Ethanol: A Lethal Injection For Tumors (acsh.org)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ethanol: A Lethal Injection For Tumors (acsh.org)

Posted by msmash on Monday September 4, 2017 @02:00AM from the big-steps dept.

Scientists have known for some time that ethanol can kill cancer cells, but several limitations held it back from becoming a broadly used treatment. A team at Duke University has recently developed a new type of ethanol solution that can be injected directly into a variety of tumors to potentially offer a new, safe, and cheap form of cancer treatment. From the article: The authors were already aware of a therapy known as ethanol ablation. If ethanol (the type of alcohol found in your favorite adult beverages) is injected into a tumor, it destroys proteins and causes the cells to dehydrate and die. Ethanol ablation is used to treat one type of liver cancer, and its success rate is similar to that of surgery. Better yet, it costs less than $5 per treatment. Ethanol ablation faces several limitations. First, it only works well for tumors that are surrounded by a fibrous capsule. Second, it requires large amounts of ethanol, which can damage nearby tissue as it leaks out. And third, it requires multiple treatments. To overcome these hurdles, the authors mixed ethanol with ethyl cellulose, creating a solution that when injected into the watery environment of a tumor turns into a gel, which remains close to the injection site. After they practiced injecting their solution into imitation tumors (what they called "mechanical phantoms"), the authors turned to a hamster model. The team induced the formation of oral cancer (specifically, squamous cell carcinoma) in hamster cheek pouches by rubbing them with a carcinogen called DMBA. After about 22 weeks, tumors (without capsules) formed. In the control group, tumors were injected with pure ethanol. The results were not good. After seven days, 0 of 5 tumors regressed completely. (Tumors injected with a large amount of ethanol -- four times the volume of the original tumor -- performed better: 4 of 12 regressed completely.) The results for the ethanol gel were far superior. After seven days, 6 of 7 tumors regressed completely. (By the eighth day, all 7 tumors were gone, for a cure rate of 100%.)

78 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

it requires large amounts of ethanol by turkeydance · 2017-09-04 02:05 · Score: 2

well, of course. if i had cancer it would.
1. Re:it requires large amounts of ethanol by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  I, for one, in working on soaking my liver in ethanol.
  As a 'preventative measure'. Yeah, that's the ticket.
2. Re:it requires large amounts of ethanol by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, most of life's problems
3. Re:it requires large amounts of ethanol by elrous0 · 2017-09-04 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Take THAT Judge Rockaway! It's cancer treatment now! So I spit on your court order to attend AA meetings!
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Only a very small sample by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2017-09-04 02:07 · Score: 1

I'll wait until they've done a much larger properly blinded test. But for preliminary results they are very promising

--
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
1. Re:Only a very small sample by Opportunist · 2017-09-04 02:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  You'd have to use Methanol if you want a blinding test.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:Only a very small sample by Kjella · 2017-09-04 02:25 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I'll wait until they've done a much larger properly blinded test.
  If I had terminal cancer I'd take highly experimental over certain death, you're only risk averse when it usually ends well. When it'll end badly you're ready for any "Hail Mary" save. Not that I'd try obvious snake oil and superstition, but any reasonable experiment I'd be in on... seems like the worst that can happen here is that you get mighty drunk, granted I've had bad hangovers but I'd rather go out drunk as a skunk than wait for the cancer to get me.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
3. Re: Only a very small sample by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  Not for the hamsters in the wrong control group.
4. Re:Only a very small sample by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2017-09-04 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be pleased to see it work; but also apprehensive about whether being able to achieve kills against specific tumors(the well defined, encapsulated ones) translates into better survival of cancer.
  
  Something you can do by injection is cheaper and less traumatic than surgery; and alcohol may well be an agent with a nice combination of being amply lethal to cancer cells at high concentration; but pretty well tolerated by humans in modest concentrations(which would make any leaks from the tumor into surrounding tissue a lot safer than those of other chemicals chosen for lethality); but even an absolutely ideal mechanism for killing neatly encapsulated tumors is orthogonal to the problem if the cancer in question is metastasizing and/or invading healthy tissue in much smaller, more widely diffused, growths that can't be neatly targeted in the same way.
  
  You also have a problem if either the injection process or the death of the tumor allow tend to dislodge cancer cells and send them back into circulation to seed tumors elsewhere. That's one of the reasons why surgical removal can be particularly messy: you take a margin of healthy tissue around the tumor because you Do Not want to either leave a bit of tumor that can just regrow; or risk little tumor fragments being liberated during surgery and leaving the patient with an even more serious problem once they've had time to grow a bit.
  
  If it does work, all well and good, certainly seems preferable to surgical excision; but "the problem is one, or a small number, of well defined and encapsulated tumors" is a comparatively well behaved instance of cancer.
5. Re:Only a very small sample by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-05 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  It is a small sample, but such a large effect is still very unlikely to be random. I don't know what the p value is, but you don't have to be a statistician to know that 0/5 vs 7/7 is statistically significant. Of course as with all results it still needs to be replicated, but the methanol comment about blinding is just wrong. A comparison of the current treatment to a hypothesized improved treatment is perfectly valid and as long as no one working with the hamsters knew which one they were receiving (presumably the hamsters didn't know) the blinding is just fine. They could have added an ethyl cellulose-only group to isolate the combined effects from any possible effects of ethyl cellulose alone.
6. Re:Only a very small sample by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-05 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  All results need to be replicated, but despite the small sample the p value should be extremely low because of the large difference between the two groups. 0/5 vs 7/7 is extremely unlikely to happen by chance, but could happen for other reasons like experimenter error which is why it needs to be replicated.
In the great words of Homer Simpson by ganjadude · 2017-09-04 02:08 · Score: 5, Funny

Alcohol, the cause of, and solution to all of lifes problems

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
1. Re:In the great words of Homer Simpson by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  Beer - now there's a temporary solution.
2. Re:In the great words of Homer Simpson by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  Alcohol, the cause of, and solution to all of lifes problems
  Dohhhhhh!
  -Homer
3. Re:In the great words of Homer Simpson by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 02:56 · Score: 0
  
  Alcohol, the cause of, and solution to all of lifes problems
  And quite often the solvent too.
4. Re: In the great words of Homer Simpson by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  "Ethanol ablation is used to treat one type of liver cancer" -- oh the irony.
5. Re:In the great words of Homer Simpson by fahrbot-bot · 2017-09-04 04:48 · Score: 2
  
  Alcohol, the cause of, and solution to all of life's problems.
  Quoting comedian Rita Rudner:
  
  They're trying to put warning labels on liquor saying, “Caution, alcohol can be dangerous to pregnant women.” That’s ironic. If it weren’t for alcohol, most women wouldn't even be that way.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
6. Re: In the great words of Homer Simpson by swillden · 2017-09-04 08:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "Ethanol ablation is used to treat one type of liver cancer" -- oh the irony.
  I suppose it's ironic in cases where the liver cancer was caused by alcohol, but that's not normally the case. Liver cancer is usually secondary, having metastatized from cancer elsewhere in the body. And the reason ethanol ablation is used on that particular type of cancer is precisely because the liver -- unlike most tissues in the body -- can tolerate ethanol leakage, since breaking down ethanol is one of its functions.
  So, really not very ironic.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
7. Re: In the great words of Homer Simpson by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 11:32 · Score: 0
  
  So curing them of the liver cancers gives the patient more time to suffer from the cancers in all the other places the disease has metastatized to, which are unable to benefit from this treatment. A longer lingering death.
  On the other hand, chipping away at cancer, type by type, and someday we'll get there. Or close enough.
8. Re: In the great words of Homer Simpson by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-07 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  So curing them of the liver cancers gives the patient more time to suffer from the cancers in all the other places the disease has metastatized to, which are unable to benefit from this treatment. A longer lingering death.
  On the other hand, chipping away at cancer, type by type, and someday we'll get there. Or close enough.
  Most cancer treatments just give you a longer, lingering death. Even "cured" there's a chance for it to come back and kill you. Lost a "cured" coworker that way. This one does comparatively minimal collateral damage and has FAR fewer side effects than chemo or radiation so I'd take it over the alternatives. Besides, we're all slowly dying anyways.
Needs work. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 02:09 · Score: 0

Too cheap. Try again.
1. Re: Needs work. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  Duh
  Only subscription based apps with perpetual increasing fees can fully cure cancer, not cheap effective Luddite treatments like alcohol and suicide.
  Apps!
2. Re:Needs work. by alvinrod · 2017-09-04 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  I don't really get this argument. If you survive cancer, something else will eventually start killing you and that's probably going to be even more expensive. If you think that the medical industry exists only to bilk patients out of their money, then it's a lot easier to do that the longer you can keep them alive until they get something else too expensive to cure.
No way! by methano · 2017-09-04 02:09 · Score: 1

There is nothing done at Duke university that costs $5/treatment. If they type your name in the computer, it's gonna cost more than that.
1. Re: No way! by musikit · 2017-09-04 02:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  thats what it costs them. not what it costs you
2. Re:No way! by denzacar · 2017-09-04 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  They are talking about the old version, which only works on some liver cancers and where regular ethanol is used.
  And they are talking about the price of a syringe of ethanol.
  5$ doesn't include labor costs, examinations and everything else needed for a successful cancer-killing injection.
  
  --
  Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
3. Re:No way! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  In other words, the medical cartel will figure-out a way to make it so expensive that normal people can't afford it. The doctors' number one goal the past fifty years has been trying to find new ways to just let people die. Doctors are the #3 killer right now in the US, and they're pissed they're not number one. I work IT for a chain of hospitals, so I see every day at work how doctors are working hard to prevent health care.
4. Re: No way! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps it is time for you to talk to Julian Asange.
5. Re:No way! by Mike+Frett · 2017-09-04 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah it's always the labor that gets you! The fix is $5 but the labor is $100,000.
Vodka jello shots cure cancer? by ka9dgx · 2017-09-04 02:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

So, if I may... does this mean sterile vodka jello shots could be used to kill cancer?
1. Re:Vodka jello shots cure cancer? by ka9dgx · 2017-09-04 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Upon more googling.... it's more like a gelcap.
2. Re:Vodka jello shots cure cancer? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, but you have to take them anally.
Stilll try explaining that to your kids by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 02:16 · Score: 0

Daddy what do you do for a living?
I give cancer to hamsters.
Re:Stilll try explaining that to your kids by Opportunist · 2017-09-04 02:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Hey, it's easier than explaining to them that you're working for Comcast.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh, the irony! by tommeke100 · 2017-09-04 02:25 · Score: 4, Funny

Treating liver cancer with alcohol.
1. Re:Oh, the irony! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-09-04 02:29 · Score: 2
  
  I was unsure if the proper reaction that that was "See, homeopathy works!" or "Are you sure you're a doctor?"
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
2. Re:Oh, the irony! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  Treating cirrhosis would be even funnier. Or does heavy drinking cause liver cancer as well?
3. Re:Oh, the irony! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-09-04 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Alcohol should be a risk factor for many cancers, I believe.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
Dumb Scientists by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 02:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not contained.
Well you can paint inject glue around the tumor, and you can restrict cancer blood vessels to increase poorer supply for hungry tumors. You can inject into the middle, and as it shrinks - repeat the process - as already done with radioactive mini beads, or injecting liquid nitrogen.
I'm sure time release capsules has been researched. Then there is powdered alcohol to play with. See black salve.
I drink to that! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 02:30 · Score: 0

No, really. A round of vodka shots for everyone!
what to sing when drunk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 02:39 · Score: 0

Phenominal
Pa-Hee-Ha-Heenus
Phenominal
Pa-Hee-Hee-Nus
Phenominal
Pa-Hee-Ha-Heenus-Ha-Heenus-Ha-Heenus-Ha-Heenus-ennus
Pa-Hah-He-He-Nus!
Experimental treatement by DrYak · 2017-09-04 02:52 · Score: 4, Informative

If I had terminal cancer I'd take highly experimental over certain death, you're only risk averse when it usually ends well. When it'll end badly you're ready for any "Hail Mary" save. {...} but any reasonable experiment I'd be in on...
Also, from what I've heard (disclaimer: oncology is not my speciality), patient close to the end also tend to have altruistic views :
even if it doesn't end up saving *them personally*, taking an experimental treatment might still help advance the science and who knows who might end up being saved later thank to what was learned by this experimental treatment.
Some are thus happy to save any live, even if it ends up not being their own.

seems like the worst that can happen here is that you get mighty drunk, granted I've had bad hangovers but I'd rather go out drunk as a skunk than wait for the cancer to get me.
The doses needed to be injected without this "gel improvement" are usually massive.
It's not only getting drunk/hangover from what leaks in the general blood stream system.
It's alcohol still being at very high level nearby the tumor and destroying healthy tissue and organs around the tumor
(painful, problematic and potentially dangerous).
Akin to a badly calibrated radiation therapy.
i.e.: you're literally burning the patient in this failure mode (though think "chemical" burn rather than garden variety of fire)
The potential of this gel is similar to what computer modelling helped improve radiation therapy.
Making sure the treatment arrives exactly where it should, and is only working where needed.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:Experimental treatement by jabuzz · 2017-09-04 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  What on earth makes you think that computer modeling makes the radiation only arrive exactly where needed? That's just not how it works.
  More exactly everything in the path of the beam gets a dose. By firing the beam from multiple angles so that the point of intersection is over the tumor you deliver a maximal dose to the tumor, and a minimal dose to the surrounding tissues.
  Computer modeling using CT and NMR scans to plan the treatment can help to give a better treatment plan than using pen and paper.
  However lots of none tumorous tissue is still getting a dose of radiation.
2. Re:Experimental treatement by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  What makes you think he said anything even remotely like what you accused him of saying?
  You built an elaborate strawman out of a casual analogy.
  Get a grip on reality.
3. Re:Experimental treatement by dgatwood · 2017-09-04 07:29 · Score: 2
  
  What on earth makes you think that computer modeling makes the radiation only arrive exactly where needed? That's just not how it works.
  Very true. Sometimes people have serious side effects resulting from radiation burns. I'm not sure how much that has improved over the years, but it definitely was a problem with beam radiation at one time.
  That said, in theory, there's no reason it couldn't be exact if you used directed high-power EM instead of ionizing radiation. You could use constructive interference in the same way that they do when breaking up kidneystones, only instead of shattering something solid, you heat up the tumor to the point that the cells die. It would basically be like creating a microwave oven hot spot right where the tumor is, and the rest of you would just get a little warmer.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
4. Re:Experimental treatement by Chrontius · 2017-09-04 08:17 · Score: 2
  
  I've heard presentations on functionalizing iron nanoparticles with anti-tumor antibodies, injecting them, and then putting the patient into a high-field NMR machine. Suddenly, you can see every single cancer cell, not just big clusters, and if you turn up the RF, the iron nanoparticles wiggle like water in a microwave.
  
  The predicted result? Well-done tumor, medium-rare patient.
5. Re:Experimental treatement by dgatwood · 2017-09-05 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, yeah. I vaguely remember reading about that. If there's an antibody that can actually deliver the iron to the tumor, that's certainly a good approach. Then again, I always assumed that the main challenge was the lack of a reliable delivery mechanism that didn't affect healthy cells. If there's an antibody that can deliver the iron to the tumor, couldn't you just deliver a dose of a cyanide salt, an ATP inhibitor like DNP, a DNA-binding protein, or some similar poison and skip the EM entirely? Or, for that matter, a viral load that splices out the bad gene?
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
too cheap! by bonedonut · 2017-09-04 02:55 · Score: 0

only $5 a treatment? how will pharm companies get rich off of that?
1. Re:too cheap! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  They'll get their plenty monies from the patented tumor capsule systems and substances. Meanwhile, the patented administration mechanisms, fees and licenses related to them are already under estimation in the financials for the pleasure of public healthcare systems everywhere.
2. Re:too cheap! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 03:14 · Score: 2
  
  only $5 a treatment? how will pharm companies get rich off of that?
  Alcohol Gel solution $5
  Injection site cleaning (alcohol Swab) $950
  Hypodermic needle - $1500
  Hypodermic syringe - $2000
  Autoclave charge - $4000
  Pre-injection counseling - $600
  Post injection counseling - $600
  Alcohol Gel solution Packaging $30000
  Band Aid - $100 Billable amount $39,755
3. Re:too cheap! by JustNiz · 2017-09-04 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Easy, The FDA board for approving new drugs is ptretty much entirely run and funded by (and therefore owned by) the big pharma companies.
  They will make sure only their version of the drug gets certified for human use, then they can charge whatever they like for it, and people with cancer WILL pay.
4. Re:too cheap! by PPH · 2017-09-04 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Particularly with all the manufacturers of generics out there.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Stilll try explaining that to your kids by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2017-09-04 02:58 · Score: 1

Some things even hyenas won't do...
Vodka jello shots! by DrYak · 2017-09-04 02:58 · Score: 2

does this mean sterile vodka jello shots could be used to kill cancer?
For a punny understanding of "shots" - yeah that's exactly the idea.
And I'm sure that, although they'll never public admit it, the inventors got the idea while doing actual vodka jello (body?) shots at one of their medical students' wild party.
(ah.... brings fond memory of my studies...)

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:Vodka jello shots! by Carewolf · 2017-09-04 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  does this mean sterile vodka jello shots could be used to kill cancer?
  For a punny understanding of "shots" - yeah that's exactly the idea.
  And I'm sure that, although they'll never public admit it, the inventors got the idea while doing actual vodka jello (body?) shots at one of their medical students' wild party.
  (ah.... brings fond memory of my studies...)
  Sounds like a lame medical student party. Where I come from they used ethanol and syringes. Which could even better explain where the idea came from.
Old School by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 03:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

Very likely to be idiotic, ineffective, and dangerous to patients and other living things!
As a professor of anesthesiology and neurological surgery, I have seen on rare occasions,
surgeons pour absolute alcohol (100% ethanol, i.e., 200 proof) into the bed of an excised
tumor in the abdomen. It works poorly and is dangerous. There are no decent studies
demonstrating improved outcome for the patient. Indeed the alcohol is toxic not just to
tumors, but to ALL tissue and to ALL cells. It denatures (unfolds) proteins. Thats why histologists and pathologists use it to "FIX" tissue for microscope slides. What it does to the
stomach and liver is a story for another day.
I have also seen an idiot surgeon use an electrosurgical (Bovie) cautery on a bleeding blood
vessel right after pouring in the EtOH. Woosh! There went the patient in a ball of blue flame!
1. Re:Old School by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just going to add two thoughts:
  First, "dangerous" early metastasizing tumors do not have capsule of fibrous tissue and this technique requires. Mostly it is the organ that the tumor is embedded in that has a capsule.
  This is nice, the alcohol just kills the whole organ.
  Second, why are they publishing this in Nature, and not a journal that clinicians actually read?
  Possibly because the investigators are basic science guys who know nothing about cancer
  or clinical medicine
2. Re:Old School by Headw1nd · 2017-09-05 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps as a professor, you are also aware of radiation, which is also deadly to healthy tissues and cells. The trick in both this treatment and radiation is to control the application and only target the tumor.
Binge drinking by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 03:29 · Score: 0
- Second, it requires large amounts of ethanol,
- And third, it requires multiple treatments.
So this is one of those medical breakthrough stories where we find out that weekly binge drinking is good for you after all.
Ethanol Ablation by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 03:37 · Score: 0

"it costs less than $5 per treatment"
I had some treatments down the local bar yesterday.
Re:Bruce Jenner's Mother Speaks About His "Journey by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 04:43 · Score: 0

The trouble with this shit is that I can't be safe in assuming it's not the mother doing the "transitioning".
Re: Happy Labour Day by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 05:00 · Score: 0

I don't understand why Trump can't just sign another executive order to build a yuge microscopic wall around all the bad cancer cells in everyone's body, and then make the cancer pay for it. Then we can make murikan life great again and things will be good.
Sad!
Vodka by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 05:14 · Score: 0

So that explains why cancer rates are very low in Russia...
1. Re:Vodka by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  and Ireland? Or Finland? They drink alcohol instead of water lol...
2. Re:Vodka by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  So that explains why cancer rates are very low in Russia...
  Nop. Cancer rates are low, because nobody diagnoses cancer. He just died. That is all.
  But .. here comes hope, can we have dose of vodka as preventive measure?
  Something like Aspirin and heart problems. 50cc of vodka per day make you more healthy or t least more happy.
Woh hoss by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 05:18 · Score: 0

The American Cancer Society and FDA has been fighting against and routing inventions and cures for cancer for decades. The cancer research and pharmaceutical companies are making way too much money to allow any major breakthroughs. I have seen for years supposed breakthroughs in cancer cures with usually nothing coming of it. There have already been several cures found, but they have all been suppressed. Forget about any sincere cancer research. If the cure doesn't cost thousands of dollars per treatment, it will not be marketed.
Google: 'Cancer: The Forbidden Cures' and watch to see what goes on in the great search for a cure for cancer.
I prefer to die of cancer. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 05:21 · Score: 0

Because of the violence involved in deliberately giving hamsters cancer, and not treating a control, I consider this study unethical. I would rather die of cancer than sanction murder in the name of science.
Lipomas? by shed · 2017-09-04 09:17 · Score: 1

I wonder if this would treat fatty tumors (lipomas)? Certainly not as pressing as cancer treatment, but they can be quite painful and require surgery.

--
My cat can eat a whole watermelon
This is nothing new by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 09:59 · Score: 0

This is an astoundingly well known approach to tumor chemoablation!
GIST cancers by sonamchauhan · 2017-09-04 10:41 · Score: 1

Great research. I wonder if this can be used to treat GIST cancers (gastrointestinal stromal tumors), in combination with other therapy (imatinib, surgery). GIST cancers are normally nodule surrounded by some sort of capsule around the tumour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...