Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NanoKnife: Cancer Breakthrough Without Radiation or Drugs

page: 1
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+9 more 
posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
G'day

I see a lot of attacks on “Big Pharma” & the “medical industry” in this forum.

Therefore I would like to post a “good news” article about a brilliant & extremely new anti-cancer technology.

This exciting new technology can deactivate some of the most vicious cancerous lesions known to man, whilst not causing damage to sensitive structures such as nerves & blood vessels.

This means many tumours that are otherwise inoperable can be treated successfully with this new technology.

This technology does not involve radiation or anti-cancer drugs.

It is a system that works on the principle of irreversible electroporation of cancer cells.

The technology is called “NanoKnife”.

Here is a picture of the NanoKnife in use:



The patient isn't opened up surgically.....you don't even have to be operated on!

All that happens is that a couple of needles are inserted through the skin.

Here is a picture of the needles:



The patient experiences almost no pain after the procedure.

Here is a news article about the NanoKnife saving lives in an Australian hospital, where a Professor friend of mine (in the video), who is one of the world’s leading Interventional Radiologists, is leading the world with this technology.

news.ninemsn.com.au...

We all know that one of the most vicious forms of cancer is pancreatic cancer. If you follow my link to the article you will see it has been shown to be able to completely deactivate pancreatic cancer.

www.stonybrookmedicalcenter.org...

I have seen early NanoKnife work carried out on extremely difficult & terminal kidney & liver lesions with strong success, when all other options for those patients had been exhausted.

It also looks like it can deactivate prostate cancer without damaging nerves or the urethra – which would be a huge breakthrough.

It’s a brilliant new technology!



Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

[edit on 9-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]




posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
A partner hospital to the one I work in has one of these (one of the few in the region, I believe). Though I've never used it myself, I've heard it is truly revolutionary. The only downside is that it is only applicable in a relatively small population of cancer patients, dependent on size, stage, and location of the tumor.

Regardless, any advance (especially one with comparatively minor side effects) is welcome!



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
A partner hospital to the one I work in has one of these (one of the few in the region, I believe). Though I've never used it myself, I've heard it is truly revolutionary. The only downside is that it is only applicable in a relatively small population of cancer patients, dependent on size, stage, and location of the tumor.
Regardless, any advance (especially one with comparatively minor side effects) is welcome!


G'day VneZonyDostupa

Thanks for dropping in

I wonder what you are calling "a relatively small population of cancer patients"?

Because of the blood vessel sparing, nerve sparing, urethra sparing, etc... it is able to be used in many situations that more conventional technologies cannot address.

You know, I've seen major liver lesions treated & the patient required no painkillers & left hospital on the same night.......amazing stuff.....

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Sadly this will most likely be yet another one of those breakthrough cancer cures/procedures that hit the news and then are never heard from again.

Pisses me off...how come nobody ever follows up on this sort of thing...what ends up happening to all of these breakthroughs? The same thing happens with amazing new energy producing products..."wow this will change the world", 1 week later - *crickets*...after 2 weeks its never talked about again and everyone forgets it.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blazer
Sadly this will most likely be yet another one of those breakthrough cancer cures/procedures that hit the news and then are never heard from again.
Pisses me off...how come nobody ever follows up on this sort of thing...what ends up happening to all of these breakthroughs? The same thing happens with amazing new energy producing products..."wow this will change the world", 1 week later - *crickets*...after 2 weeks its never talked about again and everyone forgets it.


G'day Blazer

I doubt this will happen with NanoKnife


The problem at the moment is trying to determine exactly which types of cancer should be focused on the most.

That is to say, for each type of cancer there are differences in the way the technology is used & each of these different methods must be perfected.

It's already approved by the FDA, TGA, etc...

There are many absolutely top class doctors who are working on all of this.

It just all takes a while to work out.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   
G'day

Here is a patient story from 1 of the very first people to be treated by NanoKnife:




This is from the Channel 9 News story as follows:

news.ninemsn.com.au...

The options had all but run out for Thomas Monaghan, 81, of Melbourne, Australia. The great-grandfather was suffering from a kidney tumor, and due to his age and the danger these measures could pose to his kidney function, as well as having previously had bladder cancer, Mr. Monaghan was not a good candidate for traditional surgery or ablation treatments.

However, he became the first patient in the world to have their kidney tumor ablated with NanoKnife on November 13, 2008. NanoKnife – a surgical ablation system – uses an exciting, new technology called irreversible electroporation to selectively induce cell death in cancerous tumors.

Mr. Monaghan was not concerned with being the first kidney patient treated with NanoKnife. “Somebody had to find cures,” the humble grandfather of 11 said. “Somebody had to start somewhere.” Having previously undergone treatment for bladder cancer that left him in a long recovery, Mr. Monaghan was concerned about potential aftereffects.

“I was worried about the aches, pains, and blood – but I didn’t have any of that,” he said. “I could have jumped over the moon the next day.” In fact, Dr. Ken Thomson, Professor and Director of the Department of Radiology at The Alfred, Monash University, used NanoKnife to treat Mr. Monaghan and said he left with little more than a band aid.

“We haven’t done anything to Thomas,” Dr. Thomson quipped at a news conference following the procedure. “He was losing his hair before we started, and so was I.” Equally pleased with the NanoKnife System was Mr. Monaghan’s wife, Carmel. “It’s wonderful,” she said. “I am very happy with how he came out. He had no pain, no aches, no blood – nothing at all. It’s wonderful.”



Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 9-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Maybe...maybe not, please clarify something for me. I'm confused.

You claim no radiation is used. But what is that big machine in your photo?

The patient is under it horizontally.

This looks to me like a scanning/imaging machine, which does emit radiation during the imaging procedure.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by jjjtir
 


Ugh, are you serious?
The tumor must be imaged to localize it, no radiation is used to kill the actual cancer cells. Sheesh.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
This sounds like a wonderful tool in the fight against cancer. This was never offered to me in options for treatment for brain tumors although the gamma knife (which does use radiation) was suggested. Can you tell me why this can't be used for brain tumors? Any answers would be greatly appreciated.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


By "relatively small population", I was referring to those aptients whose cancers are non-metastatic and have reasonably dentifiable regions of angiogenesis. To the best of my knowledge, this technology isn't being used to remove tumors in patients who have a high likelihood of having tumors elsewhere, as well, as it would be an exercise in futility when chemotherapeutics should be used as a whole-body treatment instead.

Of course, I can't claim to be an expert on the nanoknife, not being an oncologist or having used it myself. I'm purely working off of reports from colleagues who have seen/used it, and their experience may be limited, as well.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjjtir
Maybe...maybe not, please clarify something for me. I'm confused.
You claim no radiation is used. But what is that big machine in your photo?
The patient is under it horizontally.
This looks to me like a scanning/imaging machine, which does emit radiation during the imaging procedure.


G'day jjjtir

The position of the tumour (or tumours) is ascertained by the the initial imaging technology, usually CT, MR or U/S (ultrasound).

Pre NanoKnife procedure, a scan is done to verify the position of the tumour, check for any changes since the last image, etc...

The NanoKnife electrodes are then inserted & their positions are checked by either CT or U/S.

The NanoKnife is activated (which takes only several seconds per application) & the tumour is revisualised by CT or U/S because the success of the NanoKinfe procedure can be verified instantly because the tumour immediately looks different.

If CT imaging is used, the amount of radiation involved is extremely small & perhaps even be less than a normal CT scan because the scan is very specific.

It certainly is in no way comparable to radiation therapy.....hence my thread title.

If U/S is used, no radiation at all is involved but the images aren't as clear.

MR is not practical for this because the NanoKnife equipment & procedural details are not compatible with the high magnetic field produced by the MR.

I hope that answers your question.....if it doesn't, please let me know


Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phlegmi
reply to post by jjjtir
 

The tumor must be imaged to localize it, no radiation is used to kill the actual cancer cells.


G'day Phlegmi

Exactly!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
This sounds like a wonderful tool in the fight against cancer. This was never offered to me in options for treatment for brain tumors although the gamma knife (which does use radiation) was suggested. Can you tell me why this can't be used for brain tumors? Any answers would be greatly appreciated.


G'day Asktheanimals

The discussion of NanoKnife application for brain tumours is extremely interesting.

The principle behind NanoKnife indicates there is no reason at all why NanoKnife should not work for even the toughest of brain tumours, such as gliomas, etc...

However no "in man" cerebral application of NanoKnife has yet occured.

The reason is as follows:

The NanoKnife works by producing electrical fields (i.e. the irreversible electroporation described in my opening post).

These electrical fields have not yet been tested pertaining to their effect on the electrical activity of the brain......you could say it would be like having extremely strong ECT (electro convulsive therapy).

The animal tests need to be completed & then someone is going to have to make the call to have NanoKnife used on them for the first brain tumour application.

In view of the dire prognosis of many people with such brain tumours, I'm thinking that might happen sooner rather than later.

I hope this info is helpful......let me know if I can offer further info.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Revolutionary? LMAO! There is nothing revoluationary about this technology. Cancer cures have been around for 60+ years. Royal Rife, Naessens, immune milk, 714x, krebiozen, hoxsey's horse therapy, DMSO, glyoxolide, hydrazine, etc. etc. I love how everyone acts like cancer and cancer research is new. We've been battling cancer for hundreds of years and have poured billions upon billions of dollars into and just finally we are coming up with something revoluationary?. There is PLENTY of irrefutable evidence that cancer is a metabolic disease or even caused by micro-organisms too. And can be cured with simple, noninvasive, nontoxic therapies. People are curing themselves of AIDS/HIV through nutrition nowadays. This is just fancy technology that will line the pockets of healthcare companies and other corporations WITH HUGE PROFITS..........There is no proof that this eliminates cancer permanently. It kills and destroys tumors. It's just like surgery except more specific and at the nanolevel. It doesn't mean it changes the body's chemistry and immune system to prevent future cancers.

Why is it that cancer treatments have to be so technologically advanced? Breakthrough........revolutionary........nanotech? LMAO! Because if it was something everyone had access to i.e. found in a tree or a plant or through good food........there would be no money in it. So the pharma and tech companies try to reinvent the wheel. We found PCN from mould on bread. It doesn't take a million dollar machine to cure cancer.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Oh and just so you people know..........there ARE people curing themselves of cancer everyday without chemo, radiation, and surgery. Go on to Amazon and read some of the reviews and first hand accounts under the alternative cancer treatment books.

Look up Berkley Bedell who started the Office of Alternative Medicine and his experience with the Naessens microscope and 714X.

This IRE technology is very similar to what Rife was doing back in the 40s and 50s.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by Zosynspiracy]



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 

By "relatively small population", I was referring to those aptients whose cancers are non-metastatic and have reasonably dentifiable regions of angiogenesis. To the best of my knowledge, this technology isn't being used to remove tumors in patients who have a high likelihood of having tumors elsewhere, as well, as it would be an exercise in futility when chemotherapeutics should be used as a whole-body treatment instead.
Of course, I can't claim to be an expert on the nanoknife, not being an oncologist or having used it myself. I'm purely working off of reports from colleagues who have seen/used it, and their experience may be limited, as well.


G'day VneZonyDostupa

You are correct in much of what you say.

However, the issue of burden reduction arises.

One of the first patients treated with NanoKnife had several vicious renal tumours (imminently life threatening) that were not operable & a very extensive abdominal tumour......this thing was huge!

All had shown extreme resistance to chemotherapy & radiation therapy & the patient (a young fit guy in his forties with a young family) was given 3-4 months to live.

The NanoKnife was successfully used to treat the renal tumours.

The abdominal mass was reduced by 95% quite easily & that facilitated successful treatment of the remaining abdominal tumour burden.

The last I saw of the guy, everything seemed fine.

So in the case of extensive tumours, burden reduction can occur which in turn will facilitate more effective treatment with other methods.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 9-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Oh, absolutely it's a boon for burden reduction. In the case of the patient you mentioned, however, it's pretty clear that hsi tumors were localized to one region, making the nanoknife applicable. I was more referring to patients who have pancreatic cancer (or any, really) that has metastisized to other tissues. That situation would make the nanoknife all but useless, as no single mass would be the real "burden" in the disease.

Other than that, though, you are 100% correct in that it is a wonderful new therapy that has proven to be incredibly versatile.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Zosynspiracy
 


G'dayZosynspiracy

I would like to address your posts in detail, but I won't have time to do that until tonight.....so you'll have to grant me a few hours off ATS!

In the meantime, if you can provide some sources for "Rife" I will see if I can compare & contrast NanoKnife technology with "Rife"


You are correct in your assertion this principle has been around for a long time. The problem has been that nobody understood how to apply it successfully.

So.....see you later on


Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


G'day VneZonyDostupa

You are right


As per my above post, I must switch off ATS now & get things sorted out for a day at work.

I will jump back on here tonight.....I have some other commentary that might perhaps be of interest.

I will post some early work regarding cardiac applications.

I am enjoying our discussion.....thank you.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 9-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


I'm not going to provide resources for Rife sorry. His research and his history is all over the internet. If you're not at all familiar with his research or his microscopes than it's up to you to be so. I will recommend the book : The Cancer Cure That Worked.

Also if you've never heard of Gaston Naessens you should research him as well. I'm not going to post links and info because again this info is all over the net..........the book The Galileo of the Microscope is available on Amazon as well.

Politics in Healing by Daniel Haley is another great book.

And if you are not a medical person and have never studied the fight between the Germ Theory and Pleomorphism I suggest you study Antoine Bechamp's work and the work of Louis Pasteur. The Germ Theory is a load of BS and Louis Pasteur even admitted this on his deathbed.

NOTE# The reason I don't feel like providing sources and links is because most people want the answers dropped at their feet nowadays. Doing so would be a huge injustice to Rife and Naessens and their story. To really understand their story you have to do the background research and study them. Most of the time this type of info can be well had from a well researched book...not just a few pages on the net or an article. And people like VZD will come alone citing some source like Quackwatch or Wikipedia.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

[edit on 9-3-2010 by Zosynspiracy]





new topics

top topics



 
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join