It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The gene that cancer can't live without: A discovery may have just cured all cancer

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 02:23 AM
no money in curing cancer as stated before. how many long term side effects from this vaccine? that may be a way to get some continuing profits. Hypothetically speaking of course.

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 02:43 AM
a reply to: adjensen

I would imagine that were the costs of provide chemo facilities and the staff to monitor and look after patients throughout their treatments added to the equation, this would change the financial outlook considerably. I am sure the `NHS would welcome this opportunity to give a vaccine, rather than the chemo, operations and all involved with treating this dire disease.

I am sure people would flock were this to be available and just the peace of mind about the 1 in 4 statistic which I heard recently, which applies to staff at the big pharma also, should carry considerable weight.

Its because of treatments such as this I am very anti allowing anyo e to patent or own some part of our genetic makeup as this is something unique to us all and should never be put into private hands for financial exploitation.

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:45 AM
a reply to: turboneon

how many long term side effects from this vaccine? that may be a way to get some continuing profits.

They will probably add Thimesoral to it as a "preservative" Complications will ensure continuing sickness and it will be business as usual. I just noticed that they have added something worse in vaccines, now aluminium is being added to childhood vaccines. According to the mercola site it may be a more hazardous neurotoxin than Mercury.

And this is a giveaway, from the same page

"" Aluminum has not received the widespread media attention that mercury has, therefore many people don’t realize it’s a health risk.

“Aluminum is not perceived, I believe, by the public as a dangerous metal. Therefore, we are in a much more comfortable wicket in terms of defending its presence in vaccines,” said Dr. John Clements, WHO vaccine advisor.

Notice he said that aluminum is “not perceived” by the public as a dangerous metal … he couldn’t say simply that aluminum is safe, because this would be a lie.""

Very revealing

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 06:04 AM
a reply to: adjensen

Thats a very good discovery indeed. Sounds promising but there is a slight problem. Cancer is not a random disease you get. It is multicausal and even if you manage to stop the tumors proliferation it doesnt mean the disease in itself is cured. Thats the problem with western medicine they can only focus on symptoms and ignore the real intrinsic causes. Thats why there are many relapses. The symptoms are treated, not the disease.

So lets say this new treatment works fine on preventing the formation of new tumors. Well it is just one symptom that is suppressed. But what once the patient stop taking the treatment? The responsible gene cannot be inhibited forever.. and if the underlying causes are still present within the body and mind of the patient, then unless he drastically changes his lifestyle he cant be sure he wont get cancer again. So sorry but this wont get rid of cancer at all and i laugh at the faces of people that think it is as simple as that.

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 06:18 AM
I've always known that the secret for curing all diseases and prolonging life is in gene engineering. Can't wait until gene engineering is so advanced that doctors start using it for silly things like penis enlargement for the next generation.

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 10:18 AM
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I agree wholeheartedly... It was Polio and even that is making its way back into the population.

The only way this will ever happen is if international laws are passed where it is a crime against humanity to try and make money off of sick/diseased people.

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 10:43 AM
a reply to: adjensen

It's likely more important to determine the epigenetic factors that turn these genes off and on, and find out when the mechanism's effect(s) results in cancer.

...the reliance on Ligase 3 appears, in turn, to be dependent upon the activity of another key DNA repair gene, p53.
"Since p53 is the most commonly mutated gene in human cancer...

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 10:48 AM
You may want to watch this.

William Li is onto something with angiogenesis.

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 11:26 AM
Well, I finally heard back from my daughter. She says that this is a very interesting finding, though she's not convinced that it will really prevent cancer, because in her words, "the gene is probably connected to billions of other networks, which cancer will work around because it's crazy." She also noted that there is a belief that cancer is a fundamental part of life and directed me to this article on the subject: How cancer shapes evolution, and how evolution shapes cancer.

Because she's an immunologist, she thinks that the answer lies in that area, and that it's really all about minimizing the damage that cancer causes, because she doesn't believe that there will ever be a way to get rid of it. She also said that, gene wise, p53, which Dr. Hendrickson referenced but is not the gene in question, is crucial to the prevention of cancer -- 80% of cancers would be cured if p53 functioned the way that it is supposed to all of the time.

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 11:51 AM

originally posted by: adjensen
My daughter is a cancer researcher at the University of Minnesota, so I pay attention to what's going on over there.


It is known how cancer develops, it is known how cancer should be treated, it is known how to cure cancer.

Nevermind all that, it is good business in a way that "cancer research" companies supports solutions that will make wallets lighter, and cancer wont be cured.

So cancer is all about ph of body, as i said it is known. it is cured with right food. not meds, they only make things worse. so, your daughter company owners work a lot to suspend people like me, and people who know this. there are about 0.5% of people in the world that knows what i talk abut. thats about 30 million people.

30 million people cant help spread truth, since all that 30 milion have less money than most likely company your daughter works.

well, i also do work for money, but my work does not depend about naive, stupid and uneducated people that i will manipulate to their death until i get last penny from them.


Alkalize or die.
edit on 8-8-2014 by poweref because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-8-2014 by Kandinsky because: Snipped ill-mannered comment

+12 more 
posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 12:41 PM
a reply to: poweref

adjensen's daughter here, also known as BigPharmaShill. poweref, you're totes right, I am basically the mafia. The University of Minnesota is very well known for keeping the masses down with it's millions of dollars spent on research. Because, you know, what the heck else are you supposed to do with money.

There was a paper published in Nature about stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency, which concerned the pH of stem cells, including cancer cells. It was a huge revelation in the scientific community, until it was retracted due to falsified data ( Soo, you can argue that pH causes cancer, but honestly everything causes cancer. Living causes cancer.

READ MORE RESEARCH MORE. Cancer is super complicated, so if you want to really understand it READ MORE AND RESEARCH MORE before you say anything.
edit on 8-8-2014 by BigPharmaShill because: added more links and shizz

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 01:24 PM
While this is fantastic news, I'm sure the key issue here will be the Patent system. A system that practically seems weaponised. How much development must we have lost out on to accommodate corporate monopolization? I believe gene patenting should be outlawed globally.

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 01:42 PM
You use money, given by pharma industry, and they tell you to do research on what they want. then, you do that and then you get results that big pharma uses to get more money. bigpharma is investing a lot in researches through the world that supports their idea. like tobacco industry invested billions in researches that contradicted researches that said smoking is bad habit. more correct cancer producing acid habit. or you can say - propaganda.

money thrown in cancer research is actually investing in circumstances that will make more customers, more buyers, more profit. why? because real cure for cancer is so cheap is almost free.

what will you do when you "find cure"? let me tell you. imagine you develop cancer cure for 0.1$ per person. so, bigpharma will discredit your researches, and if you continue to promote your idea you will be thrown to jail or killed.

but when you find miracle cancer cure within genes, well, that is space technology for people, meaning it is expensive, unavailable and pig pharma loves you then. and would you expect anything else from pigpharma than to retract data about cancer cure?

cancer is super complicated. really? so how can you explain fact that people who eat more alkaline foods have almost no cancer at all? and in contrast, how you explain that people who eat acid foods have cancer in large percentage?

splendid. so it is retracted by big pharma. i did not expect anything else. so if big pharma says A is good and from B you die, there is no doubt that B is the answer.
edit on 8-8-2014 by poweref because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 01:47 PM
Ligase 3 is a normal gene and you can't just turn it off. It is involved in many normal biological processes. Turning it off would cure the disease but kill the patient.

Biological processes of Ligase 3

The approach however is correct: kill immortal cancer cells while leaving non-cancer cells alone.

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 02:05 PM
a reply to: LrdRedhawk

I agree, this would be akin to the gas mileage that cars and trucks get. They have had the technology for over 60 years to get upwards of 200 mpg, but all those invention get shelved in order to preservce corporate profits.

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 03:13 PM
I saw a few posts on here stating that the pharma industries would make a whole bunch of money from the cure. This is true, but it would only be a one-time pay out, which is why they would never do it. They've made a lifetime contract with disease, which keeps millions (maybe billions) of people subject to prescription after prescription. This is consistent and reliable income. If a cure came out, they would lose that lifetime contract with disease and be subject to the very few who needed the vaccine; after the initial influx to vaccinate the whole world of course.

a reply to: grey580

This is probably the most important information on this whole thread. Thank you for that video.
edit on 8-8-2014 by Aedaeum because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 03:22 PM
a reply to: Cuervo

Unfortunately we have already stunted evolution quite a bit with being so interconnected with one another.
In order for these genes to be passed down to the point where cancer is nearly impossible and no vaccine is needed we would need to isolate a certain population from the rest for many generations.

For example there was a small pocket in Italy that was found, and heart disease was almost impossible for these people to get, somewhere along the lines a beneficial mutation happened and it was passed down to nearly 80% of the population.

Now if this is just a 'vaccine' would it be passed onto future generations? Information might not be passed on. So this vaccine would need to be given to everyone once they are born or something.

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:47 PM
a reply to: BigPharmaShill

Welcome to ATS and thanks for adding your expertise to a complicated subject.

Hope you add to other threads that spark your interest as well.

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:51 PM
a reply to: Aedaeum

I saw a few posts on here stating that the pharma industries would make a whole bunch of money from the cure. This is true, but it would only be a one-time pay out, which is why they would never do it.

Well, three points -- first, I don't know that every pharmaceutical company in the world makes drugs that fight cancer, so if there is one that doesn't, they would be a good candidate to develop this. Second, not everyone gets cancer, but I presume that everyone would want to get a drug that prevented cancer, so the market would be a lot bigger. Finally, would you rather be the big pharma company that loses its cancer fighting revenue, but makes up for it with this drug, or would you rather be the big pharma company that loses its cancer fighting revenue when someone else develops the drug?

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 06:24 PM
This to me sounds like it will play a big part in a immortality drug!

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in