Can two wrongs make a right? Professor Stanley Riddell, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, US, genetically engineered some lab mice to produce chimeric antigen receptors or CARs. These receptors can be attached to T-cells in humans to give them a boost in the body's fight against cancer. With a 94% success rate professor Riddell is calling this treatment a "potential paradigm shift" in cancer treatment.
Some people would cringe to think anything like a GMO would be allowed inside their bodies. I think GMO's are getting a bad rap and some serious reconsideration is in order.
http://news.sky.com/story/1642626/extra ... h-revealed
GMO's And Cancer`
-
Icey
Re: GMO's And Cancer`
The news is exceptionally interesting, and our newspapers're full of it.
What people have to realise though, is that a cycle of treatment'd cost a patient £100,000 - or $143,045.00 at present. This is because of the complexity of the work, and each person's treatment'd be tailor-made. Those who've benefited from being guinea pigs and were relieved of their cancer symptoms for free, were very lucky, and although new drugs and procedures can take 10-14 years or more to be given the green light, it's thought that full use of this new technology's still about 7 years away. This's fast in terms of acceptance, but not much use to the patients who might benefit from it now.
My relative's a doctor working with genetics and the GM of DNA, and he said he treats his work with caution. What sounds like a miracle to those who're hoping for a cancer cure, may not be the remarkable discovery that's being portrayed at the moment.
No one knows what modifying a strand of DNA might do in the long-term, and apparently there are several very harmful possibilities.
However, all medical research has to start somewhere. I think that much more time needs to be spent on understanding T cells in more detail, and the impact of altering DNA (which might weaken areas of the immune system permanently), but if, after extensive testing, the results turn out to be positive, then what a wonderful chance for some cancer patients to get rid of the vile disease.
What people have to realise though, is that a cycle of treatment'd cost a patient £100,000 - or $143,045.00 at present. This is because of the complexity of the work, and each person's treatment'd be tailor-made. Those who've benefited from being guinea pigs and were relieved of their cancer symptoms for free, were very lucky, and although new drugs and procedures can take 10-14 years or more to be given the green light, it's thought that full use of this new technology's still about 7 years away. This's fast in terms of acceptance, but not much use to the patients who might benefit from it now.
My relative's a doctor working with genetics and the GM of DNA, and he said he treats his work with caution. What sounds like a miracle to those who're hoping for a cancer cure, may not be the remarkable discovery that's being portrayed at the moment.
No one knows what modifying a strand of DNA might do in the long-term, and apparently there are several very harmful possibilities.
However, all medical research has to start somewhere. I think that much more time needs to be spent on understanding T cells in more detail, and the impact of altering DNA (which might weaken areas of the immune system permanently), but if, after extensive testing, the results turn out to be positive, then what a wonderful chance for some cancer patients to get rid of the vile disease.
Re: GMO's And Cancer`
GMO's getting a "bad rap?" Yes, I have always thought so. ANY plant or animal hybrid is, by definition, a GMO. We've been eating these things for a long, long time. And yes, while many of us have health issues, the majority of us past the age of 50 have already lived many years longer than did the "average" human at the beginning of the 20th century (I'll be 55 this year...CERTAINLY an "old lady" by the standards of that time, when the average life expectancy of a white female at birth was only 49 years!).
"The miracle is this: the more we share, the more we have." -- Leonard Nimoy (1931-2015)
-
Icey
Re: GMO's And Cancer`
If a natural hybrid occurs, then fine, but not so fine when we're talking about being deliberately GMd, with possible unknown long-term results.
The art of artificially altering the DNA of a plant or animal isn't exactly a new science, but it hasn't been accepted by the Bitish public when it comes to even growing GM crops, let alone producing food made with such.
Modified ingredients have to be stated on the labels (food usually imported), and the food hasn't proved popular. No fresh fruit or vegetables've been sold with this label attached to them.
I can see some benefits arising from using GM things, but not many. By shrugging off the possible harm it may do, is this why we're seeing more and more cases of cancers and brain disorders? Yes, because world population's swelling, we're bound to see more cases of ill health, but the rise in cancer's unprecidented. Something's causing it, and I don't think the answer's going to be very nice.
The art of artificially altering the DNA of a plant or animal isn't exactly a new science, but it hasn't been accepted by the Bitish public when it comes to even growing GM crops, let alone producing food made with such.
Modified ingredients have to be stated on the labels (food usually imported), and the food hasn't proved popular. No fresh fruit or vegetables've been sold with this label attached to them.
I can see some benefits arising from using GM things, but not many. By shrugging off the possible harm it may do, is this why we're seeing more and more cases of cancers and brain disorders? Yes, because world population's swelling, we're bound to see more cases of ill health, but the rise in cancer's unprecidented. Something's causing it, and I don't think the answer's going to be very nice.