×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Treatment From Australia For All Cancers

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the that's-not-a-scalpel,-this-is-a-scalpel dept.

Medicine 217

New submitter FirephoxRising writes "A new, protein-based treatment from the University of NSW breaks down cancers by destroying their internal protein structures. The approach has been tried before but always resulted in too much damage to muscles and the heart. The new approach allows the new class of drug to attack tumors without damaging normal cells. Professor Peter Gunning said, 'Our drug causes the structure of the cancer cell to collapse — and it happens relatively quickly.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

217 comments

Yay! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583277)

Another daily cure for cancer.

Re:Yay! (5, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#44583427)

Yeah, and the headline even contradicts the poorly written news article(which is already far too removed from the research to be safe). It specifically was engineered to treat one kind of cancer, they think it will effects on a similar cancer, and have a little hope for "many others". That's a far-cry from "curing all cancers".

Re:Yay! (5, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 8 months ago | (#44584411)

Surprisingly, the full text [aacrjournals.org] is available without registering or going through a paywall. Must be a leak into a different universe or something.

Just scanned it quickly - all cells have a cytoskelaton, a framework that allows a cell to maintain a three dimensional shape. Cytoskeletons are controlled, in part, because of a class of proteins called tropomyosins. These proteins are turned over quite rapidly in cancer cells yielding the hypothesis that targeting those molecules could selectively kill cancerous cells. Unfortunately, the chemicals that have been used previously also targeted non cancer cells and caused a lot of systemic toxicity (they cured the cancer, but unfortunately, the patient died).

The new compound, TR100 (sounds like a toy truck), specifically targets a type of tropomyosin presumably found only in cancer cells. Leaves normal cells alone.

IF this remains true in testing and IF the compound doesn't have other, unintended and typically deleterious effects it MIGHT be a good drug. Grandstanding by the PR idiots notwithstanding.

The road to Big Pharma Hell is paved with effective in vitro cures for cancer.

Re:Yay! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583893)

Quick! Patent it so only the rich can use it!

Yawn.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583299)

Let me know when it has been tested and clinical trials have been performed with peer review.

Even if this does pan out... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583323)

rather than simply allow everyone to be cured, the powers that be will milk this for every penny they can, and medical bankruptcies will continue on, unabated.

Re:Even if this does pan out... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583483)

Yeah, you're right, curing cancer sucks. This is the worst day ever. :(((

Re:Even if this does pan out... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44584311)

How was this marked Troll? This is a valid point. For-profit medicine is an evil. A true democratic society exists for the benefit of all, especially the least among us.

Exciting Times (5, Interesting)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about 8 months ago | (#44583375)

Whether this new cure is a true breakthrough or not, it is really exciting to live in a time where things such as CURING CANCER are possible (even living on the verge of such a time is breathtaking). The places science and technology are taking us are out of a science-fiction novel. We might not have flying cars or jetpacks (except we /do/!), but we truly are living "in the future". A thousand years ago what we take for granted would have seemed magic or even godlike. And who knows what tomorrow will hold for us - a cure for death, perhaps?

Even knowing that no such advance comes without its unforeseen darkside, it is still enough to give me a childlike glee and hope again.

Re:Exciting Times (1)

DFurno2003 (739807) | about 8 months ago | (#44583423)

Unfortunately, Curing Cancer seems to take a backseat to profit. The rest of your comment about flying cars...? and jetpacks? are we talking about cancer or are you daydreaming here?

Re:Exciting Times (-1, Troll)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 8 months ago | (#44583545)

Well, one of the dark sides is that our agrochemical food causes many of these cancers in the first place.

Re:Exciting Times (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583591)

Citation needed.

Re:Exciting Times (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 8 months ago | (#44583603)

Such a claim requires some serious proof.

Unless you mean our current means of food production enable people to live long enough to get these diseases.

Re:Exciting Times (5, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#44583615)

Well, one of the dark sides is that our agrochemical food causes many of these cancers in the first place.

He said lacking any justification at all for his statement.

People die of cancer everywhere, and everywhen, it's not unique to "our" food. It's not magically caused by "chemicals". There are carcinogens present in modern society, but the primary causes of cancer aren't your damn food.

Re:lly? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583891)

People die of cancer everywhere, and everywhen, it's not unique to "our" food. It's not magically caused by "chemicals".

He kan read, but not too much.
Probably hurts his brane.

Re:lly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44584159)

brane

At least he has one? /facepalm

Re:Exciting Times (5, Insightful)

kevkingofthesea (2668309) | about 8 months ago | (#44583955)

Assuming there's been an increase in cancer incidence in recent history (not saying there's been one, I just don't feel like looking it up), I'd conjecture that it's primarily due to our greatly increased average lifespan, not any ill effects of whatever foods or chemicals we might have added to our daily diets.

Re:Exciting Times (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#44584341)

To say that every part of society has gone though a dramatic shift over the last 2 centuries is an extraordinary understatement.

Re:Exciting Times (0, Flamebait)

jeffclay (1077679) | about 8 months ago | (#44583821)

And it's just a coincidence that the largest poison and pesticide company is also the largest agricultural seed producer? I'm referring to Monsanto. Who's to say that all of these genetically modified foods have zero adverse effects?

Re:Exciting Times (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583895)

Oh no here come the chemtrails...

You do realize that you're talking in fallacies? (1)

denzacar (181829) | about 8 months ago | (#44583919)

Re:You do realize that you're talking in fallacies (1)

jeffclay (1077679) | about 8 months ago | (#44584017)

Prove what? Prove that they genetically modify seeds? Look at their website. Prove that they also produce pesticides and poisons? Look at their website. Prove that there are side effects? I haven't seen nor heard of any proof that there aren't. You do realize that using big words doesn't actually make you smart right?

Re:You do realize that you're talking in fallacies (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44584079)

Prove that there are side effects? I haven't seen nor heard of any proof that there aren't.

In case you haven't quite grasped this yet, that right there is the point you fell off the edge into a logical fallacy.

Re:You do realize that you're talking in fallacies (2)

metrix007 (200091) | about 8 months ago | (#44584207)

I haven't seen nor heard of any proof that reptile aliens don't secretly live among us, disused as humans.

Re:You do realize that you're talking in fallacies (1)

denzacar (181829) | about 8 months ago | (#44584337)

Prove that there are side effects? I haven't seen nor heard of any proof that there aren't.

You do realize that you're STILL talking in fallacies, and adding further fallacies to your "argument"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi [wikipedia.org]

Re: Exciting Times (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44584317)

Your post just gave me cancer.

Re:Exciting Times (1)

tgd (2822) | about 8 months ago | (#44583901)

Well, one of the dark sides is that our agrochemical food causes many of these cancers in the first place.

Science: a process intended to prevent stupidity like this statement.

Try it. It works.

Re:Exciting Times (4, Informative)

omnichad (1198475) | about 8 months ago | (#44583619)

A cure for death [wikipedia.org] would wreak unbelievable chaos on the world.

Re:Exciting Times (1)

skids (119237) | about 8 months ago | (#44583885)

The degree of chaos really depends on a lot of the characteristics of the cure, chiefly cost and effect on various aspects of senescense especially intelligence and reproductive capability. Much of the craziness in the world happens in spite of the futility of mortal existence, not because of it.

Re:Exciting Times (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 8 months ago | (#44583963)

I was linking to a TV Mini-series that explored the possibility where death simply wasn't possible for some mysterious reason. Overpopulation, overcrowded hospitals, lack of food - all within a matter of only days. Sure, it's just TV. But it seemed realistic.

Re:Exciting Times (5, Informative)

quantumghost (1052586) | about 8 months ago | (#44583631)

Whether this new cure is a true breakthrough or not, it is really exciting to live in a time where things such as CURING CANCER are possible (even living on the verge of such a time is breathtaking).

Actually, most cancers are curable. I can cut out most tumors....the problem is getting to them early enough. Solid tumors [wikipedia.org] are mostly responsive to surgery first, chemotherapy [wikipedia.org] and, for some cancers, radiotherapy [wikipedia.org] are best left to "mop up" residual cells be it tumor-in-situ or micrometastases or out metastatic disease, now there are a few exceptions - especially the "liquid tumors" or hematologic malignancies.

What I'd really like to see is better screening [wikipedia.org] for cancers - the only universal truth about cancers is that the earlier they are caught, the better the response to treatment. Catch a cancerous growth early before is has spread locally and we can cut it out and you'll likely be cured. When it has a chance to invade locally and especially distally, I can't perform a simple operation to remove it - I have to take out more tissue and sometimes in different places or other organs...sometimes the tumor burden is so great that an operation won't make a difference. This is where chemo can also be used. But responses to chemo are almost universally poorer than surgery. And please bear in mind, most people use "cancer [wikipedia.org]" like its a single entity. It is not. There are a multitude of cancerous transformations for each cell line in the body, each with its own peculiarities.

Don't get me wrong, any improvement in chemotherapy will increase survivor hood of cancer, but I doubt that this will do much to change the initial treatment of most cancers.

Re:Exciting Times (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583721)

Are you a cancer specialist? I've got an unusual question on behalf of my dad who's been a pathologist for 30 years.

Re:Exciting Times (5, Informative)

JanneM (7445) | about 8 months ago | (#44583751)

Mostly I agree wholeheartedly. A close relative has survived colon cancer (one of the most survivable cancers today), in no small part because it was diagnosed and removed in time.

But, it seems that screening has some pretty tough limits. You have some cancers such as glioblastoma that seem to still be pretty much uniformly fatal no matter how early you find them. And breast cancer seems to be less promising for screening than it seemed at first; the aggressive type seems to be liable to have metastised almost no matter how early it is detected, while the other types are fairly unlikely to do so, even with late detection.

This seems to partly explain why breast cancer survival hasn't budged nearly as much as expected with the advent of wide-spread screening.

Screeining _is_ important. Surgery is the main means of cancer cure. And both have improved hugely over time. But for all that, cancers still collectively comprise the second most common cause of death, behind cardiovascular issues. And arguably a much more difficult and prolongued death for most sufferers. I'd say any improvement in treatment is both urgent and welcome.

Re:Exciting Times (2)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 8 months ago | (#44584209)

My mother had surgery for liver cancer more than 20 years ago and has been cancer free since. It was however terrifying and took a close to two years for her to really fully recover not to mention the couple of years of slowly declining health before the tumor was found. Today she is retired and involved in all kinds of cancer related charities.

Re:Exciting Times (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44584329)

One of the hardest things for lay people to understand about screening is that false positives are a HUGE problem. If you offer somebody a painless $10 test for brain cancer which has a 1% false positive rate, they think that seems really useful and take it. Maybe a million people take your screening test. At least 10 000 get told they were positive. Virtually NONE of those people have brain cancer, but now they're scared shitless and will probably get a load more tests done, some of which are invasive or even dangerous.

Getting the false positive rate down is thus of huge importance, because if you can't do that then your screening test is worse than useless and in most countries it'll be prohibited (because it has a bad overall health outcome) and in places like the US it'll be used and drive up costs and make people's health worse because they're scared and nobody is being the grown-up and taking away the test because "We can make our own decisions" yeah right.

Re:Exciting Times (1)

skids (119237) | about 8 months ago | (#44583911)

Answer me this: why not routinely remove moles? Its always mystified me. If they are benign, then they should be safe to remove for cosmetic purposes, and if they are potentially dangerous, why not get rid of them ASAP?

Re:Exciting Times (1)

quantumghost (1052586) | about 8 months ago | (#44584047)

Answer me this: why not routinely remove moles? Its always mystified me. If they are benign, then they should be safe to remove for cosmetic purposes, and if they are potentially dangerous, why not get rid of them ASAP?

Most "moles" are benign. The suspicious ones (ABCDE [melanoma.org]s) are removed and sent for pathology to detect if they are cancerous. It would not be possible to remove and pathologically screen all moles on every person.

Re:Exciting Times (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583993)

Yeah, secondary tumors are the worst parts about cancer.
A single tumor is relatively useless against surgery. But all it takes is ONE cell to escape in to the body and there is another.
And that location could be many number of locations, including the worst location, the brain.

There was also that research done by another group that figured out how cancer cells got around the body by basically chasing cells travelling around the place trying to get away.
But if they could figure out how to target the trail left behind by the cells in question, secondary cancers could be wiped out and millions would be saved.
Secondary Cancers are pretty much the only reason most cancers even kill people, other than the really malicious ones or those in the brain.
The cancer stem cells are still important targets for attack, though, since they basically keep the cancers going in the first place.

These 2 things combined may very well be the treatment of the near future that destroys cancers.
However, I fear something even worse happens as a result. Or if it were to fail.
I wish I got in to biomedical research industry. So exciting since there is so much happening in it all the time.
But I am a physics and computing man, what little I can do to help with simulating folding, virtual drug therapy trials and the like is all I can do.

Re:Exciting Times (3, Informative)

RobinH (124750) | about 8 months ago | (#44584111)

There is the tiny problem that chemotherapy damages your brain. There is, at the very least, a measurable and significant decline in IQ when tested before and after chemotherapy. Google for effect on iq from chemo to see some information.

Re:Exciting Times (1)

metrix007 (200091) | about 8 months ago | (#44584263)

I just read up on that...that's actually really disturbing! Many peer reviewed studies supporting that finding...eek!

Re:Exciting Times (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 8 months ago | (#44584289)

the only universal truth about cancers is that the earlier they are caught, the better the response to treatment.

Except that this isn't even remotely true. That was a nice hypothesis a couple of decades ago, but it's turned out to be much more complicated than that. Some cancers can be treated very late in the game, some early, some it doesn't seem to make a difference when you do it. It's a very reasonable supposition, just happens not to be a correct one.

Re:Exciting Times (2)

ImdatS (958642) | about 8 months ago | (#44583643)

[...] A thousand years ago what we take for granted would have seemed magic or even godlike. And who knows what tomorrow will hold for us - a cure for death, perhaps?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

Re:Exciting Times (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583961)

Which explains a lot of problems we have today... Too many people grew up believing in magic, and are starting to see it everywhere. They can't explain it so either god did it, or the devil did it. And since god is doing such wonderful things we should push the scientists out of the way and let god do his thing... Certainly wouldn't want to teach more children to stand in gods way either....

Re:Exciting Times (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 8 months ago | (#44583767)

And who knows what tomorrow will hold for us - a cure for death, perhaps?

I'm afraid that information theory and entropy prevents that.

Re:Exciting Times (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583945)

I'd settle for a young mind and body alive until the heat death of the universe or until such a time I choose to die, whichever comes first.

SCIENCE! (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583381)

Science. It works, bitches.

Re:SCIENCE! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583505)

You mean, it is better than praying? Sacrilege!

Re:SCIENCE! (3, Interesting)

iggymanz (596061) | about 8 months ago | (#44583601)

if we have a global nuclear war, does that mean science won?

Re:SCIENCE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583635)

No one said anything about winning, just working. And yes, nuclear weapons totally will have worked for their intended purpose. Remember that it was Oppenheimer who coined the phrase "I am become death, destroyer of worlds".

Re:SCIENCE! (5, Informative)

rubycodez (864176) | about 8 months ago | (#44583657)

that actually was a quote of Vishnu in the Hindu scriptures Bhagavad-Gita.

Re:SCIENCE! (1)

tgd (2822) | about 8 months ago | (#44583921)

that actually was a quote of Vishnu in the Hindu scriptures Bhagavad-Gita.

But only one of the two was talking about nuclear weapons.

Re:SCIENCE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44584077)

Shiva.

Re:SCIENCE! (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 8 months ago | (#44584285)

no, a Prince Arjuna is worried about whether to attack an enemy or not. Vishnu appears incarnated as Krishna and converses with him.

(Arjuna): Tell me who are You in such a fierce form? My salutations to You, O best of gods, be merciful! I wish to understand You, the primal Being, because I do not know Your mission.

The Supreme Lord Vishnu said, I am death, the mighty destroyer of the world, out to destroy. Even without your participation all the warriors standing arrayed in the opposing armies shall cease to exist.

Therefore, get up and attain glory. Conquer your enemies and enjoy a prosperous kingdom. All these (warriors) have already been destroyed by Me. You are only an instrument, O Arjuna.

Re:SCIENCE! (4, Insightful)

FreeUser (11483) | about 8 months ago | (#44583687)

if we have a global nuclear war, does that mean science won?

No. In all liklihood, it will mean religious fanatics in either America, some other region, or both, got their hands on nukes and decided to usher in whatever their version of post-apacalyptic "our religion now rules on Earth as it does in Heaven" millennium. By the time they realize what fools they were, we as a species have joined the other 99% of species in extinction.

Regardless, it will mean the baser side of human nature won, and happened to use a scientificly derived tool as it defeated our better natures, and our species.

Re:SCIENCE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44584095)

if we have a global nuclear war, does that mean science won?

No. In all liklihood, it will mean religious fanatics in either America, some other region, or both, got their hands on nukes and decided to usher in whatever their version of post-apacalyptic "our religion now rules on Earth as it does in Heaven" millennium.

Or, In all liklihood, it could just mean that someone's political-military establishment thought they could get away with it, or it could mean someone just fucked up. Yes, religion is a pain in the ass, but the people that bring it up as the progenitor of all mankind's problems remind me of Tea-Partiers that blame Obama for the weather.

Re:SCIENCE! (2)

tgd (2822) | about 8 months ago | (#44583915)

if we have a global nuclear war, does that mean science won?

No, it means the neutrons won.

Re:SCIENCE! (0)

rubycodez (864176) | about 8 months ago | (#44583667)

rather ironic phrase, since the massive increase in the rate of cancers over the last two centuries is entirely due to products that are the results of science

Re:SCIENCE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583685)

True, since technology causes longevity which causes cancer.
But your comment is misleading.

Re:SCIENCE! (2, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 8 months ago | (#44583707)

You mean living longer and better diagnoses?

Because that is what caused increase in cancer diagnoses. There is no evidence of anything else.

Re:SCIENCE! (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 8 months ago | (#44583863)

wrong, there is evidence of what you say in recent decades, but the whole time period of which I spoke tells a different story. Let's use one example, the mass production of cigarettes, before which people hand rolled a few smokes a day....

Re:SCIENCE! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 8 months ago | (#44583971)

Tobacco smoking has been available lots longer than that. Nor does is require rolling. Smoking near constantly has been something people have done, the few who could afford it, for much longer than that.

Try again?

Re:SCIENCE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44584133)

Because of course when torches were the main means of light heat and warmth, no one inhaled smoke - smoke is a modern invention of science dontchya know.

Re:SCIENCE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44584201)

It took me less than a minute to find this [nih.gov]. If you go to that page, be sure to look at the other pubs listed on the right-hand side.

Re:SCIENCE! (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 8 months ago | (#44583787)

Uhh, so cigarettes (a.k.a. cancer sticks) are the result of 'science'?

Re:SCIENCE! (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 8 months ago | (#44583923)

yes, the processes and machinery used are very much the products of science. do you imagine modern agriculture, machinery and chemical reactors are not?

Re:SCIENCE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583813)

I'm not aware of any evidence that there has been a massive increase in the rate of cancers.

Re:SCIENCE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44584163)

Science. It works, bitches.

So does prayer, fuckface; I've been praying for news like this.

Prove me wrong.

Oblig (4, Insightful)

war4peace (1628283) | about 8 months ago | (#44583391)

TV Personality: And how many people have you treated so far?
Dr. Alice Krippin: Well, we've had ten thousand and nine clinical trials in humans so far.
TV Personality: And how many are cancer-free?
Dr. Alice Krippin: Ten thousand and nine.
TV Personality: So you have actually cured cancer.
Dr. Alice Krippin: Yes, yes... yes, we have.
[cuts to post-apocalyptic New York three years later]

Re:Oblig (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583755)

I'm sorry, but you got the wrong article I guess.

This one isn't about the T virus, that one was a recent study in Europe.

Just Sayin'.

Re:Oblig (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44584007)

No, no, you don't understand. See, this is an article about curing some disease that pop culture has consigned to the "scary unstoppable boogeyman" category. So, because some work of fiction was created that shows swift and terrible punishment for blatantly flaunting the omniscient medical wisdom of pop culture (in popular, easy-to-swallow zombie apocalypse form, no less!), this clearly proves it is a bad idea in the real world, so stop thinking about it, you horrible, murdering MONSTER.

yeah, whatever... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583399)

I'll believe it when I see it. When CNN has a headline with a font of 100 saying "CANCER CURED!" and everyone's raving about it...

We've all heard these stories about researchers finding a cure but it's never true... so yeah

By cancer, do they mean.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583437)

I'm hoping when they say they can get rid of "cancer", they're actually referring to Indians?
95% of the workforce at my company would suddenly be gone though..... oooohhh lots of work to do then BUT WORTH IT!

Re:By cancer, do they mean.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583517)

You should consider moving away from Delhi.

Re:By cancer, do they mean.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583557)

No I'm an American living in America... It's crazy, I know.

Their country is so over-populated that they're spilling into other countries at an alarming rate or what? Right now, I'm sitting next to a smelly fucking uni-browed Indian man who is slurping his drink very loudly as if he's trying to be heard.

It could be worse (1)

maroberts (15852) | about 8 months ago | (#44583769)

You could be working with Cowboys

Re:It could be worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44584331)

You could be working with Cowboys

Nope, they're in training camp this week.

In the name of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583495)

WHAT in the name of science are you blabbering about?? SCIENCE DAMN YOU! Cancer cannot be cured!

Not all cancers work the same way... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583547)

Bone marrow cancer is usually just normal bone marrow with one or two genes that have bits flipped...

Granted, cancer is just mutated cells, but unlike brain/lung/kidney cancers, bone marrow cancers grow like normal bone marrow, only the marrow density rises and the *clonal* marrow produces too many of a certain kind of white cell which is what kills the person with it.

Thankfully there's Gleevec (Imatinib) that puts several forms of it into remission, but doesn't cure it. Even if it does cost over USD 6000.00 for a 30 day supply.

for certain animals (3, Informative)

iggymanz (596061) | about 8 months ago | (#44583633)

this has never been tried on a human being and won't be until at least 2015

many cures for cancer have worked very well in animals over the past three decades

Re:for certain animals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44584293)

Not only that, it hasn't really been tested in animals! This is a local paper probably repeating a local university's press release. This is probably one of the worst submissions to slashdot I have ever seen.

a cure for a self inflicted plague (4, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | about 8 months ago | (#44583683)

the CDC routinely releases statistics and studies that conclude people who eat healthy and exercise regularly experience dramatically lower cancer rates. of course cancer is a terrible disease for anyone it afflicts but rarifying its manifestation should be of greater realistic priority than a panacea. if you're pining for a silver bullet you might want to give running shoes, fresh fruit and vegetables a shot. Drink a little less, and for christ sake if you're still smoking, quit.

Re:a cure for a self inflicted plague (2)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 8 months ago | (#44583869)

What you've said isn't technically wrong, but your title is horrible. Cancer is usually not "self-inflicted". EVERYONE who lives long enough will get cancer. You can reduce your chances, a bit, not really dramatically, of getting one while you're young by being basically healthy.

Re:a cure for a self inflicted plague (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583997)

EVERYONE who lives long enough will get cancer.

An untestable hypothesis if I've ever seen one. Also cancer usually IS self inflicted. If everyone did what GP was suggesting I think the rate would be reduced by more than half. Sit around at a chemo lazy-boy room chatting about lifestyle, and you won't see many who were vegetarian athletes.

quote of the year! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583815)

""It was a good idea, you just had to get around the problem of killing the patient as well as their cancer,"

I can cure your cancer with any solution pH 12 too... side effects may include agonizing death & rapid decomposition...

still pretty cool though!

ok, but... (1)

trum4n (982031) | about 8 months ago | (#44583947)

I have two friends dieing of prostate cancer. When can this happen? Are they doing human testing? Cause i know some guys....

All your cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583969)

are belong to us.

What you say?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44583973)

All your internal protein structures are belong to us.

Great news, now please hurry up!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44584083)

Having been hit by two distinct types of cancer a year before the age of 30 - one dealt with by surgery, the other by radiotherapy - I for one cannot wait for the day where treatment does not rely mainly on the, frankly, barbaric options we have available today. Faced with not being able to trust my own cells any more since it hit me with that one-two combination, I'm now almost expecting another new one to come along before I hit old age (as sad as that is). And I would _dearly_ like to not have to go through what I did last year ever again. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

To be honest, whatever the advancement, when the treatment no longer causes so much suffering it's almost as scary as the disease itself I'll call that a win. And this is coming from someone who has made a full recovery with almost no permanent side-effects and (so far) no return of the disease. Many are not so lucky.

Dan Kottke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44584349)

I was a low three-digit employee (engineer). I met jobs and knew all the players including Dan Kottke.. Dan was the most modest and happy early-timer I knew at Apple. Andy H. was happy but he was always baked so it was hard to tell. I didn't know until years later that Dan was employee twelve from the garage days, he was that self-effacing.

Admission after thirty years: I took a diagonal cutter with the green handle from Woz's office and never returned it. I still have it. Who knows what role it played in building the earliest apples. I guess I should send it back to him with an apology.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...