I just wanted to point out that a quick google search seems to indicate that DMSO is used in typical cancer treatment. How, you ask? It binds and negates some chemotherapy drugs, so it's used to neutralize 'leaked' chemo. That's right - It doesn't kill tumors, it kills tumor killing drugs.Mr.Savage said:
Like what?Mr.Savage said:
Good catch. I never meant to imply that DMSO was in any way effective against cancer. Due to its solvent properties and free radical scavenging action, it will neutralize Chemo.AccursedTheory said:
Thanks! I know enough about lasers and thermodynamics to understand what you're driving at, and in fictional context it suddenly makes a lot of sense. You were absolutely right, it was a gas laser, and that gas was being drawn from the corona of a star. Your explanation makes the term comprehensible for me finally, thank you.renegade7 said:So the first law of thermodynamics is "Total energy = heat added + work done", or U = Q + W (sometimes U = Q - W, Q + W means W represents "work done on the system", Q - W means "work done by the system"). Heat energy refers to the kinetic energy of the atoms in the system (the energy that makes them move around, more heat means faster atoms), work refers to energy gained or lost by all other sources.P. K. Qu said:
"Superthermal" means that a system has energy that is not due to heat energy. In regards to a laser, I assume that refers to energy stored in the laser medium that is not due to the kinetic energy of the atoms in the medium. So for instance, if you're using a gas laser and some of the atoms or molecules ionize (become charged), they're storing energy that didn't come from the heat energy of the particles in the gas. Since atoms and molecules only store energy in discrete quantities, the energy distribution among all of the particles in the medium is going to be made inhomogeneous. Since a laser works by raising the energy level of the atoms in its medium to an excited state so that they all discharge at the same time, this will make the pulses of the output longer, meaning a lower-quality laser that is harder to control at higher pulse frequencies. The picture (I apologize for my horribleness at using Paint) hopefully explains what this would cause more clearly, ideally you'd want all four of the atoms to reach the excited state at the same time.
Hope that helps
Radio therapy does not negate the need for Chemotherapy. I was referring to a non-chemical modality which will obsolete Chemo and X-Ray.The_Kodu said:
Mr.Savage said:
I'm suggesting something like the therapies used by Rife or John Holt. Both show positive results with absolutely no side effects.The_Kodu said:
Mr.Savage said:
The_Kodu said:
Mr.Savage said:
DMSO was found safe and effective for everything from aches, pains, burns, cuts, scrapes, acne, arthritis, stroke, to spinal cord injury.The_Kodu said:
Mr.Savage said:
The_Kodu said:
rcs619 said:
Dead wrong. This was the entire reason Rife built his microscopes, he wished to observe micro organisms in their live state so that he could determine their resonant frequency for devitalization.rcs619 said:
My point exactly. The BX microbe has been observed under SEM, but it is regarded merely as an optical anomaly, not a microbe.rcs619 said:
https://youtu.be/sBx2JYMCuck?t=6m54srcs619 said:
rcs619 said:
These things are both true. Interestingly, DMSO is not as effective when used full strength, so it is typically prepared as a 70% or 50% solution with distilled water.The_Kodu said:
I've looked for years for data that supports this, and I can't turn any up. Incidentally, the man who first championed the use of DMSO, Dr. Stanley Jacob, MD, stated many times that starting in 1964 when he first started experimenting with DMSO, he would place a half-teaspoon of the stuff in Orange Juice and knock it back faithfully every morning. He said he did this because "if it's going to hurt anybody, it may as well be me, hell, I'm the one promoting it."The_Kodu said:
It's not achieving anything at all, besides its own proliferation. It's basically a bunch of cells gone rogue that reproduce and spread out of control, completely indifferent to whether or not that proliferation is harmful to their host body. They just keep making copies of themselves (and their damaged genes), and spread along destroying other healthy tissues as they go (to the point of eating away at bones and organs in some cases) until they're destroyed, removed or the host dies. There's no broader function or organization to cancer, it just creates these chaotic bundles of defective cells that do nothing besides suck up resources, damage surrounding cells or prevent them from doing their jobs properly, and make more copies of themselves. Eventually they make enough copies, and have such a destructive effect, that organs start to fail.FalloutJack said:
To add to what rcs19 said, asking what it is creating and where it is going is attributing purpose where there is none. There isn't even the usual implied purpose of keeping the organism together.FalloutJack said:
There is no plan, but there is a reason that tumors grow in certain ways, and it's not purely random. Each living cell, tumor or otherwise, needs a steady supply of nutrients, oxygen, and a means to get rid of metabolic waste. In practice, this means access to the blood supply. What most tumors end up doing is following basic cellular programming to a destructive degree. Most cells in our bodies are programmed to react in certain ways to their chemical and physical environment. It severely limits what they do, and sort of connects them to the larger network of other cells and the body at large.FalloutJack said:
rcs619 said:
thaluikhain said:
It was important for me to ask because of its confusing nature, in that cancer cells do more and do differently than other hindering organisms, and that this study says what it says. (Your information about it has been very interesting.) I do not anthropormorphise it, but rather wonder about the bizarre programming that leads to the creation of the cell masses. Like the cells in our body normally, it has a series of tasks engrained into its very core that it follows. It is basically a malfunction, but the malfunction is uniform. A cancer cell operates to survive and reproduce, thus it makes more of the same. I feel as though what should normally happen is that all of them from the first cell should not behave as a colony, but as similarly self-supporting malfunctioning cells even unto each other. And if not, can they be made to canniballize each other?P. K. Qu said:
It's not so much a new and bizarre program, as it is taking the limiters off of the existing program. For those of our cells with a complete nucleus, they have our who genetic plan to work with, remember? It's less like inserting a new program, and more like a chicken with its head cut off. You can't really do something new and interesting with it, you can't train it. It just runs around randomly, driven by its most basic programming (brain stem) until it runs out of limited energy and dies. Cancer, the disease, is similar.FalloutJack said:
YES!!! If you think about it, isn't a zombie just disease, personified? Mindless, relentless, even to the point of utter self destruction, the zombie/disease exists only to feed and by feeding, make more like it. That's a fatal disease in a nutshell, and that's cancer.FalloutJack said: