At least that is my current experience at my ripe age of 66!
So I, too, wish to express gratitude.

Meanwhile the CDC was saying there is not much need for women over 70 to get annual mammograms.

I am here to tell you...ignore the CDC.

I'll get me off to that place where they sqush my boobs...it's not even painful to me, just weird. I'm 66 and missed the past couple of years my primary doc ordered one for me. I promise.

And I mean to ask them, will they bill me half rate considering I have only boob now?

told me she spent the night before figuring out the money she'd save on toilet paper after her colonoscopy.

I lost my little sister and her husband four years apart to the day, my two best friends.

Their children had to deal with the loss of both Parents, both had almost beat the cancer when it took their lives, it was heartbreaking to say the least.

If it's true and a cure is found along these lines this woman should get the Nobel Prize.

Hands down.

I'll be interested to see the application and how long until approved and becomes a standard treatment. And how it would be used.

Thanks for posting. I am a recent cancer survivor that is now cancer free, but I wonder of recurrence.

Changes nothing for us. Don't care.

medicine.

I'm going to lose my insurance because I can't afford the Trumpcare premiums. I'm trying to come to grips with the fact that all of this will be out of reach for me. The millions of us -- if we find a lump or a spot, too bad. We won't be able to do a thing about it. So it's exciting science, but too emotionally painful to really contemplate.

...sounds menacing and foreign. Quick... deport her.

I hope this becomes a routine treatment

I can't believe it.

Big bucks for the pharmaceutical industry in treatment. Hopefully, no one will try to make a huge profit off this discovery. Medicine should be about saving lives, not making money for shareholders.

This is an exciting breakthrough though!

for their shareholders.

Medical corporations are no exception. The same applies to corporations that by omission or commission damage the environment as well as society.

Can laws be changed to also impose social and environmental responsibilities on corporations, obligations to ensure that maximum social and environmental benefits also accrue?

Is there something inadequate, not fit for purpose, about the way "profit" is calculated within contemporary financial systems, when so many negative consequences are classed as 'externalities' and not taken into account at all?

when there were laws and strict ethics regarding anything related to medicine. Pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and doctors were not allowed to advertise. Medicine was considered a service, not a commodity. At times, it seemed it bit restrictive, but now I can see why.

I take an anti-cancer drug which lists for 800.00 to 1600.00 a month, for the generic version, no less,
depending on which stores you look at, and a week later those prices will, and have, changed.
Luckily, there are ways for the non-insured to get an extremely cheap price, but few people know about it.

Insurance companies do not seem to be challenging the insanely high prices of drugs and doctor bills.

Funny that both of my parents became cancer-free after treatment, so I guess Big Pharma suspended its evil profit-seeking campaign just long enough to cure them, for some reason.

My father, in fact, was successfully treated for two different cancers years apart. What could possibly account for this two-person shift in the malevolent agenda of the ravenous pharmaceutical machine?

I lost my husband seven years ago, and my brother-in-law last year. Nothing would have helped my husband...his was genetic. But my brother-in-law was a different story...he would have benefited from the clinical trials. But it is a breakthrough, and a welcome one. I'm a little dismayed by some of the comments here. Just this once, can we put politics aside? ALL new treatments, regardless of the condition they're treating, are expensive and not available to all at first. But this will save lives, maybe not as many as we would want in the short term, but down the road. This is too late for both my husband and brother-in-law, but it can benefit my nephews and nieces...as well as your children. Can we just celebrate the breakthrough?

Peace.

There is nothing to be gained by attacking a researcher for having discovered something. (I suspect what bothers some people is that it's a female researcher with a foreign name. An all-American male researcher would have been celebrated for something like this, but no one likes it when a woman shows she's smarter than all the men out there.)

I'm sick of the conspiracy theories. It's not easy to find a cure for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's. It's not because there is some sort of conspiracy that a cure doesn't yet exist. These are very complicated diseases, and research often doesn't progress in a linear way.

If people don't like the medical industrial complex, they should fight for single-payer healthcare. Attacking a university researcher for being curious and observant and brilliant is the wrong response.

The treatment will become afford.

Partial to JHU folks. They saved my hubs from cancer and my son has two degrees from JHU.

I had a doctor once tell me: "The only reason everybody doesn't die of cancer is that they die of something else first." No one is immune from cancer.

and as a bonus...a girl discovered it

We won't have the insurance to pay for it.

With science I've learned to wait for confirmation... so here's to hoping!

The article said the encouraging results were in mice, not humans, and it didn't say whether the two drugs that showed effectiveness were cheap to produce, or cost a lot, and therefore would not be easy to mass-produce. My father was treated for pancreatic cancer at Johns Hopkins. They did their level best, but they couldn't save him.

Working with many of these phenomenal people is such a pleasure. I just celebrated 30 years at Johns Hopkins, and every one of them has been fantastic.

and our eternal gratitude to those who have worked so hard to try to lessen the ravages of cancer which affect us all. I have recently suffered a terrible loss; it is so difficult when we think a loved one might have been saved by more research or a different treatment. But one of my real regrets is that big-profit Pharma is allowed to advertise to cancer patients and doctors in ways that are cruel and dishonest. With cancer we want to try anything that might work and all patients should have options, but every patient has the right to know exactlywhat their treatment may entail, including pain and cost and time. We can be thankful that advances like immunotherapy have saved some lives but how many really know what "lengthening your life" means if you have lung cancer or how severe the side effects of a treatment for metastasized breast cancer may be.

I recommend the new book, The Bright Hour, by Nina Riggs who died of cancer this year at age 39.

The team then tested two drugs known to work on the Interleukin receptors to see if they would block or slow metastasis in mice. They found that using the two drugs together would block the signals from the Interleukin proteins that told the cancer cells to break off and spread, slowing — though not completely stopping — metastasis.

The drugs the team used were Tocilizumab, a rheumatoid arthritis treatment, and Reparixin, which is being evaluated for cancer treatment.

The drugs bind to the Interleukin receptors and block their signals, slowing metastasis.

Though metastasis was not completely stopped, Jayatilaka said, the mice given the drug cocktail fared well and survived through the experiment. She said adding another, yet-to-be-determined drug or tweaking the dose might stop metastasis entirely.