this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
466 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

59106 readers
4574 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 216 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (7 children)

I can destroy 99% of cancer cells in a lab using a hammer. The important part is whether you can do the same in a person without killing them.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 224 points 10 months ago (3 children)
[–] medicsofanarchy@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Or bleach. I can destroy 100% of cancer cells in vitro with a common household chemical that only costs pennies!

[–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

To be honest, when I read the title I wondered if fire is what they were referring to. After all, heat is basically just particles bumping around... could be described as vibrating.

[–] 21Cabbage@lemmynsfw.com 9 points 10 months ago

First thing that came to mind.

[–] DigitalNirvana@lemm.ee -2 points 10 months ago

This paper refers to neither a common drug, nor vitamin. And if you’d read the paper, which is still in ‘prepublication’, you may have noticed that it refers to a novel process. Patients are generally, in my clinical experience averse to being placed in fires AND to being shot, even therapeutically. So I have to ask, is your purpose to promote XKCD? A Nobel pursuit, as far as I can tell. Or to sow discord in a scientific discussion? Which is annoying at best.

[–] mihies@kbin.social 23 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The test was done on mice where half of them ended cancer free and I assume survived.

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago (5 children)

No lab mice survive the lab unfortunately.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 6 points 10 months ago

They only have to survive the experiment

[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago

Shouldn't have been so tasty.

[–] Loulou@lemmy.mindoki.com 1 points 10 months ago

But everything works in mice.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

To be fair they only live a couple of years anyway.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago (4 children)

You'd think that it would be a might difficult getting a hammer into a body, but I salute you.

[–] Twinklebreeze@lemmy.world 83 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You don't need to. Just keep hammering away until you reach the cancer. Phase II trials start soon.

[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

I volunteer my biological father, I can remove his limbs with a turn of the century brass blowtorch if that helps the experiment.

[–] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I would argue it is actually quite easy to get a hammer into a body. Precision and accuracy are the larger concerns.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If you simply get a large enough hammer those concerns go away.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Or smaller, depending on point of entry.

[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 1 points 10 months ago

The list of things that doctors want to stick up there gets longer and longer.

[–] StuffYouFear@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

What if we insert it and used a MRI machine to steer it at the speed of sound

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 9 points 10 months ago

You won't get it in there with that attitude.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 14 points 10 months ago

Aminocyanine molecules are already used in bioimaging as synthetic dyes. Commonly used in low doses to detect cancer, they stay stable in water and are very good at attaching themselves to the outside of cells.

Looks like an interesting choice, since they were already made to attach to cancer cells.

They work like an existing method, but with infrared light vs visible, which penetrates deeper into the body.

[–] MustrumR@kbin.social 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The thing about the used molecules is that they attach to the cancer more than other cells.

Apart from that you can concentrate the infrared light at the main clusters.

I'd say it is an improvement. Even if only the main clusters are destroyed it's noninvasive way to reduce the chance of mutation (less cancer cells means less chances for a mutation to gain chemo resistance).

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

I agree although the term used sounds like something stan lee coined.

[–] Loulou@lemmy.mindoki.com 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Well, killing 99% of cancer cells is quite useless, the 1% left will now thrive and if they survived because they were different (and not just luckily escaping the treatment) you now have 100% of cancer cells you can't treat anymore.

Better case, the 1% "lucky" cancer cells just re-invade.

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Best case scenario is that your immune system takes care of the final 1%. Worse case scenario is exactly as you described and you get mets that are resistant to therapy.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I thought the issue is your immune system wouldn’t know to take care of the final 1%. As that’s the issue with cancer: it isn’t an antigen. It is something made by the body so it’s already coated in a natural sheep’s clothing to escape being detected by the immune system. Hence why breakthroughs in marking the cells is so important so at least an outside force can treat it.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It could extend the life of the patient with a few years.

[–] Loulou@lemmy.mindoki.com 1 points 10 months ago

Maybe, or just extending the suffering for a couple of months. Hope it gets better!

[–] Ainiriand@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I’ve read the article and I’ve gone and had a little look at the scientific paper as well. The paper only mentions the effect of the molecule on cancer cells and does not mention what effect it has or may have on normal tissue. Interestingly for their mice model they delivered the drug intratumourally. To me this suggests that the drug is not selectively taken up by the tumour cells and they you need to get around this by limiting the delivery of the drug to the site of the cancer. This is just my speculation though. However, if true it would have implications on the practicality of using this method as a cancer therapy.

[–] viking@infosec.pub 1 points 10 months ago

For some cancers at least injecting intratumourally is feasible, especially so in early stages. If that could be achieved on a large scale in clinical trials, or hell even in bovine or porcine studies (no idea what they use for cancer typically, I'd assume porcine due to genetic similarity?), it would be a great step forward.