EVE Search - Cure for cancer?

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Cure for cancer?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Til McAlt	Posted - 2007.02.05 15:31:00 - [1] Edited by: Til McAlt on 05/02/2007 15:33:46 Edited by: Til McAlt on 05/02/2007 15:27:59 Quote: It sounds almost too good to be true: a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers by switching off their ôimmortalityö. The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe. new scientist link It seems that they found out about this in October, the story broke in January in the science press but the mainstream press have completely ignored it. The reason for this is that there is no patent on it so no one is going to get rich off it, so it is not being "pushed" in the news as much as it should, or would have been, if it was a major pharmaceutical company rather than a university in Canada. I urge people to send this link to everyone they know, post it as much as you can on other forums you visit, write to papers, e-mail DJ and do anything else you can think of to spread the word about this. Dr Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada - The man who may very well have found the cure to cancer. You read it here first. I realise that this will come off as an alt spam post but I assure you it isn't. I just have no wish to bring the flambes that come along with my alliance ticker into a thread as serious as this. edit: This post wasn't copied from an e-mail btw - I wrote it me self.
ParMizaN Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.02.05 15:36:00 - [2] Interesting but forgive the pessimist in me when i say that this DOES seem too good to be true.
Cipher7 Acme Technologies Incorporated Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.02.05 15:43:00 - [3] Yep seems too good to be true. But yeah I hope they pursue it.
Xelios Minmatar Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.02.05 16:40:00 - [4] I live in Alberta, there's been lots of medical breakthroughs here and in BC over the last few years that barely got mention internationally. The UofA especially is doing a lot of medical research with cancer. Here's a press release from the university itself. But like the OP said the problem is it's not patented. Meanwhile all the drugs used today to fight cancer ARE patented, and they're very expensive because of it. Pharmaceutical companies don't want to find cures, they want treatments, because treatments mean the person has to keep buying the drugs. And if you don't have financial support from pharmaceuticals it's very hard to go through all the testing and clinical trials required by the FDA, cause those are damn expensive too.
Brisi Veto.	Posted - 2007.02.05 17:05:00 - [5] Originally by: Xelios I live in Alberta, there's been lots of medical breakthroughs here and in BC over the last few years that barely got mention internationally. The UofA especially is doing a lot of medical research with cancer. Here's a press release from the university itself. But like the OP said the problem is it's not patented. Meanwhile all the drugs used today to fight cancer ARE patented, and they're very expensive because of it. Pharmaceutical companies don't want to find cures, they want treatments, because treatments mean the person has to keep buying the drugs. And if you don't have financial support from pharmaceuticals it's very hard to go through all the testing and clinical trials required by the FDA, cause those are damn expensive too. It's time like these that I wish that there were more excentric billionaires in the world. Of course...it'd work if I was a billionaire too...everybody give me money and I will cure cancer myself! On a serious note, hopefully this actually works, and hopefully someone will produce it in large quantities, but knowing how the world works, I'm extremely doubtfull. Resistance is Fertile.
Kyato Nichi Minmatar Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.02.05 18:18:00 - [6] What's the betting that if money disappeared overnight, the vast majority of "incurable" diseases would be curable in a matter of months. sigh ____________________ AKA Sar The-Yarn.net Fury 101
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.02.05 18:22:00 - [7] I'm skeptical. Almost everything that is reported in New Scientist is pure BS these days, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is also BS. -[23] Member- EVE-Trance Radio! (DSTrance channel ingame)
Samirol OctoberSnow Corp	Posted - 2007.02.05 18:31:00 - [8] Death is a proven cure for cancer. I buy insane sigs, mail me ingame.
pshepherd Caldari Dark-Rising Fallen Souls	Posted - 2007.02.05 22:19:00 - [9] Originally by: Samirol Death is a proven cure for cancer.
Sereifex Daku	Posted - 2007.02.05 22:50:00 - [10] Originally by: Kyato Nichi What's the betting that if money disappeared overnight, the vast majority of "incurable" diseases would be curable in a matter of months. sigh Actually, if money were to disappear then we would have complete pandemonium, your garbageman would become supreme ruler and would randomly kill anyone possessing a superior array of brain cells.
Ravelin Eb Minmatar Infinitus Odium Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.05 23:06:00 - [11] Cancer is actually an artificially created virus, soon once everyone has it a vaccine will be released. everyone eill be in the pockets off the creators of this cancer and the vaccine, from the most powerful people to the lowest scumbag. you must take this sample of vaccine that has been stolen by international terrorists to tracer tong in hong kong, he may be able to create a cure.
aeti Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.02.06 02:15:00 - [12] Originally by: Ravelin Eb Cancer is actually an artificially created virus, soon once everyone has it a vaccine will be released. everyone eill be in the pockets off the creators of this cancer and the vaccine, from the most powerful people to the lowest scumbag. you must take this sample of vaccine that has been stolen by international terrorists to tracer tong in hong kong, he may be able to create a cure. beware of rogue computer AIs
Apocryphai Caldari	Posted - 2007.02.06 09:49:00 - [13] Edited by: Apocryphai on 06/02/2007 09:55:39 Edited by: Apocryphai on 06/02/2007 09:48:25 Edited by: Apocryphai on 06/02/2007 09:45:58 Hi, I'm a molecular and cellular biologist, and while I have no direct experience with cancer biology I do have a lot of experience with a lot of the techniques described in this research paper. I've read a copy of the paper in question ("A Mitochondria-K+ Channel Axis Is Suppressed in Cancer and Its Normalization Promotes Apoptosis and Inhibits Cancer Growth", Cancer Cell DOI 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.10.020), which you can find online http://tinyurl.com/35aq9j. Note that that link might only work from within academic institutions with a valid subscription to the journal - I'm at work now so I can't test it externally. It's a very good paper and clearly represents a lot of careful and diligent work by a lot of people - there are seven seperate collaborating groups listed on the paper so a large number of well-respected academics and experienced researchers have been involved in the work at all stages. Also, this is published in a reputable professional scientific/clinical journal which means that it's been peer-reviewed by several experts in the relevant fields. As such, dismissing it out of hand because "Almost everything that is reported in New Scientist is pure BS these days" strikes me as lazy and ignorant to be honest. One criticism I would levy at the publication is that the tumour-reducing properties of DCA in mice were investigated with quite a small n number - 21 mice, split into 3 groups of 7. This is standard for a preliminary study like this for many reasons, not least of which is the principal of limiting animal research as much as possible so the least number of animals feasible are used. Obviously this is the first step to follow on with in future research, as the authors themselves say, clinical trials are crucial now. Personally I'm fascinated and enthused by this piece of work and I'm going to be keeping an eye on it closely. Edit: That long URL seems to have b0rked, sorry about that. Edit2: OK, tried a tinyurl link - may or may not work! If it doesn't work or you cannot get to the research paper without a subscription let me know and I'll post a link to the University of Alberta website devoted to this research. Aha, OK, Edit3 :p Ignore that link up there, the Uni of Alberta has a page http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/ which is also linked from the NS article. There's a link to the research paper on that site. Originally by: Victor Valka What the skull-chick said.
Tarquin Tarquinius Gallente Escorts of Eve	Posted - 2007.02.06 10:10:00 - [14] Originally by: Samirol Death is a proven cure for cancer. And life is the proven cause. ----- Traditional morality is just a clever way for the weak masses to shackle the strong individual. -- Callicles
Thales Archon Gallente Black Avatar Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.02.06 10:11:00 - [15]
wierchas noobhunter The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.02.06 11:03:00 - [16] Originally by: pshepherd Originally by: Samirol Death is a proven cure for cancer. or chuck norris
Kazuma Saruwatari	Posted - 2007.02.06 13:22:00 - [17] "If it sounds too good to be true, it is"
Varalonia Minmatar Darklite inc	Posted - 2007.02.06 15:46:00 - [18] Originally by: Dark Shikari I'm skeptical. Almost everything that is reported in New Scientist is pure BS these days, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is also BS. As a scientist myself (Respiratory medicine and Pharmacology) comments such as this drive me insane. It's both ignorant and lazy, did you read the publication in question? And what sort of evidence do you base your conclusion that new scientist publishes BS? I'm quite interested to know. The publication by Bonnet et al. is a very promising study, with some great results. I'm not an expert on cancer at all, but I can appreciate the evidence that's been presented and the limitations in their chosen model. It most probably won't be the defining key to curing cancer - instead more of a significant stepping stone in the right direction. All very interesting stuff.
Ravelin Eb Minmatar Infinitus Odium Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.06 17:42:00 - [19] Originally by: aeti Originally by: Ravelin Eb Cancer is actually an artificially created virus, soon once everyone has it a vaccine will be released. everyone eill be in the pockets off the creators of this cancer and the vaccine, from the most powerful people to the lowest scumbag. you must take this sample of vaccine that has been stolen by international terrorists to tracer tong in hong kong, he may be able to create a cure. beware of rogue computer AIs Shall i merge with Helios?
Kurren The Legion. Requiem-Aeternam	Posted - 2007.02.06 19:37:00 - [20] Originally by: Apocryphai As such, dismissing it out of hand because "Almost everything that is reported in New Scientist is pure BS these days" strikes me as lazy and ignorant to be honest. After several studies and observations of the subject at hand, I can conclude that you have hit the nail on the head. The problem with the internet is that there is no actual censor for remarks like his... and mine. Anywho... cure cancer! I don't care who does it, but trust me when I say the entire world is rooting for you! Too bad I'm not attempting to be a scientist... or I'd spout some really big, technical words in a show of support and about the article. --- --- --- --- My Sig Is Not Too Big...
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.02.06 19:50:00 - [21] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 06/02/2007 19:47:44 Originally by: Kurren Originally by: Apocryphai As such, dismissing it out of hand because "Almost everything that is reported in New Scientist is pure BS these days" strikes me as lazy and ignorant to be honest. After several studies and observations of the subject at hand, I can conclude that you have hit the nail on the head. The problem with the internet is that there is no actual censor for remarks like his... and mine. No, its just that I constantly read BS flowing out of New Scientist all the time. Sure, they do report on valid issues, but its almost impossible to tell the difference. New Scientist is the Weekly World News of popular science publications, in my opinion. I have seen them report on outright pseudoscience as if it was the real deal without any disclaimer. I never dismissed it; I said I was skeptical. Apocryphai, please stop putting words in my mouth. -[23] Member- EVE-Trance Radio! (DSTrance channel ingame)
Marcus TheMartin Gallente Tuxedo.	Posted - 2007.02.06 19:54:00 - [22] Originally by: Dark Shikari Edited by: Dark Shikari on 06/02/2007 19:47:44 Originally by: Kurren Originally by: Apocryphai As such, dismissing it out of hand because "Almost everything that is reported in New Scientist is pure BS these days" strikes me as lazy and ignorant to be honest. After several studies and observations of the subject at hand, I can conclude that you have hit the nail on the head. The problem with the internet is that there is no actual censor for remarks like his... and mine. No, its just that I constantly read BS flowing out of New Scientist all the time. Sure, they do report on valid issues, but its almost impossible to tell the difference. New Scientist is the Weekly World News of popular science publications, in my opinion. I have seen them report on outright pseudoscience as if it was the real deal without any disclaimer. I never dismissed it; I said I was skeptical. Apocryphai, please stop putting words in my mouth. Would you allow me to offer you a word taco? --({O})-- You've all been goatse'd! Half Assed Rhymage Always IBTL and IBDS!
Y'HELO THAR True Salvation	Posted - 2007.02.06 22:06:00 - [23] Whether it turns out to works or not, I'm glad there's people out there looking at the problem from new angles.
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.02.06 22:17:00 - [24] What really bothers me is that corporations hire all these scientists to make the next best cover-up makeup or some lipstick that doesn't smear, but they still cannot some "simple" cellular mutation. I say simple, because cancer at its most basic level is mutation, a natural mechanism that happens everyday; however, cancer mutations are not benefical, but taxing on the system. Imagine what would happen if the government recruited all the privately employed scientists and spent that 25 billion USD on a project to cure cancer/heart disease/etc. We lived in a f***ed up world.
Marcus TheMartin Gallente Tuxedo.	Posted - 2007.02.06 22:25:00 - [25] Originally by: Derovius Vaden What really bothers me is that corporations hire all these scientists to make the next best cover-up makeup or some lipstick that doesn't smear, but they still cannot some "simple" cellular mutation. I say simple, because cancer at its most basic level is mutation, a natural mechanism that happens everyday; however, cancer mutations are not benefical, but taxing on the system. Imagine what would happen if the government recruited all the privately employed scientists and spent that 25 billion USD on a project to cure cancer/heart disease/etc. We lived in a f*ed up world. Regardless of your explanation I find using the word simple on anything biological mind boggling --({O}**)-- You've all been goatse'd! Half Assed Rhymage Always IBTL and IBDS!
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.02.06 22:40:00 - [26] Originally by: Marcus TheMartin Originally by: Derovius Vaden What really bothers me is that corporations hire all these scientists to make the next best cover-up makeup or some lipstick that doesn't smear, but they still cannot some "simple" cellular mutation. I say simple, because cancer at its most basic level is mutation, a natural mechanism that happens everyday; however, cancer mutations are not benefical, but taxing on the system. Imagine what would happen if the government recruited all the privately employed scientists and spent that 25 billion USD on a project to cure cancer/heart disease/etc. We lived in a f***ed up world. Regardless of your explanation I find using the word simple on anything biological mind boggling You've never taken advanced physics courses, its kind of depressing how simple the actual make up of life is, its only the conditions at which it occurs that get complex. We are just specific combinations of organic compounds, on a macro scale.
smashsmash	Posted - 2007.02.06 22:50:00 - [27] the cure for cancer will probably cause people to die. not of cancer but just for knowing how to cure it. someone will get greedy and want to keep the cure a secret for warfare purposes while the scientists that discovered it will have the idea to share it. knowledge is freedom (supposedly) and all that. the discovering scientists being the only ones that know the cure will quickly be killed off to suppress the recipe. it'll be discovered that <insert country> was behind the killings and cause <group of other countries> to declare war on them to release the cure. after a bunch of people die and the cure is obtained and decoded a statement will be released announcing that the cure was actually some patent free drug that you could learn to make off the internet.
Admai Sket	Posted - 2007.02.07 02:34:00 - [28] In 2.5 years of hovering around these forums, I have yet to see Dark Shikari be wrong. So if he says New Scientist is full of crap, then New Scientist is full of crap. I got my sig snipped again. Can someone make me a new one?
Boonaki Caldari Suffoco Noctis Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.02.07 08:01:00 - [29] Originally by: Admai Sket In 2.5 years of hovering around these forums, I have yet to see Dark Shikari be wrong. So if he says New Scientist is full of crap, then New Scientist is full of crap. I've seen DS wrong before. I'd link some posts but I am lazy and I know someone else will do it. I have a friend that has Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma that has spread to his brain, He's 41, was in great health, didn't smoke, didn't drink. Has 2 kids in their early teens... I doubt he'll have the time to find out if this would help or not. Fear the Ibis of doom! 113
Masochistic Cannibal Amarr The Ring of Fire	Posted - 2007.02.07 13:18:00 - [30] Originally by: Boonaki Originally by: Admai Sket In 2.5 years of hovering around these forums, I have yet to see Dark Shikari be wrong. So if he says New Scientist is full of crap, then New Scientist is full of crap. I've seen DS wrong before. I'd link some posts but I am lazy and I know someone else will do it. I have a friend that has Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma that has spread to his brain, He's 41, was in great health, didn't smoke, didn't drink. Has 2 kids in their early teens... I doubt he'll have the time to find out if this would help or not. He put his trust in a business venture (IPO I think) and got scammed.. So he was wrong It's ok though, he Petitioned/Whined and got his isk back. I eat babies ! [Hauling services available~ Contact ingame]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.