Wellness Exchange: Health Discussions
COVID-19 Discovery: Potential Cure for Cancer?
(upbeat music) - Welcome to Quick News, this is Ted. The news was published on Monday, November 18th. Today, we're discussing a recent eye-opening study that connects COVID-19 with the potential to shrink cancer tumors. Let's dive straight into the details. Eric, can you start by giving us an overview of the study's key findings? - Sure, Ted, this study from Northwestern Medicine reveals that RNA from the SARS-CoV-2 virus can trigger the development of immune cells called Inducible Non-Classical Monocytes, or INCMs, which have shown potential in attacking cancer cells directly. These INCMs are quite rare normally, but they multiply when there's inflammation, like during a severe COVID-19 infection. The cool part is these cells can infiltrate tumors and deliver a one-two punch to the cancer cells, helping to shrink the tumors. - Eric, while that sounds promising, it's essential to note that these findings are in the very early stages. We're talking about preliminary animal model tests here. Oh, sure, let's drum up excitement over some experiments with mice. Do you really think it's time to tout this as a breakthrough? - Kate, the findings are indeed in early stages, but what's crucial is the significant tumor reduction observed the compound reduced tumors by 60% to 70% in mice with human cancers. These numbers are pretty compelling, and you've got to admit that kind of reduction is nothing to sneeze at, even if it started with mice. - Eric, you can't just jump on that bandwagon. The context matters. Inflammation caused by severe COVID-19 is what triggers these INCMs. Are we saying people should get COVID-19 to fight cancer? That kind of message could be dangerous. - Absolutely not, Ted. The researchers emphasized that the goal is to understand and replicate the process chemically without having to infect people with the virus. It's about translating these findings into a therapeutic drug. We want the benefits without the baggage of the action. - And yet we haven't even started clinical trials on humans. We should be cautious about hyping an experimental discovery. We're just setting people up for disappointment otherwise. - All right, so there's a lot of potential, but also a bunch of question marks. Let's move to our next segment where we'll discuss historical precedents. Kate, can you start by explaining any historical precedent for such a surprising medical discovery? - Absolutely, Ted. One comparable instance is the accidental discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Unlike this COVID-19 study, penicillin was found while investigating something entirely unrelated. His discovery revolutionized medicine. But remember, it took over a decade to be ready for widespread use. Just because it's discovered doesn't mean it's instantly available. - Kate contrasting this to penicillin isn't entirely fair. Penicillin required accidental discovery and then years of rigorous testing. Here we have a focus study already aiming at a specific outcome, cancer treatment. We've got a clear target and we're already hitting some impressive marks in early tests. And how about the rush for treatments during the early HIV/AIDS epidemic? We saw many unverified treatments being touted, misleading patients. The lesson is to be cautious and not prematurely celebrate. We don't want another miracle cure that ends up being nothing but snake oil. - That's an important point, Kate. But this isn't exactly a rushed cure. The researchers have a specific mechanism they're targeting with promising preclinical results. Clinical trials are a must, but let's not dismiss this too readily. There's a sweet spot between calls. - Eric, excessive optimism can lead to misinformation. Patients and their families deserve transparency and cautious optimism based on rigorous science. Jumping the gun with findings can do more harm than good in the long run. - Both of you make valid arguments. Eric, any past events that support your viewpoint? - The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines comes to mind. Within a year, multiple effective vaccines were rolled out. It shows that rapid scientific advances are possible when the focus and resources are aligned. If cancer research gets a similar level of attention and funding, who knows what we could achieve? - But the vaccine development was based on decades of prior research on mRNA technology. This cancer treatment pathway using INCMs is still very nascent. We've got the cart way before the horse here. - Understood. Staying on track, what factors made the COVID-19 vaccine development faster? And can those factors apply here? - Global urgency, massive funding and pre-existing research on coronaviruses accelerated vaccine development. Cancer treatment research doesn't have the same immediate cohesion or collective push. The urgency of a global pandemic united efforts in an unprecedented way. - Yet, if this study gains sufficient attention and funding similar to the vaccine efforts, breakthroughs can happen faster, public and private sectors need to see the potential and act, we need all hands on deck to move this from the lab to the clinic just as swiftly. - Let's explore two potential future scenarios. Eric, what are your thoughts on how things will unfold if this research passes clinical trials? - If it passes, Ted, we could see a revolutionary shift in cancer treatments, especially for advanced stages. Combining chemotherapy or radiation with these INCMs could significantly enhance patient recovery rates and outcomes. It could become a new standard and comprehensive cancer care. - Eric, that's best case optimism. Let's consider worst case. Even if clinical trials succeed, we might encounter severe side effects or limited efficacy across diverse cancer types. Plus mass production and equitable distribution are major hurdles. It's not always sunshine and rainbows. - Interesting points. Kate, what would the future look like if this research doesn't produce the expected results? - Ted, we'd likely revert to traditional cancer treatment paths, but this research could still enrich our understanding of immune responses to cancers. It may guide future studies towards successful therapies. Knowledge gained can pave the way for other breakthroughs, even if this one doesn't pan out as hoped. - Kate, even in that scenario, the research wouldn't be a waste. The insights gained regarding INCMs could spark other innovative approaches and collaborations in the medical field. It's like laying the groundwork for future discoveries, even if this isn't the silver bullet. - True incremental scientific progress is valuable, but let's not sidestep the real impact on patient hope and financial investment with failed high expectations. We can't afford to let people down, especially when stakes are this high. - Considering funding and global health policies, how might governments and the medical community support or hinder this potential breakthrough? - Governments could play a crucial role by funding large-scale trials and fast-tracking regulatory approval. International cooperation and data sharing would also be pivotal. We need a unified global effort to tackle something as massive as cancer effectively. - Eric, but we also need strict oversight to ensure trials are thoroughly vetted. Rushed approvals could lead to public backlash if unexpected issues arise. Scrutiny ensures safety and efficacy, which in the long run builds public trust. - All right, folks. You've given our audience a lot to think about regarding this groundbreaking study. Thank you, Eric and Kate, for your insights and engaging debate.