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.


Apparently cancer cure has been around for a while

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:30 PM
i lost my sister aged 39 to metastatic breast cancer, its fingers crossed on this one, what i wonder is, what is causing our bodys to not produce this enzyme, is to do with diets, or additives that may be suppressing our bodys abilities, there are a lot more people getting it these days

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:31 PM
reply to post by americandingbat

Keep in mind that as much flak as medical researchers get for not promoting something like this in public, they get ten times as much flak if it turns out that this cures cancer only to kill you of liver failure, or something.

I recall quite a few drugs and vaccines being quietly taken off the market because they did exactly what you just said.

There was a major issue with Vicodin a few years back, if memory serves correctly. I will look for links to that.

The only excuse for this not being more widely known is, as another poster already stated, loss of revenue to the "cure for cancer" market. Yes, it really IS that horrible!!!

[edit on 3-11-2008 by ThatDGgirl]

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:43 PM
People read the post :x

Gc-MAF (this one activates the macrophages) is naturally activated in our bodies , cancer cells won't let it be activated because of the excess of nagalase.

Hence the need to introduce the activated glyco-protein Gc-MAF (you could think as an analogy of diabetis patients taking insulin , though it is completely different on what they do , you are putting something in the body , that the body is unable to produce or produces too little to have an effect).

So theoretically it couldn't harm you at all.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:50 PM

Originally posted by ToolFanMael
I would love to hear what a cancer specialist would say to this.....

Here is what the American Cancer Society says about the org that the OP linked to...


The American Cancer Society has reported that the National Health Federation promotes a wide range of unproven or dangerous cancer therapies, and has recommended that cancer patients avoid therapies and products promoted by the NHF. Quackwatch has criticized the NHF as a lobbying organization which promotes "nutritional fads, myths, and gimmicks", and described the legal difficulties of a number of leaders of the NHF.

Not saying the Gc-MAF ideas are invalid. It appears Yamamoto has managed to get a patent, and his name appears in several related articles.

Just sayin Caveat emptor

[edit on 11/3/08 by makeitso]

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:50 PM
This is amazing, HOPEFULLY something will come of it, GODDAMN pharmaceutical companies and there lust to fill their wallets.

Im convinced there are many known cures for cancer, look into Royal Rife and DCA, interesting.

Starred and flagged, if this gets brushed under the carpet WE MUSINT LET IT!!!!

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:51 PM

Originally posted by asmeone2
I am dubious about this one. I would want to be damned sure that macrophage is only going to eat cancer cells before it went into mainstream use.

This one is from my basic in Immunology as well , we all have macrophages in our blood , and they don't simply go crazy attacking everything , they are part of our immune system. They only kill previously identified harmful cells , and that includes bacteria and other big types of intruders (thats why of the macro part in the name!) , they go around "eating" and digesting big bad guys.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:55 PM
Is this something that is readily available and approved for human use already?

My girlfriends mom has pancreatic cancer. She has survived 3 years doing radiation and chemo and that's a miracle in itself.....although I don't think radiation or chemo helps at all I just think that her body is able to deal with it more than others.

But she has gotten to the point where the medication is just making her miserable and she is contemplating refusing treatment so she can have a better quality of life as opposed to length. I am currently researching some info on natural treatments and diets to give to her so that she can be doing something to combat this. Ill certainly pass this on to her and let her docs see it. She currently goes to UAB in Birmingham, AL.

On a side note I have been researching alternative therapies and they all seem to go back to one thing: Increasing oxygen in the body.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:57 PM

Originally posted by ThatDGgirl
I recall quite a few drugs and vaccines being quietly taken off the market because they did exactly what you just said.

I think you may have misread what I wrote.

I was saying that it does happen that they let medications get sold before their safety has been tested enough. The current example would be the HPV vaccine, which a lot of people are questioning.

I'm trying to say, you can't have it both ways. People say how awful it is when drugs are marketed too soon, but then they complain when a promising treatment isn't introduced to the market immediately.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:03 PM
I'd really like it if this was true. My husband has terminal cancer you see, and little by little I am watching him die a slow and at times painful death. Our fight with cancer is costing us everything, not only my health, but him, and obviously we are losing...only able to buy him small incriments of time. (maybe)

The thing about passing information like this around is that people like me become habituated to 'cures' that come to us in emails and message boards. We've looked into Doctors that swore Laetrile therapy. See this and google for more information:

And other such "All natural, miracle cures that have no side affects ect ect"
Which, to people like my husband I sounds like nirvana considering that the meds, chemo, and all the things now standard treatments cause sideaffects that, are at times, worse than the disease.

You hear of people who have been 'cured' of cancer by doing one or another alternative medical treatment. They claim these methods saved their life, but they don't tell you that prior to their *fill in the blank* treatment they did the standard chemo, radiation, and they discount that the normal therapy cured them, and claim miracles with the 'secret cure the government supresses'.

Pardon me if I sound like a cynic about alt med treatment. If you have the great fortune and money to try anything people sell you be my guest. If you have nothing to lose, then well, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. I wish you all the luck in the world.

We have been lucky enough to have access to what I consider to be one of the best standard treatment centers in the US. Cleveland Clinic. I believe that if there really were a cure for cancer, the doctor my husband sees would give it to him. The general population seems to think that doctors, insurance and Pharm companies and such want to withhold curative technologies. I think that is bunk. Insurance companies would save Billions (the average chemo cost being around 40,000 dollars a pop) while others claim big pharm companies supress it because it would mean losing those dollars themselves. I say to you there are more diseases they will continue to get rich curing or treating, not to mention the fact that they can still charge people for the cure whatever they want to, even if it is the most simple of compounds.

I guess all that being said I doubt seriously this cure is real. If it is tell me where to get it. I hope I can afford it for my husband if I could get it...We have nothing to lose. If this is just another snake oil, then really what kind of monsters pray on those who have no hope.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:06 PM
reply to post by americandingbat

Yeah, I'll cop to misreading your post. Apologies, no attack intended. BUT, did anyone get fired after that vicodin business? And the vaccine you mentioned.... was that the one where many babies died (NY, NJ ??)? There were lawsuits. But those infernal pharmaceutical companies are virtually immune to prosecution! No pun intended! I'm sure we're both disgusted with it!

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:09 PM
The cure for cancer has been around for a long time, unfortunately the man who tried to make it public was killed in an unfortunate accident his assistant tried to carry on his work but she was discredited and all her research stolen.

The problem the pharmaceuticals have with allowing this to go public, there is no money in it for them, its all about money and greed.

The problem the government have is that if people were cured they would live longer if they live longer it will cost more money and if it costs money then they don't have as much. Also they are frightened that a populated earth may change the balance of order.

I researched this when a cxlose friend of mine had cancer. It is SIC to think that many people have been silenced over cures for cancer.
Did you know that the UK Cancer group has their main office in W1 London Uk. which is an extremely affluent area. Google the head offices of charities in the UK you will see that a large , proportionate of them are in affluent areas of London. The question you have to ask is why.

How much money do you think goes to charity?

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:14 PM
If anyone cares, heres the actual journal entry this article is talking about.

Immunotherapy of metastatic colorectal cancer with vitamin D-binding protein-derived macrophage-activating factor, GcMAF

Authors: Yamamoto, Nobuto1; Suyama, Hirofumi2; Nakazato, Hiroaki3; Yamamoto, Nobuyuki4; Koga, Yoshihiko5

Source: Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, Volume 57, Number 7, July 2008 , pp. 1007-1016(10)

Publisher: Springer

Journal Notes

Slightly interesting.

If there was a "cure" (and this is no cure) and people thought that big pharma couldn't capitalize on something like this, they would be dead wrong. This would be weekly for the rest of your life (as far as I see it).

This is more of a "cancer delay".

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:22 PM
Has anyone Google mapped the address given in the essays?

Division of Cancer and Molecular Immunology, Socrates Institute for Therapeutic Immunology, 1040 66th Ave, Philadelphia, PA 19126-3305, USA Make sure to use the street view.

It appears to be someones house, not an "Institute".

Here is some info on the "institute".

[edit on 11/3/08 by makeitso]

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:31 PM
I wonder if THC has the same abilities as this. I watched the following documentary a months weeks ago. Perhaps this is why this drug is illegal and other are not?

Run From The Cure

Very enlightening video.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:33 PM
I posted something like this before.

Ive known for a long time that there was a cure for cancer. My ex's dad worked for cancer research and said point blank theres been a cure for a while now, but they cant do anything about it because the medical world would lose billions of dollars a year on medicines and treatment therapy from cancer patients every year.

Messed up.. but that is the world we live in.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by KidOK

On a side note I have been researching alternative therapies and they all seem to go back to one thing: Increasing oxygen in the body.

Makes you wonder huh?

We know that cancer cells are much more glycolytic (the warbhurg effect) than normal cells, that is: They metabolize sugar for energy at a higher rate.

Ongoing research into Ketogenic Diets has been the product of the Warbhurg effect.

So, you probably hear that because the whole point of increasing oxygen is to have the body burn fat for energy by oxidating it. If your body only burns sugar in times of extreme, quick bursts of physical activity, it will burn fat at all other times, as long as insulin levels are low. The only way to control insulin levels safely is through diet.


posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by Roufas

I personally know a cancer research scientist. She would agree that the vast majority of cancer has been cured. Her work is really focused on finding medications with the lowest side effects.

However, that said, curing cancer does not in any way mean you will never die from it. The big problem is that you have to start you treatment at a time when you body isn't so heavily damaged that it will die. So while yes cancer is either mostly or completely cured, we have a while to go in actually *detecting* cancer early enough for that 100% treatment success rate, because again even if you 100% cure your cancer cells overnight you can still die from the residual damage. At least that is what the scientist I know told me, so I consider it to be reliable information.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Roufas
Cancer Cured For Good

By Bill Sardi and Timothy Hubbell
October 2008

It works 100% of the time to eradicate cancer completely, and cancer does not recur even years later. That is how researchers describe the most convincing cancer cure ever announced.

The weekly injection of just 100 billionths of a gram of a harmless glyco-protein (a naturally-produced molecule with a sugar component and a protein component) activates the human immune system and cures cancer for good, according to human studies among breast cancer and colon cancer patients, producing complete remissions lasting 4 and 7 years respectively. This glyco-protein cure is totally without side effect but currently goes unused by cancer doctors.

The cure for cavities has been around for 20 years but for some damned reason I don't have it in my mouth yet. I guess the FDA has no clue about which medicines they are supposed to fast-track. They think its the meds that result in the biggest bribes that get the fastest track. I disagree with that policy.

Don't worry though, in 1,000 years when we are all computer controlled by the one world government, we'll all have both the cure to cancer and cavities by then accessible to all.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by truthquest]

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:50 PM
reply to post by franspeakfree

I just don't get this. This is pure Malthusian garbage. An increasing population, one that would strain the planet to it's ecological limit, would be an excellent thing for our species. It would drive us towards greater progress. Private investment would skyrocket in fields such as health, sanitation and more significantly, in automation, cybernetics, energy and technology. No, we would not gravitate toward war. International relations, and conflict resolution would reach the pinnacle of their success. Governments would invest in social welfare and there would be an elimination of the bureaucracy. Stress only makes us more efficient; that has been the maxim of all human behavior since before the agricultural revolution, before civilization...

These ignorant men who have never picked up a book in their lives are perpetuating a system of self depredation and despair. They are unaware of history, and by consequence, incapable of prognosis of future trends.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Roufas Normal Gc protein (also called Vitamin-D binding protein)

Although sometimes he's viewed as a kook by the traditional medical field, Dr. Mercola (you can google him) has been preaching for years the value of Vitamin D in the prevention and/or treatment of cancer. The medical community blames everything under the sun for cancer - trans fats, obesity, carbs, too much protein, smoking, alcohol, etc. etc. etc. It's the same medical community that tells everyone "wear sunscreen" because gawd forbid should you tan a little. And they also tell us "limit your egg consumption" - even though eggs, cod liver oil, beef liver, etc. is very high in Vitamin D3 (the very bioavailable version of D). That's why osteoporosis is so high and cancer is in the top 5 killers. Your body *needs* the sun - with no sunscreen on your skin - in order to produce Vitamin D3 - and this is what is critical to both your immune system as well as the absorption of calcium for strong bones and teeth. BTW, synthetic Vitamin D2 isn't terribly effective. People spend way too much time indoors even in the summer playing on the 'Net or video games in their air conditioning. I make it a point to kick my whole family outside - yes - without sunscreen - for at least a couple hours each day to absorb the good ole rays. Most of the relatives have lived to 95+ - cancer free - and they smoke unfiltered cigarettes, drink vodka every day, eat whole eggs/milk/real butter, bacon fat, and most importantly - spend alot of time in the sun.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by themamayada]

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in