• calendar
  • globeToronto, Canada

September 28-29, 2020


Latest Updates

Is cancer treatment possible through nanotechnology? How?

Is cancer treatment possible through nanotechnology? How?

If someone claimed to use nanotechnology to ‘cure’ a cancer, how would they prove the cancer was cured? What definition of ‘cured’ would be used? We often think of cured as a simple term. But it’s simply a term that is not defined.

Cancer cure is not defined in modern medicine, and frankly for the most part, cure is also poorly defined.

There is only one truly useful definition of ‘cure’, to successfully address the cause. The lack of nanotechnology is not the ‘cause’ of any cancer, so in theory, it cannot be used to cure technology.

Current attempts to cure cancer, ignore this simple definition of cure. However, they do not have a better definition. The current technique to measure a cancer cure is simplistic nonsense: treat the patient, wait 5 years, if they are still alive, declare the cancer ‘cured’. There is no ability to prove that the patient was actually cured, nor that the treatment actually cured the cancer. Nanotechnology will encounter the same wall. No one can prove it cured cancer if ‘cure’ is not defined logically. The only way to define cure logically is to address the ongoing cause.

Reference: Tracy Kolenchuk, Author: The Elements of Cure (2018-present)(Quora)

How credible is science daily website, especially their health and medicine with their news about na

How credible is science daily website, especially their health and medicine with their news about na

Health Science Daily is in the business of reporting the news of medical discoveries and advances, with the intent to increase awareness and understanding of these developments, not to represent a peer-reviewed publication that reports the actual science in its full detail. As such, HSD can be very useful for non-clinicians.

As far as the "accuracy" of the content published in HSD is concerned, I think the only caveat you should have as you read the content is that for the sake of explaining the science, sometimes explanations demand certain simplifications to make the content understandable, and the simplifications don't always hold true. Therefore, I do not really believe there is a problem with accuracy in the HSD content, but do you need to recognize that the perspective can be considerably scaled down from the scope of detail in the original peer-reviewed publication.


Reference:Patrick Driscoll, writer, publisher and industry consultant in medical technology, raised in a family of physicians.(Quora)

Why is more not being done in regards to nanotechnology?

Why is more not being done in regards to nanotechnology?

Money. By money I mean the lack of it. In today’s world of capitalism anything that doesn’t bring in money quickly isn’t going to take off. To develop a product that has nanofabricated components and ship it complete with mass production QA takes a load of investment both time and money. People choose the quicker option.

I agree with you, biotechnology has a load of potential and especially organic chemistry. People underestimate organic chemistry a lot! There is so much potential for carbon based compounds - you can create a large repository of nano-scale devices using organic compounds, you can arrange carbon chains & molecules in any way to make anything you want: transistors, spin -based devices - OLEDs being the just the tip of the iceberg. One of the problems is from what I’ve heard - chemists can make any compound but don’t know how to make a useful device out of it while physicists can design devices but don’t know anything about organic chemistry.

The only industry that profits from nano is the semiconductor industry. Decades of investment into literal dirt (silicon) makes companies paranoid to move to other technology like carbon-based. Moore’s law also increases cost of production with increase in transistor density. The fabs are too invested into silicon to move out and because of the foundry model - detaching electric design from fabrication reduces cost for chip designers. There are only small number of fabs that have the capital to keep production going. Chip makers see fabrication as an expense something they have to do - because you can’t do electrical design in cadence and expect it to run in your imagination. Equipment makers (Lam, Amar, KLA, TEL etc.) make a profit in a similar way. This also has a consequence on a very few of the biotech industries that need semiconductors - ion torrent for example. I don’t they’re running a very successful business

Reference:-Marceline Hosenback, Former experimental nano-scale researcher at University Lab (Quora).


Is cancer treatment possible through nanotechnology? How?

Is cancer treatment possible through nanotechnology? How?

If someone claimed to use nanotechnology to ‘cure’ a cancer, how would they prove the cancer was cured? What definition of ‘cured’ would be used? We often think of cured as a simple term. But it’s simply a term that is not defined.

Cancer cure is not defined in modern medicine, and frankly for the most part, cure is also poorly defined.

There is only one truly useful definition of ‘cure’, to successfully address the cause. The lack of nanotechnology is not the ‘cause’ of any cancer, so in theory, it cannot be used to cure technology.

Current attempts to cure cancer, ignore this simple definition of cure. However, they do not have a better definition. The current technique to measure a cancer cure is simplistic nonsense: treat the patient, wait 5 years, if they are still alive, declare the cancer ‘cured’. There is no ability to prove that the patient was actually cured, nor that the treatment actually cured the cancer. Nanotechnology will encounter the same wall. No one can prove it cured cancer if ‘cure’ is not defined logically. The only way to define cure logically is to address the ongoing cause.

to your health, tracyIf someone claimed to use nanotechnology to ‘cure’ a cancer, how would they prove the cancer was cured? What definition of ‘cured’ would be used? We often think of cured as a simple term. But it’s simply a term that is not defined.

Cancer cure is not defined in modern medicine, and frankly for the most part, cure is also poorly defined.

There is only one truly useful definition of ‘cure’, to successfully address the cause. The lack of nanotechnology is not the ‘cause’ of any cancer, so in theory, it cannot be used to cure technology.

Current attempts to cure cancer, ignore this simple definition of cure. However, they do not have a better definition. The current technique to measure a cancer cure is simplistic nonsense: treat the patient, wait 5 years, if they are still alive, declare the cancer ‘cured’. There is no ability to prove that the patient was actually cured, nor that the treatment actually cured the cancer. Nanotechnology will encounter the same wall. No one can prove it cured cancer if ‘cure’ is not defined logically. The only way to define cure logically is to address the ongoing cause.

to your health, tracy


Reference :- Tracy Kolenchuk, Author: The Elements of Cure (Quora)

Contact Info
  • Scietech International

    Address: 2 Venture Drive #14-02 Vision Exchange Singapore 608526

    Contact Number: +437-703-0999

    Whatsapp: +34858803030

    Email:  nanotech@scientificevent.net

MAIL US AT
  • Drop us an email for Program: info@scietechgroup.com
  • Sponsors / Exhibiting / Advertising: info@scietechconferences.com
  • General Queries: info@scietechgroup.com
Subscribe Now

© Copyright © 2017-2019 World Conference on Nanotechnology and Material Science . All Rights Reserved.