Cancer Cure, Press Hype or Could It Be For Real?


Caution: Major press outfits seem to avoiding this story, but what if?

“A TEAM OF SCIENTISTS IN Israel says they’ll likely have discovered a cure for cancer in the next year.”

“The Jerusalem Post reports the small team led by Accelerated Evolution Biotechnologies CEO Ilan Morad thinks it might have found the first complete cure – a treatment akin to a cancer antibiotic. The treatment, called MuTaTo (multi-target toxin), uses a combination of cancer-targeting peptides and a toxin that specifically kills cancer cells.”


Similar peril to trumpeting cold fusion breakthroughs.


what if the cure is cold fusion?


Anyone who says they’ll have a cure in a year, at phase 0, is lying to you.


Mutato? Do they Devo?

1 Like

Or trying to sell you something…



Looks like we’re getting some clarification:

"An AEBi spokesman acknowledged in an email to CNBC that “complete cure for cancer meaning that we will have the complete solution ready for first tryout in humans.

Wonderful, if true.

It would also be fantastic, if true.

1 Like



Big Pharma won’t be too happy…
Health Insurer’s will be. (after the price drops in 10-years ).
To hell with 'em.
Bring it on!

My wife is an immuno-oncology researcher. From what I understand of her work (very little), the concept of peptide based cancer therapy goes back at least 20 years. Most of the major players (Amgen, Pfizer, Genzyme, Novartis) have immuno-oncology programs. If there is any truth to the claims being made in the OP, rest assured that big pharma will quickly buy the research. Pfizer’s entire pipeline model is based on parachuting into mid-level research ready for Stage 2 trials.

Put me down as very skeptical.

Edited to add a link to a literature survey on peptide based cancer treatment developments.


Numerous groups have been promising “cures” for cancer for decades. None have panned out.

It may be possible, or it may be researchers fishing for grant funding. It doesn’t help that an entire for-profit industry has been built on “charities” offering to cure cancer, and the largest of those charities are opaque about where that money goes, actively hostile to calls for transparency, and score very low on charity watch dog groups for this and on the occasions when the fraction of their funding that makes it to research is discovered (very little). In other words, charity scams.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Until then, skepticism is advisable.

It’s also worth noting that the lab doing the research may not be to blame for the inflated claims. Science journalism has a credibility crisis, born of inexpert understanding and a need to sell ad space alongside their stories.

As a cancer survivor, I want effective treatments and preventative measures as much as anyone. But I also know the media preys on the hopes of survivors and their friends and families.


This was one of my thoughts on the story. Like breaking out the kittens and children in advertising.

Still, worth a Google alert for future developments.


Yup. Like all of journalism in our capitalist society, it’s systemic, with a strong selection bias in favor of flexible ethics.

But I concur. I’m always on the lookout for what’s going on in cancer research and appreciate the heads-up.


Here’s the problem. There is no such thing as “cancer”. There are multiple types and each behave in different ways and respond to different treatments differently. You might have a cure for a type of cancer, but it’s unlikely you’ll have a universal cure.

I am siding with press hype and oversimplification on this one.


This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.