A Cancer Trial's Unexpected Result: Remission in Every Patient

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/health/rectal-cancer-checkpoint-inhibitor.html

No paywall
https://archive.ph/F4sEo

It was a small trial, just 18 rectal cancer patients, every one of whom took the same drug.

But the results were astonishing. The cancer vanished in every single patient, undetectable by physical exam, endoscopy, PET scans or M.R.I. scans.

Dr. Luis A. Diaz Jr. of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, an author of a paper published Sunday in the New England Journal of Medicine describing the results, which were sponsored by the drug company GlaxoSmithKline, said he knew of no other study in which a treatment completely obliterated a cancer in every patient.

“I believe this is the first time this has happened in the history of cancer,” Dr. Diaz said.

Dr. Alan P. Venook, a colorectal cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved with the study, said he also thought this was a first.

A complete remission in every single patient is “unheard-of,” he said.

*snip*

[yellowdogintexas]

1. this is really exciting! Of course they will go on to a broader study. nt

[mercuryblues]

2. Wow. This looks highly promising

[barbaraann]

3. Cancer is big money. I'm skeptical this will go anywhere. n/t

[Loki Liesmith]

8. What utter nonsense

Aren’t conspiracy theories banned here?

[HUAJIAO]

14. barbaraann is absolutely right about cancer being big money.

There are, off the top of my head, references to issues with the Roswell Cancer Center in Buffalo NY for one, some time back, in THE CHINA STUDY.

[Hav]

16. Of course, there's money being made with drugs

That's better than people just dying without any treatment.
But I'm pretty sure that what is hinted at in post 3 is the conspiracy theory that a drug that kills cancer will be hidden from the public because the alternative treatment options until death generates more income for pharmacy companies.
And that nonsense belongs in other forums.

[wnylib]

28. +1000

[barbaraann]

76. I've tried to answer this in post #75.

[liberal_mama]

37. I'm unfamiliar with The China Study. Is it a research study or a documentary?

I'm interested because I live about 10 minutes away from Roswell Park. I'd like to know more as I have a family member with cancer.

[HUAJIAO]

51. It is a book about a long study of health and nutrition, particularly in China.

AVAILABLE at AMAZON-
The China Study: Revised and Expanded Edition: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term Health

About the Author(s)
For more than 40 years, T. Colin Campbell, PhD, has been at the forefront of nutrition research. His legacy, the China Study, is the most comprehensive study of health and nutrition ever conducted. Dr. Campbell is the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. He has received more than 70 grant years of peer-reviewed research funding and authored more than 300 research papers. The China Study was the culmination of a 20-year partnership of Cornell University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine.

A 1999 graduate of Cornell University and a board-certified family physician, Thomas M. Campbell II, MD, is the co-founder and clinical director of the University of Rochester Program for Nutrition in Medicine (URNutritionInMedicine.com).

"Casein, which makes up 87% of cow’s milk protein, promoted all stages of the cancer process. What type of protein did not promote cancer, even at high levels of intake? The safe proteins were from plants, including wheat and soy."

I read this book in 2012 when I had lymphoma. It is the results of this study that have to some degree, at least, been swept under the rug.

I highly recommend it.

[liberal_mama]

55. Thank you, I will get the book to read. Do you remember how Roswell Park was involved? n/t

[HUAJIAO]

57. I don't remember exactly but

what I do remember is that certain supporters or directors or researchers or docs at Roswell went out of their way to snuff the results of the study from becoming widely known.

it is an eye opening study. My sister, who has been vegan for decades got it for me.


Also, it should be noted that not everyone has praise for all the conclusions of the study, for whatever reasons, self-interest, or truthful objectivity, etc.

I'll even provide one link- :&gt )

https://daveasprey.com/the-china-study-diet-criticism-vegan/

[liberal_mama]

85. Thank you for the information and link!

I do believe that diet can make a difference, so I can see why some doctors might want to hide the results.

[whathehell]

47. Yeah..A cure for it would also be " big money".

[HUAJIAO]

52. Not if a principal cure turned out to be diet.

Or I should say, rather than a cure, one way to help avoiding cancer in the first place.

[whathehell]

79. A most unlikely scenario, I'd say..

and sorry, but I'm not of the Big Pharma is Inherently Evil" persuasion...For God's sake, THEY, and their friends and family members get cancer too.

[barbaraann]

77. Gilead's cure for Hepatitis C actually hurt the company's finances.

Gilead cured hepatitis C. That’s become its biggest problem
Published: Feb. 8, 2017 at 11:33 a.m. ET
By Emma Court
Gilead’s hepatitis C cure was a breakthrough. But it’s also the source of the company’s troubles

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gilead-cured-hepatitis-c-thats-become-its-biggest-problem-2017-02-08

[Loki Liesmith]

49. It's utter nonsense.

[stopdiggin]

68. which doesn't justify conspiracy

mongering. It's the intellectually shallow pond that is so enticing ...

[Hortensis]

21. I agree! This has to be replicated, BUT it was at Sloan-Kettering and

accepted for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. Imo, to refuse to note important sources like that and instead claim cancer cures are being blocked would be irrational on both counts.

ESPECIALLY in this era of enormous advances in cancer treatment. Our own president called for a cancer research "moon shot" while he was Obama's VP BECAUSE science was now showing that making cancers dramatically preventable, treatable and curable was doable.

Irrational also because: There really are lots of good guys, including in the medical and pharmaceutical fields and Democratic Party, and we do have power.

[Bettie]

26. You can believe in the benevolence of pharmaceutical companies

but many of us just, um, don't.

ANY corporation will do whatever they can to keep those profit margins up, even if it means ensuring that their most expensive product lines are not undercut in any way...that could easily include a cure for a disease that they make enormous profits off of.

Not saying it's a sure thing, but that it wouldn't be a surprise.

[area51]

33. +1 n/t

[whathehell]

48. Please..It's hardly a question of "benevolence"

Anyone with a product curing cance could print their own money.

[Sgent]

63. GSK

will make more money if this works out than they do on off patent chemotherapy drugs. Patients of course won't have to do chemo, radiation, and start it all with surgery that leaves them without an anus and usually permanently sterile.

[barbaraann]

78. Here's a list of some of the worst Big Pharma crimes, scandals, lawsuits:

https://www.drugwatch.com/manufacturers/

And here's the trailer for an HBO movie about Purdue Pharma and the Opioid Epidemic:

I lost two relatives, young men, to this epidemic. No, I do not believe in the benevolence, or even law-abiding behavior, of Big Pharma.

[barbaraann]

40. One example of why I am skeptical is the pricing of insulin by Big Pharma.

No one with diabetes should die because they can’t afford their insulin. It’s a medicine that can be produced for just a few dollars… but manufacturers Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk mark up the price as much as 5,000 percent and there are seven million Americans with diabetes that have no choice but to pay.

The price is so high that people are doing desperate things to get by, like using expired insulin, relying on crowdfunding to pay their bills, or taking less insulin than they need in an effort to ration their supplies. Rationing is extremely dangerous and can lead to a deadly condition known as diabetic ketoacidosis. Four people died in 2017 while rationing their insulin. Four more died in 2018. Five died in 2019.

More:
https://rightcarealliance.org/activities/insulin/

[Skittles]

43. I understand your point, barbaraann

it is literally sickening what they do for the big bucks, who they are willing to sacrifice

[barbaraann]

54. Thank you, Skittles. And let's not forget about the Sacklers. n/t

[Bettie]

82. Don't forget the epi pens!

Joe Manchin's daughter brought us that lovely pricing scheme.

[barbaraann]

83. That was just horrific. I think there is a generic now.

Here's some interesting info I found on her wikipedia page:

MBA controversy
Main article: West Virginia University M.B.A. controversy
In 2007, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Bresch had claimed to have an MBA degree from West Virginia University, but the university disputed that.[11] The university subsequently awarded her an EMBA despite her having completed only 26 of the required 48 credits. Her father was governor of the state of West Virginia at the time.[12]

In the ensuing controversy, the university announced in April 2008 that it would rescind Bresch's degree. Michael Garrison, WVU president at the time, was reported to be "a family friend and former business associate of Bresch" and a former consultant and lobbyist for Mylan.[11][13] After a faculty vote of no confidence, Garrison and several university officials subsequently resigned.[12][14]

[barbaraann]

75. It's Official! Curing Patients Is Bad for Business

Milton Packer MD

Pharmaceutical companies are developing new drugs in only two therapeutic areas these days -- cancer and rare diseases. Why? These are the only therapeutic areas where exorbitant pricing is tolerated by payers.
...
According to an article by Tae Kim on CNBC, Goldman Sachs issued a report (by Salveen Richter) that suggested that drug developers might want to think twice about making drugs that were too effective. Richter's report, entitled "The Genome Revolution," was issued on April 10 and says:
"The potential to deliver 'one shot cures' is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies.... While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow."
The translation: if you develop a new drug that cures people rapidly, then patients will not need to take the drug on an ongoing basis, and that limits the amount of money a company can make.
...
"[Gilead]'s rapid rise and fall of its hepatitis C franchise highlights one of the dynamics of an effective drug that permanently cures a disease, resulting in a gradual exhaustion of the prevalent pool of patients," the analyst wrote. "... diseases such as common cancers -- where the 'incident pool remains stable' -- are less risky for business."
...
What is next for health care? We always knew that prolonging life was expensive. Now it seems that curing people isn't profitable enough.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/revolutionandrevelation/72407

I was able to access this article but then a paywall went up. Here's a link to the article by Tae Kim:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html

[Hav]

80. I get the general logic of your original point

but I don't think that this is how it plays out in reality because of all the players involved who have different and competing motives.
You referenced a general analysis of an investment bank and then pointed to a company that did exactly what you claim wouldn't happen: Developing a drug that is so good that it hurts the overall and future profits regarding the treatment of a specific disease.

Using the general assessment to predict decisions made by individual pharma companies misses that those pharma companies are in worldwide competition with each other. In regards to your example with Gilead for instance, what is the benefit for their competitors to deliberately create an inferior drug only to then realize that Gilead has the (almost) cure? That investment for the inferior drug is almost completely lost, no one would want their drug. So, cures may be bad for business but they are still being developed.

Logically (and I appreciate the non-paywall link), the analysis didn't propose to not develop cures (which would be a stupid business decision) but finding areas that still offer room for better treatments and therefore potential profits. And that's good. Improving the treatment for all the areas/diseases that they identified would be fantastic and beneficial for all.

[barbaraann]

81. Thank you for the thoughtful comments.

Some possible answers:

Regarding Gilead doing what I claim wouldn't happen, from what I read I think it worked far better than they thought it would.

Regarding pharma competition, I just brought up a page with new drug approvals and did a search for the word "cure." No results. "Treatment:" 51 results. I do believe we need cures and not just treatments.
https://www.drugs.com/newdrugs.html

Yes, improving treatments is good, but at the same time the drug companies are escalating prices swiftly. High costs and an increasing number of drugs needed cut some people who need certain drugs out of the picture. I came across quite a few articles about EXTREME pricing and price escalation in my googling. Can our society afford Narcan-level pricing or worse for all new drugs? I just don't think so.

Any comments are welcome.

[kcr]

12. Yes, because

no one is going to want a cancer drug that works. No money in that :derp:

[mopinko]

17. and dead people buy a lot of medicine too.

[Ford_Prefect]

36. It has been said that they vote more often than you would expect, too.

[wnylib]

29. Bull

[USALiberal]

31. Self delete!!

[Happy Hoosier]

72. Skepticism is good. More studies need be done.

In all likelihood, these initial results overstate the effectiveness.

But we should embrace such efforts. Be skeptical, but hopeful.

I was skeptical that a Keto diet would "cure" my diabetes. It sounded like Woo-Woo to me. But it did. So be skeptical, but pursue it anyway.

[liberal_mama]

86. My son was just diagnosed with diabetes. This was a surprise to us as he is pretty thin.

His fasting blood sugar was 265 and his A1C was 9.3 at diagnosis. We have no idea how long he's had it. His blood sugar levels were high when the hospital did pre-surgical blood tests. We thought it might be because he was nervous, but then a retest showed he actually has diabetes.

In the past week, he's been doing keto and now is getting readings of 115 to 125 so the diet seems to be working great at getting his blood sugar down. The only problem is that he only weighs 150lbs right now and I know people lose a lot of weight on keto.

Did you have to stay on the Keto diet forever to stay cured of diabetes?

[SammyWinstonJack]

74. Right. No profit in the cure, only in the treatment.

[crickets]

4. Amazing. What a wonderful breakthrough if the results can be replicated.

The medication was given every three weeks for six months and cost about $11,000 per dose.

Something will have to be done about the exorbitant price tag, however.

[Chainfire]

5. Insurance companies will nix that.

[crickets]

10. Insurance companies wouldn't be entirely out of line for balking at the price tag.

There needs to be more investigation and pushback against pharmaceutical companies for price gouging.

There's no point to having lifesaving medical treatment priced such that no one can reasonably afford it. Sure, there are ridiculously wealthy people who could, but no one should have to. Given how many pharma companies cry about R&D costs adding to the price tag, it would be interesting to see how much taxpayer money was used in the development of the drug. Transparency in how much it actually costs to produce the drug and how pricing is determined is also an ongoing problem.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/taxpayers-fund-research-for-drugs

Paging Katie Porter...

[Happy Hoosier]

73. While there is certainly profiteering happening....

I see the term "price gouging" thrown around pretty freely by lots of folks who have never been involved with R&D.

I work in R&D in aviation. The "NRE" (Non-Recurring Engineering) that goes into a new advancement can be enormous. The engineers involved in such R&D are frequently the most capable and in-demand. They are paid well because they can do what others cannot, and their services are in demand. And even under the best of conditions, maybe 1 in 10 R&D efforts results in product that is viable for production.

Unless we want to just spin our wheels, and get nowhere, that's an investment we have to make.

But in my book, this just underlines why medical care should be a human right and not a matter of profit.

After all, if this really works, it COULD save a ton of money. Surgery and surgical aftercare can be VERY expensive.

[mountain grammy]

7. No problem... I have Medicare

🙄. But, seriously, this is good news.

[mopinko]

18. compared to the full cost of dying of cancer, it's a bargain.

[ToxMarz]

25. They make you pay for a trial drug?

I always thought you got it free in exchange for being a Guinea pig.

[USALiberal]

58. I agree with you, I've never seen a study where you had to pay for it.

[FreeState]

6. Thanks for posting! Previvor here

I have lynch syndrome* and this is hopefully a great sign!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_nonpolyposis_colorectal_cancer

[crickets]

13. 💖

[bronxiteforever]

9. Kick & recommend for good news!

[Hekate]

11. That is absolutely fantastic, an answer to so many people's prayers. nt

[LoisB]

15. That is 18 people given a new lease on life. Hallelujah.

[paleotn]

19. Unusual in the treatment of damn near anything.

That's remarkable!

[C Moon]

20. We had a small dog who had a lump on the bottom side of her paw.

It kept growing, and a vet recommended removing the cancer. So we did. It wasn't a cancer that spreads to other parts of the body.
They didn't get all of it because they would have had to cut muscle, so it grew back shortly.

My wife took the dog to a vet who specializes in cancer (a zoo vet), he said let it grow, if it gets too big that it starts breaking the skin, we would have to amputate. "Cancer doesn't just go away," he said.

About a year later, my wife was lying on the couch with the dog in her lap. She said, "I think the lump is getting smaller."
It was, and it went away. Very bizarre. The only thing I can attribute it to were some real apple snacks we started giving her around that time. She was very picky, but loved the apple based snacks.

Anyway, it did go away.

[StarryNite]

24. Apple snacks? Very interesting.

What kind? I would like to know in case cancer strikes a beloved dog of someone I know. Our daughter lost a dog to osteosarcoma. It was horrible.

[C Moon]

32. This was about 15 years ago, so I don't recall the brand. I'll try to find out.

Around that time, I was driving home from work, and heard on news radio about apples being a good food for fighting cancer. Something to do with "polyphenols" that they contain (I had to look that word up just now).

[lostnfound]

59. Apple snacks for people? Or specifically for dogs? Please..

I’ve got a dog that could use some help.

[C Moon]

60. These were dog treats. But I'm not saying they cure cancer. Something made it lessen, that was

the only thing we changed in her diet.

[lostnfound]

84. Thank you very much

Every little bit helps

[C Moon]

41. Pretty sure it was Fruitables apple dog treats. But it looks like they only have apple/pumpkin now.

It had a green apple on the plastic packaging.

[StarryNite]

62. Very interesting!

Thank you!

[shrike3]

53. Spontaneous remission happens in humans.

Very rare, but it has happened.

Why couldn't it happen in dogs?

[C Moon]

61. I'm not saying it couldn't happen in dogs. We were so happy when it did!

[shrike3]

64. I'm sure you were,

[Marthe48]

22. Too late

too late, too late, too late. But maybe some of my dear ones will benefit from this breakthrough going forward.

[bucolic_frolic]

23. A small study, one trial

A statistical anomaly?

[Trust_Reality]

34. Good question.

[spanone]

27. K&R for HOPE.

[highplainsdem]

30. Wow. Incredible news.

[Trust_Reality]

35. Looking at comments above... It's true that pharmaceutical companies are difficult to trust.

They are for-profit entities. Or as Republican justices say, "persons". (A corporation is a person - BS.)

And there was Manchin's daughter who raised prices on epipens (I think it was epipens) by an outrageous amount.

Greed is so ugly.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

87. What's wrong with for-profit enterprise?

Well-regulated advanced capitalist economies are an essental feature of liberal democracies, just ask Elizabeth "I'm a capitalist to my bones" Warren.

For-profit enterprise drives the wealth-creation that allows societies to fund generous social programs, as evidenced by Nordic model countries, all of which have advanced capitalist economies.

The alternate paths are roads to authoritarianism. That's basic liberalism.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

38. Great news!

We lost a family member to colorectal cancer so the implications of this potential advance really hits home.

I hope it bears fruit.

[niyad]

44. Welcome to our DU family.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

46. Thank you

[hunter]

39. RIP my friend Evoman.

I know you are out there in the endless time.

We made some serious mischief.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/en.wikipedia.org/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=263x45387

[calimary]

42. WOW! Remarkable news!

And VERY good news at that!

[niyad]

45. That is very encouraging news.

[Liberal In Texas]

50. I hope there is some validity. Too many times before a promising miracle drug has made a big splash

in the headlines and gone nowhere. Or wasn't as big a deal as the reports promised. It started with me with a drug called interferon. It's an interesting drug but it hardly matches the hype for it in the 70s.

[mvd]

56. K&R

Very encouraging news! My dad died of colon cancer. I hope this means that people in the future won’t also die from it.

[Samrob]

65. Since Biden is such a proponent for a war against cancer, he should at least acknowledge this trial

and the promising results. If this happened under the last administration the FTDG would be thumping his chest and the MAGA would be all over this.

[ChazII]

66. Agree with your comment.

Kicking this back to the top.

[867-5309.]

67. Unheard of breakthroughs against cancer

are never heard from again.

[stopdiggin]

69. I'll take that bet

1) first, you don't 'hear' of these kind of results often because - basically they don't occur.

and 2) even if the 'stats' here don't entirely hold up (a strong possibility) the results here are SO impressive, I have a strong feeling you're going to be hearing a LOT of follow up on this (and probably other 'spin off' directions for research) over the course of the next few years.

So - cynicism aside ...

[pansypoo53219]

70. side effects?

[Happy Hoosier]

71. Whoa! That's remarkable.

My Dad died of metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Imagine if it is simply curable for most people.

[JanMichael]

88. 88k to clear cancer is a deal compared to 155k treatment average.

The 155k sure isn't 100 percent effective.