I wonder who they will target for this diagnostic tool? When cancer is in its early stages, a person doesn't feel bad and wouldn't know anything is wrong. It would be great for those who have family histories of cancers, to use this as a yearly diagnostic tool, assuming they can create accurate targets that will reliably detect individual cancer types (there are at least 3 types of cancers that I know of that can be detected molecularly, but not universally - for example, not all breast cancers are caused by mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 so you have to find something about breast cancers that are unique at a molecular level to identify, regardless of what originally caused them). But what about everyone else who develops cancer spontaneously due to environmental causes? Would this kind of diagnostic tool be non-harmful to use over and over, and be economically feasible, to test those not at great risk often?
I like it even better if this may have the possibility of a use as identifying all cancerous cells prior to surgery so doctors can more precisely cut out only the cancer cells and not healthy tissue so much!
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Not saying this will solve all the problem with cancers, but a GREAT STEP FORWARD.
IMHO, But take it farther into the future, we know the age groups most likely to get cancers, so you get the (I assume injection) and on the protain that can find the cancer(s), you attach nanobots, to grab the cells and remove them, or kill them, and then dissolve. Sounds Sci-fi, but it was also said we'd never go to the moon.
Oh, I agree it is a great step forward - cancer diagnosis and accurate labeling of cancerous cells versus healthy ones is Huge! I just get to thinking about the details and what could go wrong, or what will be difficult in implementing...
Nanobots - ain't gettin' anywhere near me until the safety data is decades old and proven safe!
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
The 10% Myth
I've been thinking about posting on this topic for some time, but last night we watched the 10.27.10 episode of Mythuster's where they tested the myth that humans only use 10% of their brains,
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... oth-chaos/
and decided it was time (unfortunately, I can't find the best parts of this episode - when they do the magnetic EEG and fMRI - it's not out yet). I found this website for my son and thought I'd share - there's lots more out there!
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
First of all, it is obvious that the brain, like all our other organs, has been shaped by natural selection. Brain tissue is metabolically expensive both to grow and to run, and it strains credulity to think that evolution would have permitted squandering of resources on a scale necessary to build and maintain such a massively underutilized organ. Moreover, doubts are fueled by ample evidence from clinical neurology. Likewise, electrical stimulation of points in the brain during neurosurgery has failed so far to uncover any dormant areas where no percept, emotion or movement is elicited by applying these tiny currents (this can be done with conscious patients under local anesthetic because the brain itself has no pain receptors).
Next up: busting the myth that our tongue has physical divisions in where it senses sweet, salty, bitter, and sour!
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Science Chic wrote: The 10% Myth
I've been thinking about posting on this topic for some time, but last night we watched the 10.27.10 episode of Mythuster's where they tested the myth that humans only use 10% of their brains,
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... oth-chaos/
and decided it was time (unfortunately, I can't find the best parts of this episode - when they do the magnetic EEG and fMRI - it's not out yet). I found this website for my son and thought I'd share - there's lots more out there!
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
First of all, it is obvious that the brain, like all our other organs, has been shaped by natural selection. Brain tissue is metabolically expensive both to grow and to run, and it strains credulity to think that evolution would have permitted squandering of resources on a scale necessary to build and maintain such a massively underutilized organ. Moreover, doubts are fueled by ample evidence from clinical neurology. Likewise, electrical stimulation of points in the brain during neurosurgery has failed so far to uncover any dormant areas where no percept, emotion or movement is elicited by applying these tiny currents (this can be done with conscious patients under local anesthetic because the brain itself has no pain receptors).
Next up: busting the myth that our tongue has physical divisions in where it senses sweet, salty, bitter, and sour!
I always figured that the 10% usage was a myth, I still believe however that there is a lot of unused potential in our brains. Some of us have a lot more unused potential than others, or maybe they are the 10%ers.
Here is one I ran across today
Feds Surprise Biotech Industry With Gene Patent Rule
http://m.npr.org/story/131046392
I think that will put a damper on gene research.
I believe the 10% rule is capacity not actual real estate. No, there's not 90% of the brain lying dormant.
Like a car engine. Take a V10 engine, and only use 10% of the cylinders - it won't run too well on one cylinder.
But:
The engine can handle 6000 RPM. It still runs at 600RPM, but it's only using 10% of it's capacity.
I can prove that one hemisphere of the brain can handle a 50% increase in workload with minimal effects.
I'd offer up someone that had a hemispherectomy as proof.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Science Chic wrote: Nanobots - ain't gettin' anywhere near me until the safety data is decades old and proven safe!
Funny how folks will say just that, but get they're flu shot after 3months testing by the fda, when it usually takes years to get FOOD though...
And than combining all the different viriuses <sp?> into one shot. NO THANKS!
Just say'in...
