How far is medical science from developing a vaccine for cancer?
Vaccines specific for tumor viruses that cause cancer are in clinical practice, as Michael Simpson described, or are in development. Because viruses are foreign to the normal human, they are not part of our own genomes, our immune systems are well equipped to develop a protective immune response to these viruses. Preventing viral infection prevents development of cancers caused by that virus.However, for many cancers, the causative agent is not a virus, but a mutated protein, loss of a tumor suppressor gene or activation of a oncogene. You cannot immunize popullations against such events. Therefore, other efforts at immunizing cancer patients, not healthy individuals, against their own cancers are a goal of cancer immunotherapy. A major focus of cancer immunotherapy is checkpoint blockade, an approach that enhances the patients own immune response to their cancer.
What are the difficulties in developing a vaccine for cancer?
The two largest difficulties are: 1) identifying suitable antigens (proteins to target the vaccines against) that are specific for tumors but absent from normal tissue, and 2) to make vaccines that induce powerful enough immune responses to these antigens. Most cancer vaccines differ from infectious disease vaccines in that the antigen aren't foreign to the body. The immune system has several mechanisms in place that prevents it from attacking proteins belonging to the own body. These mechanisms need to be overcome (so-called breaking of self-tolerance) before immune responses can begin attacking the tumors.
How do scientists develop vaccines?
The purpose of a vaccine is to generate an immune response from the body, without the patient suffering from any of the negative effects of the virus. What generates the immune response is called an antigen, a macromolecule that is fixed to the virus. When a cell detects an antigen, it will send a message to the body to start generating antibodies adapted to fight the intruder (the virus). If antibodies are generated once by the body, then memory cells (specific lymphocytes that act as your body's library/pharmacy) will remember how to produce them and the next time the body is attacked by the virus (the real one, not the vaccine), the body will respond faster, with better efficiency. So what is interesting to isolate in order to create the vaccine is the antigen, so that we get the imlune response without the negatives. Step 1: cultivate the virus in a petri dish in order to have lots of antigens.Step 2: isolate the antigens from the virus, so that we don't have all the negative effects if the virus in our vaccine. (I have not yet understood how this isolation is done.)Step 3: add adjuvants and stabilizers that will cause a stronger immune reaction and increase the shelf-life of the virus.This is, as I understand it, the basic idea behind creating a vaccine. Of course, this has to be followed by years of trials on animals and then humans. The average time of development is 12 years, with an investment generally a bit over 500 million euros.Please correct me if any of this is factually incorrect, I was initally searching for an answer on Quora, but only found this question, so I added what I could. Sources: How Vaccines Are Made http://www.sanofipasteur.com/fr/... (in french)
A cancer vaccine has been invented by the scientists of Cuba. Is it a true news?
They did not invent a “cancer vaccine.” They discovered a method to treat one type of lung cancer, not all 200 or more kinds of cancer. Each of those cancers have different causes, different physiological development, and different treatments.So, if this vaccine actually works, and we are a long way from having convincing evidence that it does, it will protect you from just one or two cancers at best.By the way, the USA, Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and many many other countries have a couple of miracle cancer preventing vaccines.One is the hepatitis B vaccine which can prevent a number of different liver cancers. So, make sure you’re up to date with that vaccine.And then there’s the Gardasil 9 vaccine that prevents HPV infections which is the primary cause for cervical, penile, anal, oropharyngeal, and possibly some types of skin cancer. In other words, don’t sit around waiting for a vaccine that probably only has value to smokers and those who work around asbestos. We’ve already got miracle anti-cancer vaccines. Go avail yourself of them.
Is medical science developing anything less invasive to replace a colonoscopy as the standard test for colorectal cancer?
I have just been to the presentation regarding Cologuard. I have no ownership in the company or personal interest in it, other than to share what I learned. This is a container into which you simply deposit your stool and mail it to the lab. No prep. No special diet.The theory behind it is that polyps, stage 1–4 deposit DNA in the stool as it passes by. The lab detects that DNA. It is 92% accurate. Medicare will pay for it.It is just the method for people who don't want to deal with a colonoscopy. Your doctor's office can order it for you. Check with your insurance to see if they cover it. Again, Medicare has approved it.
Is the new cancer vaccine that Stanford Medicine developed a true “game changer” or is it just hype?
It sound promising, but let’s see what happens in humans. Medical testing takes a while. Many seemingly wonderful treatments fail to produce real benefits.Let’s hope it works.
Are there any scientific studies that show vaccines increase cancer risk?
As other users have stated, preventing illnesses via vaccines would/could ultimately increase your chances of living longer, therefore increasing your chances of getting cancer.Vaccines are made up of antigens, millions of times less powerful than the typical virus or bacteria. There are other compounds inside vaccines to preserve the medication during transport, stocking and to ensure shelf life. But these compounds are such a low quantity that they’d have very little, if any impact on your body systems. A vaccine is designed to challenge your immune system, so if and when you come into contact with any of the viruses or bacteria’s, the key to killing this illness can be easily tackled by your immune system. There is absolutely no evidence from honest sources that a vaccine could increase the likelihood of getting cancer or making a healthy individual ill.
Desribe one problem that scientists must overcome to develop a vaccine for HIV?
"The ability of HIV to mutate rapidly remains one of the biggest obstacles to a successful vaccine. Its genetic material is prone to errors during duplication and replicating HIV molecules frequently exchange pieces of genes. Because of this instability and the potentially rapid life cycle of the virus, the genetic sequences of HIV particles in a single person can be as diverse as those of all the influenza viruses in the world. A vaccine that produces an immune response against one HIV sequence may have no effect on other strains." That's a quote from a good article in Scientific American Body magazine that lays out the problems that have been encountered in the search for an HIV vaccine. Here's the article: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=where-is-the-aids-vaccine
Cervical cancer vaccine ?
A. against B. there's no proof it prevents cancer, since it's not a cancer vaccine. It was rushed through testing..i have 2 daughters, who did NOT get it. C. side effects from mild to severe, something they didn't investigate. D.yes it's true. E. kids did not get it. F. they have no proof it prevents cancer. it may prevent or lessen severity of some HPV's, around 85% of males and females combined have been exposed to HPV. 85% is nowhere near the percentage of people that get cervical cancer... just read these sites... http://www.rateadrug.com/gardasil-human-... http://www.gardasilhpv.com/2009/02/garda... LOVE U Denise!! I know Denise, also don't forget, on halloween, we used to go INSIDE people's houses for candy, milk and cookies! Rhianna I'm damn near twice your age, with 3 kids of my own. Life experience gives SO much more education to many things...I guess, as you will learn one day. Rhianna, it pertained to life experience involving children. I have a son and 2 daughters. I would not put my children at risk, for argument's sake. My girls and I talked it over and we decided they would NOT get the vaccine. Give those sites I provided a peek..well, then you'll just argue the data is incorrect. Dr. Diane Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at University of Missouri. "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer." there was an average of 53.9 VAERS reports per 100,000 vaccine doses. Of these, 40 percent occurred on the day of vaccination, and 6.2 percent were serious, including 32 reports of death. If it's your child, then that's one too many deaths... But some clinicians are not ready to accept wide use of the drug based on the available safety data. Dr. Jacques Moritz, director of gynecology at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital, said he would not offer the Gardasil vaccine to patients when good cervical cancer screening techniques and treatments exist. He has also chosen not to have his 11-year-old daughter get the HPV shot because of his concerns. "I'm pro preventing cervical cancer and HPV," Moritz said. "I'm not pro that the physicians don't know the risks and side effects." I am pro not risking death of my children.