Possible cancer cure found in blushwood shrub

Animals don't have blankets or sweaters, so they're forced to heat themselves up internally.

Also, a scoop of ice cream(or a tablespoon of sugar) and a spinach(or a potato) become the exact same thing(carbohydrates), after they're digested. And carbohydrates get stored as fats, so in reality, it has nothing to do with the "types" of calories, but rather with the "rate"(per amount) of absorption.



[edit on 7-2-2010 by np6888]

Originally posted by Paradox.
reply to post by Marlow

 

So let me state it clear: They claim to have a cancer curing drug found from a plant, and the 10 last remaining plants of the species are growing on private property?

For Christ sake. THIS IS DISINFORMATION. First of all you blundering fool Wikipedia is NOT a viable SOURCE.

I didn't claim Wikipedia is a viable sorce, at least not since 9/11.

Originally posted by Paradox.
Secondly, your Wikipedia Article Reads:

"Fontainea is a genus of plants under the family Euphorbiaceae. ****IT COMPRISES 9 SPECIES****

It then goes on to say,

"****ONE SPECIES****, Fontainea oraria, the coast fontainea, is known only from 10 living plants"

If this is true**** then there would still be 8 species of the Fontainea left if the Fontainea oraria died off!!!!!!!!!

Well, from what I have read and seen, it wasn't clear whether they use all the 9 species. Somewhere I have read or have seen in a video where they talk about the coastal blushwood, and the other thing which pointed in that direction is that the picture of the fruit in the video at 02:14 is exactly the same as the picture at Wikipedia Photograph of F. oraria, leaves and fruit. So it makes sense to assume that they use at least Fontainea oraria (but maybe also other Fontainea).

Originally posted by Paradox.
Do you even know what a "SPECIES" is?

English is not my mother tonge, but as I understand it and also see it in original english texts "species" is used as singular and also as plural word. The meaning of the word is clear to me, you don't have to teach me that, thanks.

Originally posted by Paradox.
The project leader in your video source explained the company will be growing TWO LARGE CROPS of the Fountainea.

It could be that he uses the word "Fountainea" as a short term for one of the 9 species of Fountainea which they will be growing there (which they maybe already found out works best because the research took already some years). I don't think it means they will plant all 9 species but maybe only one species which the found has the substance they use for the drug. Maybe not all 9 species have that substance in it in the same concentration, or maybe some of the 9 species don't have it in them at all.

Originally posted by Paradox.
I feel like a Father changing a diaper right now please ATS get your facts STRAIGHT before posting them.
[edit on 7-2-2010 by Paradox.]

I think thats not a valuable info for the readers, better would be to provide some more references to the subject at hand.
So here I go to post a few more links:
In this video at 03:55-04:05 the Lady from the company promises to investors "at least a ten-fold return on investment within 3 years". In case it's only Fontainea oraria what they're using (what I'm not claiming!) this link has more info about the plant: Fontainea oraria - critically endangered species listing

Originally posted by np6888
Animals don't have blankets or sweaters, so they're forced to heat themselves up internally.

And if you live in a cold climate, as a human, your metabolism will hasten. If you live in a hot environment...it will retard.

Edit to add: A mammal's body heat is regulated by its metabolism. If you're cold...you'll burn more fuel and the side-effect is thermogensis. Conversely, if you're hot...you will burn less fuel so you don't have a heat stroke.

Also, maintaining a negative energy balance will lower your body temperature. If you've ever fasted..you know this.

-Dev

Also, a scoop of ice cream(or a tablespoon of sugar) and a spinach(or a potato) become the exact same thing(carbohydrates), after they're digested. And carbohydrates get stored as fats, so in reality, it has nothing to do with the "types" of calories, but rather with the "rate"(per amount) of absorption.

You're talking about carbohydrates. Proteins and fats are digested and metabolized differently.

A tablespoon of sugar and a potato do not become the same thing after they're digested. Sugar is a combination of glucose and fructose. The end product of a potato is glucose. These two sugars are very different. Glucose can be burned as fuel by every cell in your body; fructose can only be metabolized in the liver.

So, no! A calorie is not a calorie. Proteins, carbohydrates, fats and alcohol have different effects on the metabolism.

-Dev



[edit on 7-2-2010 by np6888]

[edit on 7-2-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

Very interesting indeed. Though I do think this is relatively old news, Becuase I can recall a broadcast about finding some ocean herbs that, when properly broken down, Is a highly effective drug fighting cancer. I guess it didnt go as far as they might have thought becuase I havent heard about it since.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Thanks for your reply.

I completely understand the points you make and was hardly going to stuff myself with an unknown fruit to treat something I don't have.

I suppose I was being more hypothetical in my previous comments.

What would be good is for as many people in as many locations to be growing these plants so thet as and when scientists and those with the skill and knowledge to understand and refine them reveal their findings, there is a global supply of them ready to be harvested.

IF the simple process of digestion could act as a preventative way of treating cancer, then there will be no high costs and no restrictions to their use. Wishful thinking I know, but nature has a certain magic doesn't it?

Until we learn how and why these shrubs can do what they do, we can just wait and offer support to those behind the finding and others who will no doubt follow with research.

Cheers.

Originally posted by jjjtir
reply to post by Phage

 

reply to post by Pinkarella

 

Be careful both of you(Phage, Pinkarella) speaking about "Cures"..... in the medical establishment there is no official "Cure" for cancer.

It is merely called in medical jargon "Remission".

The resident member "VneZonyDostupa" in the medical part of ATS would kill you both for saying that.

That's funny...my urologist said that radiation treatment would cure my cancer...and my oncologist told me that I am cured.

I have no problem with the use of alternative treatment as long as it doesn't fool the patient into ignoring those that do work...until it's too late.

As I keep saying, brachytherapy rid me of my prostate cancer. While I took Zyflamend and hi-potency omega-3 fish oil to ameliorate the side effects of the radiation, it was toasting my prostate that did the trick.

And if you get hung up on Hoxley or Essiac...then the margin of cure passes and you end up with the unenviable side effects of more invasive therapy.

Stuff like incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

Y'all can pipe up as much as you want about the suppression of cures...and I hope this one finally does the trick...but my cancer got cured and I'm glad I took the path I did. So's my friend you had a tumorous kidney surgically removed.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by JohnnyCanuck]

S&F

Unfortunately, if there is no way to patent the product and turn it into privately owned intellectual property, the research won't go anywhere.

Worse, if the "active ingredient" is identified and synthesized, by several manufacturers who make oh-so-tiny changes in the molecule (like they did with interferon) - then the side-effects will be oh-so-unpredictable. Surprise, surprise.

The plant in question is called a "Blushwood Shrub"

The proper name for it is "Hylandia dockrillii"

"Hylandia" is a genus of plants under the family "Euphorbiaceae".

If anyone is good at editing "Wikipedia" pages then they should have a go at this one which is currently an orphan and a stub and named simply as "Hylandia".

Wiki page: Hylandia

And the Wiki page for "Euphorbiaceae" is HERE. It is interesting reading.

----------------------------------------

Originally posted by soficrow
Unfortunately, if there is no way to patent the product and turn it into privately owned intellectual property, the research won't go anywhere.

That's a GOOD thing.

If it were pateneted by the wrong people there would CERTAINLY be no research. At least there is a chance of something happening if it can't be patented wouldn't you agree?

[edit on 7/2/2010 by nerbot]

Originally posted by nerbot

Originally posted by soficrow
Unfortunately, if there is no way to patent the product and turn it into privately owned intellectual property, the research won't go anywhere.

That's a GOOD thing.

If it were pateneted by the wrong people there would CERTAINLY be no research. At least there is a chance of something happening if it can't be patented wouldn't you agree?

Nope. Research is only funded when there is lots of $$$ to be made, with a high profit margin. Which means the data/info/product must be patentable privately owned intellectual property.

If just *anybody* can harvest or manufacture something, no one is motivated to research and develop it.

A sad fact of our corporate life.

reply to post by soficrow


Would this find not be an exception to that rule and wouldn't the funding come from those who would choose to donate to this rather than the current myriad of cancer charities out there that ultimately work for the big pharmaceutical companies?

All I'm saying is that IF it were possible to patent the extract found in these plants then "poof" it could just dissappear overnight and nothing would ever be heard about it again.

At least if that's not an option there is a chance it could be developed.

How many people have cancer, know someone with cancer or have known someone die from it? I bet they would be glad to donate straight to a source that would go full steam ahead on this one amazing find to get it out there where it belongs. Not a 7 year wait while the greedy up the price and sweep it under the carpet.

I hope you're wrong.

Cheers, and I do understand your point.

It should be noted that there's nothing wrong with a little sugar, like a scoop of ice cream or half a bag of M&M(just make sure that you eat it before you're about to engage in some activities, or about to take a walk. Do it and see how fast your sexual energy builds up. Basically, what you've just done is bypass the digestive phase, and by burning off the sugar, you're left with the nutrients). There was a story about a woman who lived to over 110 years old and all she ate was donuts(no sexual energy from eating these though, as these are void of nutrients, empty-calories, so to speak), I believe.

According to calorie-restriction, feeding mice nutrients-filled food did not necessarily extend their life. It's only the amount that mattered.

Now the thing about vegetables is that they are slow-absorbing, very low caloried and nutrients-filled, which makes them the ideal food for the modern lifestyle(though only if you can withstand the taste, I can't, so I stick with the very small and convenient amount of M&Ms. And yes, you can live entirely on these). The problem is you don't know which of those qualities is/are responsible for longevity.

Quite frankly, I'm not quite sure if vitamins really do anything to extend your life or not. Now if you want great skin, then it's a different story, and I think that's pretty much the functions of vitamins. However, you have to be really disciplined for that(and actually, I believe that it's entirely to look like you're 10 year old when you're 15, 15 when 20, etc. if you control your diet early(the three primary effects of aging are gravity, the sun, and cell-aging, and all three are "controllable."))

[edit on 7-2-2010 by np6888]

Now regarding that sexual or "life" energy, there is a procedure called the 5 Tibetans or 5 Rites that teach you how to transmute that energy to the other chakras that would make you look younger. So you can see how you can take advantage of things when you understand how everything works(chocolate is said to be a good food, if I'm guessing correctly, this is the reason why.) Of course, it's one thing to have knowledge of something, it's another to have the discipline to do it.

Now the rites say you have to be celibate for them to work. IMO, that is not necessary. Being celibate simply means that you need sexual energy for them to work(can't transmute if there's nothing to transmute), but if there was a way to generate that energy at will, then that isn't necessary.

Now if you don't want to do that, then well, you have to release it in "some ways," or take another walk, and the nutrients will get absorbed by your body. DON'T stay in one spot until the sexual urge is gone, otherwise, it will clog up your prostate(hence the reason "whacking-off" is said to prevent prostate cancer.)

to me the goverment already found cures for everything but they dont wana give it to the public they want us to just die because the world is overpopulated i think thats why we dont get free healthcare and stuff

reply to post by Koolcdj69


Unfortunately, this is a natural product and cannot be patented, therefore big $$ cannot be made from it. Only way to deal with it is have it classifyed instead as a poison by the FDA so that nobody can use it and we all have to take the medecine the big boys want us to buy.

If this is a genuine find, i,m sure it will be the biggest breakthrough in medical science...

Originally posted by guidanceofthe third kind
that would be cool to watch under a microscope. Now if only it worked on human tumors...

How do you know that it doesn't?

-rrr

Originally posted by Koolcdj69
To those who say it will not be made public, for other long term treatments rake in much more money, this can be debunked.

1st of all, you can charge an extremely large amount for the injection, or a few doses over a year that each would cost a large sum of money, which would bring in the same as long term treatment.

2nd of all, or you could just charge an extremely large amount, for once injection that would cure the cancer that would be equal to that of a year of treatment with let's say chemo.


Not trying to be sick or destroy hope in being that only the elites would be able to afford this, but if someone is so sick in greed, they could at least be humane and greedy, causing someone to mortgage their house in order to cure their cancer.

Cancer= Money making disease, how sickening.

You can only charge ridiculous amounts of money for an injection if the product can be patented. Otherwise competition is bound to drive the price down to a reasonable margin above production cost, because anybody can enter the market. Unless an anticancer compound can be protected by a patent, the scenario that you describe is illogical.

Can a plant be patented?, can DCA or B17 vitamin be patented? they cannot.

And that is the reason why research on those substances will never be funded.

Let's assume that all available evidence of anti-cancer properties is compelling, yet insufficient, to decide either way whether any of these compounds cures cancer on humans or not.

The question is not whether they cure cancer, but whether there is reason to believe that further research should be applied and new treatments developed.

Cures for diseases are never discovered and implemented overnight, it takes loads of money and testing, and they always originate from compelling but incomplete findings that need to be put to more rigorous research.

But because of the lack for profit potential, research on those compounds WILL NOT be funded, because corporations do not have a duty to be philanthropic, but to bring earnings to their share holders.

Given that, if a cure for cancer is ever distributed to the public it will be a very expensive patented compound, regardless of whether natural (or patent-expired, such as DCA) cures exist or not, because nobody is going to be paid to look into them. Why would anybody pay? would you pay for research if you had the money? I sure wouldn't!

The only setting where this could possibly happen is in a socialist setting, ... assuming that it was well managed and it had the resources.

-rrr

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
How much do I need to take?

How much of the compounds are in each fruit?

Will the compounds stress my kidneys?

Will the compounds stress my liver?

Can the compounds reach the cancer via my digestive pathways?

Must the compounds be injected via my bloodstream?

Must the compounds be injected directly into my tumour?

If the compounds must be directed directly into my tumour, how do I ensure all of the tumour is effected by the compounds?

What if I have many tumours?

What types of tumours do the compounds effect?

[edit on 7-2-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

A lot of those questions have already been answered for vitamin B17, a compound with anti-cancer properties.

video.google.com...#

-rrr

Originally posted by jrmcleod

Originally posted by TheDragonLord
Wouldn't that be something. If after all these years of medical research to find a treatment for cancer, the answer comes from something as natural as a fruit in a forest. Hope to hear more about this. It's about time we abolish this cause of so many unnecessary deaths.

Read the bible....it clearly says that there is a cure for everthing in what God has provided...

Nice... so god creates us, makes us vulnerable to diseases, teases us by telling us there is a cure for everything. but he doesn't tell us how.

Reminds me of how I treat my younger brother

-rrr

reply to post by rickyrrr


watch this as well. DCA can also cure cancer. hope it's educational, despite Glen Beck's delivery

www.youtube.com...

-rrr