Sukus,
Clearly I'm no expert, but don't the dendritic cells vary depending on the cancer being fought. If they don't, it would seem like a person could go through the procedure once in their life, and have a vaccine that could be used on any cancer provided what they did was properly preserved.
I was of the belief that the vaccine is so personal that it was specific to the cancer being fought, that's why I reasoned that if in fact the cancer morphed over time, so would the dendritic cells.
I believe the more we learn about cancer the more we realize how complex it really is. I believe over time that drugs that are individualized to not just cancer, but many diseases will prove much more effective than drugs made in mass. Automation will bring down the cost of making such drugs, and because of their effectiveness, they'll prove to be cheaper in the long run, but not necessarily in the drug cost itself. What I'm suggesting should be included is the cost of down time of the people being treated. If a personalized drug achieved a sufficient cure for a person to return to work in a week, whereas conventional meds would take a month, the productive time of the individual should be considered as part of the costs. Today, accountants often tell Doctors what drugs they must use initially due to price, if those drugs fail, they permit the more expensive product to be used. No consideration is given to the time lost if the treatment time with the cheaper product takes longer to achieve it's goal. Certainly not all time is lost, but I don't believe people working while suffering can be as productive as when healthy. I'm a believer that Doctors, not accountants and attorneys, are who should suggest the course of treatment and insurance should pay for what the Doctors suggest is best. I believe if you took the bulk of the accountants and attorneys out of healthcare, costs would go down dramatically.
Gary
