• Mubelotix
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        If they didn’t mention the opposite, I have bad news for you

      • BestBouclettes
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Killing cancer cells is easy enough, the hard part is only killing cancerous cells

      • Konstant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        He’s saying it destroys all cells, cancerous and non-cancerous. Don’t know if it’s true, haven’t read the article.

        • mihies@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Obviously it’s not true hence I don’t get it. The holy grail is to destroy just cancerous cells, it’s easy to destroy all. 🤷‍♂️

          • JGrffn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            The article makes no mention to the molecules only working on cancer cells. The molecules, according to the article, attach to cell membranes, and then the molecules are jiggled to blow up the cells. That process doesn’t mention an ability to differentiate between cancer and non-cancer cells. The technique was tried on a culture growth, where a hammer would have the same results. It was also tried on mice, where half were left cancer-free, but little is said about the process, the specifics of the results, or what happened to the other half of mice.

            We all get the goal of cancer research, OP is just doubtful that this achieves it, as am I, as well as anyone who’s read good news about eradicating cancer in the past few decades. Most are duds or go nowhere even if initially promising, so…