Posted on 03/23/2014 11:25:02 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Making cancer cells explode while leaving nearby healthy cells in the un-exploded state is much harder.
Hah...any suicide bomber knows that.;-)
Cytolysis. A word not invented in Africa or by followers of islam.
Thanks RoosterRedux.
It sounds as if this Vacquinol-1 is specifically attracted to glioblastoma cells, from the way the article was written at least.
Gee, they cured cancer in mice AGAIN.
Too bad that typically doesn’t translate to humans.
Great news for mice with cancer.
And lucky for them, they are exempt from Obamascare.
Killing cancer cells in mice is apparently pretty easy. I’ve seen a dozen different substances that killed cancer like gangbusters in mice but have moderate to poor usefulness in humans.
I wish them success.
Conversely, there are probably many things that will kill human cancer cells, which we won't find out about because they are ineffective against mouse cancers.
Exploding brain tumors? Imagine the side effects that will be named in the commercial's legal disclaimer:
And this is the sad truth about the current state of cancer therapy. Despite a War on Cancer being fought since Nixon, life expectancy for most forms of cancer is increased by perhaps mere weeks, misery from treatment is off scale, and expenses are astronomical.
Prevailing cancer dogma is somatic (gene) theory, which is drilling in what increasingly looks like a dry hole. The genetic chaos of cancer is likely a consequence, and not the cause. All we have to show for the billions invested is advanced gene sequencing tools (which are useful) and what may turn out to be a surplus of gene scientists.
Some (Seyfried, D'Agostino) have kicked somatic to the curb, and are following up on Warburg's (metabolic/mitochondrial) theory from the early 20th. This shows some promise.
If I had a diagnosis of this particular cancer, I would go for:
... for example:
Nature: The M2 splice isoform of pyruvate kinase is important for cancer metabolism and tumour growth
Oncologists are apt to be largely unaware of the above. Anyone who plans to turn down chemo or rad anyway needs keep an eye on what dissenting researchers are up to, and make their own decisions. Fortunately, much of the dietary approach can be done independently by individuals.
In the meantime, a low-carb, high-fat, grain-free diet, with attention to a long list of other adverse junk sold as "food" is apt to be highly prophylactic against getting cancer in the first place. My bet is placed there at the moment.
Indeed.
I have had great success killing cancer cells with plain old bleach in the lab. Bleach is effective, but would never be a good chemotherapy agent due to its high toxicity against just about everything.
FTA: “Researchers made mice that had human glioblastoma cells transplanted ingest the substance for five days.”
I don't know if you caught it but that wasn't a reference to the new Vacquinol-1 molecule they found.
Is that from Scanners?
bookmark
> I don’t know if you caught it but that wasn’t
> a reference to the new Vacquinol-1 molecule they found.
Nor was my reply, which was more about the state of current consensus (Standard of Care) therapies.
This new molecule may have some use in treating human GB, but it’s going to take years for trials and approvals.
In the meantime, anyone with a diagnosis will be dead before that happens. There are non-toxic alternatives that people can look into, particularly if they’re planning to decline “surgery, radiation and chemotherapy” anyway, as many do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.