Originally Posted by Tsumi
It's transformation of active T cells and reintroducing those active T cells back into the body. Whether it is short term or long term depends on whether or not those transformed T cells survive in the body.
My prev. post was deleted, but here are some related links. You probably will need to be on a university network that has a subscription to ScienceDirect. If you want, I'm more than willing to summarize.
Cell Stem Cell:
Both journals are well regarded, and with an impact factor of >3.
Originally Posted by un-midas touch
Originally Posted by SCollins
Why not work on figuring out why the human body in the last 100 years has gotten so much worse at identifying and killing cancer cells in general.
It's not hard to figure. Diseases which don't prevent reproduction are free to proliferate in an exploding population, be they hereditary or not
edit: combine this with the waning immune system to be expected of people with increased life expectancy and you've got the perfect cancer storm on your hands.
UMT hit it here. For the most part, better health-care has led to people living longer, and that increases the number of people developing cancer.
For example, if there's a common percentage of people who develop cancer (arbitrarily picking 10% for ease of calculation), an increasing total population = increasing # of cases, even though the percentage stays the same.
Regency England had a population of around 1M. If 10% of people develop cancer, there are 100000 cases there.
Modern England has a population of around 53M. 10% cancer incidence = 5.3M cancer cases.
If anything, there's the potential for the cancer incidence percentage to have increased from the past because of more people making it through birth, childhood, and adolescence due to decreased mortality in a lot of diseases. Toss in more environmental factors as well (smoking, pollution, asbestos etc) and there might even be a spike in incidence rates when compared to the past.