Greetings!

Welcome to Scifi-Meshes.com! Click one of these buttons to join in on the fun.

Greetings!
This is the fancy new sidebar. It offers quick access to your profile, messages, threads and so on.
Hit the X in the top right corner to dismiss this message.
Greetings!

Welcome to the fancy new Scifi-Meshes.com! You old username and password should work. If not, get in touch with staff either here, on Facebook or on Discord.

For a quick summary on what's new, check out this thread.
You should also check out the Community Guidelines here.
You can check out most recent posts here or by clicking the handy links on the top menu or the sidebar.

You can dismiss this message by clicking the little X in the top right corner.

17-Year-Old Girl Creates Nanoparticle That Kills Cancer

Chris2005Chris2005336 Posts: 2,815Member
edited March 2012 in General Discussion #1
Fascinating... this is science-y. :D

http://www.geekosystem.com/17-yo-cancer-nanoparticle/

I'm skeptical as to whether or not this is true, but I do hope it is. I really do.

If it isn't true, well then, too bad. Thanks for giving us false hope.

If it is true, then pharmaceutical companies that make cancer-treatment drugs will try to suppress the discovery so that they can keep making money, or they will take the research and make it so that only the super-rich will be able to afford the treatment, leaving the poor and the middle-class to continue suffering from cancer.

The idealist in me hopes that this will be available for everyone soon, no matter their socio-economic status.
Post edited by Chris2005 on

Posts

  • L2KL2K0 Posts: 0Member
    hoax
  • FalinFalin0 Posts: 0Member
    I'm hoping this is true, it would be awesome!
  • Chris2005Chris2005336 Posts: 2,815Member
    L2K wrote: »
    hoax

    That she discovered a way to kill cancer, or?
    Falin wrote: »
    I'm hoping this is true, it would be awesome!

    Same.
  • L2KL2K0 Posts: 0Member
    that a 15 little girl develops a cure for cancer. (she's on it since 2009). me, as a person, wouldnt give one euro to a 15years old kid for she to build a lab.
    this just doesnt make any sense.

    now, you would have told me a internationally famous university filled with nobel prices is looking for funds to build a nanobot to kill cancer, i'd have believed you.
  • Chris2005Chris2005336 Posts: 2,815Member
    L2K wrote: »
    that a 15 little girl develops a cure for cancer. (she's on it since 2009). me, as a person, wouldnt give one euro to a 15years old kid for she to build a lab.
    this just doesnt make any sense.

    now, you would have told me a internationally famous university filled with nobel prices is looking for funds to build a nanobot to kill cancer, i'd have believed you.

    Well, that's kind of putting expectations on something you'd assume would be doing so... undermining the intelligence of some youth...

    However, if this is in fact absolutely true, what will you say?

    Here's another article:
    http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/17-year-old-wins-100k-for-creating-cancer-killing-nanoparticle-2011128/

    In which they link to the Siemens Foundation:
    http://www.siemens-foundation.org/en/competition/2011_winners.htm#2
  • L2KL2K0 Posts: 0Member
    if that was true, i'd say : hey, that pretty cool. keep going, girl.

    i dont underestimate the inteligence of younglings.
    i understate their financial credibility. hence, their achievements (just due to lack of budget, not lack of creativity).
    people want money. right here right now.
    at least, in the world we are living in. maybe in alpha centaury it's different.
    or maybe after the end of the world...
  • Chris2005Chris2005336 Posts: 2,815Member
    L2K wrote: »
    if that was true, i'd say : hey, that pretty cool. keep going, girl.

    i dont underestimate the inteligence of younglings.
    i understate their financial credibility. hence, their achievements (just due to lack of budget, not lack of creativity).
    people want money. right here right now.
    at least, in the world we are living in. maybe in alpha centaury it's different.
    or maybe after the end of the world...

    I've not seen any legitimate news sources pick up on it, but then again, like I said initially, pharma won't like it too much... no money in a cure, which is sad really, I couldn't care less about money, if I helped save a life, that's compensation enough, but in this world today, money makes the world go around...
  • L2KL2K0 Posts: 0Member
    Chris2005 wrote: »
    if I helped save a life, that's compensation enough

    you'll never get rich.

    and if that was true, wich i strongly doubt, pharmas will love it. they'll just fight themselves (understand "buy each other") until there is only one, that will widely distribute the cure. for about the price of you right arm and a set of organs.
    cool thing about monopole is that's pretty much forbidden, but it brings so much money nobody cares.
  • JennyJenny0 Posts: 0Member
    Chris2005 wrote: »
    I've not seen any legitimate news sources pick up on it,

    I'd say the $100,000 Siemans prize is pretty legitimate, and their article lists the Stanford professor who was her mentor. But I also suspect that the popular science press has overstated the case for what she's done. She's created, after a thousand hours, a potential treatment, which, if it works the way she thinks it does, will be effective for use with very expensive imaging and guidance technology to kill cancerous tumors in the early phases of their development. Noteworthy, but not a magic bullet against cancer... just another tool in the arsenal. World-wide, cancer rates are climbing, but survival rates are, as well.
  • FalinFalin0 Posts: 0Member
    there are a Number of child "Prodigies" out there, highly intelligent Children who have Graduated College at ages as young as 10, and by 16 have multiple PHD's, any research firm in the world would be giving them anything they need to come up with something new like this. don't discount her age.
  • Chris2005Chris2005336 Posts: 2,815Member
    L2K wrote: »
    you'll never get rich.

    and if that was true, wich i strongly doubt, pharmas will love it. they'll just fight themselves (understand "buy each other") until there is only one, that will widely distribute the cure. for about the price of you right arm and a set of organs.
    cool thing about monopole is that's pretty much forbidden, but it brings so much money nobody cares.

    Well, I'm not about money... money is a material need humans have created for themselves... it has no real value, we assigned the value to it...
    Jenny wrote: »
    I'd say the $100,000 Siemans prize is pretty legitimate, and their article lists the Stanford professor who was her mentor. But I also suspect that the popular science press has overstated the case for what she's done. She's created, after a thousand hours, a potential treatment, which, if it works the way she thinks it does, will be effective for use with very expensive imaging and guidance technology to kill cancerous tumors in the early phases of their development. Noteworthy, but not a magic bullet against cancer... just another tool in the arsenal. World-wide, cancer rates are climbing, but survival rates are, as well.

    True.
    Falin wrote: »
    there are a Number of child "Prodigies" out there, highly intelligent Children who have Graduated College at ages as young as 10, and by 16 have multiple PHD's, any research firm in the world would be giving them anything they need to come up with something new like this. don't discount her age.

    Agreed.
  • lennier1lennier1176 Posts: 992Member
    A hundred grand for a concept which will make millions?
  • Chris2005Chris2005336 Posts: 2,815Member
    lennier1 wrote: »
    A hundred grand for a concept which will make millions?

    It doesn't surprise me... here in the US, you'll have one person find a solution to something, and they'll sell it off to a company or companies for a profit, and they'll end up becoming the bottom of the barrel... not to mention, a cure for cancer undoubtedly already exists before this... but there is no profit in a cure, as malevolent as that is...

    Personally, I couldn't care less about the money... the satisfaction that I may have helped fight cancer is enough for me... of course, my dad tells me everyone has their price... but I insist not me... granted, I still need to make money, but I don't make money because I want money, but because I need it.
  • MelakMelak171 Posts: 0Member
    lennier1 wrote: »
    A hundred grand for a concept which will make millions?

    They are not just giving her 100K, they are probably also absolving her of any patent rights and whatnot by her having entered the concept into the contest :)
  • lennier1lennier1176 Posts: 992Member
    Melak wrote: »
    They are not just giving her 100K, they are probably also absolving her of any patent rights and whatnot by her having entered the concept into the contest :)
    That's exactly what I meant.
  • L2KL2K0 Posts: 0Member
    falin you may be right about the prodigy childs, they exist. but we are in economic crisis since 2008. nobody would give complete labs to kids, because even if they are walking geniuses, its not 99.48% certain they will make something that bring money.
    more like 87.15%. risk isnt worth it.


    one other thing i find strange is taht siemens doesnt really cares for health...

    it looks more like football to me.
    buy and sell players (ideas and patents) at the right time to the right team.



    chris : "Personally, I couldn't care less about the money" => we are not speaking about you here... the people that matters do. and very much. like, very very very much. they could sell their own children and grand children for the right amount of zeros behind the first number on the check.
  • AresiusAresius336 Posts: 4,121Member
    To be perfectly honest, I don't believe it until I see it being published on more than just a minor media site.
    We've seen "evidences" of alien discoveries, exoplanetary findings, conspiracy theories and whatnot being published there. Problem is, you can base a hypothesis or theory on facts so that you cannot prove it right, but neither can you prove it wrong. It's just a matter of how you look at the evidence, and how convincing it is sold.

    To those who say it's impossible because it's a 17yo girl: Only because it's not even adult by pretty much any law oesn't mean it's automatically no genius. Quite a few discoveries where made by "kids" (if we go by the legal age difference).
  • DeksDeks181 Posts: 206Member
    It's not impossible.
    In fact, I would argue that the cure for various illnesses is actually downright simple if you know how to approach the problem.
    I doubt one needs a highly sophisticated lab equipment to make progress in research.
    True, it makes things easier working with better equipment, but numerous breakthroughs can be made in one's basement as well (so to speak).
    Plus, western society is looking at cures via drugs and other aspects that can probably already be found in nature.
    The system we live in though is not so 'forthcoming' towards those aspects unless it can capitalize and profit from them.

    The age of this individual is of little consequence... I personally detest money.
    Humans in position of power have this obsessive tendency to assign 'value' to everything.
    If we went about doing things through 'what is possible via technological/resource/manpower' point of view... and not 'money', then the world would likely be a much different place... and probably better from it (if of course humanity's best interests were at heart - but also the ones of the planet we currently reside on).

    Also... only $100 000?
    Seriously, the amount of money she won is laughably small for a concept that could in fact mean 'millions', if not 'billions'.
  • chronochrono0 Posts: 1Member
    Interestingly enough an elder man 2-3 years ago thought he found a way to cure himself with standard radio waves. He didn't of course, but that lead to research into gold laced nano-particles that could be heated up to boiling point by that fellows idea.

    Though I'm betting on the bee sting (which kills every cell) targeting cancer killer cells that go into human testing within the next 2 years.
  • TovetteTovette5 Posts: 13Member
    The whole "cancer cure has been invented but there's no profit in it" is outright bull****. Any pharmaceutical corp would give their left nut for a cure for cancer- they could charge whatever they wanted and they'd make ridiculous amounts of cash off it.
  • FalinFalin0 Posts: 0Member
    Tovette wrote: »
    The whole "cancer cure has been invented but there's no profit in it" is outright bull****. Any pharmaceutical corp would give their left nut for a cure for cancer- they could charge whatever they wanted and they'd make ridiculous amounts of cash off it.

    BS, the pharmaceuticals spend BILLIONS a year to create new Drugs and they have only 1 in 10 or 12 successful drugs, they then have to recoup those costs and an instant cure does not allow them to recoup the costs they spend on the 12 drug researches and trails. thus any CURES are tossed in a locker, they only release the "treatment" drugs that they can recoup the costs on. they are businesses and need to balance the books and cures don't balance the books, they'd put them out of business.
  • SabretruthSabretruth0 Posts: 0Member
    Jenny wrote: »
    I'd say the $100,000 Siemans prize is pretty legitimate, and their article lists the Stanford professor who was her mentor. But I also suspect that the popular science press has overstated the case for what she's done. She's created, after a thousand hours, a potential treatment, which, if it works the way she thinks it does, will be effective for use with very expensive imaging and guidance technology to kill cancerous tumors in the early phases of their development. Noteworthy, but not a magic bullet against cancer... just another tool in the arsenal. World-wide, cancer rates are climbing, but survival rates are, as well.
    I'm highly suspicious of this. The globalists implementing their world government have high on their agenda the subjugation of male power and the promotion of female power as men are more likely to challenge authority and women more likely to view it as a protector, once you tame the male populace, half the battle is over. So they promote women in the media over men where possible. There was a girl on the cover of scientific American who was 'the new face of science'. The article detailed how she made little pictures with atoms using a technology pioneered by a brilliant man who was unfortunately an old white male and so was barely mentioned in the fawning article. I would say this 17 year old was gifted the already long known technique by another scientist or at least helped along substantially. I say long known because the public is 20-30 years behind when it comes to receiving technological advances from the elite.
Sign In or Register to comment.