Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Science Technology

Extremely Accurate Nanotech Cancer Test Developed 128

Sylvestre writes "Medical News Today reports that Harvard researchers have developed an accurate test for cancer using nanotechnology. From the article: 'Harvard University researchers have found that molecular markers indicating the presence of cancer in the body are readily detected in blood scanned by special arrays of silicon nanowires -- even when these cancer markers constitute only one hundred-billionth of the protein present in a drop of blood. In addition to this exceptional accuracy and sensitivity, the minuscule devices also promise to pinpoint the exact type of cancer present with a speed not currently available to clinicians.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Extremely Accurate Nanotech Cancer Test Developed

Comments Filter:
  • very intresting, but i wonder how long it'll get these to get really widespread
  • RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

    by (eternal_software) ( 233207 ) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @02:22PM (#13645790)
    These tests are performed on a drop of blood. They don't enter the body!

    "A nanowire array can test a mere pinprick of blood in just minutes, providing a nearly instantaneous scan for many different cancer markers."
  • Over the counter? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OwP_Fabricated ( 717195 ) <fabricated&gmail,com> on Sunday September 25, 2005 @02:24PM (#13645809) Homepage
    I wonder when we'll be able to buy over the counter cancer tests? We're pretty much there for HIV.

    We're already a society of hypochondriacs. Imagine if you could test yourself at home for every devestating disease there is.

    Of course, I'm getting a ahead of myself. Early detection is the best defense. If this is as good as they say it is, it could save a LOT of lives.
    • by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @02:28PM (#13645836)
      Wouldn't easy, reliable testing be good for hypochondriacs? Then they'd be able to tell, conclusively, that they're not sick!
      • The nature of the hypochondriac is that no diagnosis is ever good enough.

        "Well, maybe I administered the test wrong...I'll just go back to the store and get a few more so I can try again...then I'll call my doctor..."
        • You're exactly right.

          That is how my gf and I felt when she took some pregnancy tests after missing her period. After two of the three in the box said NO, we wondered, "Hmm. Maybe this was a bad batch and we should go back and buy another brand?".

          No, we didn't do it, but it was difficult not to and to just trust that the test was accurate.
      • There's something wrong with everyone. It would just flood hospitals with all of the hypochondriacs worrying about false positives - or, as mentioned above, false negatives.
      • There's zillions of things that could possibly go wrong with the human body, so a guy could go broke testing for every possible disease -- assuming the disease has a biochemical indicator. Also, a common view point for hypochondriacs is that if you don't have 'it', that doesn't mean you can't catch 'it' tomorrow. These test kits could be like crack to these people, having to keep going back to the pharmacy for their weekly fix.
        • True, but I don't feel that these things, given that they 'could' be abused by a hypochondriac, should be banned or restricted. They'll be a vast overall benefit.

          Of course, it's not likely to be over the counter for a long time, given that they're going to be disposable 'chips' that are plugged into a multi-thousand dollar machine to interprit the results. Each chip will be cheap*, so it'll be part of your annual physical, and allow faster cancer diagnosis, as well as for other diseases.

          *In medical terms
    • by Manchot ( 847225 ) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @02:32PM (#13645861)
      You are absolutely correct. If this can detect even the smallest cluster of cancer cells, it can be caught years before it would be detected using current methods. When cancerous clusters are very small, they are fairly easy to kill off. Therefore, this technology has the potential to be the mythical "cure for cancer" that we've been searching for for years.
      • by mwilli ( 725214 )
        It would not exactly be the "cure" for cancer, but this in conjunction with current treatments (i.e., radiation therapy), we could pretty much eliminate the threat of cancer altogether. Assuming individuals test themselves regularly (every 6 months perhaps).
        • Re:Over the counter? (Score:2, Informative)

          by Maliuta ( 16315 )

          "Assuming individuals test themselves regularly (every 6 months perhaps)."

          This is exactly the issue, if people test themselves. I was diagnosed with Accute Lymphoblastic Lukaemia (ALL) in Jan 2003, I hold the record for the highest circulating Lukaemic count in an adult in Queensland(Australia) - I could have been diagnosed sooner had I been tested, the issue is that I didn't think I needed to see a doctor for testing. While tests like this are excelent in providing difinitive results for early detection i

    • Re:Over the counter? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Sunday September 25, 2005 @02:35PM (#13645879) Homepage
      Hypochondria is a problem thanks to the Internet. There was that article a while ago on Slashdot about how doctors and hospitals don't see people thinking they have cramps or the flu, they get people who think they have appendicitis, cancer, and fatal familial insomnia and other insanely rare disorders. I know I have a bit of this (watch special about rare/deadly disease, start interpreting little things as "do I have this?").

      That said, if these tests were really that accurate and could be done at home, that might help. People who are hypochondriacs could test their blood and find out they DON'T have cancer. After using such a definitive test a couple of times they might very well "get the picture" that their next headache is a headache and not a brain tumor.

      On the other hand, if these things are sold to the public and have much of a false positive rate, that would be a BIG problem.

      • If a patient comes in to the doctor with a mild illness that will be taken care of naturally within a few days, the doctor should quickly send the patient home. Don't prescribe antibiotics or crap like that. Just send them home to bed. Like in the old, pre-pharma days.

      • by masklinn ( 823351 )

        Well, apendicitis and cancer are hardly "insanely rare disorders". Uncommon compared to cramps or flu maybe, but common enough for most people to have family members or friends suffer from them.

        • No, but both of them need training and/or lab equipment to properly diagnose. Reading a description of symptoms on the net and deciding "hey, I kinda sorta feel like some of the things on this list" is not sufficient.

        • Right, but you do get people like me going into the ER at 23 years old thinking they have had a heart attack, when come to find out it's just heartburn due to pizza consumption.

          I was laying on the couch, when my chest started hurting; so I go upstairs to check the interwebs to see if I did have the symptoms of a heart attack. Lo and behold, I had chest pains, tingling in my arm, and lightheadedness!

          Turns out it was just due to the aforementioned pizza, the fact that I was laying on my arm, and the fact tha
      • Hypochondria is a problem thanks to the Internet. There was that article a while ago on Slashdot about how doctors and hospitals don't see people thinking they have cramps or the flu, they get people who think they have appendicitis, cancer, and fatal familial insomnia and other insanely rare disorders. I know I have a bit of this (watch special about rare/deadly disease, start interpreting little things as "do I have this?").

        "It is a most extraordinary thing, but I never read a patent medicine advertis

      • That said, if these tests were really that accurate and could be done at home, that might help. People who are hypochondriacs could test their blood and find out they DON'T have cancer. After using such a definitive test a couple of times they might very well "get the picture" that their next headache is a headache and not a brain tumor.

        Or if our little hypochondriac friend is financially well off enough we might find him or her taking one or more test per day so they'll always be sure

      • Re:Over the counter? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by DrEldarion ( 114072 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [0791uhcsm]> on Sunday September 25, 2005 @03:13PM (#13646069)
        I think it started even before the internet. I blame the "cleanliness" industry for telling us that EVERYTHING WE EVER TOUCH has to be completely sanitized or the evil germs will get us. In addition to making us completely paranoid, it's hindered the development of our immune systems.

        George Carlin said it the best in his "fear of germs" tirade.
    • Yes, this technology has a lot of potential. It also has scary consequences, since it can also basically map (if that's the correct term) every gene in your DNA. Microfluidics has already been used to create chips that can detect specific genetic defects. Now think about the implications about it, Gattaca style. Being able to identify any diseases/conditions and genetic predisposition towards disease/conditions can potentially be used for discriminatory purposes, especially with health insurance compa
  • by Travoltus ( 110240 ) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @02:24PM (#13645811) Journal
    How long before they make nanites that can find cancerous cells and destroy them with extreme prejudice?
    • I'm definitely not an expert, but say eventually cancer destroying nano-machines are created.

      How could you control their reproduction so that they don't clog your veins or saturate your organs?
      • "How could you control their reproduction so that they don't clog your veins or saturate your organs?"

        My advice would be to put the sci-fi book down and realize that nanotech does not equal grey goo of death. Nanotech could be as simple as slapping some RNA together into a form that pentrates only cancer cells and turns off their reproduction. It could be functionalizaing a carbon nanotube to pentrate only cancern cells and then heating them up a little and causing the cell to explode. Nanotechnology is
        • So, where do all the waste products go after the cells are exploded or rendered sterile? Out via #1 and #2?
          • "In mammals including humans, the lymphatic vessels (or lymphatics) are a network of thin tubes that branch, like blood vessels, into tissues throughout the body. Lymphatic vessels carry lymph, a colorless, watery fluid originating from interstitial fluid (fluid in the tissues). The lymphatic system transports infection-fighting cells called lymphocytes, is involved in the removal of foreign matter and cell debris by phagocytes and is part of the body's immune system. It also transports fats from the small
      • find(other_nanites_in_area);

        for (i_be_nanite){
            nanites++;
        }

        if (nanites 6){
            die();
        }
    • Designing a device that can detect chemical traces - not *that* hard.
      Designing a device that can detect chemical traces, seek out the source of those traces and destroy it - rather a bit difficult.

      This is not, in my opinion a prequel to some sort of hunter/killer medical nanotech. It is, however, a HUGE step towards "curing" cancer: The survival rate for most cancers is much greater with early detection - this would allow MUCH earlier detection than we currently have - it could be part of a routine check-up
  • Other uses? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pin_gween ( 870994 ) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @02:25PM (#13645816)
    Wonder if they can adapt this to be an accurate test for prion related disease like BSE (mad cow disiease). If it could be used for both humans AND other animals, the food supply could become safer.
    • by CyricZ ( 887944 )
      The safest way to avoid BSE is to stop eating beef. If you want protein, eat some beans instead. There's no need to get nanotech involved. It just takes some self control.

      • The safest way to avoid BSE is to stop eating beef

        I know -- I already avoid beef.

        However, I cannot donate blood in the US because, 14 years ago, I spent 4 months in England. If this test can be used to eliminate any question that I have these prions, there would be no need to "indefinitely" defer me.
    • by MarkRose ( 820682 ) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @04:10PM (#13646348) Homepage

      Wonder if they can adapt this to be an accurate test for prion related disease like BSE (mad cow disiease). If it could be used for both humans AND other animals, the food supply could become safer.

      Personally, I have no plans to eat humans, whether they have BSE or not ;)

    • Re:Other uses? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jdbo ( 35629 )
      That would be pretty cool; but a better way would be for the beef industry to be restricted from feeding ruminants (i.e. dead cattle) to cattle.

      This is because the most "effective" infection vector (or whatever the term is) is for an infected (dead) cow to be fed to a healthy cow.
      (And yes, this is common feeding practive.)

      Eliminate animal cannibalism and much of the danger of BSE is eliminated; this should of course be accompanied by specific testing, but it's important to prevent outbreaks from becoming ep
      • Unf. this would cost the beef industry somewhat more money (as they wouldn't get free feed from dead cows), and they are resisting it very strongly.

        Source?

        I don't know of any countries that still permit this.

        -a
    • I don't think that we can actually cure any of those diseases yet. That brings up an ethical issue: Should you bother testing for a disease that you cannot cure? The prognosis of cancer is generally much better in the early stages, whereas the prognosis for BSE/CJD/kuru/scrapie/whatever remains the same throughout all stages of the disease.

      On the other hand, it may help prevent people from consuming BSE-positive beef. I doubt that any ethical issues involved in testing will apply to livestock.
  • But! But! (Score:3, Funny)

    by jcr ( 53032 ) <jcr.mac@com> on Sunday September 25, 2005 @02:25PM (#13645819) Journal
    God promised that the cure for cancer would be discovered at Oral Roberts University! Oral even said so!

    -jcr
  • by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @02:27PM (#13645828) Journal
    FTFA: "The work was supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Cancer Institute."

    Of course it is funded by DARPA, the army would love to have medical advancements like that on the battlefield. When a necklace every soldier wears instantly tells the med-tech that the wound the wearer is suffering has punctured a lung or spleen or something like that.

    I can also envision this kind of technology being incorporated in care-giving robots for the elderly and infirm. If you have a 'tri-corder' like medical diagnosis kit that can fit on a robot, the robot then would know what to tell the 911 operator when it called, other than "help, they've fallen and can't get up" and that makes this type of nanotech VERY cool. Talk about search and rescue... a robot finds bodies in the rubble, slaps a triage-analysis bandage on their skin and can then tell rescue workers what kind of medical treatments are necessary.... Well, I hope that is what comes of this stuff. That magic little microphone looking thing that Dr McCoy always waved around was damned cool!!

    I suppose one of the real drawbacks is that drug screenings for employment might be used to cancel insurance and work contracts etc. based on ineligiblity due to pre-existing conditions and bad things like that. (uhhhh thinking of bad scifi movies now)

    Still, its cool.

    • Given that this tests blood samples outside of the body, I would expect military uses to be more along the lines of detecting exposure to chemical/biological/radioactive agents, rather than detecting battle wounds.
  • How much? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by grogdamighty ( 884570 ) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @02:28PM (#13645833) Homepage
    While the advance of medical technology has invariably led to better health and longer lives, I have to imagine that this technology will be cost-prohibitive enough to either lack practicality or to be available to the rich.
    • It might be that it costs so much that it isn't economically fesible, yet. However, in the 1900 a watch was massivly expensive. A digital watch (if they had existed) would have sold for millions. Now you can get a watch that you throw away in a Happy Meal at McDonalds. My point? If the science is good, someone will find a way to make it cheaper eventually.
    • Re:How much? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by timeOday ( 582209 )

      I have to imagine that this technology will be cost-prohibitive

      A few nanometers of silicon doesn't sound very expensive to me!

      Kidding aside, let's not jump to assumptions. I'm sure with will be costly right at first, but what makes you think it's inherently expensive? You have to compare with the alternatives; it might well be cheaper than whatever they're doing now. And with the ability to diagnose cancer so much earlier and more accurately, the long-term treatment might well be much cheaper - oh,

    • It will depend on the production process. The advantage of micro-scale equipment is that you don't need lots of material. For example, with micro-chips, the fabs cost mucho money, but the chips they spew out are dirt cheap. So it is advantagous to make as much of them as you can, making it available to the masses.
    • The test will certainly be relatively cheap. It's the cure you want after your positive diagnosis that's going to cost you.
    • Having cancer is awfully expensive. If this works, it can be insanely expensive and still be a screaming deal in the long run.

      In fact, regardless of what it actually costs to produce I would imagine it will be "insanely expensive" until the patent expires.
    • I have to imagine that this technology will be cost-prohibitive enough to either lack practicality or to be available to the rich.

      So what?

      Every new medical technology is expensive. Even soap and sterile bandages used to be beyond the reach of the average European peasant. Eventually though, people figure out how to bring the costs down, and more and more people benefit.

      -jcr
       
  • by mictho ( 732839 ) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @02:31PM (#13645856)
    Micro-cancers may spontaneously occur (and perhaps regress) frequently; no one really knows. However, most cancers presumably started as micro-cancers. I fear this test will pick-up "cancers" of questionable significance. What impact will such a test have on healthcare costs, if a battery of additional diagnostic tests are used to work-up a "positive" screening test?
    • While the microcancer issue is probably realistic, it would be spotted by the screening tests before the technology goes live.

      As for the healthcare costs, cure and pain relieving of cancer cost a damn lot last time I checked, earlier simpler fully generic (read: mass-produced) diagnose tests and a fraction of the previous cures cost (since cancers would be barely born when spotted, years-long cures would more than likely become rarity more than common case) would probably drive the healthcare cost down, no

    • Micro-cancers may spontaneously occur (and perhaps regress) frequently; no one really knows. However, most cancers presumably started as micro-cancers. I fear this test will pick-up "cancers" of questionable significance.

      Then you will know, what's to be afraid of? The incidence will be catalogued and fed back into treatment. So relax, the doctor does not know everything but he does the best with what he's got and has statistics to back it all up. Cancer treatment, where some forms have five year surviva

    • A very good point.

      Go look up 'lead time bias' and breast cancer treatments. The biggest shock is that we're now detecting far more breast cancers than ever before, yet the death rate (or 5-year survival) has barely changed.

      This raises a couple of possibilities:
      1 - We're just detecting cancers earlier, and our current treatments do nothing for those with the disease. I.e. people are living longer with the cancer not because the treatment is better but because they're diagnosed earlier.

      2 - We're still failing
    • "I fear this test will pick-up "cancers" of questionable significance."

      My questions would be more about what types of cancer can be detected, I know there are dozens of forms of Lukaemia alone - not to mention "medical" cancers (Lukeamia being a haematological cancer). Is this kit capable of detecting liquid tumors aswell as solid tumors?

      "What impact will such a test have on healthcare costs, if a battery of additional diagnostic tests are used to work-up a "positive" screening test?

      Without the develop

  • by picz plz ( 915164 ) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @02:33PM (#13645866)
    I have a nano cure for thirst. Nano-H2O contains nanoscopic molecules of water that will quench your thirst. Best of all, it's for sale now!
  • Perhaps this technology could be used to screen semen samples for genetic abnormalities. Such screening could be very beneficial at sperm banks which want to guarantee the quality of the sperm they are offering to recipients.

  • Concern: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hao Wu ( 652581 ) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @02:45PM (#13645919) Homepage
    Doesn't such sensitivity increase the number of false-positives?

    (Going on the theory that your body will always have a few cancerous cells - or at least some molecular mimicry of cancer markers - which the body's immune system can deal with so that tumors never develop.)

    • Doesn't such sensitivity increase the number of false-positives?

      It's not like they're going to find a couple dozen lng cancer cells and rush you into chemotherapy or cut you open. This will give doctors more time to re-assess (and re-test) and track the cancer while working out possible treatments. I'd rather have a false positive than finding out I have cancer at the point when it's already a terminal situation.
  • by xanthines-R-yummy ( 635710 ) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @02:47PM (#13645935) Homepage Journal
    This is really cool technology, and if you read the actual Nat Biotech article, they've improved the sensitivity by a couple orders of magnitude using some kind of lableing process (ie gold)...

    However, using this as a method of detecting cancer might not be so useful. The presence of various markers in the blood is probably normal. What you want to know, is whether or not these markers are present on cells when they should be absent. They claim to be able to detect PICOgrams/mL of a specific protein in the blood. Unfortunately, all males have PSA in their blood and it's the amount that's important, not its presence. That's just for prostate cancer. Unfortunately, the sad reality is that we don't know enough about most cancers for us to know what to detect to be useful.

    I can definitely see this as a useful tool for detecting hazardous chemicals and biologicals agents and scientists are always looking for more sensitive instruments. I think that's why the article appeared in Nature Biotechnology and not Nature. Still way impressive, though.

    • We do know that cancerous cells break off and circulate through the blood stream.

      If we could detect those cells or other cells influenced by their passing we could find the cancer and irradicate it (Perhaps through microwaves?)
      • by Anonymous Coward
        If we could detect those cells or other cells influenced by their passing we could find the cancer and irradicate it (Perhaps through microwaves?)

        Thanks to this new test we will be able to detect *and* eradicate cancer without leaving the kitchen!

        P.S. Is it ok to assume that "irradicate" means "eradicate by irradiation"?
    • I'd think that even though you are right short term, it may lead to discoveries about content levels down the road.
    • Honestly, do you really think they would manage to overlook something so obvious? I find it stunning that a Slashdot reader thinks that they've managed to easily find a fatal, obvious flaw in a sophisticated technology developed by prestigious researchers. I'm fairly certain they have people working on this much smarter and who have much better credentials than you.

      Microfluidics, the type of technology involved here, doesn't just measure the types of things encountered in the blood stream, it can also mea
  • Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Francis85 ( 875901 )
    Too bad when people go to be checked for cancer, they usually suffer from the symptoms. The cancer at that stage is already big, and often spread around multiple organs..
    • umm, if this is cheap, then it can be done at the Doctor's office when ever you get a physical. The fact that is can detect such low concentrations of markers means that it is good for very very early detection of the cancer and will probably save the lives of the people who get the test.
      • it can be done at the Doctor's office when ever you get a physical.

        And as another poster pointed out the test should be cheaper. Most of us would have better preventative medicine if it wasn't for the cost factor. If getting this done is cheap enough it would be something that someone could do in their recommended check ups.

        On a semi-related note, how long does it normally take from the onset of most cancers to the point where the patient would be aware of "something going wrong"?
        • in most cases, cancers that are detected "when they notice something wrong" are detected too late.

          almost all cancers that are detected via prevention techniques such as colonoscopies, mamograms, etc are caught with enough time to do something constructive, but by that time it is still farther along than one would like. if you can detect a cancer that has just formed, or is very very small and has not had time to infiltrate other tissues around it, it is very easy to remove and cure. This tech should allow t
    • Which is why for common forms like breast cancer, there is a screening programme for those most likely to be at risk. The killer about cancer -- quite literally -- is usually finding it too late. The survival rates with sufficiently early diagnosis are very good for most forms of cancer today, even those that sadly remain mostly lethal by the time they are detected using obvious physical symptoms.

      A reliable and readily administered detection mechanism for even most forms of cancer would probably save many

  • I suppose it's good that the rest of you will get to benefit from this technology. It really sounds impressive. Meanwhile, my 28-workhours-per-week technical-support body will just have to cope with herbal therapies when my cells start going haywire.
  • by LEX LETHAL ( 859141 ) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @02:57PM (#13645975)
    Oh great! Not only has my Nano been cursed with a delicate screen that invites scratches, now it seems it's capable of succumbing to cancer as well.
  • If it can detect cylons, it better detect cancer.
  • They've developed this cool new super-accurate test. Great. But they're probably not going to make the test free -- so not everyone will be able to afford it.

    Without this test, rich and poor will have a more equal chance of dieing of undiagnosed cancers. Therefore, they shouldn't have developed this test.

    My leftist friends told me inequality is bad.
    • This isnt particularly new, anyone who has been following surface plasmons (which granted, is most likely limited to me and a couple hundred other grad students/researchers) have seen things like this before. Bioacore even makes a substrate surface plasmon resonance detector which does exactly this. So what's the catch? they use antibodies to detect their complementary counterparts. That's great, for cancers that are well understood. Note in the article Leiber (who I've met and believe is brilliant, bt
  • by LoveMe2Times ( 416048 ) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @03:09PM (#13646043) Homepage Journal
    Currently, testing for tumor markers is not all that slow--it only takes a couple of hours if you have your blood drawn at the same location that runs the tests. However, each marker you want to test for requires that another vial of blood be taken and costs around $100. Getting the results back in 5 minutes is relatively unimportant, but being able to test for say 50 tumor markers with only 1 blood sample and one low price would be really valuable even if it took *longer* than current methods. That way, you would just check for all the most common markers for your gender/race every time you went in for a physical. Or if you were in an at-risk category, maybe more often.
    • The point is not being able to detect cancer in 5 minutes and cheaply. The point is being able to detect cancer in it early stages. The sooner you are able to detect it, more chances you have to remove/combat it and avoid its spreading.
      • Perhaps you don't realize that they already have such tests and they work reasonably well, even though they don't use nanowires. These tests are easy, painless, relatively quick, but a bit too expensive for people to do them all the time "just in case." The way it works today, once you *suspect* cancer, then you fork over the money because the tests are a drop in the bucket compared to treatment (of any kind). Depending on the type of suspected cancer, there are a number of different tests that can be do
  • Lieber's co-authors are Gengfeng Zheng, Fernando Patolsky, Yi Cui and Wayne U. Wang, all of Harvard's Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Biophysics Program and Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences. The work was supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Cancer Institute.

    So that means not patented?????

  • I can imagine the turmoil in the medical profession. A self test at home yields a positive. They run into the doctor's office insisting they have Cancer. After months of tests, moving between dozens of doctors, it is concluded that although rare, a false positive was produced by some anomalie in the blood.

    Of course, then this person really does get Cancer and sues the doctors for it.
  • Swelling, nausea, internal organs converted to grey goo.
  • by HuguesT ( 84078 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:46AM (#13649161)
    More than likely we all have a few cancerous cells in our bodies right now. The point is that they don't bloom to full-on cancer, they get dispatched by the immune system.

    Will this extremely accurate test be able to tell between unchecked cancer cells and those few cells which the body would take care off naturally? Or are we all going to turn into cancer patients ?

"You show me an American who can keep his mouth shut and I'll eat him." -- Newspaperman from Frank Capra's _Meet_John_Doe_

Working...