Scientists Deliver Bee Toxin To Tumors Via "Nanobees" 98
ScienceDaily is reporting that Washington University School of Medicine researchers have found a way to deliver bee toxin to tumors using nano-spheres they call "nanobees." The results in mice showed a cessation of growth or even shrinkage of tumors while the surrounding tissue was protected from the toxin. "The core of the nanobees is composed of perfluorocarbon, an inert compound used in artificial blood. The research group developed perfluorocarbon nanoparticles several years ago and have been studying their use in various medical applications, including diagnosis and treatment of atherosclerosis and cancer. About six millionths of an inch in diameter, the nanoparticles are large enough to carry thousands of active compounds, yet small enough to pass readily through the bloodstream and to attach to cell membranes."
Holy dupes batman (Score:2, Insightful)
Six millionths of an inch (Score:2, Insightful)
Six millionths of an inch is 150 nm. Wouldn't it be easier to just write "150 nm", or "six millionths of an inch" is somehow easier to comprehend?
Why not "five trillionths of a feet" then?
Re:Those ... (Score:1, Insightful)
I imagine that some day they will cure acne this way.
Re:More questions than answers (Score:2, Insightful)
From the title, "Scientists Deliver Bee Toxin To Tumors..."
Although, I did have the same initial reaction. I think the term "nanobee" is just far too distractingly catchy.
Re:Six millionths of an inch (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Another non-starter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sooo tired of reading these "new cancer treatment" stories. Been reading about them for years and yet if you get cancer what happens? You're given a cocktail of drugs and blased with radiation. I would like to see one of these things actually turn into a real treatment that means people have cancer cured without all the suffering that Chemo causes.
The problem with "cure for cancer" is that there are a lot of different cancers and a lot of different causes. There are cancers that have very high cure rates and cancers that you get and know that you will die in 5 years unless someone comes up with a life-saving Eureeka!. Much like how the "common cold" is not a single, treatable virus, rather a list of similar symptoms caused by a variety of weak viruses, cancer as we know it tends to be more a list of symptoms than the actual problem. The more ways we come up with combatting the life-threatening symptoms or the cancer itself, the less "only-defense" our chemotherapy needs to be. Instead of "Kill the patient slowly, hoping the cancer dies first" is a very primitive method of treating a disease which overextends its own energies in multiplying, and has been effective in many cases, we can find better ways, and are finding better ways -- but these usually target specific cancers and their symptoms, or specific symptoms, rather than an all-curing panacea.
Re:Another non-starter? (Score:3, Insightful)
I too want to skip right to the goals of research without having to actually go through the slow, torturous process of getting there, without any of the inevitable dead-ends. Do we really have to research cancer treatments, have an idea, test it on multiple levels to make sure it works and doesn't kill you, develop it, just to cure cancer? Why can't we skip right to the part where we cure cancer?
Along those same lines, why do I have to make a cake or buy one in order to have my cake or eat it? Why can't I just eat a cake without actually procuring one? I keep reading about new cakes and yet if you want a cake what happens? You still have to buy it or bake it. Why? I'll tell you why, stupid causality. If only we could fiat right past that.
~
Sorry for all the sarcasm. The reason there are so many non-starters in learning how to cure cancer is BECAUSE WE DON'T ALREADY KNOW HOW TO CURE CANCER.
Re:Holy dupes batman (Score:3, Insightful)
What evidence do you have that this is a dupe?
Re:Another non-starter? (Score:2, Insightful)
Several classes of novel treatment are already in use. Monoclonal antibodies for example. There are several of those approved for use in cancer treatment today, and a few more used "off label" in cancer treatment for specific cases.
We also already routinely treat some cancers with surgery, and even with "watchful waiting" (doing nothing because it might not get any worse). So it's certainly not the case that whatever cancer you're diagnosed with they'll prescribe drugs and radiation. Not at all.
But there is no magic bullet. There won't ever be a magic bullet. Maybe you don't like that, but there it is.
The body is very, very complicated and interconnected, and cancer is a part of the body. So nearly anything powerful enough to damage the tumour will be bad for you.
They came up with a much less horrible chemo treatment for the cancer I had, it ran in parallel trial while I was being treated. Patients recorded less nausea, more days when they were able to go about their lives normally, etc. But unfortunately three times as many of them died as with the previous standard (97% survival vs 99% with gold standard). That's a no-brainer - nausea sucks, but nobody wants to die to avoid it.