backtop


Print 40 comment(s) - last by 7Enigma.. on Jun 19 at 12:01 PM

New tech could be used in implant to suck up cancer cells as a chemotherapy alternative

Currently the most viable treatments for cancer -- chemotherapy and radiation -- ravage patients’ bodies, nearly killing them in an effort to save their lives.  However, for lack of a better treatment these remain the best options for those fighting cancer.  Novel applications like targeted nanoparticles look promising in the long run, but they remain dependent on developing protein markers for cancer cells. Protein markers for one kind of cancer won't necessarily be the same of those of another type.

Researchers at Northwestern University have devised a promising alternative.  They have created an implantable micro-device which sucks up cells and then separates them based on size and shape. Cancer cells, which are differently shaped from healthy cells, are deposited in a reservoir, while healthy cells are returned to the tissue.

Researcher Bartosz Grzybowski, the paper's senior author, states, "We have demonstrated a principle that offers an unconventional way to fight metastasis, a very different approach from other methods, such as chemotherapy.  These are fundamental studies so the method needs to be optimized, but the idea has promise for a new approach to cancer therapy."

The team created a series of ratcheted channels -- essentially attached triangles -- which could guide cells in a single direction.  Cell repellents were applied to keep the cells away from certain parts, while cell adherents were patterned onto the substrate on surfaces they wanted the cells to travel along.  

The researchers then devised a means of filtering normal epithelial cells from cancerous cells from breast tissue.  The normal cells were long and thin with protrusions at the ends.  A special channel with spikes at 45 degree angles was created.  Normal cells could grab onto these spikes and pull themselves through.  Fat, round cancer cells, however, were blocked and traveled down a different channel to a central reservoir.

The technology could lead to minimally caustic implantable devices which could literally slowly suck out tumors and their metastasized cells, allowing for weaker chemotherapy to be used, or even perhaps to eliminate chemo altogether.  States Professor Grzybowski, "When implanted next to a tumor the particles would guide cancer cells, but not normal cells, inward to the reservoir, where they would be trapped.  The particles could also be part of the sutures used during surgical procedures."

The new research is reported in the journal Nature Physics.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Well...
By KillerInTheRye on 6/16/2009 12:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
That sucks.

Seriously though, how big is the reservoir? Could it not just kill the cells and then release them back into the body to be discarded?




RE: Well...
By grandpope on 6/16/2009 3:13:27 PM , Rating: 3
I was envisioning a bilge pump-type organ, that has a hose to the exterior and shoots out a stream of cancer...


RE: Well...
By sinclaj1 on 6/16/2009 3:20:07 PM , Rating: 3
That's not a bad idea, though that would probably require some sort of power source whereas the concept they deployed appears to be passive. Unless the tube they go down could somehow shred them passively.

Also, what would the body do (immune system, etc) with the dead/mutilated cancer cells that were released back into the stream? Would it go on "red alert" so to speak? That could cause problems for the patient. Otherwise, if the body simply discards them out and ignores them, that idea makes sense to me. Good ideas.

I wonder if this concept could also be tweaked for other kinds of cells? For example, viruses, HIV, infections?

This concept has a lot of merit and potential, I pray we see this new concept come to reality very soon. (And the bureaucrats keep their mitts off)


RE: Well...
By 7Enigma on 6/19/2009 12:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, what would the body do (immune system, etc) with the dead/mutilated cancer cells that were released back into the stream? Would it go on "red alert" so to speak? That could cause problems for the patient. Otherwise, if the body simply discards them out and ignores them, that idea makes sense to me.


The body would simply recycle the cell debris like the other hundreds of thousands of cells that are turned over on a daily basis. That's why cancer is so devestating; the body doesn't recognize the tumor so a life cancer cell and a dead cancer cell will "look" the same, just like a live or dead normal cell.

While not a front line treatment, the kitchen sink approach (especially when passive such as this one) is probably going to become the normal course of action in the future. Unless there is a wonder drug that comes out of nowhere, multiple treatments, likely simultaneously, will increase in scope.

If this tech pans out I could see someone with cancer in pre-metastasis having these placed in several locations in the body (if the devices can be small) to help prevent localized tumors at a later time if not all of the cancer was detected.


RE: Well...
By Zingam on 6/16/2009 4:16:33 PM , Rating: 5
No it would function like this: you grind the body of the patient, then you put the minced meat into the filtering machine and at the other end you get cancer free minced meat. And voila: now you have just to reconstruct the healthy man.


RE: Well...
By Oregonian2 on 6/16/2009 6:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
Despite your graphic imagery, you do bring up the question as to effectiveness and just how does one get all cancer cells to decide to go into/through this device. Picture a big blob of cancer growth, growing in all directions, and wondering how to tell it to ... by they way, could you please pass yourself through this strainer?.

I could see it maybe being something of an enhancement to lymph nodes or the like so random cells can be captured to cut down on metastasizing spread or the like (I'm currently battling cancer and I've a lung biopsy coming up checking for spread -- might be a good thing if it's available NOW).


RE: Well...
By MrPoletski on 6/17/2009 6:08:49 AM , Rating: 4
How very unfortunate for you, I hope all goes well.

I think the benefit of being able to put this into sutures (in the future) would be fantastic for stopping a cancer from returning. Also, some cancers spread like wildfire so something that mops up all the spreading cells would be a life saver.

If you have the cancer contained and constrained then removing it should be a lot safer and easier.

Out of interest are (were) you a smoker?


RE: Well...
By Oregonian2 on 6/17/2009 11:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
The kind of cancer I have is one that 80% of the time is from someone who smokes.

I've never smoked. Second hand smoke makes me gag.


RE: Well...
By tmouse on 6/17/2009 7:51:19 AM , Rating: 2
First off I wish you well, However this work is still very much in the theoretical stages and is at least 5 or more years away from any clinical trials IF it gets that far (it's all cell culture based at this point with no animal work). Now to back to the topic, your correct, while this could help some (any help in reducing a patients struggle is always welcome) it is somewhat naive to believe metastasis is the result of a large amount of fast growing, free traveling, cells. There is certainly evidence that some could arise during a slow growing phase when the tumor is stimulated by other types of cell factors from other tissues like vascular or neural cells and the migrating edge cells enter the lymphatic or circulatory systems. In this case by the time the tumor is detected the "seeds" are already planted so to speak. Also MANY cells have a so called round fat appearance when not attached to a matrix, keep in mind this work is done using three established lines a "normal" line Rat2 (fibroblasts) and two tumor lines B16F1 (mouse melanoma) and MDA-MB-231 (human breast carcinoma), normal for culture is not normal in the invivo sense, and a general extension to the numerous amount of cell types circulating in the body is certainly premature at this point. It's an alternative to proposed cell guidance techniques using chemoattractants, which is also in the very early stages. It could prove useful and it could also be useless invivo its 50/50 at this point.


RE: Well...
By Graviton on 6/16/2009 9:17:21 PM , Rating: 3
As an added bonus, the person's loose change is conveniently sorted for them :)


RE: Well...
By Smartless on 6/16/2009 4:17:21 PM , Rating: 2
On another note, the article discusses that protein based marker treatments require that each treatment would be different depending on the type of cancer. Wouldn't this treatment be different based on the infected cell as well? I'm sure it would be easier to design a "grate" for a lung cell and breast cell than a protein marker but I wonder if that's an issue.


Cure for cancer may have already been found.
By GrandMareg on 6/16/2009 12:41:21 PM , Rating: 4
Just so people can be informed about other options besides just chemotherapy and radiation. Please do your own research besides just watching the video though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LXH-TJYS5w




By IvanAndreevich on 6/16/2009 8:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
Conspiracy theories and the Internet. What's new?


RE: Cure for cancer may have already been found.
By tmouse on 6/17/2009 8:43:13 AM , Rating: 5
This is an example of why researchers are being contacted by their media departments to check before granting interviews. The hack job on that story is disgusting at best and is an example of the bad side of the internet providing a warped (at best) perspective of the research.

Here is , to use the videos banner, the "real story":

First off there is no "Grand Conspiracy" on this research, it is on going and funded. DCA is most certainly NOT a "magic bullet". Michelakis is a good cardiologist who's research deals in mitochondrial function, this is his first work in oncology. As you can see the poor guy is like a deer in the headlights as this hack interviewer twists this interview for his own tin foil hat idea of what's going on without having done a scrap of research into the work. Briefly the work is based on an observation from 1930 that cancer cells appear to prefer aerobic glycolysis over mitochondrial glucose oxidation, this is called the "Warburg effect". Michelakis published a paper in Cell in 2007 showing that mitochondrial K+ channels can be reactivated and promote apoptosis in several tumor cell lines and he has done some promising animal work. His assertions that DCA is relatively harmless is a bit disconcerting since in two studies using DCA one with children showed no significant toxicity; the other in adults had to be stopped early since most of the patients in the DCA arm exhibited symptomatic peripheral neuropathy which only partially resolved by 9 months post treatment. Now to be fair this condition can occur in the course of the congenital mitochondrial diseases that were being studied but DCA clearly increased the incidence and severity. It may be age related or due to confounders like diabetes, but clearly the physiological status of cancer patients could also have side effects worse than convention chemo, only careful clinical trials can tell. It may be more selective, depending on your definition of selective, than chemo. Chemo targets cells that are actively dividing this targets all cells and only effects those undergoing aerobic glycolysis, which can include some normal ones. Also it is known several types of cancer have mitochondrial damage which DCA will not be able to reverse so this limits its effectiveness and would require additional testing before selecting it over other methods. It may prove a good adjuvant therapy to chemo since some chemo is less effective in anaerobic conditions. Finally there is evidence that DCA is in itself capable of being a tumor promoter at the site of administration and in the liver at levels that are not toxic to the animals that were treated. Its promising work and several compounds are being looked at but at this stage it is FAR from a "cure" that is being suppressed, and I hope people who could be really cured by conventional methods (as hard as they are) are not misled into postponing effective treatment for ,as yet, totally unproved and currently ineffective ones which often proves fatal due to the advancement of the cancer.


RE: Cure for cancer may have already been found.
By armulyman on 6/17/2009 4:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
Whether or not it works, I would like to see this drug application followed up on, and it does seem like there is a shortage of funding for this study.

If I had cancer I would probably try this out, even with the high risk of liver cancer.


By tmouse on 6/18/2009 8:10:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
and it does seem like there is a shortage of funding for this study


And you get this information from where? Several groups are working on topics related to the warburg effect as a venue for cancer treatment as well as the effective versis toxic dosages of several compounds for metabolic treatments. As it stands today the evidence suggests its major role will not be a replacement for radiation or chemo but as an adjuvant to these treatments.


By Zshazz on 6/18/2009 2:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
We've had a cure for cancer for thousands of years. THC has been shown to kill cancerous brain cells while not harming normal, healthy brain cells.

But because you can't make money off of it normally, Big Pharma and it's paid pals in the DEA keep the best source schedule 1.


I don't get it
By bentheman939 on 6/16/2009 4:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
How is this supposed to work exactly? Unless treating leukemia, solid tumors are not floating ready to be separated with cytometry.

If it is to be used on solid tumors, how can it suck up the mass, separate good from bad, and then reintegrate the healthy tissue? How is that any better than regular sugery?




RE: I don't get it
By ChristopherO on 6/16/2009 5:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
As someone currently fighting leukemia, something like this would be wonderful... However medicine currently has what it has. I still have quite the fight in front of me (marrow transplant), but I owe my life to high-dose chemotherapy. Sure, it wasn't pleasant, but the drugs have been proven for decades (especially AraC, Etoposide, etc).

I worry about a lot of these stories. People who are less informed tend to freak out, or put off treatment looking for something else which is typically an alternative by medical quacks trying to make a buck off people who have lost hope. Not to mention repeated stories of "bold new cure" will put parents of lost children into a perpetual emotional disaster.

For example, that DCA story above is crazy. The number of "cures" out there is ridiculous. And then again, if you *do* come up with something, it tends to be a very limited remedy. For example the cervical cancer vaccine fights a single type induced by a virus. And the woman in the DCA video linked above... She was worried about her hair?!?!? Are you kidding me, you could drop dead and you're concerned with hair? I'm sorry, but I'll take an awful lot of crap in exchange for not dying. If I mentioned what happened to me, half of you would lose your lunch. Seriously, hair, fertility, etc, were the least of my concerns. Waking up every day was slightly more important.

Contrary to all the quackery, cancer can't be conclusively linked to a lot of things. For example, leukemia can be caused by benzene. However, given that I don't work in a rocket factory, it didn't cause mine.

The science in dealing with the illness is far beyond understanding the illness itself. Eventually we might find a "cure", but cancer patients need to be content with what we have *now* and their families need to understand (without guilt) that the only medicine available are today's drugs. When you understand that, fighting with the disease is much easier, and you'll get out of a spiral of self-pity.


RE: I don't get it
By tmouse on 6/17/2009 9:02:09 AM , Rating: 2
I wish more people would hear your perspective, as a cancer researcher I get sick every time I hear hack interviews saying how we have the "cure" and suppress it to line our pockets on the pain and suffering of others. To put it bluntly to be in science you have to have some ego since most of the time you will fail (that's how we learn). I cannot think of a single person in this field who would suppress that kind of a discovery. The idea "they" kill "those who tell" is just too much television, in fact we blab too much, it's in our nature, the days of the lone researcher who can be silenced are long gone IF they ever truly existed, you would have to kill dozens and even in our jaded world that would be noticed, it's stupid plain and simple. Does the field have some tunnel vision and inertia, certainly, but there are plenty of us pushing the envelope and failing and starting over every day. The sad thing is we are being pressured to get things done faster, speak up more and more, often way to early, to secure funding and the competiveness is beginning to hurt cooperation, which is the cornerstone of good science.


RE: I don't get it
By s d on 6/16/2009 9:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
I have the same problem with this research.

Primary site tumors would be unaddressed by this "treatment".

Secondary stie tumors would be unaddressed by this "treatment".

The only treatment this technique would assist in would be collection of metastatic cells available within the periphery (circulatory and lymphatic).


die cancer
By Vaz on 6/16/2009 4:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
the causes of cancer is known. causeS, there is no 1 universal thing that causes cancer. I'm sure this device could also be used to kill cancer as well. They mentioned this is foundation work and that methods need to be optimized.




RE: die cancer
By icanhascpu on 6/16/2009 5:30:40 PM , Rating: 2
You dont 'kill' cancer, you 'cure' it. Go read what causes it before trying to school people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosis


Vision
By Kyanzes on 6/17/2009 1:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
I'm envisioning a filter barrier through which the patient would simply need to pass through. The filter would let through anything save for cancerous cells. Then the cancerous remains would kind of slip down along the wall of the barrier. Gross. :)




Innerspace!
By sleepeeg3 on 6/17/2009 9:44:51 AM , Rating: 1
A picture of the ship from this movie would have been a better logo




With cancer cured
By DixyCrat on 6/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: With cancer cured
By jonmcc33 on 6/16/2009 1:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
It would be good if they knew what exactly caused cancer. People have smoked for 75-80 years and died of natural causes and never gotten cancer. Not saying that it's healthy as it is a disgusting habit but regulation of anything will not find a cause nor a real cure...beyond chemotherapy and radiation treatment.


RE: With cancer cured
By armulyman on 6/16/2009 2:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
we do understand what causes cancer, radioactive particles.
This paper discusses the dangers of polonium-210 and to a lesser extent lead-210 in tobacco smoke.

Po210:

http://www.erowid.org/plants/tobacco/tobacco_healt...

erowid is great ^-^


RE: With cancer cured
By bobsmith1492 on 6/16/2009 5:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
"Carcinogen" is the term for anything that causes cancer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen

It's not just radioactive particles, either.


RE: With cancer cured
By armulyman on 6/17/2009 12:00:05 AM , Rating: 1
Marijuana is known to contain as much carcinogenic material as tobacco, yet there has not been a single cancer case linked to it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html

lol sorry for the news source :p but then again you just cited wikipedia :p.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_and_health#Ch...

quote:

Smoke, or any partially burnt organic matter, is carcinogenic (cancer-causing). The damage a continuing smoker does to their lungs can take up to 20 years before its physical manifestation in lung cancer.


It seems to me that there is a serious flaw in the way carcinogens are defined, given that:

1. Smoking pot is definitely the inhalation of partially burnt organic matter.

2. Any partially burnt organic matter is definitely cancer causing, or contributing.

3. Marijuana does not cause cancer.

It seems like this definition of carcinogenic is just... well.... outdated.

I would say a better definition would be:
quote:
A carcinogen is any material that irritates living tissue at the molecular level, such as some partially burnt organic matters.


RE: With cancer cured
By tmouse on 6/17/2009 9:26:33 AM , Rating: 3
Fox news aside here are some references

Chem Res Toxicol. 2009 Jun;22(6):1181-8
J Thorac Oncol. 2008 Dec;3(12):1398-403

Now there are several studies clearly showing far less risk in smoking cannabis but most agree it's simply a matter of amounts, since most smokers hit a pack a day or more and very few smoke that much cannabis. The studies also have a hard time finding enough who smoke cannabis and never smoke tobacco. Smoking cannabis causes xerostemia, leukoedema and an increased prevalence and density of Candida albicans. Yes SOME people can smoke 2+ packs a day and live to 100 but it is a rare thing indeed, and unless you have the right genetics it is a losing gamble.


RE: With cancer cured
By armulyman on 6/17/2009 4:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
I can't really argue with the first reference, I don't know how such a study would be conducted. In order to determine that cannabis smoke can damage DNA in a real life setting though, one would have to conduct the study on active living tissue. Here they clearly state that it is a laboratory setting , so the results are unclear to me.

but then they go on to state:

quote:
The researchers add that the ability of cannabis smoke to damage DNA has significant human health implications especially as users tend to inhale more deeply than cigarette smokers, which increases respiratory burden. "The smoking of 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day," the team adds.


I'm not going to argue that smoking pot is good for your lungs. It certainly isn't, it's smoke. It only helps asthma patients because it can dilate the bronchia, and allow them to breath.

The second study you referenced I am very skeptical of.

It states two groups in both study and control. group one consisted of tobacco only smokers, and group two consisted of tobacco and cannabis smokers.

quote:
The risk of lung cancer increased with increasing joint-years, but not with increasing dose or duration of cannabis smoking.


Now correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, but it sounds like they found that by smoking both substances there was an increased risk of lung cancer, but by increasing or decreasing the average amount of cannabis smoked, there was no change.

I am no expert on lung function, but here's what these results tell me:

Tobacco and Cannabis both coat the bronchia in tar, and the irritation caused by the excessive tar build up allowed cancer causing materials to do more damage than they otherwise would.

they express the same skepticism in conclusion of the paper:
quote:
CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that cannabis smoking may be a risk factor for lung cancer. However, residual confounding by tobacco smoking or other potential confounders may explain part of the increased risk


Now, to my understanding, there has not been a reported case of cancer caused solely by marijuana smoke. There has always been another contributing factor.

Now your study
Chem Res Toxicol. 2009 Jun;22(6):1181-8

states that:
quote:
Cannabis smoke contains 400 compounds including 60 cannabinoids. However, because of its lower combustibility it contains 50% more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke.”


while it is clear that these chemicals are "cancer causing"

the
quote:
Smoke, or any partially burnt organic matter,
as a whole is not.

I will leave you to speculate as to why this might be, but this article

MedPage Today May 24, 2006
Tashkin DP et al. "Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study."

points out something that might be of interest:

quote:
It's possible that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in marijuana smoke may encourage apoptosis, or programmed cell death, causing cells to die off before they have a chance to undergo malignant transformation, he said.


RE: With cancer cured
By tmouse on 6/18/2009 7:47:20 AM , Rating: 2
Good science can almost never make absolute statements. In some sense it can be said tobacco does not cause cancer. Cancer is caused by deregulation of the cell cycle, this can happen from many different levels. It's not really about tar trapping things; the arylhydrocarbons within it themselves can function as receptor stimulants as well as a source of free radicals during the clearing of these foreign substances. It's really more of a syndrome and many factors contribute some increase the risk while others can reduce it, the best we can do is get a general idea on the potential risks involved and try to minimize them. If we get an understanding of some of the mechanisms and get a way to identify which are in play and if we can find a way to re-route , stop or start an alternate path to correct them we may someday have better personalized treatments than the hammer we have to use today. ALL plants are filled with complex cyclic hydrocarbons and incomplete combustion will always produce potentially genotoxic substances. It is foolish in the extreme to say cancer cannot be induced by smoking cannabis. You will rarely find a direct single factor for a particular cancer.


RE: With cancer cured
By Zshazz on 6/18/2009 2:27:31 PM , Rating: 2
THC kills cancerous cells while leaving healthy cells alive and well. This has been shown in research. Here's a nice video of tumorous brain cells vs regular brain cells:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OqSRfzqwWA

So yes, marijuana contains more cancer-causing agents. But because the cannabinoids in marijuana kill (THC) and inhibit (CBD) cancer cells, there is no increased risk of cancer by smoking it. I remember a study where there was no link of cancer, even when comparing non-smokers to mild smokers to even heavy smokers. You could smoke marijuana several times per day, and no increased cancer risk.

Keep in mind that marijuana DOESN'T even have to be smoked! Vaporizing gets the beneficial ingredients with nearly none of the cancer-causing substances... and eating marijuana (pre-heated to release some of the THC that is in its inactive form) will do the same, without the cost of a vaporizer.


RE: With cancer cured
By tmouse on 6/19/2009 9:26:15 AM , Rating: 2
Ok let's put this in some perspective, there is some work supporting THC as having some apoptotic potential against tumor cells , specifically a neurologic type know as glioma.

Inhibition of Glioma Growth in Vivo by Selective Activation of the CB2 Cannabinoid Receptor1
CANCER RESEARCH 61, 5784–5789, August 1, 2001

Galve-Roperh I,Sanchez C,Cortes ML,del Pulgar TG,Izquierdo M,Guzman M. 2000. Anti-tumoral action of cannabinoids: involvement of sustained ceramide accumulation and extracellular signal-regulated kinase activation. Nat Med 6: 313-319

However this has been blown way out of the scientific context by the net. From the work out of Zajiceks lab it is ONLY high doses (>5 micrograms/ml) of THC which produces this effect in humans.

High concentrations of cannabinoids activate apoptosis in human U373MG glioma cells Journal of Neuroscience Research 86:3212–3220 (2008)

Held-Feindt J,Dorner L,Sahan G,Mehdorn HM,Mentlein R. 2006. Cannabinoid receptors in human astroglial tumors. J Neurochem 98: 886-893.

Furthermore there is evidence that in the same cell lines THC can actually stimulate proliferation at lower doses. While early studies indicated an anticancer benefit in cancers of the breast and prostate it is now known it is highly dependent of the presence and ratios of the CB1 & CB2 receptors which can vary widely even within a tumor. In short you may kill some of the cells but leave others leading to resistant reoccurrence . And again there is evidence showing that lower levels actually stimulate growth in these lines as well and evidence of some immune suppression which could affect immune surveillance. THC may have some uses such as its antiemetic properties, however synthetic compounds such as HU210, WIN-55,212-2 have all of the same effects without the psychological "benefits".


RE: With cancer cured
By jonmcc33 on 6/17/2009 11:41:04 AM , Rating: 2
...

Explain that to all the non-smokers in the world that get cancer. You need to understand that there are hundreds of types of cancers and they effect all parts of the body.


RE: With cancer cured
By armulyman on 6/17/2009 4:03:35 PM , Rating: 2
We are surrounded by polutants, take a look at car emissions. Global warming aside, smog can't be good for your body.


RE: With cancer cured
By Creig on 6/16/2009 1:39:28 PM , Rating: 2
Let's beat cancer first before we start worrying about fighting petty things like tobacco/marijuana regulations.


RE: With cancer cured
By icanhascpu on 6/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: With cancer cured
By armulyman on 6/17/2009 12:04:28 AM , Rating: 2
how do you get from cancer cure to failing medical system to flaming the monkeys that feed off of our socialist society?

your brain must be leaps and bounds ahead of mine, cause I can't seem to follow you.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki