Slashdot Mirror
New Treatment From Australia For All Cancers
New submitter FirephoxRising writes "A new, protein-based treatment from the University of NSW breaks down cancers by destroying their internal protein structures. The approach has been tried before but always resulted in too much damage to muscles and the heart. The new approach allows the new class of drug to attack tumors without damaging normal cells. Professor Peter Gunning said, 'Our drug causes the structure of the cancer cell to collapse — and it happens relatively quickly.'"
Another daily cure for cancer.
Let me know when it has been tested and clinical trials have been performed with peer review.
rather than simply allow everyone to be cured, the powers that be will milk this for every penny they can, and medical bankruptcies will continue on, unabated.
Whether this new cure is a true breakthrough or not, it is really exciting to live in a time where things such as CURING CANCER are possible (even living on the verge of such a time is breathtaking). The places science and technology are taking us are out of a science-fiction novel. We might not have flying cars or jetpacks (except we /do/!), but we truly are living "in the future". A thousand years ago what we take for granted would have seemed magic or even godlike. And who knows what tomorrow will hold for us - a cure for death, perhaps?
Even knowing that no such advance comes without its unforeseen darkside, it is still enough to give me a childlike glee and hope again.
Science. It works, bitches.
TV Personality: And how many people have you treated so far?
Dr. Alice Krippin: Well, we've had ten thousand and nine clinical trials in humans so far.
TV Personality: And how many are cancer-free?
Dr. Alice Krippin: Ten thousand and nine.
TV Personality: So you have actually cured cancer.
Dr. Alice Krippin: Yes, yes... yes, we have.
[cuts to post-apocalyptic New York three years later]
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
I'll believe it when I see it. When CNN has a headline with a font of 100 saying "CANCER CURED!" and everyone's raving about it...
We've all heard these stories about researchers finding a cure but it's never true... so yeah
That's too bad. I'm a Pisces.
WHAT in the name of science are you blabbering about?? SCIENCE DAMN YOU! Cancer cannot be cured!
You should consider moving away from Delhi.
Bone marrow cancer is usually just normal bone marrow with one or two genes that have bits flipped...
Granted, cancer is just mutated cells, but unlike brain/lung/kidney cancers, bone marrow cancers grow like normal bone marrow, only the marrow density rises and the *clonal* marrow produces too many of a certain kind of white cell which is what kills the person with it.
Thankfully there's Gleevec (Imatinib) that puts several forms of it into remission, but doesn't cure it. Even if it does cost over USD 6000.00 for a 30 day supply.
No I'm an American living in America... It's crazy, I know.
Their country is so over-populated that they're spilling into other countries at an alarming rate or what? Right now, I'm sitting next to a smelly fucking uni-browed Indian man who is slurping his drink very loudly as if he's trying to be heard.
this has never been tried on a human being and won't be until at least 2015
many cures for cancer have worked very well in animals over the past three decades
But all I think they've cured is the need for research funding for a year or two.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
the CDC routinely releases statistics and studies that conclude people who eat healthy and exercise regularly experience dramatically lower cancer rates. of course cancer is a terrible disease for anyone it afflicts but rarifying its manifestation should be of greater realistic priority than a panacea. if you're pining for a silver bullet you might want to give running shoes, fresh fruit and vegetables a shot. Drink a little less, and for christ sake if you're still smoking, quit.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Slashdot turned into the Daily Mail?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
You could be working with Cowboys
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
""It was a good idea, you just had to get around the problem of killing the patient as well as their cancer,"
I can cure your cancer with any solution pH 12 too... side effects may include agonizing death & rapid decomposition...
still pretty cool though!
People die of cancer everywhere, and everywhen, it's not unique to "our" food. It's not magically caused by "chemicals".
He kan read, but not too much.
Probably hurts his brane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onus_probandi
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I blame God - after all He made animals so tasty. Bless his Noodly Appendages!
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I have two friends dieing of prostate cancer. When can this happen? Are they doing human testing? Cause i know some guys....
are belong to us.
All your internal protein structures are belong to us.
Prove what? Prove that they genetically modify seeds? Look at their website. Prove that they also produce pesticides and poisons? Look at their website. Prove that there are side effects? I haven't seen nor heard of any proof that there aren't. You do realize that using big words doesn't actually make you smart right?
In case you haven't quite grasped this yet, that right there is the point you fell off the edge into a logical fallacy.
Having been hit by two distinct types of cancer a year before the age of 30 - one dealt with by surgery, the other by radiotherapy - I for one cannot wait for the day where treatment does not rely mainly on the, frankly, barbaric options we have available today. Faced with not being able to trust my own cells any more since it hit me with that one-two combination, I'm now almost expecting another new one to come along before I hit old age (as sad as that is). And I would _dearly_ like to not have to go through what I did last year ever again. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
To be honest, whatever the advancement, when the treatment no longer causes so much suffering it's almost as scary as the disease itself I'll call that a win. And this is coming from someone who has made a full recovery with almost no permanent side-effects and (so far) no return of the disease. Many are not so lucky.
brane
At least he has one? /facepalm
I haven't seen nor heard of any proof that reptile aliens don't secretly live among us, disused as humans.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Prove that there are side effects? I haven't seen nor heard of any proof that there aren't.
You do realize that you're STILL talking in fallacies, and adding further fallacies to your "argument"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I was a low three-digit employee (engineer). I met jobs and knew all the players including Dan Kottke.. Dan was the most modest and happy early-timer I knew at Apple. Andy H. was happy but he was always baked so it was hard to tell. I didn't know until years later that Dan was employee twelve from the garage days, he was that self-effacing.
Admission after thirty years: I took a diagonal cutter with the green handle from Woz's office and never returned it. I still have it. Who knows what role it played in building the earliest apples. I guess I should send it back to him with an apology.
And I almost forgot this one.
You do realize that using big words doesn't actually make you smart right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The cited article is extremely thin on information, but the publication that it is based on is available as a pdf:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/73/16/5169.full.pdf+html
It was published yesterday...
Prove that there are side effects? I haven't seen nor heard of any proof that there aren't.
A lack of proof for the negative is not de facto proof for the positive.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I wonder if it's real or some really horrid chemical they can't quite get safe enough to use without dissolving your veins. That's the problem with that "discovery" in Sask. that cured cancer in rats. That's because rats can't scream as their veins dissolve.
Put on your thinking caps, why has cance shot up since 1900? What changed?
In 2007 or so, a Cytochrome B enzyme was found - CYP1B1 that only occurs in cancer cells. Fresh off the end of a successful prostate cancer drug, the first one with a new paradigm - something other than "kill ALL of the cells and pray" (See: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2012%2F06%2F02%2FMNI11ORI84.DTL) that exploited CYP17, Potter then set out to make a more generalized one based on the nearly universal CYP1B1. He designed the molecule then set about to make it and while looking for precursors noticed the exact same molecule occurs in fruit, made in response to mold.
So they tried it, and it worked. Every time. It gets converted in cells with CYP1B1 to picotaneol which is fatal to cancer cells but not regular cells. If you google "Salvestrol case studies" you'll find three clinical trials where cancer was reversed in every case. It's not patentable...
So, the current hypothesis is, since we began spraying anti-fungals, there's no mold so the plant doesn't make this chemical in response to mold, so non-organic fruit contains only 10% of what unsprayed fruit has. And it's a very bitter chemical and we breed bitterness out...
Cancerous cells can be found in any animal at any time, the body takes care of them. The problem arises when it can't, and we find Gene P53 is deactivated in those people. This reactivates it; once the body has the correct raw materials it gets down to work.
It's always better to help the body do what it does naturally and has for millions of years compared to some synthetic noxious substance. If nothing else understand that with a chemical that's already in the body all the time, the body knows what to do with it. With man-made drugs there are always side effects in every case as the body has no idea what to do with the molecules it doesn't recognize and they latch on to places they shouldn't and hellooo side effects.
There are 30,000 deaths a year from these side effects.
This chemical is found in tangerines and prune plums, strawberries, asparagus and so on. Tangerines have the most. Which raises an interesting question. Do areas that grow a lot of tangerines have a lower cancer rate. That would be Morocco.
It's not on the list of per capita cancer rates WHO keeps, that's quoted in Wiki. That list ranges from South Africa as the lowest (about 250) to Denmark with the highest at 387 or something. Note also that poor countries have less, developed countries have more... poor people grow their own food and can't afford chemicals.
But, if you poke around on the Moroccan government website long enough, you find their per-capita cancer rate: 100. Less than half the lowest stat WHO has for any country. And besides having all the tangerines, they pretty much invented chain smoking there. But still: 100.
So, if these guys are using this mechanism and trying to make a patent end run, bad. If it's something else, some noxious chemical, it's equally worthless. If however they have a new agent that also uses the pro-drug paradigm Potter found, then that would be good.
But there's a reason they don't give any details on this compound and I'd really like to know what it is.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Yes. Healthy people get cancer less frequently.
But "Health" is not agreed upon.
Keep away from toxins; that's a good start.
But fruit and veggies?
Sugar kills health, and cancer cells thrive on glucose. So maybe the high carb diet you're recommending is the wrong way to go.
Cancer cells, and pathogenic cells in general, do not thrive on the fuel system our bodies are designed to work best with.
Saturated fats, and lots of 'em.
Exercise is also good.
But honestly, people misunderstand what health means. The vegetable based 'healthy' diet is a complete falsehood. We need to do our research, learn about the lies.
And fry up some bacon.
We've been at war with cancer for something like 40 years now and there is no end in sight. We spend billions on research every year, but it's always based on the premise that cancer is something that must be fought and killed. Could it be that the premise is wrong and it won't get us anywhere until we step back and re-examine our basic assumptions about cancer? What if New Medicine were right that cancer is a natural process and 99% of all patients will see "spontaneous remission" if they aren't poisoned with chemo and morphine? What do we have to lose?
I would think Tasmanian Devils would be a worthy candidate.
Cancer is like bugs in a computer program. We all know what a bug is. It's obvious when a program doesn't do what we want. Under the hood there are lots of different places where they can happen, and some common types: buffer overrun, fence-post error, uninitialized variable, memory leak, rounding error, etc. They can be fast and deadly, or slow and cumulative.
A lot of reports on cancer are not "cures for cancer" any more than some computer tool is a "cure for bugs".
A "cure for bugs" is a better headline though than, "a slightly improved allocator that might help you prevent memory leaks more easily".
... to the UNSW researchers I say, good on you, mates.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
as they say in the US of A - absence of evidence is not evidence of absense
Since 1984, Dr Bresinzky has had breakthrough treatment, yet the FDA (actually their Pharma sponsors) have been fighting him tooth and nail. Not that they have disputed that his treatment works, nor that his patients are having a much greater chance at recovery than with chemo, but rather on frivolous grounds.
Chemo kills people.
If they really have something going down under, they should not call it chemo. Maybe people will take note.