Common cold virus could cure cancer, pioneering trial suggests

The common cold virus could cure cancer, scientists say, as a “revolutionary” treatment was found to eradicate the disease in a week.

In the pioneering British trial, 15 patients were given an infusion of the bug, before undergoing surgery to remove and examine tumours.

In every case, cancer cells had been destroyed - and in one case, all traces of the disease had gone, the study found.

Scientists said they were “very excited” about the findings, for patients with bladder cancer, which could also bring hope to those suffering from other major forms of the disease.

They said the virus could become a “universal agent” to fight cancer, replacing conventional treatments like chemotherapy.

As well as reducing the size of all the tumours, the treatment, via a catheter to the bladder, had no significant side-effects in any of the patients, researchers said.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/04/common-cold-virus-could-cure-cancer-pioneering-trial-suggests/

I hope it's true, and it works !

For decades medics have tried to find a cure for one of the most simplistic illnesses, they have found cures for far more complicated diseases, yet the simple cold has managed to outwit all 'cures' and has thrived for ever.

Maybe there was a reason for it.

Does cancer have a common cause or origin?  I know there are common symptoms, but lots of maladies have common symptoms with other ailments.  Indeed, is it the same disease from case to case?

If not, this might be a cure for something with a common symptomology of (other) cancers, but not the whole basket.

Typical Telegraph bullshit alerts...

Because there isn't one single type, cause, or therefore treatment, for cancers,  don't expect any single universal "cure"..

In their intro'/short version, they refer to the ubiquitous and anonymous "scientists" collective pronoun to enhance their bullshittery.

When those notoriously anti-science pro-corporatist Tory bullshit gutter rags such as the Telegraph or the Daily Flail post up their regular "cancer cure", "climate change hoax !" or "evolution is wrong" distraction rumours in the guise of "science",  it's a good chance that in reality there's something shaky in the economy and/or politics..     "Bread and circuses..."

Maybe you should read the article, as it says "could" hence its a possibility using this new method. Which has had ultimate success so far. Seems you are calling scientists bullshit, as its them reporting this and the Telegraph reporting their findings. Stop being an idiot, as this has fuck all to do with politics and going off the source of the media and listen to the scientists


They said the virus could become a “universal agent” to fight cancer, replacing conventional treatments like chemotherapy.

As well as reducing the size of all the tumours, the treatment, via a catheter to the bladder, had no significant side-effects in any of the patients, researchers said.

Bladder cancer is the tenth most common type of cancer in the UK, with 10,000 diagnoses annually.

Scientists said they hoped the treatment could be available in as little as three years, bringing hope to thousands of patients with diseases that are currently hard-to-treat.

Most tumours in the bladder do not have immune cells, making the disease particularly hard to treat.

But the study suggests that an infusion of a strain of the common cold virus - called coxsackievirus (CVA21) - was able to inflame the tumour and cause immune cells to rush into the cancer environment, targeting and killing the cancer cells.

Scientists said once the virus targeted the cancer, it replicated itself, making its effects even more powerful.

Prof Hardev Pandha, Principal Investigator of the study and Professor of Medical Oncology at the University of Surrey, said: “We are very excited about it. The virus gets into the cancer and replicates, like a little factory of viruses. It heats up the tumour environment, and is very specific in targeting the cancer - it had the least toxicity I have seen for years.”

It comes as other trials examine the role of common cold viruses to treat a range of cancers, including breast, bowel, lung and skin diseases.

Prov Pandha said: “It’s almost like a universal agent - once it gets in it kills the cancer. It could be combined with lots of other treatments.”

He said the use of the virus could help “revolutionise” treatment for the disease.

Syl wrote:
For decades medics have tried to find a cure for one of the most simplistic illnesses, they have found cures for far more complicated diseases, yet the simple cold has managed to outwit all 'cures' and has thrived for ever.

Maybe there was a reason for it.

That is a very good point Syl. Seriously.

Maybe the cold virus in a particular area ramps up the immune system and /or makes the tumour cells more identifiable as out of control and targets them. It seems that the immune system could take care of the rogue cells if only they can recognise them. There are a number of what could be breakthroughs lately, I just hope a some if not all turn out to be  treatments.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:
For decades medics have tried to find a cure for one of the most simplistic illnesses, they have found cures for far more complicated diseases, yet the simple cold has managed to outwit all 'cures' and has thrived for ever.

Maybe there was a reason for it.

That is a very good point Syl. Seriously.  

I know, I had a deep moment earlier, it's passed now.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:
For decades medics have tried to find a cure for one of the most simplistic illnesses, they have found cures for far more complicated diseases, yet the simple cold has managed to outwit all 'cures' and has thrived for ever.

Maybe there was a reason for it.

That is a very good point Syl. Seriously.  

I know, I had a deep moment earlier, it's passed now.

Hahahahaha well long live your “moments”!

Vantage wrote:Maybe the cold virus in a particular area ramps up the immune system and /or makes the tumour cells more identifiable as out of control and targets them.

A cold is caused by a virus. If the same immunity for the cold works on all cancer, it seems to say that all of cancer is a virus. Since they don't know what causes cancer, that in itself would be a miraculous discovery.

The point appears to be that a cold virus promotes a vigorous immune response, and if that immune response can be redirected towards a tumour, it might destroy or reduce the tumour.

Interestingly, it has been said by some people with autoimmune conditions - ie, an overactive immune response - that when they have a cold or other bug, their disease is not so active.

Raggamuffin wrote:The point appears to be that a cold virus promotes a vigorous immune response, and if that immune response can be redirected towards a tumour, it might destroy or reduce the tumour.

Interestingly, it has been said by some people with autoimmune conditions - ie, an overactive immune response - that when they have a cold or other bug, their disease is not so active.

Indeed, as I never get a bad cold, or a bad case of flu, its always mild. You know I have psorasis and clearly there maybe a connection here Rags

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The point appears to be that a cold virus promotes a vigorous immune response, and if that immune response can be redirected towards a tumour, it might destroy or reduce the tumour.

Interestingly, it has been said by some people with autoimmune conditions - ie, an overactive immune response - that when they have a cold or other bug, their disease is not so active.

Indeed, as I never get a bad cold, or a bad case of flu, its always mild. You know I have psorasis and clearly there maybe a connection here Rags

If I get a cold, I have a very bad cold - presumably because my immune response is very strong. However, I did have a severe infection last year and my immune disease didn't play up during that time. Of course, that could be coincidence, but I have heard others say the same thing.

It's possible that the immune system is so busy dealing with the cold or whatever that it has no resources left to deal with other things. If that immune response can be directed against a tumour instead of the virus in the nose/throat/lungs, that could be interesting. I'm not sure how the immune system would recognise a tumour as being the same thing as a cold virus though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Indeed, as I never get a bad cold, or a bad case of flu, its always mild. You know I have psorasis and clearly there maybe a connection here Rags

If I get a cold, I have a very bad cold - presumably because my immune response is very strong. However, I did have a severe infection last year and my immune disease didn't play up during that time. Of course, that could be coincidence, but I have heard others say the same thing.

It's possible that the immune system is so busy dealing with the cold or whatever that it has no resources left to deal with other things. If that immune response can be directed against a tumour instead of the virus in the nose/throat/lungs, that could be interesting. I'm not sure how the immune system would recognise a tumour as being the same thing as a cold virus though.

But is your immune system strong, by saying you get a bad cold? Its a fair theory you are suggesting that the body is using up all its immune system to fight off when you get ill. 

But its not just the flu or colds that I have mild. The last time I vomited was 25 years ago, when I had food food poisoning. I dont get sore throats, headaches, ear aches etc. Hence my body seems to be good at fighting off viral infections, but clearly gets confused with my own cells become faulty. That to me means there needs to be better recognition within the programming of my immune system, to recognise when some of ny own cells go rogue. Clearly they have no problem recognising outside viral infections

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If I get a cold, I have a very bad cold - presumably because my immune response is very strong. However, I did have a severe infection last year and my immune disease didn't play up during that time. Of course, that could be coincidence, but I have heard others say the same thing.

It's possible that the immune system is so busy dealing with the cold or whatever that it has no resources left to deal with other things. If that immune response can be directed against a tumour instead of the virus in the nose/throat/lungs, that could be interesting. I'm not sure how the immune system would recognise a tumour as being the same thing as a cold virus though.

But is your immune system strong, by saying you get a bad cold? Its a fair theory you are suggesting that the body is using up all its immune system to fight off when you get ill. 

But its not just the flu or colds that I have mild. The last time I vomited was 25 years ago, when I had food food poisoning. I dont get sore throats, headaches, ear aches etc. Hence my body seems to be good at fighting off viral infections, but clearly gets confused with my own cells become faulty. That to me means there needs to be better recognition within the programming of my immune system, to recognise when some of ny own cells go rogue. Clearly they have no problem recognising outside viral infections

The immune response when I have a cold is very strong, which isn't necessarily the same thing as having a strong immune system. Symptoms of a cold are largely caused by the immune response - the terrible sneezing, the coughing, tiredness, even fever, etc.

The immune system is fighting off dodgy cells and potential tumours all the time, but perhaps some are not recognised, or the immune response is too weak. Then later on, the tumour manages to hijack part of the immune system to grow blood vessels to feed it. If that stage can be stopped, it might be very useful.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:


But is your immune system strong, by saying you get a bad cold? Its a fair theory you are suggesting that the body is using up all its immune system to fight off when you get ill. 

But its not just the flu or colds that I have mild. The last time I vomited was 25 years ago, when I had food food poisoning. I dont get sore throats, headaches, ear aches etc. Hence my body seems to be good at fighting off viral infections, but clearly gets confused with my own cells become faulty. That to me means there needs to be better recognition within the programming of my immune system, to recognise when some of ny own cells go rogue. Clearly they have no problem recognising outside viral infections

The immune response when I have a cold is very strong, which isn't necessarily the same thing as having a strong immune system. Symptoms of a cold are largely caused by the immune response - the terrible sneezing, the coughing, tiredness, even fever, etc.

The immune system is fighting off dodgy cells and potential tumours all the time, but perhaps some are not recognised, or the immune response is too weak. Then later on, the tumour manages to hijack part of the immune system to grow blood vessels to feed it. If that stage can be stopped, it might be very useful.

Yet as seen, your immune system maybe weak against viral infections, but strong with rogue cells
As seen mine is very string against viral infections, as i simple am never ill from
You have to factor all possibilities but agree mine may get confused with rogue cells in my body. One thing is clear, its brilliant at defending against viral infections

Laters and have a good day

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The immune response when I have a cold is very strong, which isn't necessarily the same thing as having a strong immune system. Symptoms of a cold are largely caused by the immune response - the terrible sneezing, the coughing, tiredness, even fever, etc.

The immune system is fighting off dodgy cells and potential tumours all the time, but perhaps some are not recognised, or the immune response is too weak. Then later on, the tumour manages to hijack part of the immune system to grow blood vessels to feed it. If that stage can be stopped, it might be very useful.

Yet as seen, your immune system maybe weak against viral infections, but strong with rogue cells
As seen mine is very string against viral infections, as i simple am never ill from
You have to factor all possibilities but agree mine may get confused with rogue cells in my body. One thing is clear, its brilliant at defending against viral infections

Laters and have a good day

It's possible that you do have a strong immune system, so when a cold virus attacks your immune system deals with it quickly and efficiently and doesn't need to go into overdrive to get rid of the virus.

I don't necessarily get a lot of colds but if I do get one it's like my immune system goes all out against it - perhaps because it didn't deal with it very well in the first place, or perhaps it's slower to get going. Sometimes I get a cold but not a very bad one, but it does go on and on for weeks.

Anyway, it appears to be a particular virus which they're looking at, not any old virus which causes a common cold, like rhinovirus, coronavirus, or parainfluenza virus (which is not the same as the flu virus).

It's the coxsackievirus which they're looking at, a virus which can cause a cold and a whole host of other illnesses.

Here's more info.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48868261

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Yet as seen, your immune system maybe weak against viral infections, but strong with rogue cells
As seen mine is very string against viral infections, as i simple am never ill from
You have to factor all possibilities but agree mine may get confused with rogue cells in my body. One thing is clear, its brilliant at defending against viral infections

Laters and have a good day

It's possible that you do have a strong immune system, so when a cold virus attacks your immune system deals with it quickly and efficiently and doesn't need to go into overdrive to get rid of the virus.

I don't necessarily get a lot of colds but if I do get one it's like my immune system goes all out against it - perhaps because it didn't deal with it very well in the first place, or perhaps it's slower to get going. Sometimes I get a cold but not a very bad one, but it does go on and on for weeks.

Interesting rags, but have you thought of the possibility. That you have inherited certain genes, that go all out, because of past illnesses through your family ancestry with colds? I know that may sound far fetched, but it could explain the reaction of your immune system. In times past said colds were very lethal. Also your point that maybe the first time you got a cold, your body suffered badly. Be interested to know if that was the case and how then everytime your body gets a cold. Your body litterally calls for mass mobilization of your immune system to then fight them, based off the first one that clearly may have effected you badly


Anyway have to go, but all very interesting

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's possible that you do have a strong immune system, so when a cold virus attacks your immune system deals with it quickly and efficiently and doesn't need to go into overdrive to get rid of the virus.

I don't necessarily get a lot of colds but if I do get one it's like my immune system goes all out against it - perhaps because it didn't deal with it very well in the first place, or perhaps it's slower to get going. Sometimes I get a cold but not a very bad one, but it does go on and on for weeks.

Interesting rags, but have you thought of the possibility. That you have inherited certain genes, that go all out, because of past illnesses through your family ancestry with colds? I know that may sound far fetched, but it could explain the reaction of your immune system. In times past said colds were very lethal. Also your point that maybe the first time you got a cold, your body suffered badly. Be interested to know if that was the case and how then everytime your body gets a cold. Your body litterally calls for mass mobilization of your immune system to then fight them, based off the first one that clearly may have effected you badly


Anyway have to go, but all very interesting

It is indeed possible that's what happened, but I can't remember the first time I got a cold. Nobody has really studied why some people get bad colds and others just get a sniffle. I suppose that's because colds aren't that serious even though they can make you feel awful for a couple of weeks.

It's the subject of ongoing controversy though isn't it? Some people say that those who take time off work with a cold are just being wusses. I suspect they're the ones who get a sniffle and sneeze a couple of times.

Raggamuffin wrote:The point appears to be that a cold virus promotes a vigorous immune response, and if that immune response can be redirected towards a tumour, it might destroy or reduce the tumour.

There is no generalized response when the adaptive immune system is triggered:

Wiki wrote:The adaptive immune system, also known as the acquired immune system or, more rarely, as the specific immune system, is a subsystem of the overall immune system that is composed of highly specialized, systemic cells and processes that eliminate pathogens or prevent their growth. The acquired immune system is one of the two main immunity strategies found in vertebrates (the other being the innate immune system).

The adaptive immune system has to have a target pathogen in order to create it's response.

The innate immune system is a pattern response to specific events: bacterial infection and foreign substances:

The major functions of the vertebrate innate immune system include:

Wiki wrote:Recruiting immune cells to sites of infection through the production of chemical factors, including specialized chemical mediators called cytokines
Activation of the complement cascade to identify bacteria, activate cells, and promote clearance of antibody complexes or dead cells
Identification and removal of foreign substances present in organs, tissues, blood and lymph, by specialized white blood cells
Activation of the adaptive immune system through a process known as antigen presentation
Acting as a physical and chemical barrier to infectious agents; via physical measures

The innate system is always there, and not adaptive or responsive. Yet this 'cold/cancer' theory says that the immunity initiates only with the presence of some external stimulus--ie, it's not perpetual, but reactive. That means it must be a part of the adaptive immune system...and it suggests that cancer is susceptible to some "viral-killing" presence (since colds are viral).

Very interesting.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The point appears to be that a cold virus promotes a vigorous immune response, and if that immune response can be redirected towards a tumour, it might destroy or reduce the tumour.

There is no generalized response when the adaptive immune system is triggered:

Wiki wrote:The adaptive immune system, also known as the acquired immune system or, more rarely, as the specific immune system, is a subsystem of the overall immune system that is composed of highly specialized, systemic cells and processes that eliminate pathogens or prevent their growth. The acquired immune system is one of the two main immunity strategies found in vertebrates (the other being the innate immune system).

The adaptive immune system has to have a target pathogen in order to create it's response.

The innate immune system is a pattern response to specific events: bacterial infection and foreign  substances:

The major functions of the vertebrate innate immune system include:

Wiki wrote:Recruiting immune cells to sites of infection through the production of chemical factors, including specialized chemical mediators called cytokines
Activation of the complement cascade to identify bacteria, activate cells, and promote clearance of antibody complexes or dead cells
Identification and removal of foreign substances present in organs, tissues, blood and lymph, by specialized white blood cells
Activation of the adaptive immune system through a process known as antigen presentation
Acting as a physical and chemical barrier to infectious agents; via physical measures

The innate system is always there, and not adaptive or responsive.  Yet this 'cold/cancer' theory says that the immunity initiates only with the presence of some external stimulus--ie, it's not perpetual, but reactive.  That means it must be a part of the adaptive immune system...and it suggests that cancer is susceptible to some "viral-killing" presence (since colds are viral).

Very interesting.

This particular virus infects the tumour but it's not clear if it actually kills the cancer cells directly, or if the immune system detects the virus in the tumour and kills the cancer cells along with the virus.

Raggamuffin wrote:This particular virus infects the tumour but it's not clear if it actually kills the cancer cells directly, or if the immune system detects the virus in the tumour and kills the cancer cells along with the virus.

Right. Good ideas. It might simply be an unintended by-product of the adaptation process, specific to colds.

It bears watching.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This particular virus infects the tumour but it's not clear if it actually kills the cancer cells directly, or if the immune system detects the virus in the tumour and kills the cancer cells along with the virus.

Right.  Good ideas.  It might simply be an unintended by-product of the adaptation process, specific to colds.

It bears watching.

Yes it does. If there's anything in it, it could be very exciting news indeed.

It's not really to do with colds as such, it's to do with a particular virus which can cause cold symptoms, as well as causing other illnesses.

The history of penicillin, also, follows a number of observations and discoveries of apparent evidence of antibiotic activity in molds before the modern isolation of the chemical penicillin in 1928.

The Scottish physician Alexander Fleming was the first to suggest that a Penicillium mold must secrete an antibacterial substance, and the first to concentrate the active substance involved, which he named penicillin, in 1928. Penicillin was the first modern antibiotic.

There have been many--perhaps most--discoveries by accident, with lots of follow-up work.