Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


+ - Cancer researcher vanishes with tens of millions of dollars->

Submitted by jd
jd (1658) writes "Steven Curley, MD, who ran the Akesogenx corporation (and may indeed have been the sole employee after the dismissal of Robert Zavala) had been working on a radio-frequency cure for cancer with an engineer by the name of John Kanzius.

Kanzius died, Steven Curley set up the aforementioned parallel company that bought all the rights and patents to the technology before shuttering the John Kanzius Foundation. So far, so very uncool.

Last year, just as the company started aproaching the FDA about clinical trials, Dr Curley got blasted with lawsuits accusing him of loading his shortly-to-be ex-wife's computer with spyware.

Two weeks ago, there was to be a major announcement "within two weeks". Shortly after, the company dropped off the Internet and Dr Curley dropped off the face of the planet.

Robert Zavala is the only name mentioned that could be a fit for the company's DNS record owner. The company does not appear to have any employees other than Dr Curley, making it very unlikely he could have ever run a complex engineering project well enough to get to trial stage. His wife doubtless has a few scores to settle. Donors, some providing several millions, were getting frustrated — and as we know from McAfee, not all in IT are terribly sane. There are many people who might want the money and have no confidence any results were forthcoming.

So, what precisely was the device? Simple enough. Every molecule has an absorption line. It can absorb energy on any other frequency. A technique widely exploited in physics, chemistry and astronomy. People have looked into various ways of using it in medicine for a long time.

The idea was to inject patients with nanoparticles on an absorption line well clear of anything the human body cares about. These particles would be preferentially picked up by cancer cells because they're greedy. Once that's done, you blast the body at the specified frequency. The cancer cells are charbroiled and healthy cells remain intact.

It's an idea that's so obvious I was posting about it here and elsewhere in 1998. The difference is, they had a prototype that seemed to work.

But now there is nothing but the sound of Silence, a suspect list of thousands and a list of things they could be suspected of stretching off to infinity. Most likely, there's a doctor sipping champaign on some island with no extradition treaty. Or a future next-door neighbour to Hans Reiser. Regardless, this will set back cancer research. Money is limited and so is trust. It was, in effect, crowdsource funded and that, too, will feel a blow if theft was involved.

Or it could just be the usual absent-minded scientist discovering he hasn't the skills or awesomeness needed, but has got too much pride to admit it, as has happened in so many science fraud cases."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:No they don't (Score 1) 208

by CrimsonAvenger (#49373943) Attached to: Chinese Scientists Plan Solar Power Station In Space

Look at the image at the top of the page. Do you see it? That's Mir's solar panels after about *10 years*. Hubble replaced its panels twice over a period of 13 years. Space absolutely sucks for solar panels.

The Hubble panels were replaced to provide more power, not because the panels were broken.

Note that since the last Hubble solar panel upgrade, Hubble has operated for longer than 12 years (13 so far). Currently, they're expecting the Hubble to be operational for another three years. At least.

So, with Hubble as a data point, and 2002-era solar panels, we're seeing an expected lifetime of 16+ years (there's no particular reason to believe Hubble is going to fail due to solar panel problems as opposed to other issues).

Note that 16 year lifetime for the solar panels would increase the numbers for the space-based system by 1/3. Still behind the ground-based system, but not by very much (~89%, comparing 2002-era solar panels in space to 2015-era panels on the ground). And that's a MINIMUM for the space-based system....

Comment: Re:maybe because it's a quote (Score 1) 266

by CrimsonAvenger (#49373593) Attached to: Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead

"To be or not to be", or, in it's C style syntax: "2b || !2b", is not a question at all. It is a tautology. It is true regardless of what semantic value you assign to 2b.

I gather you've never read the source material?
That particular soliloquy was Hamlet's musings on suicide as a solution to his problems....

Comment: Re:Glass? (Score 1) 173

There's increased costs, for maintenance (regular cleaning) and replacement (it still cracks when damaged, even if it stays in one piece).

Glass by itself isn't nearly as strong as steel, so it would either need bollards or a steel fence to protect against vehicles. Vehicles crashing through gates can be very bad.

Bollards may not be a good idea though, because a smaller vehicle such as a motorcycle might still be able to go between the bollards and break through the glass.

Perhaps the lower half of the fence could be the current steel fence (to protect against large and small vehicles), and the upper half could be glass (to reduce the aesthetic impact).

Comment: Re:No they don't (Score 1) 208

by CrimsonAvenger (#49370089) Attached to: Chinese Scientists Plan Solar Power Station In Space

I just took a look at that site, and while in general I agree with his conclusions, I am perplexed by some of the math that he uses.

I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, but agree that some of his math is...perplexing.

For instance, he gives a ground-bases system a lifetime of 40 years, but a space-based system a lifetime of only 12 years. Off the top of my head, I can't see any particularly good reason why a space-based system should be shorter-lived than a ground-based system.

If, instead, he'd assumed a similar lifetime for the space-based system, his conclusions would have been the opposite, since he'd have increased the lifetime output of the space-based system by a factor of 10/3, moving the 40K+ to 130K+ (nearly twice the output of the ground based system).

Arguably, a space-based system will last less time than a ground-based system. On the other hand, arguably, a ground-based system endures more weather events that can break solar panels, so the reverse may be true as well...

As to the Tg, it is possible that it will have a better value for the space-based system, since it can be beamed down to a location near where the power will be used (thus reducing line losses). This is not mandatory however, so it's possible space-based Tg will be the same as anywhere else (no reason it should be worse exists, but better is certainly possible). Even with Tg the same as ground-based, space-based solar would come out considerably better than ground-based so long as you assumed essentially identical lifetimes for the systems.

Comment: Re:Maybe useful, maybe not effective? (Score 1) 173

I understand what they want. It is to train on different situations. It is much easier to do something when you have done it before.

Because they should NOT radio it in, they should take imediate apropriate action. Otherwise it will be too late.

That said, they could easily put fake bushes in the parkinglot. Sure it would be nice to have a copy, but nice to have is not the same as a must.

Comment: So watch out what you say. (Score 3, Insightful) 82

by houghi (#49369415) Attached to: NASA Denies New Space Station Partnership With Russia

When you say you want to work together, it seems logical that people might get the idea that you would want to work together.

I would not call that 'misunderstanding' I would call that 'lying'.

And if you are an official spokesperson of the NASA, you should know how to say things.

An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.