Nanomedicine could make it easier to detect cancers. Maybe at some level this is technically true, but why would anyone care? The only important thing is that cancer gets cured and not caused. And for that we just shouldn’t look at cancer researchers. They have never offered anything and it’s unlikely they ever will. Because their job depends on not finding a cure.
“The use of nanocrystals offers clearer images of cancer cells,” And how does that cure the patient? Does it even improve the treatment? “a magnetic resonance scanner can then be used to direct the nanocrystals to a tumour.” MRI’s are not particularly healthy and are quite likely to cause cancer or other health problems. They should not be used unless absolutely necessary. Nanotechnology is so far hardly tested for safety and what is known is not positive. So nanomedicine sounds very much like “we make you sick to make you better”. That’s a common way to treat cancer, but it doesn’t make it acceptable. And those nanochristals deliver a drug. But the drugs don’t cure and basically do close to nothing to even treat cancer. So this sounds like just a different way to use a useless treatment.
“ingesting the nanocrystal reduces leaching of the drug throughout the body and reduces the side effects.” That sounds like at least a positive thing. The treatment still doesn’t work, but at least it doesn’t kill you right away. Of course this still doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, but this is how oncology works.
“The hope behind this research” Huh? So actually the new way of delivering drugs isn’t the real purpose of the research, but the main aim is the hope that it will do something. “produce clearer imaging in surgery to allow greater accuracy on the operating table.” That’s nice for the surgeon and it might mean that the patient has a higher chance of surviving the surgery. But that still doesn’t mean anything for cure rates. It doesn’t even mean that the patient will live longer.
“tend to cut out more than just the tumour, to prevent the recurrence of cancer.” The problem is that it doesn’t work. In most cases the tumour comes back. It might take a bit longer if you mutilate the patient worse, but surgery rarely cures. ” it could drive more targeted treatments.” That sounds nice, but a targeted useless treatment is not really of any help. You would need a better treatment.
The article still goes on for a bit, repeating the same stuff. But the bottomline is that this is nothing new and no improvement at all. Cancer treatments have not really improved at all for decades. It’s still cutting, burning and poisoning and any new treatments are just varieties of the same. Cancer is more common than ever and more people than ever die from it. Smoke screens and highly manipulated statistics are used to make it look like cancer treatments have improved a lot, but the truth is different.
Reality is that conventional treatments cure at most 2% and that percentage is likely inflated. Loads of people who survived a cancer they never had (misdiagnosis is pretty common) are counted, as well as those people who decided to take the natural way to treat their disease. If they get cured after having had conventional treatments they end up in these 2% as well. Others might have got cured in spite of the treatment. So in reality probably a lot less than 1% of the cancer treatments actually do any good. Add to that the high number of people who die from the cancer treatment and it should really be a no-brainer. And why would anyone choose a barbaric treatment when so many gentle and effective treatments are available? I know the official mantra: those natural treatments have not been proven to be effective. Well, many thousands of cured patients strongely suggest that those natural treatments are a lot more effecive than the microscopic percentage conventional treatments achieve.