If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox 5 Vegas)   Man with no medical training invents machine that kills cancerous cells while leaving nearby cells alone. Still no cure for...waitaminute   (fox5vegas.com) divider line 43
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

4140 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 Feb 2007 at 7:36 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2007-02-27 06:26:06 PM
If it's true, that's awesome. Makes you wonder if such research is really underfunded, as we're constantly told, or if the money is simply being wasted.
 
2007-02-27 06:38:43 PM
Sounds kinda like the research into light activated chemotherapy drugs, except this should be able to work on deep tumours as well since it's using RF. Nifty.
 
2007-02-27 06:42:07 PM
Churchill2004: If it's true, that's awesome. Makes you wonder if such research is really underfunded, as we're constantly told, or if the money is simply being wasted.

I dont know. It just seems the people that lose out the most on this machine are the pharmaceutical companies. Who probably dont want something like that to be funded as much as it should. Im not saying they're evil but this is capitalist country and there are a lot of people that need medication and that is quite a profit to be made. Especially when the baby boomers start hitting the age where they need plenty of meds to keep them normal. At my uncle i n law's (if there is such a thing)count he's taking 15 pills a day. Insurance pays a lot for it but thats still a lot of money being passed around. But we dont want to believe anyone is as cold as that right?
 
2007-02-27 07:01:45 PM
A Florida man with no medical training has invented a machine that he believes may lead to a cure for cancer.

Hmm....no medical training, no political pull and doesn't have a lot of money.

This thing will never get FDA approvial. Especially since it won't make drug companies a lot of money. I'd also look for a lot of lawsuits if I were this guy.
 
2007-02-27 07:03:16 PM
I've read about other techniques similar to this.

It was probably from the same guy.

nano-sized metal bits, attached to some chemical that seeks out cancer cells.

wait for it to find the cancer, then zap with RF. Like metal in a microwave, it heats up and micro-zaps the cancer cells.

Freaking cool.
 
2007-02-27 07:05:18 PM
What a great idea. Very cool. Fry those little cancer cells!
 
2007-02-27 07:05:23 PM
weren't they calling it the "golden bullet" since it used gold as the metal PirateKing?

I remember reading about it a couple of years ago.
 
2007-02-27 07:12:51 PM
The difficult part is identifying a cell surface marker for cancerous cells. Some cancers can be targeted this way but others, not so much.

In addition, all they've shown so far is that they can kill cells in a dish.

On top of that. What happens to the nanoparticles after they kill the tumors. Do they accumulate anywhere or are they cleared? If they accumulate, does that mean the person has to stay away from strong RF sources?

This is cool, but I've seen so many cool ideas to cure cancer go down the drain.
 
2007-02-27 07:29:27 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

/Fuel Supply?
//Air Supply?
 
2007-02-27 07:45:40 PM
i came here to say what Weaver95 said. this guy will be in the poor house from litigation alone within 3-5 years.
 
2007-02-27 07:48:13 PM
Is there anything hot dogs and pie dishes can't do?
 
2007-02-27 07:50:45 PM
Weaver95: This thing will never get FDA approvial. Especially since it won't make drug companies a lot of money. I'd also look for a lot of lawsuits if I were this guy.

You're right. Some quants and trader friends of mine have been in a tizzy about this for a few weeks.
 
2007-02-27 07:51:59 PM
I take this as another demonstration that we need more funding for the revolutionary-type scientists (in addition to the regular-type ones that aren't getting any money right now - Thanks congress!) who have a shot in the dark at failing, but hit it big every once in a while. High risk, high reward.

Now let's get philanthropic on those cancer cells!

\cheese
 
2007-02-27 08:01:33 PM
FTA:"The results look too phenomenal for anyone to stop at this point in time."


Wanna bet? Litigation and Big Medicine will stop it.
Like Chris Rock said: "... the money's NOT IN the cure."
 
2007-02-27 08:13:34 PM
Now make a claim about big oil using nefarious methods to suppress alternative energy research, and watch the 180.

OMFG!!! Tin foil hat!!!
 
2007-02-27 08:14:54 PM
I was skeptical after reading the original article, however after reading this article, it seems that it might actually be worth while.
 
2007-02-27 08:15:37 PM
I totally doubt that medical institutions will allow this machine to be operated. Let alone to be burried.
 
2007-02-27 08:16:23 PM
verbal_jizm

This is cool, but I've seen so many cool ideas to cure cancer go down the drain.

Word.

Plus, this sounds very very similar to stuff I heard about 3-4 years ago, that definitely was not started by this guy (someone not in FL, a medico). This makes a cute story, but the fact is there are tens of thousands of really sharp people, not just MDs but chemists, physicists, engineers, etc trying all kinds of crazy shiat to work on cancer. It's not they're all just doing the same stuff and tweaking it in the hope that it works.
 
2007-02-27 08:20:09 PM
verbal_jizm: The difficult part is identifying a cell surface marker for cancerous cells. Some cancers can be targeted this way but others, not so much.

This is what I came in here to say. The concept is good, but hes running into the same problem that every potential cancer therapy is, differentiating cancer cells from normal cells. Its not as easy as one may think. Cancer is very good at hiding, even fooling our own immune system.

Personally, I think even thinking about the whole litigation thing is premature. He doesnt have anything worth value yet.
 
2007-02-27 08:23:59 PM
Actually, the "cure" I'm hearing a buzz about is from a guy in Canada. Yeah, Canada. *shrugs*
 
2007-02-27 08:47:41 PM
newmoonpuppyhead: Weaver95: This thing will never get FDA approvial. Especially since it won't make drug companies a lot of money. I'd also look for a lot of lawsuits if I were this guy.

You're right. Some quants and trader friends of mine have been in a tizzy about this for a few weeks.


So basically, you are saying the american dream is dead.
 
2007-02-27 08:49:17 PM
rppp01a: So basically, you are saying the american dream is dead.

Has been for awhile.
 
2007-02-27 08:49:47 PM
What about the AngelGOD Light?

www.americanantigravity.com

Linky
 
2007-02-27 08:55:20 PM
newmoonpuppyhead: Has been for awhile.

I know. Just had to make sure everyone else was aware of this.
 
2007-02-27 09:01:30 PM
rppp01a: I know. Just had to make sure everyone else was aware of this.

heh.
 
2007-02-27 09:40:50 PM
This guy and Hoffa will become close friends.
 
2007-02-27 10:16:28 PM
Wow, I love reading about these things. They always sound so simple, but I know I could never come up with them!
 
2007-02-27 10:19:43 PM
Wouldn't it be cool if people practiced medicine to help people instead of making money? Too bad it will never happen.

/This guy should get a HERO tag just for the effort, let alone if the machine actually works.
 
2007-02-27 10:28:03 PM
I read that biologists were trying to do the same thing with retro-engineered viruses to only attached to warped cancer cell acceptor sites... i recall it was having the same differentation problems brought up here... still, cool idea. Also, they were trying to put chemical or RF weaknesses as kill switches in the manufactured virus that would keep getting propagated and allow doctors to keep the stuff from getting out of hand... it was even more of a pipe-dream, but it reminded me Metal Gear Solid, so I liked it


/lets see if i can find the article
 
2007-02-27 10:31:02 PM
If I were this guy, and I invented something like this that probably won't ever be allowed because it's not profitable enough (like most of my ideas), I'd probably say fark it and release it to the public a'la GPL. Patent/copyright it and anyone who wants (doctors in less regulated countries) can build and use it, so long as they don't claim ownership/sale rights over the technology.

Then again, I've never been good at the whole business concept.

\"Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has, as its ultimate goal, the betterment of humanity."
 
2007-02-27 10:38:24 PM
leegalizit

In many cases, they do.

The people who give them the money to do it, on the other hand...
 
2007-02-27 11:06:29 PM
It sounds like an interesting invention but I won't hold my breath for the results so breathlessly anticipated in TFA. I remember when TIME magazine ran an article a long time ago about this wonder drug interferon that was going to wipe out cancer. So many years later one of the few uses for interferon is as a last straw in the treatment of malignant melanoma.

The fact that an amateur or at least an outsider invented a medical device is not new. The CT scan was invented by an engineer at EMI, Godfrey Hounsfield. EMI was flush with cash thanks to the huge record sales of Beatles albums and could afford to fund such tinkering. The unit of radiodensity is named after Hounsfeld.

Those of you thinking that the big bad medicine business would quash such a promising treatment are exhibiting an odd combination of paranoia and naïveté. This treatment would become a billable procedure and would generate mucho bucks.
 
2007-02-27 11:21:56 PM
The national institute of health spends around 27 BILLION dollars a year on biomedical research. He's at a research institute. Could be worse.
 
2007-02-27 11:37:57 PM
leegalizit Wouldn't it be cool if people practiced medicine to help people instead of making money? Too bad it will never happen.

People do. unfortunately, since they need supplies, equipment, and probably to eat once in a while, they need cash. And since people who pay the people who practice medicine are in it only for the money, that's where you get the capitalist greed that plagues research.

I say, give all the CEO's and board members of pharmaceutical companies and their families AIDS and cancer, then see how fast they're cured.
 
2007-02-27 11:40:54 PM
Weaver95: Especially since it won't make drug companies a lot of money

the FDA also approves medical treatment devices and methods, which would be this. And companies like Phillips and Siemans have no problem getting approval. So this, if it works, would in principle be approved just fine

/heh heh I just said siemans...
 
2007-02-28 12:30:44 AM
The hard part is going to be getting people to swallow the machine.
 
2007-02-28 12:34:47 AM
this makes me think of chrysiasis. what is the chance that it would cause that condition?

no html skill so here's this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysiasis

cant find any pics of chrysiasis, but here are some of
argyria, a similar condition caused by injesting silver:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=argyria&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x =wrt
 
2007-02-28 12:42:33 AM
(self-defense alert: I'm a scientist dammit, and although cancer research isn't my specialty I learned about this stuff in school so I at least PARTLY know what I'm talking about)

My take on the "cure for cancer": there won't ever be just one. There are too many different types of cancer out there because cancer is a catch-all term for cells growing out of control. Just like you could never develop a "cure for infection" because there are so many different pathogens out there, each making the infectee sick in their own distinct way (although in the end the symptoms may look similar).

With cancer, as some stated above, it's hard to differentiate between cancerous and normal cells, and even harder to find a unique "target" or cell-surface marker found only in cancer cells. A lot of research focuses on specific types of cancer, and really that's the only way to go. A cancer research lab won't be working on "cancer in general", they'll be working on bowel cancer, or lung cancer, etc. Focussing on one particular type of cancer helps them narrow the search for markers and effective, non-toxic treatments for that particular treatment.

When humans eventually DO "cure cancer" (and it will happen, maybe not within our lifetimes but eventually), the process will hopefully be as simple as "oh, you have bowel cancer of the such-and-such variety, and this drug kicks the shiat out of that type of bowel cancer but is completely useless against lung cancer. But you don't care, cuz you have bowel cancer"

So yeah, I've been drinking tonight. This is why my post reads the way it does.
 
2007-02-28 12:45:52 AM
I love the that machine "doesn't use radiation" while at the same time "heats" the cells using "radio waves." I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the reporter does not have an electrical engineering background.

On a more serious note, I think the problem is typically that it is hard to attach things to just cancer cells. If they can actually tag only the cancer cells with some sort of metal particles, I can see how that could be exploited. But if we can target them like that, I would imagine a whole host of other options become available as well (targeted drug delivery being one)
 
2007-02-28 01:21:09 AM
leftymcrighty: (self-defense alert: I'm a scientist dammit, and although cancer research isn't my specialty I learned about this stuff in school so I at least PARTLY know what I'm talking about)

img221.imageshack.us
 
2007-02-28 05:05:04 AM
Churchill2004
If it's true, that's awesome. Makes you wonder if such research is really underfunded, as we're constantly told, or if the money is simply being wasted.

The problem is, more than 90% of cancer treatments that kill cancer cells in a petri dish don't work in real life. Either they're so toxic they'd kill the host before the cancer cells, or they simply don't work in vivo, because cells in a petri dish don't behave the same as cells in the body.

The main issue with cancer treatments is usually theraputic window. That is, the range of drug concentrations between the lowest concentration that still stops the disease and the highest concentration without serious side effects.
 
2007-02-28 09:58:54 AM
Rusty_shack
I love the that machine "doesn't use radiation" while at the same time "heats" the cells using "radio waves." I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the reporter does not have an electrical engineering background.

I'm going out on an even further limb and suggesting that he has a journalism background, call it a hunch.
 
2007-02-28 10:25:08 AM
www.startrek.com

"We're dealing with medievalism here!"

 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report