it is very possible some very good treatments to cancer have already been discovered but the individuals responsible failed to get the attention of the powers-that-be.  A good research scientist might do well to re-visit some of the older published papers on the topic.