What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Geek Squad employee sings for Best Buy in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Valerie DeAngelo explains the moment she got the casting call.
50 Comments
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -59/+85Side-effects include "the munchies" and "the giggles".
- chandler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23The weed was Petty Spurge not Cannabis
Petty Spurge--http://www.english-country-garden.com/flowers/petty-spurge.htm - WalterDirt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20All the best comments always get modded down. What a shame. Laugh a little you commie dirtbags!@
- tsunamisteve, on 10/12/2007, -13/+30It says 'a' weed, not weed like you're thinking. If you read the article it says it's a common garden weed.
- colmore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11this is actually a major problem in medical research.
medical research is very expensive. this cost is recouped primarily during the period of patent-monopoly. an (unintended?) consequence of this is that research is seldom done on new uses for existing, known, substances (like dietary supplements, megadoses of vitamins, aspirin, etc.)
since you can't patent vitamin C (for instance), not too many private research groups are interested in learning that it might cure certain things better than much more dangerous synthetic substances can.
i'm currently being treated for a psychiatric condition, and i'm using a mixture of pharmaceuticals and over-the-counter dietary supplements. there's limited but very promising data that things such as Omega-3 fatty acids and 5-HTP are in many cases MORE effective than their habit-forming, side-effect causing, suicide-risk increasing pharmaceutical counterparts, but the amount of research being done is pathetically small.
I'm kind of of the opinion that medical research should be done with public funds and held in the public good. There's, of course, nothing wrong with private research, but if any science could benefit from the public domain, this has got to be it. - gavinmcd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10But imagine if they could mix this in to sun tan lotions, it might prevent cancer and save a lot of people who never bother to get checked.
- threepio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9As a caucasian male with a ridiculously pale epidermis I say "hurrah!". Seriously - if there's one type of cancer I was likely to get, this is it. Freezing may be more effective - but rubbing a gel on has got to be less painful. Besides - if it's not gone in two days - reapply!
Also - anyone else just slightly impressed that they've cured a type of cancer with a topical gel? I realize it doesn't apply to most cancers, but still - it gives you that "Jetsons" feeling. - Rio517, on 10/12/2007, -14/+22Yeah, and I heard they don't really like weeds. The last big weed to come along got criminalized and research on it for possible medical purposed is often under-funded based on nothing but "conventional wisdom" and political ideology. I hope they give this weed a chance.
- nebrfan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6While interesting, I don't think this is going to have much of an effect on treatment of BCC - although could be of future benefit to treating other forms of cancer. Most cases of BCC can be removed by a Family Physician in 5 minutes by freezing the lesion - which has got to be cheaper (it's not much more than a duster can) and more effective than a pharmacological gel that only works 70-80% of the time.
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"It says 'a' weed, not weed like you're thinking. If you read the article it says it's a common garden weed."
You know, somehow even though I haven't read the article yet, this is very clear. It is very clear that any reference to canabis in this context is a joke.
Time for some people to re-take the geek-autism test I guess... - zephc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6just FYI: it is "intents and purposes" even though it sounds like (and is sometimes said) "intensive purposes" :-)
- maverick808, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8This is a great discovery that could potentially help thousands of people with skin cancer and all the previous commenters can do is make a juvenile joke about cannabis. Cannabis isn't even the weed used in the article and even the digg title says "a weed" and not "weed".
- Railer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It should be relatively easy to get it by the FDA, in Canada It's common weed, I've had some in my back yard. I think it's common in the US as well.
http://www.cbif.gc.ca/pls/pp/ppack.info?p_psn=133&p_type=all&p_sci=sci&p_x=px
but watch out it is very poisonous - chimona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Except, that you may build a resistance to it. too much of a good thing can be a very bad thing. But I like your idea. it should be tested.
- ohmar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5intents and purposes. good joke on society there, it is like the telephone game. Started out as "all intents and purposes" and someone read it, repeated it as "all intesive purposes", and now nobody really knows that it is wrong.
With regard to obscure weeds that cure cancer, that is excellent. - locojones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It just goes to show you what kind of diversity exists on this planet, and the benefits that can come from the things that are sitting right under our nose if someone would just take the time to look. It's a shame we're not spending more money investigating the natural cures that might be obtained from Mother Nature as opposed to bombing brown people, for instance.
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2grants is not the same as the government actually doing the research themselves.
The whole healthcare industry needs to be socialized because the big drug companies certainly dont care about your health. - Spoonicus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7This is a testament to Australian ingenuity.
- dpk87, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3it cleared up 70% of the cancer in 2 days... 2 Days! I mean... Does this stuff just eat away at you? For all intensive purposes, skin cancer cells are practically just regular skin cells. What prevents this stuff from killing all the flesh in comes in contact with?
- Japie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Skin cancer is the most common type of cancer and can be "cured" by a general practitioner. Most types are quite "harmless", despite what the name implies.
Sounds great off-course, but I don't think this "discovery" is that spectacular... - bradsh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it seems that the weed is in fact a skin irritant and poison. they say that they've identified the molecule responsible for eating away at the cancer, but i wouldnt be surprised if this solution is similar to the freezing they already do for skin cancer: just kill the cells where applied.
cancer cells are pretty hard to target because they are essentially the same as regular cells, except that they have no qualms about reproducing whenever they want to instead of when they are told to reproduce by surrounding cells. the body has no trouble killing cancer in small amounts (we all have cancer cells, but the immune system generally keeps them in check), but we do not yet really have a way to either boost the immune systems ability to deal with cancer or create a drug or pathogen capable of being as exacting as the immune system.
if it is the case that this gel simply kills cells in general, then this couldnt really be added to sun tan lotion as some have suggested. if they have found a very exacting attacked of cancer cells, then this really is significant. the article does not say one way or the other, so i would tend to believe that this is nothing revolutionary. - nebrfan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I'm kind of of the opinion that medical research should be done with public funds and held in the public good. There's, of course, nothing wrong with private research, but if any science could benefit from the public domain, this has got to be it."
The National Institute of Health ALONE gives out nearly 23 Billion. B-as-in-Boy Billion in research grants ! - sstidman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I suspect most people have no idea what you are complaining about since you didn't tell folks the right way to say it. To finish your sentence: "it's supposed to be 'all intents and purposes' ". When it's spoken, it's hard to say which form folks are saying, but I think the vast majority of people, even educated ones, make that mistake.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If it has a use then it is not a weed. A weed by definition is just something you dont want growing in your garden. (unless it is a closet garden)
- glaive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3For all intensive purposes?
- expertblogger, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Most cases of BCC can be removed by a Family Physician in 5 minutes by freezing the lesion - which has got to be cheaper (it's not much more than a duster can) and more effective than a pharmacological gel that only works 70-80% of the time. It's a shame we're not spending more money investigating the natural cures that might be obtained from Mother Nature as opposed to bombing brown people, for instance. http://brimsabash.info http://buffsprose.info http://caretkexes.info http://chaysslink.info http://chirpliken.info
- nebrfan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2""Herbalists" have been using common garden weeds to 'cure' cancer and such for a long time. There is just no money in herbs to be 'scientifically' studied much. See Poke root, Comfrey, even Dandelion for the liver."
Have you ever heard of PubMed? Have you ever searched it? (For those who don't know - it is a catalog of every major peer -reviewed medical and biotech journals from around the world hosted by the National Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Health)
For example, a query of "herbal cancer" yields over 1700 articles published in peer-reviewed journals.....nope - no research going on at all. Or MAYBE the research just isn't yielding the results that you'd like...... - dunstdunst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.dysplasia.co.uk/
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 At 500,000 dollars an ounce no doubt.
- grzelakc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As others mentioned here, squamous carcinoma is a skin cancer that is not dangerous and you're very unlikely to die from it.
There is however, a rare (but increasingly frequent) form of skin cancer called Melanoma. You MUST know how to recognize melanoma on your skin. A melanoma lesion will typically expose four properties: A for Asymmetry. Melanoma moles deviate from the round or oval shape of regular moles. B for border irregularity, C for colour - melanoma lesions are uneven in colour across their surface and D for Diameter which in case of Melanoma means usually greater than 6mm (0.25"). If any of your moles exhibits any of the ABCD properties, go have it checked out by a doctor! Stage I and II melanoma is very treatable and will usually only result in a small outpatient surgery. Stage III is when it spreads to your lymph nodes and that's an uphill battle. Stage IV melanoma is a death sentence!
Here's a quick page on signs of melanoma: http://www.melanomafoundation.org/prevention/abcd.htm
PLEASE REMEMBER: Melanoma is dangerous but easily treatable if caught early. - pin0chet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Excellent! now I can soak in the sun worry-free, without that damn lotion.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This is great news with Australia being right under one of those holes in the ozone layer and some of the highest skin cancer rates in the world.
At least it mattered more when Australia still had white people living there. - Glyphin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The whole healthcare industry needs to be socialized because the big drug companies certainly dont care about your health."
It's probably not worth responding to this, but . . . .You think government has a monopoly on all the good, kind, altrustic people, and that big companies attract all the bad and evil?
A number of years ago I was sitting in a business meeting in one of those very big drug companies you refer to. Someone (a suit) suggested that a product be released that had minimal benefit but for which some money was sure to be made. The room chilled and one of the meeting directors said, in frosty tones, "we don't do business that way."
Granted, it doesn't always work this way but I promise you that those big companies ultimately are just organizations of material resources and people, and while I grant you the resources don't care about you and your health, most of the people do. - chromasia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I like the fact that even though this is a significant discovery and a credit to the Australian company that has done the research - the story is not presented as "Australia discovers ....." in the same way as some other countries are apt to do .cough. .cough. Israel.
- Grayfox777, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2They will probably make this stuff very expensive just because of what it does. After all, we can't have the drug companies make a lower profit, can we? =/
Anyway, this is from Australia? They're doing a good job discovering new things this year. - hudef, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0For all insensitive poiposes?
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"The weed was Petty Spurge not Cannabis"
Orly? - shuzo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"Herbalists" have been using common garden weeds to 'cure' cancer and such for a long time. There is just no money in herbs to be 'scientifically' studied much. See Poke root, Comfrey, even Dandelion for the liver.
- zaphodbblx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4an of course it will be really expensive
- dustyshadow, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5yea, that makes no sense cause medicine research is so cheap!
[end sarcasm] - jakeg, on 10/12/2007, -29/+24@tsunamisteve: sheesh, get a sense of humor, dude.
- KCorax, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1I find this post really disturbing.
Everytime some obscure miraculous and it-was-here-all-along-you-should-have-noticed "cure" to cancer is found gives false hope to millions of people who are suffering and up to now is always fraudolent. You should have at least some respect or the iq not to spread this type of ***** around.
The only surpise is that the article doesn't contain the "large corporations that eat people for breakfast don't want you to know".
This is really very sick. - Filoviridae, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4If it was funny I'm sure he would have laughed. It wasn't so he didn't.
- wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1Vote for Vicente Fox for Drug Czar & FDA Chairman! Oh yeah those are appoint positions not elected. My bad. Either way.. as Rio517 said "Give weed a chance".
- wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -24/+6You still need to get the weed by the FDA.
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -43/+24You had me at "weed".
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -23/+3> If you read the article it says it's a common garden weed.
Is *THAT* what they call it in Australia? (giggle) - Tufriast, on 10/12/2007, -25/+2Budtacular.
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is