A 17 year old comes up with a computer program that detects breast cancer 99% of the time. Of course one then has to seek treatment. In the case of a friend that I know who was correctly diagnosed with breast cancer two years ago and refused allopathic care and instead sought alternative treatment. Then just a couple of months ago after the cancer had spread to her lymph nodes finally sought conventional medicine but alas, it was too late and has since that time passed away.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/brittany-wenger-google-science-fair-...
Brittany Wenger, 17, Wins Google Science Fair Grand Prize For Breast Cancer Diagnosis App
Posted: 07/25/2012 4:26 pm Updated: 07/25/2012 6:25 pm
Have you ever helped the hard-of-hearing listen to music? Or built a computer program to diagnose breast cancer? These kids have.
The five teenage winners of the second annual Google Science Fair were announced on Monday, according to Scientific American. Each of these brainy teens were chosen from among 30 finalists from around the world and were treated (along with the runners-up) to a gala held in an airplane hanger near the company's Palo Alto headquarters in California. (This is Google, after all.)
But the winners, of course, were awarded the best swag: Prizes included a college scholarships from Google for $25,000 or $50,000, trips to scientific hotspots like CERN and Fermilab, and (perhaps best of all), trophies made out of Lego bricks.
What did these brainiacs do to win the admiration of one of the best tech companies in the world? Read about each of their projects below.
BRITTANY WENGER FROM FLORIDA:
The Grand Prize winner of the science fair, for good reason, was a 17-year-old from Lakewood Ranch, Florida. Combining the fields of biology and computer science, Wenger wrote an app that helps doctors diagnose breast cancer, according to the description of her project on Google.
The type of computer program, called a "neural network," was designed by Wenger to mimic the human brain: Give it a massive amount of information (in this case, 7.6 million trials), and the artificial "brain" will learn to detect complex patterns and make diagnostic calls on breast cancer. Her program used data from "fine needle aspirates," a minimally invasive procedure that, unfortunately, is often one of the least precise diagnosis processes, according to Fox News. But Wenger is helping change that, as her program correctly identifies 99 percent of malignant tumors.
“I think it might be hospital ready," she told WWSB. "I'd love to get different data from doctors. Right now, I have 700 test samples.”
Visit her app at Cloud4Cancer Breast Cancer Detection (here) to see how it works.
In the case of a friend that I know who was correctly diagnosed with breast cancer two years ago and refused allopathic care and instead sought alternative treatment. Then just a couple of months ago after the cancer had spread to her lymph nodes finally sought conventional medicine but alas, it was too late and has since that time passed away.
I am sorry to hear what happened with your friend. However, what happened with one person is hardly sufficient to condemn altenative treatment entirely. First of all, there are over 350 different alternative therapies for cancer. I bet you that your friend did not choose one of the better ones. Secondly, mainstream treatments are no assurance of increased survival. Overall, chemo treatments only increase survival by 2% over those who do not choose conventional treatment. What mainstream considers success if 5 year survival. Thus, the earlier the cancer is detected the greater the odds are for surviving 5 years - but that does not mean that the cancer is irradicated and will never return. Most often it does return. If cancer is not detected and treated until it has reached stage II, 5 year survival is less than 80&. For stage III less than 50% and for stage IV less than 15%.
The best alternative treatments are successful the large majority of the time, including for late stage cancers provided that one does not wait until there is no time at all for treatment. And, unlike conventional treatment, alternative treatments can not only eliminate the cancer but also address the root cause of the cancer and prevent its return.
Regardless of whether one chooses conventional or alternative treatment, they should regularly monitor their cancer. If whatever they choose is not working, they should look for other options.
The post that you're responding to is about a brand new diagnostic tool for breast cancer. You didn't respond to that part at all. Don't you have any interest in this very significant medical advance?
Hulda
Clark, and others have “cured” many cancers that were totally undiagnosed
and they (not Hulda - but others) continue to do so to this day. I have
seen several posts here on CZ where a person self diagnoses themselves with
cancer and then treats and “cures” it. You bet! The brand new
diagnostic tool cited at the top of this thread is suitable for the News and
Cancer forums here on CZ and is 99% accurate! If you wish to then treat it
or non treat it, then that's up to the individual cancer patient.
Prior
to this last lung surgery I in fact went with both Essiac and Pau d'arco teas
about four months prior to the surgery date and after about three weeks on the
teas became significantly ill. Then I quit both teas and the illness went
away. When one uses 'alternative' methods you have no idea in the world
the harm that you may causing to yourself - just like your oleander “soup.” With
no follow up you have no idea whatsoever how many people your oleander
suggestions have killed. Like all in the alternative filed, those never
report back. It is the MDs who write the death certificate (as in Hulda
Clark's case - who had blood cancer when she died) and if they don't know the
specifics of what the person was using for their alternative treatment they
don't know either.
Oh,
I think you've used that fiction before and here is a site that pokes many holes
in your/Luella's logic.
http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/only-3-percent-survive-chemothe...
“The best
alternative treatments are successful the large majority of the time, including
for late stage cancers provided that one does not wait until there is no time at
all for treatment. And, unlike conventional treatment, alternative treatments
can not only eliminate the cancer but also address the root cause of the cancer
and prevent its return.”
All
you have to do is back up those statement with facts, turn it all in to the
Nobel Committee and you and the other healers will be granted many many Nobel
medals. I have turned to and used alternative therapies for many more
years than CZ has been in existence and have found that some work, some don't
and feel that yes, there is a lot more to learn about what is being called
alternative treatments.
The
fact that you are in the business of selling alternative supplements and
profiting from your postings and advertising here on CZ and other forums puts
you in the very same category as the medical doctors who own large numbers of
shares in pharmaceuticals.
By the way - I'm also a 20 year prostate cancer survivor who told the urology surgeon to go have sex with himself (using a little different wording) and cancelled my surgery date and still have my very functional prostate gland to this day. For the first year after a clinical/laboratory diagnosis of cancer I ate raw garlic by the handfuls and still believe it is one of the best anti cancer alternatives available and beats your soup 16 ways. Oleander may in fact eventually prove to be of benefit, but the years of testing for it to reach that goal hasn't yet happened.
Tsk-tsk - the pattern repeats itself: I make a post which disagrees with something you posted (generally something pro-mainstream or anti-alternative) and you respond with false shots against oleander and me. You know, you really should work on handling disagreement better and do as the owner of this website admonishes (attack the message and not the messenger).
"The post that you're responding to is about a brand new diagnostic tool for breast cancer. You didn't respond to that part at all. Don't you have any interest in this very significant medical advance?"
Correction: the post I responded to included an upfront shot against alternative treatments which you decided to include in your opening paragraph before you posted the actual report about the new diagnostic advance. That is what I responded to. You could have reported the new diagnostic advance without your editorial comment.
If you want to know what I think about the new diagnostic application, I applaude it and hope that many who are diagnosed with the new technique choose a safer and more effective alternative therapy to mainstream surgery, radiation and/or chemo.
Quoting Anaximperator here on this site? Surely you jest! Anaximperator is a notorius mainstream apologist site where the blog owner and other main posters have never seen an alternative to mainstream medicine that they like. Few here give that site any credibility - except perhaps the odd mainstream apologists who pop up from time to time to make pro-mainstream posts on this site about alternatives to mainstream medicine.
Just for the record, neither I nor Luella have ever said that only 2 or 3% survive chemotherapy. What Luella said in the post Anaximperator quotes is that chemo and radiation only have a 2 - 3 % cure rate. Likely she was referring at least in part to two widely quoted and respected (at least outside mainstram apologist sites like Anaximperator) studies - one in Australia and one in the U.S. - which demonstrated that chemotherapy only contributed 2.1 % to 2.3% to five year cancer survival rates. Leave it to Anaximperator to twist that into saying only 3% survived chemo.
Speaking of those two studies, it is important to note that it is likely that a high percentage of those who decided to forego chemo decided to either have no treatment at all or else did a few things on their own and did not choose a complete alternative treatment. Had the study compared those who chose alternative treatments versus those who chose chemo, the results would quite likely have been much worse for the chemo patients.
Studies which have examined survival rates beyond five years have found that after the third year of survival, those who chose no chemo begin to live longer on average than those who chose chemo and by the fifth year there was quite a disparity in favor of those who decided against chemotherapy.
Chemo does not cure, it kills. It kills cancer cells (though usually not all cancer cells) and healthy cells alike and it kills the patient in more instances than does it kill all of the cancer cells, never have them return and have the patient go on to live a normal lifespan which was not shortened due to the chemo.
Radiation seldom kills off all of the cancer cells and, as a recent breast cancer study found, actually turns normal cancer cells into cancer stem cells which are 30 times more deadly. I doubt that the survival rates for radiation are any better than they are for chemo.
When a person undergoes chemo or radiation and does live a normal lifespan you can bet that it was their natural body and immune system which ultimately kept them alive and kept cancer from returning regardless of the role chemo or radiation may have initially played.
Garlic is indeed good stuff. When it comes to oleander, you have once again shown that you don't know beans about it.