Biochemistry-Biophysics based treatment of Cancer

[Jay Kulsh]

I wish to discuss a Biochemistry-Biophysics based treatment of Cancer, that has been languishing for more than 25 years because it is not patentable.
A 1985 study published in the journal Cancer Research showed 98% reduction of tumors in 5 hours over 5 days of treatment? Strangely there were no follow ups. Thanks.

Jay
 

[CharonY]

First, it would be good if you provided a reference for the paper (i.e. what is missing is author, ideally volume and issue, too). 

Second, you will find papers indicating that something kills or reduces viability of cancer cells on an almost regular basis. Most of them are in vitro or animal experiments, and many are difficult to translate into something clinically useful. There are myriads of reason why folks do not follow up, including that the effects cannot be reliably reproduced or they figure out that it is too toxic and so on. Sometimes it is simply because no one got around in further testing it, because there are so many other better candidates in the pipeline. The rule with cancer seems to be that  basically everything causes cancer and everything kills cancer cells. 

[Jay Kulsh]

Thanks for responding. I was a bit reluctant to provide link to the article since was not sure if I am in the right section of the forum. Here it is:
https://cancer-treatment.net/Ref.7-Journal-Cancer-Research-Article-of-1985.htm

What you are saying is true in general for cancer research, but not in this case. I spoke at length with the lead author of above study and he informed me that they could not get funding. Please see his letter to me:
https://cancer-treatment.net/from-very-positive-cancer-therapy-study-author.htm

This cancer treatment is certainly not toxic. And this treatment is just as effective in humans as in animals. Please see this scientific publication:
https://cancer-treatment.net/languishing-promising-cancer-therapy-2014-article.htm

[CharonY]

On 10/20/2020 at 12:31 PM, Jay Kulsh said:

What you are saying is true in general for cancer research, but not in this case. I spoke at length with the lead author of above study and he informed me that they could not get funding. Please see his letter to me:

I will have to read the paper, but that is not unusual. As I mentioned, plenty of folks work on cancer research and what is getting funded is just a fraction of the ideas. Due to the number of applications, it is a bit random what gets funded. Ultimately the lead investigator has to decide whether they want to invest more time pursuing funding or try to do other things, instead. Especially NIH is often known that you really have to be fairly far into the project before they decide to give you money (how you get there is another matter). From the abstract some of the limitations is that it is still quite preliminary, and lacks a mechanism. So one would at least look at current lit and see whether there is something which helps develop a model of the mechanism (there are quite a few folks trying out physical treatments, including, heat, laser light and so on; in fact there where whole study section funded for precisely these types of approaches, so there may be more out there at this point). Also, if lit review indicates that this is something to continue one would likely need a more extensive animal study. That all costs money, of course.

That all being said, cancer research especially is a crapshot. Competition is fierce and unless one is very well established it is really difficult to get money (and even then chances are not always great).

 

Edit: I would also encourage everyone interested into the paper to use this link, which refers to the journal in which it was actually published: https://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/45/11_Part_2/5625.full-text.pdf

The other link(s) provided by the user are leading to an unaffiliated website and seems to be rather sketchy.

[Jay Kulsh]

It is interesting that you wonder about the "model of the mechanism" for the effectiveness of gentle electrotherapy to treat cancer. My contribution to this therapy is just that. It is based on quenching of free-radical at the active site of enzyme Ribonucleotide Reductase (RnR) which is bottleneck enzyme for DNA synthesis as well as cancer growth. Here is my published article on the subject:
https://cancer-treatment.net/novel-cancer-therapy-1997-article.htm

More information is available at the home page of the website: https://www.cancer-treatment.net which belongs to a California Non-Profit. 

BTW, your link to the 1985 article is certainly better than mine. Thanks.

[Purple Diamond]

Jay, I'll be sending an email, with photo

[John Cuthber]

Interesting idea.

Reminds me of the discovery of cisplatin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisplatin#History

[Jay Kulsh]

John,

Thanks for pointing out similarity of GEIPE treatment to Cisplatin. GEIPE works by disabling the enzyme RnR which controls the bottleneck step in DNA replication. Cisplatin works in part by binding to DNA and inhibiting its replication.

Advantages of GEIPE over Cisplatin:

• It is non-toxic, and therefore should have much wider applicability. (Cisplatin is primarily effective for testicular cancers.)
• It stops DNA replication -- only in cancerous tissues, as various experiments attest -- at more fundamental level by preventing synthesis of building blocks (4 bases) of DNA.

Disadvantages of GEIPE over Cisplatin:

• It is non-patentable -- and thus of no interest to cancer institutions.

This unique 'disadvantage' has won the day for more than 25 years. From the perspective of suffering and dying cancer patients, a way out must be found, somehow, some day.