What is Digg?52 Comments
- pervy_the_clown, on 10/27/2009, -3/+53Digg: Curing cancer every week since 2004
- DirtPile, on 10/27/2009, -1/+14My strict diet of mole rats keeps me safe.
- buzaman, on 10/27/2009, -2/+14Wake me up when the nano-bots can make me 18 again
- ShootTheCore, on 10/27/2009, -4/+16Jesus, you'd think those scientists would work on something else, what with the amount of times they've solved cancer...
/s - twiztidsinz, on 10/27/2009, -1/+11I think that's absolutely stupid.
They SHOULD be able to test things like this on people -- even if it is dangerous.
I'm not saying they should just be able to test on random people, or people who aren't 100% informed of the risks, or that it shouldn't be regulated and monitored...
But I know if I had terminal cancer (like many people do), I'd be willing to take an untested drug in hopes of prolonging my life by any amount of time -- even if it meant the negative effects could shorten it. It's a risk, and one that I would understand going into it. - Awwzm, on 10/27/2009, -0/+7With all the experiments conducted on rodents, they'll eventually be immune to everything and will one day become our overlords.
- mparker21311, on 10/27/2009, -3/+10We need to experiment with humans. Too bad we cant. :(
- PostalPenguin, on 10/27/2009, -1/+7"Like many animals, including humans, the mole rats have a gene called p27 that prevents cellular overcrowding, but the mole rats use another, earlier defense in gene p16. Cancer cells tend to find ways around p27, but mole rats have a double barrier that a cell must overcome before it can grow uncontrollably."
Unfortunately, many cancers in humans show multiple concurrent mutations that silence numerous genes like these. A double barrier will still not protect you from decades of environmental genetic damage. - OdinsFury, on 10/27/2009, -1/+7And rodents everywhere rejoice!
- TwilightMadness, on 10/27/2009, -0/+6they already are, we just haven't realized it yet
- diggopolous, on 10/27/2009, -0/+6so what? Let's search each and every byway for a cure.
- newerakb, on 10/27/2009, -0/+5Eventually? It was mice that contracted the earth's creation.
- Grotm001, on 10/27/2009, -0/+4Gene mapping leads to efficient gene therapy, and stem cell research leads to organ cloning. By the time we have completely mapped the human brain and can clone organs from stem cells, cancer will no longer be an issue.
The plan is to replace our organs and eventually solve the aging issue of tissue through gene therapy. - antc1986, on 10/27/2009, -1/+5Of course we experiment on humans, it's called "clinical trials." Once a study like this elucidates an important factor, another study showing it does indeed halt oncogenesis (cancer formation) in a larger more human-like animal, such as a primate, needs to be performed. If that's successful the FDA needs to approve a clinical trial, which occurs in three phases. It's a long process but it needs to be done to assure absolutely safety and efficacy of a therapy.
- Frostek, on 10/27/2009, -1/+4Sharks don't get cancer either.
- Grotm001, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3Uh, you get MORE THAN ENOUGH vitamin D from the sun every day. In fact, too much vitamin D is bad for you.
- Barnstormer, on 10/27/2009, -2/+5So "strange, ugly, nearly hairless" equals cancer immunity? I know some candidates.
- atgmac, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3Did you just bury yourself?
- Dundasbro, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2The issue with testing on people who actually have cancer (and some studies have to be done before cancer has spread to a terminal rate) is the fact that the placebo effect has to be controlled for, and regular cancer treatment needs to be controlled for. Therefor, there are legal and ethical considerations because you are effectively preventing someone from receiving potentially life-saving treatment through doing this.
- Strenoth, on 10/27/2009, -2/+4@dirtpile:
Merriam-Webster disagrees with you.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alright - chang3, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2I’m your dream, make you real
I’m your eyes when you must steal
I’m your pain when you can’t feel
Sad but true - kronzdigg, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3Another digg cancer cure. @PostalPenguin Humans have both p27 and p16 genes but they must work differently.
- hauntedchippy, on 10/27/2009, -3/+5Alright science!
- Lateraenema, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2And I, for one, welcome our new rodent overlords
- newerakb, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2I like this comment when reading it along with the one above it.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x ... - jloff, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Well known? Hardly. The true effect of vitamin D in prevention is under contentious debate. Also, relative risks vary per cancer. It's fun to oversimplify, though.
- askantik, on 10/27/2009, -1/+2This has been stated for a long time-- often times producing unrealistic results (or rather, realistic results that just don't necessarily translate to humans), but God forbid you think we shouldn't just animals as machines... you'll be called anti-science! Some good things have come from animal experiments, but one has to wonder what it would be like, if you know, we studied humans when we wanted to learn about humans.
Also, aside from the fact that results can be misleading when applied to humans, you have to wonder... is it really ok to do animal testing on trivial stuff? Maybe testing cancer drugs on rats or dogs or monkeys is acceptable from a utilitarian perspective if it saves many human lives, but what about when we test chemicals for our shampoo by squirting it into the eyes of rabbits? How is this helpful? Should we really put ***** in our shampoo that we don't know is safe anyway? Meh. - Grotm001, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Millions of Americans PJHorrex? I'd love to see that audit made for statistical analysis. The sun reaches nearly every single organism in the world. And by the sun, I do mean its rays and not necessarily the visible spectrum, but more so as Askantik suggested, UV rays.
If you're in the North, you're more prone to the skin color differentiated through your genes. You'll notice not everyone is pale in the northern cities, especially not farmers. Just because you're in the north, doesn't mean you're not getting enough Vitamin D. Although the sun is not as harmful in some areas due to humidity, it is still a double edged sword that provides health and takes away health seamlessly. - ericthesalmon, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Another antitumor mechanism makes it that much less likely any particular cell will have them all disabled.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Ummm... I am a scientist. A zoologist and geneticist to be exact. I do know what I'm talking about.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/27/2009, -4/+51) I don't believe that naked mole rats don't get cancer. They are completely inbred, and have probably purged most deleterious genes, but I bet that viruses or mutations still can give them cancer. I bet it's like with sharks: people simply hadn't looked very hard.
2) Human cells too have contact inhibition of growth. The problem with cancer cells is that their contact inhibition has been turned off by damage to the DNA. Having a particularly effective protein to induce contact inhibition of cell growth doesn't help if the gene coding for the protein gets broken. - askantik, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Not everyone gets enough vitamin D from the sun. You don't actually get it from the sun, you get UV which begins the synthesis of vitamin D in your body. But I digress.
It's actually really interesting that probably the main reason for human skin color variation (i.e., how people in the extreme north are paler and people near the equator are darker) is because people far from the equator needed to maximize their exposure to the sun's rays (and were often bundled up except for their face, 'cause it was cold as hell) so they needed light skin. People near the equator were actually at risk of hypervitaminosis D, so they needed protection-- dark skin. - Dundasbro, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Or skin cancer.
- pjhorrex, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Millions of American's don't get enough Vitamin D just by virtue of the fact that they live in northern cities.
- LarkStew, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1There was a talk on Ted by a young science prodigy, she thinks cancer is an immune response. Not sure I'm completely convinced, but it's certainly something worth investigating.
- hereticoftruth, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1So, how many mole rats you gotta eat to kill cancer?
- RilDaddy, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Cancer blows.
- junyamint, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Hmm a lot of people don't get enough Vitamin D. Even in places where there is a lot of sunlight. Also too much vitamin D is damn near impossible to get. If you are a woman with osteoporosis they give you multiple shots of 100,000 SI (true extended doses of 100,000 SI at a time will mess you up but no one is getting that). This is because activation of Vit D in the body occurs at a controlled rate.
Also it has no link to skin cancer dundasbro you are just plain wrong. Also it does not have feed back in skin pigmentation on the scale of your life time (as askantik said it is an evolutionary driver of dark skin). - AdeleMor, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1haha, so true. gives us something to look forward to.
- stackered, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1I'm working on splicing my genes with a mole rat right now guys. Updates soon to come.
- Lefts, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1There are several barriers to cancer development right now.
And cancer still develops occasionally. - JoeParanoid, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1I always thought that thing on Kim Possible was an animated vibrator.
- JustLoren, on 10/27/2009, -1/+2Exactly :D
- seb52, on 11/05/2009, -0/+0http://www.scientificblogging.com/what_life/blog/n ...
- JustLoren, on 10/27/2009, -3/+3You're right - these scientists are all just too friggin stupid. STUPID SCIENTISTS DOING YOUR SCIENTIFIC STUFF! TRUST ME, I'M ON THE INTERNET, I MUST KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!
- Spinzy, on 10/27/2009, -0/+0make that 2
- Spinzy, on 10/27/2009, -0/+0"Naked mole rats are strange, ugly, nearly hairless mouse-like creatures that live in underground communities. "
Now what does that remind me of :D.. (apart from the mouse-like bit) -
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is