David Agus: A new strategy in the war against cancer

www.ted.com Traditionally, David Agus explains, cancer treatments have had a short-sighted focus on the offending individual cells. He suggests a new, cross-disciplinary approach, using atypical drugs, computer modeling and protein analysis to treat and analyze the whole body.

[@calledout4437]

Andddd 12 years later since this video we're no further along.

[@MarkElDeiry]

At

[@notaras1985]

that applies in all fields of science, not just cancer research. thinking our of the box, and bringing new minds coming from different fields to offer their ideas and different perspectives. even a company to thrive must have an array of different and creative minds and a dynamic rather than reductionist mindset.

[@BLFulle]

I hope to be a participant in the first Triple Negative Breast Cancer vaccine trial.

[@briansmobile1]

I love the both the passion and humility that David Agus approaches his study. I feel both are necessary to progress and learning. Five stars.

[@Arcessitor]

Excellent.

[@AutodidacticPhd]

@Mishkafofer And Game Theory does a brilliant job of explaining all the problems in current medical research. It is most rewarding to research drugs that treat problems that are common in populations rich enough to pay for them. It is not beneficial to tackle problems that are rare, or that are more common amongst the poor. It is also preferable to make sure there is as little independent oversight and research as possible.

[@tankiawee]

Several posters have already commented on his misleading presentation. He plainly stated that they refused to use a placebo, which I'll take at face value, but which also raises serious questions about how to even evaluate his treatment. He had 20mins to make a presentation, that does not excuse his factual inaccuracy about cancer diagnosis. He brought up the ER/PR/HER2, these receptors and their role in breast cancer would be unknown without indepth research into the basic mechanisms of cancer.

[@912yos]

The last name Agus means A term that has been used to describe abnormal cells that come from glands in the walls of the cervix (the lower, narrow end of the uterus). These abnormal cells are found in a small number of Pap smears (a procedure used to detect cervical cancer) and may be a sign of more serious lesions or cancer.

[@DrCureAging]

Yeah. I agree we need to do both. I'm not sure that's what he's saying but if he is, then I agree.

[@AutodidacticPhd]

...basically, any academic researcher working on or with a chemical, technology or process that has medical significance is usually working under a private grant, and more often than not, the results they publish don't just effect renewal or loss of the grant, but whether or not they are still allowed to use the chemical or process. Saying academic and commercial labs aren't mutually exclusive is an understatement, and that is the problem.

[@BuoGoaty]

Thanks for informing. It feels like I really have nothing to add now tho.. Do'h!

[@speedyslime93]

A couple of incredible documentaries include 'run from the cure' and 'a beautiful truth'.

[@Itslvle]

It goes from amygdalin to prunasin to mandelonitrile to cyanide. Obviously other products emerge, but are unnecessary to mention here. If taken orally, it will be broken down into cyanide in the small intestine and in rather unpredictable amounts as it depends how much the other foods you've ingested contain beta-glucosidase. So it "fires" way too early. In addition to that, it's efficacy in cancer treatment hasn't really been shown in clinical trials.

[@frenzyfol]

I learned about all these ideas 10 years ago in university and they still haven't been as integrated into medicine as much as they should of been.

[@Itslvle]

He downplays the basic pathology a lot. He's claiming that the diagnosis just says breast cancer, that's it, and says that basic staining is the state of the art in clinical use. The grade and TMN make a difference. He mentioned HER2. In Finland it's standard practice to do the immunohistochemistry to find out if the breast cancer expresses ER/PR/HER2 as it highly affects the treatment, and I doubt the situation is much different in the US.

[@Jerkix]

We know HOW cancer develops. We DO know what MAKES a cell go mad. So accurate we've become with molecular biology techniques, that we can narrow it down to a single peptide change. Google: p53, RAS, Akt, EGF, BRCA, MTOR, SRC, MYC.. mutations to these are what causes cells to go "mad".

[@brummiebetty1989]

He is not claiming that individual proteins do not matter, but instead that these single proteins act within a given context; the combined action of all proteins together gives some specific outcomes that would not be possible if they were acting on their own. This is why he wants to look at the whole thing. If I were to relate this to what you say, forming a unified view is exactly what he aims to achieve.

[@nema151]

THANK YOU! i alwasy thought i must have been missing something when people i have brest/prostate/ext cancer ITS CANCER.

[@LemonLimeLaughter]

Actually, it is not straight up cyanide. I know what you are talking about though. It is a molecule that is composed partly of cyanide, so it is non toxic. But due to a chemical reaction, I forgot exactly how the whole process goes, the the cyanide becomes toxic when they absorb cancer cells. Therefore, acting as an anti-cancer molecule.