sent this to WHO, feel free to copy/paste amend, reject

[Rich66]

info@who.int


Firmly dealing with cancer is a worldwide concern. The most promising, broad approach to this is the Kanzius approach. When I see the paltry funding being given versus the enormous cost cancer incurs to every society, I can't believe it. Will you or won't you mobilize the world's resources to make this happen?

http://www.kanziuscancerresearch.com/

Their contact is here: admin@kanziuscancerresearch.com

[Rich66]

Ok..maybe folks think I am off the beam with this. Please comment.

[chrisy]

I don't think you're "off the beam" with this! Your question is very much to the point! I'd love to have that question put to - and answered by - the WHO, NIH, ACS among others!

I think funding for this is clearly important, but although the process is slow and the funding (so far) not what we would like to see, I AM glad to see that there are at least some studies beginning on this. Nothing succeeds like success, and should we start to see more in the way of "good" results, the money may follow to move this faster!

In other words, HURRY UP!

[mts]

I think that any "grassroots" advocacy is better than no advocacy...
Your letter is one of millions that is filtered through to the government funded health organizations...

The Kanzius approach is nothing new and similar testing in different formats at multiple research centers are being performed throughout the US !!! Some in vivo.

The Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program from the U.S. Dept of Defense has funded several of these types of targeted therapy research projects. I typed "nanoparticle" in the search bar at the CDMRP website and came up with the following link to several research programs using nanoparticle technology.
http://cdmrp.army.mil/search/eoh2008...=nano+particle

My not so scientific description of targeted therapy:
Targeted therapy works by way of "sticking" a protein to the nanoparticle (ie, gold, or some kind of chemotherapeutic agent) and that protein seeks cancer cells (or vice-versa). This delivery system is a mini guidance system that targets the cancer cell and either kills the cancer cell by way of administering heat or chemo...

There still are issues with dormant tumor cells that don't attract the protiens; issues with adjacent tissue being damaged and other side effects... So, despite the promise this shows, it is still not a sure-fire cure. Well, if anything its a huge postponement of the cancer recurring. And one of the best bets in the future of cancer care.

Interestingly, the targeted therapy was originally developed by a big oil company that hired some physicists to "hide" lead particles in gasoline. After years of the scientists not being able to hide the particles (because of combustion) the big oil company gave up. Some of those scientists applied what they learned to medicine and now here we are.

My point is that the cure for cancer may very well come from some other technological advance in an unrelated field. We need funds to improve education and incentives to retain the brightest people in research. Many research facilities do their best- but when an oncologist can make $400,000 in private practice and a research scientist only makes $130,000... the incentive is clear. And I don't blame them.

Maria

[Rich66]

Kanzius' approach seems different than typical nano/targeted therapy in that it uses nanoparticles in conjuction with RF to heat and destroy cancer cells. Studies specifically on the Kanzius approach so far don't seem to mention downsides. At least this is how it appears to me.

I think if money is an issue, play up the potential savings to insurance companies or business that pay insurance premiums which must be costly at least in part due to cancer. If we could generate adequate funding by linking the issue to profit motives, maybe we could pay researchers the same as practicing oncs.
And again, I get the sense that this approach is only being investigated/funded by the US. Hello world? Wouldn't soc medicine countries want to release resources to reduce the huge burden cancer places on their systems?
Making the effort worldwide, it could benefit from lower costs of research in other countries. I just feel so many parties have so much to offer/gain from this yet it's being handled so narrowly.
And yes..I want it all and I want it now. I'm selfish that way.

[Joan M]

I like the Kanzius approach because it doesn't discriminate -- unlike chemo, radiofrequency waves kills all cancer cells, regardless of origin.

Clearly more funding is needed to see whether this approach can really work.

[Rich66]

It is being investigated at MD Anderson..which is good. But..I feel like the larger burden of cancer research is on the US...all while our "system" is derided internationally. Share the wealth, share the burden..make it happen...win/win