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

Technology

58133 readers
4476 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 216 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (9 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 8 months ago (3 children)
[–] medicsofanarchy@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago (2 children)
[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 7 points 8 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 8 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 8 months ago

First thing that came to mind.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 23 points 8 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 8 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 8 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 30 points 8 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 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Or smaller, depending on point of entry.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] StuffYouFear@lemmy.world 2 points 8 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 8 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mihies@kbin.social 23 points 8 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 8 months ago (5 children)

No lab mice survive the lab unfortunately.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 6 points 8 months ago

They only have to survive the experiment

[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago

Shouldn't have been so tasty.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 14 points 8 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 8 months ago* (last edited 8 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 8 months ago

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

[–] Loulou@lemmy.mindoki.com 2 points 8 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.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Loulou@lemmy.mindoki.com 1 points 8 months ago

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

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 3 points 8 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 8 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JadenSmith@sh.itjust.works 54 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Does this mean playing competitive chess could prevent cancer??

[–] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 35 points 8 months ago

A chemical that can’t target cancer cells can be triggered to vibrate in such a way that it destroys cell membranes by a light source that attenuates by about 90% over 1mm of flesh (down to 1% of the original strength at 2mm).

If they could target just cancer cells, it would work for some skin cancers.
Infrared and near infrared transmit a good amount of heat. I imagine that even if they figure out the targeting issue, unless the light to vibration process is highly efficient, the point at which the light source is just burning the patient’s flesh will be reached long before there’s anything but a limited use case.

I guess the mechanism is good to know about, but it’s unlikely to turn into a cure for cancer.

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago (2 children)

99% of non-cancerous cells were also destroyed.

[–] crit@links.hackliberty.org 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don't see the part of the article that mentions that?

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 1 points 8 months ago

If they didn't mention the opposite, I have bad news for you

[–] mihies@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I don't get this comment at all. Wat?

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 17 points 8 months ago

Killing cancer cells is easy enough, the hard part is only killing cancerous cells

[–] Konstant@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He's saying it destroys all cells, cancerous and non-cancerous. Don't know if it's true, haven't read the article.

[–] mihies@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Obviously it's not true hence I don't get it. The holy grail is to destroy just cancerous cells, it's easy to destroy all. 🤷‍♂️

[–] JGrffn@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

The article makes no mention to the molecules only working on cancer cells. The molecules, according to the article, attach to cell membranes, and then the molecules are jiggled to blow up the cells. That process doesn't mention an ability to differentiate between cancer and non-cancer cells. The technique was tried on a culture growth, where a hammer would have the same results. It was also tried on mice, where half were left cancer-free, but little is said about the process, the specifics of the results, or what happened to the other half of mice.

We all get the goal of cancer research, OP is just doubtful that this achieves it, as am I, as well as anyone who's read good news about eradicating cancer in the past few decades. Most are duds or go nowhere even if initially promising, so...

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 14 points 8 months ago (2 children)

i asked this in another thread, how do they get the novel molecule to attach to only cancer cells. apparently they havent gotten that far yet.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

Cancer cells divide faster than other cells, meaning they have some structural differences. Most drugs (not sure about this one) exploit this difference.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

"Inject the Jiggler."

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't a microwave vibrate molecules?

[–] Lazz45@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yes, in a sense. It technically isn't vibrating them, but rapidly spinning them due to the constantly changing magnetic field (produced by the magnetron).

Since water has a dipole moment (one side of the molecule experiences a slight positive charge, while one side experiences a slight negative charge) it will react to changes in an electric field just like a magnet would

Edit: I'd also like to add this is not specific to water. Some fats and other food material also undergoes that rotation, and the same concept (with different frequencies and wavelengths) is used in industrial processes all the time to quickly, and efficiently heat materials

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That %1 is gonna be a bitch

[–] Abnorc@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Snipers will take care of them.

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So we're back to things like what led to the original vibrators.

[–] BoastfulDaedra@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 8 months ago

You may be onto something there. Near-infrared activated chemical vibrators... how fast do these jiggle again?

load more comments
view more: next ›