[Bored chemist]

My proposal prevents ANY of the above

Liar.
Even by your own assertion, you simply have not done your homework. ...

  I'll mount an even more thorough research regime . 

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

           Upset understandable .
I assume you're referring to damage .  I don't mean it does none , I mean it doesn't do those particular forms ; hard radiation damage , chemical poisoning , spreading of live cancer cells into circulatory & lymphatic vessels .  Of course there'd be a  thin burn shell around the meatball , but no live cells to migrate out .  THAT is the idea , at least .
Also , if you had important structures within , then you're SOL.
You will have to LIVE with that , but not die .......P.M.

[Petrochemicals]

Well is that not keyhole quarterisation and extraction megamind ?

Start a new thread in the biology forum, there are better qualified there than I !

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

...........Keyhole Cauterisation
Imprecise and sloppy , especially if done with laser . Also gives cancer cells opportunity to be drawn into aforetomentioned vessels .
I really need intermediaries , since I'm not a biologist .  I also need experimenters , since I don't have one .  Of course , if you spread the good word , it might generate enough interest to start the ball rolling !......P.M.

[Bored chemist]

Even if it's all reflecting , a collection of particles will increase the local Faraday Cage effect .

And , in doing so, it will shield the cancer from damage.
Why do you want to do that?

[Bored chemist]

I assume you're referring to damage . 

No.
I am referring to the fact that a system, like yours,  which doesn't actually work can't be used.
If it doesn't get used, it can't prevent anything.

[Bored chemist]

I really need intermediaries , since I'm not a biologist .  I also need experimenters , since I don't have one . 

You really need to shut up until you have learned enough to say anything useful.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

               ......  Positivity
 Already said I'm not a biologist , just someone who can see two promising approaches .  Definitely worth exploring and maximizing , unless having friends & relatives scream to death doesn't bother you .
P.M.

[opportunity]

Medicine is my background, and it seems like the question is asking if fire can be used as a surgical tool to extract a presumed localised area of cancerous cells, right?

The "hot probe" term as a question is not in any medical journal for any type of medical or surgical process of treatment. So clearly the question is from where?

What I have learnt in my work in Medicine/Surgery is that "Surgery" is what it is, it goes in there to fix catastrophic sudden injuries or long-standing issues that need sudden intervention, and "Medicine" is more holistic, more about the overall holistic operation of the body, the organs, tissues, associated circulatory regulatory and hormonal systems that depend highly on how the body interacts with the environment regarding food and air.

[Colin2B]

Medicine is my background, and it seems like the question is asking if fire can be used as a surgical tool to extract a presumed localised area of cancerous cells, right?

The "hot probe" term as a question is not in any medical journal for any type of medical or surgical process of treatment....

As far as I am aware hot wire loops are used for removal of some cancers and diseased tissue eg TURPS for prostate and loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP), or large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) for abnormal cervical cells. It has the advantage of being cauterising.

[opportunity]

You quoted me, what's your point? I know what hot wire loops are, but hot probes is something the author of this thread needs to address, right? If you read the opening statement of this subject there's a sense of "why bother" with anything hot. Did you not read that?

[Bored chemist]

just someone who can see two promising approaches

Really, What are they?
Because what you have suggested so far aren't promising.

[alancalverd]

As I mentioned way back, we already use "hot needles" and indeed cold needles, to destroy small tumors that can be identified and localised. But there are umpteen varieties of cancer - at least as many as of healthy cells - which turn up in all sorts of awkward places, with all sorts of different metabolisms, so there is no single trick that will kill them all without harming surrounding healthy tissue or causing the primary to distribute itself through the body's umpteen pathways.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

Excellent  , my man , excellent !
My fingers crossed on ever improving detection .  The rf. bath is , of course , an ideal .  Even partial results would be earth-shaking , and life saving !  There are many different ways to approach the problem , but in the end , materials testing is called for.
......P.M.

[Colin2B]

... hot probes is something the author of this thread needs to address, right? If you read the opening statement of this subject there's a sense of "why bother" with anything hot. Did you not read that?

I did read it, but wondered whether you had read any of the subsequent discussion. In the second post @alancalverd  points out, as he reiterates above:

As I mentioned way back, we already use "hot needles" and indeed cold needles, to destroy small tumors that can be identified and localised.

Whether the point of those probes are hot wire, loops, or RF needles etc, the use of localised heat in cancer treatment is well established in the medical literature. However, the point of the ongoing discussion is the practicality and options for generalised treatment.

[Bored chemist]

If we take a rather broad use of the word "hot" then boron / neutron based therapy is a hot probe too (as are radioactive needles).

None of that is new.
The novel bit of the thread seems to be the idea of getting lumps of metal into cancers and then heating them with RF.
The problem remains that metals don't usually absorb RF well.
The OP seems impervious to this fact.

There's also the problem of getting the "magic thing that absorbs RF" to localise in the tumours.
It's possible to some degree, but it's never going to be good enough to meet the requirements that the OP is suggesting.
In order to have a treatment where once a year you go to the clinic, take your magic pill and get zapped to remove any cancers before they are big enough to do any harm you need to meet two requirements
You must have some mechanism that targets all cancer cells (and as has been pointed out, there are at least as many different types of cancer cells as there are healthy ones,
You must have a mechanism that is so specific that you do no harm to any healthy cells- not least because you risk making them cancerous if you repeatedly stress them in this way.

If we could manage to meet the first requirement, which I doubt, then you would be putting enormous evolutionary pressure on the cancer cells to change so that they no longer absorb the magic potion. since cancers  typically mutate a lot, there's practically no chance of having a treatment that works for long.

This whole thread is a pipedream, maintained by the OP's combination of ignorance and wishful thinking.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

....................Evolution
Once a month , my man , monthly .
.........................and
Nutrients , they all need nutrients to stay alive .
.........................and
Evolution ; if you eliminate virtually all the cells , the rate of mutation drops to almost zero .  Ditto the rate of metastasis .
.........................and
Pipedreams ; like the dream that my relatives were still alive .
...........................so
All in all , possibly another effective  arrow in the quiver . 
 Let’s throw everything but the kitchen sink at it .  I vote life !
.......P.M.

[Bored chemist]

All in all , possibly another effective  arrow in the quiver . 

Which part of "no" don't you understand?

[opportunity]

... hot probes is something the author of this thread needs to address, right? If you read the opening statement of this subject there's a sense of "why bother" with anything hot. Did you not read that?

I did read it, but wondered whether you had read any of the subsequent discussion. In the second post @alancalverd  points out, as he reiterates above:

As I mentioned way back, we already use "hot needles" and indeed cold needles, to destroy small tumors that can be identified and localised.

Whether the point of those probes are hot wire, loops, or RF needles etc, the use of localised heat in cancer treatment is well established in the medical literature. However, the point of the ongoing discussion is the practicality and options for generalised treatment.

Indeed.


The point of the ongoing discussion should also take into consideration the stage of the cancer and thus how widespread it is. If you had read up re. cancers you would know they exist in different stages, from localised to grossly systemic. Using hot probes in early stage localised cancers can prove effective, yet systemic cancers would perhaps defer the idea of the hot probe given the effect it would have on the body in general.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

....... .....Generalised Cancer
Yes , yes , yes !  The Two Prongs is the idea !  Knock down the bulk of it with smooth , gradually bulbous , cryo-needles .  Mop up the micro-tumors with the Radar-NSD bath .  Put the nail in the coffin with immunotherapy !  A lethal combination if ever there was one , metastasis will be all but eliminated ! The big hurdle is finding the right materials to make the NSDs from . 
Alright , lab time !.......P.M.  .