Cancer, cured?

[PvtRyan]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/cancer/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

Sounds good to me, could be one of the biggest medical breakthroughs ever

 

[SpotEnemyBoats]

I don't believe it, if it is true well its about time!

 

[theotherguy]

Holy crap! This is even better than the article I posted about genetically engineered white blood cells curing cancer, its cheaper and easier to use. I hope the clinical trials work out.

 

[Absinthe]

I'm quite sure we had a previous topic on this and a linked rebuttal significantly deflated this "discovery", but I can't recall for certain.

If this is fullproof, then that's absolutely great. But I'm rather skeptical.

 

[mindless_moder]

yeah this has been posted before. http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=119489&highlight=cure+cancer

 

[clarky003]

I heard some advanced studies on the electrical nature of how cancerous cells behave, think it was new scientist, something to do with the nucleus of the cell and it's natural electrical field being out of whack.

Very good news if true.

 

[Mattigus]

Roughly every week cancer is miraculously cured on the internet.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

But there's so many types of cancer. You can't just "cure" all cancer's at once. PLus, desieses evolve too.

 

[Dan]

Viruses and bacteria evolve. Cancer can't evolve.

 

[CyberPitz]

Viruses and bacteria evolve. Cancer can't evolve.

Quoted for the truth. New cancer will show up, the same won't evolve.

 

[The Brick]

Potential cancer applications

Cancer cells also use glycosis rather than oxydation, and have defective mitochondria. The body often kills damaged cells by apoptosis, a mechanism of self-destruction that involves mitochondria, but this mechanism fails in cancer cells. Michelakis at the University of Alberta [5] hypothesized that dichloroacetate, by restoring mitochondrial function, may restore apoptosis and kill cancer cells. He found that this did happen in breast, brain, and lung cancer cell lines grown in laboratory culture. Dichloroacetate also shrunk human tumors grown in rats, while leaving healthy cells unharmed. [6][7] Dichoroacetate has not been used for cancer in humans, but Michelakis expects clinical trials to start in two years.[8] He noted, and the New Scientist commented, that dichloroacetate is no longer patented, which makes it unlikely for a private company to invest in clinical trials, so it will probably require public funding. [8] Michelakos published his work in Cancer Cell.[9]

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

 

[Beerdude26]

There's a magazine called Cancer Cell? lol

 

[Kula Meenur]

It's like Splinter Cell only its an fps

 

[repiV]

Thanks for posting this. It certainly merits investigation.

 

[kirovman]

Forgive my skeptism, but it's hard to tell what is legit and what isn't, since there always seems to be a new cure, which is 5 or 10 years away from proper clinical trials or release into the market.

On the other hand, it features in New Scientist, which makes it more interesting.

 

[Dekstar]

Forgive my skeptism, but it's hard to tell what is legit and what isn't, since there always seems to be a new cure, which is 5 or 10 years away from proper clinical trials or release into the market.

On the other hand, it features in New Scientist, which makes it more interesting.

The substance also already exists, so it just needs making by some charity organisation who doesn't mind a loss to cure cancer.

 

[theotherguy]

Viruses and bacteria evolve. Cancer can't evolve.

Cancer is made up of living organisms that reproduce and experiences mutations. It can and does evolve inside the human body just as bacteria and virii would.

 

[Murray_H]

Cancer is made up of living organisms that reproduce and experiences mutations. It can and does evolve inside the human body just as bacteria and virii would.

The plural is viruses... lolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll I am king of the internet.

 

[theotherguy]

The plural is viruses... lolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll I am king of the internet.

I looked it up and I suppose you're right. Virii was used in the 19th century for some reason and then changed to Vira and now Viruses. Oh well.

 

[Dan]

But the cancer dies when the person dies, whatever mutations it has stops there it doesn't pass them on. Cancer isn't reproducing and infecting other people like viruses do. So breast cancer will never develop an immunity to breast cancer treatments. That's what some guy was trying to say, that cancers would just evolve a defence against any cure.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Cancer is made up of living organisms that reproduce and experiences mutations. It can and does evolve inside the human body just as bacteria and virii would.

Exactly. :sniper:

 

[repiV]

Forgive my skeptism, but it's hard to tell what is legit and what isn't, since there always seems to be a new cure, which is 5 or 10 years away from proper clinical trials or release into the market.

On the other hand, it features in New Scientist, which makes it more interesting.

That's exactly the problem we've been having. It's very difficult to tell what's effective and what isn't.
There is little concrete information out there on any treatments beyond surgery/radiotherapy/chemotherapy, which have a proven track record of failure in the treatment of malignant brain tumours.
So the choice is, go with the best available information and choose the other treatments you think are promising, or take what's offered as standard and die.
Don't get me started on the clinical trial system...

 

[Darkknighttt]

wow

 

[theotherguy]

But the cancer dies when the person dies, whatever mutations it has stops there it doesn't pass them on. Cancer isn't reproducing and infecting other people like viruses do. So breast cancer will never develop an immunity to breast cancer treatments. That's what some guy was trying to say, that cancers would just evolve a defence against any cure.

most antibiotic and viral resistance occurs within a single body. Cancer cells do exactley the same thing, and build up resistance to drugs over time. You are correct in assuming that cancer should not be resistant to any treatment at first, but because cancer reproduces so rapidly, anything that will not kill it will cause it to evolve cancer resistance. But yes, there is no widespread drug resistance in cancer because it is not passed from person to person (with the exception of a certain kind of cervical cancer that dogs get, which is indeed passed from dog to dog and evolved into a sort of parisite.)