Members - Reputation: 109
Posted 02 December 2012 - 10:21 AM
Some claim this guy found it first.
Shouldn't either of them been more in the media, how much have people donated to cancer research after all these years.
Prime Members - Reputation: 736
Posted 02 December 2012 - 02:21 PM
Oh wait nvm maybe it was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiofrequency_ablation that I was thinking of
Edited by Dynamo_Maestro, 02 December 2012 - 02:24 PM.
Crossbones+ - Reputation: 6554
Posted 02 December 2012 - 04:52 PM
Hurray for the 3 minute and a half long audio+video advertisement that you can't pause nor mute, as well. I swear newspaper websites today are just a bunch of distracting flash videos glued together, with three paragraphs of text somewhere in the middle.
"The best comment is a deleted comment."
Members - Reputation: 778
Posted 02 December 2012 - 05:43 PM
Yeah, sounds like hype to me. I mean, I don't want to be a killjoy, but it's a bit too perfect a story to be believable. I've grown rather cynical of "look, I'm a teen and I discovered a solution to [insert difficult problem here]" claims, especially when they get mass media attention (a popular story doesn't have to be true as long as it sells).
There was a pretty good this american life just recently about something just like this (I feel like a huge TAL fanboy with howmuch I bring it up).
It was actually about radiofrequency ablation I think. The long and short of it is it is much easier to almost cure cancer than actually cure it.
Crossbones+ - Reputation: 6866
Posted 02 December 2012 - 05:59 PM
It's always great when advancements in medicine and science are made, and I welcome this advancement, but let's be real: finding a "potential cure for cancer" and actually curing someone's cancer are two very different things. Both are good, but there are so many potential cures for cancer I hear about it's kinda like "Here we go again..."
It's awesome. It's great. I hope it turns out to be the panacea for everything. But for now it's just "potential." That's cool, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
I do think it's pretty impressive she was reading (and eventually understanding) PhD level stuff as a freshman high school student.
Crossbones+ - Reputation: 3821
Posted 03 December 2012 - 11:31 AM
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).
Edited by samoth, 03 December 2012 - 11:33 AM.
Members - Reputation: 181
Posted 03 December 2012 - 04:48 PM
(I know my english is weird...)