It seems like I've been hearing about more and more techniques for destroying cancer cells lately...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/...ature08815.html
and more interestingly (to me):
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100321/ful...s.2010.138.html
Are we on the verge of a cancer-free society? Let's hope...
It will be nice if you could give a short intro before posting links, especially one you have to pay before reading. Could be way none has responded so far, even sufferers of that malignancy. For those who were put off by the links, it is about siRNA in treatmemt of melanoma, a type of skin cancer. Gene therapy is very promising but politics has delayed advances in that field. How many are still opposing stem cells research?
The problem with cancer is that no one cure will work with all cancers. Every time there's a breakthrough in cancer research, it applies only to a certain type of cancer.
QUOTE (boit+Mar 25 2010, 03:07 PM)
It will be nice if you could give a short intro before posting links, especially one you have to pay before reading. Could be way none has responded so far, even sufferers of that malignancy.
I don't remember the first link requiring payment... but ok, sorry, my fault.
The second link, however, is not a pay link.
I don't remember the first link requiring payment... but ok, sorry, my fault.
The second link, however, is not a pay link.
QUOTE (boit+Mar 25 2010, 03:07 PM)
For those who were put off by the links, it is about siRNA in treatmemt of melanoma, a type of skin cancer. Gene therapy is very promising but politics has delayed advances in that field. How many are still opposing stem cells research?
What I found interesting was not so much the gene therapy angle, but rather the use of nanoparticles to deliver the siRNA to the cancer cells.
What I found interesting was not so much the gene therapy angle, but rather the use of nanoparticles to deliver the siRNA to the cancer cells.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 25 2010, 03:36 PM)
The problem with cancer is that no one cure will work with all cancers. Every time there's a breakthrough in cancer research, it applies only to a certain type of cancer.
While it is absolutely true that the specific siRNA used is specific to a certain type of cancer, shouldn't the delivery mechanism be suitable for all, or at least more than just the one, types of cancer?
While it is absolutely true that the specific siRNA used is specific to a certain type of cancer, shouldn't the delivery mechanism be suitable for all, or at least more than just the one, types of cancer?
QUOTE (Dabeer+Mar 25 2010, 04:28 PM)
While it is absolutely true that the specific siRNA used is specific to a certain type of cancer, shouldn't the delivery mechanism be suitable for all, or at least more than just the one, types of cancer?
I just read an article that they were using nanobots to target cancer cells, but of course it only works on a certain rare type of cancer cells.
The problem is that cancer in it's most basic form is a normal cell that has the ability to replicate uncontrollably. That makes it very hard to differentiate from healthy cells. It's like trying to build a missile that only targets people with attached earlobes.
I just read an article that they were using nanobots to target cancer cells, but of course it only works on a certain rare type of cancer cells.
The problem is that cancer in it's most basic form is a normal cell that has the ability to replicate uncontrollably. That makes it very hard to differentiate from healthy cells. It's like trying to build a missile that only targets people with attached earlobes.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 25 2010, 04:35 PM)
I just read an article that they were using nanobots to target cancer cells, but of course it only works on a certain rare type of cancer cells.
I think the article you read might have been based on my second link... but I guess I missed the part where it said it only works on a rare type of cancer cells. That's a bit disappointing.
I think the article you read might have been based on my second link... but I guess I missed the part where it said it only works on a rare type of cancer cells. That's a bit disappointing.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 25 2010, 04:35 PM)
The problem is that cancer in it's most basic form is a normal cell that has the ability to replicate uncontrollably. That makes it very hard to differentiate from healthy cells. It's like trying to build a missile that only targets people with attached earlobes.
I guess I was being overoptimistic... oh well. But at least it's progress.
I guess I was being overoptimistic... oh well. But at least it's progress.
compared to radioactive micro sphere glass bead therapy, i'll say this method will improve compliance. most patient from a particular community are not comfortable living forever with foreign objects in situ. the plant virus nanoparticle carrier is eventually eliminated from the system.
There's too much misinformation going on about cancer too.
Does anyone here think that cancer can be actually 'cured'?
I can understand that it can be prevented, minimized and stopped, so that patients reach full recovery, but the way its projected in the media seems that a simple 'pill' solution is all that is necessary and 'possible' implying the term 'cured'.
Maybe im just picking holes here.
Does anyone here think that cancer can be actually 'cured'?
I can understand that it can be prevented, minimized and stopped, so that patients reach full recovery, but the way its projected in the media seems that a simple 'pill' solution is all that is necessary and 'possible' implying the term 'cured'.
Maybe im just picking holes here.
some benign tumors can be cured. i'm not including faith based miracle cures here. burkit lymphoma, is case in point. Kaposi sarcoma being malignant on the other hand can not, though it has good response rate to bleomycin and antiretroviral in HIV positives even without vincristine. their aetiologies are also somehow clear.
flyingbuttressman:
This is a popular assertion---but it is not true.
This is a popular assertion---but it is not true.
Until recently, researchers believed that cancer-affected mitochondria are permanently damaged and that this damage is the result, not the cause, of the cancer. But Michelakis, a cardiologist, questioned this belief and began testing DCA, which activates a critical mitochondrial enzyme, as a way to "revive" cancer-affected mitochondria.
The results astounded him.
Michelakis and his colleagues found that DCA normalized the mitochondrial function in many cancers, showing that their function was actively suppressed by the cancer but was not permanently damaged by it.
More importantly, they found that the normalization of mitochondrial function resulted in a significant decrease in tumor growth both in test tubes and in animal models. Also, they noted that DCA, unlike most currently used chemotherapies, did not have any effects on normal, non-cancerous tissues.
http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/index.cfm
also,
So there is a faulty mechanism associated with most types of cancer, but there is also a very profitable and mostly ineffective cancer treatment industry.
Despite this the real 'you' shines through.
QUOTE
Every time there's a breakthrough in cancer research, it applies only to a certain type of cancer.
This is a popular assertion---but it is not true.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Every time there's a breakthrough in cancer research, it applies only to a certain type of cancer. |
This is a popular assertion---but it is not true.
Until recently, researchers believed that cancer-affected mitochondria are permanently damaged and that this damage is the result, not the cause, of the cancer. But Michelakis, a cardiologist, questioned this belief and began testing DCA, which activates a critical mitochondrial enzyme, as a way to "revive" cancer-affected mitochondria.
The results astounded him.
Michelakis and his colleagues found that DCA normalized the mitochondrial function in many cancers, showing that their function was actively suppressed by the cancer but was not permanently damaged by it.
More importantly, they found that the normalization of mitochondrial function resulted in a significant decrease in tumor growth both in test tubes and in animal models. Also, they noted that DCA, unlike most currently used chemotherapies, did not have any effects on normal, non-cancerous tissues.
http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/index.cfm
also,
QUOTE
Cheap, 'safe' drug kills most cancers
New Scientist, December 12, 2007
New Scientist has received an unprecedented amount of interest in this story from readers...We will also follow events closely and will report any progress as it happens.
It sounds almost too good to be true: a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers by switching off their "immortality". The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe.
It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly developed drugs.
Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and his colleagues tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body and found that it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells. Tumours in rats deliberately infected with human cancer also shrank drastically when they were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks.
DCA attacks a unique feature of cancer cells: the fact that they make their energy throughout the main body of the cell, rather than in distinct organelles called mitochondria. This process, called glycolysis, is inefficient and uses up vast amounts of sugar.
Until now it had been assumed that cancer cells used glycolysis because their mitochondria were irreparably damaged. However, Michelakis's experiments prove this is not the case, because DCA reawakened the mitochondria in cancer cells. The cells then withered and died (Cancer Cell, DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.10.020).
[...]
The next step is to run clinical trials of DCA in people with cancer. These may have to be funded by charities, universities and governments: pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to pay because they can't make money on unpatented medicines.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1097...st-cancers.html
New Scientist, December 12, 2007
New Scientist has received an unprecedented amount of interest in this story from readers...We will also follow events closely and will report any progress as it happens.
It sounds almost too good to be true: a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers by switching off their "immortality". The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe.
It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly developed drugs.
Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and his colleagues tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body and found that it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells. Tumours in rats deliberately infected with human cancer also shrank drastically when they were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks.
DCA attacks a unique feature of cancer cells: the fact that they make their energy throughout the main body of the cell, rather than in distinct organelles called mitochondria. This process, called glycolysis, is inefficient and uses up vast amounts of sugar.
Until now it had been assumed that cancer cells used glycolysis because their mitochondria were irreparably damaged. However, Michelakis's experiments prove this is not the case, because DCA reawakened the mitochondria in cancer cells. The cells then withered and died (Cancer Cell, DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.10.020).
[...]
The next step is to run clinical trials of DCA in people with cancer. These may have to be funded by charities, universities and governments: pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to pay because they can't make money on unpatented medicines.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1097...st-cancers.html
So there is a faulty mechanism associated with most types of cancer, but there is also a very profitable and mostly ineffective cancer treatment industry.
Big pharmaceuticals have just become too much of a monopoly.
This cannot be good.
This cannot be good.
QUOTE (Matador+Apr 2 2010, 05:00 AM)
Big pharmaceuticals have just become too much of a monopoly.
This cannot be good.
Can say that again - I'm a pharm' scientist, who's seen many of his colleagues become ex-collegues,
as mergers ultimately lead to redundancies, and for the lucky few 'fortunate' survivors, a life of misery i.e; hightened stress, from overwork, worry and company hatred. The inevitable dreadfully filthy lucre generated by doing so, merely satiates the stake/shareholders thirst for greed, via increased shareprice/dividend payouts.
What a totally screwed-up world we now live in - I blame it on USA mentality .... money obssessed 'myopic' cretins, willing to sell their fellow humans down the 'swanee' - When their economy eventually goes kaput, I'll be the 1st to 'pop the cork'.
edit;- do you all perceive a smidgen of bitterness here?
This cannot be good.
Can say that again - I'm a pharm' scientist, who's seen many of his colleagues become ex-collegues,
as mergers ultimately lead to redundancies, and for the lucky few 'fortunate' survivors, a life of misery i.e; hightened stress, from overwork, worry and company hatred. The inevitable dreadfully filthy lucre generated by doing so, merely satiates the stake/shareholders thirst for greed, via increased shareprice/dividend payouts.What a totally screwed-up world we now live in - I blame it on USA mentality .... money obssessed 'myopic' cretins, willing to sell their fellow humans down the 'swanee' - When their economy eventually goes kaput, I'll be the 1st to 'pop the cork'.
edit;- do you all perceive a smidgen of bitterness here?
QUOTE
do you all perceive a smidgen of bitterness here?
Despite this the real 'you' shines through.
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Apr 1 2010, 11:57 PM)
So there is a faulty mechanism associated with most types of cancer, but there is also a very profitable and mostly ineffective cancer treatment industry.
Except all this information is very stale.
They supposedly got the OK in Sept of 2007 to do clinical trials on patients with Glioblastoma.
I checked into this extensively and could find no evidence that a clinical trial was ever run.
My wife was diagnosed with Glioblastoma in Sept of 2006 and died from it 18 months later.
We explored all the available clinical trials related to Glioblastoma and she was eventually involved in three of them, but DCA was never one that was available.
Arthur
QUOTE
Cheap, 'safe' drug kills most cancers
New Scientist, December 12, 2007
New Scientist, December 12, 2007
Except all this information is very stale.
They supposedly got the OK in Sept of 2007 to do clinical trials on patients with Glioblastoma.
I checked into this extensively and could find no evidence that a clinical trial was ever run.
My wife was diagnosed with Glioblastoma in Sept of 2006 and died from it 18 months later.
We explored all the available clinical trials related to Glioblastoma and she was eventually involved in three of them, but DCA was never one that was available.
Arthur
DCA is being tested in 3 active Phase I and Phase II trials now. And the Canadian Phase I trial from 2007 is over, but no results yet published.
http://www.cancer.gov/drugdictionary/?CdrID=582893
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?...te+%28DCA%29%22
http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/index.cfm
But because it shrinks some tumors in rats does not mean it's a cure for men or even rats.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/...interpreted.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/...e_last_time.php
http://www.cancer.gov/drugdictionary/?CdrID=582893
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?...te+%28DCA%29%22
http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/index.cfm
But because it shrinks some tumors in rats does not mean it's a cure for men or even rats.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/...interpreted.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/...e_last_time.php
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 2 2010, 10:11 AM)
DCA is being tested in 3 active Phase I and Phase II trials now. And the Canadian Phase I trial from 2007 is over, but no results yet published.
http://www.cancer.gov/drugdictionary/?CdrID=582893
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?...te+%28DCA%29%22
http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/index.cfm
But because it shrinks some tumors in rats does not mean it's a cure for men or even rats.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/...interpreted.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/...e_last_time.php
rpenner.
If you follow that first link you get an error.
If you follow that second link:
You get here:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT...CA%29%22&rank=1
Saying the study has been completed
Study Start Date: October 2007
Study Completion Date: August 2009
But the only link there takes you back to here:
http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/index.cfm
Which has not been updated in over a year.
When my wife was dying of this disease I did everything I could to find out about this treatment/trial, and the only conclusion I could come to at the time was that it never actually enrolled anyone.
There is certainly no literature to show that a study took place or that they enrolled any patients or did any medical trials.
The link for donations always worked though.
Having been in three of these trials I can assure you they don't require even millions of dollars, let alone hundreds of millions.
The total staff involved in one of the more advanced trials she was in, at the Univ of Birmingham, had a total staff of 3 people (One nurse, one medical statistician and the trial doctor), but the same staff were also doing 6 other trials as well as seeing their own patients, so they were not full time on this trial by any stretch of the imagination. The only other cost was the drugs (my insurance paid for the lab tests and MRIs) but we were told that they were about $300 per month.
Arthur
http://www.cancer.gov/drugdictionary/?CdrID=582893
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?...te+%28DCA%29%22
http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/index.cfm
But because it shrinks some tumors in rats does not mean it's a cure for men or even rats.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/...interpreted.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/...e_last_time.php
rpenner.
If you follow that first link you get an error.
If you follow that second link:
You get here:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT...CA%29%22&rank=1
Saying the study has been completed
Study Start Date: October 2007
Study Completion Date: August 2009
But the only link there takes you back to here:
http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/index.cfm
Which has not been updated in over a year.
When my wife was dying of this disease I did everything I could to find out about this treatment/trial, and the only conclusion I could come to at the time was that it never actually enrolled anyone.
There is certainly no literature to show that a study took place or that they enrolled any patients or did any medical trials.
The link for donations always worked though.
QUOTE
When will the clinical trials start?
In order to be absolutely certain that DCA is effective and safe in patients with cancer, studies involving thousands of patients with different cancers, from different hospitals and different countries have to be conducted. Often, direct comparisons of one experimental treatment with other standard therapies are required. These large-scale trials will take years to complete and will require hundreds of millions of dollars.
In order to be absolutely certain that DCA is effective and safe in patients with cancer, studies involving thousands of patients with different cancers, from different hospitals and different countries have to be conducted. Often, direct comparisons of one experimental treatment with other standard therapies are required. These large-scale trials will take years to complete and will require hundreds of millions of dollars.
Having been in three of these trials I can assure you they don't require even millions of dollars, let alone hundreds of millions.
The total staff involved in one of the more advanced trials she was in, at the Univ of Birmingham, had a total staff of 3 people (One nurse, one medical statistician and the trial doctor), but the same staff were also doing 6 other trials as well as seeing their own patients, so they were not full time on this trial by any stretch of the imagination. The only other cost was the drugs (my insurance paid for the lab tests and MRIs) but we were told that they were about $300 per month.
Arthur
Arthur, I am very sorry to hear about your wife's ordeal.
I agree that clinical trials shouldn't cost much, and I note with sadness that the donations link will always work, while information on trials and results is buried, hidden, or suppressed.
The point of my post was not specifically to highlight DCA, but the fact that experiments with the molecule at the University of Alberta demonstrated--proved in fact--that there is a single faulty mechanism common to many types of cancer, contrary to popular assertions from the cancer industry.
I don't agree with you that the news is "stale," except in the sense that it is no longer new. I think the mitochondrial mechanism warrants serious transparent investigation and research.
Also, I learned more in the New Scientist article about cancer than I've learned in the past 30 years from popular reports describing "promising new research into cancer."
I didn't know that:
(i) mitochodrial function is suppressed in most cancers (the so-called "Warburg effect"), or that
(ii) mitochondria plays a vital role in apoptosis.
My contemporary university text, Biology (Campbell, Reece, Mitchell), while obsessed with potential research avenues for treating cancer, fails to mention these mechanisms.
I phoned the Australian Cancer Council in 2007 and asked to speak to the professor responsible for distribution of charitable donations. I asked him if any funding was being directed toward research into the role of mitochondria in cancer, specifically its role in apoptosis. I cited the peer-reviewed study published in Cancer Cell on the use of DCA, and I pointed out that the Medicor Center in Canada was treating last-resort patients "off label."
"Well, it doesn't produce much information from a google search," was the explanation given for their lack of interest.
Meanwhile, cancer charities are big business here in Australia, with pink "breast cancer awareness" badges exploited to sell a variety of products, including bottled water and chocolate biscuits.
Cancer "awareness" isn't a strategy for developing treatments, as far as I can tell.
Results from the Canadian trial should have been available in 2009.
I would like to see them.
===================================
Anyway, here is some research relating specifically to treatment of glioblastoma multiforme.
and...
and...
Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in '74
By Raymond Cushing, AlterNet.
Posted May 31, 2000.
In 1974 researchers learned that THC, the active chemical in marijuana, shrank or destroyed brain tumors in test mice.
But the DEA quickly shut down the study and destroyed its results, which were never replicated -- until now.
http://www.alternet.org/story/9257
Of course, I am aware that results with mice don't always translate to people.
Cheers,
Leon
(ubb tag edit)
I agree that clinical trials shouldn't cost much, and I note with sadness that the donations link will always work, while information on trials and results is buried, hidden, or suppressed.
The point of my post was not specifically to highlight DCA, but the fact that experiments with the molecule at the University of Alberta demonstrated--proved in fact--that there is a single faulty mechanism common to many types of cancer, contrary to popular assertions from the cancer industry.
I don't agree with you that the news is "stale," except in the sense that it is no longer new. I think the mitochondrial mechanism warrants serious transparent investigation and research.
Also, I learned more in the New Scientist article about cancer than I've learned in the past 30 years from popular reports describing "promising new research into cancer."
I didn't know that:
(i) mitochodrial function is suppressed in most cancers (the so-called "Warburg effect"), or that
(ii) mitochondria plays a vital role in apoptosis.
My contemporary university text, Biology (Campbell, Reece, Mitchell), while obsessed with potential research avenues for treating cancer, fails to mention these mechanisms.
I phoned the Australian Cancer Council in 2007 and asked to speak to the professor responsible for distribution of charitable donations. I asked him if any funding was being directed toward research into the role of mitochondria in cancer, specifically its role in apoptosis. I cited the peer-reviewed study published in Cancer Cell on the use of DCA, and I pointed out that the Medicor Center in Canada was treating last-resort patients "off label."
"Well, it doesn't produce much information from a google search," was the explanation given for their lack of interest.
Meanwhile, cancer charities are big business here in Australia, with pink "breast cancer awareness" badges exploited to sell a variety of products, including bottled water and chocolate biscuits.
Cancer "awareness" isn't a strategy for developing treatments, as far as I can tell.
Results from the Canadian trial should have been available in 2009.
I would like to see them.
===================================
Anyway, here is some research relating specifically to treatment of glioblastoma multiforme.
QUOTE
Cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink, halts growth of blood vessels
Category: Cancer/Oncology News
Article Date: 15 Aug 2004
Researchers in Spain have discovered that a cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink by halting the growth of blood vessels that supply the tumors with life. Cannabis has chemicals called cannabinoids, these are the chemicals that could effectively starve tumors to death, say the researchers. The study was carried out at the Complutense University, Madrid, Spain. The team used mice to demonstrate that the cannabinoids block vessel growth.
You can read about this latest research in the journal Cancer Research.
Apparently, the procedure is also effective in humans. The Spanish team, led by Dr Manuel Guzmán, wanted to see whether they could prevent glioblastoma multiforme cancer from growing by cutting off its blood supply. Glioblastoma multiforme is one of the most difficult cancers to treat – it seldom responds to any medical intervention, such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy and surgery.
The scientists knew that cannabinoids will block the growth of blood vessels (to tumors) in mice – they wanted to find out whether the same thing would happen with humans. The mice were given a cancer similar to the human brain cancer (glioblastoma multiforme). The mice were then given cannabinoids and the genes examined. The genes associated with blood vessel growth in tumors through the production of a chemical called vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) had their activity reduced.
Cannabinoids halt VEGF production by producing Ceramide. Ceramide controls cell death. Dr Guzmán said: "As far as we know, this is the first report showing that ceramide depresses VEGF pathway by interfering with VEGF production." They then wanted to see if this would also happen with humans.
They selected two patients who had glioblastoma multiforme and had not responded to chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery. The scientists took samples from them before and after treating them with a cannabinoids solution – this was administered directly into the tumor. Amazingly, both patients experienced reduced VEGF levels in the tumor as a result of treatment with cannabinoids.
The researchers said that the results were encouraging. In order to be sure about their findings they need to carry out a larger study, they said.
Dr Guzmán said "The present findings provide a novel pharmacological target for cannabinoid-based therapies."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/12088.php
Category: Cancer/Oncology News
Article Date: 15 Aug 2004
Researchers in Spain have discovered that a cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink by halting the growth of blood vessels that supply the tumors with life. Cannabis has chemicals called cannabinoids, these are the chemicals that could effectively starve tumors to death, say the researchers. The study was carried out at the Complutense University, Madrid, Spain. The team used mice to demonstrate that the cannabinoids block vessel growth.
You can read about this latest research in the journal Cancer Research.
Apparently, the procedure is also effective in humans. The Spanish team, led by Dr Manuel Guzmán, wanted to see whether they could prevent glioblastoma multiforme cancer from growing by cutting off its blood supply. Glioblastoma multiforme is one of the most difficult cancers to treat – it seldom responds to any medical intervention, such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy and surgery.
The scientists knew that cannabinoids will block the growth of blood vessels (to tumors) in mice – they wanted to find out whether the same thing would happen with humans. The mice were given a cancer similar to the human brain cancer (glioblastoma multiforme). The mice were then given cannabinoids and the genes examined. The genes associated with blood vessel growth in tumors through the production of a chemical called vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) had their activity reduced.
Cannabinoids halt VEGF production by producing Ceramide. Ceramide controls cell death. Dr Guzmán said: "As far as we know, this is the first report showing that ceramide depresses VEGF pathway by interfering with VEGF production." They then wanted to see if this would also happen with humans.
They selected two patients who had glioblastoma multiforme and had not responded to chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery. The scientists took samples from them before and after treating them with a cannabinoids solution – this was administered directly into the tumor. Amazingly, both patients experienced reduced VEGF levels in the tumor as a result of treatment with cannabinoids.
The researchers said that the results were encouraging. In order to be sure about their findings they need to carry out a larger study, they said.
Dr Guzmán said "The present findings provide a novel pharmacological target for cannabinoid-based therapies."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/12088.php
and...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink, halts growth of blood vessels Category: Cancer/Oncology News Article Date: 15 Aug 2004 Researchers in Spain have discovered that a cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink by halting the growth of blood vessels that supply the tumors with life. Cannabis has chemicals called cannabinoids, these are the chemicals that could effectively starve tumors to death, say the researchers. The study was carried out at the Complutense University, Madrid, Spain. The team used mice to demonstrate that the cannabinoids block vessel growth. You can read about this latest research in the journal Cancer Research. Apparently, the procedure is also effective in humans. The Spanish team, led by Dr Manuel Guzmán, wanted to see whether they could prevent glioblastoma multiforme cancer from growing by cutting off its blood supply. Glioblastoma multiforme is one of the most difficult cancers to treat – it seldom responds to any medical intervention, such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy and surgery. The scientists knew that cannabinoids will block the growth of blood vessels (to tumors) in mice – they wanted to find out whether the same thing would happen with humans. The mice were given a cancer similar to the human brain cancer (glioblastoma multiforme). The mice were then given cannabinoids and the genes examined. The genes associated with blood vessel growth in tumors through the production of a chemical called vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) had their activity reduced. Cannabinoids halt VEGF production by producing Ceramide. Ceramide controls cell death. Dr Guzmán said: "As far as we know, this is the first report showing that ceramide depresses VEGF pathway by interfering with VEGF production." They then wanted to see if this would also happen with humans. They selected two patients who had glioblastoma multiforme and had not responded to chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery. The scientists took samples from them before and after treating them with a cannabinoids solution – this was administered directly into the tumor. Amazingly, both patients experienced reduced VEGF levels in the tumor as a result of treatment with cannabinoids. The researchers said that the results were encouraging. In order to be sure about their findings they need to carry out a larger study, they said. Dr Guzmán said "The present findings provide a novel pharmacological target for cannabinoid-based therapies." http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/12088.php |
and...
Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in '74
By Raymond Cushing, AlterNet.
Posted May 31, 2000.
In 1974 researchers learned that THC, the active chemical in marijuana, shrank or destroyed brain tumors in test mice.
But the DEA quickly shut down the study and destroyed its results, which were never replicated -- until now.
http://www.alternet.org/story/9257
Of course, I am aware that results with mice don't always translate to people.
Cheers,
Leon
(ubb tag edit)
This looked like a good place to stick in one of my pet peeves. It drives me crazy when trying to do research. It seems like every study that sounds promising is too costly to view. I looked into this last year and notice that a bill was put forth to change this. It looks like it is in the House of Representatives right now.
Access to the journals is way behind in the use of the Internet. The subscription barriers limit our use and we are the ones who have paid for the research in the first place. Taxpayer access removes these barriers by making the peer-reviewed results of taxpayer-funded research available online, and for no extra charge to the public.
The Federal Research Public Access Act was introduced in the Senate last year, and is now in the House of Representatives as of April 15. Letting Congress know that you support it would help, and then you would no longer have to listen to me complain, about not being able to see full text articles.
Thanks,
N/A
Access to the journals is way behind in the use of the Internet. The subscription barriers limit our use and we are the ones who have paid for the research in the first place. Taxpayer access removes these barriers by making the peer-reviewed results of taxpayer-funded research available online, and for no extra charge to the public.
The Federal Research Public Access Act was introduced in the Senate last year, and is now in the House of Representatives as of April 15. Letting Congress know that you support it would help, and then you would no longer have to listen to me complain, about not being able to see full text articles.
Thanks,
N/A
I'm at the forefornt of 'Latest Technology'. (not in cancer r&d but other forensic scientific work).
Yet a lot of time i curse and swear at the lack of scientific material/information that can be easily accessed and that is sorted in some kind of logical manner.
This could really be a heated topic/discussion in its own.
Yet a lot of time i curse and swear at the lack of scientific material/information that can be easily accessed and that is sorted in some kind of logical manner.
This could really be a heated topic/discussion in its own.
QUOTE (Matador+May 4 2010, 09:08 AM)
I'm at the forefornt of 'Latest Technology'. (not in cancer r&d but other forensic scientific work).
Yet a lot of time i curse and swear at the lack of scientific material/information that can be easily accessed and that is sorted in some kind of logical manner.
This could really be a heated topic/discussion in its own.
And to make things worse the copyright gestapo are getting stronger.
An author gave a lecture on copyrights and measures taken to enforce them.
He described how easy it is for someone to issue take down orders and that ISP's usually just take down the material without fighting.
One example he gave was about a Professor Usher that likes to make his lectures available online in MP3 format. The copyright holders for Usher the band have a bot searching for Usher and MP3 together. And issue automatic take-down orders.
And from the sounds of it, the copyright gestapo are getting worse.
Yet a lot of time i curse and swear at the lack of scientific material/information that can be easily accessed and that is sorted in some kind of logical manner.
This could really be a heated topic/discussion in its own.
And to make things worse the copyright gestapo are getting stronger.
An author gave a lecture on copyrights and measures taken to enforce them.
He described how easy it is for someone to issue take down orders and that ISP's usually just take down the material without fighting.
One example he gave was about a Professor Usher that likes to make his lectures available online in MP3 format. The copyright holders for Usher the band have a bot searching for Usher and MP3 together. And issue automatic take-down orders.
And from the sounds of it, the copyright gestapo are getting worse.
Thanks buttershug, that is one example.
One of the problems i have is with things that have not made it into a textbook yet, but are still floating around as papers published in journals.
Accessing these journals comes at a cost, and the abstracts that are available are too vague, so by the time you've read the article you realise that is not the information that you wanted.
One of the problems i have is with things that have not made it into a textbook yet, but are still floating around as papers published in journals.
Accessing these journals comes at a cost, and the abstracts that are available are too vague, so by the time you've read the article you realise that is not the information that you wanted.
The main search engine for biology articles is 'pubmed', and I recommend it very highly. There's an option on the right side of the screen that will filter for 'free articles', because many, many scientists are pushing to open-source scientific information.
So, hopefully, you can find a few dozen research articles on any topic, where the article is free. A science article will have an introduction, which contains references. Those references will be available in abstract-form, at least, for a quick primer on the topic.
So, hopefully, you can find a few dozen research articles on any topic, where the article is free. A science article will have an introduction, which contains references. Those references will be available in abstract-form, at least, for a quick primer on the topic.
Pubmed was mostly what I was referring to but it applies to all the scientific articles. The only problem is that the most promising research is always snagged by publishers. Just to view one full text article can cost anywhere from $10 to $150. In many cases the tax payers were the ones who provided the funding for the research. Therefore, we should be allowed to view them for free.
I totally agree with the above 2 posts.
And a lot of times the information that you need is only a small part of the paper. A paper may be on a similar topic, but the required bit of information is not there.
And a lot of times the information that you need is only a small part of the paper. A paper may be on a similar topic, but the required bit of information is not there.
if it been detected in the early stages then it is 100% curable.
Alternative cancer treatments include non-harmful cancer cures and therapies like: diet, herbs, supplements, and more for curing and preventing cancer! We are supporting those who are afraid to try alternative treatments. We believe in individual experience far more then we believe in double blind placebo “studies” funded by pharmaceutical companies. We are interested in pursuing and trying therapies that have not been accepted, studied or researched by mainstream medicine - those that other people and the medical community may have never heard about, or are afraid to try - the ones that the pharmaceutical industry will never invest in because most are natural and there is no profit to the companies. And, they don't want you to know about or try them. Your doctor has never heard of the most of the natural therapies that may help and/or cure you. Your doctor is not allowed to prescribe, use or talk about alternative therapies that could help and have the potential to cure. We are ready to take full responsibility for our health. We want to try and find what works for each of us. We believe in individuality, herbal medicine, clean water, clean air, unrefined oils, whole organic foods, liver cleansing, the work of Max Gerson, Hulda Clark, Rife, Hoxsey, William Kelley, Dr.Beck, Weston Price, Stanislaw Burzynski, Johanna Budwig, Gaston Naessens, Linus Pauling (to name a few).
The above is lies and fact-free conspiracy theories.
While demonizing the profit-motives of others, the alternative medicine industry sells pure water and lactose as if it were medicine and has therefore nearly pure profit.
While demonizing the profit-motives of others, the alternative medicine industry sells pure water and lactose as if it were medicine and has therefore nearly pure profit.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 4 2010, 07:56 PM)
The above is lies and fact-free conspiracy theories.
While demonizing the profit-motives of others, the alternative medicine industry sells pure water and lactose as if it were medicine and has therefore nearly pure profit.
Real world IMO is not as black and white as someone like to paint it.
Established drug business is dependent on profit in order to work - and cancer treatment can and should be seen as a well established industry - which IMO is perfectly OK and not something to be blamed per SE.
As a side note, most clinical studies on cancer ends up showing no significant benefits - and the patients being recruited suffer in most cases from side-effects and in worse case from no clinical benefit - and the cost for running such studies are high - and not only because of the costs involved in the monitoring (too high would many say) but also because of high costs involved in the payment for cancer drugs (too high would many say). The selling of cancer drugs is in many (most) cases very dependent on said drugs being included in various types of studies.
Then one may ask if cancer studies are being carried out because of necessity for getting clinical data - or perhaps more as a necessary profit exercise - I think it is fair to say that they serve both purposes. However, on the bottom line they feed a lot of people - and sometimes it may be relevant to ask if the high cost-level of pharmaceutical industry activities is OK - and I am thinking among others on fully paid exotic congress activities - very liberal payments to doctors research accounts - dining wining - aggressive marketing costs etc etc.
It would be nice if people involved in the white and well accepted pharmaceutical industry all belonged to a specific and good race - and it would be easy and comfortable if people involved in alternative treatment all belonged to an inferior type of people.
Alternative treatment industry is probably as competitive as the so-called established pharmaceutical industry. The cost of producing medicine in the pharmaceutical industry is a few percent of the total turn over (not including copy-product companies - which on the other hand is not performing drug development and clinical studies except simple bio-availability studies) - and constitute about the same relative cost as the cost of "pure water and lactose" in alternative industry.
Alternative medicine cause few side-effects, and it is being increasingly appreciated how the effect of any treatment regimen is highly dependent on the placebo-component - which is to be about the same in established and in alternative medicine, respectively. And the fact that many treatment modalities from the alternative side from a superficial look is hard to believe into - like homeopathy - is not the same as being able to conclude that they are useless - in fact there exist strong evidence that for instance homeopathy exerts highly significant effects when evaluated in meta-analysis involving placebo-controlled double-blind regimens.
There is no good reason either to demonize the profit motive of alternative medicine.
While demonizing the profit-motives of others, the alternative medicine industry sells pure water and lactose as if it were medicine and has therefore nearly pure profit.
Real world IMO is not as black and white as someone like to paint it.
Established drug business is dependent on profit in order to work - and cancer treatment can and should be seen as a well established industry - which IMO is perfectly OK and not something to be blamed per SE.
As a side note, most clinical studies on cancer ends up showing no significant benefits - and the patients being recruited suffer in most cases from side-effects and in worse case from no clinical benefit - and the cost for running such studies are high - and not only because of the costs involved in the monitoring (too high would many say) but also because of high costs involved in the payment for cancer drugs (too high would many say). The selling of cancer drugs is in many (most) cases very dependent on said drugs being included in various types of studies.
Then one may ask if cancer studies are being carried out because of necessity for getting clinical data - or perhaps more as a necessary profit exercise - I think it is fair to say that they serve both purposes. However, on the bottom line they feed a lot of people - and sometimes it may be relevant to ask if the high cost-level of pharmaceutical industry activities is OK - and I am thinking among others on fully paid exotic congress activities - very liberal payments to doctors research accounts - dining wining - aggressive marketing costs etc etc.
It would be nice if people involved in the white and well accepted pharmaceutical industry all belonged to a specific and good race - and it would be easy and comfortable if people involved in alternative treatment all belonged to an inferior type of people.
Alternative treatment industry is probably as competitive as the so-called established pharmaceutical industry. The cost of producing medicine in the pharmaceutical industry is a few percent of the total turn over (not including copy-product companies - which on the other hand is not performing drug development and clinical studies except simple bio-availability studies) - and constitute about the same relative cost as the cost of "pure water and lactose" in alternative industry.
Alternative medicine cause few side-effects, and it is being increasingly appreciated how the effect of any treatment regimen is highly dependent on the placebo-component - which is to be about the same in established and in alternative medicine, respectively. And the fact that many treatment modalities from the alternative side from a superficial look is hard to believe into - like homeopathy - is not the same as being able to conclude that they are useless - in fact there exist strong evidence that for instance homeopathy exerts highly significant effects when evaluated in meta-analysis involving placebo-controlled double-blind regimens.
There is no good reason either to demonize the profit motive of alternative medicine.
QUOTE (bukh+Aug 8 2010, 06:18 PM)
There is no good reason either to demonize the profit motive of alternative medicine.
I see that there is strong solidarity among complete m0rons.
"Alternative medicine" is the same thing as "alternative science:" a bunch of idiots who don't want to learn how it's REALLY done, and instead choose to found a new industry on bullsh*t they just made up.
I see that there is strong solidarity among complete m0rons.
"Alternative medicine" is the same thing as "alternative science:" a bunch of idiots who don't want to learn how it's REALLY done, and instead choose to found a new industry on bullsh*t they just made up.
Maybe I know a different type of alternative medicine. In Africa we call theo non conventional medicine. These works. And mark you, it is us, the one practising 'white man's medicine' that call the traditional african medicine alternative. To them it is medicine pure and simple. Some smart lawyers have been trying to convince these medicine men to reveal their method so that they will help them get patents but most are unwilling or skeptical. In a country where population to doctor ratio is four thousand to one, the bulk of those seeking treatment goes the alternative way. Ironically, there clients call conventional medicine the alternative medicine after they have tried and failed in their way.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 9 2010, 01:07 AM)
I see that there is strong solidarity among complete m0rons.
"Alternative medicine" is the same thing as "alternative science:" a bunch of idiots who don't want to learn how it's REALLY done, and instead choose to found a new industry on bullsh*t they just made up.
Everything according to the eyes of the beholder.
Alternative science - well - you probably refer to among others some modern forms of looking at Universe - different from contemporary science.
If you browse around you will find many many examples of different ways of looking at Nature - and You are bit naive and narrow sighted or struck by a severe form of hubris if you believe that Your interpretation and insight and understanding deserves any kind of priority status.
There exist no such thing as objective truth - truth is a majority concept, and sometimes paradigm shifts takes place. To day for example it is commonly agreed that earth is round.
Solidarity wise - this would seem to be strong among the people usually referred to as Forum Mafia.
I respectfully put Your type into that category - and I trust that you agree in this, and likewise I have no complaints in being put into the category of "a bunch of idiots who don't want to learn how it's REALLY done" -
In the case that you eventually gain deeper insights - you will probably learn that "REALLY" is a fragile and difficult concept.
"Alternative medicine" is the same thing as "alternative science:" a bunch of idiots who don't want to learn how it's REALLY done, and instead choose to found a new industry on bullsh*t they just made up.
Everything according to the eyes of the beholder.
Alternative science - well - you probably refer to among others some modern forms of looking at Universe - different from contemporary science.
If you browse around you will find many many examples of different ways of looking at Nature - and You are bit naive and narrow sighted or struck by a severe form of hubris if you believe that Your interpretation and insight and understanding deserves any kind of priority status.
There exist no such thing as objective truth - truth is a majority concept, and sometimes paradigm shifts takes place. To day for example it is commonly agreed that earth is round.
Solidarity wise - this would seem to be strong among the people usually referred to as Forum Mafia.
I respectfully put Your type into that category - and I trust that you agree in this, and likewise I have no complaints in being put into the category of "a bunch of idiots who don't want to learn how it's REALLY done" -
In the case that you eventually gain deeper insights - you will probably learn that "REALLY" is a fragile and difficult concept.
QUOTE (bukh+Aug 9 2010, 06:39 AM)
There exist no such thing as objective truth - truth is a majority concept, and sometimes paradigm shifts takes place. To day for example it is commonly agreed that earth is round.
It would be interesting if you actually had a point, but your arguments do nothing but enable you to keep spewing more bullsh*t about how everyone needs to listen to bukh's point of view, as if it's worth anything at all.
It would be interesting if you actually had a point, but your arguments do nothing but enable you to keep spewing more bullsh*t about how everyone needs to listen to bukh's point of view, as if it's worth anything at all.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 9 2010, 11:20 AM)
It would be interesting if you actually had a point, but your arguments do nothing but enable you to keep spewing more bullsh*t about how everyone needs to listen to bukh's point of view, as if it's worth anything at all.
You are most welcome to jump over my posts - and do net feel obliged to comment on them.
You are most welcome to jump over my posts - and do net feel obliged to comment on them.
QUOTE (bukh+Aug 9 2010, 07:24 AM)
You are most welcome to jump over my posts - and do net feel obliged to comment on them.
Someone needs to keep your self-delusions in check.
Someone needs to keep your self-delusions in check.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 9 2010, 11:28 AM)
Someone needs to keep your self-delusions in check.
You are welcome - but most likely Your efforts will be in vain - because such a task require a kind of mutual respect. Shall we finish this little exchange of words ?
You are welcome - but most likely Your efforts will be in vain - because such a task require a kind of mutual respect. Shall we finish this little exchange of words ?
It isn't wise to get into a cross fire but from my track record this is second nature. This is for you Bukh, did you provoke FBM at any time in the past? Honestly. I see nothing in your post that warrant such an attack. I haven't read most of your post to know your track history to come into your defence. FBM has a good track record, I do value his opinions. I can only imagine you might not have conducted yourself well in the past. Am i wrong there? Otherwise i wish this will end.
QUOTE (boit+Aug 9 2010, 02:11 PM)
It isn't wise to get into a cross fire but from my track record this is second nature. This is for you Bukh, did you provoke FBM at any time in the past? Honestly. I see nothing in your post that warrant such an attack. I haven't read most of your post to know your track history to come into your defence. FBM has a good track record, I do value his opinions. I can only imagine you might not have conducted yourself well in the past. Am i wrong there? Otherwise i wish this will end.
He didn't provoke, per-se, but his posts seem to have a single common thread through them all. Bukh doesn't believe that anything can be objectively true. He seems to think that anyone can invoke the word "alternative" and get away with saying anything they want about any subject. If I say that stabbing you with needles is my method of "alternative" medicine, then Bukh says "go for it." (Bukh, correct me if I'm wrong)
As this is a science forum, philosophical masturbation is not needed or asked for.
He didn't provoke, per-se, but his posts seem to have a single common thread through them all. Bukh doesn't believe that anything can be objectively true. He seems to think that anyone can invoke the word "alternative" and get away with saying anything they want about any subject. If I say that stabbing you with needles is my method of "alternative" medicine, then Bukh says "go for it." (Bukh, correct me if I'm wrong)
As this is a science forum, philosophical masturbation is not needed or asked for.
Yeah, I've just checked his feedback score, it's terrible. His warn level also is quite alarming. I see.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 9 2010, 06:41 PM)
He didn't provoke, per-se, but his posts seem to have a single common thread through them all. Bukh doesn't believe that anything can be objectively true. He seems to think that anyone can invoke the word "alternative" and get away with saying anything they want about any subject. If I say that stabbing you with needles is my method of "alternative" medicine, then Bukh says "go for it." (Bukh, correct me if I'm wrong)
As this is a science forum, philosophical masturbation is not needed or asked for.
Boit
Thank you for arbitrating in this little event - which gives a good opportunity to explain a bit more detailed
FBM
Thank you for being honest and confirming that I am not provoking per Se - and I have never intended to be provocative - that said it is obvious that we see the world from different perspectives, and this have in several instants given rise to - how to put it - slightly flamed discussions.
A Forum is a social body, and I think it is fair to say that any discussion Forum tends to make groupings, and in this Forum I think it is a correct observation to say that there is a well established group referred to as the Mafia - and I respectfully group You as a Mafiosi - not meant offensive by any mean.
The Mafia is very keen to preserve contemporary physics and our moderator IMO, is a keen supporter of this view. This tends to give the Mafia a bit more free room and and they tend to be a bit more liberal in their way of expressing their non-agreements. And they can feel on safe ground - because there is no tradition in this Forum for giving yellow or red cards for aggressive insulting and harassment - I like to think on the contrary. Once you have accommodated with the smell in the bakery it is OK - as long as you are not being banned for non-useful thinking. The latter is a real problem IMO, because there exist no objective and well defined rules for banning - so the moderator has achieved a divine ban-status.
Now You say that there is no room for philosophical masturbation as this is a science Forum - and on this I respectfully strongly disagree. Science related to the understanding of Physical Universe gives rise to many philosophical questions - one cannot imagine QM without philosophical discussions related to the observer role, and even more so with the paradigm shift - which in my eyes is obvious - towards more and more involvement of the anthropic principle - in modern physics.
FBM - If You take the time and patiently go through my posting you will hopefully be able to see a consistent thread relating to my idea of Universe as being an Informational Body, where information is being expressed via reconfigurations in space of elementary bodies (pixels metaphorically) so that a pixel is an information unit - having taken the physical disguise of "body", however without smallest to be into existence (ontologically) because pixels are being arranged scale-wise, in repetitive patterns forming or expressing particles in next scale, infinitely diluting into smaller. Elementary particle - or pixel -or object of sameness - are synonyms and my idea is that human is an information-complexion or q-bit (repetitive pattern with a stability of appr 100 yrs) made up of exactly the same stuff as Universe - and our REALITY is about how "human information q-bit" interferes with surrounding information-stuff (how information observes information) so as to copy-paste and establish a time-line - which constitutes the human mind-line from birth to death. The concept of "particle" relates to the observational act, and spacetime is fundamentally continuous. Perceiving involve "interaction interference" between like-sized "particles" - but any particle is a repetitive pattern of smaller particles and so on infinitely. Our physical world is a well defined perceived scale in this arrangement of spacetime, and the perceived scale is the one that corresponds to human physical senses which is in the scale of electron / photon.
I admit that the idea relates very little to mainstream - and it is not falsifiable (as many modern physical ideas including string theory) - and therefore by many seen as provocative - however there is no elements in the idea that IMO is in contradiction with contemporary physics and one get rid of any false hopes of being able to define initial conditions because the schism about infinitely small is non-relevant. Spacetime is continuous - Physical world is discrete - the translation from spacetime and into physical world is via the interface of human mind. Human mind de-code and transform spacetime into the "illusion" of real physical world, just like a television transforms EM (in a certain scale) into a living movie.
As this is a science forum, philosophical masturbation is not needed or asked for.
Boit
Thank you for arbitrating in this little event - which gives a good opportunity to explain a bit more detailed
FBM
Thank you for being honest and confirming that I am not provoking per Se - and I have never intended to be provocative - that said it is obvious that we see the world from different perspectives, and this have in several instants given rise to - how to put it - slightly flamed discussions.
A Forum is a social body, and I think it is fair to say that any discussion Forum tends to make groupings, and in this Forum I think it is a correct observation to say that there is a well established group referred to as the Mafia - and I respectfully group You as a Mafiosi - not meant offensive by any mean.
The Mafia is very keen to preserve contemporary physics and our moderator IMO, is a keen supporter of this view. This tends to give the Mafia a bit more free room and and they tend to be a bit more liberal in their way of expressing their non-agreements. And they can feel on safe ground - because there is no tradition in this Forum for giving yellow or red cards for aggressive insulting and harassment - I like to think on the contrary. Once you have accommodated with the smell in the bakery it is OK - as long as you are not being banned for non-useful thinking. The latter is a real problem IMO, because there exist no objective and well defined rules for banning - so the moderator has achieved a divine ban-status.
Now You say that there is no room for philosophical masturbation as this is a science Forum - and on this I respectfully strongly disagree. Science related to the understanding of Physical Universe gives rise to many philosophical questions - one cannot imagine QM without philosophical discussions related to the observer role, and even more so with the paradigm shift - which in my eyes is obvious - towards more and more involvement of the anthropic principle - in modern physics.
FBM - If You take the time and patiently go through my posting you will hopefully be able to see a consistent thread relating to my idea of Universe as being an Informational Body, where information is being expressed via reconfigurations in space of elementary bodies (pixels metaphorically) so that a pixel is an information unit - having taken the physical disguise of "body", however without smallest to be into existence (ontologically) because pixels are being arranged scale-wise, in repetitive patterns forming or expressing particles in next scale, infinitely diluting into smaller. Elementary particle - or pixel -or object of sameness - are synonyms and my idea is that human is an information-complexion or q-bit (repetitive pattern with a stability of appr 100 yrs) made up of exactly the same stuff as Universe - and our REALITY is about how "human information q-bit" interferes with surrounding information-stuff (how information observes information) so as to copy-paste and establish a time-line - which constitutes the human mind-line from birth to death. The concept of "particle" relates to the observational act, and spacetime is fundamentally continuous. Perceiving involve "interaction interference" between like-sized "particles" - but any particle is a repetitive pattern of smaller particles and so on infinitely. Our physical world is a well defined perceived scale in this arrangement of spacetime, and the perceived scale is the one that corresponds to human physical senses which is in the scale of electron / photon.
I admit that the idea relates very little to mainstream - and it is not falsifiable (as many modern physical ideas including string theory) - and therefore by many seen as provocative - however there is no elements in the idea that IMO is in contradiction with contemporary physics and one get rid of any false hopes of being able to define initial conditions because the schism about infinitely small is non-relevant. Spacetime is continuous - Physical world is discrete - the translation from spacetime and into physical world is via the interface of human mind. Human mind de-code and transform spacetime into the "illusion" of real physical world, just like a television transforms EM (in a certain scale) into a living movie.
QUOTE (bukh+Aug 9 2010, 05:09 PM)
A Forum is a social body, and I think it is fair to say that any discussion Forum tends to make groupings, and in this Forum I think it is a correct observation to say that there is a well established group referred to as the Mafia - and I respectfully group You as a Mafiosi - not meant offensive by any mean.
I do not actively associate myself with the "Forum Mafia." That's not to say that I approve or disapprove of their actions, but I don't look to them for guidance.
There are simple guidelines for those who do not wish to be banned:
Don't break the forum TOS
Contribute to discussion in a meaningful way
Back up your assertions with some form of evidence
There isn't much value to saying "I don't like contemporary physics, so I'm going to do things my own way." This is a science forum, if you disagree with contemporary science, you should back up your argument with evidence or leave.
There are simple guidelines for those who do not wish to be banned:
Don't break the forum TOS
Contribute to discussion in a meaningful way
Back up your assertions with some form of evidence
There isn't much value to saying "I don't like contemporary physics, so I'm going to do things my own way." This is a science forum, if you disagree with contemporary science, you should back up your argument with evidence or leave.
Now You say that there is no room for philosophical masturbation as this is a science Forum - and on this I respectfully strongly disagree. Science related to the understanding of Physical Universe gives rise to many philosophical questions - one cannot imagine QM without philosophical discussions related to the observer role, and even more so with the paradigm shift - which in my eyes is obvious - towards more and more involvement of the anthropic principle - in modern physics.
Your philosophical "questions" are founded in a misunderstanding of scientific terms. You read "observer" and you try to find the philosophical implications instead of interpreting it literally, which is the intended interpretation.
I am well-aware of your attempt to define the universe in terms of pixels, but you have failed to make any predictions, testable or no. String theory (which you compare your theory to) makes predictions, but testing them is infeasible with current technology. String theory is also based on a strong mathematic foundation, which any theory with the same scope MUST also have.
I am well-aware of your attempt to define the universe in terms of pixels, but you have failed to make any predictions, testable or no. String theory (which you compare your theory to) makes predictions, but testing them is infeasible with current technology. String theory is also based on a strong mathematic foundation, which any theory with the same scope MUST also have.
I admit that the idea relates very little to mainstream - and it is not falsifiable (as many modern physical ideas including string theory) - and therefore by many seen as provocative - however there is no elements in the idea that IMO is in contradiction with contemporary physics and one get rid of any false hopes of being able to define initial conditions because the schism about infinitely small is non-relevant. Spacetime is continuous - Physical world is discrete - the translation from spacetime and into physical world is via the interface of human mind. Human mind de-code and transform spacetime into the "illusion" of real physical world, just like a television transforms EM (in a certain scale) into a living movie.
Your arguments about the nature of truth seem to rely on your assumption that the human mind is an unreliable source. In fact, the human mind has evolved to approximate "truth" as closely as possible through observation. Scientific instruments are extensions of the senses that allow us to make concrete, universal observations. The human perception of reality is not an "illusion." When I touch a rock, I am touching atoms of silicon, oxygen and iron. There is no abstraction layer that prevents me from observing what is "really" there.
I do not actively associate myself with the "Forum Mafia." That's not to say that I approve or disapprove of their actions, but I don't look to them for guidance.
QUOTE
The Mafia is very keen to preserve contemporary physics and our moderator IMO, is a keen supporter of this view. This tends to give the Mafia a bit more free room and and they tend to be a bit more liberal in their way of expressing their non-agreements. And they can feel on safe ground - because there is no tradition in this Forum for giving yellow or red cards for aggressive insulting and harassment - I like to think on the contrary. Once you have accommodated with the smell in the bakery it is OK - as long as you are not being banned for non-useful thinking. The latter is a real problem IMO, because there exist no objective and well defined rules for banning - so the moderator has achieved a divine ban-status.
There are simple guidelines for those who do not wish to be banned:
Don't break the forum TOS
Contribute to discussion in a meaningful way
Back up your assertions with some form of evidence
There isn't much value to saying "I don't like contemporary physics, so I'm going to do things my own way." This is a science forum, if you disagree with contemporary science, you should back up your argument with evidence or leave.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Mafia is very keen to preserve contemporary physics and our moderator IMO, is a keen supporter of this view. This tends to give the Mafia a bit more free room and and they tend to be a bit more liberal in their way of expressing their non-agreements. And they can feel on safe ground - because there is no tradition in this Forum for giving yellow or red cards for aggressive insulting and harassment - I like to think on the contrary. Once you have accommodated with the smell in the bakery it is OK - as long as you are not being banned for non-useful thinking. The latter is a real problem IMO, because there exist no objective and well defined rules for banning - so the moderator has achieved a divine ban-status. |
There are simple guidelines for those who do not wish to be banned:
Don't break the forum TOS
Contribute to discussion in a meaningful way
Back up your assertions with some form of evidence
There isn't much value to saying "I don't like contemporary physics, so I'm going to do things my own way." This is a science forum, if you disagree with contemporary science, you should back up your argument with evidence or leave.
Now You say that there is no room for philosophical masturbation as this is a science Forum - and on this I respectfully strongly disagree. Science related to the understanding of Physical Universe gives rise to many philosophical questions - one cannot imagine QM without philosophical discussions related to the observer role, and even more so with the paradigm shift - which in my eyes is obvious - towards more and more involvement of the anthropic principle - in modern physics.
Your philosophical "questions" are founded in a misunderstanding of scientific terms. You read "observer" and you try to find the philosophical implications instead of interpreting it literally, which is the intended interpretation.
QUOTE
FBM - If You take the time and patiently go through my posting you will hopefully be able to see a consistent thread relating to my idea of Universe as being an Informational Body, where information is being expressed via reconfigurations in space of elementary bodies (pixels metaphorically) so that a pixel is an information unit - having taken the physical disguise of "body", however without smallest to be into existence (ontologically) because pixels are being arranged scale-wise, in repetitive patterns forming or expressing particles in next scale, infinitely diluting into smaller. Elementary particle - or pixel -or object of sameness - are synonyms and my idea is that human is an information-complexion or q-bit (repetitive pattern with a stability of appr 100 yrs) made up of exactly the same stuff as Universe - and our REALITY is about how "human information q-bit" interferes with surrounding information-stuff (how information observes information) so as to copy-paste and establish a time-line - which constitutes the human mind-line from birth to death. The concept of "particle" relates to the observational act, and spacetime is fundamentally continuous. Perceiving involve "interaction interference" between like-sized "particles" - but any particle is a repetitive pattern of smaller particles and so on infinitely. Our physical world is a well defined perceived scale in this arrangement of spacetime, and the perceived scale is the one that corresponds to human physical senses which is in the scale of electron / photon.
I am well-aware of your attempt to define the universe in terms of pixels, but you have failed to make any predictions, testable or no. String theory (which you compare your theory to) makes predictions, but testing them is infeasible with current technology. String theory is also based on a strong mathematic foundation, which any theory with the same scope MUST also have.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| FBM - If You take the time and patiently go through my posting you will hopefully be able to see a consistent thread relating to my idea of Universe as being an Informational Body, where information is being expressed via reconfigurations in space of elementary bodies (pixels metaphorically) so that a pixel is an information unit - having taken the physical disguise of "body", however without smallest to be into existence (ontologically) because pixels are being arranged scale-wise, in repetitive patterns forming or expressing particles in next scale, infinitely diluting into smaller. Elementary particle - or pixel -or object of sameness - are synonyms and my idea is that human is an information-complexion or q-bit (repetitive pattern with a stability of appr 100 yrs) made up of exactly the same stuff as Universe - and our REALITY is about how "human information q-bit" interferes with surrounding information-stuff (how information observes information) so as to copy-paste and establish a time-line - which constitutes the human mind-line from birth to death. The concept of "particle" relates to the observational act, and spacetime is fundamentally continuous. Perceiving involve "interaction interference" between like-sized "particles" - but any particle is a repetitive pattern of smaller particles and so on infinitely. Our physical world is a well defined perceived scale in this arrangement of spacetime, and the perceived scale is the one that corresponds to human physical senses which is in the scale of electron / photon. |
I am well-aware of your attempt to define the universe in terms of pixels, but you have failed to make any predictions, testable or no. String theory (which you compare your theory to) makes predictions, but testing them is infeasible with current technology. String theory is also based on a strong mathematic foundation, which any theory with the same scope MUST also have.
I admit that the idea relates very little to mainstream - and it is not falsifiable (as many modern physical ideas including string theory) - and therefore by many seen as provocative - however there is no elements in the idea that IMO is in contradiction with contemporary physics and one get rid of any false hopes of being able to define initial conditions because the schism about infinitely small is non-relevant. Spacetime is continuous - Physical world is discrete - the translation from spacetime and into physical world is via the interface of human mind. Human mind de-code and transform spacetime into the "illusion" of real physical world, just like a television transforms EM (in a certain scale) into a living movie.
Your arguments about the nature of truth seem to rely on your assumption that the human mind is an unreliable source. In fact, the human mind has evolved to approximate "truth" as closely as possible through observation. Scientific instruments are extensions of the senses that allow us to make concrete, universal observations. The human perception of reality is not an "illusion." When I touch a rock, I am touching atoms of silicon, oxygen and iron. There is no abstraction layer that prevents me from observing what is "really" there.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 9 2010, 09:33 PM)
I do not actively associate myself with the "Forum Mafia." That's not to say that I approve or disapprove of their actions, but I don't look to them for guidance.
There are simple guidelines for those who do not wish to be banned:
Don't break the forum TOS
Contribute to discussion in a meaningful way
Back up your assertions with some form of evidence
There isn't much value to saying "I don't like contemporary physics, so I'm going to do things my own way." This is a science forum, if you disagree with contemporary science, you should back up your argument with evidence or leave.
Your philosophical "questions" are founded in a misunderstanding of scientific terms. You read "observer" and you try to find the philosophical implications instead of interpreting it literally, which is the intended interpretation.
I am well-aware of your attempt to define the universe in terms of pixels, but you have failed to make any predictions, testable or no. String theory (which you compare your theory to) makes predictions, but testing them is infeasible with current technology. String theory is also based on a strong mathematic foundation, which any theory with the same scope MUST also have.
Your arguments about the nature of truth seem to rely on your assumption that the human mind is an unreliable source. In fact, the human mind has evolved to approximate "truth" as closely as possible through observation. Scientific instruments are extensions of the senses that allow us to make concrete, universal observations. The human perception of reality is not an "illusion." When I touch a rock, I am touching atoms of silicon, oxygen and iron. There is no abstraction layer that prevents me from observing what is "really" there.
Well - IMO that is Your illusion
Perhaps this discussion is not well placed in "cancer cured ?"
There are simple guidelines for those who do not wish to be banned:
Don't break the forum TOS
Contribute to discussion in a meaningful way
Back up your assertions with some form of evidence
There isn't much value to saying "I don't like contemporary physics, so I'm going to do things my own way." This is a science forum, if you disagree with contemporary science, you should back up your argument with evidence or leave.
Your philosophical "questions" are founded in a misunderstanding of scientific terms. You read "observer" and you try to find the philosophical implications instead of interpreting it literally, which is the intended interpretation.
I am well-aware of your attempt to define the universe in terms of pixels, but you have failed to make any predictions, testable or no. String theory (which you compare your theory to) makes predictions, but testing them is infeasible with current technology. String theory is also based on a strong mathematic foundation, which any theory with the same scope MUST also have.
Your arguments about the nature of truth seem to rely on your assumption that the human mind is an unreliable source. In fact, the human mind has evolved to approximate "truth" as closely as possible through observation. Scientific instruments are extensions of the senses that allow us to make concrete, universal observations. The human perception of reality is not an "illusion." When I touch a rock, I am touching atoms of silicon, oxygen and iron. There is no abstraction layer that prevents me from observing what is "really" there.
QUOTE
When I touch a rock, I am touching atoms of silicon, oxygen and iron. There is no abstraction layer that prevents me from observing what is "really" there.
Well - IMO that is Your illusion
Perhaps this discussion is not well placed in "cancer cured ?"
QUOTE (bukh+Aug 9 2010, 09:09 PM)
Boit
Thank you for arbitrating in this little event - which gives a good opportunity to explain a bit more detailed
FBM
Thank you for being honest and confirming that I am not provoking per Se - and I have never intended to be provocative - that said it is obvious that we see the world from different perspectives, and this have in several instants given rise to - how to put it - slightly flamed discussions.
A Forum is a social body, and I think it is fair to say that any discussion Forum tends to make groupings, and in this Forum I think it is a correct observation to say that there is a well established group referred to as the Mafia - and I respectfully group You as a Mafiosi - not meant offensive by any mean.
The Mafia is very keen to preserve contemporary physics and our moderator IMO, is a keen supporter of this view. This tends to give the Mafia a bit more free room and and they tend to be a bit more liberal in their way of expressing their non-agreements. And they can feel on safe ground - because there is no tradition in this Forum for giving yellow or red cards for aggressive insulting and harassment - I like to think on the contrary. Once you have accommodated with the smell in the bakery it is OK - as long as you are not being banned for non-useful thinking. The latter is a real problem IMO, because there exist no objective and well defined rules for banning - so the moderator has achieved a divine ban-status.
Now You say that there is no room for philosophical masturbation as this is a science Forum - and on this I respectfully strongly disagree. Science related to the understanding of Physical Universe gives rise to many philosophical questions - one cannot imagine QM without philosophical discussions related to the observer role, and even more so with the paradigm shift - which in my eyes is obvious - towards more and more involvement of the anthropic principle - in modern physics.
FBM - If You take the time and patiently go through my posting you will hopefully be able to see a consistent thread relating to my idea of Universe as being an Informational Body, where information is being expressed via reconfigurations in space of elementary bodies (pixels metaphorically) so that a pixel is an information unit - having taken the physical disguise of "body", however without smallest to be into existence (ontologically) because pixels are being arranged scale-wise, in repetitive patterns forming or expressing particles in next scale, infinitely diluting into smaller. Elementary particle - or pixel -or object of sameness - are synonyms and my idea is that human is an information-complexion or q-bit (repetitive pattern with a stability of appr 100 yrs) made up of exactly the same stuff as Universe - and our REALITY is about how "human information q-bit" interferes with surrounding information-stuff (how information observes information) so as to copy-paste and establish a time-line - which constitutes the human mind-line from birth to death. The concept of "particle" relates to the observational act, and spacetime is fundamentally continuous. Perceiving involve "interaction interference" between like-sized "particles" - but any particle is a repetitive pattern of smaller particles and so on infinitely. Our physical world is a well defined perceived scale in this arrangement of spacetime, and the perceived scale is the one that corresponds to human physical senses which is in the scale of electron / photon.
I admit that the idea relates very little to mainstream - and it is not falsifiable (as many modern physical ideas including string theory) - and therefore by many seen as provocative - however there is no elements in the idea that IMO is in contradiction with contemporary physics and one get rid of any false hopes of being able to define initial conditions because the schism about infinitely small is non-relevant. Spacetime is continuous - Physical world is discrete - the translation from spacetime and into physical world is via the interface of human mind. Human mind de-code and transform spacetime into the "illusion" of real physical world, just like a television transforms EM (in a certain scale) into a living movie.
You should be banned for spewing verbose reams of nonsense. The fact that you're allowed to 'tie up' so much bandwidth proofs the moderator and the forum mafia are pretty lenient and exhibit a large capacity for allowing tomfoolery.
Thank you for arbitrating in this little event - which gives a good opportunity to explain a bit more detailed
FBM
Thank you for being honest and confirming that I am not provoking per Se - and I have never intended to be provocative - that said it is obvious that we see the world from different perspectives, and this have in several instants given rise to - how to put it - slightly flamed discussions.
A Forum is a social body, and I think it is fair to say that any discussion Forum tends to make groupings, and in this Forum I think it is a correct observation to say that there is a well established group referred to as the Mafia - and I respectfully group You as a Mafiosi - not meant offensive by any mean.
The Mafia is very keen to preserve contemporary physics and our moderator IMO, is a keen supporter of this view. This tends to give the Mafia a bit more free room and and they tend to be a bit more liberal in their way of expressing their non-agreements. And they can feel on safe ground - because there is no tradition in this Forum for giving yellow or red cards for aggressive insulting and harassment - I like to think on the contrary. Once you have accommodated with the smell in the bakery it is OK - as long as you are not being banned for non-useful thinking. The latter is a real problem IMO, because there exist no objective and well defined rules for banning - so the moderator has achieved a divine ban-status.
Now You say that there is no room for philosophical masturbation as this is a science Forum - and on this I respectfully strongly disagree. Science related to the understanding of Physical Universe gives rise to many philosophical questions - one cannot imagine QM without philosophical discussions related to the observer role, and even more so with the paradigm shift - which in my eyes is obvious - towards more and more involvement of the anthropic principle - in modern physics.
FBM - If You take the time and patiently go through my posting you will hopefully be able to see a consistent thread relating to my idea of Universe as being an Informational Body, where information is being expressed via reconfigurations in space of elementary bodies (pixels metaphorically) so that a pixel is an information unit - having taken the physical disguise of "body", however without smallest to be into existence (ontologically) because pixels are being arranged scale-wise, in repetitive patterns forming or expressing particles in next scale, infinitely diluting into smaller. Elementary particle - or pixel -or object of sameness - are synonyms and my idea is that human is an information-complexion or q-bit (repetitive pattern with a stability of appr 100 yrs) made up of exactly the same stuff as Universe - and our REALITY is about how "human information q-bit" interferes with surrounding information-stuff (how information observes information) so as to copy-paste and establish a time-line - which constitutes the human mind-line from birth to death. The concept of "particle" relates to the observational act, and spacetime is fundamentally continuous. Perceiving involve "interaction interference" between like-sized "particles" - but any particle is a repetitive pattern of smaller particles and so on infinitely. Our physical world is a well defined perceived scale in this arrangement of spacetime, and the perceived scale is the one that corresponds to human physical senses which is in the scale of electron / photon.
I admit that the idea relates very little to mainstream - and it is not falsifiable (as many modern physical ideas including string theory) - and therefore by many seen as provocative - however there is no elements in the idea that IMO is in contradiction with contemporary physics and one get rid of any false hopes of being able to define initial conditions because the schism about infinitely small is non-relevant. Spacetime is continuous - Physical world is discrete - the translation from spacetime and into physical world is via the interface of human mind. Human mind de-code and transform spacetime into the "illusion" of real physical world, just like a television transforms EM (in a certain scale) into a living movie.
You should be banned for spewing verbose reams of nonsense. The fact that you're allowed to 'tie up' so much bandwidth proofs the moderator and the forum mafia are pretty lenient and exhibit a large capacity for allowing tomfoolery.
Is this topic about a battle between members or against cancer? I just wanted to add this. I hope I’m in the right place. You never know in here... 
(Reuters) – “Treating tumors with salmonella bacteria can induce an immune response that kills cancer cells, scientists have found -- a discovery that may help them create tumor-killing immune cells to inject into patients.”
Scientists use salmonella bug to kill cancer cells
(Reuters) – “Treating tumors with salmonella bacteria can induce an immune response that kills cancer cells, scientists have found -- a discovery that may help them create tumor-killing immune cells to inject into patients.”
Scientists use salmonella bug to kill cancer cells
Some very interesting news about a possible cancer cure.
The Sun Newspaper
As some of the bloggers there have said, "all fine but will we be able to afford it?"
The Sun Newspaper
As some of the bloggers there have said, "all fine but will we be able to afford it?"
if the technology is useful.I think many people can benefit from it.
Not a cure, but another small advance....
For Melanoma
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110325/ap_on_...lanoma_drug_fda
Arthur
For Melanoma
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110325/ap_on_...lanoma_drug_fda
Arthur
Virus kills cancer in seven days.
Unfortunately the same claims were made six years ago.
Unfortunately the same claims were made six years ago.
Future studies will investigate the precise mechanisms through which AAV2 causes cancer cell death, and how the virus might be enhanced to more aggressively target and kill cancers.
http://www.physorg.com/news4678.html
Hopefully the next six years will yield an effective treatment from this promising find.
QUOTE
"We can see the virus is killing the cancer cells, but how is it doing it?" Alam said. "If we can determine which viral genes are being used, we may be able to introduce those genes into a therapeutic. If we can determine which pathways the virus is triggering, we can then screen new drugs that target those pathways. Or we may simply be able to use the virus itself."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/...10922114239.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/...10922114239.htm
Unfortunately the same claims were made six years ago.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "We can see the virus is killing the cancer cells, but how is it doing it?" Alam said. "If we can determine which viral genes are being used, we may be able to introduce those genes into a therapeutic. If we can determine which pathways the virus is triggering, we can then screen new drugs that target those pathways. Or we may simply be able to use the virus itself." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/...10922114239.htm |
Unfortunately the same claims were made six years ago.
Future studies will investigate the precise mechanisms through which AAV2 causes cancer cell death, and how the virus might be enhanced to more aggressively target and kill cancers.
http://www.physorg.com/news4678.html
Hopefully the next six years will yield an effective treatment from this promising find.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.