NASA + NCI = Nano-Explorers For Humans 104
SEWilco writes: "NASA and the National Cancer Institute will collaborate in developing microscopic explorers -- devices in a pill-sized capsule to detect, diagnose, and treat disease inside the human body. Following the links you find interesting NASA devices, such as pill-shaped biotelemetry transmitters and a biotelemeter 'Trisponder' to read the data."
Sure it's great reading... (Score:1)
The only thing that will push nanotechnology is the US Department of Defense and I don't think they'll be pushing for any medicinal uses. No, you know exactly where nanotechnology is going, if it goes anywhere at all. It's just like nuclear power - all it's used for is war.
But what happens to the info? (Score:1)
- rachel
rachel's daily diary:
http://diary.reinyday.com/
Ahem Houston we have a problem... (Score:1)
MissionControl: "Could you repeat that please"
Nanonaut: "IT APPEARS THAT WE ARE STUCK"
MissionControl: "Hey no need to be pissy, exectly what is the status now?"
Nanonaut: "I said we are stuck"
MissionControl: "Acknowledged, where exectly are you stuck?"
Nanonaut: "I dont know"
MissonControl: "Let me look that up"
Nanonaut: "#!@$!@$?"
MissonControl: "Please repeat that"
Nanonaut: "I said I dont know where we are stuck and !@#!@#!@#!@"
MissonControl: "Got it. What does it look like out of the window?"
Nanonaut: "Dark"
MissonControl: "Press the little blue button next to the instant coffee level"
Nanonaut: "What does that do?"
MissonControl: "It would turn on the headlights"
Nanonaut: "I think we are in deep shit"
MissonControl: "Could you repeat that?"
Nanonaut: "I said we are in deep shit, did you say 1 millimeter 4,5,11.4 vector to the base?"
MissonControl: "No! I said 0.25 Inches to to 4,5,11.4"
Nanonaut: "My god, I see stars......"
MissonControl: "Hello.. Hello.. anybody there....."
Nanonaut:
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:4)
My father in law died of cancer last year. I've had friends die of cancer. I don't know anyone who has HIV. Yeah, great budgetting. The previous poster in this thread is right. It's disgusting that AIDS gets more funding than cancer. About the only way you can get HIV without having yourself to blame is through a blood transfusion. The rest, well you play the lottery and take your chances. Yet cancer can strike anyone.
This kinda crap makes me VERY angry.:(
I don't know... (Score:3)
Who owns the NASA technology, anyhow? I know, we always hear about the benefits of "space-age" technology, but... do they license their patents, or does the gov't reap the benefits? And couldn't that money go towards NASA funding? Please?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Um, actually... (Score:3)
Actually, that isn't too likely to be the problem; the mother's and baby's blood only mix as the child is being born, and even then it isn't enough to pose too much of a threat (indeed, many AIDS babies are actually born without the virus and later get it from their mother's breastmilk).
I don't know if amnion carries the virus or not; not all fluids do. Saliva, for example, doesn't carry the virus, at least not in large enough quantities to pose any risk whatsoever unless you were to drink a gallon of the stuff (I think I'll pass). Last I checked only four bodily fluids actually carried the virus in significant quantities: blood, mucus, semen, and vaginal secretions. Other fluids don't seem to carry the virus, or carry it in such minute amounts that there's little to no real risk.
There are also reported cases of babies born with HIV whose bodies actually fight and kill the virus, but Doctors aren't quite sure why yet. Read about that years ago.
There was one case, and that one was later found to be just a mistake; the test was a false-negative.
Also, you talk about the only way to get AIDS without having yourself to blame being through a blood transfusion. That's not strictly true. Some AIDS-infected people actually use their disease as a weapon, infecting many people without them even knowing it. One famous example was a Florida dentist who secretly infected 25 people. There are also HIV-infected rapists; surely such a case is one where it's not the victim's fault that they were infected. And while I know of no cases of this next one, there's also the possibility of infecting someone unwillingly with a needle (we're not talking needle-sharing here; we're talking forced injection).
As for blood transfusions, the screening is so good now that it basically takes a freak accident for HIV-infected blood to get into the supply. So under normal circumstances, AIDS is quite preventable. But it isn't always; don't forget that.
This said, I do think it's a shame that AIDS research gets 20 times the money that cancer research gets. Not so much because of the preventability of AIDS as the fact that cancer still kills many more people every year than AIDS does, and it's been killing for a far longer time There's evidence of known cancer cases in ancient Egypt, whereas the first confirmed AIDS cases were in the late 70's/early 80's, and even the oldest hypothetical case is from the 50's. Don't get me wrong; both diseases are terrible things and need research. But someone in Washington needs to get their priorities straight, or at least recognize that cancer is still a massive threat.
But I doubt that'll happen anytime soon. One last tidbit to leave you with. For a long time, the CIA had a certain bit of spy technology with an interesting side-effect: it could be used to detect breast cancer far earlier than any technology of the time could. But before they released it to the public (which was only recent; sometime in the last five years), they had to be convinced that women's health was "an issue of national security." Guess it goes to show you where Washington's priorities lie.
I'd like a 2nd opinion (Score:2)
Tang! was Re:wasted article spot (Score:1)
when is the last time either of these two made an impact on anything.
Umm, have you ever heard of Tang? That came straight out of NASA research. So, see, NASA has an impact on the world.
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
Smaller, Cheaper, Faster... (Score:2)
Don't know if it's cheaper -- but it better be, considering each mission ends with the probe going down the swirly black hole...
Re:inner space? (Score:1)
Re:Um, actually... (Score:1)
Re:Nanotechnology Networking (Score:1)
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
If the increasing cancer rate was a limiting factor, then human life expectancy in countries with relatively high cancer rates would be DROPPING. Guess what? It isn't.
A stat class should be a prerequisite before opening your mouth.
-jon
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
You keep talking about how "our ancestors" lived. Well, bucky, life expectancy was around 35 (due the huge number of people who died in childbirth) for most of human existance. In just the time since Social Security was enacted in the US, average life expectancy has gone from around 62 to around 80. Maybe, just maybe, some it has to do with better diet, like that milk and OJ that you are holding up as "unnatural?" Given the choice between living when my ancestors lived (pick a time period, any time period) and today, I'd pick today, even with evil vitamin-packed orange juice.
Cancer, by the way, does not come from accumulating "impurities" in your body. That's the bullshit New Age explaination which lets con artists get losers to give them hundreds of dollars for high colonics and homeopathic medicines.
-jon
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
AIDS is spreading rapidly in places where the people (1) do not understand/believe how the disease is spread and (2) have serious problems testing for and treating the disease. Do you know how AIDS is spread? Can you avoid doing things (sharing needles, having sex with people who might have AIDS) which would get you AIDS? Poof! You're virtually AIDS-proof. If you don't get it, then you don't need to be treated for it.
Being cancer-proof, OTOH, is virtually impossible. Not smoking will prevent one of the most common cancers, as will staying out of the sun. Good diet and exercise will keep your body in shape. But beyond that, there isn't too much that you can do to prevent cancer. It'd be nice if research money went to problems that were hard to prevent in the first place. It's not that I don't have sympathy for HIV-infected people, but cancer is a far worse problem.
-jon
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
Since people are living longer in first world nations which have things like "artificial" nuclear radiation and cars, it's safe to say that the new dangers are far less dangerous than the old dangers.
By the way, where and when was life expectancy around 35 for most of human existence? And if huge number of people died in childbirth, wouldn't say that of those who survived, quite a few of them lived well past 35? Statistically speaking, it would make sense in order for things to balance out, no?
Life expectancy was 35 (the source says 37) around 1800 (Source: http://www.positive.net/perspective/archive/96-08- 04.html).
My fingers typed "childbirth" when I meant to say "childhood." However, Women frequently died while giving birth. There are two people involved in that birth process, after all.
-jon
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
Let me try another take: have you ever taken a chemistry class? Are you familiar with the term "Limiting Reagent?" Cancer is not the limiting reagent in the life expectancy equation for first world nations because even though the amount of cancer has gone up, life expectancy in general has not gone down.
The cancer rate is not going to be high if you don't live long enough to get cancer. When 2/3 of Europe's population was wiped out from bubonic plague, cancer rates must have been very low. Why? PEOPLE WERE DYING OF PLAGUE! In the 20th century, plague outbreaks are rare. Other things are going to kill people. Cancer is one of the things that we still can't do too much about, so it's a big killer.
Why do some people get cancer in their 30's and 40's and some people don't? Current medical thinking is that most cancers in younger people are due to genetic defects. Cancer is, more or less, a set of cells that keep on reproducing and consuming food far beyond what they need to do. This happens because the cell has been damaged somehow. It can happen from exposure to certain chemicals or radiation or it can happen just because. Figure out the "just because" part (remarkable amounts of work have actually been done on this) and how to prevent it (this is the much harder bit), and you'll win the Nobel Prize.
I'm certainly not arguing that we shouldn't waste time curing cancer. It is, after all, the #2 killer of Americans. But understanding WHY cancer rates are increasing is important. You avoid yammerheads who blame power lines, cereal additivies and other pseudoscientific sources and focus on the real sources of the problem.
Passing stat classes and logic classes should be a requirement for a high school diploma. And maybe for the right to vote. But I digress...
-jon
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:2)
Cancer strikes smokers, radiation victims, and otherwise randomly. No one with knowledge of the field feels that cancer is likely to become airborn.
Re:wasted article spot (Score:2)
Well most of NASA's spacecraft have made pretty big impacts on Mars lately...
Rim shot
Thank you! I'm at the Funny Bone in Cleveland next week... please tip your waitresses and drive safely.
Re:Nano-Beowolf Cluster? (Score:1)
Nanotechnology Networking (Score:3)
Problems might arise though. What if some scrpit kiddie pinged you to death. If you think about it these little things would whae to have wireless connections to the net which would be very slow. It'd be interesting to see what kind of attacks would be made on these devices to cause problems. Maybe a DHR(Distributed Hormone Release) that causes you to suddenly start getting really horny. But you could also use a DHR to make someone grow more.
I'd set up my old 486 as a firewall to prevent "malicious hackers" from breaking into me and causing some kind of meltdown. Maybe have the 486 notify a special Nano device that "pages" my brain with the person's IP and what they are doing.
Read "slant" for an idea of the problems... (Score:1)
Of course, you have to be able to read Greg Bear - He's an acquired taste.
Here's a non-associate Amazon.com link [amazon.com]
Missing NASA Tech (Score:1)
Re:I'd like a 2nd opinion (Score:1)
Easy, you wrap the pill in a bunch of starch and instruct the taker not to suck on it. The starch won't get digested by the enzymes in the stomach, but will be by those in the duodenum (intestine nearest the stomach).
Blood Music by Greg Bear (Score:2)
In the book, (originally a short story) a scientist manages to create an intelligent Lymphocite, which is the white blood cells, the 'Cops' of the Cardiovascular system. They end up in his own blood stream, and convert his body to a super healthy state, including restructuring his bones for more optimal movement and to prevent damage. Anyway, some more stuff happens, I won't ruin it. It's really good.
I had read the short story years ago, but the book picks up where the short story just got interesting. Highly recommend it.
--
Gonzo Granzeau
Here we go again (Score:2)
First it was people thinking Jesus was talking to them.
Then along came science fiction, and the same people now were worried about little green men and their ray guns, so they built themselves tinfoil hats [tripod.com] and even tinfoil bodysuits [berk.com].
Now here comes nanotech. Who knows how much more sophisticated these wackos are going to get? Let's all repeat after me: "Get them away from me!"
I think you're referring to "Plasmania" (Score:2)
Re:OT:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
injected with hormones to increase their milk yield? And what effect does the milk that come from
these cows have on the human body? "
Ben and Jerry's says that they would like to promise that they don't use milk from cows that have been treated with rBGH. But they can't, because no test can tell the difference in the milk.
No study has ever shown any harm from rBGH. so I don't see hwat your gripe is.
"Where did
people who lived in colder climates get their vitamin C from before the advent of global shipping? "
I haven't a clue
1. You have to get vitamin C somewhere - why not there?
2. It courrelates with reduced risk of heart disease.
3. It tastes good.
4. It isn't carbonated, and so it doesn't leech your calcium.
Disclaimer: I am not a health food nut. I just listen to my mom, who is
Re:OT:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
no one knows what really causes cancer, right? "
The deal is that we've done studies. Other than *possibly* causing cancer (not a long enough timeline to tell for certain, but it's pretty clear that it doesn't), rBGH won't hurt you.
So, unless you want to say "Damn the studies, I'm paranoid," then you're being stupid.
"I'm not saying it causes cancer. But I certainly think it is a big health risk. I mean, if we were to take it directly, would it be a problem? "
rBHG does not enter a cows milk. Period. There's no trace of it there, not even a tiny bit. Ben and fucking Jerry's, who are, like, hardcore about this can't detect it... No one can. It's not there!
"However, I don't think any food should need "fortification" with additional nutrients. That sends an alarm in my mind that says: there's something wrong here! Remember Olestra? The fat substitute that is supposed to pass right through your body instead of being absorbed by the body? They had to fortify it with nutrients because it leached nutrients from the body!"
OK, so it was Olestra that made you into a paranoid nutjob. I'll remember to avoid it. Adding nutrients isn't going to hurt you (except maybe megadoses of vitamin E). I know that I, for one, don't eat well. I don't eat enough fruit. So if my (say) beef has extra vitamin C, then good! I need it, and it'll pass through your body, harmlessly.
"I still say, processed foods are bad for you."
But you provide no evidence for this...
I have some evidence against, tho.
When my dad cooks chicken, he cuts off the fat. That's processing. And It's better for me that way. By far.
"Look, the best and richest country in the world, and we still have plenty of health problems, if not more than some of the other countries, even with all the available medical advancements. Maybe it's time to look at things from a different perspective? "
Like "good eating won't solve all problems" ? that sounds like a good start. How about "nanotech can solve many problems, so let's get hacking on it." That might do it...
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
I was part of a study (Score:2)
methods which required me to put a thermistor on a wire in two places, one of which was up my nose and down my throat. The other we won't mention. TMI!! I had to wear an antenna array harness that picked up the signals from this pill. Pretty cool being a part of the developement of this stuff. Anyway, it was I guess a precursor to these devices plus I got paid, had my body fat measured, got to watch a couple of Arnold movies and get some exercise!
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:4)
Nanotechnology (Score:1)
--
OT:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
For instance, humans have an estimated existence time of only a hundred thousand years, IIRC. So your claim on time frames is slightly exaggerated. Milk and milk products have been popular for a very long time. Long before the advent of big corporations. Cheese and butter have been around for a long time as well.
I believe the Israelites described Canaan as the "land of milk & honey" to Moses.
Some African cattle herders drink milk as well as the blood of the cattle they herd, I can't imagine that even they have succumbed to the "marketing tools" of big business.
Oranges. Ummm, ever hear the word "scurvy?" Yes, they didn't have pasteurized, vitamin D fortified oranges but they still used them as a source of vitamin C.
Of course, I can't say I disagree with the claims to smoking or MS...I personally think those two comments are dead on. >;)
I also mostly agree with your claims to big business as well. The alternative isn't necessarily non-milk/non-orange products but perhaps purchasing those commodities from small farmers/non-corporate entities. I know that I do.
-Vel
I saw that movie ..... (Score:2)
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
In some cases it is, but in a lot of others its not. We're not talking just about lung cancer caused by smoking here. There are many other types.
But its not like this is the only case, in Canada at least, breast cancer gets 10 or 20 times the funding that prostate cancer research gets, when they both kill about equally.
Maybe not so sweet (Score:1)
Maybe you'll have to have something like this [unc.edu]. ;-)
--
star trek tech (Score:2)
I suppose you need a Tricorder to record the data from the Trisponder.
Re:Oh my... (Score:1)
pretty cool stuff..
Re:Sure it's great reading... (Score:1)
Nanotech has never been used outside the laboratory in real-life conditions. It seems very fragile, etc...
Why reinvent the whell? The best nanotech already exists:
THE LIVING CELL
Instead of neglecting billions of years of evolution, we should start breeding our own "nanotech" cells - via natural selection in a controlled environment with induced mutations and a nearly infinite resource of catalogued genes - to do our bidding, like eating up tar in lungs, killing viruses and alot of other good things.
-nick
reminds me of an old apple game... (Score:2)
the missions where to clean up a certain health problem or fix certain problems, battle germs and bacteria and such, navigate the heart, etc... was really lame, but every time I hear about nanotech and healthcare, that game always pops into my head. Damn wasted braincells... atleast I can't remember the name of the game.
Martin Short, Dennis Quaid, Meg Ryan (Score:1)
The Good Reverend
Re:Maybe not so sweet (Score:1)
Eruantalon
Sweet (Score:2)
Eruantalon
_Really_ smart drugs (Score:2)
What a great description of psychopharmacology! Can I use it when I teach undergrads?
For all the chemicals it pumps out, the body is surprisingly parsimonious sometimes. You can take Prozac(TM) or ecstasy to raise your mood, and end up with high blood pressure, confusion, tremor, possibly death (admittedly more likely if you take both at once). Serotonin syndrome [biopsychiatry.com] occurs because lots of receptors throughout the brain and body have the same chemical as a signal to do different things. But if we had a substance that could stimulate receptors with the serotonin-seeking shape and tell the difference between a mood-affecting receptor and a blood-pressure raising receptor, we could get the benefits without the side effects.
This is only crudely possible with dumb chemicals. But nanomachines could communicate with a transmitter at a known location on the subject's body, using it to position themselves and either stimulate receptors or release chemicals at a single, tightly controlled locus. Such micromanagement is already used in neuroscience experiments, but at this time they require inserting a catheter directly into the desired part of the brain (yeah, we can treat your depression if you don't feel like getting out of bed anytime soon...). If the drug could place itself...
- laborit
do you know more now, or not?
The bad do bad because the bad is rewarded. The good do good because the good is rewarded.
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net [mailto]) - AOL IM: MicroBerto
Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:3)
That's quite a disgrace, seeing that AIDS is so much more preventable.
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net [mailto]) - AOL IM: MicroBerto
What I want to know is… (Score:1)
SCORE -1, TROLL! (Score:1)
Re:inner space? (Score:1)
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
The correct term is retrovirus.
-marc
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:2)
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
It's sad, that people allow passion to cloud their ability to reason. While staying Anonymous, no less.
Imagine a slightly less-rapid virus, more rapid than HIV, but not constrained to sexual contact, and the possibilities are terrifying.
Imagine how much I'd be willing to donate to research it. Then remember we're in the land of hypothetical viruses, while cancer and AIDS are real and kill daily.
I stand by my original post, and I suspect that if we want to really find out what MicroBerto really thinks about cancer and AIDS, we should wait for any follow-up posts by him before resorting to hypothetical discussion about the Right Wing Boogeyman.
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org [steelmaelstrom.org].
Re:_ (Score:1)
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org [steelmaelstrom.org].
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:2)
I agree with MicroBerto that AIDS is more preventable than Cancer. Sex, however, is not the sole method of AIDS (rather, HIV) transmission....needle-sharing is also a major vector, and it's on the rise in developed countries.
Cancer can also be prevented: don't smoke, don't chew, avoid tanning, etc. Unfortunately cancer's causes are legion whereas HIV/AIDS may be contracted in a limited number of fashions such as unprotected sex, IV drug use and unscreened blood transfusions.
Both maladies have claimed victims who avoided dangerous and/or hedonistic lifestyles which might have put them at higher risk.
I take the side of cancer research: pancreatic, lung and breast cancer have claimed the lives of three members of my immediate family. HIV/AIDS has not.
While I sympathize with those who have lost loved ones to AIDS and neither desire to trivialize their losses nor lobby for reduced AIDS research donations, I cannot ignore that which has struck closer to home.
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org [steelmaelstrom.org].
Of course there's a flip side to this all... (Score:2)
Not quickly, of course...unless the hapless victim(s) ingested scores at once without noticing a grainy consistancy to their food.
Maybe these killer nanites could be designed to block arteries with cholesterol, or dissolve platelets to prevent the stop of bleeding on the battlefield, or change the chemical structure of certain food items to slowly poison a victim. How about severing optic nerves to cause blindness, or causing spinal cord injuries to cause paralysis?
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org [steelmaelstrom.org].
This begs the question of .... (Score:1)
When will cool stuff like this filter down to the average US citizen, and how much longer after that will it take to get it to (Fill in this spot with the current name of your favorite third world country.)
As a side note, those neato thermometers are just now making their way into Mexico and Central America. I suspect that it'll take another 20 years before that NASA Tricorder makes it to the nice hospitals in Belize, much less to the really poor folks down there.
CSG_SurferDude
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
Point taken, I was just reacting to un-supported claims. OTOH, It's really surprising the things folks are finding that cause cancer that are avoidable. (For instance, Sex. [mayohealth.org] Follow the link, it's interesting reading.)
CSG_SurferDude
Re:Tang! was Re:wasted article spot (Score:1)
Gee, I'm just a posting fool today...
What have we gotten from NASA? Tang, Microwave ovens, pacemakers, Protective paints to better resist weathering, weather Satelites, and (My personal favorite) Cordless tools! and the list goes on and on and on.
For a quick list, check out spacepupnew.pdf [nasa.gov].
CSG_SurferDude
Re:Tang! was Re:wasted article spot (Score:1)
CSG_SurferDude
Re:I don't know... (Score:4)
CSG_SurferDude
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:3)
I don't buy it. What's the source of your information.
====
what about removal? (Score:1)
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:2)
Except:
1. Being born of an infected mother.
2. Being a nurse, and having an accident while treating a HIV+ patient.
3. Using a condom that breaks
4. Sleeping with someone who is HIV+ in some third world country (or even first world...) where nobody bothered to explain to you that there was anything wrong with that.
5. Being raped.
6. Falling on or playing with an infected needle left lying around.
7. Sleeping with someone in a long-term trusting relationship/marriage who becomes HIV+ because they are cheating on you.
8. Being in an arranged marriage. I doubt that all men in arranged marriages take AIDS tests. Culturally a lot of these people have absolutely no choice in their sexual relations
One could further argue that in situations where one partner plays on the youth, naivety and trust of the other (consenting) partner in order to have sex without protection, that other partner is not truly at fault. In part, situations like that are caused by the fact that parents and teachers are so up tight and embarrassed about discussing the issues that the issues don't really get discussed.
Many kids in my class at school lost their virginity at about 13. If the school had given sex education (of the "if you have sex, use protection" sort, not "This is how ovaries work") to 13 year olds, their parents would be up in arms shouting that the school was trying to encourage sex among minors.
Even more importantly, given the demographic of AIDS sufferers, is that few schools will ever tell you... "If you have gay sex, use protection". In England I think it is illegal for teachers to say anything which could be construed as encouraging (read "condoning") being gay, so the subject is just avoided.
AIDS sufferers have quite enough of being shunned, since by having the disease they must clearly be a depraved Godless homosexual and a heroin addict as well. You don't have to add to that. And saying that less money should be put into their treatment because their disease is their own fault is at best a debatable position
NASA + My body = YIKES! (Score:2)
Are we forgetting that this is the agency who recently lost one probe because they confused metric and imperial measurements [nasa.gov], and lost another due to rushing and cutting corners [nasa.gov].
I'm not a NASA basher, but do we really want these folks putting things inside our bodies?
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:2)
Bottom line...infectious lethal virus currently spread by exchange of body fluids could be the source of the next spanish flu. By funding this area of research we are investing generally in viral research and laying the groundwork to be able to prevent future epidemics of nastier versions of these viruses.
Cancer is a very serious problem and needs big time funding too, but the threat to national (international) well being of lethal viruses is much greater than cancer.
A Contagious Cancer (Score:1)
T.J. Yang. 1995. Parasitic protist of metazoan origin. Evolutionary Theory 11:99-103.
Of course, I don't claim that cancer is likely to become a highly contagious disease. It is a hard enough problem as it is. I just bring this up because it shows how bizarre life can be.
Enjoy, Carlo
NIH spends more on Cancer than AIDS (Score:2)
These numbers come from http://www4.od.nih.gov/ofm/budget/00conference.stm - Carlo
Invalid LValue (sid=00/04/12/1550234, line 1) (Score:1)
Nano-Beowolf Cluster? (Score:1)
Re:I'd like a 2nd opinion (Score:1)
Or the nanites 'ride' a particular molecule from the pill that will essentially carry the nanite to the molecule's destination which would in turn be the nanite's destination. Once the molecule is dissolved at it's destination, the nanite is deployed and it is ready to do it's work in that area. IANAMBONE (I Am Not A MicroBiologist Or NanoEngineer) but that is how I picture it working. Essentially how chemicals in drugs get to the specific organs that they have to do work on..
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
We choose to put things into our body that are bad for us. When too much accumulates, we get cancer. There are many other ways, of course, and not always voluntary.
We allow ourselves to be led by marketing, and allow ourselves to be harmed.
Some examples:
- Milk is good for you (says who? This should be an urban legend. For hundreds of thousands of years (at least) humans lived without drinking milk (and this means milk from another animal, and drinking milk as an adult, and drinking pasteurized milk), why is it now milk is so popular? Give you a hint: "Got Milk?"
- Orange Juice is good for you (Again, the same argument. Our ancestors lived without pasteurized, Vitamin D fortified, Juicy bits of orange or not, for a long time, and they didn't have problems).
- Smoking is cool (helps with digestion, as some of the older ads told us).
- MS is the best OS, used by more people than any other OSes in the world (well, ok, I should know better, but it fits).
I know that this is way off topic. But heck, until people realize that the big corporations are using marketing to leverage our health and well-being for their bottom line, and that there are alternatives and people gotta stop being sheep.
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
You are right, though, I guess I should have known better than to open my mouth without having researched and being able to snow everyone with mountains of statistics.
I wish there was a better forum for this. I'm really not just mouthing off on this stuff.
Re:OT:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
Milk: Yes, I know that throughout history, people have been drinking milk, using dairy products like cheese and yogurt. Perhaps I should have mentioned some of the other things that bother me about milk. Nowadays, milk is gotten from hormone-laden milk-generating biological machines that resemble something akin to what we call cows. Am I wrong on this? Are the cows NOT being injected with hormones to increase their milk yield? And what effect does the milk that come from these cows have on the human body?
Orange Juice: Ok, scurvy was a problem - for people who did not have a good source of vitamin C. Was scruvy a problem with people who did not have a good source of vitamin C? Not likely, unless you ate a very unbalanced diet. Vitamin C is plentiful in many fruits and vegetables. We have all been taught since grade school that citrus fruits have a lot of vitamin C and that when the world was being explored by the Europeans, they got scurvy, until they started bringing and using lemons and limes. Those being too sour, the next best thing was oranges. But orange juice is not essential for well-being. Vitamin C may be, not OJ. Oranges are also a warm/hot climate fruit (I don't know if they are tropical, but the most well-known OJ brand is Tropicana, at least from where I am). Where did people who lived in colder climates get their vitamin C from before the advent of global shipping?
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
The world we live in today, has lots of good things and lots of bad things. It's much safer world in terms of all the natural dangers that used to kill off all of our ancestors. I will venture to say there lots of new dangers in terms of, say, nuclear radiations from artifical sources, chemical pollution, and new dangers like car accidents. Can we agree on that so far?
Ok, I don't know if you remember a Breyer Ice Cream commercial from the '80s that touted how they used only natural ingrdients, unlike all the other Ice Cream makes that had ingredients like Polysorbate 80 and locust beans (yes, I remembered those exactly from the commercial). What the heck are those things? And why are we putting that stuff into our bodies?
Meats and milk - animal products from animals that have been injected with hormones to increase yield. We are putting yet more stuff into our bodies. Because we are on the top of the food chain here, we accumulate a lot of these chemicals in more concentrated doses, especially the fat soluble stuff. I'm not making this stuff up. You can look it up.
I'm not trying to spew all the New Age bullshit. A lot of those claims are just as bogus, just as bad. Where there's an opportunity to make money, people will try ot use it.
Maybe my linking cancer with these "unnatural" versions of natural products was a little severe considering that I'm not really offering up proof.
As for me, I don't buy into all of the New Age homeopathic stuff either. I just try to eat naturally. I try to avoid foods that are processed and comes in a package that has one of the RDA labels and lists ingredients that I can't pronounce. I don't think that's very unreasonable.
By the way, where and when was life expectancy around 35 for most of human existence? And if huge number of people died in childbirth, wouldn't say that of those who survived, quite a few of them lived well past 35? Statistically speaking, it would make sense in order for things to balance out, no?
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
Agreed. But maybe, just maybe, some of the "new dangers" (not things so immediate like car accidents) manifest themselve in the form of diseases and cancers?
Life expectancy was 35 (the source says 37) around 1800 (Source: http://www.positive.net/perspective/archive/96-08- 04.html). My fingers typed "childbirth" when I meant to say "childhood." However, Women frequently died while giving birth. There are two people involved in that birth process, after all.
Ok, childbirth or childhood, point is they were young. Childhood, I think, we can agree, is younger than 35 (though I may disagree with that myself, sometimes :). But it still means that significant number of people were older than 35 if there were so many people dying so young. I'm not going to beat this one into the ground anymore than it already has.
I do, however, have a problem with the 1800's figure.
There's a couple of reasons why:
1. Whose life expectancy was being measured? From page you referred to, it looked like it was mostly Europeans, who suffered the bubonic plague and other sort of things. It pointed out that prehistoric times until 1400's, life expectancy was in the 20s and 30s. I think this was largely a European phenomenon. Great ancient civilizations could not have been built if the population had those kinds of life expctancies.
2. I forget, also, 1800's -> Industrial Revolution, no? People were dying left and right from lung cancer because of the coal and soot and stuff like that, right? It was the staple of authors like Charles Dickens (again, European).
Thank you for a vigorous discussion (really!). I learned a few things. I also learned that I should not be so cavalier in making generalizations. Next time I'll try to offer up more convincing evidence of the stuff I'm spouting here that are not much of the new age bullshit that I personally find distasteful as well.
You are right on one thing, I didn't take general statistics in school - I only took engineering statistics in school and I didn't do so well in it. I really should go back and study it some more.
Re:OT:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
Does it have to come down to something so toxic that you get cancer within, let's say, a year, that people will be willing to say, "gee, I think it might be causing cancer"?
I'm not saying it causes cancer. But I certainly think it is a big health risk. I mean, if we were to take it directly, would it be a problem?
The big problem I have with a lot of the things that are "good" for you goes something like this:
- Scurvy kills off thousands
- citrus fruits found to ward off scurvy
- Vitamin C deficiency isolated as reason for scurvy
- Abundance in Vitamin C wards of colds and prevents scurvy. It's essential!
- Orange Juice Industry: OJ got vitamin C! Therefore it is good for you! Come buy lots!
Is OJ good for reduced risk of heart disease because of Vitamin C?
Compared to soft drinks, I would say it's much better in terms of nutritional contents.
However, I don't think any food should need "fortification" with additional nutrients. That sends an alarm in my mind that says: there's something wrong here! Remember Olestra? The fat substitute that is supposed to pass right through your body instead of being absorbed by the body? They had to fortify it with nutrients because it leached nutrients from the body! And just because it is fortified with nutrients doesn't mean your body is absorbing those nutrients. It would still be truth in labeling of nutrients, though. Just like iron in spinach. It's there, but it doesn't mean it's easily absorbable.
I still say, processed foods are bad for you. If you have no choice, you have to eat. If you have a choice, avoiding processed foods is the best thing you could do.
Look, the best and richest country in the world, and we still have plenty of health problems, if not more than some of the other countries, even with all the available medical advancements. Maybe it's time to look at things from a different perspective?
anyone watch The Outer Limits? (Score:1)
I wouldn't want to do that because of that episode
of The Outer Limits where they did exactly the
same thing as that article talks about. Not that
I believe anything on that TV show, but what if
this is the one time that they're actually right?
I don't wanna be the freak that took the pill and
turned into a monster...
Call me stupid...i'd just rather be safe than
sorry.
NASA discovers micro sized things! (Score:5)
- Andy R.
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
Ok, this is silly. It's like saying that humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years without antibiotics, so therefore antibiotics are not good for you, and instead are a marketing vehicle for evil pharmaceutical companies to take your money. Come on! Yeah, way off topic, but this crap irks me.
"I shoulda never sent a penguin out to do a daemon's work."
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
The fact that there already is a cure for AIDS doesn't seem to thwart the charity-mongers any. There are actually two cures:
1) Natural Selection - nasty but true. The epidemic will eventually play itself out, much as the Black Plauge did in the Middle Ages. Sure, it may take more than half the poplulation, but it will play out.
2) Social Change - not likely until a *real* epidemic ensues, then it will be too late. However, if education efforts were successful in changing the culture. . . theoretically you could stamp it out. And we all know the difference between theory and reality.
Cancer, on the other hand, strikes anyone and everyone regardless of lifestyle. Sure, there are high risk groups and ways of decreasing your risk (i.e. reduce your exposure to cancer-causing chems), but I feel that most cancers today can be attributed to many environmental hazards such as an increase in radiation, chemical and radio frequency exposure.
So, to recap:
AIDS == avoidable
CANCER == !avoidable
later,
kristau
P.S. - Yes, I personally knew three people who died of cancer. No, I have not personally known someone who has died of AIDS. Perhaps that would make a good
I like it... (Score:1)
They already have this... (Score:2)
Given their luck on the Mars Missions (Score:1)
Five Words You Don't Want to Hear... (Score:1)
Houston, we have a problem.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Re:I'd like a 2nd opinion (Score:1)
Uh-oh (Score:2)
Re:Oh my... (Score:1)
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
BTW, you can have my cancer for nothing if you want... Nothing serious, just next to my kidney.
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
AIDS is very indiscriminate, incurable (at present), constantly changes for the conditions and results in death. Perfect population control. I do believe the world is becoming over populated, India is about to pass China for god sakes... How can so many people live in such a tight space?
Conspiracy theories abound...
Re:Oh my... (Score:1)
the nanobots thought that not having eyes in the back of his head was a "problem" ... then that he needed gills... if i remember correctly it ended when they gave him a protective covering kinda like a jelly fish and he killed himself....
Although this seems kinda unrealistic to me, it brings up a good point: What do we classify as "things to change?" I mean, call me paraniod, but i could see this as a new way of genocide (or something similar) by eliminating what someone calls a "problem."
Re:Of course there's a flip side to this all... (Score:1)
Re:Sensors (Score:1)
I can see it now..... (Score:5)
However that one pill isn't powerfull enough to fight off the illness by itself. You have to swallow its four friends, and then they all combine inside your body to form a super robot to fight together.
Sheesh this is starting to sound like Voltron. I hope they don't have some mega-sword which they start swinging wildly around inside of you.
Let's hope the virii don't start teaming up like this. Soon eveyone will have things popping out of them, al a Alien.
Ok, this post sounded like a good idea when I started
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:1)
A girl I used to know had HIV. She contracted it from a guy who raped her. I'd hate to tell her that she only had herself to blame.
So you consider this a hotly contendable issue? Consider this: Several varieties of cancer are triggered by retroviral activity. That's right... the same type of retroviral activity that AIDS research is trying to block. Among these varieties is the only common form of liver cancer that doesn't come from drinking too much alcohol or diet soda, the only common form of lung cancer that doesn't come from smoking, and a rather nasty heart cancer.
Just because it's labled "AIDS", doesn't mean it's only benefitting victims of that nasty disease.
Cancer tends to be more of a middle class white anglo saxon protestant concern than any other ailment. Other demographics have other primary worries. Geeks and techies tend to be from the same fringe social demographics as the people who get hit by HIV. Personally, I'm glad that our groups' boogymen get some attention.
Oh, and for all that, as a guy who has done both cancer and AIDS research, the funding differential isn't very big. Only in private research, where AIDS is big money and most cancers are treatable with proper regular checkups, and don't get large amounts of cash for treatment, is there a gap.
Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research (Score:2)
A cure for AIDS is not really a cure for AIDS but a cure for viral infections. Such a process would inevitably lead to a number of cures for other diseases (common cold, hepatitis, etc) that would be far more beneficial than just the single cure. If you look at the sum of the parts of the research, it might explain the amount of funding that is applied to such an "easily preventable" disease.