New leech-like device to suck blood for sampling instead of needling

People with a phobia of needles may soon experience relief with an innovative blood sampling method inspired by leeches.

​

 

New leech-like device to suck blood for sampling instead of needling

People with a phobia of needles may soon experience relief with an innovative blood sampling method inspired by leeches.

​

Now do bed bugs.

 

I have mixed feelings about this one:

MIT repurposes beer yeast to feast on deadly lead contaminates in water

​

Interestingly, the researchers also evaluated the capsule’s mechanical robustness to ensure the system can withstand various flow rates without failure and is scalable. They state that the capsules will withstand the water flow generated by the treatment plants supplying various residences.

 

This has made me reconsider my cynical attitude towards "aromatherapy" :

Unexpected Connection Between Menthol And Alzheimer's Discovered in Mice

​

"But, surprisingly, we observed that short exposures to this substance for six months prevented cognitive decline in the mice with Alzheimer's and, what is most interesting, also improved the cognitive ability of healthy young mice."

 

Is It Better To Shower In The Morning Or Evening? Turns Out, There Is A Correct Answer

​

Overall, then, what’s the verdict? Well, if we had to come down on one side or the other, we’d say the nighttime showerers have the edge – but ultimately, it’s up to you.

 

The operating rooms are going to get scary.

 

 

PillBot lets doctors examine the stomach remotely via a smartphone app, replacing upper endoscopy with minimal patient prep.


​

Their pioneering product, the PillBot, is an ingestible robotic capsule. Equipped with cameras, sensors, and wireless communication technology, the PillBot enables doctors to examine the gastrointestinal tract with exceptional precision and control.

 

Ancient viral DNA in our genome not ‘junk’ but cancer ally, says study


​

Research indicates that about 8% of the human genome consists of endogenous retroviruses that are integrated into the cells of our evolutionary ancestors, encouraging them to replicate and carry their genetic material.

 

Your avatar's been given hope, Joey! :

Medicine For Regrowing Teeth To Be Tested On Humans For The First Time

​

During previous rounds of testing on animals, the formula showed enormous potential to trigger the re-emergence of lost dentition, with a single dose being sufficient to regrow a tooth in ferrets. According to the researchers leading the trial, the current version of the drug was also well-tolerated by the rodents, with no adverse effects reported, indicating that it can now be given to people for further study.

 

This New Blood Test Identifies Alzheimer's Memory Loss With 90% Accuracy


​

While the processes at work involve a complicated mix of genetic and environmental factors, one thing all individuals with Alzheimer's have in common is a steady loss of key neurons associated with a marked rise in abnormal proteins.

 

This 'Holy Grail' Protein Repairs DNA And Could Lead to a Cancer Vaccine


​

They discovered that the protein scans along the DNA, searching for lesions on one or both strands. When it finds either a single-strand or double-strand break, it then binds to it and goes looking for another break of the same type.

 

Scientists Destroy 99% of Cancer Cells in Lab With Vibrating Molecules

​

The use of near-infrared light is important because it enables scientists to get deeper into the body. Cancer in bones and organs could potentially be treated without needing surgery to get to the cancer growth.

In tests on cultured, lab-grown cancer cells, the molecular jackhammer method scored a 99 percent hit rate at destroying the cells. The approach was also tested on mice with melanoma tumors, and half the animals became cancer-free.

 

Brings Royal Rife to mind.
royal rife

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/health/ot...er-crisis-according-to-top-doctor/ar-AA1qgFal

Doctors have ramped up their warnings over how ultra-processed foods could be contributing to the surge of colon cancer cases in young people.

And while candy, chips and processed meats have gotten the most attention recently, there is a growing number of people who report eating 'clean' but are still getting cancer.

Gastroenterologist at the University of Miami Dr Maria Abreu, who was recently awarded a grant to study this phenomenon, believes part of the problem is the amount of emulsifiers in modern foods, including those that are in healthy products, such as low-fat yogurts, light salad dressings and peanut butter.

The common additives that help give dairy-free and low- and non-fat foods their combined and creamy texture, but have been linked to gut inflammation and disruption of the gut microbiome - the collection of healthy bacteria in the body's digestive tract.

 

Aston University develops novel bone cancer therapy which has 99% success rate

​

In laboratory tests 99% of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) cells were killed off without destroying non-cancerous normal human bone cells. The researchers also incubated the bioactive glasses in a simulated body fluid and after seven days they detected the early stages of bone formation.
Gallium is highly toxic, and the researchers found that the ‘greedy’ cancer cells soak it up and self-kill, which prevented the healthy cells from being affected.

 

The first thing that came to mind is what is the difference between killing 99% of cancer cells in each person versus making 99% of cancer victims cancer free?

I'm always reminded of how PC makes back in the early-80s would say stuff like "our computer is 95% IBM compatible", leading you to expect that 95% of programs written for the IBM PC would run on their machine, when what they were really saying is that 95% of the code in a given program would execute on their machine, which, in reality, meant that virtually no program written for the IBM PC would actually run on their machine.

So, there's the question of just what killing 99% of the cancer cells actually means in real life. If you leave 1% of the cancer cells alive in a person, does the person still have cancer and all you've done is moved the clock back however long it takes bone cancer cells to multiply a hundred fold? I don't know the answer to that question.

There's also the question of what all of that gallium is going to do to the patient in the long run. Is it permanently locked into the dead cancer cells? What about the gallium that didn't go into the cancer cells?

 

The first thing that came to mind is what is the difference between killing 99% of cancer cells in each person versus making 99% of cancer victims cancer free?

I'm always reminded of how PC makes back in the early-80s would say stuff like "our computer is 95% IBM compatible", leading you to expect that 95% of programs written for the IBM PC would run on their machine, when what they were really saying is that 95% of the code in a given program would execute on their machine, which, in reality, meant that virtually no program written for the IBM PC would actually run on their machine.

So, there's the question of just what killing 99% of the cancer cells actually means in real life. If you leave 1% of the cancer cells alive in a person, does the person still have cancer and all you've done is moved the clock back however long it takes bone cancer cells to multiply a hundred fold? I don't know the answer to that question.

There's also the question of what all of that gallium is going to do to the patient in the long run. Is it permanently locked into the dead cancer cells? What about the gallium that didn't go into the cancer cells?

And that's, I think, when an institution's prestige comes into play. They'd better be darn sure of what they publish or otherwise they'll lose the public's trust, and with it, important funding.

You're very right about your objections. There's a direct link to the original paper at the end of the article that might clarify some of them. I haven't read it myself yet, though.

 

And that's, I think, when an institution's prestige comes into play. They'd better be darn sure of what they publish or otherwise they'll lose the public's trust, and with it, important funding.

You're very right about your objections. There's a direct link to the original paper at the end of the article that might clarify some of them. I haven't read it myself yet, though.

Not surprisingly, the paper is highly technical and I am certainly not qualified to even get a glimmer of the actual importance of the overwhelming majority of it. The paper, itself, certainly didn't harp on the 99% claim -- it was simply a finding that was reported as one data point along with all the rest, though it was mentioned in the closing discussion.

It's also highly likely that the person that wrote the press release (and then all the people that picked up the story from there) has an even worse basis for conveying what the paper is really claiming that I do -- they simply want to capture people's attention, figuring that if they get it wrong, the authors will seldom be held be held responsible since the people that matter to them, in terms of reputation, are their peers who do understand what the paper does and does not claim. It is seldom that the press furor ever translates into any damage in that regard for either the authors or the institution (though it does happen from time to time).

 

The first thing that came to mind is what is the difference between killing 99% of cancer cells in each person versus making 99% of cancer victims cancer free?

Is anyone ever "cured" of cancer? (I'm asking out of curiosity -- I don't know the answer.)

Isn't this why they say they're in remission? Is it possible to prove one is 100% free of cancer after treatment?