Some bits are hubris, for example that the 'therapy' would have no side effects. However, the idea of radiosensitising cancer cells is not new. Nanotech does increase its promise but the main problem is producing a way to target cells with a high enough specicifity and affinity that there would be a minimal amount of unintentional ablasion. I understand this to have some promise, but needs a lot more work before we can even be sure it works. It's fine to kill some of a tumor, but the effects will not become apparent for months. Hmm, good question.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
I Just Saw a Seg. On 60 Minutes ';A Cure for Cancer?';, is 60 Minutes Now a Front for Snake Oil and False Hopes?
BTW, this an Old Idea.I Just Saw a Seg. On 60 Minutes ';A Cure for Cancer?';, is 60 Minutes Now a Front for Snake Oil and False Hopes?
Some bits are hubris, for example that the 'therapy' would have no side effects. However, the idea of radiosensitising cancer cells is not new. Nanotech does increase its promise but the main problem is producing a way to target cells with a high enough specicifity and affinity that there would be a minimal amount of unintentional ablasion. I understand this to have some promise, but needs a lot more work before we can even be sure it works. It's fine to kill some of a tumor, but the effects will not become apparent for months. Hmm, good question.antispam
Some bits are hubris, for example that the 'therapy' would have no side effects. However, the idea of radiosensitising cancer cells is not new. Nanotech does increase its promise but the main problem is producing a way to target cells with a high enough specicifity and affinity that there would be a minimal amount of unintentional ablasion. I understand this to have some promise, but needs a lot more work before we can even be sure it works. It's fine to kill some of a tumor, but the effects will not become apparent for months. Hmm, good question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment