Sign in to follow this  
TinaCarroll

Scientists Cure Cancer?

Recommended Posts

I figured that the pharm. companies wouldn't produce...OR be interested in something that can cure cancer. They make more money trying to treat and manage cancer....same with diabetes..

http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_cure_cancer__but_no_one_takes_notice

That is old news. That was an article here: Newsweek, January 23, 2007

At the time that was being talked about, I remember the scientists conducting that study were talking about needing to repeat it and that in vitro and in mice didn't meant it may work in humans.

They also were saying it would take at least ten years to test this, the protocols for this took that long.

I read some more not long ago, following now a bit different tack on these theories and still also very preliminary.

That is the nature of science, hopscotching here and there as they follow different theories, in search of validation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says right in the article that the drug is widely available and the technique is easy to use. So why would the pharmaceutical companies even need to be involved?

Do you really think that if there were an easy to use technique to cure cancer, with a drug that was already widely available, all medical professionals worldwide would just continue to let their patients die instead, just to keep big pharma happy?

And if you'll look just to the right of the story, you'll see "related hubs" about several other ways to "cure" cancer. Or do a google search--I'm sure you'll find lots of sure-fire cures out there! Darn medical establishment--letting people suffer and die rather than curing them!

You want to blame big pharma for withholding a miracle cure. What about all the ridiculous, unproven cure claims that just separate desperate people from their money?

Seriously, I wish we'd do a better job of teaching critical thinking in our schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree, how about concentrating more on the CAUSE of cancer. you know prophylactic measures and all that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Working on cancer causation is a Good Thing. But it is only part of the problem because cancer is not a "monolithic" disease. It's more like a hydra.

Breast cancer kills lot of women. Some women are more susceptable than others. Some get it young, some get it old. Some don't get it at all, but their offspring do. So work on causation will help, but treatment and cure are necessary or we condemn millions of women to early death.

By autopsy, 80% of men over the age of 70 have prostate cancer. But only about 5% die from it. This suggests that prostate cancer is a disease of aging more than anything else. So "prevention," here, means preventing aging. We can do that by killing males about the time they hit 50 or so. That will prevent protate cancer. But it might be just a bit extreme. (Note that we could reduce the incidence of breast cancer by killing young women who have a genetic predisposition to the disease, and their offspring. This, too, would likely be seen as rather extreme.)

Cancer is a major killer today as we are much longer lived society than that of our great-grandparents. To an extent it's the same for heart disease.

The best thing that ever happened to science of attacking cancer at its source is the continuing war on tobacco use (particularly smoked tobacco as that form has primary, secondary, and terciary effects). It's not going to do the entire job but it will do a big part of it. Identification and removal of proven carcinogens is another important step. Using sun screen is an important step. There are many important steps.

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to hold much credence with at article when it's not even grammatically correct, and rather odd to read because of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading something recently about a treatment for cancer. IV Vitamin C in very large quantities. Very little negative effects and easy to do. Apparently Vitamin C through IV acts as a proxitant and creates peroxide which happily kill cancer cells and leave health y cells alone. Kansas State University Medical Center is using it right now. The results have been positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can see poking around on line, DCA has definite potential. Nonetheless, the hazards of self treatment are emphasized in two items below. Full stories at links.

* *

U.K Warns Cancer Patients about DCA

Published April 28, 2008

Cancer patients are at risk from an unproven 'cure' (dicholoracetate) manufactured by a pest-control company in the US and marketed over the internet, the UK government has been told. Dr Ian Gibson, chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, is reported in the Guardian to have warned that increasing numbers of British patients are risking the final months of their lives taking the chemical DCA, believing it to be a cure for cancer.

Jim Tassano, who runs a pest-control business in California, began manufacturing DCA and selling it over his website as a treatment for the disease after two scientists at the University of Alberta, Canada, published results of tests on rats. The research suggested that the chemical decreased the size of tumours while leaving healthy tissue unaffected.

Dr Ian Gibson MP has warned against untried cancer 'cures'. Dr Evangelos Michelakis, whose work led to the the controversy, is yet to begin trials on humans. He criticised Mr Tassano's enterprise and compared him to a drug dealer, adding that a patient could be killed if they use DCA unsupervised.

Mr Tassano recommends the drug, which he sells in powdered form, be taken with coffee. However Toronto GP Dr Akhbar Khan, who prescribes DCA through his clinic, says this approach has resulted in death for some brain cancer patients.

http://www.ecancermedicalscience.com/news-insider-news.asp?itemId=161

* * *

CHECK ORPHAN (neglected diseases)

November 23, 2010

A do-it-yourself cancer treatment that many patients have ordered through the Internet can actually encourage growth in colorectal tumours, researchers at the University of Guelph have found.

Dichloroacetate or DCA … became a potential wonder drug three years ago after researchers at the University of Alberta discovered it …offered a new way to target tumour cells. A recent study showed it may be effective against brain cancer, but now there's evidence from professor Brenda Coomber and her colleagues in biomedical research at Guelph that it doesn't work against colon cancer.

"It could make things worse, she says.

Under normal conditions, DCA killed some cancer cells. But when levels of oxygen were reduced, as is often the case in tumours, it was not effective. And in some cases, tumours treated with DCA grew more than those that weren't.

"We are only beginning to tease these things out," Coomber said. "DCA may well turn out to be an effective treatment in some cases, but it's not necessarily safe in all cases.

SELF-TREATMENT

As the scientists scrambled to find money to test DCA in humans, hundreds of patients ordered the white powder over the Internet, ignoring warnings that it might harm them.

"There are people out there buying this drug off the Internet and self-medicating, (and) who knows what's going on in their tumour. They might actually be making it worse."

"Even though it is used to treat people with some metabolic disorders doesn't mean it is harmless."

Michelakis and his colleagues have stressed that patients should not self-medicate with DCA. They have warned that DCA ordered over the Internet may contain dangerous impurities and is often sold in a highly acidic form that could cause "catastrophic" complications. It also could interact with other drugs patients are taking to treat cancer.

http://www.checkorphan.org/grid/news/treatment/unapproved-cancer-therapy-dca-makes-some-tumours-worse-study-finds

Edited by carlofab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all know that these deseases we have now, altho around in centuries past, are alot more rampant now than ever. More people are diabetics, more men get prostate cancer and more women get breast cancer.

Here's my take....The powers that be, which there are many, make money off of deseases! The doctors get paid to give medicines to prolong a life for a while instead of possibly curing it. Our food and enviroment is such that genetically we are predisposed to certain deseases.

I remember that my dad was a die hard meat and potatoes kind of guy. He died of a heart attack at 52...from smoking and stress. My mom got cancer, had alot of her lower intestine removed, switched to a veg diet, walked miles each day and lived to be 92. What we eat, how we live our lives, what kind of stress load we carry all has to do with how our bodies cope. Our body is made to take care of itself, cure a desease...but we have to live in a way that allows our bodies to do it's job.

Me, I smoke and have a heart problem. This is my fault. If I quit smoking then things will become correct in my body so that my body can cure itself. How do I know this? I had a camera go up and look at my heart. The top two arteries are 50% blocked. Interesting thing is that a bottom artery was completely blocked but had bypassed itself by making more veins to carry the blood around the blockage! My body was trying to heal itself but I am still not giving it a chance because I still smoke. My docter wanted to put me on two different man made medicines, I refused. Instead I did some research and found that the Hawthorn berry is a heart medicine from nature! I have it growing here and I make a tincture and take it twice a day. It has helped me more than a pill ever could...especially since one of the pills he wanted to give me was Lipitor. That was supposed to lower my cholesterol, which was well with in the normal ranges! Why? Because every prescription he wrote for that medication paid him money!

Our world has cures for most every desease out there including Aids. Problem is that there are so many people on this planet that if we cured everyone and they all lived to be 100 then where would that put us? Plus, then the pharms would not be making as much money so that in turn the docters wouldn't either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

---" ... I remember that my dad was a die hard meat and potatoes kind of guy. He died of a heart attack at 52...from smoking and stress. My mom got cancer, had alot of her lower intestine removed, switched to a veg diet, walked miles each day and lived to be 92. ..."---

Just think how much longer she would have lived if she had eaten some meat, as there are some very important nutrients vegans just don't get without that or the right supplements and if you get them thru supplements, well, you may as well just eat some animal products to get them.

There are many reasons for today's health problems, but we are living much longer, healthier than ever because of so much better hygiene, medicine and nutrition.

I think we are way ahead today, warts and all, over those not so good "old days".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You all know that these deseases we have now, altho around in centuries past, are alot more rampant now than ever. More people are diabetics, more men get prostate cancer and more women get breast cancer.

And the biggest reason for that is the fact we ALSO live much longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True ^^

Before, people didn't live long enough for common cancers to develop well enough to cause life threatening problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Itchysmom.

Yes, we are living longer, but ONLY if we avoid the things that cause diseases. My dad died at 48 because he chose to smoke. I don't think that is necessarily living longer. We should be able to live to whatever age, without getting cancer. A cancer is a mutation. Just because you live long, doesn't mean your body should come down with these things. It is from exposure. Exposure to pollution, chemicals, fatty foods, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. If you live to be 110, and your body has ran out, your organs should shut down and you should pass away. Not get mutated cells and have your body rot from the inside out.

Better hygiene in what sense? That everyone walks around with a bottle of sanitizer in their hands? We now have drug resistant things floating around out there- that could easily kill off humans- simply because we overdue everything.

Everyone is not looking at the big picture. We have to let our bodies build immunity to strains, viruses, etc. Your immune system works in a completely different way when it is infected with an actual virus vrs. "building antibodies" via vaccine.

We are definitely overdoing it- in every aspect.

Edited by Blondyb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Itchysmom.

Yes, we are living longer, but ONLY if we avoid the things that cause diseases. My dad died at 48 because he chose to smoke. I don't think that is necessarily living longer. We should be able to live to whatever age, without getting cancer. A cancer is a mutation. Just because you live long, doesn't mean your body should come down with these things. It is from exposure. Exposure to pollution, chemicals, fatty foods, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. If you live to be 110, and your body has ran out, your organs should shut down and you should pass away. Not get mutated cells and have your body rot from the inside out.

Better hygiene in what sense? That everyone walks around with a bottle of sanitizer in their hands? We now have drug resistant things floating around out there- that could easily kill off humans- simply because we overdue everything.

Everyone is not looking at the big picture. We have to let our bodies build immunity to strains, viruses, etc. Your immune system works in a completely different way when it is infected with an actual virus vrs. "building antibodies" via vaccine.

We are definitely overdoing it- in every aspect.

Better hygiene like people don't have fleas and lice and worms, not using street corners for bathrooms, pigs running loose in the streets, meat is not hanging out in the open with flies swarming around it and the butcher cuts you a piece out of the carcass and rats and mice and pigeons and other birds are not running all over everything when you walk up to an open towsack full of beans to buy some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Itchysmom.

Yes, we are living longer, but ONLY if we avoid the things that cause diseases. My dad died at 48 because he chose to smoke. I don't think that is necessarily living longer. We should be able to live to whatever age, without getting cancer. A cancer is a mutation. Just because you live long, doesn't mean your body should come down with these things. It is from exposure. Exposure to pollution, chemicals, fatty foods, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. If you live to be 110, and your body has ran out, your organs should shut down and you should pass away. Not get mutated cells and have your body rot from the inside out.

Better hygiene in what sense? That everyone walks around with a bottle of sanitizer in their hands? We now have drug resistant things floating around out there- that could easily kill off humans- simply because we overdue everything.

Everyone is not looking at the big picture. We have to let our bodies build immunity to strains, viruses, etc. Your immune system works in a completely different way when it is infected with an actual virus vrs. "building antibodies" via vaccine.

We are definitely overdoing it- in every aspect.

A good immune system is a Good Thing. But it's not the only thing. In 1921 more than 20 Million died in the Great Flu Pandemic. I'm sure many had fine immune systems and died anyway.

The true Big Picture is that we will all die of something. The Object of the Exercise is to avoid those things that will cause a premature death.

Consider, too, that not all cancers are environmentally generated. Some are (and some evidence suggests many) are the result of genetic predispositions. This means the search for "discrete" causes will likely not yield a very productive result.

Again, cander is not monolithic. Neither is heart disease. Know your own history and manage your life to avoid, as best you can, the things that will likely kill you before your time.

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our world has cures for most every desease out there including Aids. Problem is that there are so many people on this planet that if we cured everyone and they all lived to be 100 then where would that put us? Plus, then the pharms would not be making as much money so that in turn the docters wouldn't either.

:notworthy:

Depopulation Control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cause of many cancers and mutations is already largely known, with the number being close to 20% being caused by viruses, of course this number is closer to 70% with certain types of cancer. I speculate though that viruses may play a larger role in the development of cancer then we currently believe. Genes, toxins, radiation, and the good ol' oops in cleavage points all play a role as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cause of many cancers and mutations is already largely known, with the number being close to 20% being caused by viruses, of course this number is closer to 70% with certain types of cancer. I speculate though that viruses may play a larger role in the development of cancer then we currently believe. Genes, toxins, radiation, and the good ol' oops in cleavage points all play a role as well.

I think it is more than just viruses. From my med school background of understanding, cancer is literally uncontrolled proliferation of cells. Agrivation at the cellular level is usually what sets off the proliferation at an uncontrolable rate. That agrivation is caused by many things like viruses, bacterias, stress...everything's possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe if there was a cure for cancer, that didn't have major side affects, why would doctors NOT give it to patients???

If it's population control, that doesn't make sense! We are all going to die someday. Wether we get in a car accident, fall off a horse, drown, or just simply die of old age.

The pharmaceutical thing doesn't make sense either. Think how much money they'd make if they snatch up the legalality to sell it!!

I just don't think people are all that cruel that we wouldn't give a 40 year old man with two little girls and a wife a chance to see his children grow up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I believe if there was a cure for cancer, that didn't have major side affects, why would doctors NOT give it to patients???"

Same feeling here.

For those that really think it's a conspiracy, you can't pay for treatment when you're dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is more than just viruses. From my med school background of understanding, cancer is literally uncontrolled proliferation of cells. Agrivation at the cellular level is usually what sets off the proliferation at an uncontrolable rate. That agrivation is caused by many things like viruses, bacterias, stress...everything's possible.

I believe if you read my post in its entirety you would have understood that I was not saying viruses are the sole cause for cancer. There are many factors like I stated in my original post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this