Honey bee venom found to kill breast cancer cells
abc.net.au
abc.net.au
Not understanding difference between in vivo and in vitro study, not understanding that there are multiple and easy ways to kill cancer like hammer, fire, road roller, etc.
Sad to see another click-bait article since people get convinced that doctors and scientists are promising cure for cancer but are not able to deliver anything, big pharma secretly tries to stop progress and so on.
> Dr Duffy did not want to use words like breakthrough or cure, stressing this was just the beginning and much more research needed to be done.
"The study also found when the venom's main component was combined with existing chemotherapy drugs, it was extremely efficient at reducing tumour growth in mice."
Perhaps even more staggering is the illiteracy of people regarding the field of statistics. I have read that epidemiologists are constantly having to explain the statistics of their findings to MDs who know medicine but not statistics. If medical doctors are stumped by the language and rules of statistics I don't expect news editors or presenters to do any better with it.
It costs nothing to say "lab testing" instead of "in vitro". Literally the same number of syllables, zero loss of precision, and immediately understandable to a wider audience.
In vitro is a consice term, useful to me in my profession.
decompress a tension pneumothorax to prevent obstructive shock? depends on which site is cirucumstantially advantageous (midclavicular or midaxiallary), but generally involves palpating to locate the correct intercostal region. need a catheter of sufficient french.
or
if someone's chest is filling with air and crushing their organs, you have to find the correct space between ribs by touch. use a big needle. if the front of their chest is blocked, you can go in under the armpit.
give me break.
C'mon! This may seems true for english speakers and non-romance languages. But I as a non-english native speaker, can say exactly the same about CS terminology! It is just too pompous and unnecessary, as it will in almost any other non-germanic/anglic language.
Rather than expecting specialists to water down their vocabulary to cater to the uninitiated, it seems more reasonable to expect that science journalists should instead learn said jargon and learn how to interpret studies and abstracts properly. I'd go a step further and even argue that a highly educated society ought to encourage and celebrate cross-discipline learning not just by media reporters but by every individual, rather than expect everyone to meet at a mediocre common denominator.
Yes, you have to learn a new language, no you don't have to learn all of them (which would be the case if we did not standardize on languages for specific fields).
Headline: "Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research study finds honeybee venom rapidly kills aggressive breast cancer cells"
"Key points:
- The research was published in the journal Nature Precision Oncology
- It found honeybee venom was effective in killing breast cancer cells
- Researchers say the discovery is exciting but there is a long way to go"
Last paragraph:
"Dr Duffy did not want to use words like breakthrough or cure, stressing this is just the beginning, and much more research needs to be done.
"There's a long way to go in terms of how we would deliver it in the body and, you know, looking at toxicities and maximum tolerated doses before it ever went further," she said."
My point is, this paper doesn't have a very useful finding.
Time will tell if this finding turns out to be useful.
> Carcinogenic effects of bee venom were evaluated in a mortality study of 580 occupationally exposed beekeepers. The subjects were identified through obituary notices published between 1949 and 1978 in three journals of the U.S. beekeeping industry. Death certificates of beekeepers were examined for causes of mortality, and proportionate mortality ratios were compared with those for the general U.S. population. Beekeepers had a slightly lower than expected fraction of deaths from cancer. The deficit of lung cancers in male beekeepers was significant (p less than 0.05) and may indicate that fewer beekeepers were cigarette smokers. The frequencies of other cancers did not differ significantly from expectation. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma developed in four persons, and was expected in two. Mortality from diseases other than cancer showed no unusual patterns. At least two persons died from accidents directly related to the care of beehives. Analysis of a subgroup of 377 males with major roles in the beekeeping industry showed no substantial differences in distribution of causes of death. This study of beekeepers reveals neither adverse nor beneficial effects of intense exposure to bee stings.
Beekeeping suggests living in the countryside and that correlates with better air quality so lower lung cancer rates aren't that surprising.
These types of news help inspire people to join research/academy and it's the type of things that is always welcome. These findings were probably published somewhere in the academia, but general population doesn't see it.
When you say that dynamite also kills cancer cells, I doubt you're ever going to choose dynamite as a cancer treatment in place of other treatments that obviously underwent the same lengthy process of scientific research as this study is beginning it's journey.
We need to keep being realistic, as we might never discover a silver bullet for cancer, but it doesn't take any merit away from this research.
I've lost 6 family members to cancer, and have two cancer survivors in my family. The survivors are still around because they were young when they got sick, and because there were many possible treatments. Hopefully, this will end up in the arsenal of potential treatments to fight cancer.
However, the next point made is that a more straightforward way to achieve a similar result would of course be to inject the cortisol directly, instead of provoking this response by the body by injecting toxins first.
Also interesting (and becoming a more common treatment) is the venomous secretion from a tree frog called Kambo-
Bee venom is a mixture of more than 40 different compounds and its mixture varies a lot from bee to bee. Whatever effect you can get from these compounds would be better served by studying the compounds rather than nature's uncontrolled homogenisation of them.
"She said a component of the venom called melittin is what had the killing effect.
The researchers reproduced the melittin synthetically and found it mirrored the majority of the anti-cancer effects of the honeybee venom."
"It effectively shut down the signalling pathways for the reproduction of triple-negative and HER2 cancer cells."
"Bee venom in cancer therapy" (2011 )
> Here, we demonstrate that honeybee venom and its major component melittin potently induce cell death, particularly in the aggressive triple-negative and HER2-enriched breast cancer subtypes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propolis
I'm looking forward to learn more about honey bee venom ability to kill breast cancer cells.
One I often use is colloidal silver. Basic but powerful antibacterial. Helps skin cuts heal faster simply due to killing bacteria on the surface which undermine the skin's natural wound healing process. It's not magic, it's just basic science.
Whenever I see this standard disclaimer I replace it with:
"Don't stop the gravy train yet!"
"The research showed a specific concentration of the venom killed 100 per cent of triple-negative breast cancer and HER2-enriched breast cancer cells within 60 minutes, while having minimal effects on normal cells."
I hope this research leads somewhere but I doubt it will
Still looking for analogous headlines with "crucifixes" and "holy water."