Cancer Cured in Canada, But Big Pharma Says NO WAY!

page: 10
96
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
jeez I just saw the video on page 8. weird that it has been moved or removed other places...

Wish we would have known this a long time ago. My best friends mother died of cancer when she was only 6




posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
There are safe cures and solutions to all of the world's ills and they are found in nature. Until people wake up and shake off the two main evils in the world...greed and religion...nothing will change



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
It wasn't that long ago that cancer, of any kind, did not exist.
Isn't it funny how the more industrialisation and globalisation spread, the more diseases and illnesses also came into existence?

Imo they've known how to cure it all along.
There was something about a cure for some form of cancer a while ago here in Australia. But haven't heard anything about it since. Wonder why, or not.

The truth is that they don't want to have cures widely available for thing's which can be treated with medications. If they went around curing everything, they'd be out of a job pretty quickly.

It's a sick type of business sense.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
I survived acute lymphoblastic leukemia as a child, and I can say for certain chemo does work.

But does it work for all other forms of cancer? That's debatable.

If I ever came down with another form of cancer, I would try a lot of different therapies: alkaline, asparagus, b 17, hemp oil and probably conventional ones.

Big pharma has no incentive to cure anyone cheaply with natural products.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by juggalo77
www.rinf.com... soooooooooooo curing people of cancer dosent fit in with their business plan,and these people are supposed to be in the business of helping people arnt they???? not good


We live in a world now, where the advancement of gross income dominates over the betterment of everything around us.

Why save people even if we have the technology or the means? If we stall the disease, we can make money with treatments which will prolong your pain. We can offer medication which will get you by. If we fix the problem right off the bat, no one makes money.

Pretty good assessment?

Star and Flag for post.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by juggalo77
 


Well, that video is no longer available. I guess it goes to show that anything can be shut down for reasons of "NATIONAL SECURITY."



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by juggalo77
 


The video was removed. But I wouldn't be surprised if this was true. Suffering is lucrative to big pharma.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gunpowder Plot
Why save people even if we have the technology or the means? If we stall the disease, we can make money with treatments which will prolong your pain. We can offer medication which will get you by. If we fix the problem right off the bat, no one makes money.

Pretty good assessment?


Naw...that doesn't account for my cancer being cured by radiation therapy, does it?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Why would big phar and medicine want a cure for cancer? My partner was treated for cancer in a tonsil at Univ. of Chicago - chemo / radiation over 5 or six week period to the tune of about $300,000. Multiply that by 20 or so during his stay, and then figure out how many they would put through the treatment over a year's time.....big bucks!

He has never been the same, lost all his teeth, still has mouth pain with any type of mild spice and never regained his energy and his treatment was in 2005. The side effects were so downplayed it was a joke and when he ran out of insurance, well too bad, so sad....

These butchers otherwise known as surgeons and the hospitals in which they practice and the big phars are rich beyond belief.

There are alternative approaches out there but how to find the right one. I believe there are and were many "cures" found and each was destroyed by the powers that be. They don't want a cure - no more than the oil companies and their investors want alternative fuel.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
video is not available anymore? does ats media has it?

otherwise could some1 please reupload it!

cheers!



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by digalog
 


Researchers publish results in journals regarding things like this. There is no way a doctor would have found the cure for cancer and it be reputable and them not publish that. That is a nobel prize for them!

The companies may not want to make it for obvious reasons, but don't you think the doctor would be publshing in every single peer reviewed journal if this were true? Don't you find the premise of this a bit disturbing?

Edit: Wow, after reading more about this it seems it was a research article that spawned this discussion. I hope this can be replicated! Here is another source that lends much credibility to the claim: abcnews.go.com...
The part of that video on page 8 that scares me is that she claims other drugs have lost steam because of patent problems too. We need to reform patent law so these kinds of drugs can be protected and developed. If we are to live in a Capitalistic society we need to protect the capitalists or they will have no incentive to produce!

[edit on 25-9-2009 by memarf1]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by memarf1
 


Here is another site, Glenn Beck has reported on it and a video is on there as well. Here is the link:

purplemedicalblog.blogspot.com...



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beefcake
Holy smokes i just watch the video last night and now its gone. Its not like the video was new it was an older story. Come on it was CTV news they aren't strict on terms of use you can find tons of their videos online.

Either way the video is still up under a different name.



Go ahead and post this in at the front of the thread.


I re-posted video on page 8 but anyway here it is again



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Beefcake
 


Yeah, I found another video and some more stuff too, See my previous post. I can't believe this! I usually like to debunk, but this seems to be simply true!

Here's the one I found!




[edit on 25-9-2009 by memarf1]



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Hold on a second here. This drug has been shown to shrink cancer in rats and sometimes in humans. That's great - but it's not a cure. The headline is waaay to sensational.

Also - who cares if it doesn't get funded by big pharma? The problem is the government preventing you from buying DCA over the counter.

Seems like nobody gets the real con game here - its the regulations that make big pharma rich. Clinical trails, intellectual property law - you big government supporters only have yourselves to blame for this.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Guidance.Is.Internal
 

Maybe there's a good reason for it not to be sold over the counter.


A controlled clinical trial of DCA for the treatment of congenital lactic acidosis in children found that the drug was well tolerated at a dose of 12.5 mg/kg every 12 hours and blunted the increase in circulating lactate following a meal [5]. Patients received placebo for 6 months and then were randomly assigned to receive an additional 6 months of placebo or DCA. However, the drug failed to improve neurologic outcome. The efficacy of DCA was also evaluated for the treatment of mitochondrial myopathy, encephalopathy, lactic acidosis and stroke-like episodes (MELAS) [6]. The clinical trial ended early because of onset or worsening peripheral toxicity; all 15 of 15 patients randomized to DCA (25 mg/kg/day) were removed from the trial compared to 4 of 15 patients randomized to placebo. The authors concluded that DCA-associated neuropathy dominated the assessment of any potential benefit in MELAS.

www.highlighthealth.com...

Perhaps more testing is in order to find out how it can be used in such a way as to avoid the toxicity. People self administering it is certainly not going to find that out.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Another great article on eating fresh raw whole foods can lead to cure for cancer.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Guidance.Is.Internal
 

Maybe there's a good reason for it not to be sold over the counter.


A controlled clinical trial of DCA for the treatment of congenital lactic acidosis in children found that the drug was well tolerated at a dose of 12.5 mg/kg every 12 hours and blunted the increase in circulating lactate following a meal [5]. Patients received placebo for 6 months and then were randomly assigned to receive an additional 6 months of placebo or DCA. However, the drug failed to improve neurologic outcome. The efficacy of DCA was also evaluated for the treatment of mitochondrial myopathy, encephalopathy, lactic acidosis and stroke-like episodes (MELAS) [6]. The clinical trial ended early because of onset or worsening peripheral toxicity; all 15 of 15 patients randomized to DCA (25 mg/kg/day) were removed from the trial compared to 4 of 15 patients randomized to placebo. The authors concluded that DCA-associated neuropathy dominated the assessment of any potential benefit in MELAS.

www.highlighthealth.com...

Perhaps more testing is in order to find out how it can be used in such a way as to avoid the toxicity. People self administering it is certainly not going to find that out.



Simple - let people make an informed decision themselves. There will naturally emerge from such a system medical review companies so people know what to buy. Caveat emptor - the way it should be in a free country ...



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Guidance.Is.Internal
Caveat emptor - the way it should be in a free country ...


Not exactly sure of the point you were trying to make, but as to caveat emptor...whatever treatment you are entertaining, there is an urgency to dealing with cancer. The best chance you get is with early detection. The danger with alternative therapies is that you can use Essiac...or whatever...to no avail, and lose the threshold of treatment where standard medicine would work. That makes 'buyer beware' a slightly more ominous admonition, then, doesn't it?

And I really have to point out the irony that posters here will cite 'some guy on the net' til the cows come home. They'll slam the establishment, call conspiracy at every turn, and avow to never use conventional cancer treatments as a result.

But Phage and I come out as cancer survivors, we're not the only ones here...he using chemo, me with radiation, and all you hear is crickets. And there has yet to be ONE individual ATS member come forward to say that they...themselves...were cured by alternative means and can provide the proof.

Sooooo....early detection is imperative, and time a'wasted kills you. I know I stand by my decision quite comfortably.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chovy
They don't care about your health... They care about how much money you have. And how much they can take before you die, so a cure would be a bad thing for big pharma.


Yeah is true. There is nothing to be surprised. I mean look around and pay attention how much advertising for drugs we have 24/7.


Every day Americans are subjected to a barrage of advertising by the pharmaceutical industry. Mixed in with the pitches for a particular drug—usually featuring beautiful people enjoying themselves in the great outdoors—is a more general message. Boiled down to its essentials, it is this: "Yes, prescription drugs are expensive, but that shows how valuable they are. Besides, our research and development costs are enormous, and we need to cover them somehow. As 'research-based' companies, we turn out a steady stream of innovative medicines that lengthen life, enhance its quality, and avert more expensive medical care. You are the beneficiaries of this ongoing achievement of the American free enterprise system, so be grateful, quit whining, and pay up." More prosaically, what the industry is saying is that you get what you pay for.

Is any of this true? Well, the first part certainly is. Prescription drug costs are indeed high—and rising fast. Americans now spend a staggering $200 billion a year on prescription drugs, and that figure is growing at a rate of about 12 percent a year (down from a high of 18 percent in 1999).[1] Drugs are the fastest-growing part of the health care bill—which itself is rising at an alarming rate. The increase in drug spending reflects, in almost equal parts, the facts that people are taking a lot more drugs than they used to, that those drugs are more likely to be expensive new ones instead of older, cheaper ones, and that the prices of the most heavily prescribed drugs are routinely jacked up, sometimes several times a year.


www.nybooks.com...

Is over 400 billion $ market e year and this is a below estimation of the real number. You'd think they gonna give up that kind of money? You think they really care to find the right cures so to lose the giant market and the huge profit? Don't think so.


1. The purpose and driving force of the pharmaceutical industry is to increase sales of pharmaceutical drugs for ongoing diseases and to find new diseases to market existing drugs.
2. By this very nature, the pharmaceutical industry has no interest in curing diseases. The eradication of any disease inevitably destroys a multi-billion dollar market of prescription drugs. Therefore, pharmaceutical drugs are primarily developed to relieve symptoms, but not to cure.
3. If eradication therapies for diseases are discovered and developed, the industry has a basic interest to suppress, discredit and obstruct these medical breakthroughs in order to make sure that diseases continue as the very basis for a lucrative prescription drug market.
4. The economic interest of the pharmaceutical industry is the main reason why no medical breakthrough has been made for the control of the most common diseases such as cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, heart failure, diabetes, cancer, and osteoporosis, and why these diseases continue like epidemics on a worldwide scale.
5. For the same economic reasons, the pharmaceutical industry has now formed an international cartel by the code name "Codex Alimentarius" with the aim to outlaw any health information in connection with vitamins and to limit free access to natural therapies on a worldwide scale.
6. At the same time, the pharmaceutical companies withhold public information about the effects and risks of prescription drugs and life-threatening side effects are omitted or openly denied.
7. In order to assure the status quo of this deceptive scheme, a legion of pharmaceutical lobbyists is employed to influence legislation, control regulatory agencies (e.g., FDA), and manipulate medical research and education. Expensive advertising campaigns and PR agencies are used to deceive the public.
8. Millions of people and patients around the world are defrauded twice: A major portion of their income is used to finance the exploding profits of the pharmaceutical industry. In return, they are offered a medicine that does not even cure.


And that is written by a doctor: www.mnwelldir.org...

I can go on forever but I guess this shows the clear picture of what we're dealing with.


[edit on 28-9-2009 by Telos]





top topics
 
96
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join