Yet, you have all those naysayers citing vaccines and 10 to 20 years in the future when, let's get real here. Would their pet live 10 to 20 years more to even dream of adverse side effects showing up in the pet-research? Would they live even 10 to 20 years longer WITHOUT cancer?
Exactly. Pookie was almost 12 when cancer took him. If something like this could have "cured" him, he might have had a few more years, but I doubt he would have had more than 10. I would have done almost anything to save him if it wasn't something toxic like chemo.
I don't understand. I've read the article twice and I still don't understand.
This is not a vaccine in the sense of something like rabies, where you give it to prevent disease. My understanding is this is something that would be used in pets already diagnosed with cancer. In a nutshell, this "vaccine" stimulates the immune system into attacking the cancer cells by using a protein found on the surface of those cells. Giving it to the patient triggers the immune system to look for those proteins, which are only on the cancer cells, and attack them. That gives the body the chance to destroy the cancer.
I'm not a fan of big pharma, either. And it could very well be that this isn't something for humans, because it may have very bad side effects down the road. But to DeeDee's point, would a pet that has cancer ever even experience any side effects, given the shorter life span that they have? At the end of the day, it's a very personal decision. This is just another option for pet parents to consider if, heaven forbid, their pet is diagnosed with cancer.
With Dannyboy, I'd have tried anything--except putting him through chemo hell or more surgery itself.
I'm right there with ya. I couldn't and didn't put Pookie through that, either.