Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


#Actualsamoth

Posted 03 December 2012 - 11:33 AM

Nanoparticles as carrier for cancer drugs have been in research for years both in vitro and in vivo. Nothing new, sorry kid.

My mother had cucurmin nanoparticles applied in addition to her 5-FU/cisplatin chemo. She's now 1 1/2 years beyond "her time", without ill effects or signs or tumor progression, which admittedly is great.
However, what does it really mean? It means nothing. Especially for the people for whom it didn't work quite so well. You can call it "miracle", or "luck", or "God's will". Hey, I'm not complaining! But from a scientific point of view, it's just meaningless. Do a placebo-controlled double-blind study with 5000 people and a 10 year follow-up, and we're talking.

What's most notable about that ABC article is that, as usual, someone who has no clue of the matter whatsoever (reporter guy) picks up some hype from someone else who has no clue whatsoever (highschool kid) and makes it "the cure for cancer". This embarrassing simplification neglects tiny details such as that there are roughly a hundred entirely different kinds of "cancer" for every major kind of cancer. Some express one or more of a dozen receptors, some don't. Some grow aggressively, some don't. Some respond to <insert what you like>, some don't. Some people just die, and some don't, although they should.

Someone claiming to have found "the cure for cancer" is like someone claiming to have found the perpetuum mobile. Or the recipe for eternal life, peace on earth, and the end of environmental pollution (all at the same time).

#1samoth

Posted 03 December 2012 - 11:31 AM

Nanoparticles as carrier for cancer drugs have been in research for years both in vitro and in vivo. Nothing new, sorry kid.

My mother had cucurmin nanoparticles applied in addition to her 5-FU/cisplatin chemo. She's now 1 1/2 years beyond "her time", without ill effects or signs or tumor progression, which admittedly is great.
However, what does it really mean? It means nothing. Especially for the people for whom it didn't work quite so well. You can call it "miracle", or "luck", or "God's will". Hey, I'm not complaining! But from a scientific point of view, it's just meaningless.

What's most notable about that ABC article is that, as usual, someone who has no clue of the matter whatsoever (reporter guy) picks up some hype from someone else who has no clue whatsoever (highschool kid) and makes it "the cure for cancer". This embarrassing simplification neglects tiny details such as that there are roughly a hundred entirely different kinds of "cancer" for every major kind of cancer. Some express one or more of a dozen receptors, some don't. Some grow aggressively, some don't. Some respond to <insert what you like>, some don't. Some people just die, and some don't, although they should.

Someone claiming to have found "the cure for cancer" is like someone claiming to have found the perpetuum mobile. Or the recipe for eternal life, peace on earth, and the end of environmental pollution (all at the same time).

PARTNERS