Psh, I can kill cancer cells in 0.1 second
Nobody share my secret tech, I'm hiding it from big pharma
[t]https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/gun-police-officer.jpg?quality=75&strip=color&w=1012[/t]
That's some Mondo Medicals nonsense right there.
[QUOTE=Karmah;50617020]Now, what are the drawbacks that will lead to this procedure disappearing as quickly as it appeared?[/QUOTE]
The drawback is the reader's lack of long-term attention span to wait for it to go through rigorous medical testing before it's properly approved before declaring it dead and buried.
[QUOTE=TomoAlien;50617772]The best part is that there will never be a cure for cancer released to the public.
Because it's less profitable than a long-term treatment.[/QUOTE]
yeah man I would really hate to be the pharmaceutical to patent a cure for cancer, I'd go bankrupt immediately!!
On the one hand it's cool that they are basically developing a syringe you would inject into a tumor to kill it
On the other hand without reading the paper, it doesn't seem like this will stop with cancer cells so it's not a targeted treatment either, you have to make sure to only inject the cancer cells with it.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50620513]On the one hand it's cool that they are basically developing a syringe you would inject into a tumor to kill it
On the other hand without reading the paper, it doesn't seem like this will stop with cancer cells so it's not a targeted treatment either, you have to make sure to only inject the cancer cells with it.[/QUOTE]
Targeted therapy by its definition attacks cells which can be identified as cancer cells while causing limited to nil side effects. This treatment is one such as it basically uses a nanoparticle that can be activated by a harmless wavelength of light that can pass through the body. Currently, there is testing being done on highly resistant strains of cancer cells to ensure that the theory holds water, but I don't believe this process carries any significant risk whatsoever.
[url]http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/types/targeted-therapies/targeted-therapies-fact-sheet[/url]
And we will never hear about this treatment again like with all the other cancer treatments.
[QUOTE=Buck.;50620704]And we will never hear about this treatment again like with all the other cancer treatments.[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't understand how you don't get how dumb you sound
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;50620995]I honestly don't understand how you don't get how dumb you sound[/QUOTE]
It's a completely accurate and reasonable post though?
[QUOTE=Ardosos;50621001]It's a completely accurate and reasonable post though?[/QUOTE]
first off, what question are you asking? secondly it's not. there really is such thing as TESTING
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;50620995]I honestly don't understand how you don't get how dumb you sound[/QUOTE]
you're right, remember when cancer was cured?
[editline]30th June 2016[/editline]
wait... that didn't get released to the public.
[QUOTE=J!NX;50621005]you're right, remember when cancer was cured?
[editline]30th June 2016[/editline]
wait... that didn't get released to the public.[/QUOTE]
strangely enough, it's hard to cure, and reasonable actual legal testing can take sometimes 10 - 15 years
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;50621003]first off, what question are you asking? secondly it's not. there really is such thing as TESTING[/QUOTE]
testing or not, it usually takes a very very long time before we actually hear about them again, if at all, which was the point
[QUOTE=J!NX;50621011]testing or not, it usually takes a [B]very very long time[/B] before we actually hear about them again, if at all, [B]which was the point[/B][/QUOTE]
[editline]30th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Buck.;50620704]And we will [B]never hear about this treatment again[/B] like with all the other cancer treatments.[/QUOTE]
[editline]30th June 2016[/editline]
no
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;50621017][editline]30th June 2016[/editline][/QUOTE]
sounds more like hyperbolic and over dramatic wording than anything, I do that a lot as well
I really doubt he was being as literal as you assume
But it's partially true at the same time. how many treatments do we hear about, and how many do we see being used publically. It's kind of pretty rare.
[editline]30th June 2016[/editline]
no matter what, the progress is a far cry from what we need it to be.
[QUOTE=J!NX;50621020]sounds more like hyperbolic and over dramatic wording than anything, I do that a lot as well
I really doubt he was being as literal as you assume
But it's partially true at the same time. how many treatments do we hear about, and how many do we see being used publically. It's kind of pretty rare.
[editline]30th June 2016[/editline]
no matter what, the progress is a far cry from what we need it to be.[/QUOTE]
the progress is what it is. people do have access to drug trials when available. the progress is this slow because it needs to be.
[QUOTE=J!NX;50621020][B]sounds more like hyperbolic and over dramatic wording than anything[/B], I do that a lot as well
I really doubt he was being as literal as you assume
But it's partially true at the same time. how many treatments do we hear about, and how many do we see being used publically. It's kind of pretty rare.
[editline]30th June 2016[/editline]
no matter what, the progress is a far cry from what we need it to be.[/QUOTE]
bingo
[QUOTE=Buck.;50621037]bingo[/QUOTE]
I can only ever respond to what you actually write, so the fact that you were sounding retarded on purpose means nothing. It does kinda show that you hate looking wrong, whether you were or weren't
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;50621034]the progress is what it is. people do have access to drug trials when available. the progress is this slow because it needs to be.[/QUOTE]
my progress statement has less to do with testing and more to do with the fact that it hasn't been 100% cured.
That is true though, testing needs to be slow because obviously if it wasn't we would have some kind of IAmLegend tier fuck up or something. But it's still not cured. We still haven't made even slightly enough progress. We still aren't doing good enough.
[editline]30th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;50621042]I can only ever respond to what you actually write, so the fact that you were sounding retarded on purpose means nothing. It does kinda show that you hate looking wrong, whether you were or weren't[/QUOTE]
oh shut up don't start THAT kind of shit.
[QUOTE=J!NX;50621043]my progress statement has less to do with testing and more to do with the fact that it hasn't been 100% cured.
Testing needs to be slow because obviously if it wasn't we would have some kind of IAmLegend tier fuck up or something. But it's still not cured. We still haven't made even slightly enough progress. We still aren't doing good enough.[/QUOTE]
tell that to the countless scientists working their asses off
[editline]30th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=J!NX;50621043]my progress statement has less to do with testing and more to do with the fact that it hasn't been 100% cured.
That is true though, testing needs to be slow because obviously if it wasn't we would have some kind of IAmLegend tier fuck up or something. But it's still not cured. We still haven't made even slightly enough progress. We still aren't doing good enough.
[editline]30th June 2016[/editline]
oh shut up don't start THAT kind of shit.[/QUOTE]
what? he said something, I refuted, then he moved the goalpost
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;50621047]tell that to the countless scientists working their asses off
[editline]30th June 2016[/editline]
what? he said something, I refuted, then he moved the goalpost[/QUOTE]
Well in my defence there is a chance we will never hear of this again if it doesn't pass the clinical trials.
All I mean is that one of these miracle cures comes about every other week and yet people are dying of cancer left and right. I'm not implying there is a conspiracy or anything like that going on, I'm just annoyed with just how long it takes for the clinical trials to happen, no need to throw a hissy fit.
It's not a fucking miracle cure, it's a study that shows that this particular treatment slows tumour growth [I]in vitro[/I] and in a mouse model for [I]one[/I] specific line of cancer cells. It's not the scientists' fault that you don't understand biology and misinterpret it to mean "WE'VE CURED CANCER" when really it means "we've discovered a new method that may be promising for one type of cancer but we have to run many more tests on it first and it may not work for other forms of cancer".
[QUOTE=Karmah;50617020]Now, what are the drawbacks that will lead to this procedure disappearing as quickly as it appeared?[/QUOTE]
It not working in humans? I wonder if people truly appreciate the low chance that something clears clinical trials. Even once things get to humans clinical trials then the chance of making it to market is less than [URL=http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/06/02/are-things-getting-any-better-in-the-clinic]10%[/URL] (link is to a blog post with links to sources). Cancer treatments have a 5.6% chance.
With only a quick read of the abstract, some issues that come up for this method include:
- Using light limits how deep a tumour can be before the treatment is ineffective. Melanomas are fine but what about pancreatic cancer?
- Cancers deal pretty well with acidic environments; it must be really acidic to kill them off.
- Mice
- And where is the actual paper? I can't find it when searching in the Journal of Clinical Oncology
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;50622119]It not working in humans? I wonder if people truly appreciate the low chance that something clears clinical trials. Even once things get to humans clinical trials then the chance of making it to market is less than [URL=http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/06/02/are-things-getting-any-better-in-the-clinic]10%[/URL] (link is to a blog post with links to sources). Cancer treatments have a 5.6% chance.
[/QUOTE]
As someone working with the medical industry, it's even worse than that.
People underestimate just how MASSIVELY expensive it is to do a clinical trial, or even get to the point of being able to think of starting one.
That % is skewed by the fact that, these are only the treatments that even have the funding to get there.
I'm involved with a medicine-related product, so I have access to certain statistics related to trials and treatment plans. The number of treatments that die out that are extremely promising, but simply lack funding, are extreme.
The costs involved means that less than 1 in ~10 treatments, regardless of viability, survives it's initial test phase (which comes before animal testing).
Less than 1 in 20 gets to animal testing.
It bothers me to a tremendous degree that there might very well be a cure for various illnesses out there, that simply never saw the light of day because the project wasn't prestigious enough to attract enough funding.
well hopefully this leads to something useful ...
know way too many people who could need it ...
btw when I said that this is basically another form of ablation therapy, I meant it in the sense that its a procedure where you use a probe, usually a long needle, that kills the tissue around the end of it. Some methods use radiation, some use heat, and some use chemicals but the procedure is still essentially the same. In this case instead of a chemical that is immediately lethal to the tissue it is lethal only when exposed to light.
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;50624654]btw when I said that this is basically another form of ablation therapy, I meant it in the sense that its a procedure where you use a probe, usually a long needle, that kills the tissue around the end of it. Some methods use radiation, some use heat, and some use chemicals but the procedure is still essentially the same. In this case instead of a chemical that is immediately lethal to the tissue it is lethal only when exposed to light.[/QUOTE]
Some googling tells me that you're right, ablation therapy is indeed a more general term than I thought. I stand corrected.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.