Jay Bradner: Open-source cancer research

Jay Bradner: Open-source cancer research

I moved to Boston
10 years ago from Chicago, with an interest in cancer
and in chemistry. You might know that chemistry
is the science of making molecules or, to my taste, new drugs for cancer. And you might also know that,
for science and medicine, Boston is a bit of a candy store. You can’t roll a stop sign in Cambridge
without hitting a graduate student. The bar is called the Miracle of Science. The billboards say “Lab Space Available.” And it’s fair to say
that in these 10 years, we’ve witnessed absolutely the start
of a scientific revolution — that of genome medicine. We know more about the patients
that enter our clinic now than ever before. And we’re able, finally,
to answer the question that’s been so pressing for so many years: Why do I have cancer? This information
is also pretty staggering. You might know that, so far,
in just the dawn of this revolution, we know that there are perhaps
40,000 unique mutations affecting more than 10,000 genes, and that there are 500 of these genes
that are bona-fide drivers, causes of cancer. Yet comparatively, we have about a dozen
targeted medications. And this inadequacy of cancer medicine really hit home when my father
was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. We didn’t fly him to Boston. We didn’t sequence his genome. It’s been known for decades
what causes this malignancy. It’s three proteins: ras, myc, p53. This is old information
we’ve known since about the 80s, yet there’s no medicine I can prescribe to a patient with this
or any of the numerous solid tumors caused by these three … Horsemen of the Apocalypse that is cancer. There’s no ras, no myc, no p53 drug. And you might fairly ask: Why is that? And the very unsatisfying
yet scientific answer is: it’s too hard. That for whatever reason, these three proteins have entered
a space, in the language of our field, that’s called the undruggable genome — which is like calling
a computer unsurfable or the Moon unwalkable. It’s a horrible term of trade. But what it means is that we’ve failed to identify
a greasy pocket in these proteins, into which we, like molecular locksmiths, can fashion an active, small,
organic molecule or drug substance. Now, as I was training
in clinical medicine and hematology and oncology
and stem-cell transplantation, what we had instead, cascading through the regulatory
network at the FDA, were these substances: arsenic, thalidomide, and this chemical derivative
of nitrogen mustard gas. And this is the 21st century. And so, I guess you’d say, dissatisfied with the performance
and quality of these medicines, I went back to school, in chemistry, with the idea that perhaps by learning
the trade of discovery chemistry and approaching it in the context
of this brave new world of the open source, the crowd source, the collaborative network
that we have access to within academia, that we might more quickly bring
powerful and targeted therapies to our patients. And so, please consider
this a work in progress, but I’d like to tell you today a story about a very rare cancer
called midline carcinoma, about the undruggable protein target
that causes this cancer, called BRD4, and about a molecule developed at my lab
at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, called JQ1, which we affectionately named for Jun Qi, the chemist that made this molecule. Now, BRD4 is an interesting protein. You might ask: with all the things
cancer’s trying to do to kill our patient, how does it remember it’s cancer? When it winds up its genome, divides into two cells and unwinds again, why does it not turn
into an eye, into a liver, as it has all the genes
necessary to do this? It remembers that it’s cancer. And the reason is that cancer,
like every cell in the body, places little molecular bookmarks, little Post-it notes, that remind the cell, “I’m cancer;
I should keep growing.” And those Post-it notes involve this
and other proteins of its class — so-called bromodomains. So we developed an idea, a rationale, that perhaps if we made a molecule that prevented
the Post-it note from sticking by entering into the little pocket at the base of this spinning protein, then maybe we could convince cancer cells, certainly those addicted
to this BRD4 protein, that they’re not cancer. And so we started to work on this problem. We developed libraries of compounds and eventually arrived
at this and similar substances called JQ1. Now, not being a drug company, we could do certain things,
we had certain flexibilities, that I respect that a pharmaceutical
industry doesn’t have. We just started mailing it to our friends. I have a small lab. We thought we’d just send it to people
and see how the molecule behaves. We sent it to Oxford, England, where a group of talented
crystallographers provided this picture, which helped us understand exactly
how this molecule is so potent for this protein target. It’s what we call a perfect fit
of shape complementarity, or hand in glove. Now, this is a very rare cancer, this BRD4-addicted cancer. And so we worked with samples of material that were collected by young pathologists
at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. And as we treated these cells
with this molecule, we observed something really striking. The cancer cells — small, round and rapidly dividing, grew these arms and extensions. They were changing shape. In effect, the cancer cell
was forgetting it was cancer and becoming a normal cell. This got us very excited. The next step would be to put
this molecule into mice. The only problem was there’s no
mouse model of this rare cancer. And so at the time
we were doing this research, I was caring for a 29-year-old
firefighter from Connecticut who was very much at the end of life with this incurable cancer. This BRD4-addicted cancer
was growing throughout his left lung. And he had a chest tube in
that was draining little bits of debris. And every nursing shift,
we would throw this material out. And so we approached this patient and asked if he would collaborate with us. Could we take this precious
and rare cancerous material from this chest tube and drive it across town
and put it into mice and try to do a clinical trial
at a stage that with a prototype drug, well, that would be, of course, impossible and, rightly, illegal to do in humans. And he obliged us. At the Lurie Family Center
for Animal Imaging, our colleague, Andrew Kung,
grew this cancer successfully in mice without ever touching plastic. And you can see this PET scan
of a mouse — what we call a pet PET. The cancer is growing as this red, huge mass
in the hind limb of this animal. And as we treat it with our compound, this addiction to sugar, this rapid growth, faded. And on the animal on the right, you see that the cancer was responding. We’ve completed, now, clinical trials in four mouse models of this disease. And every time, we see the same thing. The mice with this cancer
that get the drug live, and the ones that don’t rapidly perish. So we started to wonder, what would a drug company
do at this point? Well, they probably
would keep this a secret until they turn the prototype drug into an active pharmaceutical substance. So we did just the opposite. We published a paper
that described this finding at the earliest prototype stage. We gave the world the chemical
identity of this molecule, typically a secret in our discipline. We told people exactly how to make it. We gave them our email address, suggesting that if they write us, we’ll send them a free molecule. (Laughter) We basically tried to create
the most competitive environment for our lab as possible. And this was, unfortunately, successful. (Laughter) Because now, we’ve shared this molecule, just since December of last year, with 40 laboratories in the United States and 30 more in Europe — many of them pharmaceutical companies, seeking now to enter this space, to target this rare cancer
that, thankfully right now, is quite desirable
to study in that industry. But the science that’s coming back
from all of these laboratories about the use of this molecule has provided us insights
we might not have had on our own. Leukemia cells treated with this compound turn into normal white blood cells. Mice with multiple myeloma, an incurable malignancy
of the bone marrow, respond dramatically to the treatment with this drug. You might know that fat has memory. I’ll nicely demonstrate that for you. (Laughter) In fact, this molecule prevents this adipocyte,
this fat stem cell, from remembering how to make fat, such that mice on a high-fat diet, like the folks
in my hometown of Chicago — (Laughter) fail to develop fatty liver, which is a major medical problem. What this research taught us — not just my lab, but our institute, and Harvard Medical School
more generally — is that we have unique
resources in academia for drug discovery; that our center, which has tested
perhaps more cancer molecules in a scientific way than any other, never made one of its own. For all the reasons you see listed here, we think there’s a great
opportunity for academic centers to participate in this earliest,
conceptually tricky and creative discipline of prototype drug discovery. So what next? We have this molecule,
but it’s not a pill yet. It’s not orally bioavailable. We need to fix it so we can
deliver it to our patients. And everyone in the lab, especially following the interaction
with these patients, feels quite compelled
to deliver a drug substance based on this molecule. It’s here where I’d say that we could use your help
and your insights, your collaborative participation. Unlike a drug company,
we don’t have a pipeline that we can deposit these molecules into. We don’t have a team
of salespeople and marketeers to tell us how to position
this drug against the other. What we do have is the flexibility
of an academic center to work with competent, motivated, enthusiastic, hopefully well-funded people to carry these molecules
forward into the clinic while preserving our ability
to share the prototype drug worldwide. This molecule will soon leave our benches and go into a small start-up company
called Tensha Therapeutics. And, really, this is the fourth
of these molecules to kind of “graduate”
from our little pipeline of drug discovery, two of which — a topical drug
for lymphoma of the skin and an oral substance for the treatment
of multiple myeloma — will actually come to the bedside
for the first clinical trial in July of this year — for us,
a major and exciting milestone. I want to leave you with just two ideas. The first is: if anything is unique
about this research, it’s less the science than the strategy. This, for us, was a social experiment — an experiment in “What would happen
if we were as open and honest at the earliest phase
of discovery chemistry research as we could be?” This string of letters and numbers and symbols and parentheses that can be texted, I suppose, or Twittered worldwide, is the chemical identity
of our pro compound. It’s the information that we most need
from pharmaceutical companies, the information on how these early
prototype drugs might work. Yet this information is largely a secret. And so we seek, really, to download from the amazing successes
of the computer-science industry, two principles — that of open source
and that of crowdsourcing — to quickly, responsibly accelerate
the delivery of targeted therapeutics to patients with cancer. Now, the business model
involves all of you. This research is funded by the public. It’s funded by foundations. And one thing I’ve learned in Boston is that you people will do anything
for cancer, and I love that. You bike across the state,
you walk up and down the river. (Laughter) I’ve never seen, really, anywhere, this unique support for cancer research. And so I want to thank you for your participation, your collaboration and most of all, for your confidence in our ideas. (Applause)

100 thoughts on “Jay Bradner: Open-source cancer research

  1. @1marcelo I am fairly certain that I could never walk a mile in your shoes, but as a consumer of medicine and not a researcher, the idea of a global scientific collaboration of ideas for the good of mankind warms my heart. If this experiment of sharing the source code of a molecule ends up generating profit and good health would you reconsider your stance?

  2. see focus on community and peservation should be our focus,with his change he could be saving millions but hes waiting on funding. yet we spend trillions on war to kill each other.

    this is why i occupymelbourne, this is why i want a change.

  3. @N3rdyDav3 Because research organizations and pharmaceutical companies like money, and giving your idea to others means they will get the money not you. Money both drives and retards the discovery of cures and treatment.

  4. Wow!! Thank you for sharing your knowledge to other academics to further the research. You could be a billionaire overnight for having researched that potential cancer cure. You took the road less traveled by and that would definitely make a difference. You deserve a Nobel prize!

  5. Imagine if Pharma companies start sharing such information at least about the incurable diseases, this world can be a lot of happier place to be!

  6. @AmerginMacEccit just saying … we should not pay for an OS neither for pills to keep our health. Its where the systems have taken us to.

  7. @D0KTOR7
    There's also the findings of Dr. Burzynski, who has his own clinic that is not funded by FDA or any other pharma companies. Instead, he is under constant attacks from established pharmaceutical and governm. agencies. Curing people will actually put an end to making money – something many companies cannot afford to happen. But it won't go on forever as the systemic collapse is upon all of us.

  8. @jgbloyd No, it's not very complicated really. For one I said factory cigarettes, not tobacco. Tobacco by itself is no where near as bad for you. Cigarettes have a crap ton of chemicals in them that are not natural. And as far as americans over eating, it has a lot to do with WHAT they eat as well. A lot of food in north america is not exactly what I'd call healthy. It's not as bad here in canada, but still not very good. But again, there are lots of chemicals and hormones in the food.

  9. We need to stop investing in useless shit like religion and start investing it into science. If all countries did this and made it opensource, the advantages would be incredible.

  10. @jgbloyd What exactly are my "healthy" foods that you are assuming? I don't know anyone who tries to eat healthy foods and also over eats. It's almost an oxymoron. People who want to eat healthy almost always also want to BE healthy. I never said you can "consume your way to health". And yes. Smoking anything at all is bad to some degree. It's smoke. In your lungs.

    You're just being stupid now. Your points were semi valid before, but your last response was just ignorant.

  11. Sound really promising. It seems that cancer research has been making some good progress during the last couple of years. Cure is still a far from reality, but talks like this make me hopeful that the future without cancer is already with us today. Thanks to researchers like Mr. Bradner we can look at open-source as model not just for computer science, but for industries as well.

  12. @1marcelo So, if I understand, any company that produces medicine based on independent R&D will give due credit and revenue to the researcher or team that brought about the discovery. Then to be made public after patents are filed. However, this person (speaker at TED) is trying to circumvent that process and encourage all researchers to immediately publish data so that it can be co-developed by rival companies which could potentially cause research grants to be lost on future developments?

  13. NOTHING wrong with capitalism AT ALL. Let's all compete with eachother and withold findings until we can profit from them. Sick of this shit. This video was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise suffocated world.

  14. @jgbloyd Yeah okay. You've lost all credibility now. How long I live has nothing to do with this conversation. If you're so interested in my life span, I'll have you know I'm actually in great shape. But I'll probably die a lot younger than 90 because of my career – army infantry.

    So go shove your conceited, ignorant arrogance up your ass. And have a great day 🙂

  15. To reverse any "cancer" in the body watch RobertMorseND on YouTube. It is simple to regenerate damaged cells, eat raw fruits & vegetables. Eat living bioelectric flood for optimum health. Dont eat cooked/processed foods. Big Pharma perpetuates cancer myth and all ills to sell pills. Go RAW!!!

  16. Oooh I'm a tumor I'm a tumor, I'm a tumor. I'm a tumor, oooh I'm a tumor.
    So cancer cells actually have a molecular way of "saying" that? Wowee.

  17. Now correct me if I am wrong, but what happens when a large pharmaceutical company takes his research and develops it further into a different string that could potentially be more successful then the first and then abruptly patents it so no other company can work with that, wouldn't that disable the "open-source" ideas of this video? To be honest I am quite confused about it.

  18. @marjorielard
    Yep that's right. All you have to do is eat raw food. All those scientists and pharmaceutical companies are EVIL and these authors of the books called things like "How I cured my cancer in 10 days" are both factual and in it for GOOD.

    Or… perhaps they are the examples of extreme cases of spontaneous remission, whilst the rest of the population die horribly and only people with DECADES of research knowledge can help rid the world of cancer.

  19. @1marcelo If I could digress for a minute. You mentioned a phrase that I hear often. "Big pharma". Without knowing exactly what that is I can deduce that it means companies that perhaps own several patents on the most popular drugs. Why do Homeopath BS artists use this phrase to criticize science based medicine? Is there a lot of corruption within these companies? IF there is corruption I don't see how it would effect a chemical structure of a useful drug.

  20. Treatment of cancer is global emergency. Holding information in a particular pharmaceutical company impedes development of new drugs. Eventually, just as many open source softwares have overtaken the software industry and produced even better programs for use, this will happen in pharmaceutical industry.

    Any information related to human medicine should be free. All pharmaceuticals should be compulsed to release all drug information. It's the only way we can achieve cancer treatments earlier.

  21. @ilion12345 So say as a community, we find a way to create a end all cure to cancer. Technically we are in a race to find the cure and hopefully the cure doesn't fall into the wrong hands? I'm purely talking theoretical here. I'm just trying to get a broader conception of the field I am planning on entering out of college.

  22. If I was a millionaire I'd Fund these guys.
    It's all about globally sharing Info regarding Cancer and all diseases

  23. Open Source Forever..Open-source your life and the world. Patenting life should by definition NOT be allowed just like. people are dying every single day because of pure greed and the argument about the drug companies have to support their research with patents or else the will never invent anything again is bullshit. Look at Android and tell me that companies like Samsung or Google is not making money doing open source!

  24. @TITOR002 without the F… I'd say you're a "Trekkie" – How did it begin? What happened? And Why did it happen? Maybe you could give a TED lecture and open our eyes. I would love to live in the Federation too. Just tell me when!

  25. @kshackleton Linux, in all different flavors. Gimp – the free "photoshop", blender – the free 3d renderer, not to talk about all the desktop environments, all the small free opensource programs

    Even big companies like HP add to opensource, because it saves them moeny.

    All this done for free, even without anyone being acknowledged for their work.
    Why would they? Because knowledge costs nothing to copy. If you already did it for yourself, passing it along is free. Your model doesn't work here.

  26. @kshackleton I meant your model for people. You say that "human nature makes it very difficult for people to give up time and resources without the expectation of compensation", while in reality there are a LOT of contradicting examples. The whole open-source scene, where virtually no one even gets real credit for their work, contradicts this model.

    I'm saying that this present idea about human nature is wrong. Maybe it's an artifact of "capitalism", rather than the cause.

  27. @kshackleton Sorry, nope 🙂 "Capitalism" tries to hide that people will just do things "because it's nice". Because they can, and someone else needs it. Just like that. It is cultural making these people feel like "they are suckers".

    It's easy to day "as a rule" and disregard "exceptions", or invent motives. Look at libravox – people making public domain audiobooks, for nothing. The linux forums, helping people with IT issues for nothing. People like helping, and will invest effort in it.

  28. Read "The China Study" by T. Colin Campbell Ph.D and watch "Cancer is curable now and your immune system" from maxAwareness channel.

  29. @kshackleton There is no such thing as human nature. If there was we could not evolve ideas collectively. We would be stuck in the stone age. It's not human nature, but human behavior. Human behavior is a conditioned attribute based on the environment. The environment has almost always remained relatively similar — that of resource scarcity. Because of that some people learn to horde resources for their own and familial survival. We need to change environment to change behavior.

  30. the results of proper science and proper cooperation of people leads to amazing advancements
    while making products just to sell them results in waste and stagnation
    why is it so hard for people to be humane towards each other

  31. @waycoolzing I think you are wrong…
    In Russia and Cuba and China they use some methods that are not backed up by clinical trial informations. They simply profit from the desperation of ill people with money. And to say that doctors prescribe poisons…you sure are ignorant about this matter. Those substances kill cells with high division rates, like cancer cells. They are indispensable in this field for now.

  32. @waycoolzing There are no clinical trials yet to verify the potential improvement of the survival rates in cancer patients by using dichloroacetic acid. Even if you have some results in vitro, and even in vivo on mice or human cells, that doesn't mean that it will work the same in the body of a human. You say that is verry effective. Prove that! Where are the studies with the subjects that had their life extended with the help of this chemical compound.

  33. @waycoolzing I do not deny the fact that it may be a potent drug in the future, but until it is properly tested, you cannot administrate it to patients. It has to take the same pathway that any other drug takes before being release in the market. You don't make experiments like Hitler did.

  34. @siegfried182005 Hitler did experiments on people AGAINST THEIR WILL. The comparison is just wrong. Why not allow people who WANT to participate in drug trial, people who will die soon anyway, take or try whatever they want?

    To remind you, the rabis vaccine, penicillin, and virtually all the old medication were tested this way. Tested on people who were sick, were gonna die, and decided to try a new drug that might kill them, but might save them too. Comparing that to Hitler… really.

  35. @guyben13 That is what those companies in the countries mentioned above are using today: they know that anyone with money and very ill will do anything to live, and they offer an untested alternative to them, of course, not after cashing the check. There is no guaranties that the treatment is effective, and also on this pathway you open the road for those with all kinds of homeopathic drugs to make money literally from simple water.

  36. @guyben13 Yes, they were tested this way, but now we are in the 21 st century, and we have strict regulations of what drugs come out on the market. We can't risk another thalidomide accident. This things just have to be taken slowly. It is clearly an ethical problem too: put out there an add about a "new cure" and you will surely have a queue on your door. I, as a future doctor, want to give my patients some kind of assurance that the drugs that i give them have positive results.

  37. @siegfried182005 As a doctor: lets say you have a sick patient, going do die in a couple of months. There is no cure for him. However, there is a new drug that seems to do well on mice. Should he be allowed to try it, and maybe die, or should he just die?

    I agree that you shouldn't open the door too wide: For one, You shouldn't allow payment for untested drugs. And maybe only for the terminally ill. But the system as it is now is broken. It actively inhibits life saving drug development.

  38. @datworkers No, they can't share. Since developing drugs is so expensive (thanks to over regulation), they have to get backing money to do the research. Thus, the research doesn't belong to them – it belongs to the shareholders. this means they are not allowed to publish the partial result of their research, and are not allowed to give others permission to do followup on their work. Legally not allowed, mind you – they could go to prison for it.

    Yes, this inhibits research. Capitalism…

  39. @guyben13 It is illegal what you say there; i would go directly to jail for that. It is not possible to administrate a drug tested only on mice to humans without any other data of the possible adverse effects, the pharmacocinetic and the pharmacodynamics of the substance in humans and many others. There are some phases trough which a drug has to pass before it gets the green light:).

  40. @siegfried182005 I KNOW it's illegal. I'm saying that it's WRONG for it to be illegal. The fact that it's illegal costs lives, AND inhibits drug development, AND pushes up the price of those drugs that do get developed.

    It should be legal. That way university researchers could help develop life saving drugs, instead of limiting research to HUGE conglomerates. That way you could test natural compounds (such as penicillin and dog saliva (used for rabis)) even tough they aren't patentable.

  41. @guyben13 Many drugs used in chemotherapy for example can have serious sides effects, like aplastic anemia, of agranulocytosis or even some types of cancers. You do not play with something like this, that is why you need it to be properly tested in the proper manner and in an controlled environment. Plus, the patient can die from the treatment, if you don't manage his condition respecting the protocols in use for the specific treatments.

  42. @guyben13 I know that pharmaceutical companies are selfish, but in a capitalist world, you can't have it other way for now. Anyway, what it is presented in this video is a good start for a change. But remember: you need a lot of hundreds of millions of $ to develope tens of thousands of drug types a year. For now, we need those corporations to create drugs. Let this idea presented here to evolve, and we will see what comes of it. It may work, in may not work, time will tell.

  43. My brother is 39 and has a "very agressive cancer!" as all the doctors and "brilliant minds" said. My family and himself went to a doctor who is still labaled as a "quack" and guess what? He's getting better and better without radiation/chemo. There is a cure for cancer but the problem is not a cure. The problem is profit. They will keep searching for a miracle and the miracle is already here. check out: Dr. Simoncini, Sodium Carbonate, B17, (perhaps along with chemotherapy) etc… cancer=fungus

  44. Chemist: Sir, I found the cure for cancer.
    Boss: Oh I'm sorry.
    Chemist: Uhh, I said I found the cure for cancer…
    Boss: Yes I know, and we will out of job because of that.
    Chemist: I think I haven't found the cure for cancer.
    Boss: Wheew, that's good.

  45. HIDDEN CURE.Cancer is a deficiency disease caused by a lack of nitrilosides in the modern western diet just like scurvy is a deficiency of vitamin C. Big Pharma/FDA profiteers have covered up the cure and have declared it fraud and quackery for over 60 years.Watch WORLD WITHOUT CANCER YouTube documentary and investigate these facts.Thousands have been cured just by adding this essential compond to their diet without the self destructive and devastating drugs, chemo and radiation.Choose life.

  46. Great video.. There is a new leukemia treatment used that sounds amazing. The hope is to extend it to other cancers too. More info is on youtube Cancer Research Cure

  47. Sorry, but that's 100% false. JQ1 was synthesized in the Bradner lab by Jun Qi, who shared first authorship on the original 2010 Nature paper. Mitsubishi previously published a study showing that thienodiazepines could bind to BRD4. They provided scientific motivation for the development of the drug, but they had nothing to do with JQ1 and do not own a patent on it. Jay Bradner and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute own the rights to JQ1, and by giving it away, are promoting open source pharma.

  48. worthless useless pooling of money getting no real results. imbeciles and hypocrites and bias everywhere you look. physicians think of the human body as a separation of every organ, the real truth is that it is all synergistic and you cant treat each symptom individually. The ignorance of western and european society in not acknowledging and putting to use ancient wisdom of herbalism blows my mind. Imbeciles. Ahh yes and thank you for letting my dad die of cancer. the bias and idiocy

  49. if you really want to get better then look to herbalism. the alternative medicine that the imbecilic society we live in chooses to ignore. lol. all they care about is competition against eachother and other countries

  50. I think every pharmaceutical company should invest or atleast share information trough open source and get to a point where creating a company based medicine is within their reach then close their doors, not before that.

  51. Here we go again.  More hoop la la  about looking for an exotic, spectacular, stupendous, earth shaking, revolutionary yadda yadda bang bang answer to curing cancer.  Cancer IS NOT curable!  It can only be prevented or controlled. The place to "LOOK" for the answer is found in the country called Hunza.  The people there have never had one case of cancer among them, except those who leave their homes, and part from their traditional diets and eat the trash we eat.  I challenge you to go to the documentary here on youtube titled:  "World without cancer, the story of Vitamin B-17" and the video titled:  "The science and politics of cancer."

  52. How does someone discover that they have cancer at an early stage? Just had a few people close to me find they have cancer at Stage 3 or 4. Is there a method on finding it early?

  53. Hi Everyone. I am a 16 year old participating in the Cypress Challenge hosted by the BC Cancer Foundation for supporting pancreatic cancer research. I am cycling up Cypress Mountain, an elevation of approximately 2400 feet. If you would like to support me in my campaign please go to http://donate.bccancerfoundation.com/goto/ethanxue to make donations. All of the funds raised go to the BC Cancer Foundation's Pancreatic Cancer Research Fund. Donations made online will be given receipts for tax return.
    Thank you so much for your attention and support!

  54. I am doing a fundraiser for my fraternity, Sigma Chi at the University of Pittsburgh. Please help and go to this link to support the Huntsman Cancer Foundation. https://www.gofundme.com/3x5pkvqk

  55. .Researchers will NEVER find a way to make a medicine that'll cure cancer, even if they can, they simply WON'T….The cancer chemotherapy business is a billion dollar business, it's too dumb not to connive with them. Nobody wants to play a hero because everybody wants to make money….Cancer research is a FRAUD and doesn't exist.

  56. 1775 London chimney sweep cancer research found much cancer due to chimney cleaning. psych adaptation of body to overheating creating rich environment for disease. Before 50 years ago heat only common near fireplace I think in winter, creating dramatically lower body temperature half of year. now people wear warm coats and work indoors or houses away from chilly weather. cancer and other diseases could be created now due to too much heat. less heat, no cigarettes and no chimney soot with involvement of soap, medicine, and cleaner environment should lower cancer, stroke, heat, but even with all these modern sterile products odds are uneven compared with history because of intense heat environment increase.  instead of always being in a warm environment for bad cells to thrive. Fortress Forces Group thinks that heat in controlled environment (increased fat, creating "heat shield", spending winter in summer like conditions "indoors") needs to be less to not have such a rich environment for diseases to thrive over a long course of time.

  57. BET bromodomain inhibitors, which have shown efficacy in several models of cancer, have not been evaluated in Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). These inhibitors displace BET bromodomain proteins such as BRD4 from chromatin by competing with their acetyl-lysine recognition modules, leading to inhibition of oncogenic transcriptional programs. -Reference from BOC Sciences

  58. 6:27 & 6:45 illegal cough cough cough cough cough…Nose rub…Ear rub…..Hair pat…..Shoe “String” tightening……Whateves 9/11 you pieces of shit….1/3 of the OCEANS ARE DEAD!!!
    Innovate or we all die!!!

    Follow me on Twitter @Outcomes_Matter for Science
    YouTube Brian VandenBerg as we walk through the valley of the shadow of death (Because the PhDs sold us out) or……….Is Jesus amongst them…..?….

    Jesus evaluations August 2018

  59. Start at the beginning….
    Go to the end…..
    Jump to the middle….
    Back to the beginning….
    Then the end again….
    But find yourself at the middle….

  60. Posted 10/2011…..Fukushima 3/2011….

    #HaskinsFO again….Questionable at a minimal….Maybe….
    Esther & Ruth want your shoes on…
    Words 2009 cough cough…
    Follow me on Twitter @Outcomes_Matter
    #BRAINinitiative cough
    Brian VandenBerg in Youtube
    Searching for PhD Jesus 8/18

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *