What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
48 Comments
- simonowens, on 04/14/2008, -0/+16There's one quote in the article that suggests that the scientists haven't completely figured out how to keep the nanoparticles from attacking healthy cells.
"The problem is finding cancer-seeking molecules that are attracted to cancer cells but leave healthy cells alone.
Curley's team has identified a targeting molecule, c225 , which is FDA-approved. While c225 is present in many cancer cells, it also occurs in healthy cells." - maliath, on 04/14/2008, -1/+8Quack.
- SEGA4life, on 04/14/2008, -0/+7I'm glad we're moving forward in the fight against Cancer.
- Gemfinder, on 04/14/2008, -0/+7Thank God.
Having gone through both radiation and chemo a couple years ago, I can honestly say that the standard cancer treatment of "cut-burn-poison" is only a marginal improvement over Civil War-era bullet-biting, hacksaws, leeches and mercury. Sure, I'm alive, but my nerves are permanently in misfire mode, my balance is ***** up, I got premature cataracts and for the nine months of chemo, I was susceptible to any airborne bug that came along. And my case was one of the less-eventful ones.
No joke, it says on the chemo bags, "WARNING: EXTREME CAUTION: TOXIC CHEMICALS" with the big red skull and crossbones.
Seriously, we need this, and stem cell/therapeutic cloning to go through so we can say goodbye to the era of nuke-and-poison palliative cancer care. - lgm1213, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6Snake Oil! How dare you thats people lives you are suggesting to play with and sell on false hopes
- Inferny, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6That 100% success may just refer to the removal of cancer, and could not be in regards to the avoidance of healthy cells, so, it could be 100% effective, and still hurt healthy cells too.
- sockpuppets, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6Sure I'm cancer free but now I can't stop hearing "oops I did it again" every time I leave my front door.
- jp12380, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5Looks good, yeah it may damage some healthy cells, in a perfect solution it would not harm a single healthy cell but it sounds like this treatment is way better then Chemotherapy which hurts healthy and cancer cells the same amount.
- Khast, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5So, when this treatment comes out, how much will it cost?
*raises pinky to mouth...one million dollars* - tuzziel, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4Even if it damages some healthy cells, those will regenerate in healthy patient.. Chemotherapy damage is large and often with irreversible side effects.
- MixMastaKooz, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4Keep in mind, these were in highly controlled experiments with tissue or in small animals. In a human, there's a lot more variables to consider. However, I think this is very promising stuff!
- mbonzo531, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3This new technology is promising though, instead of using a large amount of chemo in one affected area it is able to use basically the same methods in more specific methods. Basically, if you had a virus on your computer, you could try to remove it by deleting an inffected folder and losing all the data... or you could use an antivirus program to scan for the infected areas. This is not some crazy all-mighty cancer cleanse, its a similar treatment to chemo, but in a different dose.
- mbonzo531, on 04/14/2008, -2/+5self hypnosis was busted on the mythbusters... therefore we should focus a new religion around it!
- csw3190, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3That is curious. And yet they've managed trials in which 100% success was achieved. Strange.
- newznozzl, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4"Kanzius RF therapy attaches microscopic nanoparticles to cancer cells and then "cooks" tumors inside the body with harmless radio waves.
Based on technology developed by Pennsylvania inventor John Kanzius, a retired radio and TV engineer, the treatment has proven 100 percent effective at killing cancer cells while leaving neighboring healthy cells unharmed. It is currently being tested at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston" - Abno, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3You must be taking a different therapy, because those are clearly harmful radio waves.
- strider09, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4I've heard about that one, not that part of it being an actual form of therapy though. What I do know is that a few medical institutions have started using self hypnosis as a complimentary aspect of their therapies. I know for a fact you can get pain relief from it, but as actual cure? Not sure about that one. Checking one of the pages in that link you posted, even there it says "selfhypnosis isn't exactly the answer, but learning selfhypnosis can teach you how to get the right answers for yourself."
For verification, the quote is in this page: http://www.selfhypnosis.com/mastery-seminar.html - biopmonkey, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3At first glance this article seems great. I am reluctant to believe most articles that claim cures and solutions mainly because the media loves those articles for the masses they attract. This one however is legit. The method for cellular destruction / obliteration is there as well as the C225 targeting molecule. Even if healthy cells are targeted by C225 you would hope that the researches picked this molecule because of its increased affinity for cancerous cells and not because it has such a witty name.... :/...
Truth be told, the technology is cool even if the C225 target is not efficient. There are a whole wack load of genes that get over expressed in cancer cells which produce an proteins that could be used as potential targets. I think the idea is more of a who sticks better between healthy and cancerous cells as opposed to a "binds only cancer cells" idea.
Needless to say, the way the article is spun makes the whole thing sound promising. I think we will definitely be seeing some major advances and multiple styles of cures/treatments surface in the next decade.
Hopefully............... there will be so much public pressure on the pharma companies that they wont be able to charge an arm and a leg simply because they have it patented.. I mean seriously.. I'll make this sh*t in my basement if the drug companies make it too expensive..
--The Monkey - inactive, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Just more proof that nanotechnology with define the future of technology, and of our existence.
- inactive, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2is this like the gamma knife, except with radio waves?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_knife - Gemfinder, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2*Sigh* unfortunately, that's probably true.
But, the medical community is one of the last great bastions of compassion, even if the health insurance industry isn't. And thank all that is sacred and benevolent for LiveSTRONG. Cancer victims have a wide array of aid resources.
Folks, you owe it to yourselves to look it up, and contribute to the cancer community. One in three women and every other man will develop cancer at some point in their lifetimes, and that's just Stateside. There's a reasonable to excellent chance that'll be YOU. Arm yourself with the facts and get educated. - samby, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2For leukemia, so far its been impossible to tell cancerous white blood cells from normal ones. They have a drug like this called Mylotarg for leukemia but it can't tell the normal white blood cells from the cancerous ones (its 2 chemicals, one that binds to the cell and one that kills the cell). The advantage is you don't have to inject chemotherapy at such a high concentration, since chemo has to *diffuse* into the living cell to kill it.
When you kill them you still have the problem of billions of dead blood cells that can block capillaries (veno-occlusive disease) at least for leukemia. - japface, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2radioactive zombies
- cjmal, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3***** off. Like that's going to turn into the next rick roll.
- ladyarcher85, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2If that is the case then its useless.
A lot of people are still dying from curable diseases just because they can't afford medication and treatment. - br0wnstar, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Yeah but it all depends on how successful they are in marking what exactly is a 'cancer cell', there are so many elements that make cells cancer-like, but these are also found in regular cells, such as fibroblasts. I really hope they're able to find a greater specificity than chemo though.
- Gemfinder, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2You took the words right out of my mouth.
I'd give your comment seven Diggs if I could.
As for you, wabshu, consider yourself reported. - indiehead, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2my mum would've appreciated this a lot, was hell visiting her in hospital, never again!
- VDoon, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2As long as we have an ability to target the cancer cell (something like an antibody) we can attach it to this nanoparticle and target the cancer. Even in individual tumors, there is a great deal of variability. If this nanoparticle targets all cancer cells showing protein X on its surface, any cells not expressing protein X have the potential to escape the therapy. This will naturally select for any cancerous cells not expressing the target of the therapy. I would hardly think this is perfect.
That said.... these problems are present in almost every cancer therapy. This is a fantastic new tool for use in the clinic.
That it isn't completely specific, and can harm some normal cells doesn't matter too much unless it causes extensive cell death. Almost every therapy kills some healthy cells (and many therapies kill healthy cells EXTENSIVELY). Good on him for some fantastic work. - 938MeV, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Nope, The gamma knife has nothing to do with cancer specific gold nanoparticles.
- prtt75, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1I lost my father due to cancer of the lungs. First diagnosis was tuberculosis. It took three years before it was confirmed that what he had was really cancer and that time it was already on Stage 3. Time is too short to think about radiation and chemotherapy since the doctor already told us that he had only a short time left. So heart-breaking. I hope and I pray that this would give hope to more cancer patients waiting for their miracles everyday.
- PabloMac, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Your mother suffered from cancer, and you think about how bad it was for you visiting her in the hospital!?
- inactive, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/world_news/Authorities_in_Belgium_ ...
- ebcreasoner, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Yes, really. Oh, and drop the sig.
- SolidusR, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Everyone should digg this type of info... i just lost my mother to lung cancer 2 weeks ago...im fully dedicated to learn about this disease ...how to prevent it...and also any new methods of treatment...my mother lost a battle of seven years.... may my mother rest in peace...
- bogoslav, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, proper nutrition doesn't help in many cases. There are such factors as radiation and heredity, and I'm afraid it doesn't matter what you eat if you live in Chernobyl or Herosima, or both your parents had cancer.
- Vullkan, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1the Principe sounds promising, hope will work.
- cutnshoot1, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0My husband has MFH (a catch all for any sarcoma that can't be identified) and is being treated at MDA. He started with non-Hodgkins lymphoma 2 years ago and while on RCHOP (chemo for this cancer) the sarcoma popped. He's been through 2 surgeries and over a year of chemo for sarcoma and now has a tumor that's wrapped around his aorta that's growing and inoperable. We tried calling Curley at the pain doctor's suggestion only to be told he doesn't accept calls. You are right. This is such a painful situation--to think that clinical trials may only be 3 years away.
- makkaveli19, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1And people said folding with my ps3 was useless. You're welcome world!
- tim5779, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Last time I heard about a cure for cancer it was a story about a bunch of crazy people that couldn't go outside in the day and will smith has to blow himself up with a grenade... I'm just sayin be careful
- ToastHerder, on 04/14/2008, -1/+160 Minutes!
- asuma28, on 04/14/2008, -0/+0As a survivor of Lymphoma 20 years ago, I went through Chemo and all of it's effects. Radiation was not an option for me at my age at the time. Whenever I have seen the word 'cancer', I buy the magazine or read the web page. The discoveries or ideas that are generated to treat, not cure, cancer are far better then what I had to endure back in the 80's. I know I'll get cancer again in my life, but that won't be what the coroner lists as my COD. (Cancer is not in the family tree. I’m the exception.) Whether or not this is the future of cancer treatment, some future oncology student has read this and will expand upon it.
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1yeah, kinda like against car crashes, natural herbal supplements wont do you any good if you get in a car wreck. but you change what you can control.
- 10000listings, on 04/14/2008, -0/+0I lost my mother 2 years ago to cancer. Can scientist be looking at Cancer treatment at the wrong angle?
- hellbastard, on 04/14/2008, -0/+0Isn't this somewhat similar to what Dr John Holt was doing in Australia until the government shut him down?
It's somewhat frustrating to see promising technologies like this on the horizon that could do with some extra funding to get them available sooner. It's so hard watching my wife slowly dieing from Sarcoma and knowing that if she'd instead got it maybe 10 years from now, she probably would have been able to beat it. - br0wnstar, on 04/14/2008, -7/+4The problem with most cancer 'cures' is that they target too much. Also, people hear the term "cancer" and they think it's one disease, but there are so many variants. I'm always skeptical when a cure comes up. This clip explains the last cancer drug fiasco involving shark's fins: http://youtube.com/watch?v=o9oeDbM2Kb0 . Be wary!
- ludar, on 04/14/2008, -6/+2today's headline "cure for cancer tomorrow" "oyfg zombie appoclypse"
- inactive, on 04/14/2008, -7/+1this is INSANITY. Your own body is the best weapon against cancer. If you put the proper nutrition into your body, your body will heal itself. we don't need all these expensive wasteful technology. eat what our bodies were intended t o teat and we won't get sick. so simple. it boggles the mind how brainwashed and dumbed down humanity have become. We are taking steps backwards in regards to health. nano technology my ass, I'm a Human Being godamn it, not a ***** robot.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is