It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Cannabis extract can have dramatic effect on brain cancer, says new research

page: 5
55
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sabiduria
a reply to: Collateral

What happens once cancer is cured? No more pills needed, no more money coming. Big Pharma will not allow for people to be free from illnesses & diseases.

There have been many cures for cancers that have passed animal trails and were to go on to human trails, however they are never heard from again. I read an article two years ago about this scientist who had developed a cure for cancer and it was supposed to be going on to human trails but the project got pulled and his cure is sitting in his freezer doing nothing.



Again, I just dont believe it.

If they "cure" Cancer they will make profit on selling the vaccine to every single human on earth.

The people on the boards of big pharma companies have families that have been hit by diseases such as cancer as well....do you think they dont mind seeing their own families suffer as long as the bottom line is more profitable?




posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Myth 7: … and Big Pharma are suppressing it Conspiracy theories don’t add up Hand in hand with the idea that there is a cornucopia of ‘miracle cures’ is the idea that governments, the pharmaceutical industry and even charities are colluding to hide the cure for cancer because they make so much money out of existing treatments. Whatever the particular ‘cure’ being touted, the logic is usually the same: it’s readily available, cheap and can’t be patented, so the medical establishment is suppressing it in order to line its own pockets. But, as we’ve written before, there’s no conspiracy – sometimes it just doesn’t work. There’s no doubt that the pharmaceutical industry has a number of issues with transparency and clinical trials that it needs to address (the book Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre is a handy primer). We push regulators and pharmaceutical companies hard to make sure that effective drugs are made available at a fair price to the NHS – although it’s important to remember that developing and trialling new drugs costs a lot of money, which companies need to recoup. Problems with conventional medicine don’t automatically prove that alternative ‘cures’ work. To use a metaphor, just because cars sometimes crash doesn’t mean that flying carpets are a viable transport option. It simply doesn’t make sense that pharmaceutical companies would want to suppress a potential cure. Finding a highly effective therapy would guarantee huge worldwide sales. And the argument that treatments can’t be patented doesn’t hold up. Pharma companies are not stupid, and they are quick to jump on promising avenues for effective therapies. There are always ways to repackage and patent molecules, which would give them a return on the investment required to develop and test them in clinical trials (a cost that can run into many millions) if the treatment turns out to work. It’s also worth pointing out that charities such as Cancer Research UK and government-funded scientists are free to investigate promising treatments without a profit motive. And it’s hard to understand why NHS doctors – who often prescribe generic, off-patent drugs – wouldn’t use cheap treatments if they’d been shown to be effective in clinical trials. For example, we’re funding large-scale trials of aspirin – a drug first made in 1897, and now one of the most widely-used off-patent drugs in the world. We’re researching whether it can prevent bowel cancer in people at high risk, reduce the side effects of chemotherapy, and even prevent cancer coming back and improve survival. Finally, it’s worth remembering that we are all human – even politicians and Big Pharma executives – and cancer can affect anyone. People in pharmaceutical companies, governments, charities and the wider ‘medical establishment’ all can and do die of cancer too. Here at Cancer Research UK we have seen loved ones and colleagues go through cancer. Many of them have survived. Many have not. To suggest that we are – collectively and individually – hiding ‘the cure’ is not only absurd, it’s offensive to the global community of dedicated scientists, to the staff and supporters of cancer research organisations such as Cancer Research UK and, most importantly, to cancer patients and their families.


scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org...-Pharma



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Collateral

They are rich enough that they can afford to be give their family the cure. That's it though, other wise once everyone is cured, the money stops coming in.

Yes they will make a profit for a time but once there is no more cancer & no more illnesses than they have no more money to make.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria

If that were true, then why did someone like Steve Jobs die of cancer? You'd think if there really was a cure out there that really wealthy and powerful people wouldn't die of cancer.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Collateral


CTV News in Atlantic Canada reports that a Cure For Cancer is found and it has been censored just like Dr Buzinski’s Cure for Cancer from Houston, Texas. This report by CTV News covers Dr. Evangelos Michelakis at the University of Alberta and the drug called

DCA which has been found to reduce the size of cancerous tumors. Dr. Dario Alterieri from the University of Massachusetts agreed that the drug should be tested for its side effects and safety issues. However, there is no patent on this drug.

Since there is no patent on DCA and no pharmaceutical company owns this drug, CTV reported that drug companies will not want to bring this drug out on the market or conduct studies on this drug due to the fact that they can’t make a profit off a drug that can be inexpensively produced. CTV News also mentioned that it costs nearly $100 million dollars for testing to become completed on a new drug, so it looks like everything comes down to a matter of money. Of course, there is another case like Dr. Burzinski’s which is the only case I know of where a doctor received five court acquittals with a “Not Guilty Verdict” in Houston, Texas for coming out with his treatment for Cancer that has been hidden from us all since 1977.


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



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Steve Jobs isn't important/big enough. How many top government secrets do you think he knows? How much power did he have, not much.

The people who would have the access to a cure would be the top 1%, most likely the really old money families.

Most of the time it doesn't even get to human trials (3rd trial), it gets stopped before that, even though the first two trials were successful.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria

Rich and powerful people die all the time from cancer, so that is simply a myth.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Sabiduria
[post]
Steve Jobs isn't important/big enough. How many top government secrets do you think he knows? How much power did he have, not much.[/post]

How do you know?

Sabiduria[post]
The people who would have the access to a cure would be the top 1%, most likely the really old money families. [/post]

And who are the people administering these "cures" for the below 1% of society? Again, you're just making assumptions based on absolutely no evidence.

Sabiduria[post]
Most of the time it doesn't even get to human trials (3rd trial), it gets stopped before that, even though the first two trials were successful. [/post]

If they were trying to suppress it, they would just falsify the result of the first two tests to make it look like it didnt work/not actually test anything at all....whats the point of publishing positive results and then not following it up?
edit on 24-11-2014 by Collateral because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-11-2014 by Collateral because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria




I don't get it. The article title is 'Cancer is finally cured' and the text makes no mention of a 'cure.' Instead it cites DCA as being able to 'decrease' the size of tumours. Not 'cure,' just decrease. In cancer terms, decrease is fantastic enough and still way short of 'cure.' The video is from 2011 and YouTube isn't the platform for peer-reviewing medical breakthroughs. We've all seen YT comments right? They can get pretty nasty and the credentials amount to an email address and no-holds-barred or way of judging ages. With this video, the comments have been disabled by the uploader. The story goes back to 2007 and research continues into treating cancer with DCA.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Collateral

Because he is just Steve Jobs, he's a no body compares to the people who are actually pulling the strings. It's like saying Steve Jobs is as important, powerful & knowing of top government secrets as Dr. Jaap Haartsen, the inventor of Bluetooth.

Steve Jobs net worth was $10.2 billion and according to Forbes, that's would be the 46th richest person. Steve Jobs would be between Steve Cohen & David Tepper who both their source of income is hedge funds.


And who are the people administering these "cures" for the below 1% of society? Again, you're just making assumptions based on absolutely no evidence


I didn't say anyone below 1% of society get's a "cure". I also didn't technically say there is a cure, I said they are keeping a cure from being created. I've only speculated that if one existed, it would only be available to the highest of the 1% society. The richest & most powerful of the 1%.


If they were trying to suppress it, they would just falsify the result of the first two tests to make it look like it didnt work/not actually test anything at all....whats the point of publishing positive results and then not following it up?


I don't know why but that is what is happening. Look at the studies that people say could lead to a cure for cancer, like the one I posted. It was successful for the first two trials but now because there is no patent on DCA and no pharmaceutical company owns this drug, the drug companies will not want to bring this drug out on the market or conduct studies on this drug. That is only due to the fact that they can’t make a profit off a drug that can be inexpensively produced.


I don't get it. The article title is 'Cancer is finally cured' and the text makes no mention of a 'cure.' Instead it cites DCA as being able to 'decrease' the size of tumours. Not 'cure,' just decrease. In cancer terms, decrease is fantastic enough and still way short of 'cure.' The video is from 2011 and YouTube isn't the platform for peer-reviewing medical breakthroughs. We've all seen YT comments right? They can get pretty nasty and the credentials amount to an email address and no-holds-barred or way of judging ages. With this video, the comments have been disabled by the uploader. The story goes back to 2007 and research continues into treating cancer with DCA.


Someone decided to title it as 'Cancer is finally cured'. Yes there is a news clip on youtube but as youtube is not the one who published the study, youtube wouldn't be the ones subjected to peer-review. It would be the University of Alberta, the ones that published the study, who would subjected to peer-review.

Anyone who shares a study already published is not subjected to peer-review, not sure why you would think so. That would mean I would be subject to peer-review in regards to the study 'Cannabis extract can have dramatic effect on brain cancer, says new research' just because I shared it on ATS.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   


Because he is just Steve Jobs, he's a no body compares to the people who are actually pulling the strings. It's like saying Steve Jobs is as important, powerful & knowing of top government secrets as Dr. Jaap Haartsen, the inventor of Bluetooth. Steve Jobs net worth was $10.2 billion and according to Forbes, that's would be the 46th richest person. Steve Jobs would be between Steve Cohen & David Tepper who both their source of income is hedge funds.


What do you know about Steve Jobs dealing with government agencies?

Steve Jobs was used as an example on how being rich, famous & powerful does not entitle your to non-existant cures.




I didn't say anyone below 1% of society get's a "cure". I also didn't technically say there is a cure, I said they are keeping a cure from being created. I've only speculated that if one existed, it would only be available to the highest of the 1% society. The richest & most powerful of the 1%.


You are missing the point of my post.

Only the richest 1% of society would have access to these top secret drugs...yet, Im sure they wouldnt be the ones administering it to themselves or doing the research behind said cures...ergo, it would be very hard to contain something for the !% that is developed by the 99%.





I don't know why but that is what is happening. Look at the studies that people say could lead to a cure for cancer, like the one I posted. It was successful for the first two trials but now because there is no patent on DCA and no pharmaceutical company owns this drug, the drug companies will not want to bring this drug out on the market or conduct studies on this drug. That is only due to the fact that they can’t make a profit off a drug that can be inexpensively produced.


Two trials doesnt make a cure. You only have to disprove it once for it to fail.

My other point would be that if these scientists/believers were so confident in a their cure, they would be putting their own money where their mouth is and proving to the world that it works.
They arent though, which makes you wonder.




Someone decided to title it as 'Cancer is finally cured'. Yes there is a news clip on youtube but as youtube is not the one who published the study, youtube wouldn't be the ones subjected to peer-review. It would be the University of Alberta, the ones that published the study, who would subjected to peer-review.


I was actually quoting someone else from that thread that pointed out that it is not suggesting a cure, rather a new treatment.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
originally posted by: Collateral


I was actually quoting someone else from that thread that pointed out that it is not suggesting a cure, rather a new treatment.


Now that we have cleared that up, yes Steve jobs was used an example but seeing as how I never said there was a cure, it doesn't matter if Steve Jobs was dealing with government agencies or not. I answered the example given with my view point on the matter.




You are missing the point of my post.

Only the richest 1% of society would have access to these top secret drugs...yet, Im sure they wouldnt be the ones administering it to themselves or doing the research behind said cures...ergo, it would be very hard to contain something for the !% that is developed by the 99%.


Of course they wouldn't be the ones administering it, they do have access to the best privatized doctors, whom of course have to sign a strict confidentiality agreement.

Really? if it would be very hard to contain something top secret & keep all studies a secret than how come the world doesn't know about all the governments top secrets? How come we don't know about all the military's top secret military crafts? How come the government will only release documents about top secret dealings with most of it being redacted?

There would be no need for whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden & Julian Assagne if it was very hard to contain top secret information.

It's not called a Confidentiality Agreement for nothing, it means if you flap your mouth, you will be sued and you could be killed. Look at what is happening to Edward Snowden & Julian Assagne. They aren't the only ones, there are other people who flapped their mouths and were killed for it.


Two trials doesnt make a cure. You only have to disprove it once for it to fail.


Two trials doesn't make a cure, again, I never claimed so. When you pass the first two trials, you go onto the third which is human trials, this is where they would be able to know if it was going to work or not. As these studies are shut down before the third trial can begin, we can't say for sure if was helpful or not.


My other point would be that if these scientists/believers were so confident in a their cure, they would be putting their own money where their mouth is and proving to the world that it works.
They arent though, which makes you wonder.


Really? Do you know how much money it costs to do this kind of research? Obviously not or you wouldn't have made that comment. There is a reason why researchers are always looking for grants, research is not cheap. Factor in the operating costs of powering the lab, heating the lab, purchase the basic instrumentation and equipment necessary for the research, materials, and pay for the salaries of post-doctoral researchers and, if in a department where their stipends are not defrayed by teaching, graduate students. It adds up and seeing how if you are doing your own research, their is no one paying you, you run out of money real fast.

The cost of these maintaining equipment can be anywhere from $20,000 or more per year, with the cost increasing with an increase in the number of people in a lab and the price of special reactants. (Often A 5 mg bottle of a reactant, which the cost is $300 per milligram.)

If you have to buy new equipment, that's another huge price tag.

Often indirect expenses like electricity & paying for salaries costs roughly $112,500, or between 45 to 50% of your total budget.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   
It's an interesting question I ask myself now and the. What if they had a medical "item" which cured all known diseases or illnesses? Would they use it or hide? What if they had a fusion power plant which exceeded all current experimental outputs by many orders of magnitude at much lower cost and on much smaller scale? Would they use it or hide it? What if they knew we were created by aliens or had our evolution adjusted by aliens? Would they tell us or destroy the knowledge? What if they knew how to clone humans or animals easily? Hide it or let us know? What if they had a bomb which was many orders of magnitude more destructive than thermonuclear bombs and could essentially destroy Earth? Would they keep it secret?

It's mental aerobics because something so seemingly beneficial on first appearance might cause us to destroy it or hide it. This doesn't work so much for things which have an apparently obvious danger. And yet sometimes what can help us can also hurt us if used wrongly.
edit on 28-11-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Yes like getting people stoned not that I disagree with that but lets stop making posts that are pretending to say one thing whilst pushing another agenda.

ATS banned all these posts at one time and I don't mind the odd one or two but really we are getting too many now so please stop it.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard
Are you referring to the conspiracy which asserts the big shirts are burying the hidden benefits of MJ, so a thriving pharmaceutical or other industry can continue? On the outside, the OP is telling us Cannabis extract might reduce brain cancer, but inspection of the thread produces said conspiracy. The result: it's passive-aggressive. Pulls us in and tries to hook.
edit on 28-11-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard
I'm really curious as to what hidden agenda I have. Apparently as a bisexual I have a hidden agenda to make everyone in the world gay so let's figure out what my other hidden agenda is so I can start acting upon it too.

(Sorry but I don't like being accused of something, especially when you didn't bother to say why in your response)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Collateral

Myth or not, there have been many cases where a doctor will wrongly diagnose someone with cancer in order to make a lot of money of the treatment. Here is an old thread that really did not get much attention:
Doctor makes $65,000,000 from false diagnosis of cancer

www.naturalnews.com...


edit on 29-11-2014 by jrod because: a



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

If you want to know what they would do, look at Nicola Tesla, he discovered a way to have free abundant energy. Today we don't have free abundant energy.

Look at all the top secret military craft we don't learn about for decades that they don't mind keeping secret from us or how long it took for us to learn about all the studies done with invisibility cloaks.

Sometimes things are kept a secret so that other countries like North Korea don't learn about our secrets and sometimes it is kept a secret for the better of mankind because we'd freak out knowing those secrets.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

If you want to know what they would do, look at Nicola Tesla, he discovered a way to have free abundant energy. Today we don't have free abundant energy.

Look at all the top secret military craft we don't learn about for decades that they don't mind keeping secret from us or how long it took for us to learn about all the studies done with invisibility cloaks.

Sometimes things are kept a secret so that other countries like North Korea don't learn about our secrets and sometimes it is kept a secret for the better of mankind because we'd freak out knowing those secrets.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria

Yeah, you still haven't sold me on the whole conspiracy.

If it were true, why would BPh bother developing any cures for diseases? It would be in their interest to develop drugs that only treat the disease over the lifetime of the patient.

So you are alledging that BPh spends Billions of dollars on developing cures & treatments with no intention of selling it because they wouldn't make money off of them?

Im sure a Scientist who was 99% sure he had a cure would have no trouble crowd funding/finding investors to fund the final rounds of testing.




top topics



 
55
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join