In order for our immune system to better detect cancer cells, cancer cells are “loaded” with antigens in the laboratory, and returned to the body. Basically this is not any different than what is done with every other vaccine. And this is also precisely the problem which is associated with every other vaccine. We do not know how our immune system deals with these vaccines produced in the lab. Theoretically this manner of thinking is correct, but if you look closely at the history of vaccination, then you quickly start to doubt the whole theory, because everyone can find out that many of the “successes” which today are attributed to vaccines, in reality do not function at all, and have never functioned. What was considered to be scientifically recognized a few years ago, is being questioned more and more every day.
Although I was initially excited about the theory of cancer vaccination, the studies available today do not convince me. Naturally you can read about the success of dendrite cells everywhere today, but let’s be realistic. Where are the proofs with human beings – and not in the lab. Here I still see great discrepancies. Nobody seems to want to discuss the risk of what it means when cancer cells are injected into the body Everyone says that these cells have been “neutralized” in the lab and thus they are no longer dangerous. But how much do we really understand about cancer cells? When are they “neutralized”? How good is the lab and its personnel?
Basically there are two different types of vaccines:
- In the ASI (active specific immunotherapy) four to five grams of tumor mass are required. By the way this is a lot and naturally can only be obtained in major operative intervention. The cells are then “loaded” in a laboratory and are injected usually 1-2 times a month.
- The production of dendrite cells is the newer procedure. Here a few cancer cells suffice to produce the vaccines.
To point 1:
After studies from Göttingen University on dendrite cells were shown to be falsified, criticism on the studies produced by Professor Dieter Jocham and Dr. Christian Doehn from the University of Lübeck on the tumor vaccine has been increasing. The daily newspaper “Die Welt” called it a “Breakthrough in the fight against kidney cancer, and the “Tagesspiegel” even asked the question whether cancer “could certainly be conquered”.
Such flamboyant statements are nothing new in the field of oncology. Thus Prof. Jocham said among other things: “Our study results show that the new vaccine reduces the relative risk of recurrence by app. 30% and thus could increase the life expectancy of the affected patients”. However the writings of biometricians Professor Hans Joachim Trampish and Dr. Stefan Lange at the Ruhr University in Bochum are totally differently in this regard. They see such serious deficiencies in the study that these studies “cannot be considered as proof for the effectiveness of the vaccine”.
But why? Between January 1997 and September 1998 doctors from 55 German clinics divided a total of 558 patients with already advanced renal cell cancer into two groups. All patients had the kidney removed but only one group received six injections of the tumor vaccine in monthly intervals. Success was monitored every six months over an observation period of more than five years. The result: During the first five years metastasis occurred in 23 of 100 patients treated with the vaccine, on the other hand of 100 patients who were not vaccinated, 32 had a relapse. The magazine Lancet evaluated this as: “immunological breakthrough” – once again!
What the average doctor does not know is that the study was NOT accepted in the register by the Study Group on Urologic Oncology (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Urologische Onkologie or AUO). Acceptance criteria were ignored: “Acceptance of tumors of the former tumor size category T2 (2.5 – 5 centimeter diameter) did not seem practical, as the risk of metastasizing in general is viewed at app. 10%”, this means that even without therapy the tumor is so small that the vaccine can hardly have an effect. Or it came out in the case of 89 patients that they did not have a renal cell carcinoma in the intended stage. In total, even 174 patients – almost a third – were subsequently taken out of the evaluation. And by the way: The costs for this therapy are app. 18,000 Euro!
About point 2:
Dendrite cells were first described in 1973 by Steinman and Cohn, (first in mice), as highly potent antigen presenting cells. They have a characteristic morphology in certain differentiation stages, which is characterized by long membrane offshoots – thus the name (Gr. dendron = tree). Ontogenetically they originate from haemopoetic CD34 positive stem cells from bone marrow. As immature progenitor cells they emigrate from the bone marrow into the blood channel and here they form the monocytes. After maturation the monocytes leave the blood vessels and wander into the adjacent tissue. Here these cells differentiate further into histiocytes or macrophages and immature dendrite cells.
After contact with foreign antigens and activation, probably through cytokines that are produced by surrounding cells or macrophages, the dendrite cells start to wander and mature in the direction of regional lymph nodes, the spleen, or other secondary lymphatic tissues. When entering into the lymph nodes they come into contact with T-cells which give an additional maturation signal to the dendrite cells. At the same time the dendrite cells stimulate and activate the lymphocytes as well. If the T-cell receptor of the lymphocyte recognizes the peptide presented by the dendrite cell then the lymphocytes are stimulated to cell division. This is the theory, which scientists believe explains how dendrite cells (could) function.
Personal opinion: What was initially viewed as the great hope of oncology, has long since returned to the hard ground of reality. Cancer vaccinations have never established themselves, and a study published in 2000 in Nature Medicine undertaken by the Universities of Göttingen, Tübingen, and Humboldt University in Berlin on the treatment of metastasizing renal cell cancer using a vaccination composed of cell hybrids of tumor cells and dendrite cells had to be retracted later because: “not enough had been done to ensure the scientifically necessary precaution” – as it was expressed by the University of Göttingen. Others have not been so polite in their expressions and have called the professors money grubbing criminals.
Nor should it be forgotten that the costs of the therapy (which must be paid privately), are usually between 2,000 and 30,000 Euros. Although I have not yet dismissed the theory of cancer vaccination, and I still am interested in it, you must be very well informed relative to who is recommending which therapy, and why.