“Curative cancer vaccine.”

If that sentence doesn’t make your heart skip a beat, you likely are not as much of a medical nerd as I am, have never felt the direct or indirect effects of cancer in your life or potentially are just an unemotional skeptic.

Upon first glance, these three powerful words seem fantastic — I mean, a curative vaccine is an answer to so many people’s consistent prayers.

But for nearly any scientist or universal skeptic alike, this quote nearly immediately arouses the unsettling sense that it’s a gross exaggeration.

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center has recently published their research on an experimental vaccine that complements the immune system’s cancer fighting processes.

They report that adding “the synthetic chemical adjuvant Diprovocim, which targets the innate immune receptor TLR1/TLR2 in mice and humans… inhibited growth of B16 melanoma and prolonged survival.”

In human-speak, they added stuff to a so-called ‘vaccine’ to help attack cancer cells.

Now, this research is still in its very early stages, and the results are quite promising.  After all, the chemical is easily synthesized and could supplement standard treatment plans.

Additionally, following “immunization,” the mice in the study were unable to regrow tumors because they were “already vaccinated against it.”

The concept of an anticancer vaccine is undeniably exciting, but becomes quite problematic as we look at the language used and external factors at play.

Professor Dr. Dale Boger, one of the co-leaders of the study, claims that “this co-therapy produced a complete response—a curative response—in the treatment of melanoma.”

As extraordinary as that sounds, the truth is that the curative response was an isolated event.

Some of the mice were unable to regrow tumors; however, the study was short-run and the mice had been previously treated with other immunotherapies as well.

Most importantly, using the word “curative” can be seen by some as overly optimistic or even reckless, as it’s widely misinterpreted.

The statement that the vaccine had curative effects is a blatant misnomer.

Vaccines are preventative, not curative. Their effect in preventing new regrowth is fantastic, but is in no way curative of cancer.

This concept also raises the ongoing debate of medical research. After all, this research is a prime example of our downstream approach to medicine.

We like to “put out the fires” and manage the symptoms.

While it is incredibly important and necessary to look for ways to cure diseases, it is just as, if not more important, to emphasize prevention. Therefore the buzzword of curative is not just simply overstating, but also decreasing the important focus on preventative healthcare.

Similarly, cancer is an extremely heavy subject, full of deep-rooted pain and emotion.

Hope is fragile and in short supply to those dealing with the extraordinary effects of cancer, and promoting new studies with exaggerated words only fuels the painful fire.

In relation to their study, the co-leaders of the project, Professor Boger and Dr. Beutler, have acknowledged that Tollbridge Therapeutics, LLC has indicated a financial interest and licensed a the patent for the chemical Diprovocim.

Medical sociologists have been charting the corporatization of medicine for the past 50 years.

Between businesses purchasing and running hospitals for-profit and the increased wealth and power of pharmaceutical companies, the ethical concerns are widely discussed elsewhere and beyond the scope of this column.

The scientific research is now being meddled with by a for-profit corporation under what is clouded by a conflict of interest. This licensing deal now creates a sticky situation for moving forward with the research, as the studies are at risk of manipulation by external forces.

While the primary goal of the research was to make strides in medical treatment for melanoma, the fact that a pharmaceutical company has taken economic interest raises questions about credibility that likely would have never been asked otherwise.

As their research progresses, peer reviewers and the public will need to re-double their efforts to look at studies critically.

While this situation is merely one example of the ethical debate relating to the corporatization and shifting focuses of medicine, it’s easy to view the researchers as misstepping in their language and relationships with for-profit companies.

The truth is that this is just one isolated example, and it simply emphasizes the need for a conversation relating to medical research and publicity, along with a more critical look at the role of for-profit companies in medicine.

As any pre-med student knows, medical jargon is so unique, it should practically be studied as a second language. That being said, it’s important to be careful when publishing medical research, as we insiders have very different interpretations than people who are less well-versed in medicine.

Analyzing research can be challenging, particularly in deciphering the terminology used.

Nevertheless, this study is extremely exciting when it comes to our arsenal against melanoma and perhaps other cancers.

We must simply remember to use critical thinking and analytical skills when reading this, or any scientific research report, even with the morning coffee.

The study has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.