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.

 

EBC-46 the Queensland drug that has cured cancer

page: 2
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Oops.. it just struck me: DCA and EBC-46.... they are not one and the same? Or, are they? Probably not but does anyone know?

Crap! Sorry! Not enough coffee yet this morning it seems! Right in the thread it states they are the same. [Blushing deeply]

Nothing like proving I'm an idiot.

[edit on 13/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]




posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
You're not an idiot, with all the acronyms out there for cancer drugs it's very easy to get confused. These two do appear to be very different.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Last nights program can be found at

Channel 7 sunday night programs web page
Main Page

The story and Video is called "Nature's Solution"
Be warned the web page is alive with ads but eventually you will find the video - good luck looking forward to your thoughs

If you can't get the video working try this
Story



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
and does anybody mention a price tag
for this cancer cure???
I'm sure it's not gonna be cheap
$1,000 a shot ????
$10,000 a shot ????
what is the price for curing cancer ???


Boondock-saint.....

As per my many previous posts & my threads in this forum, I work at a senior level in "Pharma / Big Medical Industry"

I am currently involved in leading-edge new-technology solutions for oncology (i.e. cancer).

As 1 example, here is a link to 1 of my threads pertaing to 1 of these new technologies:

NanoKnife: Cancer Breakthrough Without Radiation or Drugs

Unless you truly have deep experience & understanding pertaining to the clinical & commercal aspects of these areas of research, product development, clinical trials, regulatory compliance, etc..., it is incredibly easy to MASSIVELY underestimate the MASSIVE costs & complexities required to bring new oncology solutions to market.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


While not in the industry myself, I have several friends who are and I completely side with you.

To everyone else, sometimes it's too easy for we A.T.S.ers to hold a cynical view of the world hence some automatically assuming any industry/organisation/individual with any power or influence intends only to take advantage of us.

Australia (and indeed much of the western world) is highly regulated, sometimes over-regulated but that's what ensures our high standard of living and REDUCES the chance of us getting scammed.

The T.G.A. will not allow this drug to go on the market until it is THOROUGHLY tested and this is an incredibly expensive and time consuming process. Behind the T.G.A. there are people just like you and I who have families and loved ones affected by cancer and desperately want a cure but imagine how they would feel if they took shortcuts to get this on the market only to find severe side-effects down the track? Not to mention the lawsuits......

If it works, we'll see it and the companies that invest huge amounts of money into developing drugs (not to mention the billions wasted on the ones that fail) deserve to see a return. It will likely be subsidised too. In this country anyway.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by majestictwo
 


Wow. That's cancer cure #2 out of Canada!
en.wikipedia.org...

That reminds me of that movie with I think it was Sean Connery in the Amazon rain forest.

Anyways, It's alsays odd how they have to have these 'special' VERY EXPENSIVE human trials on terminal diseases. I mean if you're dying anyways why wait 6 years to test something already shown to be effective?



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
If the drug can help animals be cured of cancer, maybe, just MAYBE... the drug will help the Tasmania devil's?



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by OZtracized
 


OZtracized.....

Thank you!


I appreciate your thoughtful, well expressed reply.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Anyways, It's alsays odd how they have to have these 'special' VERY EXPENSIVE human trials on terminal diseases. I mean if you're dying anyways why wait 6 years to test something already shown to be effective?


For the same reason they will restrict the amount of pain killers a terminal patient can be administered because they "might become addicted".

Because they a pompous arrogant hidebound bureaucrats.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Anyways, It's alsays odd how they have to have these 'special' VERY EXPENSIVE human trials on terminal diseases. I mean if you're dying anyways why wait 6 years to test something already shown to be effective?

For the same reason they will restrict the amount of pain killers a terminal patient can be administered because they "might become addicted".
Because they a pompous arrogant hidebound bureaucrats.


Geeky_Bubbe.....

To which "pompous arrogant hidebound bureaucrats" do you refer?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


The governmental regulators.

Please take no offense from my comment. I'm actually a very vocal supporter of the pharmaceuticals industry.

The question was: If someone is going to die anyway what harm is it to allow them access to this even though it hasn't gone through all the requisite human trials. It's the "Die anyway" as in TERMINAL that is the operative parameter here.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 


Actually the only stories I hear regarding painkillers and terminal patients are quite the opposite!

To give an example, I work closely with a guy who's father had terminal cancer and was prescribed morphine. As his tolerance increased, his Doctor simply wrote scripts for more and more. Ridiculous amounts in fact. My workmate expressed quite a lot of anger about this.

I felt it would have been insensitive to inform him that morphine is actually quite safe, does not put much stress on internal organs and was unlikely to speed up his demise at all but tolerance develops rapidly and with tolerance comes dependence. Since his cancer was terminal, the Doctor clearly wasn't concerned with him becoming dependent, only that his last few months wouldn't be spent in pain.

I apologise if you have any personal accounts to the contrary.

As for human trials of this drug, I would hazard a guess that terminal patients (volunteers of course) would be the first in line.

The Tasmanian Devil trials idea is a good one! Poor little fellas seem to be doomed.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by OZtracized]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by OZtracized
 


In the US pain killers are not completely left up to a physician's discretion. There are provisions for an in hospital patient to be placed in a drug induced coma until they pass as a means of controlling pain. Patients who wish to remain at home, or have not choice because of finances, struggle under much less liberal narcotic availability.

As for the human drug trials and terminal patients: Drug trials do not accept the "lost causes" because they fear they will introduce too many failures into the outcome and reduce their chances of getting the drug approved.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 


Good thing they found the stuff here they hey?........

I do accept your arguments but at the end of the day you and I can only speculate. In fact, it would seem that the only person here qualified to answer these questions is Maybe...maybe not and this person has pretty much done so.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by majestictwo
 


Wow. That's cancer cure #2 out of Canada!
en.wikipedia.org...

That reminds me of that movie with I think it was Sean Connery in the Amazon rain forest.

Anyways, It's alsays odd how they have to have these 'special' VERY EXPENSIVE human trials on terminal diseases. I mean if you're dying anyways why wait 6 years to test something already shown to be effective?



Interesting - it was a Sean Conery movie.



1992 Medicine Man - Connery plays a scientist working in the South American rainforest.


Also your last point is good - Here recently a man had several cancers around his body I mean large growths internal inoperable and when the doctors had tried everything they had forgotten the female drug for breast cancer in his last week he was given it in desperation, he recovered and the tumors have disappeared.

MJ2


[edit on 18-6-2010 by majestictwo]



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
The plant is the Blushwood Shrub......if anyone is wondering.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
The plant is the Blushwood Shrub......if anyone is wondering.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by OZtracized
 


Well said, in the UK afaik, the philosophy has totally gone the way of pain alleviation, as I say this is only what I have been told by relatives who work in the NHS.

Right at the top of the big pharma power structure there might be accountants making dubious decisions re research, eventual product development and roll out but throughout the company structure are decent people doing their damnedest to bring new improved drugs to the market.

That word market is the thing that drives the companies on to make profits as well as drugs and that is a good thing as it insures a steady stream of new drugs and plenty of cash for research, not perfect but the best fastest way of ordering society we have tried so far. Utopianism should be avoided at all costs, it never works cos we are crap avaricious hierarchical apes, at our core.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   
The original news doco has been removed but the company has this website.

Q-Biotics

Other article, indicate the drug for testing on human early 2011.

Just in-case your interested

MJ2



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
The biggest problem is that the drug works only at tumors directly accessible by injection.

These are not the most dangerous cancers---systematic, metastatic ones are, and there is no hope to find them all .

The company's own site says "there is no evidence to suggest that EBC-46 has any efficacy against metastatic disease".

I hope it works, and it could be useful, but it is not the great cure. Isolated, non-metatstic, non-operable but accessible to injection tumors are not the common case.
edit on 23-10-2010 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join