Begining of the end for cancer?

Look close. You may be staring at the end of cancer. Those tiny black dots are nanobots delivering a lethal blow to a cancerous cell, effectively killing it. The first trial on humans have been a success, with no side-effects:

    It sneaks in, evades the immune system, delivers the siRNA, and the disassembled components exit out.

Another day another cancer cure. Now onto curing death.

I think this has serious longterm health implications.  What happens if this RNA mutates (like HIV, purportedly), and then we have some runaway virus.  There was a really controversial case (I don't remember exactly who) in the 1990s regarding the use of the Adenovirus in gene therapy.  It was touted as a medical miracle for some condition, and what do you know, they gave it to some kid and that kid died in the clinical trial.  There's just no telling the long term effects, or rare accute reactions for this type of stuff.
Besides the RNA itself, god only knows what the manufactures of this crap will put in as a preservative.  I just can't stand the high-tech pharma industry.

No because no-one had yet tried to grow an ear on a mouse whereas it has been proven beyond doubt that the earth is round

Nano robot technology is still in it's infancy so who knows where that can go. My understanding of cancer is cell replication gone wrong so I agree that will never be cured and while sucessfully treatments are to be wlecomed there is an underlying issue here of just how long we should be able to live for. We already live beyond our genetic sell by date in most cases thanks to medicine and science. We have to die sometime of something.

No because no-one had yet tried to grow an ear on a mouse whereas it has been proven beyond doubt that the earth is round

Nano robot technology is still in it's infancy so who knows where that can go. My understanding of cancer is cell replication gone wrong so I agree that will never be cured and while sucessfully treatments are to be wlecomed there is an underlying issue here of just how long we should be able to live for. We already live beyond our genetic sell by date in most cases thanks to medicine and science. We have to die sometime of something.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 25, 2010, 12:42:35 PM

I think this has serious longterm health implications.  What happens if this RNA mutates (like HIV, purportedly), and then we have some runaway virus.  There was a really controversial case (I don't remember exactly who) in the 1990s regarding the use of the Adenovirus in gene therapy.  It was touted as a medical miracle for some condition, and what do you know, they gave it to some kid and that kid died in the clinical trial.  There's just no telling the long term effects, or rare accute reactions for this type of stuff.
Besides the RNA itself, god only knows what the manufactures of this crap will put in as a preservative.  I just can't stand the high-tech pharma industry.

The RNA isn't self replicating. Therefore it can't mutate in any way that would be passed on.

So... make a complaint not based on your own ignorance and we can talk.

I really do agree with the "cure for cancer" label being retarded. Cancers are just cells mutated to grow extremely fast and out of control, there is no real way to "cure" them because they are part of us and there is no universal differentiation between human and cancer cells.

Quote from: Raist on March 26, 2010, 08:06:33 AM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 25, 2010, 12:42:35 PM

I think this has serious longterm health implications.  What happens if this RNA mutates (like HIV, purportedly), and then we have some runaway virus.  There was a really controversial case (I don't remember exactly who) in the 1990s regarding the use of the Adenovirus in gene therapy.  It was touted as a medical miracle for some condition, and what do you know, they gave it to some kid and that kid died in the clinical trial.  There's just no telling the long term effects, or rare accute reactions for this type of stuff.
Besides the RNA itself, god only knows what the manufactures of this crap will put in as a preservative.  I just can't stand the high-tech pharma industry.

The RNA isn't self replicating. Therefore it can't mutate in any way that would be passed on.

So... make a complaint not based on your own ignorance and we can talk.

I really do agree with the "cure for cancer" label being retarded. Cancers are just cells mutated to grow extremely fast and out of control, there is no real way to "cure" them because they are part of us and there is no universal differentiation between human and cancer cells.

"HIV is a member of the genus Lentivirus,[12] part of the family of Retroviridae.[13] Lentiviruses have many common morphologies and biological properties. Many species are infected by lentiviruses, which are characteristically responsible for long-duration illnesses with a long incubation period.[14] Lentiviruses are transmitted as single-stranded, positive-sense, enveloped RNA viruses."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Classification

I never said the RNA was self replicating.  What I said stands.  Now if you believe this HIV stuff (which ironically, I don't), tell me again that it can't mutate.  Please, I beg you.

Here's the link to an article about the gene therapy case I referenced in my last post:  http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/kolehmainen.html

Holy fucking cowshit, you fail biology.

When i said "self replicating" what I really meant was "this form of rna is in no way transcribed into dna by reverse transcriptase, then repeatedly transcribed back into rna to infect more cells"

Also, RNA does not mutate in this process. It is simply poorly transcribed from the DNA formed from the original RNA from the virus.

Is this a bad attempt at a troll or do you simply not understand anything?

And just so you know, gene therapy has nothing to do with nanomachines delivering RNA to infected cells. Gene therapy is using a retrovirus to modify the actual DNA of a cell and is not a safe science.

RNA is a very stable molecule that does not randomly mutate, though there are occasional errors when it is being produced. Please educate yourself before discussing a topic.

The concept is not the same.

HIV takes RNA, turns it into dna, and puts the dna into your dna causing your dna to make more rna and protein capsules.

Nanobots inject RNA into cell, rna prevents proteins from forming. Cell dies.

Do you not see the major missing step between the two?

RNA does not just sit there and randomly mutate, when it is made FROM DNA with RNA transcriptase, RNA transcriptase occasionally makes a mistake. This mistake is called a mutation. Once the RNA is formed it will stay the same until it is taken in and destroyed.

I'm sure you really are as crazy as you insist, but I don't think they could mutate my DNA in a way that my body's self checking defense wouldn't fix automatically. In short, no they couldn't just give me cancer.

Quote from: Raist on March 28, 2010, 03:11:41 PM

The concept is not the same.

HIV takes RNA, turns it into dna, and puts the dna into your dna causing your dna to make more rna and protein capsules.

Nanobots inject RNA into cell, rna prevents proteins from forming. Cell dies.

Do you not see the major missing step between the two?

RNA does not just sit there and randomly mutate, when it is made FROM DNA with RNA transcriptase, RNA transcriptase occasionally makes a mistake. This mistake is called a mutation. Once the RNA is formed it will stay the same until it is taken in and destroyed.

I'm sure you really are as crazy as you insist, but I don't think they could mutate my DNA in a way that my body's self checking defense wouldn't fix automatically. In short, no they couldn't just give me cancer.

RNA serves one purpose:  to be translated to DNA.

  DNA is the work horse of the cell.

Additionally, how can you be sure this RNA won't affect healthy cells in the same way?

  Since they 'evade' the immune system, they could potentially attack any cell in the body, and be unstoppable.

This is too many eggs in one basket IMO.

lol...

Quote from: Raist on March 28, 2010, 03:11:41 PM

The concept is not the same.

HIV takes RNA, turns it into dna, and puts the dna into your dna causing your dna to make more rna and protein capsules.

Nanobots inject RNA into cell, rna prevents proteins from forming. Cell dies.

Do you not see the major missing step between the two?

RNA does not just sit there and randomly mutate, when it is made FROM DNA with RNA transcriptase, RNA transcriptase occasionally makes a mistake. This mistake is called a mutation. Once the RNA is formed it will stay the same until it is taken in and destroyed.

I'm sure you really are as crazy as you insist, but I don't think they could mutate my DNA in a way that my body's self checking defense wouldn't fix automatically. In short, no they couldn't just give me cancer.

RNA serves one purpose:  to be translated to DNA.  DNA is the work horse of the cell.
Additionally, how can you be sure this RNA won't affect healthy cells in the same way?  Since they 'evade' the immune system, they could potentially attack any cell in the body, and be unstoppable.

This is too many eggs in one basket IMO.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 28, 2010, 03:17:48 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 28, 2010, 03:11:41 PM

The concept is not the same.

HIV takes RNA, turns it into dna, and puts the dna into your dna causing your dna to make more rna and protein capsules.

Nanobots inject RNA into cell, rna prevents proteins from forming. Cell dies.

Do you not see the major missing step between the two?

RNA does not just sit there and randomly mutate, when it is made FROM DNA with RNA transcriptase, RNA transcriptase occasionally makes a mistake. This mistake is called a mutation. Once the RNA is formed it will stay the same until it is taken in and destroyed.

I'm sure you really are as crazy as you insist, but I don't think they could mutate my DNA in a way that my body's self checking defense wouldn't fix automatically. In short, no they couldn't just give me cancer.

RNA serves one purpose:  to be translated to DNA.  DNA is the work horse of the cell.
Additionally, how can you be sure this RNA won't affect healthy cells in the same way?  Since they 'evade' the immune system, they could potentially attack any cell in the body, and be unstoppable.

This is too many eggs in one basket IMO.

Actually you have that backwards. DNA exists solely to be transcribed into RNA. p.s. translation is going from RNA to proteins, the real workhorses of the cell.

Please retake basic biology and learn how to use terms appropriately.

Cancer can't be cured. Many cancers are a result of the body's cells degrading in replication.

It's sort of like saving a JPEG over and over in Photoshop. As long as we have DNA which can degrade, cancer will always exist.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 30, 2010, 01:54:15 AM

Cancer can't be cured. Many cancers are a result of the body's cells degrading in replication.

It's sort of like saving a JPEG over and over in Photoshop. As long as we have DNA which can degrade, cancer will always exist.

Once someone has it, they can be cured.  What about all the children at St Jude's hospital in Tennessee with leukemia which have been cured?  I've been to St Jude's.

Cancer can't be cured. Many cancers are a result of the body's cells degrading in replication.

It's sort of like saving a JPEG over and over in Photoshop. As long as we have DNA which can degrade, cancer will always exist.

Quote from: Raist on March 28, 2010, 10:05:58 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 28, 2010, 03:17:48 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 28, 2010, 03:11:41 PM

The concept is not the same.

HIV takes RNA, turns it into dna, and puts the dna into your dna causing your dna to make more rna and protein capsules.

Nanobots inject RNA into cell, rna prevents proteins from forming. Cell dies.

Do you not see the major missing step between the two?

RNA does not just sit there and randomly mutate, when it is made FROM DNA with RNA transcriptase, RNA transcriptase occasionally makes a mistake. This mistake is called a mutation. Once the RNA is formed it will stay the same until it is taken in and destroyed.

I'm sure you really are as crazy as you insist, but I don't think they could mutate my DNA in a way that my body's self checking defense wouldn't fix automatically. In short, no they couldn't just give me cancer.

RNA serves one purpose:  to be translated to DNA.  DNA is the work horse of the cell.
Additionally, how can you be sure this RNA won't affect healthy cells in the same way?  Since they 'evade' the immune system, they could potentially attack any cell in the body, and be unstoppable.

This is too many eggs in one basket IMO.

Actually you have that backwards. DNA exists solely to be transcribed into RNA. p.s. translation is going from RNA to proteins, the real workhorses of the cell.

Please retake basic biology and learn how to use terms appropriately.

I looked into this.  You are right, sorry.  I guess I was confused about that.
I have learned a few things today.
You didn't have to be so rash in your first reply though.  If you look back to my initial post, you'll see that I thought the two ideas were similar, and clearly they are not.  I had a misunderstanding of the idea itself.
Thanks for clearing all that up for me.  Next time I'm wrong, please don't call me retarded, as I surely didn't do it to you.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 29, 2010, 07:32:02 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 28, 2010, 10:05:58 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 28, 2010, 03:17:48 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 28, 2010, 03:11:41 PM

The concept is not the same.

HIV takes RNA, turns it into dna, and puts the dna into your dna causing your dna to make more rna and protein capsules.

Nanobots inject RNA into cell, rna prevents proteins from forming. Cell dies.

Do you not see the major missing step between the two?

RNA does not just sit there and randomly mutate, when it is made FROM DNA with RNA transcriptase, RNA transcriptase occasionally makes a mistake. This mistake is called a mutation. Once the RNA is formed it will stay the same until it is taken in and destroyed.

I'm sure you really are as crazy as you insist, but I don't think they could mutate my DNA in a way that my body's self checking defense wouldn't fix automatically. In short, no they couldn't just give me cancer.

RNA serves one purpose:  to be translated to DNA.  DNA is the work horse of the cell.
Additionally, how can you be sure this RNA won't affect healthy cells in the same way?  Since they 'evade' the immune system, they could potentially attack any cell in the body, and be unstoppable.

This is too many eggs in one basket IMO.

Actually you have that backwards. DNA exists solely to be transcribed into RNA. p.s. translation is going from RNA to proteins, the real workhorses of the cell.

Please retake basic biology and learn how to use terms appropriately.

I looked into this.  You are right, sorry.  I guess I was confused about that.
I have learned a few things today.
You didn't have to be so rash in your first reply though.  If you look back to my initial post, you'll see that I thought the two ideas were similar, and clearly they are not.  I had a misunderstanding of the idea itself.
Thanks for clearing all that up for me.  Next time I'm wrong, please don't call me retarded, as I surely didn't do it to you.

The attitude that all new medicine is evil and will kill us and basing it on bad science makes me rage. It's the highest form of ignorance and fear of the unknown parading as being jaded and educated.

Also, I assumed you were fucking with me after some of the things you said.