<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>VentureBeat - Latest Comments in Roundup: No-nukes cancer treatment, E. coli vaccines, ovarian-tissue banking, more</title><link>http://venturebeat.disqus.com/</link><description>News about Tech, Business and Innovation</description><atom:link href="https://venturebeat.disqus.com/roundup_no_nukes_cancer_treatment_e_coli_vaccines_ovarian_tissue_banking_more/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 03:12:36 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Roundup: No-nukes cancer treatment, E. coli vaccines, ovarian-tissue banking, more</title><link>http://venturebeat.com/2007/05/01/roundup-no-nukes-cancer-treatment-e-coli-vaccines-ovarian-tissue-banking-more/#comment-439603210</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I'm quite intrigued with this statement, "Although both drugs seem to work well, fewer than 10 percent of eligible lymphoma patients receive either one". It means lymphoma patients are not taking any of these two drugs? I'm pretty sure there is a reason. Is there any side effects, or probably too risky for the health of lymphoma patients.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Lymphoma</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 03:12:36 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>