Inchworm, inchworm ...

Regular readers know I'm not the most optimistic guy when it comes to current events and likely trends. But here's some news that seems actually ... good. 

Cancer researchers have discovered that cancer cells metastasize by "inching" away from the tumor in a peculiar fashion. Scientists at Cornell University's Weill Cornell Medical College have apparently found a way to arrest this inchworm-like movement, and thus halt metastasis. The treatment appears to have no harmful side effects.

If this research pans out, it could mean that cancer (if caught early enough) would be confined to a localized tumor, rather than spreading like wildfire through the body. 

HT: Ace of Spades.

Comments

[sonic]

I hope this works in humans as well as it seems to with the mice.
Good find MP! Thanks

[Zerdini]

If this research pans out, it could mean that cancer (if caught early enough) would be confined to a localized tumor, rather than spreading like wildfire through the body.

Let's hope you're right - that would be good news indeed.

[realpc]

How many times has there been a great promising new cancer treatment? The whole approach to cancer is materialist and reductionist, and success has been minimal. Modern mainstream medicine only works for certain things, and cancer is not one of them. Cancer is approached as if it were an infectious disease, but it isn't.

[Kevin]

realpc,

If it shouldn't be approached as if it were an infectious disease, and isn't one, then how ought it be approached?

[realpc]

"If it shouldn't be approached as if it were an infectious disease, and isn't one, then how ought it be approached?"

It ought to not be approached the way it is approached. Mainstream medicine claims to be able to cure at least some types of cancer, if diagnosed early. But their cures are mostly an illusion.

[Stan]

Realpc - silly, uninformed and specious comments like that...without offering any real alternative solution or explanation to back UP your position - are the reason why I'm going to guess not too many people take your comments seriously. (in the real world - or the virtual one alike)

Lots of people have benefitted in REAL, tangible and measurable ways from conventional advancements in cancer research - including, quite thankfully - several in my immediate family.

Any smart, savvy and intellectually honest assesment of the landscape - and it's amazing advancements in our lifetime alone - intuitively understands this.

Please don't be so wacky, realpc.

And if god forbid you do develop a terrible disease like cancer - please be grateful we DO have people willing and able to help you get better and live happily ever after. (because I promise you - it happens..:-)

[Zetetic_chick]

Off-topic:

The latest edition of the Society for Scientific Exploration's newsletter name EdgeScience has been published in PDF here:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/edgescience/edgescience_03.pdf

Michael's article "The gift of doubt" is included in it.

There is an interesting article by Julie Beischel on mediumship research.

[Paul]

My understanding (which may be wrong of course) is that cancer isn't one particular disease. It is a term used to describe an array of illnesses which have at least one factor (inappropriate tissue growth) in common but which have numerous different causes and are each susceptible to different treatments. Am I wrong?

If my understanding is correct then it appears to my untrained eye that an approach which can detect common behaviour in all cancers could be used to deliver treatment or as in this case arrest growth of tumours.

I suspect realpc may be referring to the fact that we are sometimes led to believe that a cure is just around the corner or has been found (like for HIV) only to discover it has been hyped by the scientists concerned or the media (or both).

[realpc]

"I suspect realpc may be referring to the fact that we are sometimes led to believe that a cure is just around the corner or has been found (like for HIV) only to discover it has been hyped by the scientists concerned or the media (or both)."

That happens all the time. There is no point taking these claims seriously unless they show some actual results. The materialist paradigm of current medical science blocks progress in certain areas.

Stan,

I have debated people like you many times. Even many oncologists, if they are honest, will admit their treatments are limited.

You, typically, start off by trying to insult me, which shows you have an emotional need to trust mainstream medical science. You need to believe there have been amazing advancements in cancer treatments, so you believe it. Just a little research would show you that there have not been any amazing advancements.

Then, predictably, you say I have no right to state that cancer research has not advanced, unless I can tell you how cancer can actually be cured. You seem to think that no one can criticize a treatment for being ineffective unless they have something that is effective.

I guess it's because you desperately need to think cancer can be cured, one way or another.

And then, of course, you start talking about me getting cancer. It's almost like a threat. You want me to feel as afraid of cancer as you feel. Well fine, if that makes you feel better, but it has no bearing on what I'm saying.

It's easy to create an illusion of progress in cancer medicine. More patients are diagnosed because of more screening and better diagnostic technology. Cancers that are tiny and might never have progressed to cause disease or death are found and treated. All of these are counted as cures.

We have really no idea what the actual cure rates are. Everyone knows someone who was "cured" of cancer. But it's possible, and likely, that they never really had it. And if they did really have it, it may be likely to recur. Because the treatments don't cure the disease.

There is similar confusion surrounding the AIDS/HIV treatments. There is really no way to guess if these drugs do any good at all. HIV screening has resulted in many more people being diagnosed and treated, and if they don't get AIDS and die they are counted as having been cured. But no one knows which HIV patients would have become sick without the treatments. And the treatments are extremely dangerous and destructive.

My guess is that you have as much blind faith in the AIDS industry as you have in the cancer industry.

I won't be at all surprised if you start insulting me again and demanding I tell you how to cure AIDS, and asking what I would do if I caught it.

You need your world to be safe and controllable. You don't want to hear about ideas that threaten your illusions of safety. You need to know the high priests of materialism are as godlike as they claim to be.

[Eteponge]

Hey Michael, I just finished my indepth review of Richard Dawkins' "Enemies Of Reason" documentary ...

http://eteponge.blogspot.com/2010/04/indepth-review-of-richard-dawkins.html

Dawkins tackled Psychics, Astrology, Dowsing, Etc, used Derren Brown as a source against Psychics, Etc, in his documentary.

In my review, I linked to your two blog topics on here where you tackled Derren Brown, among other links critical of him.

I found evidence to suggest that Dawkins had edited the Psychic portions of his show to only show the misses, and to only show persons read who had previously been read before by the same Psychic, the easily explained stuff.

I also included mention of Rupert Sheldrake's unfair treatment and exclusion from the final cut of the program.

And, although I have no interest in Astrology, Michael Shermer's video of being pwned by a Vedic Astrologer on his own TV Show. And mention of CSICOP's sTARBABY controversy.

[Zerdini]

Good article, Eteponge.

I am just amazed that anyone, including Sheldrake, should fall for Dawkins 'high-grade debunking exercise'.

At least the TV company had the good grace to stop filming when Sheldrake said he had been misled.

[Sandy]

I really find the treatment of people like Sheldrake scary.

I had a doctor's appointment today, and I needed some of my medical records for a researcher I have been working with. My doctor was reluctant to release the records without an explanation of the sort of study I was involved in. I didn't know how to explain pk to her, so I just put my pk wheel on her desk and made it turn. She checked for drafts, and noted that I couldn't have been blowing on it because I was talking to her while the wheel was moving. She then said that doing something like that could make me famous. I told her, I really hope that won't happen to me. I'm still afraid of anyone knowing about me. I'm hoping that I can continue to quietly participate in research and never have to encounter the likes of a Richard Dawkins.

[Zerdini]

Sandy, your PK powers would make Dawkins turn in his grave! lol

[Sandy]

I doubt that, Zerdini. I can't really do very much on purpose. Making a paper wheel spin or affecting sensors in a lab isn't a big deal. The scary pk, like when things move that shouldn't, probably will only ever happen when it wants to.

I do think it is neat that there are machines in a lab that can measure what I experience. That says more about how cool science is than about how talented I am.

[Michael Prescott]

"Sandy, your PK powers would make Dawkins turn in his grave!"

In his grave? Dawkins is very much alive. I'm guessing this is a joke I don't get.

"The scary pk, like when things move that shouldn't"

But isn't the paper wheel an example of something moving when it shouldn't? I mean, if there's no breeze, no physical contact with the wheel, no "normal" explanation, and it spins, then it's behaving in a way that it's not supposed to.

[Sandy]

But the paper is little and not scary. I know that seems arbitrary, but that's what it is like for me. When big things move, it's just different. Last time my teddy bear moved by himself, I cried.

[.]

Oooh.....I'd like to give you a cuddle.

[Louise]

I'd be scared if things moved by themselves, including my Teddy!

[Stan]

Sandy - Would you be willing to make a video recording of your PK abilities - much the way you did earlier today for the doctor - only with a video to substantiate it - and post a link (even a private one where maybe just Michael or anyone else you've had private email coorespondence with) could see first hand this skill being demonstrated?

I think it would probably be a conduit to raising the level of discourse - and even if you were a bit camera shy about promoting yourself per se - or your identity, etc - you've shared a lot of your experiences in the past on this and other forums - and I think if the skill comes so easily.......it would be pretty constructive to "show it off" so to speak!

I for one would love to see it - but even if a public venue was too much for your tastes.....something private that Michael - or Zerdini - or someone with a public profile could view and report back to us on - would serve the community well...:-)

Any low level camera with a video recorder would do if technology were an issue - and there are plenty of places to post private video that you could offer access to one of the board "elders" if that route was ok with you! (even some of the social networking communities offer this sort of privacy if need be and could work really easily)

What do you say?

I think it would be a great way to sort of elevate the evidence a bit - and give us all something to talk about to boot..:-)

:-)

[Sandy]

Stan, I do have a short video of me doing pk on my blog. I know that it isn't the most evidential video because I was so concerned about my anonymity. You can't see my face or anything in that one.

It isn't very easy to film pk. I have lots of video of me moving the wheel, but none of it happening inside a jar, which is what I've been trying to catch. I'm trying to just be patient, because it took a long time to get anything on video. Once I did, it was easy to repeat. Just like it was so hard to do pk in front of anyone else at first, but lately I've been able to.

I think the really evidential stuff is what will end up being published by the researchers who tested me earlier this month. I'm sorry that may take a while. There is a lot of data to crunch. Another video of a wheel moving doesn't mean very much. Correlating pk functioning to measurements collected in the lab is way more useful.

[Sandy]

I just wanted to point out that the context of something moving really makes a difference in how scary it is. Yesterday my ghost friend Arthur opened a door for me. It didn't occur to me until later that if anyone else had noticed, it looked like the door opened by itself. To me it looked like Arthur opened it, which was nice, not scary.

Computer malfunctions (I had a new laptop crash today. It wasn't the McAfee malfunction, my hard drive seems to have died for no reason.), lights going out, ipods that don't show the correct titles of songs... those aren't scary either, just annoying.

But when ordinary things - like pens, teddy bears, bags of cookies, washing machines, chairs - take on a life of their own, that's scary.

[Stan]

Okay - great, Sandy....thanks! I will check out your blog. (didn't notice the link in your profile or comments before - but alas, now I do...and will take a look tonight..:-)

BTW - I'm sorta kinda of the camp that watching a video of the wheel moving - (in this example) is MUCH more significant to me....than trying to see what happens when the serious scientists start spouting off statistics.

I'm a big fan of personal experience - and if you can make your Teddy dance from a distance - I'd rather SEE it than read about the science. (the paper wheel is more than enough as well)

Good luck with your experiments!

[Zerdini]

In his grave? Dawkins is very much alive. I'm guessing this is a joke I don't get.

You're right Michael - it was intended as a joke - my English sense of humour!

[Louise]

Hey it made me laugh, Zerdini!