• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

The Kanzius Machine: A Cancer Cure?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 John_Ventureville

  • Guest
  • 279 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Planet Earth

Posted 27 April 2008 - 11:36 PM


60 Minutes, the U.S. television news program, recently had an extremely interesting story about a home inventor who may have made a huge contribution to the war against cancer. It's worth a look.

John Grigg

http://www.cbsnews.c...in4006951.shtml

Taken from the CBS News website:
(CBS) What if we told you that a guy with no background in science or medicine-not even a college degree-has come up with what may be one of the most promising breakthroughs in cancer research in years?

Well it's true, and if you think it sounds improbable, consider this: he did it with his wife's pie pans and hot dogs.

His name is John Kanzius, and he's a former businessman and radio technician who built a radio wave machine that has cancer researchers so enthusiastic about its potential they're pouring money and effort into testing it out.

Here's the important part: if clinical trials pan out-and there's still a long way to go-the Kanzius machine will zap cancer cells all through your body without the need for drugs or surgery and without side effects. None at all. At least that's the idea.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The last thing John Kanzius thought he'd ever do was try to cure cancer. A former radio and television executive from Pennsylvania, he came to Florida to enjoy his retirement.

"I have no business being in the cancer business. It’s not something that a layman like me should be in, it should be left to doctors and research people," he told correspondent Lesley Stahl.

"But sometimes it takes an outsider," Stahl remarked.

"Sometimes it just - maybe you get lucky," Kanzius replied.

It was the worst kind of luck that gave Kanzius the idea to use radio waves to kill cancer cells: six years ago, he was diagnosed with terminal leukemia and since then has undergone 36 rounds of toxic chemotherapy. But it wasn't his own condition that motivated him, it was looking into the hollow eyes of sick children on the cancer ward at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

"I saw the smiles of youth and saw their spirits were broken. And you could see that they were sort of asking, 'Why can't they do something for me?'" Kanzius told Stahl.

"So they started to haunt you. The children," Stahl asked.
"Their faces. I still remember them holding on their Teddy bears and so forth," he replied. "And shortly after that I started my own chemotherapy, my third round of chemotherapy."

Kanzius told Stahl the chemotherapy made him very sick and that he couldn't sleep at night. "And I said, 'There’s gotta be a better way to treat cancer.'"

It was during one of those sleepless nights that the light bulb went off. When he was young, Kanzius was one of those kids who built radios from scratch, so he knew the hidden power of radio waves. Sick from chemo, he got out of bed, went to the kitchen, and started to build a radio wave machine.

"Started looking in the cupboard and I saw pie pans and I said, 'These are perfect. I can modify these,'" he recalled.

His wife Marianne woke up that night to a lot of banging and clamoring. "I was concerned truthfully that he had lost it," she told Stahl.

"She felt sorry for me," Kanzius added.

"I did," Marianne Kanzius acknowledged. "And I had mentioned to him, 'Honey, the doctors can't-you know, find an answer to cancer. How can you think that you can?'"

That's what 60 Minutes wanted to know, so Stahl went to his garage laboratory to find out.

Here's how it works: one box sends radio waves over to the other, creating enough energy to activate gas in a fluorescent light. Kanzius put his hand in the field to demonstrate that radio waves are harmless to humans.

"So right from the beginning you're trying to show that radio waves could activate gas and not harm the human-anything else," Stahl remarked. "'Cause you're looking for some kind of a treatment with no side effects, that's what's in your head."

"No side effects," Kanzius replied.
(the story continues on the website)

#2 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 28 April 2008 - 03:31 AM

This is pretty amazing. We've got one more bullet to try to hit cancer for good this time. Let's hope we don't miss it one more time.

To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#3 Cyberbrain

  • Guest, F@H
  • 1,755 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 28 April 2008 - 04:16 AM

Wow! Yeah, thats a pretty cool machine. Let's hope it works ;)

#4 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 28 April 2008 - 05:42 AM

What is the evidence that the device works? Are there any promising hypotheses as to the mechanism of action?

#5 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 28 April 2008 - 01:48 PM

induce apoptosis of cells by heat...

The idea is brilliant because it gets around the fact that cancer mutates, can resistant gene therapies, and toxic chemo drugs. You heat a cell too much and it will die, even cancer cells. It works in rabbits and mice and WILL work in humans. Another trial is being done using gold nanoparticles using near infra red light to heat them up, and they get a 100% cure rate in mice.

I feel very optimistic about this type of therapy.


Niner; did you not watch the video on this story?

Edited by Matt, 28 April 2008 - 01:48 PM.


#6 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 30 April 2008 - 07:57 AM

This no doubtly should work the only problem is probably the delivery system, you need to delivery the particles directly to the cancer cells to kill them.
And for once, "if it works on animals, it WILL work on humans" is true considering it is not a chemical solution but the thing injected to the body is only a target marker.
And gold is a "noble metal" (not sure if english uses noble as we do for chemistry) so it dosen't react with the body.

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#7 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 01 May 2008 - 03:03 AM

Much as I like the idea, I don't think that it is new. The problem is the selective delivery of the metal to the cancer cells. THAT is the hard part, always has been and always will be.

When they announce a successful delivery mechanism THEN I will celebrate but I won't be holding my breath in the mean time. This whole thing comes across as a "feel good" story - perfect for the media.

I am a bit shocked by the uncritical responses in this thread.

#8 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 01 May 2008 - 03:21 AM

Niner; did you not watch the video on this story?

Bingo. I did not. I read about the teddy bears and all, and saw that the link was to cbs news... Since it was posted in a science forum, I was looking for the basics, but didn't want to slog through a video about the hidden power of radio waves, the children, yadda yadda...

So this is strictly an RF heating effect, and the cancer cells are preferentially taken out? What if the cancer cell is apoptotically incompetent? You mention gold nanoparticles; are they part of the Kanzius thing, or something altogether different?

#9 jmcarvas

  • Guest
  • 3 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 01 May 2008 - 04:52 PM

Hello

This topic made me register in the forum.

First, let me say that I believe that cancer is curable and that that is the final destiny of scientific research...BUT

as a previous member posted, I'm appauled by the uncritical analysis of this news story. It sound like a tipical USA science news coverage. The machine is not the main news here...but yes the microparticles and nanoparticles. This are been used is several fields of biomedicine now, this is no news to scientists. The main challenge is, of course, to specifically target NEOPLASIC CELLS...

as much as we all look at cancer like this black deamon cells, they are actually basically the same as any other cell that makes the tissue where they are growing....I believe this targeting will be made by specific molecular markers on the surface of the neoplasic cells...this means that for each cancer there will be a specific molecule. I don't believe in a general cure for every cancer type.

Once you can target specifically this cells the the problem is basically solved. The way you kill cells is a matter of chosing the method with less damage to the patient. you can even use normal chemotherapy drugs binded to the beads. This machine seems dangerous, because you can never have an isolated temperature increase in just one cell...this will afect the healthy cells around, the organ and generally the whole body...

João Carvas
Portugal

Cheers

#10 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 01 May 2008 - 10:36 PM

Putting RF energy into the human body has never been a technological problem. As others have pointed out, targeting the nanoparticles or other toxic agents is the main problem. Targeting antibodies have been used with limited success for radioimmunotherapy for many years now.

If the targeting problem can be solved, there is a lot to be said for RF heating as a mechanism of selective cell destruction. Controlling the length of RF pulses relative to the timescale of heat conduction away from nanoparticles could allow fine control over localization.

#11 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 01 May 2008 - 11:52 PM

I found this an interesting article. It states that they were delivered directly into the blood stream and went to the site of the tumor... So weren't directly injected into it.

Here is a quote from the article

"NOVA scienceNOW: Now, you have done tests using nanoshells to kill tumors in mice. How did those go?

Halas: The animal experiments were quite stunning to all of us, because there was no way to really guide the judgment for how many nanoshells should be injected into a mouse, how long they should stay in the bloodstream, and how long irradiation should happen. So the experiments were designed with just a very basic knowledge of the physiology of mice and of the tumors. And the result was 100 percent remission of all the tumors.

That was really stunning for us, because it worked so extraordinarily well the first time it was done—and that, in experimental science, never happens. So that shows you that the effect is very strong, it can be controlled, and it is relatively easy to work with. It's caused a tremendous amount of excitement within our own work and within the company. [In 2001, Halas formed Nanospectra Biosciences with Rice University bioengineer Jennifer West. The company seeks to commercialize nanoshell-based life-science applications, particularly cancer treatment.]

NOVA scienceNOW: How do nanoshells get to tumors?

Halas: Nanoshells are injected into the bloodstream, and as they circulate through the blood, they can uptake naturally at a tumor site. That occurs because tumors create many, many blood vessels very rapidly to feed their growth. Those blood vessels have lots of defects, and particles as small as nanoshells can slip through the defects in the blood vessels and take up naturally in the tumor. So over the course of several hours, the nanoshells will gradually accumulate at the tumor site from the bloodstream."

In mouse studies, we were able to observe complete remission of all tumors within 10 days. There were two control groups of mice, and their tumors all continued to grow very drastically until their end. But the mice that were treated with nanoshells, they survived the study. The study was actually a 60-day survivability test. That's considered long-term survivability. Well, at the end of that study, there was 100 percent survivability, and the survivability persisted. That test was done in 2003. It's almost two years later. So it looks like most of those mice will be dying of old age.


See it in full:
http://www.pbs.org/w...nanoshells.html

Edited by Matt, 01 May 2008 - 11:53 PM.


#12 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 02 May 2008 - 06:48 AM

Hello

This topic made me register in the forum.

First, let me say that I believe that cancer is curable and that that is the final destiny of scientific research...BUT


Welcome to the forums for starters!
And I highly doubht it is "the *final* destiny of science" :)

#13 jmcarvas

  • Guest
  • 3 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 02 May 2008 - 12:11 PM

And I highly doubht it is "the *final* destiny of science" :)


Thanks

Final destiny of cancer research, of course...

Cheers

#14 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,113 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 06 May 2008 - 06:49 PM

Had anyboy already red that story?
I remember having read a few years ago (possibly in Science&Vie, French magazine) that a physicist had done a huge radio machine in the 40s I think (at first a large one then a huge one, of several tons, that made huge waves) that cured several people from cancers. According to him the idea was simple but he decided to keep the idea secret and eventually died.

When I first read the story I went on the internet and found indeed a few versions of that story that had a different text, but nothing more.
Now, either this is hoax and being reused by Mr Kanzius, either this is something true and Mr Kanzius should thinl about why it is important to have a huge machine...

#15 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,047 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 06 May 2008 - 07:21 PM

I agree that the video is not a rigorous scientific presentation, however, there is value in it by showing how a non-scientific person (not a PHD in medicine or bio-technology) can help change the world. I hope it inspires more people to think and tinker.

#16 Heliotrope

  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 07 May 2008 - 02:05 AM

May work. theoreotically possible, and..... technically feasible!

way to go for that guy, wanting to save the sick children and teddy bears . The delivery/target system is a big prob, but use enough RF waves and spread them out in diff angles, then converge all waves upon the cancer cluster / tumors, it will over-cook/heat-death to the cancer cells but normal cells only get a slight "sun-burn" and still survive and function normally.

The prob is try to kill cancer w/o much destruction to healthy cells or turn them into malignant neoplasms too. Combine all these new therapies with the traditional chemo, surgery, alternative, radio may work

Edited by HYP86, 07 May 2008 - 02:17 AM.


#17 Heliotrope

  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 07 May 2008 - 02:11 AM

another cure i thought for cancer is with nanomedicine, but the technology not fully developed yet. not only is nano able to cleanly and neatly destroy cancer cells , but eventually the cryonics patients will depend on nano to be revived from cryopreservation if cryo is reversible at all

#18 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 07 May 2008 - 04:55 AM

May work. theoreotically possible, and..... technically feasible!

way to go for that guy, wanting to save the sick children and teddy bears . The delivery/target system is a big prob, but use enough RF waves and spread them out in diff angles, then converge all waves upon the cancer cluster / tumors, it will over-cook/heat-death to the cancer cells but normal cells only get a slight "sun-burn" and still survive and function normally.

The prob is try to kill cancer w/o much destruction to healthy cells or turn them into malignant neoplasms too. Combine all these new therapies with the traditional chemo, surgery, alternative, radio may work

Localized radiofrequency hyperthermia is actually an old idea in cancer treatment that has been used experimentally for decades to supplement other cancer treatments. What makes the approach advocated by Kanzius new is the use of nanoparticles to target the deposition of RF energy.

I'd like to thank the poster who put up the link to Halas' nanoshell research at Rice University. I always thought that the Kanzius idea sounded familiar, but I couldn't remember where I heard of it before until I saw the Rice link. The earlier Rice work is similar, except that it uses infrared rather than RF to deposit energy into the nanoparticles.

To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#19 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,113 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 07 March 2009 - 07:29 PM

Putting RF energy into the human body has never been a technological problem. As others have pointed out, targeting the nanoparticles or other toxic agents is the main problem. Targeting antibodies have been used with limited success for radioimmunotherapy for many years now.


What about injecting gold-labelled nucleotides? Tumors cells have this particularity that they grow, i.e. use much nucleotides. I think this is already used for cancer detection




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users