NanoKnife: Cancer Breakthrough Without Radiation or Drugs, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 27 times
Topic started on 9-3-2010 @ 02:51 AM by Maybe...maybe not
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]


reply posted on 9-3-2010 @ 04:38 AM by Maybe...maybe not
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]


reply posted on 9-3-2010 @ 07:10 AM by Phlegmi
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.



reply posted on 9-3-2010 @ 09:16 AM 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.


reply posted on 9-3-2010 @ 01:17 PM by Maybe...maybe not
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


reply posted on 9-3-2010 @ 01:40 PM by Maybe...maybe not
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


reply posted on 9-3-2010 @ 01:58 PM by Zosynspiracy
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.


reply posted on 9-3-2010 @ 02:05 PM by Maybe...maybe not
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]


reply posted on 9-3-2010 @ 02:13 PM by Maybe...maybe not
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


reply posted on 9-3-2010 @ 02:16 PM by Maybe...maybe not
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]


reply posted on 9-3-2010 @ 02:51 PM by Zosynspiracy
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]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



First Heartless Man - You Don\'t Really Need A Heart or A Pulse
  Posted 6 days ago with 51 member flags
Doctor Uses Coconut Oil to Reverse Husband\'s Alzheimer\'s Disease
  Posted 11 days ago with 28 member flags
A brief look at water fluoridation and the insanity of it
  Posted 9 days ago with 28 member flags
Brains of Addicts Are Inherently Abnormal
  Posted 5 days ago with 20 member flags
FDA say body is a drug and has the right to regulate it!
  Posted 8 days ago with 18 member flags
MPD/DID and Quantum Psychiatry
  Posted 12 days ago with 12 member flags