A real cancer cure, finally?

October 4, 2001 1:39 AM

A real cancer cure, finally? When I'm in my cups, I like to declaim that "Some of us now living may never die" or stuff of the sort. Is this the real thing? Is the time finally here when enormous jumps in our natural lifespan are going to start happening, at least for the rich? What would you do if you had an extra 20, or 50, or 100 years?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken (28 comments total)

Sit in a nursing home and dribble.
posted by vbfg at 2:01 AM on October 4, 2001

Hell, I do that already!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:02 AM on October 4, 2001

Order generations of rugrats to "Get off my damn lawn".
posted by Optamystic at 2:12 AM on October 4, 2001

Their findings are reported in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Wait for verification and further study before you start smoking again. Still the method seems promising. Is anybody in MeFi knowledgeable about cancer research?
Is this something new? Is it as promising as CNN makes it out to be?

"We're excited about it," Garen said. But he cautioned, "From mice to men, that is a big jump. Until the trial is done with patients you can't be sure."

Another reason not to be overexcited.
Too much skepticism? It's because, having a background in the physical sciences (physics), I have seen how media science reporting tends to be too sensationalist and not at all deep.
posted by talos at 2:38 AM on October 4, 2001

Can't imagine anything more boring than more time in the same body.
posted by aflakete at 3:01 AM on October 4, 2001

take up smoking again.
posted by Spoon at 4:16 AM on October 4, 2001

> What would you do if you had an extra 20, or 50, or
> 100 years?

I'd scoff at the Mefafilter people who brag about having ID numbers in the low millions.

But I suspect that the more diseases we cure, the more diseases we will discover; that there will be all sorts of horrible degenerative conditions that only set in when a person has lived 125, 150, or 175 years, and has spent 50 of those years being exposed to substances we haven't developed yet but that someone will think would make, say, a grand water subsitute.

Still, I'd rather be alive than dead, even if staying alive without screaming all day required massive sedation.

Wait. That's what life is like now. Hit me with a rock.
posted by pracowity at 4:20 AM on October 4, 2001

We'll all die eventualy, wether it's at a hundred or a thousand. Otoh 'unlimited' lifespan, without forseeable bounds would be nice.

Even if new degenerative conditions show up, hopefully we'll be able to replace parts of the body in whole from cloned stuff... new heart, new lungs, etc.

It's the brain that might be a bitch.
posted by delmoi at 4:26 AM on October 4, 2001

I'm gonna be a grump and say - why do so many people want to live longer, when it seems they're wasting the amount of life they're already given?

Forget about brain degeneration in the long run, so few feel the need to use their brains =now=.

But perhaps that's just the grump who has to grade 80-some math quizzes talking.

=grumble=
posted by meep at 4:51 AM on October 4, 2001

This is encouraging. It doesn't necessarily lead to a general increase in the number of years beyond normal life expectancy, but it does make it more likely you won't die at a younger age because of cancer.

There is a natural limit to the lifespan of the body - this doesn't change that. I only expect to make to something in my 80s, but I'm fair skinned and blonde - a prime candidate for melanoma, especially because of a couple of bad sunbuns when I was a child. If this means I won't die when I'm 50 from melanoma, that's pretty exciting.
posted by warhol at 5:03 AM on October 4, 2001

"You lived what anybody gets, Bernie. You got a lifetime. No more. No less." - Neil Gaiman, Sandman: Brief Lives

Live your life to the fullest and you'll never feel cheated out of an extra twenty, fifty, or a hundred years.
posted by UnReality at 5:14 AM on October 4, 2001

It's not a matter of feeling cheated, UnReality. Me, I've been burning the candle at both ends for pushing 40 years now, lived a whole sheaf of different lives, but I'd give my left nut, and my right, and what the hell the extraneous third one too (this is an unfounded rumour started by my enemies) for an extra decade or five to keep doing it.

Sorry, but "Live your life to the fullest and you'll never feel cheated out of an extra twenty, fifty, or a hundred years" sounds like the sort of shallow platitude I used to dispense before the grey hairs starting proliferating like patriots in a crisis and the man-boobs began to burgeon (more lies and innuendo!).

When there's so damn much that you want to accomplish, that no matter how you bash away at it, no matter how you push yourself, you sometimes wish you just had more time.

I realize, of course, warhol, that this cancer thing in and of itself doesn't mean that our livespans will be extended in any meaningful way, but my suggestion is that perhaps it's part of a contellation of breakthroughs in recent times and on the horizon that might have this effect.

(By the way, I'm painfully aware of this conversation happening at the moment as well. But I can't help myself.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:34 AM on October 4, 2001

Can't imagine anything more boring than more time in the same body.

Sounds like you need to get out more. :::grin:::
posted by rushmc at 6:21 AM on October 4, 2001

What would you do if you had an extra 20, or 50, or 100 years?

I'd put on a SHOW! :D
posted by UncleFes at 6:47 AM on October 4, 2001

Well, a VASTLY extended lifespan doesn't seem to be the point (to the link which prompted this thread, I mean--or to me). As Warhol commented, it's about not dying too soon.

I had cancer a couple of years ago and had to go through some pretty heavy radiation therapy. I did pretty well, thanks, and I'm glad to be alive. I'm cancerfree now, but still at risk. So I have a reason to be interested, from a personal standpoint, in any new advances in battling cancer. Who knows, maybe this could be the light at the end of the tunnel. Thanks for posting this link, Stavros.
posted by StOne at 7:19 AM on October 4, 2001

While the animal tests have worked on prostate cancer and melanoma, in theory the therapy should work on any solid cancer, Deisseroth said.

It's useful to note that the phrase "solid cancer" in this sentence means that it in no way will be a "cure for cancer" in the overall sense. It will (I infer from the information given) do nothing for what are called "soft tumor" forms of cancer, such as myelomas or leukemias.

Not to piss on anyone's shoes. I work in cancer research, and I try not to be jaded. It's just that I get weary of CNN et al hyping the Next Big Thing every two years, and whipping everyone into a frenzy of "we got it beat this time!" false expectations. It's the boy who cried "Wolf!" in reverse, and I think it hurts the research in the long run.
posted by Skot at 8:11 AM on October 4, 2001

I don't think we're likely to see "a cure for cancer" within our lifetimes. There are so many different types of cancer, with so many different possible causes, that saying "a cure for cancer" is like saying "a cure for viral infection"--they're both very very broad categories.

Viral infection ranges from the common cold to AIDS. We may be able to cure AIDS in time, but "viral infection" is such a broad category that a general cure is--well, I don't want to say "impossible"--but so far beyond current medical knowledge that it's practically inconceivable. "Cancer" is a likewise broad category.

Antiangiogenesis drugs (that's medspeak for "drugs that prevent the formation of new blood vessels") have long been an interesting direction in cancer research. I don't follow the research closely enough to know how this drug compares to previous antiangiogenesis drugs that have been tried, but I do know this isn't the first drug in this class to be tried.

It's also worth noting that only a very small fraction of drugs which begin clinical trials ever make it into general use. Pharmaceutical testing typically occurs in three phases. Phase I (which the drug mentioned in this article will apparently begin next year) is a test for safety only--they give it to a few dozen healthy people, just to make sure it's safe to give to humans--they're not even looking to see if it works yet. That begins with phase II testing, where it's given to more people, and this time people who have the disease they're looking at. The drug is given in different regimens (different dosage levels, length of treatment, etc.) to see which is the most effective. If that goes well, and they've identified one particular regimen, the drug moves on to phase III testing, often involving several hundred, or even thousands, of patients. If that goes well, then it's on to try to get FDA (and equivalent regulatory bodies in other countries) approval.

My point in this long-winded description is that, at each stage of testing, many trial drugs are found to be unsuitable, so only a small fraction of drugs that begin human testing make it to market.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:17 AM on October 4, 2001

Cancer treatments or cures have nothing to do with life extension. Expect heart disease and others to take up the slack.

How we die (numbers in thousands from 1995):

1. Heart Disease (739)

2. Cancer (538)

3. Stroke (158)

4. Lung Disease (105)

5. Accidents (90)

6. Pneumonia & Influenza (84)

7. Diabetes (59)

8. AIDS (43)

9. Suicide (31)

10. Liver Disease (25)
posted by skallas at 9:11 AM on October 4, 2001

Cancer treatments or cures have nothing to do with life extension. Expect heart disease and others to take up the slack.

Except for skallas, who is expected to die from a startlingly enlarged spleen. ;)

5. Accidents (90)

People! Stop having accidents! You'll live longer.
posted by Skot at 9:27 AM on October 4, 2001

This was already reported at MeFi in a thread, only the BBC was cited- a much more reliable source than CNN (note digruntlement towards CNN)...sorry i'm too lazy to find the link, but my guess is there's some more verification then
posted by jmd82 at 9:58 AM on October 4, 2001

Age? Sure, I'd love to live for a longer time--as long as possible, so long as my quality of life is good.

I have one condition, though. I gots to have sex. Sex til the end. If everything functions, the libido is strong and there are willing and able partners, sex. Sex, sex, sex!
posted by ashbury at 10:12 AM on October 4, 2001

Oh, you'll all be watching Matlock reruns and drinking from sippy cups.
posted by dong_resin at 11:08 AM on October 4, 2001

I've heard of such research before. The drug in question was the infamous Thaladomide. Thaladomide works woders against cancer because it hinders the formation of the new blood vessels needed for the tumors.

Thaladomide causes horrific birth defects, but on non-pregnant adults it is as close to harmless as anything.
posted by cx at 3:05 PM on October 4, 2001

Thalidomide, not thaladomide. Sorry.
posted by cx at 3:06 PM on October 4, 2001

More importantly than life extension, what means " in my cups?"
posted by ParisParamus at 3:15 PM on October 4, 2001

You know, I'm thinking something different: wouldn't these extensions to our possible lifespans make us more timid? As it stands, a lot of people say things like "Well, ya only got 60, 70 years- might as well live it up!". But if you suddenly have 150 or even 200 years, won't you start being super-cautious because you're gambling that much more lifetime? If someone dies at 25 now, we consider that a tragedy- "so young!". If the average lifespan gets to be 200, we'll say the same thing when they die at 66- "so young, so tragically young!". Heck, teenagers will be conservative and risk averse while seniors hitting their second century will be bungee jumping and doing heroin in crackhouses...
posted by hincandenza at 3:47 PM on October 4, 2001

I myself doubt this is the long-sought "cure" for cancer, but any advance in research and treatment is welcome news. :)
posted by StOne at 9:44 PM on October 4, 2001

Paris, if you're still reading, "in my cups" is slang for "I'm drunk." If it weren't so early, I'd look up the etymology (I'm guessing it has something to do with cups), but now you have a project for the day.
posted by Skot at 7:51 AM on October 5, 2001