[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

     Cancer Treatment Strategy
 New approach ; cook it in-situ !
Radiation does not kill all of it , chemotherapy does not kill all of it , laser-therapy does not kill all of it , electro-therapy does not kill all of it , even cryotherapy does not kill all of it .  Only a precisely placed , electrically-powered , burn-hot needle-bulb can actually cook 100% of the cells in a target area .  The key is constant identification of small tumors , and immediate out-patient cooking of them .  If this strategy is pursued relentlessly , the nascent mini-tumors will never get big enough to cause serious damage .  The additional use of immunotherapy will usually be the nail in the cancer's coffin . 
 The war on cancer must be fought for complete victory , not as a business , where highly-paid professionals make a rich living keeping cancer down , but not out .  For the sake of the human beings dying here , the paradigm must be broken , & modernised .
 Chase this enemy down , kill him where he lies .  Never let him gather strength , then he cannot really hurt you ! 
 Alright , made a sensitive point .
Adios ,  P.M.

[alancalverd]

It is a standard option, generally using a laser and fiber optic to heat the needle.

Problem is to identify minute tumors before they proliferate, and to cauterise not only the core of the tumor but  sufficient of its blood supply to prevent regrowth.

In the most common cases such as adenomas and breast tumors, proliferation often precedes clinical symptoms,so you either have to x-ray yourself from top to toe every month or so, which will induce more tumors, or wait for symptoms, treat the primary and chase the secondaries where you think they are most likely to occur. 

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

Yes mahn , they are steppin' in the right direction , BUT , I'd like to see it even more low-tech , & cheaper .  Cheap & easy means more treatments .  Say , how's about those newer low-intensity X-Rays ?  One from the top , one from the side , and ya got the little buggers !  A robotic , computerized needle sticker , could handle patients assembly-line fashion , while consistently yielding extremely hi-accuracy results .  Cancer-loving metallic compounds could be ingested to make micro-tumors more visible.  Flood the target area with 0.5 ghz EM radiation , and you will kill much of the cancer with the resultant heat . 
 Hokay , feeling burnt out !.........P.M

[Bored chemist]

Cancer-loving metallic compounds could be ingested to make micro-tumors more visible. 

... if they existed. But they don't.

Flood the target area with 0.5 ghz EM radiation

At that frequency the wavelength is about 2 feet. You would be irradiating almost the whole patient. And enough heat to kill the cancer would kill the patient.

It's easy to kill cancer. What's damned near impossible is distinguishing it from healthy tissue.

How did you come to think that these ideas hadn't been considered before?

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

  Cancer Approach
 Try Johnson Mathey Tech.Rev. :
  " Medicinal Organo-metallic Chemistry ."
 Next , organize an array of parabolic radar projecting dishes so that the common focus is upon the target tumor .  Place lead apron with sizeable opening  on patient between projectors and target .  Project enough EM energy so that the organo-METALLICS heat up much more than the flesh in question .  Moderate dosage to minimize collateral damage to patient . 
 As you can see  , I definitely thought of this before . I actually researched it for years . 
 Alright , keep up the positive criticism .  What doesn't kill me , only makes me stronger !......P.M.

[Bored chemist]

the organo-METALLICS heat up much more than the flesh

The best known organometallic in the world is probably tetraethyl lead.
It's a colourless liquid.
It doesn't absorb em radiation very well- generally not as well as water- so why do you think using organometallics will help?
Is there something magical about CAPITAL letters?

organize an array of parabolic radar projecting dishes so that the common focus is upon the target tumor . 

Why bother?
You can't focus radiation down to a point much smaller than the wavelength- so, that's about two feet.

As you can see  , I definitely thought of this before . I actually researched it for years . 

Not very hard.

[alancalverd]

Say , how's about those newer low-intensity X-Rays ?  One from the top , one from the side , and ya got the little buggers !

Low intensity won't kill anything, but might induce more cancers. We've been doing multi-beam megavoltage therapy for about the last 100 years, and recently have got very good at it with the cyberknife (up to 2000 separate beams) , but you still have the problem: by the time you have symptoms, you probably have secondary tumors which may be too small to detect. .

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

  Cancer Fighters - You can use da lead , I be usin' everyting but !  As far as the aperture goes , please review the classic "Double Slit" experiment .  I am not trying to focus , simply to soak the target .  Also , radar not be cancer-causing , unlike hard radiation . Finally , I can do without any shroud at all , it's just to help prevent hyperthermia .  The organo-metallic compounds can be bound to nutrients , or bodily hormones that the cancer cells uptake , and taken steadily low-dose .  The radar will pass through the human tissue , heating it mildly , but heating the metals accumulated in the tumors much more .  This will cause great mortality among the cancer cells .  This would work even for unseen micro-tumors , as long as that area was also irradiated . 
 Alright , cheap cancer treatment .  Add in the heat needle ( thermal ! ), and you've got an excellent augment to the standard treatment regime . 
Hope you see it , Eye B. Happy .
....................................................P.M.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

                   Clarification
 Cancer cell uptake - Cancer cells are , by their nature , voracious , and almost predatory .  To survive in a mortally competitive environment , they shirk their natural barriers and protective mechanisms .  This is why chemo-therapy is effective against them .  Immunotherapy and oncophage therapy also take advantage of this vulnerability .
 Okay , explained the trick .........P.M

[chiralSPO]

Dearest professor,

While I am happy to defer to you regarding matters of astronomy, this is a topic for which I feel entirely comfortable to call BS when I see it. As others in this thread have mentioned, it is quite easy to kill cancer--the trick lies in having great enough selectivity to kill the cancer while leaving healthy cells alone.

Certain types of cancer are easier than others to select for chemically, like some types of breast, ovarian, and colon cancers. However, others are not so easy to target. Merely going after "voracious" cells is likely to kill liver, heart, skeletal muscle, skin, eyes, and hair (no one really cares about the last one, but the others are fairly important). Organometallic and metal-organic toxins are among the least selective (compared to purely organic compounds that are more similar to signaling molecules within the body, and can hijack our own biochemistry).

The cheapest and most effective anti-cancer regimens are all preventative. No smoking, limited alcohol, regular exercise, more veggies and less meat goes a long way. Vaccination against HPV prevents almost all cervical cancer, and knowledge of certain genetic markers or family histories allows people to be extra cautious about certain risk factors (I have a family history of melanomas, so I limit exposure to direct sun, avoid certain skincare products, and get an annual mole check).

Another final (pedantic) point. "Cancer" comes in so many different flavors that it really shouldn't all be labelled under one umbrella term. It's about as diverse a category as "infection." There will never be a "cure for cancer" just as there will never be a "cure for war."

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

To : ChiralSPO
From : Prof. Meg.
I likewise defer to your specialist medical knowledge .  I think we are both coming from a similar place ( emotionally ) on this issue .  Whilst the difficulties you bring up are real , I have to believe that there are ways to get a higher level of some metals into some cancers .  If this could be accomplished , a radar soak could actually induce very high temperatures in the indicated tumors .  It might not be a cure , so much as a strong ( & cheap ) treatment . 
 The reason I propound the hot needle-bulb is because lasers are expensive , difficult to use , invasive/traumatic , and , like hard radiation , leave a significant amount of cancer in the treated area .  I am seeking treatments that are both cheap , and easy to use .  These could be applied regularly , to keep small tumors from becoming large enough to do serious harm yet they wouldn't damage the patient themselves .  As you alluded to , precisely locating these is a challenge , but , if the patient is frequently getting the "cheap" version , with minimum X-ray exposure , any "mini" that slips by on one session , will be caught on the next . 
 This approach is similar to having infantry on the battlefield alongside tanks .  It is a great force multiplier . 
 I welcome your feedback , and hope that we can make a dent together ...............................P.M.

[Bored chemist]

but heating the metals accumulated in the tumors much more . 

Why do you think tumours will accumulate metal?
Why do you think that metal will absorb more em radiation even though I already pointed out that they will not?

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

To:Bored Chemist
Cancer cells absorb all kinds of mess .  Most of the techniques for treating cancer count on this . 
 As for metals being heated by RF ; go ahead and throw some aluminum-foil in your microwave oven .  Let me know how that turns out .
 Lastly , to scientifically compare RF heating of metal vs flesh , make  two 6 ft. radio antennas ; one of metal , one of flesh .  Compare their receptions . 
 Let me know how THAT turns out also ! 
 Okay , eyes drying now ! ...........P.M

[chiralSPO]

As for metals being heated by RF ; go ahead and throw some aluminum-foil in your microwave oven .  Let me know how that turns out .
 Lastly , to scientifically compare RF heating of metal vs flesh , make  two 6 ft. radio antennas ; one of metal , one of flesh .  Compare their receptions . 
 Let me know how THAT turns out also !

That is a property of bulk metals. Organometallic compounds will react no differently than any other molecules.

They will absorb x-rays more effectively than ordinary organic molecules (because these have to do with electronic transitions in the core shells of the atoms), but to absorb RF, they will need to be conductive on a scale many, many, many orders of magnitude larger than a molecule. Perhaps one could use conductive nanoparticles to heat areas selectively, but at that point the particles would need to be as big as or larger than the cells that they are targeting, so there would be no selectivity beyond physically putting them in a tumor, which we can already do with other cheaper and less dangerous methods.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

 "Things that make ya go hmmm!"
This is the point where I say " I'll have to get back with you on that ."  Next , I scrape for time to research organo-metallics in solution .  Then I come back and say " hasn't been done like that .", and you say " I'll commandeer my work section , and do it for the good of humanity!
 Right ?
 Okeley-dokeley !.............P.M.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

            To the researchers .
It may be unduly difficult to facilitate significant organo-metallic concentration in tumors at this time .  An easier approach might be to induce high uptake and concentration of radar-reflective metals .  This would allow for pin-pointing of micro-tumors ,  where-upon the hot-bulb needle could be used to cook them in-situ . 
 The hard part here is locating the radar scattering regions in the patient's body .  This is where the research & development comes in .
At any rate , it is an unexplored pathway , definitely worth developing to maximum potential .
Okay , found path , you walk now !
...................................P.M.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

                    Suggestion
Start by examining Thorotrast - Thorium Dioxide .
Although discontinued long ago , the administration of Thorotrast provided extremely fine X-ray images for delicate work .  A good , but safe substitute , could easily be used with ordinary X-ray imaging to pinpoint nascent malignancies for hot-bulb needle burn-out .
Okay , Research City !........P.M.

[Bored chemist]

They now use barium sulphate for an xray contrast medium. It does the same job that thorotrast did, without being carcinogenic.
What do you propose to do with it?
The way they commonly use it is to stick it up your backside before xraying you.
How do you feel this will help trat cancer?

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

My goal is to obtain a pathway to extremely high micro-tumor visibility , done easily and cheaply .  Combined with the low-tech hot-needle, this could mean affordable, and constant , micro-tumor elimination .  Since tumors create most metastasis , this would be a positive feedback loop .  Patients could live out a quality , normal-length life , affordably .
Otay , you got's it !..................P.M.   

[Bored chemist]

My goal is to obtain a pathway to extremely high micro-tumor visibility , done easily and cheaply .  Combined with the low-tech hot-needle, this could mean affordable, and constant , micro-tumor elimination .  Since tumors create most metastasis , this would be a positive feedback loop .  Patients could live out a quality , normal-length life , affordably .
Otay , you got's it !..................P.M.   

OK.
How would barium sulphate or thorotrast help with that?