To: tioga
REad in them morning........the eyes are tired tonight.
2 posted on
11/26/2007 9:19:46 PM PST by
tioga
(Dear Santa..........I can explain....)
To: crazyshrink
"Here I come to save the daaaaaay!"
3 posted on
11/26/2007 9:22:47 PM PST by
Redcloak
(This post certified 100% Hillary-free. um... Never mind.)
To: crazyshrink
4 posted on
11/26/2007 9:27:31 PM PST by
Quix
(GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
To: crazyshrink
I read they had a cancer free mouse a few years ago. They stumbled onto it when the mouse didn't die as expected during some experiments they were conducting. They fed it higher does of the agent that they had used in the experiment. That mouse loved it. It was a big deal I swear. Then I never heard of it again ... maybe it was a dream.
Regards
5 posted on
11/26/2007 10:27:30 PM PST by
ARE SOLE
(Agents Ramos and Campean are in prison at this very moment.. (A "Concerned Citizen".)
To: crazyshrink
I read a report similar to this one about a year ago. In that report the mice were injected with a broad spectrum of cancers and were healed by a new gene. I’ll see if I can find that report and link it here. It may be the same study.
6 posted on
11/26/2007 10:39:25 PM PST by
DoughtyOne
(California, where the death penalty is reserved for wholesome values. SB 777)
To: crazyshrink
A Paradigm for Cancer Treatment Using the Retinoblastoma Gene in a Mouse Model
http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/886/1/12
White Blood Cells From Cancer-resistant Mice Cure Cancers In Ordinary Mice (I believe this was the article I remembered)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060509094714.htm
One of the most frustrating things about being a research scientist, would be knowing you were on the road to a clear cure, but it would take a few years to get there.
IMO, some of the testing should be eliminated. Go the normal route of testing for part of the discovery process, but allow some terminally ill patients to volunteer as test subjects if all other prospects for cures were proven not to be effective. What would that type of patient have to lose? And the possibility that a clear cure would come years faster would far outweigh the risks.
7 posted on
11/26/2007 10:49:59 PM PST by
DoughtyOne
(California, where the death penalty is reserved for wholesome values. SB 777)
To: crazyshrink
Don’t know if I could take two a day.
8 posted on
11/26/2007 10:57:19 PM PST by
VeniVidiVici
(No buy China!!)
To: crazyshrink
10 posted on
11/26/2007 11:11:32 PM PST by
Centurion2000
(False modesty is as great a sin as false pride.)
To: crazyshrink
The good news... They have found a mouse that doesn't get cancer.
The bad news... Humans will have to eat 6 times their body weight in cheese to duplicate that...
To: crazyshrink
My grandparents on both sides lived into their 90s, cancer free, and I recall as a small child, listening to my great-grandmother talking about choosing a marriage partner, should be no insanity, cancer, or criminality in the family background of the potential spouse...
Then I remember hearing in school about how people once thought these things were genetically determined, but that this was old-fashioned and illogical.
Things that make you go, “hmmmmmmm....”
13 posted on
11/27/2007 1:54:56 AM PST by
Judith Anne
(Thank you St. Jude for favors granted.)
To: crazyshrink
Several times they alternate references to “gene” and “molecule” making it quite difficult to tell what they are talking about by this Par-4 — a gene that works from within a cell whose presence causes any would-be cancerous mutant cell to die instead of proliferating, or a chemical entity produced by a gene in normal cells that poisons only cancer cells. I would hope they would soon isolate this chemical entity if it is one.
14 posted on
11/27/2007 1:58:34 AM PST by
HiTech RedNeck
(Beat a better path, and the world will build a mousetrap at your door.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson