Designer viruses may help fight cancer

a reply to: cenpuppie

I would not put it beyond them given attrocities like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment.

a reply to: seasonal

Designer viruses may help fight cancer which will enable big pharma to get a patent on it thus enabling them to keep anyone else out of the cancer industry.

I never donate to cancer appeals because the crowd, who donate the money, will never own the patent and also becuase nutirution as a cause or a treatment for cancer is never researched.

Designer viruses may also contain something that might shorten life span in ways nobody suspects.

a reply to: seasonal

hm .. Baking Soda works wonders. The only problem with it is that it can't make the corrupt Pharmaceutical Companies Millions which is most unfortunate.

Keep Searching.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: dfnj2015

I was wondering where the supercomputers that have super duper fast processors (and are di*& measuring for countries) come into this. Could a one of these computers simulate and more this process forward?

Simulations only work as good as our understanding of the problem so raw computing power alone isn't enough, but we'll get there.

originally posted by: RisenMessiah
a reply to: seasonal

hm .. Baking Soda works wonders.

For cakes, yes.

The only problem with it is that it can't make the corrupt Pharmaceutical Companies Millions which is most unfortunate.

Because it doesn't work.

originally posted by: GetHyped
For cakes, yes.

Because it doesn't work.

I wish those people who say ingesting baking soda helps would actually explain the process behind it..... but some will never understand basic pathophysiology so they believe in snake oil salesmen words. Sad.

''Modified herpes virus and checkpoint inhibitor together enhance cancer-killing T-cells by altering tumor microenvironment, with 62% percent response.'' www.parkerici.org...

a reply to: Agartha

Some of the blame lies with editors and reviewers who let papers such as this through www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: jondoeuk
Some of the blame lies with editors and reviewers who let papers such as this through www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Not really, the blame lies on non qualified people thinking they can understand medical studies when they clearly don't.

The article you linked clearly says the results were seen in vitro and in vivo, no clinical trials, which means the study has not confirmed nor disproved anything with human patients with cancer. But I have seen this article posted in the past in the usual non reputable websites, which prey exactly on the scientific illiteracy I mentioned above.