Cancer is finally Cured in Canada but Big Pharma has ‘No Interest’

When people get cancer they usually lose everything. I mean its a fight for their lives. I would assume they would either have insurance or go on medicaid and medicare at that time. Big Pharma gets money from insurance companies for their treatments that do not work. They spend next to nothing on those treatments. The bottle neck is at the pharmaceutical companies. The doctors have no bones in the fight on this. They don't get very much from medicaid or medicare.

This is why you see doctors like Burzinski. I know his case well I studied it. He actually does have a cure he manufacturers himself. In Texas a medical doctor still has the right to make chemicals to cure patients unlike everywhere else. They want to take that away. He doesn't cure every patient but he has a good record and you don't have to destroy your entire body to try it.

IMO Burzinski's treatment should be tried before anything because its cheap. Medicaid and Medicare should pay for that kind of thing. Because they do not Big Pharma milks them. And they pay lobbyists to continue milking the government. So they are milking our tax dollars at the cost of countless suffering patients. All in the name of greed.

We have cured cancer several times. This isn't the first or the last cure. However you will never see it. The current treatments allow Big Pharma to milk the insurance companies and the government so they have no interest in a real cure.

originally posted by: Pimpintology
When people get cancer they usually lose everything. I mean its a fight for their lives. I would assume they would either have insurance or go on medicaid and medicare at that time. Big Pharma gets money from insurance companies for their treatments that do not work. They spend next to nothing on those treatments. The bottle neck is at the pharmaceutical companies. The doctors have no bones in the fight on this. They don't get very much from medicaid or medicare.

This is why you see doctors like Burzinski. I know his case well I studied it. He actually does have a cure he manufacturers himself. In Texas a medical doctor still has the right to make chemicals to cure patients unlike everywhere else. They want to take that away. He doesn't cure every patient but he has a good record and you don't have to destroy your entire body to try it.

IMO Burzinski's treatment should be tried before anything because its cheap. Medicaid and Medicare should pay for that kind of thing. Because they do not Big Pharma milks them. And they pay lobbyists to continue milking the government. So they are milking our tax dollars at the cost of countless suffering patients. All in the name of greed.

We have cured cancer several times. This isn't the first or the last cure. However you will never see it. The current treatments allow Big Pharma to milk the insurance companies and the government so they have no interest in a real cure.

No, you should not forego real treatment for Burzinski's scam. I'm boggled at people complaining about "big pharma" who then rush to a scam artist who charges $30,000 a month for his unproven "cure."

burzynskiscam.com...
www.usatoday.com... 13/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/
rationalwiki.org...

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: pennydrops
One reason I never denate to Cancer Research. They never look into natural possibilities. Too many donations from big pharma.

Given all the testimonies regarding Bicarbonate of soda and raw veg CURING cancer, yet no one is willing to test.

Eat well, no preservatives (acid), raw veg, no processed sugars, no cooking at all and no meat. Many people are saying this can cure some cancers within just 3 months.

Cancer cure?

The bottom of this article states baking soda is more effective than DCA mentioned in the OP.


Google it, there are lots of testimonioes.

I am not a doctor, have not had cancer so do not know if this does work. Please see a doctor first.

Apparently, cancer requires an acidic environment, a body chemistry with a pH of less than 7.2. However, the backing soda (which is an alkaline) treatment of I think it's 1 teaspoon a day for a week, then two teaspoons a day for a month and then 3 teaspoons a day for another month, followed by 1 teaspoon a day as maintenance, is supposed to increase your body pH to between 7.4 and 7.6 dependent on mass, metabolism and actual consumption. The maintenance period I think keeps you at 7.3 to 7.5. There's quite a bit of info on the internet.

Cheers - Dave

When you take oral baking soda, your body's acid-base balancing system keeps the PH normal. You do not reduce your PH by taking baking soda orally and even IV bicarb reduces your PH for a short period.

Well I suppose it's a good thing it doesn't reduce your pH LOL, since taking an alkaline should increase your pH. Metabolizing too much sugar lowers your pH. There does seem to be a lot of information on this alleged therapy on the internet, are you suggesting it doesn't work or that it possibly a placebo effect?

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: pennydrops
One reason I never denate to Cancer Research. They never look into natural possibilities. Too many donations from big pharma.

Given all the testimonies regarding Bicarbonate of soda and raw veg CURING cancer, yet no one is willing to test.

Eat well, no preservatives (acid), raw veg, no processed sugars, no cooking at all and no meat. Many people are saying this can cure some cancers within just 3 months.

Cancer cure?

The bottom of this article states baking soda is more effective than DCA mentioned in the OP.


Google it, there are lots of testimonioes.

I am not a doctor, have not had cancer so do not know if this does work. Please see a doctor first.

Apparently, cancer requires an acidic environment, a body chemistry with a pH of less than 7.2. However, the backing soda (which is an alkaline) treatment of I think it's 1 teaspoon a day for a week, then two teaspoons a day for a month and then 3 teaspoons a day for another month, followed by 1 teaspoon a day as maintenance, is supposed to increase your body pH to between 7.4 and 7.6 dependent on mass, metabolism and actual consumption. The maintenance period I think keeps you at 7.3 to 7.5. There's quite a bit of info on the internet.

Cheers - Dave

When you take oral baking soda, your body's acid-base balancing system keeps the PH normal. You do not reduce your PH by taking baking soda orally and even IV bicarb reduces your PH for a short period.

Well I suppose it's a good thing it doesn't reduce your pH LOL, since taking an alkaline should increase your pH. Metabolizing too much sugar lowers your pH. There does seem to be a lot of information on this alleged therapy on the internet, are you suggesting it doesn't work or that it possibly a placebo effect?

Cheers - Dave

Well, what is claimed is not physiologically possible. There are no proven results. What can we take form it? That any beneficial feelings we see are either placebo effect or untruthful.

It seems to me with all the money cancer research raises between pink ribbons, marathons, telethons and fund-raising events ....

After all these years we should have a better option than radiation and chemo. IMO I think cancer charities are nothing more than way for people to make a living at the expense of people's sympathy and compassion.

I don't donate to any charities tied to any kind of medical condition, because frankly -- I don't seem to ever see the money *doing* anything. Now, I could be mistaken -- but these charities certainly don't do a very good job at showing the good the money is doing.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Wouldn't they make even more money selling cancer vaccines?

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Methinks Crowdsourcing could work.

originally posted by: mymymy
a reply to: knoledgeispower

Wouldn't they make even more money selling cancer vaccines?

What happens when everyone is cured? There is no more money after that point. Everyone is all healthy & happy so they no longer need medications.

The only way they could still make money is if you always have to take a pill to make sure you stay in remission & never have any problems.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: knoledgeispower

Methinks Crowdsourcing could work.

Possibly, one would just have to message the team & tell them about it

originally posted by: GetHyped
Let's see:

* Burzynski gets around the FDA by running perpetual "clinical trials"
* Patients pay tens of thousands of dollars to enter these "clinical trials"
* In over 30 years, no results from these "clinical trials" have ever been published

This man is the worst of the worst. He preys on the desperate and fleeces them of their money, leaving them to die. How the hell can anyone defend this sicko!?

I would say that hospitals FULL of desperately sick people that are lied to and charged as much if not MORE money, that all die in the end from said cancers, are more worthy.

Posts like YOURS are evidence of the system successfully choking everything from the outside, and are THE worst of the worst.

a reply to: ParasuvO

You're actually defending this sicko? Despicable.

I hate to see all those cutsey "pink" products of every kind being sold under the guise that the money goes to cancer research. I'd wager, dollars to donuts, that all of that is just like those ads you see where this grandfatherly ole goat is hyping the idea that we all need to contribute to 3rd world kids overseas. Yeah, for just pennies a day, they will get food and clothes and the meds they need. Geez, why can't we supply our own kids as cheaply here...it is all bull. Just about every dime that goes to those phonie organizations stay right with some fat cat in his office...one who laughs all the way to the bank. Same with the "pink" craze. That time of year when the breast cancer push starts....you see pink everything...pink purses, pink wrappings on products, limited addition pink cartons and products of every kind.

In over 50 years, after all of those donation organizations and their hype, cancer only has the same style treatments...cut, burn, with chemicals and radiation. Seems to me there should be a cure by now. Maybe there is a hidden one, who knows. So much money is made on the old fashion way of treating tho. They never focus on cures just treatments and do not focus on lifestyles that may cause some cancer types. Just keep putting a bandaid on it and never end it altogether.

A family member of mine has cancer and was told he was pretty well "finished" if he didn't take treatment. He didn't take treatments. That was over 10 yrs. ago and he's still here and doin fine in that regard. I'm a retired nurse and I saw so much suffering relevant to treatment...sometimes, the treatment seems worst than the disease. We all have to die someday no matter what.

a reply to: jrflipjr

+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

i'm in for kickstarter.

peace

Ka reply to: knoledgeispower

Reminds me of this from family guy

This is indeed true .. My mother was diagnosed with stage 5 pancreatic cancer back in December and was told she was not gonna make it past june . we decided to put her on DCA and by June her cancer had shrunk down and is almost gone. I recommend using DCA before giving up. We were planning my mothers funeral but now where planning on vacation. The reason why DCA will never be available is cause there's so much money put into the research of cancer MANY people will lose there jobs..... Sad very sad cause instead of them losing there jobs men women and children are losing there lives Smh

People need to understand that money controls the medical industry in every corner of the world, if you are wealthy or have first rate insurance then you will get good treatment. If not you die.

My Father in law just died last week from a tumor on his liver, we had a donor for transplant and there was a doctor there to perform the transplant. Problem was that we did not have more than $200,000 up front payment for the operation and a further $20,000 per year for medication so his body would accept the new liver.

We watched him die a slow painful death because of $$$$, profit comes before peoples health every time and it is only when it hits close to home that it sinks in, we live in a very unjust and unforgiving world.

I think that perhaps some are blowing this out of proportion. It is true that without intellectual property protection a drug is unlikely to be funded, especially research funding, and since this drug is not new, it has been known since the 19th century, it has not received funding from any drug company. However, government and private funding have been coming in. They raised almost a million dollars in about six months from private sources, mostly online. So this is not being ignored by any means.

The reason I said this is being blown out of proportion is because it has not been proven effective at treating cancer patients, to put it simply. But that is not the only problem. Part of the problem is that some of the initial tests in mice actually showed that sometimes the drug caused the tumor to grow even faster, rather than more slowly. So they have many things to figure out, such as what types of cancers this treatment might be effective for. Another thing is that in humans there have been some known side effects, especially neurologically. There has been speculation about what exactly is causing these side effects, or what the mechanism of action was, and they are going from there. This led to the coadministration of other drugs like thiamine, although this has had mixed results.

My point is that there has been very little work done, and the drug, if it were to be used now on a widespread basis, could cause more harm than good. That is the point of trials and learning about how the drug behaves in humans. But the good news is that it is not being ignored. It is not being suppressed. It would be difficult to suppress something like this once it has reached this stage. Even the FDA funded part of the trials if I remember correctly. There is a lot of nonsense out there when it comes to cancer treatment as well. There are a plethora of hoaxes and natural treatments. I was just reading about baking soda being used to treat cancer. I read that cancer cannot grow in an alkaline environment, which is relatively accurate, but ingesting baking soda is not going to have an effect on the PH of your blood, and if it did it would have nasty side effects. And then there is the major fact that the acidic environment that cancer cells like is actually produced by the cancer cells themselves, and thus even altering the local PH of these cells would not have much effect. If it did it a drug would have to be administered extremely locally, but I'm not sure about any of that to be honest, so I could be wrong. I haven't looked into this stuff in a long time.

It is also important to remember how clinical trials work. They are agonizingly slow. They start of small and then gradually involve more and more subjects, and the risks and benefits are monitored along the way. They can be frustrating for sure because they take so long, and often the results can be somewhat inconclusive, depending on the number and types of patients...but it just depends on the drug and what is being treated. These steps are necessary for any drug because otherwise we would have all of these "potential" cures or treatments, the majority of which will be ineffective or even downright harmful. I think DCA is relatively novel in its premise and I think that the trials will prove one way or the other if that premise can be transferred into reality. Often times what works in a lab outside of humans will not work once the drug gets inside of humans. There is a lot of stuff going on in our bodies. Oodles of minute and dependent reactions.

It seems that the basic premise of DCA, in a nutshell, has to do with how sometimes certain cancer cells will stop using aerobic means for their energy and instead use anaerobic forms of glycosis, and DCA basically forces the oxygen burning activity to begin, thus triggering death in that cell. Sounds simple and it really is. AND there is actual science behind it, but again, it will take time and lots of testing on humans.

The suppression of cures for various forms of cancer is exaggerated. Just use a little common sense, you can make a lot more money off a live person than you can a dead one. I don't fully understand how it works but different forms of cancer generally need different cures. Every time someone says there is a cure for cancer its just a treatment usually and for a specific kind of cancer.

originally posted by: knoledgeispower
Cancer is finally Cured in Canada but Big Pharma has ‘No Interest’

Well no surprise here. Of course big pharma doesn't want cures for cancer because they are going to loose too much money from it. If people were always healthy, they wouldn't exist & they do not want that. U.S #1 goal of corporations is to make Money, doesn't matter if people get hurt/sick/die, so long as they make more money.

I love this logic, it's absolutely hilarious! Big pharma wants to make money (which they do by selling drugs to living people) but don't want to cure cancer because they would lose too much money (because everyone would live longer...). Yes people dying is how they make money, every time someone dies big pharma gets a billion dollar check in the mail. LOL!

Use that gray matter between your ears and think about it. The average life expectancy is 79, and if they cure cancer that will only go up. Will curing cancer stop: strokes, diabetes, obesity, brittle bones, dimentia, alzheimers, etc??? Of course not, increasing life expectancy (which curing cancer would do) ultimately results in more money for the evil "big pharma".

It's like the wal-mart argument "walmart wants their employees to die! that's why they don't offer health insurance, "livable wage", etc." it's so asinine it's funny.

Has it been proven yet if the "placebo effect" exists in mice?

Can someone link me to the paper on that?