I am going to go out on a limb and assert that most people believe that health is good and cancer is bad. I don’t have any grant money to do a study so I concede my assertion is a hypothesis and should not be presented as a scientific fact. Real science involves experimenting until consistent reproducible results are achieved, so when scientists announce the world's most sensitive cancer test it should be a system derived from and tested with experimental data, not something divined from software generated binary pixel blinkers.
The Optical Stretcher works because cancer cells loose part of their internal support structure becoming more elastic and easier to deform. So easy that a beam of light at the correct wavelength can impart just enough energy to stretch the cell wall as is passes through, but not so much as to destroy the cell. The sensitivity is a result of fact that the process examines each individual cell, one after another, and if any individual cell lengthens with the light it means cancer. Best of all, the procedure may be cheap and simple.
Once more I am going to go out on a limb to prophesize that when scientists announce the study demonstrating more people have cancer than previously believed, the media will demand that government do something to correct the problem. I also predict that there will be ample politicians vying for the right to fund cancer screening for the greater good of the people. The more our knowledge grows, the better our healthcare becomes at blunting natural mortality with the expenditure of resources. Anyone for a cancer screening with your root canal?
The Optical Stretcher works because cancer cells loose part of their internal support structure becoming more elastic and easier to deform. So easy that a beam of light at the correct wavelength can impart just enough energy to stretch the cell wall as is passes through, but not so much as to destroy the cell. The sensitivity is a result of fact that the process examines each individual cell, one after another, and if any individual cell lengthens with the light it means cancer. Best of all, the procedure may be cheap and simple.
“Professor Käs believes that this high speed and the equipment’s low cost could even herald a shift towards cancer prevention. Dentists, for example, could swab their patients for mouth cancer cells even before a solid tumour develops.”If cancer is bad and early detection is bad for cancer then early detection must be good. Of course if early detection suddenly discovers previously unknowable levels of cancer in people who think they are healthy, that could be bad. Statistically, moving a large number of people previously defined as healthy into a cancer positive subgroup probably isn’t going to be greeted with celebration by the media.
Once more I am going to go out on a limb to prophesize that when scientists announce the study demonstrating more people have cancer than previously believed, the media will demand that government do something to correct the problem. I also predict that there will be ample politicians vying for the right to fund cancer screening for the greater good of the people. The more our knowledge grows, the better our healthcare becomes at blunting natural mortality with the expenditure of resources. Anyone for a cancer screening with your root canal?
