Common virus 'kills cancer'

[FHwku]

article from CNN

Common virus 'kills cancer'

Wednesday, June 22, 2005; Posted: 9:17 a.m. EDT (13:17 GMT)

WASHINGTON -- A common virus that is harmless to people can destroy cancerous cells in the body and might be developed into a new cancer therapy, US researchers said.

The virus, called adeno-associated virus type 2, or AAV-2, infects an estimated 80 percent of the population.

"Our results suggest that adeno-associated virus type 2, which infects the majority of the population but has no known ill effects, kills multiple types of cancer cells yet has no effect on healthy cells," said Craig Meyers, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the Penn State College of Medicine in Pennsylvania.

"We believe that AAV-2 recognizes that the cancer cells are abnormal and destroys them. This suggests that AAV-2 has great potential to be developed as an anti-cancer agent," Meyers said in a statement.

He said at a meeting of the American Society for Virology that studies have shown women infected with AAV-2 who are also infected with a cancer-causing wart virus called HPV develop cervical cancer less frequently than uninfected women do.

AAV-2 is a small virus that cannot replicate itself without the help of another virus.

But with the help of a second virus it kills cells.

For their study, Meyers and colleagues first infected a batch of human cells with HPV, some strains of which cause cervical cancer. They then infected these cells and normal cells with AAV-2.

After six days, all the HPV-infected cells died.

The same thing happened with cervical, breast, prostate and squamous cell tumor cells.

All are cancers of the epithelial cells, which include skin cells and other cells that line the insides and outsides of organs.

"One of the most compelling findings is that AAV-2 appears to have no pathologic effects on healthy cells," Meyers said.

"So many cancer therapies are as poisonous to healthy cells as they are to cancer cells. A therapy that is able to distinguish between healthy and cancer cells could be less difficult to endure for those with cancer."

AAV-2 is being studied intensively as a gene therapy vector -- a virus modified to carry disease-correcting genes into the body.

Gene therapy researchers favor it because it does not seem to cause disease or immune system reaction on its own.

[DeltAlum]

This is promising news -- but how many people will die while the FDA, CDC, etc. study it to death.

OK, I know that these things have to be studied, but if someone is going to die of cancer anyway, why not try to cure them using any method available? (If the patient agrees, of course)

[preciousjeni]

I wish the "medical community" would also advance proven techniques for cancer prevention/curing. Cancer cannot grow in an alkaline body -- this has been proven. However, Americans eat a highly acidic diet and disrupt the body's pH, allowing all sorts of degenerative diseases to take over (including cancer).

If cancer screening -- complete with family background and likelihood of future cancers -- became a norm, and people would alkalize their bodies, we wouldn't have the rate of cancer we have now.

Unfortunately, when cancer has reached a critical point, the body is no longer capable of homeostasis, so any hope of alkalizing the body is lost. At this point, western cancer treatments are a must.

Again -- if you keep an alkaline body (a difficult feat in this day and age), you physically cannot develop cancer.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by preciousjeni
I wish the "medical community" would also advance proven techniques for cancer prevention/curing. Cancer cannot grow in an alkaline body -- this has been proven. However, Americans eat a highly acidic diet and disrupt the body's pH, allowing all sorts of degenerative diseases to take over (including cancer).

Um, there are a LOT of reasons why this is pretty out there, not the least of which is the body's natural buffering against drastic pH shifts, and the fact that alkaline environments in vivo are much less stable than you're assuming.

You're being far too simplistic the entire way through your discussion.

[sageofages]

Originally posted by preciousjeni
I wish the "medical community" would also advance proven techniques for cancer prevention/curing. Cancer cannot grow in an alkaline body -- this has been proven. However, Americans eat a highly acidic diet and disrupt the body's pH, allowing all sorts of degenerative diseases to take over (including cancer).

If cancer screening -- complete with family background and likelihood of future cancers -- became a norm, and people would alkalize their bodies, we wouldn't have the rate of cancer we have now.

Unfortunately, when cancer has reached a critical point, the body is no longer capable of homeostasis, so any hope of alkalizing the body is lost. At this point, western cancer treatments are a must.

Again -- if you keep an alkaline body (a difficult feat in this day and age), you physically cannot develop cancer.

How do you do this?

[preciousjeni]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Um, there are a LOT of reasons why this is pretty out there, not the least of which is the body's natural buffering against drastic pH shifts, and the fact that alkaline environments in vivo are much less stable than you're assuming.

You're being far too simplistic the entire way through your discussion.

I never said that I was explaining how it was done - I simply said that it was possible. Regardless, why aren't such preventative methods getting funding? It's not because they don't work. It's because they aren't profitable for drug companies.

Anyway, I specifically stated that there is a time in the cycle of cancer when preventative measures are useless. So, I'm not denying the usefulness and need for therapies like the OP presented.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by preciousjeni
I never said that I was explaining how it was done - I simply said that it was possible. Regardless, why aren't such preventative methods getting funding? It's not because they don't work. It's because they aren't profitable for drug companies.

No, it's actually because they don't work, or at least they don't work in the way you think, aren't feasible for a huge number of people (whose other health issues would prevent alkali blood interactions), can cause vicious side effects (including, of all things, liver and kidney cancer - how ironic), and etc etc etc.

Did you know that alkaline dieting was also considered the 'cure' for arthritis at one point, under very similar reasoning to your own?

-RC
--not a schill for "big pharma" but rather a 2-year volunteer in a . . . gene therapy cancer lab

[FHwku]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
This is promising news -- but how many people will die while the FDA, CDC, etc. study it to death.

OK, I know that these things have to be studied, but if someone is going to die of cancer anyway, why not try to cure them using any method available? (If the patient agrees, of course)

regulation is important to protect patients from less scrupulous "professionals." i saw a report on tv the other day about a doctor that treats patients with hydrogen peroxide for a variety of illnesses. despite the fact that there isn't conclusive evidence verifying the benefits (except for anecdotal testaments), he sells it like a magic bullet. he might as well stand next to a cart in a parking lot yelling "it'll cure what ails ya."


-----
just a little more about AAV-2