|
Post by devilschaplain2 on May 17, 2009 0:52:40 GMT -5
Oh for the love of fuck, this is flat-out child abuse and should be treated as such....and this also goes for Jehovah's Witnesses who don't believe in blood transfusions.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 19, 2009 11:32:48 GMT -5
That said, anyone who suggests 'natural medicine' as a cancer treatment should either be shot, or given a nobel prize for science if it acutally works. Given my experience with natural medicine we'd have a pile of bodies long before any awards. Just to nitpick, there is no Nobel Prize for science, there is a Nobel Prize for medicine and there is one for chemistry. Either could be appropriate for cancer. The only problem I can see with forcing the boy to have treatments is the cost. But then, if there was universal health care that wouldn't be an issue at all, as it would automatically be covered at no additional expense to the family. Heh, just needed to plug it, didn't you? (Not that I'm arguing) And just because I can, I'm going to make a few comments on the theory behind chemotherapy. It's a poison, it really is. Like, one drug that can be used is taxol, this kills dividing cells. This is because cancer cells divide more than normal cells. So, the cancer can be eradicated before the patient dies. Obviously, this doesn't always work. It does do a lot of harm to the patient and there are times when it doesn't completely kill the cancer. So, while I can understand not wanting to undergo chemo, if it's caught early (and if it's the right type of cancer), there is great benefit to it. Oh, and also just because I can. My biochemistry prof is on sabbatical this year working on a project related to cancer. There has been some evidence that a protein is on the surface of cancer cells that is not on healthy cells, a protein typically in the mitochondria. The problem is, nobody has been able to positively confirm it's there for sure. She's been working on verifying if it is or isn't. Because, if it is, that is a target. An unique target, one that can be attacked with drugs a lot safer than those used in chemo.
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on May 19, 2009 12:30:38 GMT -5
Oh, and also just because I can. My biochemistry prof is on sabbatical this year working on a project related to cancer. There has been some evidence that a protein is on the surface of cancer cells that is not on healthy cells, a protein typically in the mitochondria. The problem is, nobody has been able to positively confirm it's there for sure. She's been working on verifying if it is or isn't. Because, if it is, that is a target. An unique target, one that can be attacked with drugs a lot safer than those used in chemo. WOW! Impressive. Just one (probably stupid) question... Mitochondria perform the chemical reactions that power cells. If the protein that is attacked is in/on them, wouldn't that risk killing mitrochondria, thereby killing healthy cells?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 19, 2009 12:56:01 GMT -5
Only if the hypothetical drug can enter the cell. Very few things can pass freely across the cell membrane and require either endoocytosis (surrounding the substance and engulfing it) or a protein channel. So, unless there is close enough structurally to another useful chemical, it shouldn't be able to harm the mitochondria. Besides, it could very well take another decade for the drug to be developed and go through the approval process if the protein in question is even there.
|
|
|
Post by shelly87 on May 19, 2009 19:04:23 GMT -5
hey don't know if you guys have seen the update on this story yet but apparently the boy is refusing treatment. www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/dpg_health_Docs_Boy_Chemo_fc_20090519_2497179"The kid says he's not sick and the mom says she'll treat it if it's an emergency," Miles said of the Hauser case. "With cancer, if it's an emergency, it's too late." Yeah the kid doesn't like Chemo, it makes you feel much more sick before you get better. But for the kid not to think that he's even sick or needs any treatment is in my opinion the fault of the parents. It's their job to make sure their child gets the appropriate treatment that will in all likelihood cure the cancer. It's their job to comfort their child, tell him the necessity, and make sure he realizes he needs it to get better. Because they wouldn't do this the courts had to get involved to protect the child's best interests. It's just sad, I hope someone can get through to this child and to his parents.
|
|
|
Post by Deimos on May 19, 2009 19:04:53 GMT -5
Only if the hypothetical drug can enter the cell. Very few things can pass freely across the cell membrane and require either endoocytosis (surrounding the substance and engulfing it) or a protein channel. So, unless there is close enough structurally to another useful chemical, it shouldn't be able to harm the mitochondria. Besides, it could very well take another decade for the drug to be developed and go through the approval process if the protein in question is even there. The only thing I know of so far that can pass across the cell membrane is glucose. They just have to make sure that the molecules of the drug is smaller than starch
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on May 19, 2009 21:08:51 GMT -5
Only if the hypothetical drug can enter the cell. Very few things can pass freely across the cell membrane and require either endoocytosis (surrounding the substance and engulfing it) or a protein channel. So, unless there is close enough structurally to another useful chemical, it shouldn't be able to harm the mitochondria. Besides, it could very well take another decade for the drug to be developed and go through the approval process if the protein in question is even there. The only thing I know of so far that can pass across the cell membrane is glucose. They just have to make sure that the molecules of the drug is smaller than starch Nah, glucose requires a specific transport process to get in and out of the cell AFAIK. I think you were thinking of water.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 19, 2009 21:50:07 GMT -5
Only if the hypothetical drug can enter the cell. Very few things can pass freely across the cell membrane and require either endoocytosis (surrounding the substance and engulfing it) or a protein channel. So, unless there is close enough structurally to another useful chemical, it shouldn't be able to harm the mitochondria. Besides, it could very well take another decade for the drug to be developed and go through the approval process if the protein in question is even there. The only thing I know of so far that can pass across the cell membrane is glucose. They just have to make sure that the molecules of the drug is smaller than starch Um, no. Glucose does a very poor job of passing through the cell membrane. It needs a protein channel. And smaller is not good, size makes it easier for a molecule to pass through. Ions will not diffuse. Small polar molecules like water pass the easiest.
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on May 19, 2009 22:10:57 GMT -5
Oh, and also just because I can. My biochemistry prof is on sabbatical this year working on a project related to cancer. There has been some evidence that a protein is on the surface of cancer cells that is not on healthy cells, a protein typically in the mitochondria. The problem is, nobody has been able to positively confirm it's there for sure. She's been working on verifying if it is or isn't. Because, if it is, that is a target. An unique target, one that can be attacked with drugs a lot safer than those used in chemo. Cool. Now apparently the kid and his mother have gone missing: www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/minnesota/Daniel_Hauser_Colleen_Hauser_Missing_Cancer_May_19_2009They went on to mention some group who are against vaccinating children or taking them to the doctor at all, but now I forgot what the name of the group was.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on May 20, 2009 0:01:38 GMT -5
Oh, and also just because I can. My biochemistry prof is on sabbatical this year working on a project related to cancer. There has been some evidence that a protein is on the surface of cancer cells that is not on healthy cells, a protein typically in the mitochondria. The problem is, nobody has been able to positively confirm it's there for sure. She's been working on verifying if it is or isn't. Because, if it is, that is a target. An unique target, one that can be attacked with drugs a lot safer than those used in chemo. Cool. Now apparently the kid and his mother have gone missing: www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/minnesota/Daniel_Hauser_Colleen_Hauser_Missing_Cancer_May_19_2009They went on to mention some group who are against vaccinating children or taking them to the doctor at all, but now I forgot what the name of the group was. People like this have no business having children. Children have actually died because their parents didn't get them vaccinated or give them regular check ups.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on May 20, 2009 0:22:35 GMT -5
People like this have no business having children. Children have actually died because their parents didn't get them vaccinated or give them regular check ups. This gave me an idea. Maybe everyone should be temporarily steralysed at birth, and anyone who wants to have kids needs to pass a test and obtain a child liscence before they're eligable to have it reversed. Damn, if we could reliably stop these sorts of people from breeding there'd be a hell of a lot less overpopulation and stupidity around.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on May 20, 2009 0:24:23 GMT -5
People like this have no business having children. Children have actually died because their parents didn't get them vaccinated or give them regular check ups. That's precisely why they should have their children taken away. Parents have a duty to protect their children. Refusing medication, blood transfusions, etc. for a child that desperately needs it is child abuse and these people (primarily, but not limited to, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists) should be placed in prison for placing the wants of their imaginary friend over the needs of their own kids.
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on May 20, 2009 8:22:14 GMT -5
People like this have no business having children. Children have actually died because their parents didn't get them vaccinated or give them regular check ups. This gave me an idea. Maybe everyone should be temporarily steralysed at birth, and anyone who wants to have kids needs to pass a test and obtain a child liscence before they're eligable to have it reversed. Damn, if we could reliably stop these sorts of people from breeding there'd be a hell of a lot less overpopulation and stupidity around. But we can't do that! Having children is a RIGHT! Children are a gift from GAWD! EVERYONE needs to have BAYBEEEEZ!! *barf* I agree 100%.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi Knight on May 20, 2009 11:10:00 GMT -5
But we can't do that! Having children is a RIGHT! Children are a gift from GAWD! EVERYONE needs to have BAYBEEEEZ!! *barf* I agree 100%. No, it's not a right, it's a DUTY! By the way, I trust these idiots to keep to their own kind. We will out-evolve them in relatively short time.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on May 20, 2009 18:55:43 GMT -5
But we can't do that! Having children is a RIGHT! Children are a gift from GAWD! EVERYONE needs to have BAYBEEEEZ!! *barf* I agree 100%. No, it's not a right, it's a DUTY! By the way, I trust these idiots to keep to their own kind. We will out-evolve them in relatively short time. But they will out number us... significantly. It's not going to be cut and dried when things get ugly.
|
|