Sciencedaily:A naturally occurring bacterium from amphibian intestines completely eliminated colorectal tumors in mice with a single treatment by both attacking cancer cells and activating the immune system. The findings point to a promising new type of cancer therapy that could one day work against many solid tumors....Expanding to Other Types of Cancer
The study establishes proof of concept for using naturally occurring bacteria as a cancer therapy. Future research will examine whether the approach can be applied to additional solid tumors, including breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, and melanoma.
The team also plans to optimize treatment methods through approaches such as dose fractionation and direct injection into tumors. Researchers will also investigate whether E. americana works even better when combined with existing chemotherapy or immunotherapy.
All of these if successful seem like they might be able to treat many diverse types of solid tumors, including malignant ones throughout the body. Both Moderna and Lift have already passed animal trials and are already in human trials, in the case of moderna some of the trials were successful recently.
A decade in the making, trial used a combination of the vaccine with a drug to treat melanoma. The data has been shared with the FDA, and the stock has gone up a lot. It is believed the vaccine could reach market next year. It is personalized and can work with an individualized approach.
Decades of research are finally yielding fruit. This news covers this groundbreaking results from the latest trial.
The benefits of the promising longevity molecule resveratrol are discussed. Resveratrol is very promising but part of its benefits are limited in humans due to its fast clearance through the liver. Newer formulations appear might offer promise of increasing its benefits.
Comment: My problem with Aubrey is that he thinks solving aging is an engineering issue. But I think when handling the high metabolism nondividing neurons design, nature essentially solved aging at the cellular level. A mouse neuron transplanted to a rat lives twice as long as a mouse, just as long as a rat, and could potentially live even longer in an even longer lived species.
After essentially having a solution to aging baked in, nature had to adjust organism lifespan to their niche.
Michael Fossel, iirc, claims that many of the maintenance mechanisms are downregulated in an age related manner. And it is this downregulation of maintenance that leads to all the issues we see.
It was discovered that the rate of telomere shortening predicts species lifespan.
Researchers discover that the rate of telomere shortening predicts species lifespan. A flamingo lives 40 years and a human being lives 90 years; a mouse lives two years and an elephant lives 60.J What counts is not their length, but the rate at which they shorten | A better predictor than body size or heart ratehttps://phys.org/news/2019-07-telomere-shortening-species-lifespan.html
Would telomere lengthening work against aging? Maybe it wouldn't solve everything, but such therapies sound highly promising.
I think Aubrey's ideas might work but they seem like overengineering. We have seen that we had a mammal ancestor with mice like lifespan to reach our human lifespan nature did not need to transfer more genes from the mitochondria to the nucleus, nor did it abolish telomeres, etc. Even longer lived mammals, iirc, have not transfered additional mito genes to the nucleus.
We know there are superagers with brain functioning akin to 20 year olds. The brain functions at ultra high metabolism for decades, but when aging affects the support system and garbage clearance mechanisms, issues start to arise.
I think just like glymphatic systems helps transport garbage out of the brain, the lymphatic system does similar across the body. But aging compromises it too.
edit: Regards the idea that there's a trade off between cancer and aging. Mice engineered to have extra long telomeres had extended lifespan and did not have additional cancer rates.
Importantly, mice with hyper-long telomeres show an increased longevity and develop less tumors associated with aging. Together, these findings demonstrate that longer telomeres than normal show beneficial effects in mice, delaying metabolic aging and cancer, and resulting in longer lifespans. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12664-x
edit2:There's also the fact that some mice appear cancer immune and a fraction of the human population might as well be( lifelong heavy smoker centenarians for example.). I think the additional copies of anticancer genes in extremely large animals are to protect against cancer during embryonic development, but theoretically the immune system might be sufficient at least in a fraction of the population.
IMHO, it is likely the body already has the capability for significantly longer lifespan. Rather than look for trying to redesign fundamental biological components past what nature has done, I think, in the short term, the search for small molecules that can restore epigenetic age and telomere length sounds more promising.
It is not immortal according to layman, some cells are considered potentially immortal by the neuroscientists themselves, neuroscientists that have worked with them and transplanted them to longer living organisms, seeing them live over twice as long as the original organism from which the cells came. Limited only by the new hosts lifespan and considered that they may live even longer potentially indefinitely depending on the host. Bowhead whale neurons live over 2 centuries, and are not fundamentally different in terms of repair and maintenance. It appears it is the decay of the surrounding aging support tissue and vasculature that causes failure of these cells.
As for cancer, there has been research on immunity and cancer. A small fraction of humans are highly resistant to diverse types of cancers, even aggressive metastatic cancers cannot overcome their immune system.
That is how you get someone eating heavily burnt meat, and smoking two packs a day and living decade after decade often over a century without getting treated for cancer. They got the cancerous cells, of course, so many carcinogens did generate such cells, but their immune system fought them off.
>"Spring 1999. “Professor Cui, this mouse didn’t get cancer. Should I get rid of him?” It was a standard experiment in Zheng Cui’s lab at Wake Forest University, North Carolina: Inject inbred mice with cancer cells, not to study cancer, but to produce antibodies for a lipid experiment. “There must have been a mistake,” said Cui, “Inject him again.” Two weeks later, still no cancer. “Try again with a higher dose!” Still no cancer. No cancer even at a million times the lethal dose. Cui decided to breed the mutant mouse."-huffingtonpost
The mouse was found immune to aggresive cancer cells that would kill all other mice. Research in humans revealed similar anticancer immunity capability exists in a fraction of humans.
>"The bad news: His wife was diagnosed with stage IV squamous cell carcinoma with massive metastases to all her major organs (lungs, liver, spleen and kidneys) and was given months to live. She had run out of conventional treatment options after partial surgery and chemotherapy. But he planned to take her to China for treatment at his other trial site in March 2013. Two months ago, good news and bad news again. Good news: we met with Cui and his wife. She looked terrific. To the astonishment of her doctors, her condition appears completely stable after 14 months, with no further treatment of any sort. She told us the transfusions gave her a high fever, but no other side effects.-huffingtonpost
The immune system's abilities go down with aging, even someone who was immune to cancer, could potentially get cancer if their immune system doesn't exhibit resilient aging.
Of course cheap therapies that can't be patented and could potentially destroy multibillion industries are bound to get scant funding.
"As scientists, we learned that sulforaphane is maximized when broccoli has been heated 10 minutes at 140 degrees Fahrenheit," said Jeffery. "For the consumer, who cannot readily hold the temperature as low as 140 degrees, that means the best way to prepare broccoli is to steam it lightly about 3 or 4 minutes--until the broccoli is tough-tender."-https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050326114810.htm
4 cups of sprouts supposedly might be enough to reach max safe dose.
If steaming for 3 to 4 min or the 10 min thing increases 3 to 4 fold sulforaphane maybe one cup might be near limit. Add to that that I couldn't refind the reference, but I heard putting it in a blender drastically increased sulforaphane after being let sit for 30+ min, iirc[edit, put reference to blender article at bottom].
What I do is steam for 3 minutes, put in room temperature water, and add a bit of ground mustard powder and blend for 30 seconds and let sit for 30 minutes.
edit
Quote
“You want to cut it into very small pieces and even blend it,” she told Newsweek. One cancer-fighting way to consume the food is by making broccoli soup. However, you’ll want to add blended raw broccoli first and let it sit for 30 minutes before adding to your soup base.
I'm not sure, but considering there's a competing enzyme inactivated by cooking I think blending should occur after cooking. You could cut it or blend it raw and let it sit for 90 min prior to cooking as a lot of sulforaphane would have been created and appears heat resistant. But the dose should be lower than if you blend after steaming for 3 mins or doing the 10 min thing, as that will inactivate the competing enzyme.
We have cured cancer in mice hundreds of times but not so in humans.
The article on the innate anticancer super immune mice, had the lead researcher's wife get advanced metastatic cancer that had overcome all conventional therapies and left her with months to live... yet she received the treatment and was cancer free, free from terminal cancer that was beyond all conventional therapies.
Cancer resistance innate immune cells were found in humans explaining how some can have a century of high carcinogen load and remain cancer free.
Unless something is wrong with that it seems like cancer was cured, at least in one human, and yet no funding because it is not patent-able.-source kurzweilai
What is sobering about this booming business is that, as a group of oncologists wrote earlier this year, “most anti-cancer drugs provide minor survival benefits, if at all.” They often (but not always) reduce the size of inoperable tumors, but they rarely eradicate the disease. For relatively uncommon malignancies like testicular cancer, some forms of leukemia, and lymphoma, drugs effectively cure the disease; for the common “solid tumor” cancers (lung, breast, colon, prostate, and so on), which account for the vast majority of annual cases, drugs buy some time—precious time, to be sure, but time usually measured in weeks and months rather than years. And even though many of the newer drugs are less toxic, they often still have to be given with older drugs whose side effects include nausea, hair loss, fatigue, and decreasing blood counts. One anti-cancer drug produces a skin rash so severe and disturbing, according to Saltz, that some patients have been asked by employers not to come to work.
And it’s not just that the price of cancer drugs has doubled in the last decade—it’s that the rise in prices, according to cancer doctors, has far exceeded the drugs’ effectiveness. In 1994, the median survival rate for someone with advanced colon cancer was eleven months, according to Saltz, and the lifetime costs of the drugs used to treat the average patient would be about $500 at today’s prices. By 2004, the median survival rate had increased twofold, to 22 months, but Saltz says the drug costs had increased hundreds of times for that extra eleven months.-link
Rising costs of cancer drugs are becoming problematic, and the increase in effectiveness hasn't been up to par with the increase in costs. Though for a kinds of cancer they've proven highly effective.
