Hardly a cure. More like a promising treatment for certain types of cancer that validates certain theories about cancer. Once you get past the hype, that's still pretty good news.
For Chrissake, quit posting this bulls**t article. This is the third time it's been cited here.Dugg down at inaccurate - too bad we can't dig down for "complete bulls**t."
burried as inaccurate and lame. as a MD who has devoted his life to cancer research, and as a son who has a mother fighting brain cancer, this article is a slap in the face. do not post articles written by people with no credibility... you will start getting people who actuallly believe this crap written by this idiot.
I agree this article is bull s**t. There is not and never will be a magic bullet for cancer, every malignancy is different and requires a different drug approach, and not to mention about drug resistant strains of cancer. Ugh so many other things are wrong with this article but i don't have the time to complain about this.
Your faith is remarkable....too bad it keeps you in delusion!Blind trust in the media-establishment or the government-corporate establishment is ultimately part of the problem!Have you been living under a rock?
@ubuwalker31 1) Grammatical errors. English is not my birth language. If you're in a situation like me, more than likely that your English is worse than me. I know this because of all the people came here at about the same time that I did, I do much better than the majority of them do. You can argue whatever you want, but I am sure if you and and live in my previous country, you probably don't do any better. What's worse is that in the US, a nation of immigrations, and you're still a grammar nazi.2) "the [article's] main message is NOT [that] cancer is cured."3) "found a cheap and easy to produce drug that kills almost all cancers"What's wrong with that? "a drug that KILLS almost all cancers" means there is a drug that kills almost all cancers cells. It does not say the drug "CURES" almost all human cancers. Unless the drug didn't kills almost all cancer cells, then you got a point. You can say I insert the word "cell" in there, but that is what I interpret what it means. The word "kill" can be read as "cure", but I take it as exactly as what it says, "kill".4) Should there be human trials for drugs that failed to be safe and efficacious in animals too? Don't be ridiculous. Not every drug gets tested for a wide variety of safety, medical, and clinical reasons.I miss where it says it FAILED to be safe in animals. Also this drug, as far as the article goes, is said safe for human.5) "Big Pharma could easily patent a new use for an old drug." I read that, and you can patent anything these days. But if a drug works for human, you can add placebo to it, and patent it, but if without placebo, it works, generic drug would be available too. If not, people will take them illegally, because they don't want to die. They'll go to Cuba to make them and take them in North Korea.6) The 6 points you said about about why people dig someone up or down.I already show that many of your reasons are wrong, or at least I don't agree on.Calling someone idiot is not a healthy discussion, I am sure smarter than you're. Yes, you can debate about that, but you're just more idiot if you want to put it that way.Close minded. Grammatical errors, or seeing something not the same way as you do is not closed minded. You probably are closed minded. Here's why: you're not tolerate to foreign language people, and other points above.narcissistic. I take that as love oneself. Even one reads an article in a wrong way, that's not narcissistic, unless it is more general to other posts' getting digged down, then why you list it here and say "all of the above".clueless, see above, you're more clueless than I am.Take unreasonable or unpopular or unscientific position. That's a lot of things put together (whilst they're not grouped together). Unreasonable: see above points, unreasonable in which way? That needs to be heard, not just see your digg score go down. Obviously you're close minded. Unpopular, if so, it shows that I am open minded, and you're not. I can take unpopular stand and dare to challenge current belief if it's true. Yes, you can argue that "but it's not true". That's not the point. The point is that there is no thing wrong with "unpopular" in scientific discussion.
netesqMar 14, 2007
Hardly a cure. More like a promising treatment for certain types of cancer that validates certain theories about cancer. Once you get past the hype, that's still pretty good news.
fuelvoltsMar 14, 2007
It is funny that we don't HEAR about it
bigjimsladeMar 14, 2007
For Chrissake, quit posting this bulls**t article. This is the third time it's been cited here.Dugg down at inaccurate - too bad we can't dig down for "complete bulls**t."
fun4stuffMar 14, 2007
burried as inaccurate and lame. as a MD who has devoted his life to cancer research, and as a son who has a mother fighting brain cancer, this article is a slap in the face. do not post articles written by people with no credibility... you will start getting people who actuallly believe this crap written by this idiot.
hentezMar 14, 2007
I agree this article is bull s**t. There is not and never will be a magic bullet for cancer, every malignancy is different and requires a different drug approach, and not to mention about drug resistant strains of cancer. Ugh so many other things are wrong with this article but i don't have the time to complain about this.
thesexygeekMar 14, 2007
Is it that hard to proofread a single sentence? Let's have some standards around hear.
waterdragonMar 14, 2007
Your faith is remarkable....too bad it keeps you in delusion!Blind trust in the media-establishment or the government-corporate establishment is ultimately part of the problem!Have you been living under a rock?
underthelinuxMar 14, 2007
Wait, did i miss something or is this linking to a college newspaper's opinion section? Isn't that quite far from credible?
moducMar 15, 2007
@ubuwalker31 1) Grammatical errors. English is not my birth language. If you're in a situation like me, more than likely that your English is worse than me. I know this because of all the people came here at about the same time that I did, I do much better than the majority of them do. You can argue whatever you want, but I am sure if you and and live in my previous country, you probably don't do any better. What's worse is that in the US, a nation of immigrations, and you're still a grammar nazi.2) "the [article's] main message is NOT [that] cancer is cured."3) "found a cheap and easy to produce drug that kills almost all cancers"What's wrong with that? "a drug that KILLS almost all cancers" means there is a drug that kills almost all cancers cells. It does not say the drug "CURES" almost all human cancers. Unless the drug didn't kills almost all cancer cells, then you got a point. You can say I insert the word "cell" in there, but that is what I interpret what it means. The word "kill" can be read as "cure", but I take it as exactly as what it says, "kill".4) Should there be human trials for drugs that failed to be safe and efficacious in animals too? Don't be ridiculous. Not every drug gets tested for a wide variety of safety, medical, and clinical reasons.I miss where it says it FAILED to be safe in animals. Also this drug, as far as the article goes, is said safe for human.5) "Big Pharma could easily patent a new use for an old drug." I read that, and you can patent anything these days. But if a drug works for human, you can add placebo to it, and patent it, but if without placebo, it works, generic drug would be available too. If not, people will take them illegally, because they don't want to die. They'll go to Cuba to make them and take them in North Korea.6) The 6 points you said about about why people dig someone up or down.I already show that many of your reasons are wrong, or at least I don't agree on.Calling someone idiot is not a healthy discussion, I am sure smarter than you're. Yes, you can debate about that, but you're just more idiot if you want to put it that way.Close minded. Grammatical errors, or seeing something not the same way as you do is not closed minded. You probably are closed minded. Here's why: you're not tolerate to foreign language people, and other points above.narcissistic. I take that as love oneself. Even one reads an article in a wrong way, that's not narcissistic, unless it is more general to other posts' getting digged down, then why you list it here and say "all of the above".clueless, see above, you're more clueless than I am.Take unreasonable or unpopular or unscientific position. That's a lot of things put together (whilst they're not grouped together). Unreasonable: see above points, unreasonable in which way? That needs to be heard, not just see your digg score go down. Obviously you're close minded. Unpopular, if so, it shows that I am open minded, and you're not. I can take unpopular stand and dare to challenge current belief if it's true. Yes, you can argue that "but it's not true". That's not the point. The point is that there is no thing wrong with "unpopular" in scientific discussion.