/sci/ - Science & Math

There is a tiny problem in your plan, 38°C with 95% humidity is deadly for people. Maybe useful for decontamination, but not for public places.

https://xkcd.com/1217/

>>8598478
>Scientists genetically modified salmonella to eat human flesh

fixed

>>8327040
I laff'd

>>8326283
Present him with a hangun

>>7773211
>In addition, the drug itself has been found to inhibit tumor growth. This is why it is often prescribed to cancer patients in states that support it.
Pull your head out of your popsci ass. This is wrong.

>>7610838

Fourth section, read it again. Everything causes cancer, some things cause it faster, or in larger numbers of people. GMOs cause cancer in people at about the same rate as eating non GMOs.

What I was saying is that pointing at GMOs and saying they cause cancer is a meaningless statement to any but the incredibly, woefully ignorant, which as this thread has progressed, you have very patently shown yourself to be.

I was trying to educate you but seeing as your hope was to come here and have a lot of people agree with you so you can feel more validated about your ignorance, I suppose it was a lost cause to begin with.

Also "published" and "peer reviewed" being terms that get tossed around for papers that are presented only on www.gmoconspiracy.com/blog/somethingorother that were viewed by the brother of the author don't exactly count as correct usage of the terms in the scientific community.

But again, I suppose you have shown yourself not to be interested in the majority of the scientific community.

Personally, I think you can eat whatever the fuck you want. However, creating false flags and claiming danger as reasons for particular consumptions versus others typically requires some real sense of scientific vigor, which has yet to be shown in any of the examples you have brought to the thread.

>>7227360
>has anti-cancer effects
Get out.

It's fun to smoke weed, but it never passed clinical trail test for being good against cancer.

>>7090659
>Bone cancer is immune to apoptosis
All cancers have to be, it's one of their hallmarks. Drug delivery by gold nanoparticles isn't a new concept (in fact, you can make a treatment even more targeted by fully encapsulating your compound in a gold nanoparticle then rupturing it at the appropriate spot with an array of lasers. However, if the gold itself is doing the killing, it's potentially able to kill off healthy cells too (pic related). This is all chemotherapy is, selecting compounds that kill cancerous cells slightly better than they kill healthy cells, which is why they usually target an element of cell replication or are taken up preferentially by cells undergoing replication (this is also the connection to the specific side effects suffered by those undergoing chemotherapy, particularly fast dividing and metabolically active cells are damaged before those which are less active).

Finally, consider that the production of cancerous cells is a form of evolution, by the time of macro scale tumor formation, the cells constituting that tumor have been selected to posses all the hallmarks of cancer (look up "The Six Hallmarks of Cancer".

>>6963283

>>6597667
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14570037
>In addition, these compounds have been shown to inhibit the growth of tumour cells in culture

Now, if it selectively kills cancer cells in a petri dish, you can be sure it's at least a great breakthrough for everyone suffering from petri dish cancer.

>>6330630

>>6049713
this one is better i think

>>5984201
>they work

guns work at killing cancer too

>>5923028
'Now, if it selectively kills cancer cells in a petri dish, you can be sure it's at least a great breakthrough for everyone suffering from petri dish cancer'

So yeah OP, I hope you catch rat cancer.

...

That's an odd thing to say, and the weirdest thing is that it's a good wish, I guess.

>>5894857
>500mg/kg
35 gramms must be injected into a man, awesome

Butthurt time!
How I hate these kind of papers, this is unspeakable, I can't take it anymore. Why people publish shit like this? For fame, to get money from idiots from government, to get their PhDs, why? Let me explain. I must read at least tens of new anticancer drug articles a day erryday to know what's cookin' in the world. And what is this shit I'm reading in ~80% cases?
- they took a known drug and put a methyl group somewhere and it still works, oh wow, what a surprize
- a line of new drugs kills cancer cells in adequate doses but nothing written about normal cells, well ok, I cook them, oh wow, the shit kills normal cells as fast as cancer cells
- they cooked a drug that really works in rats but with huge doses, nothing written about side effects, ok, cook it, give to rats at needed high doses, yes it stops tumor but complete liver failure in a week
- they cook a drug with some horribly inadequate perverted reactions just to show off when it could be cooked a lot easier
- their drug kills cancer cells "in a petri dish" whithout harming normal cells in good small concentration, no animal tests, sounds good, cook it, give it to rats, not working
- yields, high yields everywhere, start to cook thoroughly by given write-up, black ugly resin
I want to beat these people with my bare hands. No one cares about the actual "cure" i.e. good relatively non-toxic therapy. Everything people want (not all though, there're normal articles but little of them) is to get published. Oh, we've done a long hard work but our shit is more of a poison than a cure, oh well, publish it anyway. These people will burn in HELL!

There can be no "cure for cancer", cancer is a wide term which covers many different diseases with different causes and cures. Also see image.