Study shows Kanzius' concept works
Researchers have shown that they can target cancer cells with tiny pieces of gold and destroy the cells by using John Kanzius' external radio-frequency generator.
The success clears a major hurdle in proving that the Millcreek Township inventor's device can be used to successfully treat cancer in humans.
A scientific article about the targeting will be published today on the Web site of the Journal of Experimental Therapeutics and Oncology. The journal's Web site is www.oldcitypublishing.com/JETO/JETO.html.
"I was pretty excited when the targeting happened," said Steven Curley, M.D., principal investigator for the Kanzius Project at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. "It proves that this has the potential to work, and that it makes sense for us to continue pushing."
The published article is important because it gives the results scientific validity. Scientific journals including JETO contain articles that have been peer-reviewed to meet standards of quality.
The Kanzius Project has gained worldwide attention in the past 12 months. It has been featured on "60 Minutes" and CNN, and written about in major newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times.
The device works by sending radio waves into the body, which heat nanoparticles -- microscopic pieces of gold or carbon -- hot enough to kill the cancer cells in which they are placed.
But the biggest obstacle -- what Curley has called the "so what" question -- has been whether researchers can send the nanoparticles only to the desired cancer cells.
"This paper shows that we can target the surface of certain cancer cells," Curley said.
Curley and his research team did it by linking specific antibodies, or proteins, to the nanoparticles. The antibodies attach to the surface of certain cancer cells and are absorbed, but they don't attach to healthy cells.
Researchers tested pancreatic and colorectal cancer cells that easily absorb a particular antibody, cetuximab. They also used breast cancer cells that don't absorb the antibody as a control group.
Live cancer cells and the treated nanoparticles were placed in specimen dishes and allowed to incubate for 24 hours. They were then blasted with radio waves from Kanzius' device for two minutes.
The results: Nearly 100 percent of the pancreatic and colorectal cells were killed, but hardly any of the control group's cells were destroyed.
"It shows that we can target specific types of cancer," Curley said. "We're now working on other types of cancer cells, including breast, liver, prostate, leukemia and ovarian."
Curley said that he expects to finish writing "six to eight" more scientific manuscripts about Kanzius' device by mid-2009.
One of those papers is expected to be about tests done on blood samples involving Erie-area patients with blood cancers, such as leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma.
Blood samples were collected at the Regional Cancer Center earlier this year and treated with the RF device to determine if the radio waves killed all the cancer cells without harming healthy ones.
"We received the data, though it was a bit fragmented," Curley said. "The results are interesting, but we need more studies."
In addition to writing papers, Curley and his staff are conducting animal tests with Kanzius' device.
They hope to get approval from the Food and Drug Administration to begin human trials by late 2010. If human trials are approved, Curley has promised that Phase II trials would be held at the Regional Cancer Center, 2500 W. 12th St.
"We are right on target," Curley said. "We have a staff of nine, and we're looking to expand by another five people. I'm keeping them running."
Kanzius said he is confident the device will work on humans.
"This was a big step," Kanzius said in a telephone interview from his winter home in Sanibel, Fla. "If you look at this project as a puzzle, the targeting is the last piece. It's all downhill from here."
DAVID BRUCE can be reached at 870-1736 or by e-mail.
Tags: John, Kanzius, cell, energy, free, fuel, new, water
Views: 2
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by RWC1972 on -
I guess if you don't know much about electromagnetics this would be considered "amazing", but those of us with that background it is kind of a "yeah, duh" type of concept.
The true breakthrough is with the materials they are using as the "nanobullets" because Kanzius' device is nothing more than an adjustable focused RF source. It was Dr. Curley who put 2 and 2 together - he deserves the real credit here, but Kanzius makes for a better story (self-taught inventor who wants to save little kids from dying of cancer).
For the "burning salt water", don't let that mislead you - it is just electrolysis, albeit a very clean version. However, what good is it if the hydrogen can't be collected? More research is needed. But always remember, ater is not a fuel but it's components can be fuels.
-
Permalink Reply by Morgan on -
Yeah but Mr. Kanzius actually did something about this "yeah duh" concept. It's sad it took a man in his garage to do "yeah, duh". An example of where our sciences has gone in our institutions..... no where. I completely understand the concept of water and it's components. I work for an industrial hygiene company and deal with all kinds of chemical and VOCs and the complexity they bring when altered. Even the man who supplied Kanzius with the nano tubes couldn't believe it's reaction. This shortly before his death unfortunately.
"For the "burning salt water", don't let that mislead you - it is just electrolysis, albeit a very clean version. However, what good is it if the hydrogen can't be collected? More research is needed. But always remember, ater is not a fuel but it's components can be fuels."
Umm yes hydrogen can be captured and yes the same university that is helping Kanzius perfect the device for cancer treatment is also working hard on a power generating unit. All be it the challenge is efficiency but that will be overcome by trial and error as are all scientifically oriented ventures. Yep more research is needed and is currently underway and i plan on keeping tabs on this story as it develops.
-
Permalink Reply by RWC1972 on
-
I think you need to re-read the second paragraph of my first post, seeing as you seem to have completely ignored it in you comments.
To think that people tinkering in their garages will come up with the big breakthroughs is asinine, especially in medical research and energy generation. Then, to say that institutional research is going "no where" really shows that you are pushing some agenda that has no basis in reality. Classic technician's angst IMO.
-
Permalink Reply by Morgan on
-
Just my opinion RWC, the last 20 to really 10 years medical and specially energy research is controlled by corporations and their interest are purely economical. This is not true for the people doing the research but they are limited by the money that is given to them and what they are allowed to research. Trust me i know a few is research and development and they complain about this all the time. That's what i meant, not an insult to you or the scientific community just to the bureaucracy that exists today in any research and development and sometimes it does take a intelligent person in a garage to put 2 and 2 together and make a breakthrough. It's up to the scientific community to take it to the next level. If anyone gets the Nobel prize it would be both Mr. Kanzius and Dr. Curley. I would disagree that "Dr Curley" made the 2 and 2 correlation because he would have never known or even thought of this reaction if Mr. Kanzius didn't have a Erika moment with his wife's copper pans.
-
Permalink Reply by Morgan on
-
Look this guy put it perfectly. I wouldn't go as far as to say a cure just yet but this is the real issue. A big question is asked here ----> Why??????
-
Permalink Reply by RWC1972 on
-
Because it is not really a viable technology?
What good is killing the cancer if you destroy the tissue around it.
Those of us with knowledge know as much. The tinkerer in his garage doesn't have a clue.
-
Permalink Reply by Marijan Pollak on -
Mister, do not underestimate garage tinkerers, they are not all the same.
At same time, scientists are limited by their knowledge that they accepted as immutable, offten disregarding premises and asumptions for some Law to be apsolutely correct. Once those premises and asumptions change, Law become unapplicable.
Sometime theory also completely disregard everyday facts (I remember talking to Astrophisicist who explained to me that there should be spent allmost limitless energy to produce one Photone of light, and I asked him "Are You sure this is so?" and he was quite sure, offering me mathematical proof for this. I just reach electric lamp switch and turned light on. "Have I spent unlimitless energy to produce this light? If I am not creating the Photons, where they hide before I turn the switch on?" I asked... "Really, see that!!" was his surprised answer.) and "Ideal" things assumed sometime have logic flaws because of which thing would not work at all.
Case in question is Betz Law and "Ideal Turbine" which is supposed to have "limitless number of Blades" (which could not leave any space for air to flow trough turbine).
I invented turbine with much greater efficiency coeficient than Betz Limit of 0.59, but it were not first turbine that bypassed this limit, first was turbine from my great countryman, Engineer Nikola Tesla :-))
-
Permalink Reply by SJC on -
Some ideas still occur to the individual, but it takes great resources to make them happen.
-
Permalink Reply by Marijan Pollak on
-
That depend on Idea, of course. I have idea for new kind of Geothermal Power Station, and that, I agree, would require huge resources, financially.
But in case of my turbine, smaller models for generators up to 10 KW could be made with hand tools and a welder if necesary. CNC plasma cutter would be still much better and more precise, and welder is still necesary.
-
Permalink Reply by RWC1972 on
-
Good luck with that. I'll stick to conventional science and we'll see who gets further.
-
Permalink Reply by Marijan Pollak on
-
If Orvile and Wilbur Wright have done that, still nobody would fly except in baloons, since science of their time claimed that it is not possible that objects heavier than air could fly.......
To my great countryman Engineer Nikola Tesla scientists also told that AC motors and generators could not exist.
You can have all knowledge there is and not be able to invent anything, because one can find more reasons why something cannot exist then why something should exist.... For me, it is not hard to invent something new that work, hardest part is to explain how it works, specially to scientists that lack imagination and unable to think "out of box"...... Instead of forrest, they see just trees, and no matter how you dissect and study each tree, there you cannot find a forrest :-))
© 2013 Created by PickensPlan.
Powered by
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
