Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
60 Minutes: New Machine Likely Cure for Cancer?
cbsnews.com — What if we told you that a guy with no background in science or medicine-not even a college degree-has come up with what may be one of the most promising breakthroughs in cancer research in years? Well it's true, and if you think it sounds improbable, consider this: he did it with his wife's pie pans and hot dogs.
MrBabyMan- 2057 diggs
- digg it
- FulcrumVitesse, on 04/15/2008, -53/+19Hundreds of "miracle cures" for cancer surface every year. This is just another one.
- voxel, on 04/15/2008, -8/+32Is that any reason not to research and develop them?
Some might call that scientific progress. Even if they shouldn't be calling them "miracle cures".- NathanielJ, on 04/15/2008, -5/+16No, researching and developing them is great. Media overblowing and sensationalizing them like CBS is doing here is awful though. In the first few paragraphs they basically say that this will be the miracle cure for cancer that will require no invasive surgery or chemo or anything like that and will have no side effects.
Oh yeah, and by the way, this has yet to be tested in any real way so they have no idea whether or not it will work, much less if it will have side effects and so on. - raynar, on 04/15/2008, -4/+1I'd say "Awesome. Even though I saw this exact segment on the dreaded Fox News almost a month ago".
hmm, let me redeem myself...umm.. "GARRRR, DOWN WITH BUSH!!"- subliminalurge, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3This isn't a political topic under discussion. Please refrain from trying to turn it into one.
- LoCoPyRo, on 04/15/2008, -0/+6Except it has already been tested on animals and is proven 100% effective in many cases (according to other articles I have read). The article points out that they can destroy solid tumors, the main challenge left is to find a way to mark and attach to metatastisized cancer cells. They are already on their way to human trials (it says 4 years). Most of the 'miracle cures' you see don't make it past the petri dish, this one already has. The only possible side effects are due to the unknown effects of using nano particles in the human body. Currently the FDA approves the use of Gold nanoparticles, but the effects aren't really studied or known... they are used in a lot of things and it could cause problems in the future. Talking about side effects from radio waves is silly, it would be like saying you might have side effects from listening to the radio in your car. I can see the skepticism, but this is the first treatment I have actually had faith in.
- NathanielJ, on 04/15/2008, -5/+16No, researching and developing them is great. Media overblowing and sensationalizing them like CBS is doing here is awful though. In the first few paragraphs they basically say that this will be the miracle cure for cancer that will require no invasive surgery or chemo or anything like that and will have no side effects.
- robdiggity, on 04/15/2008, -6/+3Mmmmmm.... hot dog piiiiiiieeeeeeee....... ohohohohohohohohohohoh...
- TrevorPace, on 04/15/2008, -0/+9See the thing is this one isn't relying on some sort of chemical to attack the cancer cell. It is simply (well it's not simple) relying on an anti-body to bring the the gold particles to the cancer cells. So the task right now I imagine is designing the anti-body molecules in such a way that they only single out the cancer cells (which they are thousands of types of btw). If you watched the broadcast you would have seen that the gold nano-particles get hot every time...no matter what.
- Fratz, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2There's another way. Cancer cells tend to have larger capillaries feeding them than normal cells do. A few years back, a researcher took advantage of this fact and made micro-particles that would contain small doses of chemotherapy drug. With the normal capillaries being too small to allow the micro-particles in, and the abnormal ones being large enough, the chemotherapy targeted just the cancer. (These are now administered as chemotherapy wafers, put local to the tumor site after surgery.) Seems to me that the same principle could be used with the gold nanoparticles by attaching them to something larger.
- Robthefrog, on 04/15/2008, -14/+5"What if we told you that a guy with no background in science or medicine-not even a college degree-has come up with what may be one of the most promising breakthroughs in cancer research in years?"
I'd say you're full of *****. And I'd be right.- juniorb, on 04/15/2008, -2/+14Cynicism: the cancer of the mind.
- Robthefrog, on 04/15/2008, -8/+1juniorb: virgin.
- juniorb, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4I haven't had sex in about 6 months, so that's not too far off.
- Robthefrog, on 04/15/2008, -8/+1juniorb: virgin.
- chrissku, on 04/15/2008, -1/+8Who's to say he didn't stumble upon the cure? Should we discount his idea without first seeing if it works? Way to keep an open mind smart guy.
- AON99, on 04/15/2008, -4/+4I'll say it. I've done cancer research for years. And at a University, not for a Pharma company. We have TONS of methods for killing cells. The problem is targeting cancer cells only and not normal cells. His method isn't any better than a dozen things we already have available. His doesn't target cancer cells, it simply targets an 'area' of the body.
I work regularly with photodynamic therapy. We give patients drugs which are only toxic (they produce tons of oxygen radicals) when light of a specific wavelength is shined on them. Keep the patients in a dark room, shine a light on the target area, and then keep the patient in the dark room until the agent has had time to be cleared from their body so that they can be exposed to normal light again. You can shine a light on much more specific area than you can wave his electromagnetic field. It's still got a lot of work to do, because the drugs still aren't specifically taken up well enough by the cancer cells. His method offers NOTHING which targets them specifically.- LoCoPyRo, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3Well according to this and other articles by using gold nanoparticles they can target ONLY cancer cells (if they are still in a tumor and not metatasized) and kill them 100% effectively by injection directly into the tumor. This sounds a lot better than the treatment you described, which is not as targetted and is toxic (oxygen radicals are terrible for you). Although this may not be able to be made into a cure for all cancers it seems like it could work on non-metatasized ones. It also has a lot more potential for being able to target only cancer cells in the future if they can get the antibody stuff worked out, unlike your procedure, which has no potential. I wish they had this available for my father, who is going through radiation therapy for non-metatasized throat cancer.
- TrevorPace, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3You are right in the sense that they currently only have a method to attack an area (the area with the gold nanoparticles). But if they can just find a way to attach these nanoparticles to anti-bodies that only attack the cancer cells...THEN they will have something. And the thing that makes there idea better than using Taxol or other treatments is that this will have no side effects...AS LONG as they destroy all the nanoparticles with the EMR.
- apophenic, on 04/15/2008, -8/+4I love that the guy who actually knows what he's talking about got buried.
This isn't going to amount to anything. There's a reason no one ever hears about these cures again.
Hint: It's not because there's a conspiracy.- bitcloud, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3noob?
maybe you don't know anyone with cancer, but I know 3, all diagnosed with terminal cancer, all of whom received "controversial new treatments" who are now all clear/likely to have a full recovery...
it's called progress.. maybe you're a little too young to understand how that works...
- bitcloud, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3noob?
- AON99, on 04/15/2008, -4/+4I'll say it. I've done cancer research for years. And at a University, not for a Pharma company. We have TONS of methods for killing cells. The problem is targeting cancer cells only and not normal cells. His method isn't any better than a dozen things we already have available. His doesn't target cancer cells, it simply targets an 'area' of the body.
- juniorb, on 04/15/2008, -2/+14Cynicism: the cancer of the mind.
- voxel, on 04/15/2008, -8/+32Is that any reason not to research and develop them?
- nicholasdog, on 04/15/2008, -59/+11He also puts foil around his head to keep out alien mind controlling waves.
- DucoNihilum, on 04/15/2008, -2/+6facepalm.jpg
- SmellyFingers, on 04/15/2008, -8/+3This comment is hilarious.
- nreynolds, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2were you referring to nicholasdog's or your own? Because in either case, you're wrong. THIS comment is pointless (I'll leave that one for you to figure out)
- akamakavely, on 04/15/2008, -10/+37i think there should be more money in research to prevent cancer or cure it !
- MadEnvoy, on 04/15/2008, -1/+36But there's much more to be made in treating the symptoms!
/sarcasm- br0ck, on 04/15/2008, -0/+11You kid, but if a drug companies would actually make more cash selling a cure to a 40 year old and then selling him other drugs for the next 40 years than they would by just selling drugs to treat symptoms for a few months before he dies.
- mattw, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Yeah, because the people that work at the drug companies never develop cancer. Nor do any of their family members. Thats why they really don't care for a cure and only care about making money.
- WoollyMittens, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1They keep the really good stuff to themselves.
- mattw, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Yeah, because the people that work at the drug companies never develop cancer. Nor do any of their family members. Thats why they really don't care for a cure and only care about making money.
- br0ck, on 04/15/2008, -0/+11You kid, but if a drug companies would actually make more cash selling a cure to a 40 year old and then selling him other drugs for the next 40 years than they would by just selling drugs to treat symptoms for a few months before he dies.
- TheUngod, on 04/15/2008, -2/+9It IS the new AIDS after all
- Shakermaker, on 04/15/2008, -3/+2Technically, wouldn't AIDS be the new cancer?
- DucoNihilum, on 04/15/2008, -2/+7LRN2SOUTHPARK
- MCCULLAH, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1noob....
- fatb0y42, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1dugg for south park reference
- Shakermaker, on 04/15/2008, -3/+2Technically, wouldn't AIDS be the new cancer?
- nysus, on 04/15/2008, -13/+6We just spent 3 trillion to feed the most virulent cancer of all, George Bush's and his neoconservative friends.
- Squidwalk, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Time and a place man. This is neither.
- mike17032, on 04/15/2008, -5/+3It already gets a gizillion ***** dollars, money only goes so far. Cancer sucks, but throwing gobs of money at it is not the garentee to a cure. Its much better to spend money wisely on things that have a good chance of leading to something.
- Key2gb, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3yea...AIDS is the one that dies when we throw money at it
- GliTCH82, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4Like getting you an edumacation on how scientific research and sponsorship programs work.
- sam10685, on 04/15/2008, -0/+7I agree. Cure it. My dad was just diagnosed with terminal liver cancer and has 3-12 months to live. Any time now.
- GliTCH82, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3:( You should print this article out and take it to his doctor.
- mattw, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1Cancer ***** sucks.
- brokencode, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2There's more to finding a cure than just money. There has to be experienced scientists willing to devote their lives to do it. Most of the research tends to be fruitless and not everyone is willing to spend their time on a gamble.
- Bugsdigg, on 04/15/2008, -0/+7That's true of most scientific research.
As an example, my lab has a few treatments in the works. Testing in animals can take a couple of years. Then you start the administrative work to try it in humans: the admin alone takes up to three years. Then you go through several phases of testing, first to demonstrate that it doesn't harm healthy volunteers, then no harm to cancer patients, then at theraputic doses to terminal patients to look for an effect, then at more easily treatable cancer patients... As you'd expect, the vast majority of new treatments fail depressingly early, either for unacceptable side effects or being safe but useless.
It's all necessary stuff, because we don't want to inject a few hundred cancer patients who have a chance of survival with something that turns out to be deadly. But going from "I have a great potential cure" to actually using it will take, in the best case and on the accelerated protocol, 5-10 years. So more money wold be nice (but don't forget causes like Altzheimers', which afects more people), but it's mostly a matter of time.
- Bugsdigg, on 04/15/2008, -0/+7That's true of most scientific research.
- doublebummer, on 04/15/2008, -2/+5Wow, you're really going out on a limb there. Let me join you: I think war is bad!
- DNABeast, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4You can't really prevent cancer. It's a natural side-effect to an adaptable evolving species.
- AoiTakuma, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1cancer is, basically, a bad cell that doesnt die when its supposed to. then recruits other cells to be dicks too. there is no preventing it.
- Navicerts, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1I dunno, if you consider "net lives" you could spend the money put into cancer research into curing hunger instead and save a hell of a lot more lives. Then again if we had the resources to deal with both successfully where would that leave us?
- HonestAbe, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1"Hunger"? I think you mean "contraception".
- MadEnvoy, on 04/15/2008, -1/+36But there's much more to be made in treating the symptoms!
- billllyboobs34, on 04/15/2008, -12/+81This idea is quite old I learned about it over six years ago in an into biology course and AFAIK there's no way to target only cancer cells with nanoparticles.
People need to remember that killing cancer cells is incredibly easy the only problem is targeting only cancer cells and killing ALL of them without harming the body.- billllyboobs34, on 04/15/2008, -2/+19Ok I just read the antibody part attached to gold particles.. It's an interesting idea but I don't see how the antibodies would properly get to their target.
- Dinosaurus, on 04/15/2008, -1/+7It's called the circulatory system and that's what is used for chemotherapy today. Eventually all nanoparticles and dead cancer cells will be passed.
- Shakermaker, on 04/15/2008, -0/+8From the video - The antibodies are what puzzles researchers. Once they create antibodies that are specifically designed to attack rogue cells, they can attach a gold nanoparticle to it. Once the antibody attaches to the rogue cell - a quick blast of radio waves kills the cell. Developing the antibody is the hard part...
- variant5, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Finding a cancer-specific target is the hard part. Developing the antibody is comparatively easy.
- billllyboobs34, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0Not sure if you're up on your physiology but the circulatory system doesn't touch every cancer cell and therefore is not 100% effective.
- MaynardsTool, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3The anti-bodies have been the snag for a long time for a lot of different avenues of cancer research. Another idea that I have heard would be to use a virus that is modified to search out cancerous cells. I have no clue how it would work, but then again I'm not a doctor. All I know is that there is a lot of money being thrown at this problem... and it seems like this could be a huge breakthrough.
Even if they can't find all of the rouge cells... just imagine what this would mean for people with solid-mass tumors that have yet to spread.- Bugsdigg, on 04/15/2008, -0/+25The virus thing is actually what I'm working on for my PhD. There are several approaches, the main two are:
1) Engineer a virus which can only attach to and enter cancer cells. To do this, we need to find protein(s) that are abundant on cancer cells but not on healthy tissue. It's the same problem as we face in antibody targeting. It's worth pointing out that these targets will vary hugely between patients and cancer types. You'll need to produce a new virus for each patient, which is time consuming - with current techniques you'd be talking about months to years - and tremendously expensive.
2)Take a virus which can enter cancerous and healthy cells and engineer it so it can only reproduce in cancerous cells. Once there, the virus can heal the cell (enormously difficult for cancer cells because they have many and complex mutations), kill the cell directly or kill indirectly, e.g. by expressing an enzyme to locally convert a harmless prodrug into something very toxic; enough to kill that specific cell but tiny enough not to spread much. This is showing great promise in clinical trials but, again, is difficult because we're dealing with complex and poorly understood systems.
Oh, and to all those who say that big Pharma is quashing cancer research - that's anything but the case. I realise it's more fun to criticise when unburdend by the facts, but if you've never worked in scientific research I don't really see how you can comment on our working practices. If nothing else, a huge amount of cancer research is actually performed by charities (I'm funded by a biggish cancer charity which happily doles out hundreds of millions a year to researchers) and governments.- Xondar, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3Then why doesn't big pharma, with their billions in profits, divert more money into researching cures for cancer? I'm sure it would be big money for the company that could find, and thusly sell, the cure.
- billllyboobs34, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1What are you talking about they put loads of money into it...
- HonestAbe, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1There's more money in treatments than cures.
- Xondar, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3Then why doesn't big pharma, with their billions in profits, divert more money into researching cures for cancer? I'm sure it would be big money for the company that could find, and thusly sell, the cure.
- xxTazxx, on 04/15/2008, -3/+3Dear Lord have you never watched I Am Legend?!!!
That aside, this is probably the most promising cure for a whole host of diseases, let alone cancer.- LoCoPyRo, on 04/15/2008, -3/+1Lol.. dugg for I am Legend comparison (which is actually a kind of scary and almost possible scenario when you think about it)
- variant5, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1No. I am Legend was as much nonsense as it was ridiculous. The general American populace can be easily fooled into thinking that something is real by anyone with a British accent using big words or talking about "tough sciency" concepts.
- Bugsdigg, on 04/15/2008, -0/+25The virus thing is actually what I'm working on for my PhD. There are several approaches, the main two are:
- FutureGuy, on 04/15/2008, -3/+2I wish this machine has potential as much as the next buy but this is from the same guy who came up with radiowaves device to "create fuel from water" by splitting it into h and o. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwfaQZAGNTE
That's just bad science (it would take the same amount of energy to split h2o into h2 and o as one would get back by combining h2 and o to get h2o assuming 100% efficiency) I am sure someone must have told him that but he continues to claim that he has solved the world energy problems. His cancer machine seems to be a bit more credible but then I am no Doctor.- DJDee85, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I knew I recognized this a-hole and his stupid machine from somewhere...I bet it'll be the answer to pollution next week
- enlightenme, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Scientists need to discover what receptor sites change when a cell becomes cancerous. In theory, very simple. In practice, very difficult. We aren't that far away though. We may need one or two more technological breakthroughs before scientists can accurately determine the unique receptor sites on cancer cells.
- billllyboobs34, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0There are a great many changes and different changes for different people and different cancer locations
- nullcodes, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3You are correct, the idea described in the article that Kanzius is trying out is not new! anyone familiar with cancer resaerch already knows this idea .. The idea actually originates a long time ago. They make it look like he conceived the whole idea of using nanoparticles and heating them up in cancer cells by applying an EMF field. What a load of crock.
Here a simple google brings this article up
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-4484/15/8/029
Which is from early 2004 earlier than the dates cited in that lame article. Oh well nobody will see this.- LoCoPyRo, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Although the article you posted does involve nanoparticles and heating it uses magnetic waves instead of the radio waves as the man in the article has been developing. Similar but not identical ideas... I also dont see how less than half a year before his ideas is "a long time ago".
- nullcodes, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2argh that was like the first link in google .. second .. also magnetic waves and radio waves are the same thing .. learn some basic physics.
- LoCoPyRo, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1So by saying "alternating magnetic field" the person in the google article covered and can take credit for all frequencies of electromagnetic radiation and any cure that involves any of them should be contributed to him and not the people that make them?
- LoCoPyRo, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1I guess what Im really trying to get at is that all research is based upon the research done by others. People over a 100 years ago realized that we can use EM radiation to kill cells. Then people, like the article you brought up, a few years ago realized you can do this even better by using nano particles as a tag on these cells. Now comes along the guy in the article and he realizes that radio waves may work the best and they have never been tried. He didn't know anything about nano particles, the doctor he is working with at MD Anderson suggested the idea. They took nano Carbon from a collegeague and it worked. They then moved on to Gold because it is FDA approved and known to work, due to research like the one you suggested.
In the end, I dont see anywhere that they claimed that this guy spontaneously came up with the idea on his own. He has been working with other people and using their ideas through the whole process. - nullcodes, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1@LoCoPyRo
It is implied that he did, and it helps propagate the view that scientists in labs have no idea what they are doing. Anyway for the record I definitely applaud this guy 100% and i hope he has success. I just didnt think the media gave proper credit to the prior stuff, that's all.
- nullcodes, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2argh that was like the first link in google .. second .. also magnetic waves and radio waves are the same thing .. learn some basic physics.
- LoCoPyRo, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Although the article you posted does involve nanoparticles and heating it uses magnetic waves instead of the radio waves as the man in the article has been developing. Similar but not identical ideas... I also dont see how less than half a year before his ideas is "a long time ago".
- mattrmcg, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Try Dr. Sessler at the University of Texas, he uses a chemical found predominantly in cancerous cells, and based on that molecule, he formed a molecule doped with heavy atoms, which will accumulate in the cancer cells long enough for them to be detected via CT scan. Maybe this radio wave emitter can be applied to cancer cells that have been treated with Sessler's doped chemical to heat up the cell to the point at which the cell will die from heat shock.
Even cooler was that he is taking this idea one step further and making it so that the molecule will break down into a chemical that will kill the cell, but since it only works in large numbers, it should in theory kill off only the cancerous cells and leave the others intact. - lpfan076, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2The theory behind the antibody is that it acts as a targetting agents. By examining cancerous tissue, we can find molecules that are overexpressed. By adding these molecules to a silica sphere covered in gold nanoparticles, and binding the targeting antibodies to the gold NP's, we have a targetting nanoparticle. Near infrared light (NIR) is then passed through the body. This light is in the range of 800-820 nm in wavelength. After several minutes of exposure, the gold NP's heat up roughly 1 degree celsius (enough to induce cell death). The current problem facing us is how to get the NP's out of the body. They are too small, and pass right through the kidneys, thus are not expelled in the urine.
- billllyboobs34, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0Too small would mean that it WOULD get out through the urine.. The problem with the antibodies as I see it is getting them to attach to all the cancer cells. Many of the cells would be physically blocked by other cells. It is my opinion that using a virus vector is the only method of a future cure for cancer.
- billllyboobs34, on 04/15/2008, -2/+19Ok I just read the antibody part attached to gold particles.. It's an interesting idea but I don't see how the antibodies would properly get to their target.
- madfrogurt, on 04/15/2008, -1/+32I think an apt metaphor for this story is saying this man has created another type of cellular bomb. While he actually has created a new way of killing specific cells (and by the looks of it, it can kill cells), this bomb lacks a delivery system. They use straight up injection for some solid tumors and get a result, but any localized chemo would do the same thing and have about the same effects (any time you start killing cells you get either openings for bacteria to form or you release toxic substances kept in check by living cells).
The real problem is the cells that metastasize and spread throughout the body. Targeting these cells isn't as simple as targeting classic tumor cells, since they often don't have the same membrane proteins as their stationary brethren. So no, linking this treatment to an antibody and searching out tumor cells isn't likely to become a cure for cancer.- fyngyrz, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1Localized chemo will spread as the tumor deliquesces, poisoning other tissue and consequently producing side effects and collateral damage. The heating effect is local and remains local, so it is a lot more targeted in the final analysis. Presuming it works as described. That doesn't address metastasis, of course. For that, they need an approach similar to that described towards the end of the article, where specially designed molecules that seek out the cancer carry heatable elements.
- madfrogurt, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Although we're shooting in the dark about how this treatment would work, do you think the antibody bound metal particles wouldn't have similar collateral damage to cells? The particles would need to be removed or deactivated after treatment, or else it will build up in surrounding tissue as treatment proceeds eventually killing the wrong cells.
If they can perfect their delivery method and can deal with multiple treatments, then I'm happy to see another tool to treat cancer. But I think we can both agree this isn't a "Cure for Cancer" so much as a possibly better treatment for cancer.- unionaire, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1your concern is less of an issue, since nanoparticles are small even compare to cancer cells, it won't cause much trouble after you're done with the cancel cells...
bigger problem is how to find cancel cells accurately.
- unionaire, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1your concern is less of an issue, since nanoparticles are small even compare to cancer cells, it won't cause much trouble after you're done with the cancel cells...
- weeeezzll, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2antibody bound metal particles that do not find their way into a cancer cell would get activated by the radio waves also and they would destroy the surrounding cells.
A targeting method that ensures that nearly 100% of the metal particles end up in cancer cells, or an efficient way of flushing particles that didn't find their target from the patient prior to subjecting them to the radio waves needs to be developed for this to work. Which was and still is the biggest problem in cancer research. This is however an incredibly important discovery.
- madfrogurt, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Although we're shooting in the dark about how this treatment would work, do you think the antibody bound metal particles wouldn't have similar collateral damage to cells? The particles would need to be removed or deactivated after treatment, or else it will build up in surrounding tissue as treatment proceeds eventually killing the wrong cells.
- nullcodes, on 04/15/2008, -5/+2The idea described is not new! anyone familiar with cancer resaerch already knows this idea .. The idea actually originates a long time ago.
Here a simple google brings this page up
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-4484/15/8/029
Which is from early 2004 earlier than the dates (2005) cited in that lame article
- fyngyrz, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1Localized chemo will spread as the tumor deliquesces, poisoning other tissue and consequently producing side effects and collateral damage. The heating effect is local and remains local, so it is a lot more targeted in the final analysis. Presuming it works as described. That doesn't address metastasis, of course. For that, they need an approach similar to that described towards the end of the article, where specially designed molecules that seek out the cancer carry heatable elements.
- edstate, on 04/15/2008, -11/+2No, another promising TREATMENT. Not a cure. Cue the Chris Rock footage.
- doctechnical, on 04/15/2008, -4/+24I'll digg it just for having a Dr. Curley in the article. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
- mCanada, on 04/15/2008, -4/+43 stooges reference = auto digg
- eyepatch100, on 04/15/2008, -2/+6Why I oughta...
- dangerdooms, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2Oh, a wise guy, eh ?
- knowmad23, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1wooopwoooooooop, woooowooooo!
- dangerdooms, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2Oh, a wise guy, eh ?
- fudgecakes, on 04/15/2008, -38/+1gaaaaaaay
- halobender, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1No that would be a cure for AIDS.
/gone to hell. - theatreguy36, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4What the hell is your problem?
- halobender, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1No that would be a cure for AIDS.
- JonnyMark, on 04/15/2008, -21/+5Hot dogs? This is proof that we're not putting enough money towards fighting Cancer.
- EvanVolm, on 04/15/2008, -17/+8Doesn't a story like this come up every couple of weeks on Digg?
- CatalunyaBob, on 04/15/2008, -22/+260 Minutes? Are you serious? Oh jeez, next we'll see geriatric ads on digg. (dugg for the cool invention however)
- lohphat, on 04/15/2008, -15/+3This is a treatment, not a cure.
- D3koy, on 04/15/2008, -18/+7No, it's not going to work...sorry
- reshep, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1one can only presume that you are one of the highest people in this field of research?
- slapded, on 04/15/2008, -12/+1i dont think tomatoes should be kept with the fruit.
- moolcool, on 04/15/2008, -11/+4colloidal silver is my cure-all!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahihGKZC5Kk - nickels, on 04/15/2008, -19/+7The guy also figured out that this technique can be used to burn salt water. So, he not only may have figured out an amazing treatment for cancer, he may have discovered a new source of energy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwfaQZAGNTE
This story is quite amazing.- fracai, on 04/15/2008, -3/+8Wow... You're really serious aren't you?
- mtkings, on 04/15/2008, -5/+0Wow.. You're really optimistic aren't you? We need more attitude like yours to produce a healthy world.
- mike17032, on 04/15/2008, -3/+2Being a ***** hippie with his head up his ass does not make it possible to break the laws of physics, no matter how hard you hug a damn tree.
- mtkings, on 04/15/2008, -1/+0Good argument. Every bit of it had me regretting my sarcastic reply.
The man has a theory, there's obviously more qualified people than you interested in the idea so there must be some merit to it. Whether or not you want to have faith in something is your issue. The fact remains that he is not simply hugging a tree, nor is he a hippie, but instead is going on a limb to do something very honorable.
I commend this man and want to know what law of physics he's breaking.
- mtkings, on 04/15/2008, -1/+0Good argument. Every bit of it had me regretting my sarcastic reply.
- shortyjacobs, on 04/15/2008, -2/+4Crap, I knew the name sounded familiar. This cancer treatment does seem more promising though. The burning salt water thing was terrible science, sensationalized by the media, (OOH OOH, the OCEANS are salt water....if we can burn the oceans, we'll have enough energy to last foreverrrrr!). The radio waves simply split the water in to H2 and O2, which then bubbled to the surface and burned. More energy was put into splitting the H20 than is recovered from the combustion, (Conservation of energy...energy only flows downhill). So no, not a new source of energy.
- mike17032, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5Oh this is that ***** idiot?
Why am I not shocked this made the homepage, diggiots are so ***** easy to fool.- mtkings, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1You're absolutely brilliant.
- fracai, on 04/15/2008, -3/+8Wow... You're really serious aren't you?
- eyepatch100, on 04/15/2008, -10/+1Thank you, MrBabyMan, for saving us all.
- dbsmoker, on 04/15/2008, -13/+6If this works, it'll frustrate the hell out of me that actual scientists couldn't come up with it during their 20 YEARS of research.
- laserblazer, on 04/15/2008, -11/+4Big Pharma makes a lot of money on cancer, they'll quash any real breakthroughs, just as they do with all profitable diseases.
- Dinosaurus, on 04/15/2008, -2/+6Take the tin hat off.
- laserblazer, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3Just so long as you take off the clown shoes.
- colto, on 04/15/2008, -4/+1I'm not sure why you are getting dugg down. The Big pharmacy companies do this all the time. I've seen my own father cure his cancer with nothing but a dietary change and a close friend have his cured with oxygenated IVs (H2O2 dilution injected into the blood stream, followed by a large dose of vitamin C). My friend actually got to help cure several people in African tribes using this method. The only problem with the pharmaceutical companies is that they are looking for a drug that will fix this, specifically something that they can charge an exorbitant amount of money for. The FDA actually had a law passed that states that doctors can ONLY prescribe a drug as a treatment (and be covered from malpractice I believe). This basically forces drugs to be purchased. This is just from my limited knowledge of the subject but I HIGHLY recommend reading the book 'There Are No Incurable Diseases'.
- AON99, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Limited knowledge of the subject is right. The NIH spends 28 BILLION a year doing research. The bulk of that is spend at the NIH campus and an research labs at major universities across the country. Any of those folks would love to discover a cure for a disease. They'd become famous in their field, be invited around the world to speak, and have guaranteed funding for life. Major discoveries aren't being hidden from you. They are hard to make.
- helster83, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2yeah, the pharmaceutical industry likes keeping people in a disease state so they can keep up their ridiculously high prices of medications. no tin hat necessary.
- nominalgeek, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Dugg down for truth. Regardless if this thing works or not, it's makes economic sense for the pharmaceutical industry not to cure a disease but to treat it. It may not make moral or logical sense, but who said humanity was moral or logical.
- Dinosaurus, on 04/15/2008, -2/+6Take the tin hat off.
- zeusthemoose, on 04/15/2008, -9/+4Thats the thing though, these things NEVER work. It always appears to work on the surface, but anyone with actual scientific competence can easily see right through the device. This is just another one of those wacky perpetual motion machine like claims.
- shortyjacobs, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Where does the science fail here, pray tell?
- laserblazer, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2A cure for cancer would be greeted by Big Pharma like a certain Jew was greeted by mighty Rome and the Synod.
- shortyjacobs, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Ah ha. I get it. Good argument. "I have scientific competence and can easily see right through this device because Big Pharma is a certain Jew." Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.
- nominalgeek, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1@shortyjacobs
Are you completely retarded and just missed his point and latched on to the jewish reference? I think so... What he was saying is, is that "Big Pharma would go out of their way to discredit ANY cure for a money maker like cancer" aka they wouldn't "welcome it with open arms"
Dumbass
- AON99, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3We already have TONS of things that can kill cells. The problem is targeting, so that ALL cancer cells get killed buy no, or little normal cells get killed. That's what makes it tough. I've worked with a number of photodynamic drugs (they are only toxic when a light of the right wavelengh is shined on them). You can then shine a light on the tumor and kill the cells. The problem is some needed good cells might take up the drug, and not all the tumor cells might. There is NOTHING about his drug (nanoparticles) that targets tumor cells any better than the myriad of things we already have available.
- laserblazer, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2A cure for cancer would be greeted by Big Pharma like a certain Jew was greeted by mighty Rome and the Synod.
- shortyjacobs, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Where does the science fail here, pray tell?
- mike17032, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2I will do ya one better.
If this snake oil cure from the moonbat works, I will eat my own dick.- laserblazer, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Going back for seconds?
- madfrogurt, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2When were we able to create targeted antibodies to cancer cells? When were we able to covalently bond small metal particles to these antibodies? The technology which makes this work is new technology (within the last decade or so) and its not a replacement for any treatment, but rather a new tool.
- Bugsdigg, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1We can't make antibodies targeted to cancer cells.
Rather, we can make antibodies against most proteins provided they don't have too complex modifications (many proteins have complex sugar, fat or metallic structures attached which are difficult to synthesise or purify), but identifying ones that are present on all cancer cells but no healthy cells is extremely difficult.
Huge amounts of money are being poured into this area because it's so promising. The use of gold particles is cool, but not tremendously exciting because we already have loads of ways to kill the cancer cells safely. The problem is the targeting step, which this guy seems to think will be trivial. - madfrogurt, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1You're splitting hairs. Even research papers will refer to "anti-tumor antibodies" rather than "anti-protein antigen A23" for short hand reasons. The point is that the technology to find tumor specific antigens exists, but is new.
- nullcodes, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2Ther idea described is not new! anyone familiar with cancer resaerch already knows this idea of heating up nanoparticles with an EMF field.. The idea actually originates a long time ago.
Here a simple google brings this page up
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-4484/15/8/029
Which is from early 2004 earlier than the dates cited in that lame article
- Bugsdigg, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1We can't make antibodies targeted to cancer cells.
- nullcodes, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2The idea described is not new! anyone familiar with cancer resaerch already knows this idea .. The idea actually originates a long time ago.
Here a simple google brings this page up
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-4484/15/8/029
Which is from early 2004 earlier than the dates cited in that lame article
- laserblazer, on 04/15/2008, -11/+4Big Pharma makes a lot of money on cancer, they'll quash any real breakthroughs, just as they do with all profitable diseases.
- schwallman, on 04/15/2008, -15/+2there already is a cure for cancer, only to much too money is made on research. you know how big business works, everything has a cure but if it gets out and they start treating people how will they make money
- mtkings, on 04/15/2008, -2/+7That's not how big business works. Do you honestly think there's a huge conspiracy against cancer patients?
- CrackyJSquirrel, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3I have a hard time buying the conspiracy myself. But if you think about it, it does seem somewhat viable. Its not just about cancer, its about all medicine. The base theory is that modern medicine doesn't cure you, it just treats you. And treatments usually are an ongoing, even lifetime ordeal. There is a lot of money to be made in return treatment and medicine.
Personally, what makes me skeptical of this conspiracy theory is that everyone knows or is directly affected by disease. And I find it hard to believe that a whole medical industry can separate themselves from that for the greater good of their job security and industry. But in this day and age, anything is possible. Best example is the idea that medicine isn't even considered production worthy if it cant be regulated to a private company before going generic. Any drug that is going straight to generic status will never get produced since there is nobody to profit from it.- knowitman, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2"Best example is the idea that medicine isn't even considered production worthy if it cant be regulated to a private company before going generic. Any drug that is going straight to generic status will never get produced since there is nobody to profit from it. "
If it is allowed to go strait to generic status, then noone will profit from it. You are right. But, if noone profits from it, then noone is going to invest money into research for developing a drug. If there were no profits to be made, then the state of medicine would not advance. Welcome to capitalism. - AON99, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Additionally, the NIH spends more than 28 BILLION dollars (this year alone) to do research. That is done mainly by research labs at universities across the nation. Results of the research is published and available through your library. It's not a huge conspiracy. It's simply a lot of work, with a lot of dead ends. Many drugs are found that treat a disease, but there may be no good/safe way to deliver the drug, or it may have more side-effects that outweigh the benefits, or may work ok, but just not better than other things already available on the market. Drug discovery is hard.
- knowitman, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2"Best example is the idea that medicine isn't even considered production worthy if it cant be regulated to a private company before going generic. Any drug that is going straight to generic status will never get produced since there is nobody to profit from it. "
- CrackyJSquirrel, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3I have a hard time buying the conspiracy myself. But if you think about it, it does seem somewhat viable. Its not just about cancer, its about all medicine. The base theory is that modern medicine doesn't cure you, it just treats you. And treatments usually are an ongoing, even lifetime ordeal. There is a lot of money to be made in return treatment and medicine.
- madfrogurt, on 04/15/2008, -2/+7Jesus Christ, if you took a single biology calss on cancer, you'd know that the wild variety of genetic predispositions and environmental mutagens does not allow for a "magic bullet" cure for all types of cancers. But you, of course, have no idea how cancer even works, so you treat it like a mystical bad chi which is easily corrected.
- madfrogurt, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2Instead of digging me down, why not kindly explain to the guy with the biology degree why cancer is so easily treated? Or how about you explain to me how cancer forms and what we can do to stop it?
- mtkings, on 04/15/2008, -2/+7That's not how big business works. Do you honestly think there's a huge conspiracy against cancer patients?
- 420ilerBuzzed, on 04/15/2008, -9/+21They've basically come up with a way to cure cancer at the University of Alberta using DCA. Why no 60 Minutes story on that?
- 420ilerBuzzed, on 04/15/2008, -5/+17Why was my comment dugg down? It's true and it's the most dugg story. Some people on here are nothing more than assholes.
- bbqsalad, on 04/15/2008, -0/+7Link:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap- ... - funkydude101, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2verrrrrry interesting.... I hope that goes a long way.
- bbqsalad, on 04/15/2008, -0/+7Link:
- weeeezzll, on 04/15/2008, -9/+3Because Canada sucks?
- Narrator, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Funny thing is is that companies that sell DCA will ship to any country EXCEPT the USA.
- 420ilerBuzzed, on 04/15/2008, -5/+17Why was my comment dugg down? It's true and it's the most dugg story. Some people on here are nothing more than assholes.
- diggydougie, on 04/15/2008, -3/+11But you gotta get the metal particles into the cancer first. It's just as easy to cut it out. My cancer is Leukemia. It's all throughout the blood system. How do you fix that?
- 420ilerBuzzed, on 04/15/2008, -2/+6Nano particles in your blood stream.
- laserblazer, on 04/15/2008, -9/+7I've heard of a method that involves starving yourself to near death, then eating a pureed organic grape or peach-pit slurry. Something about a B complex vitamin in natural foods (B17 maybe) causes a cyanide to be released during digestion - but if you're starved, the cancer will out-compete your own cells for the food, which means the cancer gets the B vitamin and then dies from the metabolized cyanide. I'm not trying to provide false hope, but someone explained this method to me once and they seemed to have read up on it.
Keep in mind that Big Pharma has crushed cancer research, including vulgar measures like banning part of the B spectrum and genetically engineering it out of our foods to keep cancer paying their salaries.
Anyhow, I hope you get better.- mike17032, on 04/15/2008, -5/+2Or you could put a ***** gun to your head and pull the trigger, would be a lot less painful than Laserblazers idiot method of torturing yourself to death.
Good luck Diggy, but I dont think your cure is going to come from the same moonbat who claims he can burn sea water.- diggydougie, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Thanks. But it's amazing how such crap still gets my attention. The reason people fall for such stuff is simple: What have I got to lose? When the regular doctors shrug their shoulders you go elsewhere. So far my doctors are not shrugging their shoulders.
What, you can burn water? I'm all over that. seriously though, I'm sure that if you heat water enough it will separate, but the energy used to heat the water must be equal or greater than the energy from burning (recombining) the hydrogen.
- diggydougie, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Thanks. But it's amazing how such crap still gets my attention. The reason people fall for such stuff is simple: What have I got to lose? When the regular doctors shrug their shoulders you go elsewhere. So far my doctors are not shrugging their shoulders.
- mike17032, on 04/15/2008, -5/+2Or you could put a ***** gun to your head and pull the trigger, would be a lot less painful than Laserblazers idiot method of torturing yourself to death.
- Calcularius, on 04/15/2008, -9/+3DId you not read the article because your time is so short?
- solid12345, on 04/15/2008, -6/+2That is cold hearted, but am I a more of a bastard for snickering?
- laserblazer, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1Par.
- diggydougie, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1I read it.
- solid12345, on 04/15/2008, -6/+2That is cold hearted, but am I a more of a bastard for snickering?
- nullcodes, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1What kind of leukemia is it, and can you name the drugs have they put you on?
Also how far along is it?- diggydougie, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1CLL , "watchful waiting", stage 0 (yea). It's actually disappointing because I don't have any horror stories or anything. I figure I've got about 10 years left. My oncologist says that I'll probably die with it rather than from it. I'm a total idiot because I am not doing anything like diet or exercise to improve my chances. I have found that the less I eat the better I feel though. But I love to eat.
- nullcodes, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Good luck, hopefully there will be a cure for it soon (as u may know I'm sure .. already combo therapy involving rituximab has been shown to cause complete remission in a significant percent of cases). Longer it takes, the more drugs there will be. Given a choice, opt for combination therapy to prevent resistance from evolving .. which can happen with sequential montherapy.
- nullcodes, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Good luck, hopefully there will be a cure for it soon (as u may know I'm sure .. already combo therapy involving rituximab has been shown to cause complete remission in a significant percent of cases). Longer it takes, the more drugs there will be. Given a choice, opt for combination therapy to prevent resistance from evolving .. which can happen with sequential montherapy.
- diggydougie, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1CLL , "watchful waiting", stage 0 (yea). It's actually disappointing because I don't have any horror stories or anything. I figure I've got about 10 years left. My oncologist says that I'll probably die with it rather than from it. I'm a total idiot because I am not doing anything like diet or exercise to improve my chances. I have found that the less I eat the better I feel though. But I love to eat.
- hank22, on 04/15/2008, -3/+15My dog is going to be put down tomorrow because of cancer :(
***** cancer, hope they ***** crush it.- laserblazer, on 04/15/2008, -5/+3They need to stop buying up anti-cancer technologies and losing them in the archives to keep cancer profitable. One may deny it, but a corporation serves its shareholders, even at the cost of innocent life.
- twst1up, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1used to work for big pharma: you couldn't be MORE right
- OffPiste, on 04/15/2008, -7/+1Don't be so down, there's always RePet.
- laserblazer, on 04/15/2008, -5/+3They need to stop buying up anti-cancer technologies and losing them in the archives to keep cancer profitable. One may deny it, but a corporation serves its shareholders, even at the cost of innocent life.
- darny, on 04/15/2008, -4/+4I don't think I'll trust anyone who's doing it with their wife's hot dogs.
- Gauthic, on 07/09/2008, -2/+39Never, ever associate brilliance (or lack there of) with education (or lack there of) or vice versa.
- benbfree, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2You just created a logical infinite loop. *Mind Explodes
- Robbothehood, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Not institutionalized education anyway. He must've educated himself in some respect or else he just stumbled across this "cure."
- skcoder, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0While there are occasionally brilliant people who don't have much formal education, this usually isn't the case. How many geniuses come out of Ethiopia, which has very little education system at all? I can't think of any. The way you put it, higher education is worthless, but the fact is most scientific advancement has been through continual effort and lots of training.
- 3gibberish4q57, on 04/15/2008, -10/+27I have invented a magnetic bracelet that redirects chi, cures all diseases AND produces infinite energy! Who wants to invest in this new scientific miracle?
- brufleth, on 04/15/2008, -5/+21My mother died of breast cancer. Sensationalized BS like this pisses me off. If this dude had a cure for cancer you'd have millions of people with cancer busting down his door with fists full of cash. He MIGHT have developed something that COULD be a treatment.
- alwilson, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2The key word is "potential" cure for cancer. They still need to work out the details like all of the other cures being researched. The only thing it's shown to work on is lab rats and I doubt there is a significant need to cure those.
- helster83, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1thing is that you have thousands of hopeful people that go to these psychic healers, hoping to be cured of whatever ailment on the spot.
in this case, this man's house address probably wasn't made public. i'm sure if it was, people would be knocking down his door.
but, whose to say people haven't knocked his door down yet?
- helster83, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1thing is that you have thousands of hopeful people that go to these psychic healers, hoping to be cured of whatever ailment on the spot.
- nominalgeek, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Case of Personal Trauma clouding rational thought. I've had more then 3 people die in my family of cancer, and acting like that is the right thing to do.
- alwilson, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2The key word is "potential" cure for cancer. They still need to work out the details like all of the other cures being researched. The only thing it's shown to work on is lab rats and I doubt there is a significant need to cure those.
- Mansellisme, on 04/15/2008, -6/+3I don't know much in the way of Cancer, and curing it, but hell, i hope it does work.
- gossipninja, on 04/15/2008, -9/+3why gold nanoparticles? why not some cheaper, yet still inert metal? Reminds me of the southpark season opener about curing aids buy injecting all your money in your veins.
- shortyjacobs, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4Gold nanoparticles are extremely easy to make. We've been producing them for centuries. And, as you said, they are inert. Perfect to inject the body with. Plus, *****, if you've got cancer, are you really worried about the fact that the metal that will save your life is too expensive???
How to make them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloidal_gold
- shortyjacobs, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4Gold nanoparticles are extremely easy to make. We've been producing them for centuries. And, as you said, they are inert. Perfect to inject the body with. Plus, *****, if you've got cancer, are you really worried about the fact that the metal that will save your life is too expensive???
- schwallman, on 04/15/2008, -3/+4if i were this guy and had cancer, i sure as ***** would try it on myself before i died of it. whats there to loose
- trollick, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4The problem is that he has NOTHING to try - nobody knows how to deliver these nanoparticles to cancer cells.
- shortyjacobs, on 04/15/2008, -7/+2Apparently, a firm grasp on the English language.
- apraxia, on 04/15/2008, -1/+16Gold Blooded? The rappers are going to have a field day.
- trollick, on 04/15/2008, -1/+11I'm not a cancer researcher, but I'm pretty sure the problem is not how to kill a cancer cell. You can kill it all kinds of methods including using a torch or a chainsaw. The problem is how do you find all these cells and how do you deliver to them and only to them whatever deadly stuff you want to use to kill them. And they only mentioned at the very end that this KEY part of the treatment is still has to be figured out.
- ElectroBot, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Nanobots!
- petska, on 04/15/2008, -5/+2looks legit
- hideko, on 04/15/2008, -4/+6how about people stop being negative over this article and be positive for once? No one knows what's going to come from this and props to this guy for inventing such a thing. I hope he gets to stick around for the first human trials. Maybe if digg was positive for once crazy stuff would happen, ya know like a cure for cancer? :P
- nullcodes, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2some diggers are saying his idea isn't super new, it should be known cause it's a disservice to others who came up with the concept which this guy is getting the credit (by the media) for having supposedly conceived
- Stavrosian, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2As has been pointed out, all he's got at this point is a way of killing cancer cells. That's not really anything new. When the story breaks that they have managed to isolate metastatic cancer cells in the way they are postulating, then I'll be the first one to run over to his house and buy him a beer. Until then, it's just another speculative idea.
- ozziedog, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Sounds like a treatment for now. Anything as effective as chemo without nasty side effects is a break through in my opinion.
- nullcodes, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2some diggers are saying his idea isn't super new, it should be known cause it's a disservice to others who came up with the concept which this guy is getting the credit (by the media) for having supposedly conceived
- Dinosaurus, on 04/15/2008, -7/+2There's already a cure for cancer, it's called Chemo. It sucks though.
- arcooke, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Tell that to my dad, who died from cancer after a year of chemo and radiation treatments.
- thal3s, on 04/15/2008, -4/+106I worked at M.D. Anderson for years. I've been through the children's floor many times.
While this story is cool (i've seen it before), you've got to realize this is NOT the future.
Gene therapy (and stem cell research) Is the future. I've seen cancer cured (CURED!) in mice using GT. It actually fixes your cells, not something like this where you're treating the disease.
My only wish is that every person who ever opposed stem cell research (or science in general) is turned away from every hospital in America when they show up sick...
I've seen 7 year olds die. ***** you Bush.- SeekerDarksteel, on 04/15/2008, -22/+3"My only wish is that every person who ever opposed stem cell research (or science in general) is turned away from every hospital in America when they show up sick..."
Yeah, and while we're at it, let's get rid of all those pesky rules against testing on humans without their consent. Think of all the nifty things we could find out if we didn't have to deal with that whole ethics thing...- xeren, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4what does one have to do with the other? worst rebuttal evar.
- fxu1989, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Fuuuuuck .... I hate the digg system...
I meant to dugg you down ... you ***** suck.
- boonesfarm, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3Subscription to KFC?
- knowitman, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4If I am not mistaken, didn't Bush just ban the creation of new stem cells?
- nullcodes, on 04/15/2008, -4/+2Ther idea described is not new! anyone familiar with cancer resaerch already knows this idea .. The idea actually originates a long time ago.
Here a simple google brings this page up
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-4484/15/8/029
Which is from early 2004 earlier than the dates cited in that lame article - MojoJonJon, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3M.D Anderson helped my mom survive cancer. They frikin rock.
- eryximachus, on 04/15/2008, -7/+1I've always found the real problem is the lack of natural selection. Who needs stem cells when a few generations of selective breeding can eliminate many cancers? We've already done this with a variety of animal breeds - it can easily be done for humans.
Eugenics is the future. Gene therapy is too dangerous, and the use of stem cells is simply not feasible. Lastly, a national eugenics program would permanently put a coffin in our growth and debt based economics and put an end to overpopulation.
I've seen 7-year olds die, but I see thousands of people every day who look more like monsters than men. In a sane world, they never would have been born.- H4cksaw, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4Welcome to Nazi Germany.
- DJDee85, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Bury this wackjob...
- skcoder, on 04/16/2008, -1/+0Its nice to hear first hand from someone thats from the 'front lines' of cancer prevention. I only wish these people were more involved in the community and had a bigger say. Perhaps if you and your peers would be more outspoken with *facts* and not *dogma* that the religious right spews to control the government, we would have stem cell research today and even a cure for cancer in the immediate future?
- esc27, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1The debate over stem cells, is never the cells themselves, but the sources. To many people, destroying embryos for their cells is murder and abhorrent to them as say rape. Suppose rape is a promising cure for cancer, would you support it, or turn people away from hospitals because they do not?
- SeekerDarksteel, on 04/15/2008, -22/+3"My only wish is that every person who ever opposed stem cell research (or science in general) is turned away from every hospital in America when they show up sick..."
- poitzort, on 04/15/2008, -4/+13Sensationalist *****. The first 3 pages uses tired old clinches like "he never would have though that some day..." and "he doesn't have an education but he may have just...". THIS IS WHY science reporting is so bad in the media. It takes them three pages to get to the material which is basically just cell targeting with peptides which is being done by research groups all over the world. It's promising research, but this guy has in no way done it himself or even created the cure. There is an entire community of researchers working on this. This is also being done with many other types of nanoparticles, not just gold. Hasty media reporting looking for a sensationalist story is disappointing. When can we get good scientific reporting in the media?
- madfrogurt, on 04/15/2008, -0/+6It's because this is a human interest story masked as a science story. Most people who read this don't care, or particularly understand, what the treatment is or if it really is all that revolutionary. People instead love to read stories which imply that the best discoveries and cures aren't from people who spend their whole lives studying and researching, but rather just normal people who had a "eukera" moment and ran with it.
- faithfreedom, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Want to read good scientific papers? Go to peer review scientific journal. 60 minutes program is for layperson who watches before sleep.
- trollick, on 04/15/2008, -1/+7It reminds me of my discovery of how to get rich I made some time ago. The secret, believe it or not, is to get a lot of money. I'm still working on this "getting money" part...
- passingnotes, on 04/15/2008, -8/+2this project will be killed or delayed and will lead to infinite "home kits" and rip-offs preying on desperate souls...the american medical industry preaches only one thing, and follows one mantra, "big money is in diagnosis and treatment, not cures"
- Stavrosian, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2I've got a tip for you - the company who develops a blanket cure for cancer will be the richest ***** company in existence.
- erictheninja, on 04/15/2008, -5/+4Check out the documentary Run From The Cure: The Rick Simpsons story. He's the Canadian who produced highly concentrated hemp oil to cure cancer. It's an interesting thing to see when a guy terminally ill w/lung cancer is cured by hemp oil.
It's on youtube at http://youtube.com/watch?v=pjhT9282-Tw - bundwallah, on 04/15/2008, -7/+1Possible cure for Cancer machine inventor.....off to meet Jimmy Hoffa in 3...2.......... ;P
- Brownds, on 04/15/2008, -8/+1There will never be a cure as long as there is money to be made on "research" donate more please!
- Fratz, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1There's always something else to research. The skills required to research one disease actually do translate pretty well into researching another one. It's not like we're going to run out of diseases.
- unpure, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1it's a good idea, I hope they can figure out how to target every single cancer cell in the body. Maybe they can make a virus that has a metal nanoparticle attached to it seek out every single cancer cell and embed itself in it. Once they are embedded, focus the radio waves all over the body.
- Brainclone, on 04/15/2008, -5/+3It will be weaponized by the Russians, before it cures cancer.
- manofdestiny, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2Target cancer cells using nanobots programmed to to find the cancer cells. Like little tugboats they can deliver the gold nano particles to all the cancer in the body. Fire up the old hot dog warmer and bang your cured. Hell lets program them to target all diseased cells in the body while we're at it.
I am currently working on the nanobot thingy in my garage as we speak...so far I have a bar of Ivory soap, a paper clip and a piece of chewing gum. If some has a block of strontium lying around...let me know! - SmellyFingers, on 04/15/2008, -8/+5This doesn't seem very "Jesus-friendly". Sorry, I'll take the more natural road.
- notahack, on 04/15/2008, -0/+7I have been hearing a cure for cancer is 5 to 10 years in the future for the last 40 years. Now I have cancer and what it available as a 'cure' aint too promising. And where the hell is my jetson car?
- dukem72, on 04/15/2008, -0/+22I lost my dad to cancer, and seeing and hearing a strong presence start to vanish in a matter of 5 months is a really unlike any feeling you could imagine.
Mr. Kanzius I applaud you, thank you and wish you well. Perhaps none of your research will work, or maybe it will become the best thing to happen in this world filled with so much negative stuff.
Either way the important thing about this is that you believed, and gave it all your best.- diggB, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5Really sorry about your Dad ... hope you've found peace.
- dukem72, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Thank you, it took a really long time but I did.
- diggB, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5Really sorry about your Dad ... hope you've found peace.
- TipsyMcDoodle, on 04/15/2008, -6/+2Maybe the Church of Scientology will come up with a viable solution...
- geekdw, on 04/15/2008, -3/+1Better keep Will Smith alive so he can fight back all the zombies and develop a cure.
- DarkoKun, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3So much talk about cancer cures yet cancer still isnt cured.
- laserblazer, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1Corporate vested self-interest and lobbying in action.
- Lst01, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0Yea, that pro-cancer lobby sure is strong.
- laserblazer, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1Corporate vested self-interest and lobbying in action.
-
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by