A Protein Killer Could Treat All Cancers, and Possibly All Illnesses
145 replies, posted
Hi I'm nanotech.
I did this several months ago.
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62K1BK20100321[/url]
Unlike your pedestrian fat coating, I require no such protection. I am ignored by the human body and break down naturally into my base components after my job is completed.
I have no side effects and virtually no upper limit to how many you can use. The more you inject, the more effective I am.
My potential extends well beyond cancer as I can be programmed to effectively target any type of cell in the human body.
At least it's better than eating crushed emeralds.
[QUOTE=GunFox;24290800]Hi I'm nanotech.
I did this several months ago.
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62K1BK20100321[/url]
Unlike your pedestrian fat coating, I require no such protection. I am ignored by the human body and break down naturally into my base components after my job is completed.
I have no side effects and virtually no upper limit to how many you can use. The more you inject, the more effective I am.
My potential extends well beyond cancer as I can be programmed to effectively target any type of cell in the human body.[/QUOTE]
:golfclap: Well played.
[QUOTE=W00tbeer1;24290794]We may be coming close to a cure... any year now possibly.[/QUOTE]
I doubt it would cure all cancers, especially ones that are localized to areas outside of drug reach. Such as the lungs, brain, etc.
Hopefully this won't disappear like all the other cancer cures that have appeared in the past years.
[QUOTE=GunFox;24290800]Hi I'm nanotech.
I did this several months ago.
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62K1BK20100321[/url]
Unlike your pedestrian fat coating, I require no such protection. I am ignored by the human body and break down naturally into my base components after my job is completed.
I have no side effects and virtually no upper limit to how many you can use. The more you inject, the more effective I am.
My potential extends well beyond cancer as I can be programmed to effectively target any type of cell in the human body.[/QUOTE]
I doubt nanotech would be affordable for most people especially in this economic climate.
[editline]05:12PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Orkel;24290869]Hopefully this won't disappear like all the other cancer cures that have appeared in the past years.[/QUOTE]
Most of the time when that happens it's when the FDA finds side-effects etc, so the drug fails testing and the company drops its work on the drug/
[QUOTE=Comrade General;24290885]I doubt nanotech would be affordable for most people especially in this economic climate.
[/QUOTE]
They are likely little different than this in terms of construction difficulty.
Once you get outside the realm of Chemical or radiation based treatments, you are going to have some serious work being put into the manufacture of the specific treatment.
Speaking of nanotechnology, that's what I'm going to be working with due to my major (Biomedical Engineering.)
That stuff can do some pretty amazing things.
How much do you think they would charge for it?
I wouldn't be surprised it treatment cost over a million.
YAY zombie acpocalypse FTW!
Just so long as this doesn't affect healthy cells, we should be ok.
[QUOTE=gol4z03;24291408]YAY zombie acpocalypse FTW![/QUOTE]
:frog:
But really, it sounds a bit too good to work
[QUOTE=Sickle;24290456]They make more money off of the chemo and rad because it has to be applied like every week or so.[/QUOTE]
And AIDS was created by government scientists right?
There have been many stories on possible cures for cancer, but none are ever seen again. Hopefully this one will be different.
[QUOTE=James*;24291488]And AIDS was created by government scientists right?[/QUOTE]
How about you prove a fucking point instead of spouting useless bullshit?
They DO make more money off of weekly chemo and rad therapy. More than they'll make off of this. This is the reason is will probably disappear like all of the other cancer 'cures'.
[QUOTE=Sickle;24291601]How about you prove a fucking point instead of spouting useless bullshit?
They DO make more money off of weekly chemo and rad therapy. More than they'll make off of this. This is the reason is will probably disappear like all of the other cancer 'cures'.[/QUOTE]
Oh shit man 9/11 is conspiracy and worlds ends in 2012 it's all a Conspira-C.
Now with 100% more vitamin C.
[QUOTE=Sickle;24291601]How about you prove a fucking point instead of spouting useless bullshit?
They DO make more money off of weekly chemo and rad therapy. More than they'll make off of this. This is the reason is will probably disappear like all of the other cancer 'cures'.[/QUOTE]
How about you untwist your panties and realise that this isn't some video game evil mega corporation
If a genuine cure for cancer is found it isn't gonna be kept under wraps for long, you think the scientists that discover it will be content to hush up?
Every month I see this "Possible cure for cancer".."could treat Cancer". And then a couple of weeks later, you never hear of that same method again. I am really starting to lose hope on all of these "methods".
[QUOTE=James*;24291663]How about you untwist your panties and realise that this isn't some video game evil mega corporation
If a genuine cure for cancer is found it isn't gonna be kept under wraps for long, you think the scientists that discover it will be content to hush up?[/QUOTE]
We've seen news threads like this for years.
[QUOTE=booster;24291698]Every month I see this "Possible cure for cancer".."could treat Cancer". And then a couple of weeks later, you never hear of that same method again. I am really starting to lose hope on all of these "methods".[/QUOTE]
Basically this.
I think the media picks up on these treatments when they are in the very early stages of testing just to make a quick buck, even if the treatment itself has no way of succeeding.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;24291752]We've seen news threads like this for years.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying this is the cure for cancer, of course the media are gonna jump on anything as soon as the words "cure" and "cancer" are mentioned
[editline]06:04PM[/editline]
If it was easy a cure would have been found decades ago, these are all just possibilities
Sadly this drug was too late for almost half of my family...
[QUOTE=technologic;24291892]Sadly this drug was too late for almost half of my family...[/QUOTE]
That shouldn't be "was", that should be "will be if it ever works"
[QUOTE=technologic;24291892]Sadly this drug was too late for almost half of my family...[/QUOTE]
:ohdear:
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24291628]Oh shit man 9/11 is conspiracy and worlds ends in 2012 it's all a Conspira-C.
Now with 100% more vitamin C.[/QUOTE]
Now, I'm not saying that it actually has happened, but this isn't something to dismiss lightly.
Pharmaceutical companies are generally publicly traded. Which doesn't really seem like much, but a publicly traded company, by definition, must pursue maximum profit.
If the current executives fail to produce maximum profit, the shareholders can have them replaced.
So if it were to become apparent that a cure for a condition was ultimately less profitable than the treatment, it isn't outside the realm of possibility that a company may choose to intentionally cease funding the cure or simply ignore it in favor of manufacturing the treatment.
Again, not saying it has actually happened, but the framework is there for it to realistically occur.
[QUOTE=GunFox;24291973]Now, I'm not saying that it actually has happened, but this isn't something to dismiss lightly.
Pharmaceutical companies are generally publicly traded. Which doesn't really seem like much, but a publicly traded company, by definition, must pursue maximum profit.
If the current executives fail to produce maximum profit, the shareholders can have them replaced.
So if it were to become apparent that a cure for a condition was ultimately less profitable than the treatment, it isn't outside the realm of possibility that a company may choose to intentionally cease funding the cure or simply ignore it in favor of manufacturing the treatment.
Again, not saying it has actually happened, but the framework is there for it to realistically occur.[/QUOTE]
gunfox you a busta
[QUOTE=GunFox;24291973]Now, I'm not saying that it actually has happened, but this isn't something to dismiss lightly.
Pharmaceutical companies are generally publicly traded. Which doesn't really seem like much, but a publicly traded company, by definition, must pursue maximum profit.
If the current executives fail to produce maximum profit, the shareholders can have them replaced.
So if it were to become apparent that a cure for a condition was ultimately less profitable than the treatment, it isn't outside the realm of possibility that a company may choose to intentionally cease funding the cure or simply ignore it in favor of manufacturing the treatment.
Again, not saying it has actually happened, but the framework is there for it to realistically occur.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but think about the advantage one company would have over another if they actually had a cure, they would be able to increase their market share drastically if they were able to eliminate the need for the treatment provided by their competitors
There's also the publicity to consider
[QUOTE=GunFox;24291973]Now, I'm not saying that it actually has happened, but this isn't something to dismiss lightly.
Pharmaceutical companies are generally publicly traded. Which doesn't really seem like much, but a publicly traded company, by definition, must pursue maximum profit.
If the current executives fail to produce maximum profit, the shareholders can have them replaced.
So if it were to become apparent that a cure for a condition was ultimately less profitable than the treatment, it isn't outside the realm of possibility that a company may choose to intentionally cease funding the cure or simply ignore it in favor of manufacturing the treatment.
Again, not saying it has actually happened, but the framework is there for it to realistically occur.[/QUOTE]
this has happened in the last few years - a simple compound dicovered years ago showed great hope for cancer treatment.
however, because it was previously discovered a company choosing to develop it would be unable to patent it (and therefore maintain the rights to it most effectively - preventing other companies from manufacturing generics).
for that reason drug companies didn't actively pursue research into it.
[QUOTE=James*;24292063]Yeah but think about the advantage one company would have over another if they actually had a cure, they would be able to increase their market share drastically if they were able to eliminate the need for the treatment provided by their competitors
There's also the publicity to consider[/QUOTE]
But the market share edge would be temporary and then followed by a decrease in profits due to nobody needing the treatments anymore.
You may maintain an edge over the competition for a while. But then your patent will run out and everyone will be manufacturing it. Chances are they will do it cheaper and drive market prices even lower.
[QUOTE=GunFox;24292162]But the market share edge would be temporary and then followed by a decrease in profits due to nobody needing the treatments anymore.
You may maintain an edge over the competition for a while. But then your patent will run out and everyone will be manufacturing it. Chances are they will do it cheaper and drive market prices even lower.[/QUOTE]
People will keep getting cancer, unless it's some incredible cure that prevents it developing in the first place
[editline]06:30PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;24292162]But then your patent will run out and everyone will be manufacturing it. Chances are they will do it cheaper and drive market prices even lower.[/QUOTE]
Of course this is a possibility, but it's where brand power comes in.
Why hasn't coke been overtaken by cheaper copycats?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.