I could not agree more. Curing 15,000 people a year is just not in their business model.

If we applied this kind of science to diseases we currently vaccinate against, we may be able to save billions on health-care. Unfortunately, the savings on our health care would mean less money for the big pharmas.

Wait, is this a good story? The news has a happy story? I must be dreaming.

If no big pharma will fund it then we (the people) should nationalize it. Remember, each year this is 5x the death toll of 911...

This is great news 8)

Hopefully this team doesnt allow their research and solution be bought out by a pharmaceutical company. Even though they stand to make millions or billions of dollars from it personally, it'd be nice to see someone stand up against the commercialization of medicine and cures.

I'm a doctor, and I agree 100%. Even more reason why we need to restructure our health care system.

Rack N Stack: My doctor says the same and I believe him. Thank you

It is ideas like this that are the solution to our health care costs. Pure research into novel ideas; most of them will be complete dead ends, but if we can find that 1 in a 10,000 that solves the problem, then it's worth it.

Repeat this particular story 10,000 times and you will still have spent less money than we spend on partial solutions to cancer, year after year, never mind the human cost of pain to the patients and to the families who have to watch it.

Almost 2 million Americans die of cancer each year. Now imagine if instead of suffering from cancer, these people could get cured with a single shot and were able to get back to work immediately.

The drug companies will go broke over this one.

MARK MY WORDS THIS DRUG WILL BE SMASHED BY THE DRUG COMPANIES.

Pharmaceutical company R&D money does not go the creation of new drugs, Pharmaceutical company R&D money only goes towards the delivery of new drugs that were researched and developed with Federal National Science Foundation(NSF)/National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds!!! Pharma companies always talk up about how much they spend in R&D, but it has nothing to do with the creation of drugs!!! Yes, it is important to be able to deliver new drugs safely to patients, and there is no question about that, but that is not where the majority of research funding lies. Pharma relies heavily on your tax dollars to create the drugs they deliver to the public and make money off of research your tax dollars paid for. You, Mr. & Mrs. American Taxpayer HEAVILY subsidize the pharma industry and then they run around the world making profit of the drugs you helped create, and then they charge you OUTRAGEOUS amounts of money (through your insurance and medicare) to deliver your drugs back to you. It's a HUSTLE, and Republican administrations have made absolutely sure the hustle would be highly profitable for big pharma!!! Funny thing, these pharma companies pay little to no tax on all the profit they make off of your federally-funded medical research, and then complain about how much they spend in R&D when you demand they pay their fair share!!!

NEA Exec.: I totally agree. Suggest we begin a national movement to do just that. I affirm I will contribute money and effort toward such.

Cygnus_x-1: I so hope as you, this teams motivation is to kill this monster and will not allow money to defer their discovery.

Wonder how long before the FDA and congress are bought off by Big Pharma to rule against approval of these cures and solutions for regular use.

NEA Exec.- That is what we should be doing. Unfortunately, we, the taxpayers, fund many experiments and cures and then...,viola, we give the drugs to big Pharma . So poor people die because they cannot afford the cure that we paid for. I bet we have funded more cures than big pharma., yet "our" government will not even negotiate for the price of medicines...., or allow us to import them in. Every other country in the world negotiates the price! follow the money... America is ALL about a few thousand obscenely wealthy people. Yea Tea Party....,yuck

I agree that it is not funded because it will cut into the pharmaceutical companies profit line. Cancer is at epidemic proportions. Go to ANY place where chemotherapy is administered. The chairs are always filled to capacity - with several patients per chair, per day, EVERYDAY! This story should be shouted from every roof top!!! This could be the silver bullet - wouldn't that be GREAT!!!

This is why we shouldn't be cutting back on government (NIH) funded research. The NIH budget is an absolutely tiny percentage of the federal budget, but even small cuts in funding shut down research projects -- any one of which could turn out to be among the greatest breakthroughs of our time.

Did you just completely ignore the statements in the article that referenced the fact that funding will most likely now be pouring in from different sources, including the government.

There is only so much money available, they can't fund everything. Since some extraordinarily positive results have now been shown, they will have the money they need. But just because they didn't get it the first time doesn't mean there is some conspiratorial corporate element trying to keep research from happening.

I swear some people will twist anything they can into trying to support their "all corporations are eeeeevil" argument.

The people who work for corporations also come down with cancer, as do their relatives and loved ones. To suggest that they are deliberately trying to prevent a cure for profit motives is really beyond delusional

ConservativeNotRepublican - Most corporations ARE evil. Not all of them though. Only the ones that stand to profit off of screwing people. i.e. drug companies, oil companies, banks.

B-1768549: I love liberals who will buy a computer....made by a corporation...pay a monthly fee to an ISP....set-up by a corporation....and use a free blog....provided by a corporation....so they can bitch about corporations.

ConservativeNotrepublican: A little bitching here and there is healthy. Arguing helps the very lucky sometimes to see his/her own failings and adjust. I believe it has helped me. Damn! I'll likely get an arguement now. Hope not. I'm too hyped over this news.

I don't mind paying corporations for things that I feel like I get my moneys-worth from. I work for a corporation, and I feel like I get paid good money for the work I have to do. Like I said: not all corporations are evil.

Exactly right. One reason we are not as far along as we should be is because too much money is made from simply treating people and not curing them.
I think one thing that would stop this is requiring that after a certain number of years, they can no longer make a profit from treatments, if they were not putting money into ideas like this; or perhaps something like all profits must go into research. Its obviously not a simple thing to do however.

No, not all corps are evil, but many take things too far in the name of profits.

You are all dead wrong. None of you understand the granting process. First off, this study WASN'T ONLY seeking funds from drug companies. Seeking pharma money is done as a last resort to keep your lab open when the NIH won't give you money. This was an academic study done in a university by a small team of underpayed, underappreciated scientists.

They were trying to use funds from government. But it is near impossible to fund novel research with all of the anti-spending nutters and the two over burdening wars taking place. The NIH WILL NOT risk an investment on this type of study. I know this from first hand experience, unlike most of you. There simply isn't enough money.

This is a medical treatment and does not need drug company input to develop. I doubt that any pharma company would ever be involved simply because this is not the work that they do - not because it would cost them money in the long run. Drug companies develop drugs and this is not a drug. All this needs is further case study and a larger pool of patients and trials, with the approval of the FDA, to give medical doctors the go ahead to begin replicating the technique in their hospitals. The University of Pennsylvania will hold the patent along with the primary investigator.

What a bunch of cynical know-nothings.

Our bodies are our best defensive weapon, and the doctor's of the past knew this far better than the Doctors of today. Honestly though, I only see rich people being able to afford this, unless we socialize health care. Why? Fun thing: It may take away the carrot at the end of the stick, but it also stops corporations from burying these cures for the sake of profits. While I want to believe these people aren't all evil and greedy, time and time again they've proved otherwise. Expect this to disappear just like Japan's Water Powered Car. Sigh.

Mac: Acutally, I agree with you totally. In fact, I can bitch with the best of them. I just find it a bit hypocritical that those who bitch about corporations are more than happy to use the products and services they provide that enable them to bitch about corporations on forums like this.

Bitching? I have no problem with it. Just be consistent in your bitching, and don't use the very thing you are bitching about as the tool to do your bitching.

Now, don't take that to mean that I feel all corporations are as pure as the wind driven snow. Quite the contrary, I want reasonable regulation and oversight over business that keeps them honest and allows for free market competition. That is a necessary and legitimate role of government. I just don't want it to be so oppressive that it squashes the free market.

I remember way back in the early seventies when they started; "The WAR on Cancer." That was 40 years ago! It makes one ponder the idea mentioned above, about 'paying the bills.' These Pharma Companies could care less about curing a deadly disease. You don't make billions curing the sick. You make billions just keeping them alive with your finely tuned medications.....40 years?

BOYCOTT BIG PHARMA! *cough, cough, sniffle, sniffle*

Well so much for that idea.

Say what you will about "big pharma" but if you do not like them dont utilize them. They ARE a necessary evil and the good that they do by far outweighs that evil that you are accusing them of.

amazing! With a little tweaking this could be the silver bullet to cure all cancers.

A cure for cancer is too important of a discover to mankind,nobody should be allowed to monopolize it and get rich from it.

Does EVERY story need to be political? Life is not always Republican vs. Democrat? There is not an "Evil Tea Party" member lurking behind every tree to stop funding because it violoates some perceived notion of God's indent or because it increases our national debt. In reality, it is also possible that this experiment worked BECAUSE it was a small test with private money. It is POSSIBLE that if government $ would have been used, the strings attached might have even caused this gene replication therapy not to work? (EX: "We already know this doesn't work, so do that instead." In reality, no one knows what might have happened if tax dollars had been spent. The GREAT thing is that with private donations, it WORKED!! TRULY a great thing!!!

radagast: you are absolutely correct, both logistically on the matter of funding and technically on the matter of the therapy. But I would not expect the public at large to understand this...

My concern is more that the Government will kill this, not big Pharma. Think about the reality of cancer being cured:

1. TENS OF thousands of cancer workers out of a job (lost tax revenue)

2. Social Security way busted... big time... not even funny how broke

3. Federal, State, and local pensions unfunded liabilities increase dramatically as one of the prime killers (cancer) is eliminated.

I suspect that over the long term we would see no savings in health care costs, and would in fact see increases. As people live longer they need more... not less medical care. A cancer cure would save millions, who would get other age related diseases, such as Alzheimer's, needing institutional care.

etc...etc....

Sorry, but I don't think the government wants us to live much longer than we do now.

This is great, promising news. It may open the door to treating a lot more types of cancers.

Remember how anti-science, "born-again" G.W. Bush, wanted to kill off stem cell research in the U.S.? I just hope the conservative, anti-health-care, "anti-Obamacare" lobbies in Washington DC that hate the President, don't find a way to kill this off.

Otherwise, only the rich in this country will be able to afford these life-saving experimental therapies, administered in industrialized foreign countries that continue on with this type of research that the right-wing in this country has rejected as being too "socialist," or reject such research because, "It came from liberal academician scientists that don't put their faith in the Bible."

Where's Waldo: Just out of curiosity, if you replace the words "war on cancer" with the words "war on poverty" (which was started in the 60's under Johnson) and all of the trillions that have been thrown at that, do you still feel the same??

rradiko: Just like the subject of the article, no one was preventing anyone from doing all the stem cell research they wanted, on ANY kind of stem cells they wanted.

Those of us who are against it, just don't want the government funding that particular research. It can still be done by anyone who wants to do it, but let someone else other than the tax payer fund it.

In fact, I would be all in favor of a section on the tax form that would allow the tax payers to select that their tax dollars be used for that, as well as many other things if they wished, or, for their tax dollars to be withheld from certain things if they wished. If you want your tax dollars to be used for stem cell research, fine, just don't make those of us who don't want that, have to pay for it.

Sorry, the military wouldn't be one of those choices. The military is a constitutional mandate, stem cell research is not, so things specifically authorized and mandated by the constitution would not be on that list.

Cygnus_X-1

Even though they stand to make millions or billions of dollars from it personally, it'd be nice to see someone stand up against the commercialization of medicine and cures

Jonas Salk anyone?

.

My Uncle could use this shot NOW. Need another test case? He's a USAF Military Veteran subjected to Agent Orange in Vietnam. I'm sure he'd volunteer.

The government should keep their SOCIALISED, MARXIST hands out of this research!

Its just anti-american! Besides, if a cure is found that will kill thousands of jobs!!!

Ever get the impression republicans are just dumb?

The same logic that implies "Big Pharma" would pass on cures to keep their market of maintenance drugs going is the same argument that makes little pharma the next big pharma. It is also unlikely... the greedy want both!

As for corporate injustice, it pales in contrast to the robbery and negligence in DC by the clowns masquerading as your representatives. If the same two corrupt parties continue to be elected, the country will be over in less than 50 years. Notice the stock market (as predicted).

Half of what democrats say is deception and the other half is lies. Everything republicans say is deception.

Neither party can be nor should be trusted with anything except long jail terms.

re: ConservativeNotRepublican

The constitutional mandate is for protecting the nation, not invading foreign countries that a few corporations and generals think is a wise choice (for whatever justification of the moment).

A nation that respects liberty and freedom does not have four or five wars going on into perpetuity, as the entanglements in the Middle East will be/are. Rome fell policing the world; so will the USA. There is no freedom or liberty in war zones. Having them, disrespects our fundamental principles.

When attacked, the only proper response is "everything dead" in the attacking country, not the lame, no-win police action crap our spineless leaders currently preach. The former garners respect... the latter, what Washington does, makes us world laughing stock. Politicians are, by definition, unfit for public office.

Since several had to make this political, pay attention, because Barak Obama's little health bill transfers billions to drug companies and sends millions of new customers who are not sick to insurance companies, making them even more powerful. So your little conspiracy theory regarding republicans is utter nonsense in the light of the great Obama Healthcare really bad joke of a bill. I wonder how many drug execs and insurance co execs are funding Obama and his ilk.

ConservativeNotRepublican

Where's Waldo: Just out of curiosity, if you replace the words "war on cancer" with the words "war on poverty" (which was started in the 60's under Johnson) and all of the trillions that have been thrown at that, do you still feel the same??

Must be where all of our Country's Debt came from huh?

All you self-proclaimed experts amuse me. The story is out. The treatment exists. If the drug companies don't want to fund it, there are such things as private investors. Instead prophesying doom, why not investigate the company or lab developing it and invest in it? It's because you don't want to be part of the solution. You want to socialize our healthcare. Well, here's a newsflash for you. I just met a man with a brain tumor so rare, only five people are known to have it. He's from Canada. You know, the country with the universal healthcare you all have admired and want us to emulate? He's here in Utah, going to Huntsman Cancer Hospital because the Canadian Drs. refused to treat him, period. He was told "You're going to die, there's nothing we can do for you. The government won't cover your treatment." If changes in our system were left to people like you, the treatment would never have even been researched.

I've recently gotten some experience with our supposed "evil corporations" because my wife has an incurable form of brain cancer. She is being treated by Huntsman Cancer Hospital and the evil drug company helped me find a way to get her chemo drug without us having to pay the $2179.00 co-pay our insurance wanted. You people are ignorant, hateful sheep working for the Progessives and Socialists. If it were up to the likes of you, I'd be paying off a funeral instead of having more time with my wife. Try reading other things besides "Dreams From My Father" and "Das Kapital". You might learn something useful.

conservativenotrepublican........You sound very republican or more likely tea party. Who are you to tell us how to bitch? Most of the major corporations in the news as of late are crooked and have taken terrible advantage of the average american. The oil companies would squelch any new energy source that would cut into their business. The pharma companies are exactly the same. As for whoever said this isn't a drug.....so what that has never stop them from marketing as such. The financial companies will get their two sense worth somehow. I do hope this "procedure" which is patentable will stay with people that discovered it and I hope the government does dump as much money as is needed to finish up the research and get this into the mainstream. Think of the savings to medicare.

What we need is for government to STOP protecting the AMA, pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, hospitals, and all of the cottage industries now getting filthy rich from "caring" for our health. REAL competition will drop medical costs like a lead balloon.

Dan you are the ignorant one..............I'm glad for your wife but what exactly is your definition of socialism? Mine is when some social system helps you get the medicine you need. Give me a break. And don't speak of Canada's medical system when you know nothing of it except for a person getting care in a private republican hospital. Nobody but rich people would come to a country where they had to pay for medical treatment. Lots of americans are told they are going to die, what is new about that? Many of them because they can't pay. I hope you can hold on to your medical insurance after all they had to pay for. Oh that isn't a problem now cause our president won't allow them to drop you anymore. Fool.

D_Loominator you are so right. I believe the insurance companies are responsible for the cost of medicine in the first place. The average person could never have paid these costs. Only insurance can. They go away and costs drop.

Dan...I'm glad you have your wife with you still...I had Hodgkins and was cured about 7 years ago...my doctor started my treatment as soon as he told me the results. I never felt the need to discuss money with him because, I didn't care. It was either live or die...and I refused to die.

Tell her to keep up that attitude...she may surprise her doctors and turn it around...stranger things have happened.

Good luck to you both.

Dan - nowhere in the health care bill does the government "takeover" healthcare. They simply mandate that everyone be covered. The health care you would buy under the plan will still be administered by private, competing companies. Our system will not be a "socialized" version of Canada, nor will there be government employees administering your plan.

Holy @!$%#, holy @!$%#. It's been two years and still this misinformed tripe continues to bubble up as "knowledge." Why don't some of you who hate progressives do something to better America? The only ones who seem willing to try are the progressives. Slandering what they do only defeats your own self interest.

Also (and this is for everyone), drug companies do not develop cell therapies, they develop small molecule drugs. You might as well blame Ford Motor Co. when the crops fail. Cancer is a collection of thousands of different diseases which present differently in nearly all patients. It is one of the most intellectually and technically challenging problems in human history. Millions of people are working on it. Many cancers are curable right now. Many drugs are effective (despite your widely held belief that there are no cures). Other forms can be managed, while still other forms remain a death sentence.

If you want cures - THEN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO SPEND MONEY ON BASIC RESEARCH. Cutting government funding cuts basic science, which keeps scientists from advancing in a great many fields - cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, the list is exceptionally long. Putting academic scientists (the average scientist in academia makes ~ $30-40,000) out of work seems to be what some of you want. These men and women who have sacrificed much of their lives and money to solving these problems are starving for funding. There will be only one result. The quality of research will deteriorate. People will be forced to cut corners and make mistakes as they claw for the scraps from Congress.

Even so, drug companies play their part because they have some of the best private funding and funding derived from their profits. The notion that they won't research cures or that they don't want cures because they will lose money is personally insulting to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who perform some of the most advanced research in these fields. Research that would put your simple minds to shame by its depth and breadth of ingenuity and know-how. When there is a cure it is gotten to market as fast as possible and gotten into the hands of doctors as fast as possible. There are endless examples of this.

Do you really think that these private sector workers don't have family members who have died? Do you think that they don't read the same headlines? They know the challenge better than any of you and they know the face of the disease better than you. If there really was any validity to the notion that drug companies are standing in the way of cures, then the people who would be complaining the loudest would be those who work in them. They would be complaining very loudly that their work is not getting out because of the company's supposed policies. How many of those people do we hear from?

NONE.

You people who traffic in nonsense and politically motivated tripe are the reason our Congress is the way it is. Look at yourselves and the ignorance you spread as fact. Shame. Nothing but rumor mongers, denialists, and idiots. Our Congress is a reflection of the American people and the American people continue to prove they are shamelessly and willfully ignorant, belligerant, and infantile. If you can't handle the internet like adults maybe we should take it away from you.

Grow the @!$%# up and get a clue. All of you.

Radagast -

Your comment about grant funding is absolutely true (1.24) To a degree, there *is* politics involved in the granting process. Every legislator has there own idea as to what is important or not. This flow downward to the Hantional Instutes of Health (NIH) institutes themselves (enough political pressure will change the mission of an Institute or even create a new one). Further downstream the grant review and funding process further reflects politics, such as what kind of grants are solicited, how they are ranked, and up to what rank will they be funded (you can get a very good rank, but there are insufficient funds to fund down to that level.

Dan -

Re: 1.43. Huntsman Cancer Institute (HCI) is a part of the highly respected University of Utah Health System. It is a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Cancer Center. Note - the NCI is an an NIH institute. Obviously, Mr. & Mrs. Huntsman were very generous to give the money (and in academia, you give enough money and you get something named after you). However, much of the money to actually fund the research does come from the NIH/NCI, etc., and other sources (pharma, private foundations, etc.). Like it or not, the NIH is to some degree "socialism" - public funding of research for the greater good, much of it so basic to have no immediate application and risky that private industry will not fund it. Sometimes the payoff is new treatments (sometimes years later), sometimes it goes nowhere except the scientific trashcan of history.

One of the most "socialistic" NIH institutes is the the National Library of Medicine. It has become the US primary repository of healthcare information, free of charge because without it due to the massive scale of what they do - indexing, classifying, etc. medical information - without it no research could ever get done by private sources. As a by-product, the rest of the world uses it as well. That might seem like more "foreign aid", but what we get in return is the rest of the world's research to use here.

Again with the anti-pharma knee jerk reactions...completely inaccurate and off base. Recall from READING THE ARTICLE that the NIH (national, government organization) declined to fund the study as well. Reason has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with high risk of new therapy. The organization that did fund it was an NGO specializing in gene therapy research, as it should be.

The original poster made the ignorant comment that pharma wants to sell years worth of treatments...read the article again, the guy would have died in weeks. Not much time to collect $$ if the guy dies within a month. Drug prices are set according to clinical utility. A rapid treatment or even a cure has far more utility than a simple treatment. Pharma would therefore charge much, much more for the single dose and people would pay it because it was effective. So it is in pharma's interest to license and commercialize the technology and place a big pricetag on it, not the other way around by squashing it.

The comments here demonstrate that the majority of Americans know nothing about the drug industry or health care field, or any concept of business development....except what they are told by the news. Keep in mind that the news, i.e. NBC, is a business itself, concerned with selling ads and getting ratings any way they can.

and for everyone who doesn't believe me, radagast in post #1.49 says it much better than I can.

The comments here demonstrate that the majority of Americans know nothing about the drug industry or health care field, or any concept of business development....except what they are told by the news.

Actually, mist of the comments posted on here proved what I have known for years. The people who spend all day being partisan on boards are likely unemployed and they are unemployed for a reason, mostly because they are ignorant of any intelligence useful to an employer. Look at some of these posts, the intelligence level displayed is around 1st grade, at best. Seriously read some of this gibberish.....

Government is the real issue. Big Pharma just exploits their position. Big Pharma has 1,274 registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C. They spend more on lobbying than any other industry, about $200 million per year. I put the blame on them, but they are working in the terrible system our government has setup. Instead of treating people, everyone in the medical profession has to focus on billing, regulations, and possible liability litigation. Big Pharma is forced to spend their time lobbying Congress for their own aims. All of this bureaucratic spending takes resources away from finding cures. The U.S. health care system used to be the envy of the world. Then the government decided to step in and it gets worse every year. Costs go up and up and the level of service does not. When you look at research and breakthroughs, you will find that it is private foundations that seed the miracles. Just like this one.

I love the people that comment about how the others that comment are dumb and unemployed. Congrats, you are now part of the community.

Courser you bring up a valid point. But despite what some may believe, we are still the envy for much of the world...just look at reasons behind medical tourism. Canadians, French, Chinese, etc. still travel here for medical procedures because we offer them (we provide access) at high quality while their governments decline them and their doctors refuse to provide service. Procedures are way more expensive here, but at least they are available to everyone, even medical tourists. In contrast, Americans go shopping for services in other countries (like we do at the strip mall) to seek out lower price...not because we are denied access and not because we lack quality care.

However I'd like to add this...I wonder if anyone blasting pharma on this board realizes that pharmaceutical spending accounts for less than 10% of health care costs. Administrative cost is something like 30%. Medtech use and especially over-use may account for as much as 50% of health care spending (although it is harder to track). In all honesty I blame the GE's of the world, not the GSK's, for rising health care costs.

Hmm. I would dispute the pharma 10% number, given a personal experience. My wife has cancer and has had 250k in care expense and 250k in pharamceutical expense for the first 6 months of this year. The bulk of that is chemo and blood cell booster shots that cost anywhere from $2k/shot to $50k for a months supply of home injectibles. My wife has cost about $1.5 million in treatment over the past 18 months....and she's a stellar patient. The out of pocket to try and actually improve her outcome is a fraction of those costs, due to good benefits. But, we are still on the verge of bankruptcy...even with a much better than average household income. We have people ask us what people of average income do...and the reality is that most of them are instantly bankrupt.

"Obamacare" actually levels the playing field to better cover a lot of people who are getting cancer. With increasing environmental pollution and diets, there are just going to be increasing amounts of people who didn't pay for benefits (not to mention because they are broke from a recession). In some cases, governments playing parent to mandate we care for folks that can't take care of themselves...is a good thing. The alternative of homeless and squalor...maybe even hugely painful situations, isn't pretty.

To the comment above about actually doing something to help fellow americans, go back to core values of this country. During the depression, you didn't see anyone crying about the government trying to step in and help the poor. Go back to core values and patriotism...and lets help our fellow americans and this country get back to solvency.

...apologies for the half thought above. Apparently I'm sleepy. But that was increasing environmental pollution and poor diets. Along with poor and unemployed people that don't pay for their own benefits...or work for employers who don't provide those benefits.

My wife is a medical researcher -- a PhD gerontologist and believe me, our family finances are pretty dependent on the NIH funding cycle. And my wife is a peer reviewer of grant applications for NIH (as a service, not for pay.) Many of our friends are academics. So I hear more about what is going on that I usually care to hear.

NIH funding has been dramatically cut in the last ten years. In many areas as little as 2-3% of grant applications are currently funded. No areas see more than 10-15% of grants that make it to the peer review process funded. This means that numerous really promising, well thought out, and useful grant applications are denied every grant cycle. Some of it is political, but the vast majority of it is simply that there are no funds. In fact, in many areas, it is common for grants to be approved but then never receive the promised funds. And in the future, especially with the Luddite attitude that prevails among many politicians and voters, basic research of all types will be cut and cut and cut even further.

It is a grand myth among many that the pharmaceutical companies discover new drugs. Of the top 100 drugs (in volume) only 1 drug was discovered by a pharmaceutical company and it was a vaccine developed on a WHO directed grant. The rest were all discovered by academics on taxpayer (95%) or foundation (5%) grants. This means that the taxpayer funds the discovery of drugs and then pays through the nose when he needs to use them. Scientists have long advocated recovering basic research money from the pharmaceutical companies BEFORE they are allowed more than 6% profit and that pharmaceutical profits be capped at 12% instead of their current target of 8,000%. It is the greatest fear of pharmaceutical companies that the taxpayers will discover the scam.

I would point out that in 2009 (the last year I could find data for) over 60% of all bankruptcies were due to medical bills. Of the 60% almost half (40%) had health insurance.

The only question I ask: Is it right for the taxpayer to pay to develop drugs and then have that same taxpayer not be able to afford the drugs once produced? My opinion is that if it is taxpayer funded, even at the basic research level, then the taxpayer should never have to worry about payment.

Blue N Gold: I really don't have much of a problem with anything you said from a pragmatic standpoint.

However, the constitution mandates the military as a necessary and proper function of government.

The problems you mentioned, by and large, are a result of the people in government with the oversight and discretion to deploy the military, but are not problems of the military itself. The military doesn't go invading another country without a directive to do so from someone much higher up.

yearight:

You said:

Most of the major corporations in the news as of late are crooked and have taken terrible advantage of the average american. The oil companies would squelch any new energy source that would cut into their business. The pharma companies are exactly the same.

I said:

Now, don't take that to mean that I feel all corporations are as pure as the wind driven snow. Quite the contrary, I want reasonable regulation and oversight over business that keeps them honest and allows for free market competition. That is a necessary and legitimate role of government.

I don't understand how someone can read the statement that I just posted, and then just completely ignore it as if it was never written, thus enabling them in their own mind to pretend that the person (me), who is actually agreeing with them on this point is somehow still contradicting them.

Sometimes, people just will not take yes for an answer.

"ConservativeNotRepublican" said:

"Sorry, the military wouldn't be one of those choices. The military is a constitutional "mandate, stem cell research is not, so things specifically authorized and mandated by the constitution would not be on that list."

'ConservativeNotRepublican,' you are a, "TENTHER"

-------------------------------------------

Rally ’Round the “True Constitution”

Convinced that the 10th Amendment of the Constitution prohibits spending programs and regulations? Conservatives have a movement for you.

Almost a year after she called for an investigation to discover which members of Congress are “anti-American,” Minnesota’s nuttiest lawmaker is back. In a recent appearance with Fox’s Sean Hannity, Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann accused her colleagues of “forg[etting] what the Constitution says” because they are poised to pass comprehensive health-care reform. Not to be outdone, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina told right-wing activists on a conference call last Thursday that health reform violates the 10th Amendment; he also called on state legislators and governors to “champion individual freedom” by resisting the bill. Two Florida lawmakers beat DeMint to the punch, having already introduced legislation to block health reform from taking effect in their state.

These efforts are all part of a movement whose members are convinced that the 10th Amendment of the Constitution prohibits spending programs and regulations disfavored by conservatives. Indeed, while “birther” conspiracy theorists dominate the airwaves with tales of a mystical Kenyan baby smuggled into Hawaii just days after his birth, these “tenther” constitutionalists offer a theory that is no less radical but infinitely more dangerous.

Tentherism, in a nutshell, proclaims that New Deal-era reformers led an unlawful coup against the “True Constitution,” exploiting Depression-born desperation to expand the federal government’s powers beyond recognition. Under the tenther constitution, Barack Obama’s health-care reform is forbidden, as is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The federal minimum wage is a crime against state sovereignty; the federal ban on workplace discrimination and whites-only lunch counters is an unlawful encroachment on local businesses.

Tenthers divine all this from the brief language of the 10th Amendment, which provides that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In layman’s terms, this simply means that the Constitution contains an itemized list of federal powers—such as the power to regulate interstate commerce or establish post offices or make war on foreign nations—and anything not contained in that list is beyond Congress’ authority.

The tenther constitution, however, reads each of these powers very narrowly—too narrowly, it turns out, to permit much of the progress of the last century. As the nation emerges from the worst economic downturn in three generations, the tenthers would strip away the very reforms and economic regulations that beat back the Great Depression, and they would hamstring any attempt to enact new progressive legislation.

Such retreat to fringe constitutional theories is one of the right’s favorite tactics during times of historic upheaval. The right-wing South justified both secession and the Civil War on the theory that the Constitution is nothing more than a pact between sovereigns that each state is free to leave at will. In the immediate wake of Brown v. Board of Education, 19 senators and 77 representatives endorsed a “Southern Manifesto,” proclaiming—in words echoed by modern-day tenthers—that Brown “encroach[es] on the rights reserved to the States” because the “Constitution does not mention education.” President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spent much of his first term combating a tenther majority on the Supreme Court, which routinely struck down substantial portions of the New Deal.

But Roosevelt’s black-robed adversaries are unlike modern-day tenthers in two respects. Although the Supreme Court was dominated by tenthers for much of the early part of this century, Roosevelt had a powerful populist movement on his side. He won his landside re-election victory in 1936 in no small part by campaigning against the tenthers on the Court, and he used his second Inaugural Address to chide these justices, warning them that “the Constitution of 1787 did not make our democracy impotent.” With a powerful and popular president lined up against them, the Court’s tenther coalition broke, and America’s economic policy has rested almost exclusively in elected officials’ hands ever since.

Today, however, the tenthers tap into the same populist outrage that inspired a generation of working-class religious conservatives to enthusiastically vote against their own interests. Fox News star Glenn Beck exhorts his audience to “be a constitutional watchdog for America” by lining up against health-care reform, cap-and-trade legislation, and the stimulus package. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who enthusiastically backed a tenther “state sovereignty resolution,” told a right-wing radio host that he is “willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats.” Tenther-inspired claims that federal spending violates the Constitution are so common at “tea party” protests that it is impossible to tell where the tenthers end and the tea baggers begin.

In other words, it is all but certain that tenthers will play a significant role in selecting the GOP’s presidential nominee in 2012. And if that nominee wins, the tenthers could even come to dominate the administration in the same way that the religious right set its hooks into George W. Bush.

Additionally, while the Depression-era justices provided much of the movement’s intellectual framework, today’s tenthers are extreme even by 1930s standards. The Constitution gives Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” thus empowering the federal government to levy taxes and leverage these revenues to benefit the American people. Tenthers, however, insist that these words don’t actually mean what they say, claiming that spending on things like health care, education, and Social Security is simply not allowed.

Their basis for ignoring the plain language of the Constitution is a statement by James Madison that federal spending is only really permitted when it advances one of Congress’ other enumerated powers, such as by building a post office or funding a war. Since the words “health care” do not appear in the Constitution, there can’t be any federal power to pay for health care, and the uninsured can eat cake.

Although tenthers are correct that Madison did make such a statement, his views hardly reflect the founding generation’s consensus. Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first Treasury secretary and a co-author of Madison’s Federalist Papers, emphatically rejected Madison’s claim that the words “provide for the … general welfare of the United States” have any kind of secret meaning. Moreover, it is not even clear that Madison still believed that the Constitution requires a decoder ring when he was elected to the White House. Justice Joseph Story, whom President Madison appointed to the Supreme Court, was a Hamiltonian.

If anything, the tenthers’ invocation of Madison reflects the danger inherent in any appeal to the founding generation. Early American politics were at least as contentious as our own, and the framers debated the Constitution’s meaning with just as much zeal and uncertainty as we bring to such arguments today. Indeed, the framers’ many conflicting statements offer such a rich menu of viewpoints that it is possible to find a quotation to support nearly any political agenda.

More important, there is something fundamentally authoritarian about the tenther constitution. Social Security, Medicare, and health-care reform are all wildly popular, yet the tenther constitution would shackle our democracy and forbid Congress from enacting the same policies that the American people elected them to advance.

After years of raging against mythical judges who “legislate from the bench,” tenther conservatives now demand a constitution that will not let anyone legislate at all.

prospect.org/cs/articles?article=rally_round_the_true_constitution

Research results take time. To show that a "cure" works, the experimental subjects need to be tested again and again, over time, to monitor that the disease stays cured and that there are no long term side effects. What good is a drug that cures you today, but kills you in five years or causes birth defects in your children or grandchildren. We are still dealing with the aftereffects of thalidomide, along with a number of other drugs, which cause long delayed side effects.

One thing to be afraid of is what will continue to be the results of patients having the genetically modified WBCs in them? They used a variant of HIV to alter the cells. Granted they stated the variant of HIV was harmless, but still, you need time to wait and see what happens. Also, just because it seems the cancer melted away in a matter of weeks doesn't mean it is gone. A year to continue to observe and test for remission is fully expected. I would expect they are continuing to monitor the 3 individuals for cancer. Also, since they inserted into the WBCs a gene to make them replicate, there is also worry that maybe they are engineering a cancer. Cancer is in simple terms, cells that no longer respond to a shut off switch. They just keep growing and multiplying forever till the patient dies. Are these new WBCs something that will keep growing and multiplying till they cause harm just as bad as the affliction they cured?

I could go on and on. There is reason to wait to publish. The good news is this seems promising. I hope and pray the research will prove fruitful not only for this one type of cancer, but all types of cancer. There are few things in this world that would do more to save lives each year than a cure for cancer like this. The only "down side" would be a longer life expectancy of the population, and therefore more people collecting pensions. Personally, I'm OK with that "down side."

I went into a store once, in an Island Nation, looking for a certain item. The young clerk informed me that this item was very popular and hard to keep on the shelves so they had quit carrying it. This new treatment could be so successful that drug companies would not make it. Why should they make a product that would completely cure someone in a week, when normal treatment takes years of very costly drug use. Answer: they wouldn't.

If you're interested in knowing about the history of and rationale behind cancer research and treatment and have a few nights to devote to it, the prize-winning book "The Emperor of All Maladies" will fascinate and will considerably enhance your fund of knowledge.

I went into a store once, in an Island Nation, looking for a certain item. The young clerk informed me that this item was very popular and hard to keep on the shelves so they had quit carrying it. This new treatment could be so successful that drug companies would not make it. Why should they make a product that would completely cure someone in a week, when normal treatment takes years of very costly drug use. Answer: they wouldn't.

The key here is to give it enough publicity to achieve escape velocity. If enough people know about the option they will go to europe or whereever else the cure appears in order to attain it. If they manage this big pharma will have no choice but to yeild and allow production of this to make some profits. They'd still win though considering the cure would be hugely expensive, at least at at first.

Gert B Frobe

"In each of the patients as much as five pounds of cancerous tissue completely melted away in a few weeks, and a year later it is still gone."

They have been sitting on this cure for a year? What, they were afraid it might hurt a cancer patient?

No they were afraid it might hurt the pharmaceutical & healthcare industries profits.

allthumbs: I agree, that book is one of the best explainations of cancer research I've ever read!

Krippen Virus anyone? You know what happened in I am Legend, right? haha

On a more serious note, I agree that caution is needed in this case because they are modifying DNA and leaving it in the patient. What I think should be allowed however is for the most seriously ill people to be able to apply to have this sort of thing tested on them. The scientists get more people to monitor and lives will be saved - as long as the patients are fully lucid and completely understand the risks anyway. As it is, human testing is loaded with red tape regardless how willing and understanding of the risks some people are.

This is indeed fantastic news, but there is still some cause for concern. The fact that these modified white blood cells (WBC) were designed to replicate themselves in the body is a concern. What are the long term implications of this. Will these modified WBCs die out once there is no more cancer to fight!?!? Will these modified cells in any way affect the body's production of normal WBCs that fight other infections and diseases!?!? This new technique holds tremendous promise not just in fighting CLL, but in fighting other forms of leukemia as well as other cancers. I hope that they get the funding needed to continue their research. I also hope that they keep big pharma out of this. Since this is a new treatment technique, not a drug, there is little reason for the big pharmaceutical companies to get involved. This is a treatment where these modified WBCs must be custom made for each individual patient, it is not some drug that can be mass produced. My biggest concern is big pharma using it's clout and lobbying budgets to throw up roadblocks for this technique. After all, a single shot cure for cancer will have a serious negative impact on the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture chemotherapy drugs as well as other cancer treatment drugs. Pharmaceutical companies make their money by treating conditions that remain chronic, or at least long lasting, not by curing people. A disease would need to be rampant before a pharmaceutical company could make money off a cure. A cure for a disease that only affects 15,000 people a year would not be a money maker unless they could get away with charging an exorbitant sum of money for the cure. This is why the government has to subsidize a lot of research through the orphan drug program.

I hope this research continues and that no major problems crop up. This has got to be one of the most promising developments in the treatment of cancer in the last 50+ years.

Goat Rancher never had any chemotherapy have you? It does all the things you just said they have to prove it doesn't. Plus I know alot of dying cancer patients that would love to be given a year. That is a lifetime for many of them.

yearight, that is true. It would be great if they allowed those that wanted to go ahead and use the drug w/o waiting for all the testing to be completed. Unfortunately, they don't, unless, of course, that person is a test subject.

If something bad happened a few months down the road, it would have been a HUGE setback. Potentially insta-killing any further funding. Far better to save the good news for something that would stick and continue research in that area. That's the political angle of spending other people's money to get results...without killing the patient. Particularly for human trials.

@Gert B,

No one is sitting on anything but their butt. This research is pilot research and is only in the very initial phase of research. The treatment is a long way from ready for prime time. What it is ready for is widened patient testing. Most (but not all) pilot programs that look promising end up failing. They fall victim to serious side effects, recurrence of the disease, or statistical confounds. Often the promising research ends up just being one step in many toward a goal.

This grant was for the collection of pilot data on the treatment. The main reason that it was rejected by NIH was most probably that it was just an idea with no data seeking to collect pilot data, not even seeking a full research grant (R01). A grant to collect pilot data is the most difficult to secure funding for. This is because this where the highest number of applications and least experience goes to a very small pool of funding. Funding carefully chosen pilot programs like this is one way that small foundations can place small amounts of money in the places where they can do the most good. Researchers eschew drug company funding because there are simply too many strings attached and the researcher will not even end up with the credit.

This research study was not funded by gov't or pharma, but by a small private foundation. The research was apparently too novel of an idea for govt or any of the cancer research foundations to get involved with. Thank God someone took the chance and tried. I hope for positive, long term results that will enable all patients to have access to this treatment.

*Thank Science.

Makes you wonder what would happen if either privately funded or non profit companies would start up and pursue such groundbreaking research on their own.

They'd look like heroes in short order.

As a parent of a Leukemis survivor, I think this is great news. To think that someday, people can get a shot instead of us having to watch them suffer the way they do. Leukemia treatments are difficult. I watched my child lose weight, lose muscle, lose her memory, lose body functions, etc......

I hope I live to see the day that our children no longer have to suffer through this disease.

It's discouraging that our government is cutting funding to programs that may lead to a cure for cancer.

Cuts in education. Cuts in scientific funding. Cuts in space exploration. Cuts in basic research.

And for what? To fund war? To put more money in the hands of the rich so they can buy more homes or cars or boats or jewelry?

How many discoveries are not being made because of these choices?

Andrew547: Agree. Chosen and lazy stupidity over learned enlightenment.

Unfortunately our elected officials are in bed with the Pharmaceutical companies. I actually work in the pharmaceutical services industry and have gotten very cynical over the years as companies seem to only be interested in the marketing potential of patent protected treatments.

A cure just isn't in their best interest. If it were I think we'd see an influx of new medical conditions that need a treatment.

The future for research in this country is bleak. Thanks to the education subsidies that are being cut from advanced degree programs (thank you Tea Party) will see a further dwindling of scientists, doctors, engineers ,etc. Add to that scenario the vulgar influence of pharma lobbyists and the money the pharma industry invests to ensure we take as many meds as possible for their catchy re-named disorders such as "low-T; Wet AMD; RA and what have you....

I agree. Subsidies to oil, tax cuts for the rich, military spending...nobody in their right mind can possibly think that this will be better for us than funding for education, research, etc. The only possible explaination for why education, health care, and research gets cut is that the government is bought and sold by the rich military-industrial-corporate complex. We have the best government money can buy...

I cannot imagine a modern day "Jonas Salk". A man who discovered the cure for polio and REFUSED to patent his discovery. He said : "Could you patent the sun?"

Polio was an epidemic that killed and paralyzed, mainly young children. He could have been wealthy beyond imagination. Instead, he GAVE the cure to the world. What happened to people?

GREED!

Thank you md-414241 for mentioning Salk. His gift immediately came to mind as I read this story. I wonder if it would even be possible for him to do that today.

I have to say, pharma conspiracies and unbridled greed aside, this is absolutely the very best news story I have read in many years. Let us hope that this quiet miracle finds its way to everyone in need.

OBXRon: The founders of the organization which performed this research did not "lose a child to cancer." They lost a daughter-in-law, who I'm sure, considering her marital status, was an adult. Nice sentiment, but please read and relate the FACTS.

You will read those headlines in your lifetime.

Our country is down in a trough of consumerism, debt, rising religion, dropping test scores, and a disdain for achievement in math, science, engineering, and research among the general population.

Just look at what the religious right did to stem cell research.

Our country is about money, about having your hand in the next guy's pocket, and passing the debt on to the future.

They wanted consumers, they got 'em. Now the rest of the world will pass us by as we sell off our assets to cover the debt come due.

Yeah you're right and so am I! George Bush is the reason peole get cancer in the first place. Funny how religion and republicans are the blame for everything. That's okay though. If everyone was religious heaven would be too crowded. Enjoy your stay in hadies. I'll stick to my beliefs and my God! Life is a test. If you fail you will suffer. Instead of complaining and pointing fingers why not rejoice? Afterall, we seldom get great news like this.

You can have your beliefs Archie...One of the great things about the Constitution is the gift of both Freedom OF Religion and Freedom FROM Religion. A concept which most conservatives do not understand. That said, this is great news. I am struck by the fact though that both Dr's Salk and Sabin gave the World a gift of their Polio vaccines WITHOUT a profit motive. Both were Jewish by the way.

Andrew, you just can't help it, can you? I noticed one of my rain gutters is clogged. You think maybe Bush is responsible?

A liberal spin on some otherwise wonderful news. Are'nt you proud?

So why blame Bush, why not pay for it yourself? don't have the money? neither do the american taxpayer. The government can only spend what it takes from the working class. But you may never understand that.

Of course we can just read the papers today about handing space over to the Russians, courtesy of his royal highness, the prince of second world status.

How big of a tool and/or loser are you to take a tremendously positive article and use it make a lame jab at bush. Grow the f up ffs, what are you, 12? And i'm the furthest thing from a bush supporter. but what are you trying to accomplish? you just look like a loser who has no grasp on priorities or significance of things in life. your own stupid politics take precedent over everything else, even curing a form of cancer. bravo, you give ignoramuses a bad name.

Andrew,

I dont agree at all with your one sided assessment. Why would you want government to get involved when you can see what they have done to mass transit , the Postal Service , Social Security ..... In order for the U.S. to regain their position in the world, we need to base EVERYTHING on PERFORMANCE. That in and of itself will pay rewards to those who perform.

Instead of celebrating a new and wonderful discovery that would give people with cancer hope, you and your hateful liberal views come up with evil and negative comments. It has a strong odor of stench, coming from your heart, mind and soul. You and your beliefs are rotten to the bone. I hope and pray to God one day you will not be afflicted with a kind of cancer this discovery can cure. Only then you will realize, if you ever do and we hope you do, that evil and hatred for beliefs that do not agree with yours have no place in this world of good people.

OH GOD! EVERY issue is not political! Every problem is not caused by George Bush, Barack Obama, the religious right, the liberal left, the Rainbow Coalition, or the Tea Party. GET OVER IT!!!! This sounds like a wonderful thing... we should ALL celebrate it!

Andrew547

George Bush's scientific adviser recently died of Lymphoma. I wonder if he had been diagnosed when he cut funding for cancer research...particularly the cancer research that may lead to a cure.

Looks like there was progress WITH THE BUDGET CUT!!!

On top of that, I can imagine the whining if a cure for his disease had been found by the research that he budgeted. Another "no-win" statement concerning the years and years past President known as "Bush".

Check... aaaannnnd MATE!

Some of you are missing the point. The religious right is very much anti-science and anti-medicine. Remember stem cells and what Bush had to do about that? Yes, blaming him for everything is threadjacking and not needed here but. But.

The fact is, the right is much more likely to stand in the way of progress due to their unfortunate inclusion of their interpretations of God's "will".

Did God's "will" stop Salk? Hmmmm?

Archie, did 'Satan' send the great men and scientists throughout history whose discoveries and contributions have saved millions of lives?

You can keep your 'faith'. I want no part of the hate and ignorance that you demonstrate comes along with it.

Andrew547, what is happening to this new discovery is happenig under the present administration. Not the previous Bush administration. So tell me moron, how does Bush even fit into this subject. If the government allows this fantastic new discovery to be quashed you can blame Obozo, not Bush. And you can't say he unherited it.

peteMD

Yes, blaming him (Bush) for everything is threadjacking and not needed here but...

....here we go again!

Cut the partisan crap already. Be happy for this finding, and express sentiment that further trials will show continued safety and efficacy. Speaking as an individual diagnosed with CLL 7 years ago, and having worked as a clinical researcher in the pharma industry, and as being a former clinician, I can advise those such as B-1768549 to temper all the critical and even vicious remarks. The clinical trials process, and all the associated efforts that go into getting a compound or device from discovery to market is truly a mind-boggling process, and the costs are daunting. Having spent part of my career as a clinical trials monitor, I can tell you that tests and regulations built into the design of clinical trials result in costs that are difficult for pharma companies to surmount. Further, regarding the "fortune" that drug companies are accused of making: Let's be honest with ourselves and each other - the prospect of becoming very successful and wealthy is what drives scientists to go to the trouble of taking a newly discovered compound from the lab, to creating a small bio-tech company, and working and driving relentlessly to prove the efficacy and safety of the new compound. Call it evil Capitalism or whatever you wish, but it is one of the main catalysts that drives the entrepreneurial spirit, and seperates us from the lackluster scientific culture in much of the rest of the world. Everyone is a critic until they become deathly ill.

Someone made the decision that this treatment wouldn't work. That happens everyday in businesses. More times than not, they would be correct. This just wasn't something that the business community thought would work so they were not willing to put their money into it.

There was a happy ending to a sad event in the lives of the family that made the foundation in memory of their child. Some people may think that it was God's will and others will think otherwise, but the bottom line is, someone took a chance on faith and it works so far.

If this continues to work and can be done for other forms of cancer, it has to be one of the greatest events in the history of America and the world and the people who created the foundation and those doing the research should be given the highest honor that can be bestowed on Americans.

If that can be done with all the other cancers, I am only sorry it didn't come along 30 years ago when my mother fought off cancer for over 15 years and finally succumbed to it.

Archie:

I'll stick to my beliefs and my God! Life is a test. If you fail you will suffer.

This is too ironic for words...so I'll just leave it at ironic. I'm agnostic, but I do believe in being kind to others. Christians don't have a monopoly on anything, kindness included.

I don't need a religion or a "god" to tell me what's right and wrong, and that's the ultimate freedom.

Don't hate me because I'm free...

Wait, wasn't it Bush who claimed that terrorists "hate Americans because of our freedoms"? The irony continues, but I'm not a psych major so I'll leave the diagnosis to others. I'm content to just point out hypocrisy, lunacy, idiocy, and lies...and whether you like it or not, Bush is rich territory. Christians are a close second.

This should tell you something...but it probably doesn't...which is why I'm free and you're not.

If you're feeling angry at this moment, then praise jesus, because you are not completely dead inside, and this is one of the big tests in life that you, my friend, are well on the road to failing.

Andrew547, what is happening to this new discovery is happenig under the present administration. Not the previous Bush administration. So tell me moron, how does Bush even fit into this subject.

I would, billb, but you called me a moron, which is comical and offensive and totally out of the blue, so I'm just going to leave you in the dark, where you clearly prefer to be.

Enjoy.

Oh, and a bit of advice: Next time you need someone to explain something to you, don't be an ass.

Yes, blaming him (Bush) for everything is threadjacking and not needed here but. But.

Yes....But.

But it's warranted. Bush made unprecedented cuts in funding for science and education, preferring to spend money on wars that we all know were unwise, unnecessary, unproductive, and unfruitful. He also cut government revenue by cutting taxes...and in a time of war. If you want to know what this is about, Google 'starve the beast'. Your questions will be answered.

Bush is symbolic of the threat America faces right now from the religious right. We all know and believe in our hearts that what Bush did was wrong, and yes it is in the past, but we are still suffering today from his decisions, and the religious right threatens to force us down that same dead end road.

Next time you're tempted to jump on someone for "blaming Bush", stop and consider that it may actually be his fault, and that Bush is also a proxy for America's fight against the fascist totalitarianism of the religious right.

A liberal spin on some otherwise wonderful news. Are'nt you proud?

Stanboy:

Proud? No, I'm just right. It's not liberal spin. What makes you think I'm even liberal? What if I told you I was a Republican that believed in the power of education and science? What if I said I was a Republican that was sick and tired of religious fanatics hijacking my party?

That's a rhetorical question, in case you are confused. Please look up 'rhetorical question' BEFORE responding, rather than after. Thanks, you're awesome.

To Paul Brown: Thanks for saying exactly what I was thinking. I just don't get the fairly recent trend that ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING has to be put in terms of The Right vs. The Left. It would be good to sometimes just put aside the partisan, caustic vitriol and celebrate a promising development for what it is.

My wife was diagnosed with CLL this spring, so this is VERY exciting, with the requisite caution of course. So those that find it necessary to politicize it, I ask you to consider what your thinking would be like if it were you or a loved one that was dealing with this deadly disease and how you would treat this story under those circumstances.

gbmitch, this is great news - and it is also political.

The point is that this research very nearly did not happen because our government refused to fund it. Our government refused to fund it because we had someone in the Whitehouse who defunded scientific research and ramped up wars and tax cuts to rich people who for the most part would have been happy to continue paying the previous tax rate if they knew that social programs like education, science, and the arts would suffer.

This is very much political. You should be hopeful that this discovery will help you wife, but also furious that it was basically a fluke that it was made at all. Our government used to fund cutting-edge science that changed the world. Now we prefer war and tax cuts.

The key question is: what discoveries have not been made that may have been made had we continued to value and fund scientific research? We will never know the answer, but we do know that this particular discovery IS a casualty of government cuts in science funding. It is evidence that massive breakthroughs in disease are not being made by our government any more, and neither private industry nor private money can ever come remotely close to what the government could do if it wanted...as it used to. We used to want it, and we did it, and that's what made America a superpower.

Reading between the lines, this breakthrough is very, very grim news for America and its future.

I have come to realize that Liberals have one job and one job only - to hate. To take a wonderful news feed and turn it into an attack on a former president is ridiculous. If you truly believe in President Obama, dear Liberals, why dont you act like him and try to end the hate? I guess you just couldnt stand the boredom of your life without the hatred you live to spread.

Ru, there are good reasons people still hate George Bush. On the surface, he very nearly destroyed the country. There are about a hundred other things...but I'll spare you the list. I'm sure you've heard them all before.

If there is "hate" for him, it is deserved, and it will not end until people feel safe from right-wing ideologues hell bent on killing all that is good about the USA while pretending they want to "save" it.

I am frankly shocked by the lies these people tell day after day after day, and the hypocrisy that exists between their words and their actions. It's as if part of this country has gone insane.

I can't. They've done it before.

Had big pharmaceutical companies funded the research they would likely own any patents stemming from it, and if a medication to treat but not cure a disease brings in more money than the actual cure, then hello treatment and long, painful deaths, and goodbye cure.

Peter, you're wrong.

Agreed. If we don't support research, America will stagnate and decay while we remember the previous century, where we were on the cutting edge, and other countries that are moving ahead and creating new ideas will pass us by after building on the foundation that we so generously laid for them and then abandoned.

Research, like anything else, needs to be limited. Otherwise you could have politicians funding research on the size of the penis of the male pygmie shrimp....oh wait, they did that already didn't they?

across the board cuts.....period.

Flat tax to stop the rich from riding around on the backs of the poor and middle class. Period.

My concern about this therapy, when I read it, is that it sounds like they activated a similar gene to ones FOUND in cancer - the ability to rapidly produce. As long as the white blood cells die off quickly (which cancer cells do not), this shouldn't be a problem, but I wonder if this could lead to another type of cancer later.

However, honestly, if I had leukemia, I'd gladly take this cure, even if I knew it would give me cancer again later. At least they get to buy another few years or even decades of life, and with relatively few side effects other than flu-like symptoms.

What occured to me also is that the cancer hasn't returned for two of the patients and I wonder if that means the engineered cells are replicating with their changes intact. Would that be good or bad -- maybe both? But I agree, if it's a choice life or death, this therapy would be worth a try.

The article didn't mention stem cells, but I'm sure the radical right will think of something to complain about.

and the radical left would rather kill a child to further their own life...

Way to take positive news and muck it up with politics...

Oh and way to go with lumping a whole group of people into some tacky stab at others...

As wolverine engages in precisely the kind of name calling he whines about.

Found it in Online First section of NEJM website. "Chimeric Antigen Receptor- Modified T Cells in Chronic Lymphoid Leukemia"

Common English isn't usually the language of authors of academic articles, especially in biomedical sciences. Science journalists translate for us lay people.

Myriad Genetics owns the patent on a breast cancer gene. They developed a successful treatment based on that gene and charged tens of thousands of dollars for it. Many women can't afford it and some that may have survived are dead. The ACLU is suing, saying a company cannot own a patent on a human gene, but unless they win, companies can do whatever they want with the genes they "own".

That's one real-world example of why it's much better for government to fund scientific research, and how companies make decisions that lead to people's deaths.

I will bet you there are a thousand ways a private company can achieve similar results, and I think people will be "surprised" as each one of them turn up.

For the life of me I don't understand why people are surprised that companies make decisions that lead to death, or are not in society's best interests. When have companies EVER made decisions that are in society's best interests? Maybe their decisions are in line with our best interests, but they certainly did not make those decisions because of them. When that line diverges, companies make decisions in their own best financial interests.

I don't think there is a treatment (unless something has changed) specific to the gene (other than proactively having a mastectomy to make sure you never get breast cancer, but I heard of one woman who did that and then got it in her chest wall anyway), I think they are just protecting their interest in being the only ones that can do the test to determine if you have the gene mutation (that they discovered, at great cost to them) or not. When I was in treatment they wanted me to get the test to see if I did, but the cost was prohibitive (and insurance didn't cover it), so I didn't bother. There would be no real benefit to me anyway, since I already had breast cancer, other than as a marker to see if I were more likely to have a recurrence (but I have regular checkups anyway), or whether my family had additional risk (I am the first one in my immediate family to have it, although my mother had a sister who also had it). Only about 5% of the breast cancers are people that have the mutated gene, and only 25% of the people that do have the mutated gene are going to develop cancer in their lifetime. But of course everyone wants to be tested to make sure they don't have it even though there are more people who have cancer that don't have the mutated gene than there are people with cancer who do.

Andrew547:

The patents will eventually expire and anyone will be able to make a generic version of the product. Yes it will take time, but no one is able to have exclusive rights forever. The company that invents the product should be able to recover the costs of research and development and make a profit for their share holders. Afterall they put up the money in the first place. It is only fair they get some back.

I think the Gov't should stay out of it or they will make a mess of the whole process and the costs will be a thousand fold due to corruption and jealousy.

Enough, the gene tests can be more useful than people let on. Drugs, including chemo drugs target receptors. If this gene influences the type of malignancy you have the test done on biopsied cancer tissue can suggest what chemo drugs could be more effective in handling your cancer. It could also save a lot of pain by sparing patients from loading up on too many drugs.

The danger isn't just in the test. It is also in how the test can influence treatment now and in the future. Look at what tamoxifen can do for ER receptor positive breast cancer treatment. Unless you test for this trait tamoxifen is a complete shot in the dark.

DelFairchild,

I am not arguing that companies should not recoup r&d costs.

I am arguing that government should fund scientific research that is in the public's interests.

Otherwise you have a situation where a company sets prices such that some people can't afford treatment, and people die. Polio is a great example of how information placed in the public domain can greatly benefit a society. My breast cancer gene story is a good example of how information kept in the private domain can hurt people.

You opened a can of worms that I could debate with you, but that can had not been previously opened and is not relevant to my comments above.

The US is a subsidiary of corporate multi-nationals. EVERYTHING that is corrupt and detrimental in this world can be traced to the corporate greed and multi-national business cartel.

There used to be a DEADLY disease know as Polio that affected millions. Did Jonas Salk patent his vaccine? NO! Profit form his vaccine? NO

Instead of people like Salk we have a pharma cartel that is more interested in profit than cure!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk

I'm sure the 'religious right' would have found something offensive about his work if he were alive today.

Or big pharma would have silenced him and stolen the drug to bury it or patent it for profit.

We are not the men we once were.

You are dumber than dirt.

If you only have so much money to spread around, you go with the best odds. It's only if you have unlimited money and can try everything that you try everything. When you fix anything around your house or you computer, you always try the 'most likely' first.

Are you really that dumb that you can't understand that?

Henry, Henry, Henry.

Hank.

Can I call you Hank?

It's business. Nothing more, nothing less. Has nothing to do with so much to spread around, but it has everything to do with maximizing potential profits and value for shareholders.

Are you really so disconnected from how things work in this country that you can't understand that, Hank?

I'm with you. Why is this not being covered by the media more extensively. I'll be sending my money in. My husband lost his battle with CLL 4 years ago.

The Alliance for Cancer Gene Therapy (ACGT) that funded this study is the only non-profit in the nation dedicated exclusively to cancer gene and cell therapy research. 100% of ALL donations go directly toward funding grants to the nation's leading scientists working on cures and treatment of cancer (all types). ACGT has given out more than $22 million in ten years in grants and is seeing great results with more than 17 clinical trials underway addressing lung, ovarian, prostate, and breast cancer, as well as lymphoma and leukemia. But the only way to have more results like this leukemia study are to fund organizations like ACGT. Check them out at

I'll donate to this cause.

Did big pharma force your father to get chemo or was it his decision? I'm sorry for your loss, but get real. Your father could have said No to the treatment. If your father was still alive today because of the chemo, as so many thousands are, you'd have a somewhat different opinion of it. I thank God every day for that POISON as I'm still here today because of it.

Tell that to the millions of women who are 10-plus year breast cancer survivors who took their "poison."

Just sign me -

Cancer Survivor thanks to all those "poisons" I got

I'd rather my taxes paid for schooling for scientist than soldiers to go to war and get wounded or killed, for sure.

Frankly, I'd rather that my tax dollars not pay for war or for schooling for scientists. BUT, this is not a political issue!

Did you have the whole article read to you? Funding will not be a problem for a proceedure that shows so much promise.

There is no such word as "bursted".