A cure for cancer?

Aussie Pete · Jan 5, 2024

The much maligned Professor James Tour's research team may have found a cure for cancer. Professor Tour is pilloried by the science community because he criticises OOL research and rejects the theory of evolution. God blesses this man. Maybe his detractors will finally be silenced by this recent research breakthrough.

James Tour Lab Hammers Cancer – CEH

crev.info

Pommer · Jan 5, 2024

Aussie Pete said:
The much maligned Professor James Tour's research team may have found a cure for cancer. Professor Tour is pilloried by the science community because he criticises OOL research and rejects the theory of evolution. God blesses this man. Maybe his detractors will finally be silenced by this recent research breakthrough.

James Tour Lab Hammers Cancer – CEH

crev.info

God allows cancer to be conquered right before “the end times”?

Hans Blaster · Jan 5, 2024

Aussie Pete said:
The much maligned Professor James Tour's research team may have found a cure for cancer. Professor Tour is pilloried by the science community because he criticises OOL research and rejects the theory of evolution. God blesses this man. Maybe his detractors will finally be silenced by this recent research breakthrough.

James Tour Lab Hammers Cancer – CEH

crev.info

Cancer can be cured by nanomachines? OK, I'll have to look at that.

Hans Blaster · Jan 5, 2024

Here is a link to the Rice University PR piece which focuses on the research who actually did the work:

Molecular jackhammers’ ‘good vibrations’ eradicate cancer cells

In reading the PR pieces it is unclear how these "molecular hammers" would know which cells to kill. (How they would be attached to cancer cells specifically.)

Pommer · Jan 5, 2024

Hans Blaster said:
Here is a link to the Rice University PR piece which focuses on the research who actually did the work:

Molecular jackhammers’ ‘good vibrations’ eradicate cancer cells

In reading the PR pieces it is unclear how these "molecular hammers" would know which cells to kill. (How they would be attached to cancer cells specifically.)

With DNA decoding scientists can examine how cancer-DNA differs from healthy tissue and target those differences with drugs or (molecular-jackhammers), or maybe even our old friend mRNA?

mindlight · Jan 6, 2024

Aussie Pete said:
The much maligned Professor James Tour's research team may have found a cure for cancer. Professor Tour is pilloried by the science community because he criticises OOL research and rejects the theory of evolution. God blesses this man. Maybe his detractors will finally be silenced by this recent research breakthrough.

James Tour Lab Hammers Cancer – CEH

crev.info

The search for a cure for cancer is not about one man even if the Professor has made some significant contributions.

There are obvious advantages to seeing the human being as designed rather than an accidental product of evolution. Restoring blueprints is easier than speculating on developmental paths and history and removes a lot of the dead weight of evolutionary thinking.

It seems the techniques are increasingly available but I imagine this is also a very dangerous time. What works with animals may not work with humans. We have not had time to consider all the variables related to cures. The possibility of cures causing deeper damage to the holistic organism remains.

Also, would a cure for cancer be something like penicillin for STDs? We would be affirmed in the lifestyles that led to the increases in cancers and able to continue them without consequence. Better to have a cure than not have one, but maybe we need to complement that with a more holistic approach.

Nithavela · Jan 6, 2024

mindlight said:
The search for a cure for cancer is not about one man even if the Professor has made some significant contributions.

There are obvious advantages to seeing the human being as designed rather than an accidental product of evolution. Restoring blueprints is easier than speculating on developmental paths and history and removes a lot of the dead weight of evolutionary thinking.

It seems the techniques are increasingly available but I imagine this is also a very dangerous time. What works with animals may not work with humans. We have not had time to consider all the variables related to cures. The possibility of cures causing deeper damage to the holistic organism remains.

Also, would a cure for cancer be something like penicillin for STDs? We would be affirmed in the lifestyles that led to the increases in cancers and able to continue them without consequence. Better to have a cure than not have one, but maybe we need to complement that with a more holistic approach.

Many cancers are not caused by lifestyle, but by other factors, like work hazards, a genetic predisposal or just plain bad luck. Next to nobody moderates their behaviour because they might get cancer, it's even more of an abstract danger than diseases because it takes so long to develop and the chance of getting it from any given instance of "wrong behaviour" is so low.

mindlight · Jan 6, 2024

Nithavela said:
Many cancers are not caused by lifestyle, but by other factors, like work hazards, a genetic predisposal or just plain bad luck. Next to nobody moderates their behaviour because they might get cancer, it's even more of an abstract danger than diseases because it takes so long to develop and the chance of getting it from any given instance of "wrong behaviour" is so low.

Smoking and lung cancer?

Nithavela · Jan 6, 2024

mindlight said:
Smoking and lung cancer?

That's my point, yes. About 17 % of smokers get lung cancer in their lifetime, and for us humans, who are pretty bad at instinctual risk assement, that might register as an intellectual reality but has little influence on actual behaviour.

ozso · Jan 6, 2024

Until whatever actually cures someone of cancer, it's just theory and talk. I remember hearing 40 years ago a scientist was on the brink of curing cancer through something having to do with shark cartilage or whatever.

Nithavela · Jan 6, 2024

Ceallaigh said:
Until whatever actually cures someone of cancer, it's just theory and talk. I remember hearing 40 years ago a scientist was on the brink of curing cancer through something having to do with shark cartilage or whatever.

Scientists test various means of destroying cancer cells in a petri dish and then report their findings in scientific papers, which is obviously a good thing because that's how other scientists are informed and can replicate and build upon the research. The problem results from various news picking up on these papers and twisting them into something that they are not. Even if something can kill cancer cells in a petri dish, it still has to be able to do the same thing in a living organism while at the same time not causing too much damage in healthy cells. In this case, the story got some extra mileage because the scientist in question is also an evolution denier, which plays to the readers of the blog linked in the OP.

Even, best case scenario and this is the silver bullet against all melanoma cancers, this still is not "a cure for cancer", because plenty of other cancers exist. Good luck shining an infrared light into the pancreas. But the paper in question is nothing more than saying "hey look, we can bond this molecule to cancer cells and have it destroy them when we shine infrared light onto it".

Desk trauma · Jan 6, 2024

Nithavela said:
Scientists test various means of destroying cancer cells in a petri dish and then report their findings in scientific papers, which is obviously a good thing because that's how other scientists are informed and can replicate and build upon the research. The problem results from various news picking up on these papers and twisting them into something that they are not. Even if something can kill cancer cells in a petri dish, it still has to be able to do the same thing in a living organism while at the same time not causing too much damage in healthy cells. In this case, the story got some extra mileage because the scientist in question is also an evolution denier, which plays to the readers of the blog linked in the OP.

Even, best case scenario and this is the silver bullet against all melanoma cancers, this still is not "a cure for cancer", because plenty of other cancers exist. Good luck shining an infrared light into the pancreas. But the paper in question is nothing more than saying "hey look, we can bond this molecule to cancer cells and have it destroy them when we shine infrared light onto it".

Whyayeman · Jan 6, 2024

Aussie Pete said:
Maybe his detractors will finally be silenced by this recent research breakthrough.

Are there any actual figures available? Even for mice? Maybe this claim is premature.

We are all exposed to infra-red light all the time. What is special about Professor Tour's light? I ask because the mice cure claim is for melanomas, which occur on the skin.

Aussie Pete · Jan 6, 2024

Whyayeman said:
Are there any actual figures available? Even for mice? Maybe this claim is premature.

We are all exposed to infra-red light all the time. What is special about Professor Tour's light? I ask because the mice cure claim is for melanomas, which occur on the skin.

Melanoma is so dangerous because it metastasis quickly, about 6 weeks, if left untreated. Over 1400 Australians died from Melanoma in 2020. Australia has the highest skin cancer rate in the world. And yes, I've had a non-Melanoma skin cancer removed.

"The researchers found that the atoms of a small dye molecule used for medical imaging can vibrate in unison ⎯ forming what is known as a plasmon ⎯ when stimulated by near-infrared light, causing the cell membrane of cancerous cells to rupture. According to the study published in Nature Chemistry, the method had a 99 percent efficiency against lab cultures of human melanoma cells, and half of the mice with melanoma tumors became cancer-free after treatment."

It's near IR, not IR. Near IR can penetrate up to 100 mm into the body. This is enough to get to bones and organs. So it is not just skin cancers that can be treated.

Aussie Pete · Jan 6, 2024

Pommer said:
God allows cancer to be conquered right before “the end times”?

God is not the author of sickness and disease. Why would God not permit Satan's works to be destroyed? After all, that's why Jesus was revealed.

Aussie Pete · Jan 6, 2024

mindlight said:
The search for a cure for cancer is not about one man even if the Professor has made some significant contributions.

There are obvious advantages to seeing the human being as designed rather than an accidental product of evolution. Restoring blueprints is easier than speculating on developmental paths and history and removes a lot of the dead weight of evolutionary thinking.

It seems the techniques are increasingly available but I imagine this is also a very dangerous time. What works with animals may not work with humans. We have not had time to consider all the variables related to cures. The possibility of cures causing deeper damage to the holistic organism remains.

Also, would a cure for cancer be something like penicillin for STDs? We would be affirmed in the lifestyles that led to the increases in cancers and able to continue them without consequence. Better to have a cure than not have one, but maybe we need to complement that with a more holistic approach.

Human nature is what it is. Australia has the highest melanoma rate in the world, yet people still fry themselves at midday in summer. As I did as a young man. When it comes to treating cells mechanically, I can see no reason why the technique should not apply to humans. Certainly 99% of lab cultured human melanoma cells were destroyed. Of course, there will be further testing.

Cancer treatments now are invasive. Chemotherapy has side effects and surgery always has risks. Chemo harms the immune system. I knew someone who had cancer. She died from an infection, not from the cancer itself. Anything that reduces the risk and cost of treatment has to be welcomed.

SimplyMe · Jan 6, 2024

Nithavela said:
That's my point, yes. About 17 % of smokers get lung cancer in their lifetime, and for us humans, who are pretty bad at instinctual risk assement, that might register as an intellectual reality but has little influence on actual behaviour.

It is also worth pointing out, the majority of people who start smoking do so at a relatively young age (90% by age 18, with the average age apparently 13), when they can't envision getting an old persons disease like cancer, and aren't sure life after 30 (or so) is worth living. (okay, somewhat tongue in cheek but teens are terrible at risk assessment, particular for something that might happen to them decades later).

Aussie Pete · Jan 6, 2024

SimplyMe said:
It is also worth pointing out, the majority of people who start smoking do so at a relatively young age (90% by age 18, with the average age apparently 13), when they can't envision getting an old persons disease like cancer, and aren't sure life after 30 (or so) is worth living. (okay, somewhat tongue in cheek but teens are terrible at risk assessment, particular for something that might happen to them decades later).

Yes, there is also the teen rebellion that chooses risky behaviours deliberately. If an authority figure says its bad, they'll do it out of spite. They are also slaves to peer acceptance, which means teens are easily manipulated.

ThatRobGuy · Jan 6, 2024

Aussie Pete said:
The much maligned Professor James Tour

...Just to make sure I'm looking at the right James Tour

Doesn't look like he's much maligned (if this is the same guy)

Tour became a born-again Christian in his first year at Syracuse[35] and identifies as a Messianic Jew.[54] Tour signed the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism,[1] a statement issued by the Discovery Institute disputing the scientific consensus on evolution, but, in spite of the Discovery Institute's promotion of intelligent design, Tour does not consider himself to be an intelligent design proponent.[55] According to The New Yorker, Tour said his signing of the "Dissent" "reflected only his personal doubts about how random mutation occurs at the molecular level... [and] that, apart from a habit of praying for divine guidance, he feels that religion plays no part in his scientific work."[35]

Pommer · Jan 6, 2024

Aussie Pete said:
God is not the author of sickness and disease. Why would God not permit Satan's works to be destroyed? After all, that's why Jesus was revealed.

You’ve failed to take my point: cancer is curable just when it doesn’t matter anymore.

A cure for cancer?

Well-Known Member

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Raised by bees

Raised by bees

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

See in the dark

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

See in the dark

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

✦

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

The pickles are up to something

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Similar threads