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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 01:36 PM
Ok, a few immediate thoughts:

* Efficacious cancer therapies like Avastin are worth tens of billions (USD) in revenues per year to the pharma company that secures the rights to it
* Promising cancer technologies like antibody fragment technologies are snapped up at huge prices (like $500m acquisition of the UK co Domantis by giant GSK relatively recently). These technologies are unproven but promising, and therefore may be worth billions in revenue pa in years to come
* Glycoproteins are not new.
* The papers cited are stone age – 1999 and even 2003 is seriously old in this field. If there was something juicy here, hungry big fish would have snapped it up.
* The really exciting breakthrough thinking in cancer is now that rogue cells within the population of stem cells at the core of every organ are responsible for cancer which explains why cancer treatments may not cure cancer unless they act on these rogue stem cells. If you want a space to watch, watch this one.
* Who the hell are these authors? Some “health” writer – ie otherwise not employed – or a biochemist – dime a dozen? Wake me up when a real scientist speaks.

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 02:17 PM
reply to post by chameleon302

i buy apricot seeds, as well as laetrile tablets, from mexico through the mail. $20 u.s. supplies three of us at least 12 months. the clinics you mention sound like they prey on desperate people and that's a shame.

i guess b17 may very well be "quackery", but why is it illegal? why do i have to go to mexico to buy it? these questions tell me things that, i personally, rely on for my personal answers. much more than quackwatch or similar studies. simple facts speak more clearly to me then do paid studies.

it's the same thing as aspartame. aspartame cleary effects human health in a negative way, yet there is a natural substitute that has been banned from american consumption. start answering these questions and the waters become less muddy.

these are my beliefs that i'm sharing. they are not meant to be taken as gospel and criticized. only to point out possible new avenues for others to research. that's all.


posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:45 AM
Just for you to know...

Gc-MAF [the miraculous glyco-protein] is a naturally made molecule and is not patentable, though its manufacturing process is patent protected. There is no evidence of any current effort to commercialize this therapy or put it into practice. Should such an effective treatment for cancer come into common practice, the income stream from health insurance plans for every oncology office and cancer center in the world would likely be reduced to the point of financial insolvency and hundreds of thousands of jobs would be eliminated.

You may read about this and get much more relevant information here:

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:33 AM

Originally posted by mungodave
* The papers cited are stone age – 1999 and even 2003 is seriously old in this field. If there was something juicy here, hungry big fish would have snapped it up.
* Who the hell are these authors? Some “health” writer – ie otherwise not employed – or a biochemist – dime a dozen? Wake me up when a real scientist speaks.

Those are merely assumptions so you should be careful. Assuming that just because these papers are old and nobody cared about them , automatically invalidates the research is folly to say the least.

The author of the article may have written it , but he has put most , if not all , of the research done by Dr. Yamamoto , including sources to where they can be found.

Peace !

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:01 PM
The papers you're talking about were just the beginning. You should read the ones that came out this year. I'm sorry but I didn't have the time to go through them yet but I will when I manage to get the opinion from specialists.

People tend to forget this takes time. From the first evidences you must formulate your theory and afterwords [I'm jumping many steps] you may start the first trials.

Killing people from the cure you claim to have found is as bad has the disease itself.

[edit on 02/11/2008 by novrod]

[edit on 02/11/2008 by novrod]

posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 11:15 AM
An interesting related article is the iGEM, Genetically Engineered Machine Competition taking place this week at MIT.

Last year, someone engineered a form of bacteria that can seek out tumors reliably. The next step is to further modify the bacteria to release tumor necrosis factor or some other agent to shrink or destroy these tumors.

Not exactly around the corner, but this is a very promising approach.

Those guys at MIT are quite smart, actually.

posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 03:03 PM

Originally posted by novrod
The papers you're talking about were just the beginning. You should read the ones that came out this year. I'm sorry but I didn't have the time to go through them yet but I will when I manage to get the opinion from specialists.

People tend to forget this takes time. From the first evidences you must formulate your theory and afterwords [I'm jumping many steps] you may start the first trials.

Killing people from the cure you claim to have found is as bad has the disease itself.

[edit on 02/11/2008 by novrod]

[edit on 02/11/2008 by novrod]

50+ years without curing a disease. That is a lot of time to give. Honestly.

But there are "treatments" galore, each costing a fair amount of money. My mother? She pays about 10k for the CHOP and about 20k for the rituxin she recieves every time her lymphoma begins growing again. That is per dose, and each treatment requires between 6-8 doses over a two month period.

So, i asked myself, "Why am i donating to cancer research through charitable organizations?" It does seem that cancer research can be adequately funded via the astronomical costs applied to treatment.

Add to this that the prices get overinflated so that the insurance companies can haggle down the price, and the companies can make the profits they still want. Of course, if you are uninsured you are screwed because you are billed the original price anyway. You don't get to haggle.

Healthcare is becoming a scam. Honestly. It is sad that we have no other option (than to allow ourselves to die).

posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 04:22 PM

posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 07:45 PM

Originally posted by wozza
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 ......

What you need to find out is who are the American Cancer Society funded by - I haven't looked but I'll bet that they're an independant organisation who's funding comes from various vested interest groups - like big pharmas.

The tactic of creating impressive sounding pseudo official bodies of "independant experts" goes back to Bernays, the creator of modern propaganda techniques - as soon as someone hears "American Cancer Society" they think they must be an important body who know what they're talking about, & as soon as this impressive sounding name calls someone else a quack they instantly discredit them in the eyes of the public.

I'm not saying this is a cure, just that the discrediting of them bears all of the marks of an old Bernays trick.

posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 07:52 PM
Just to add to my last post you can find a short list of companies who are "committed to helping the ACS":

These are:



dressbarn, inc.

HSBC - North America

International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)

Merrill Lynch


Novartis Corporation

PartyLite Gifts, Inc.

Pfizer, Inc.


The Longaberger Company

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,/Sam’s Club


Wells Fargo

A new era of corporate outreach for the American Cancer Society has been launched through its Employer Initiative. Its goal is to build lasting relationships with major U.S. companies by offering and implementing products and services that help employers meet their business goals while increasing mission and income returns to the Society. These business goals are a combination of sales, health and wellness, employee recruitment and retention, corporate 'good citizen,' philanthropy, and community involvement activities........
....... The American Cancer Society proudly recognized these community leaders and expressed sincere gratitude for their contributions

Who'da thunk it?

[edit on 8-11-2008 by Power_Semi]

posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 08:10 PM
You can also read this full report below here:

The American Cancer Society (ACS) is accumulating great wealth in its role as a "charity." According to James Bennett, professor of economics at George Mason University and recognized authority on charitable organizations, in 1988 the ACS held a fund balance of over $400 million with about $69 million of holdings in land, buildings, and equipment (1). Of that money, the ACS spent only $90 million— 26 percent of its budget— on medical research and programs. The rest covered "operating expenses," including about 60 percent for generous salaries, pensions, executive benefits, and overhead. By 1989, the cash reserves of the ACS were worth more than $700 million (2). In 1991, Americans, believing they were contributing to fighting cancer, gave nearly $350 million to the ACS, 6 percent more than the previous year. Most of this money comes from public donations averaging $3,500, and high-profile fund-raising campaigns such
as the springtime daffodil sale and the May relay races. However, over the last two decades, an increasing proportion of the ACS budget comes from large corporations, including the pharmaceutical, cancer drug, telecommunications, and entertainment industries.

In 1992, the American Cancer Society Foundation was created to allow the ACS to actively solicit contributions of more than $100,000. However, a close look at the heavy-hitters on the Foundation's board will give an idea of which interests are at play and where the Foundation expects its big contributions to come from. The Foundation's board of trustees included corporate executives from the pharmaceutical, investment, banking, and media industries. Among them:

David R. Bethune, president of Lederle Laboratories, a multinational pharmaceutical company and a division of American Cyanamid Company. Bethune is also vice president of American Cyanamid, which makes chemical fertilizers and herbicides while transforming itself into a full-fledged pharmaceutical company. In 1988, American Cyanamid introduced Novatrone, an anti-cancer drug. And in 1992, it announced that it would buy a majority of shares of Immunex, a cancer drug maker.

Multimillionaire Irwin Beck, whose father, William Henry Beck, founded the nation's largest family-owned retail chain, Beck Stores, which analysts estimate brought in revenues of $1.7 billion in 1993.

Gordon Binder, CEO of Amgen, the world's foremost biotechnology company, with over $1 billion in product sales in 1992. Amgen's success rests almost exclusively on one product, Neupogen, which is administered to chemotherapy patients to stimulate their production of white blood cells. As the cancer epidemic grows, sales for Neupogen continue to skyrocket.

Diane Disney Miller, daughter of the conservative multi-millionaire Walt Disney, who died of lung cancer in 1966, and wife of Ron Miller, former president of the Walt Disney Company from 1980 to 1984.

George Dessert, famous in media circles for his former role as censor on the subject of "family values" during the 1970s and 1980s as CEO of CBS, and now chairman of the ACS board.

Alan Gevertzen, chairman of the board of Boeing, the world's number one commercial aircraft maker with net sales of $30 billion in 1992.

Sumner M. Redstone, chairman of the board, Viacom Inc. and Viacom International Inc., a broadcasting, telecommunications, entertainment, and cable television corporation.
The results of this board's efforts have been very successful. A million here, a million there— much of it coming from the very industries instrumental in shaping ACS policy, or profiting from it. In 1992, The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that the ACS was "more interested in accumulating wealth than in saving lives." Fund-raising appeals
routinely stated that the ACS needed more funds to support its cancer programs, all the while holding more than..

posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 10:10 AM
There is no money to be made by providing a cure for a disease,when they can cut and dice and sell you medications for the rest of your life.
Cancer is caused by things that are little understood,or maybe they just don't want to admit the cause because they would have a few billion angry people to deal with if the truth came out about it.
Half of the crap you slather on your body is the cause,contaminated groundwater anyone?....where do you think that rubber from your car tires goes when it wears off?,what about the brake dust,exhaust fumes,the toxins generated by the producers of the parts and components for your precious automobiles,and the lack of excersise you get from using them to go to buy a dew at the corner store,two blocks away.And then there is the issue of too little research into the effects of microwave radiation and magnetic fields,which we bathe ourselves in also.The environment is awash with things that effect your health in a negative way.
In my opinion,it is an issue of lifestyle which causes most ailments,but of course that would be too easy to remedy,too obvious.
Millions of reasons,no real cures,just remedies to ease the pain of the inevitable....
I wander,sorry,but I think you can make sense of what I am saying.
Take a good long hard look at yourselves.

posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 10:46 AM
Reminds me of Homeopathy
My understanding comes from years of following complentary therapies - we, will someday soon catch up with the past, I believe - in the understanding of how wholistic we are.

Edgar Cayce still fascinates me, he proclaimed we will come back to understanding ourselves more wholistically. In the past, apparently, we were treated firstly via our energy counterpart - this is where I could get into Auras, chakras, prana etc. but you get the jist. The very last kind of treatments to be used by a healer/doctor/witch/wizard/goblin or whatever would have been the kind of treatments we primarily get now with our one-track mediacal belief systems.

Well, I believe Homoepathy comes from the past. It is one of a few surviving studies. An encyclopedia will tell you it stems from Greece (the science and the name!) but I think it goes back. Maybe Atlantis. -skeptics note I said 'maybe' ! -

Homoepathy works with our energy counterpart. It's almost like a neuron firing a highly complex machine. A very minute signature of something unique by classification, has an effect. Sugar is involved too although the combination is not in contrast to the Gc-MAF - and I'm not saying that the similarity is that strong.

I just hope breakthroughs like this do emerge now, in sync with more understanding and acceptance of what we really are - i.e. the full caboodle of what we are. Our limits, our links. We are part of energy, of life.

maybe the breakthroughs will seem to be more 'simple' too. Real eureka moments arising to a simple answer.
The torture of innocent little bunnies and animals could end too and that would be cool too!
If they could stop to

posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 10:57 AM
Sorry, something weird happened before I finished my post...
...if they (we, us, whoever can when given the opportunity) could stop to letting people control the big pharma way of running things - pure profit - , maybe we'd start getting back to some home thruths.
What we are is all tied into everything discussed on this forum.
We are probably all linked in more ways than we sense or believe or understand. We mostly all have forgotten and lost knowledge.
Could we all be from eons of evolution physically - yet we incarnate countless times into the physical realities dotted around in the sly (this planet being ust one place /reality).
If so, next step. what makes us tick? do we use and understand all energies well enough? we know we don't. Reclaiming the way we directly live with and are part of a much larger picture could be a start. accepting that some complimentary therapies are a very real part of what we need to know is a start.

And hey, The Queen herself aparently doesn't go on treks without her homeopathy kit! If it's good enough for her...

posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 04:53 AM
reply to post by mungodave

Native American healers, Incan healers, African Shamen... none of these guys are scientists, but all of them have been using herbs & resins for 10,000's of years. The Amazon has seen many awsome drugs from plants & animals that have been found by scientists.

But before the scientists found most of these drugs, they got the information of their potential, because they were made aware that the natives were using these items to cure their ailments.

Old medecine is the very foundation on which many new cures are discovered.

Todays witch Doctors (ie herbalists and health nuts), aren't without some merit. Likely they have not found a cure in its self, but many of the substances they use have'nt even been tested for their potential by modern science.

Don't throw alternative medecine out the door until science has actually got of it's but from saying that don't work & physically proven each herb has no merit.

Remember most modern disease cures are derived from natural drugs, and we are only at the tip of the iceberg when it comes to looking into each and every Vegi on the planet & finding what each one could be used

posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 09:56 PM
reply to post by Static Sky

I never had time to read all the threads, so I will post this info for any who may benefit from it.

Check out..


posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 03:59 PM
Just for everyone knowledge their is a man by the name of Dr. Sebi. He can and DOES heal cancer, AIDS, diabetes. You name it. The man is truly a legend in our own time I have included a link on more about him.Dr. Sebi The guy proved to the supreme court that he could CURE AIDS! Amazing Man!!

posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 04:48 AM
Strong opinions on this one. I once had a job as the publisher of a peer review Canadian medical journal, and have a lot of respect for serious practicing physicians and researchers.

My late wife was a doctor. She died of a particulary virulent form of cancer, melanoma, at age 37.

I'd advise going back in this thread and reading what those who are informed about the nature of cancer and current bonafide research have said.

Cancer is not just a simple disease that some magic pill will ever cure. It's in great part the bodies losing of the ability to maintain cellular order and integrity.

Diet, some alternative therapies, positive outlook often contribute to one's well-being and ability to fight cancer, it's been demonstrated. But anecdotal evidence is not proof of a reproducible cure.

I'm shocked by the conspiracy theorizing that invades even discussion of this terrible disease. This should not be just another opprtunity to rant about how big business is screwing people. I can take it with the theoretical UFO stuff, the historical analysis, the religious issues. But this is about terrible extended suffering of people who are often close to us.

The pharmaceutical companies may run rampant and extract every dollar they can, at every opportunity. But no one is suppressing a cancer cure. Even the greediest heartless people would find a way to jump on the bandwagon of some new form of treatment that showed statisitcally significant results.

Mike F

posted on Dec, 23 2008 @ 10:50 PM
Hah, people complaining about high costs on cancer medication. Thank god I live in a socialistic country, so I don't have to pay a dime for any treatment nor drugs. Well, i have to pay some for drugs, for example Valium package, 120 pills costs about 20-40 bucks.. Mmm, lets pop some pills!

posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 10:45 PM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

Right, because its free all of a sudden they are benign treatments... :shk:

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in