• Login:

Welcome to the Community Forum.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    near di USA border a watch out fi Canadians :- D
    Posts
    17,749

    Re: Doctor helping cancer patients.

    Bee venom destroys cancer cells in tests on mice:

    Bee venom can be engineered to target tumours and could prove an effective future treatment for cancer, a study has found.

    During a trial, the poisonous chemical in a bee’s sting, melittin, was attached to tiny molecules or “nanoparticles” that then attack and destroy cancer cells, leaving healthy cells intact. The carrier particles, dubbed “nanobees”, were also effective in targeting pre-cancerous cells.

    Source

    Nanobees could eventually replace conventional therapy for certain types of cancer, according to scientists behind the study, which is published today in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. They said that the treatment would have fewer side-effects than chemotherapy.

    “The nanobees fly in, land on the surface of cells and deposit their poisonous cargo,” said Professor Samuel Wickline, a specialist in nanomedicine at Washington University in St Louis, who led the research.

    The treatment was tested on two groups of mice with cancerous tumours. One group had melanoma skin cancer, the other had been implanted with human breast-cancer cells. After four to five injections of the nanobees, the breast-cancer tumours were 25 per cent smaller, and the melanoma tumours were 88 per cent smaller, compared with untreated mice.

    The carrier particles used in the study have already been approved for clinical use in various other medical applications. The team plans to begin human trials with the nanobees next year.

    They predict that the treatment could be effective in treating a wide range of cancers and that it would have fewer side-effects than chemotherapy. They say the treatment could also be more effective than chemotherapy, because it is more targeted. With chemotherapy, patients are given the largest tolerable dose of medication, but because nanobees specifically attack tumours, doses could be much lower.

    Melittin works by attaching itself to the surface of cells and ripping holes in the membrane. “In high enough concentration it can destroy any cell it comes into contact with,” said Professor Paul Schlesinger, a cell biologist at Washington University and a co-author of the paper.

    Most cancer treatments target DNA, but cancer cells are frequently able to adapt and develop resistance to DNA damage. It is much harder for cells to defend against damage to the membrane, however, making melittin an attractive treatment.

    Despite the high toxicity of the bee venom, the mice suffered few side-effects and there appeared to be little damage to non-cancerous cells.

    Leaky blood vessels around tumours mean that nanoparticles build up there in high enough quantities to do damage. A chemical tag enhanced this effect by increasing nanobees’ affinity for cancerous cells compared with normal cells.

    “It’s like molecular Velcro,” Professor Wickline said. “The toxin doesn’t come off the bee until it finds its target.”

    If the melittin had been injected into the bloodstream in its normal form it would lead to widespread destruction of red blood cells. But following the nanobee injection, the blood count of mice was normal, and they showed no signs of organ damage.

    A concern with some nanomedicines is that nanoparticles are left circulating in the body after treatment. They are biologically inert, meaning they are do not get metabolised and cleared from circulation in the normal way.

    The spherical nanobees, which are about six millionths of an inch in diameter, are, however, quickly cleared from the system after treatment. They are made of perfluorocarbon, an inert non-toxic compound used in artificial blood. Once the melittin has been removed from the nanobee, it dissolves and is evaporated in the lungs.
    JA.com member #946 for LIFE!

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Toledo,Ohio
    Posts
    156

    Re: Doctor helping cancer patients.

    I think the nano particles of gold are what kills the cancer cells by suffocating them when they attach so they can't reproduce. It works the same way as silver nano particles -ie. "colloidal silver" does. Not sure why he feels he needs to heat the stuff up with radio waves. Plus silver is a better conductor and way cheaper than gold.
    Don't eat the yellow snow !

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    jus past the blinking light
    Posts
    4,330

    Re: Doctor helping cancer patients.

    Thanks for the article on the Kanzius machine, JKid.
    Yeah, but i didn't know what i didn't know.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Your action speaks so loud it drowns out your words
    Posts
    23,726

    Re: Doctor helping cancer patients.

    Gold is a better medium because in the environment silver will oxidize and reduce it's conductivity.

    gold will not, and as a result maintain optimum conductivity. .

    Cancer is not really a thing it is metabolic activity.
    what is called cancer cells are areally cells that have been affected by cancer.
    you can't cure cancer by eliminating the cells.
    since the metabolic activity that originated the effect on
    the cells will not be reversed, by the absence of cells it has affected.
    It Has the ability to simply act on new group of cells . what popular cancer treatment attempt to do is to try and keep ahead of the metabolic activity of cancer.
    that is to remove cells that has been damaged by cancer. they do not deal with the underlying cause that resulted in the metabolic activity that is behind cancer.

    cancer is a metabolic disease.

    it will be eradicated when those who profit from medicine decide to treat it as such.
    That is it becomes more profitable to do so.

    instead of something to cut out. or to drug, or irradiate to death. because thi sapproach is more profitable at present.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J RockTodd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the nanoparticles of gold are what kills the cancer cells by suffocating them when they attach so they can't reproduce. It works the same way as silver nanoparticles -in. &quot;colloidal silver&quot; does. Not sure why he feels he needs to heat the stuff up with radio waves. Plus silver is a better conductor and way cheaper than gold. </div></div>
    Join me as members of the church of LOVE,and let us change the world, one good deed at a time.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Your action speaks so loud it drowns out your words
    Posts
    23,726

    Re: Doctor helping cancer patients.

    ther is alot that can be done about changing the nature of a cell without actually killing it.
    Join me as members of the church of LOVE,and let us change the world, one good deed at a time.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Toledo,Ohio
    Posts
    156

    Re: Doctor helping cancer patients.

    Why should all these fancy places like Mayo or any of the others come up with the miracle cure other than it's the right thing to do? They want to make money so they need people to be sick. The ave amount of money made on one patient recieving chemo treatments over their lifespan is around $250,000. I think it was stated that it is only successful less than 20% of the time and sometimes is blamed for starting other cancers.

    It's like their mentality is &quot;well they have cancer, we may as well make a bunch of money on them before they die from it. If a few survive then we look like heros, giving people a chance &quot;. Think of all the great paying jobs that are lost if they &quot;come up with a cure&quot;. Also all the money the big pharmacy companies lose - Billions! for all the drug sales that would be gone with a cure. Colloidal gold/silver can knock out alot of things but since the medical communities&amp; mainly the Big Pharma, who are deep into the pockets of the FDA &amp; the doctors, they don't want the threat. They can't patent something natural so they look at it as serious competition to their livilhoods/profits. What's funny is before the 1930's &amp; antibiotics, silver at least, was used in medicine. Now it's being used only as topical things and mainly in burn wards-dressings.
    Don't eat the yellow snow !

  7. #17
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    near di USA border a watch out fi Canadians :- D
    Posts
    17,749

    Re: Doctor helping cancer patients.

    <span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-size: 14pt">Dese Medical Experts must hav bin smoking &quot;Crack&quot;!!!!</span></span>

    ################################################## ######

    Final word: Expert panel rejects routine PSA tests for men

    By Brian Alexander
    msnbc.com contributor
    updated 2 hours 9 minutes ago
    Print Font:
    A top panel of U.S. medical experts has issued a final decision on a long-debated men’s health controversy, concluding that no man of any age should routinely be screened for prostate cancer using the popular PSA test.
    The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force gave the prostate-specific antigen test a grade of D, saying that the risks of population-wide screening outweigh the benefits.
    “There is convincing evidence that the number of men who avoid dying of prostate cancer because of screening after 10 to 14 years is, at best, very small,” wrote the panel charged with evaluating prevention and evidence-based medicine.
    While the panel signaled its decision in a preliminary report last year, the ruling published Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine represents the final act in an emotionally charged debate that could affect millions of men. Medicare and private insurers, for example, could use the conclusion to justify ending reimbursements for the tests.

    Today, most men who receive regular medical care have PSA tests, typically starting at age 50, though sometimes younger. But the panel, citing large epidemiological studies from both Europe and the United States, said the benefits of PSA screening and early treatment amount to less than one prostate cancer death avoided for every 1,000 men screened.
    The test, which measures a protein in the blood, does not diagnose cancer. It looks for a tell-tale sign that cancer may be present. (The other commonly used technique, a DRE, or digital rectal exam, is used by doctors to feel for prostate abnormalities that have already become palpable.) A positive test usually kicks off a series of events such as a confirming biopsy, and then treatments including surgery, radiation, chemotherapy and hormone deprivation.
    Because the test often results in false positives, and because it can’t tell how aggressive or benign a cancer may be, doctors and patients are often in the dark about whether the tumor requires treatment. So, out of caution, most men with positive PSA tests are biopsied and, if cancer is found, treated.
    “Thus,” the task force stated, “many men are being subjected to the harms of treatment of prostate cancer that will never become symptomatic. PSA-based screening for prostate cancer results in considerable overtreatment and its associated harms.”

    Typical side effects of treatment include impotence, incontinence, even death.

    But Rick Lyke, a 51-year-old Charlotte, N.C., public relations executive, is furious about the decision. “They’re playing Russian roulette with men’s lives!” he said.
    Lyke was tested in 2007, though he didn’t want to be tested at all. At 47, he figured he was too young to be screened for prostate cancer.
    NBC's Robert Bazell on new PSA guidelines: What do they mean for average men?
    But a work colleague was then battling the disease and strongly urged a group of his male co-workers to do it.
    “I went in for my physical, and my doctor did the finger thing, and said ‘You’re fine,’” Lyke recalled.
    He’d promised his friend he’d get a PSA, though, so he insisted the doctor check the box on the lab test menu. The number came back extremely elevated, and a biopsy confirmed Lyke had prostate cancer. He opted for surgery and, after a short period of incontinence and impotence, made a full recovery. Meanwhile, his friend had died.
    “I could be dead, too,” he said. “I am living proof” the task force is wrong, he added.
    Retired University of Washington professor Jim Kiefert of Olympia, Wash., was equally upset by the ruling.
    “They do not give a damn about you,” he said of the task force. “They use population statistics to justify not giving PSA tests. They forget about people at the other end of the Bell curve.&quot;
    Kiefert, now 73, was at the far end of the curve after his first PSA test at 50 led to a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer. He’s waged a battle against the cancer ever since, including surgery, radiation, and hormone deprivation therapies.
    “So how do I feel about it?” he said. “I wish I could have gotten a PSA test at 40 or 45 and gotten that cancer before it escaped the gland.”

    The developer of the PSA test, Dr. William Catalona, director of the clinical prostate cancer program at Northwestern University’s Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, was also adamant that the task force had made a huge error. “PSA is really all there is out there for detecting prostate cancer early,” he argued in a rebuttal.
    Though the task force did not consider the costs of testing, diagnosis, and treatment in its deliberations, and is an independent body, advocates such as Lyke, Kiefert and Catalona accuse members of being motivated by a desire to slow rising health care expenditures.
    But Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, defended the panel’s decision in an accompanying editorial.
    “Many have a blind faith in early detection of cancer and subsequent aggressive medical intervention whenever cancer is found,” he wrote. “There is little appreciation of the harms that screening and medical interventions can cause.”
    Just about every man who undergoes treatment after a PSA test will say that the test saved his life, Brawley said, though, often, “he would have been just fine had the cancer never been detected and treated.”
    Brawley said in an interview that routine PSA testing is an example of our “irrational health care system.”
    Video: Warren Buffett diagnosed with prostate cancer
    He believes that agitation to continue testing is driven, at least in part, by financial incentives. Catalona, for example, holds patents on PSA testing technology and consults for industry. Lyke’s organization, Pints for Prostates, has received donations from Dendreon, maker of a prostate cancer drug. He was a patient of Catalona’s.
    New York University bioethicist and frequent msnbc.com contributor Arthur Caplan agrees that economic interests are present, but thinks the debate represents a genuine difference of opinion.
    “There just isn’t enough information to tip the scales absolutely in one direction,” he said. “While the recommendation is negative, there are still those doctors who believe a bad test is better than no test.”
    All sides agree on one thing, though. The task force’s conclusion may not change much. Both Caplan and Brawley said urological surgeons, oncologists, testing companies, medical equipment makers will lobby to neutralize any effect. Some doctors will mount a talking campaign to encourage their patients to continue being tested.
    Advertise | AdChoices

    “What does that conversation even look like?” Caplan asked. “I mean, what we’re saying is, ‘Talk to your doctor and see if he doesn’t believe us.’”
    And when patients do talk to their doctors, those doctors may still be likely to check the box for the test.
    Related:
    Buffett plans radiation treatment for prostate cancer; good prognosis
    Buffett's cancer catch could reignite debate over PSA testing
    Yearly prostate cancer screening fails to reduce deaths
    source:
    JA.com member #946 for LIFE!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •