SOURCE: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/n...n-minutes.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news Thoughts? Will the government downplay this method?
There have been other methods thrown out by the U.S. to treat cancer that had success elsewhere in the world.
Here's a very informative link. Anyone who has cancer, has HAD cancer, has family/friends that have cancer, or have family/friends that have HAD cancer should look at this: http://ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com/
Does the beam destroy all the tissue superficial to the tumor? I.E. Does the beam destroy everything, from skin to the tumor, and potentially back out of the body? I know it would only be a thing slice of tissue throughout the body, but would you really want brain cancer treated this way? Or even lung cancer? Yeah, it's better than not living, but I still think because of this reason, John Kanzius's invention still holds the most potential while having the least risk of complications.
have you ever heard of proton therapy? http://www.mdanderson.org/patient-a...rapy-center/what-is-proton-therapy/index.html for the love of god, don't try to brainwash you own child as he grows up
Basically, the article is just talking about a new linear accelerator/proton beam therapy machine. At least that's what I took it as. Radiosurgery is quite fascinating, too. Somewhat similar.
i didnt think people actually took the time to actually read his links. i did find a picture of the first patient though. Spoiler
Your title is inaccurate. This doesn't destroy cancer in 15 minutes, it treats cancer in 15 minutes. A big difference.
I remember listening to some weird radio station this past summer in Houston where they were talking about conspiracy theories, and one of them was that all the pharmaceutical companies have cures for cancers but why release them? Why not keep you alive but sick so you can purchase medicine and give them more money versus providing a cure and losing money lol idk, im not saying I believe it but I'm just putting it out there. *Please don't take this out of proportion*
It's nice, but it's just a better way of doing something that's already possible (removing a visible tumor). It's helpful for certain cancers that are extremely difficult to operate on (Pancreatic). But the tougher issue to tackle in cancer treatment is taking out the undetectable/nearly undetectable spreading metastatic cells. That's where the serious focus is right now in research.
if that were the case, then why would the pharmaceutical companies not have a treatment that lasts a long time but doesnt end up killing the patient? Thereby, the company would gets its revenue and the its drug would be used more because it's effective. In addition, you keep the patient alive and potentially have them become a customer again in the future. conspiracy theorists that take things this far have a real disorder
"idk, im not saying I believe it but I'm just putting it out there" as a reminder. I don't believe this.
