NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.

A “silver bullet” cancer drug…for 5 mice, that is!

In its September issue, Prevention magazine – in its “Need to Know: Medical Breakthroughs” section – has this headline:

Silver Bullet Cancer Drug Set to Begin Clinical Trials

The brief story that follows trumpets one study in five mice, and then reveals that human trials are expected to begin in early 2014.  Begin, not wrap up.  Yet Prevention already calls it a “silver bullet.”

Here are some definitions I found for the term “silver bullet”:

  • a specific, fail-safe solution to a problem(from the notion that a bullet made of silver is necessary to kill a werewolf)
  • the term has been adopted into a general metaphor, where “silver bullet” refers to any straightforward solution perceived to have extreme effectiveness. The phrase typically appears with an expectation that some new technological development or practice will easily cure a major prevailing problem.
  • An infallible means of attack or defense.
  • A simple remedy for a difficult or intractable problem.

I don’t know what definition Prevention had in mind when it headlined this “breakthrough.”  But I do know that 4 months followup in five mice does not translate immediately to a fail-safe, infallible, or simple remedy for a human.

I found something on Stanford’s website which I believe relates to the work Prevention hyped. (I can only guess since the magazine didn’t cite a reference, nor any researchers’ names.) There is no hype in the Stanford article.  In fact, it paints a sobering picture of how huge is the leap from mouse to human applicability.  Excerpt:

“Unfortunately, the process of preparing for human clinical trials is long. The initial experiments were done in animals and the animal versions of anti-CD47 antibody cannot be used in humans. So researchers first have to create a “humanized” antibody to CD47, then the production of antibody must be scaled up in a sterile facility of the kind that is used to create other pharmaceutical products. Finally, clinical trials must be designed so that the data they generate will produce a valid scientific result, and the trials must be approved by regulatory officials.

All of this takes time.”

So, no human cancer breakthrough yet.  No silver bullet yet.  Breathe deeply and move on carefully to the next “need to know” piece.

————

Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer

https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu

 

You might also like

Comments (3)

Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Comments are closed.