Cancer is DEAD: Cancer cures from A to Z

page: 20
453
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by gsup1
 



Originally posted by gsup1
...
I know you are trying to help but don't be quick to dismiss big pharma. Lots of people that work there have passion for what they are doing ( trying to help people live ).


I'm sure that a lot of people with at least an once of humanity work for big pharma but that doesn't change the fact that big pharma are in it just for the money. What they provide is treatments (and I use that term loosely) for those who can afford them.

Where any question is raised about the safety or the efficacy of any of their products, they don't want to know and they'll spend millions to keep any bad news about their products quiet with the backing of the FDA and the AMA.

We are their milchcows and the last thing they want is for us to get well and quit needing their drugs.

(Rant over :flame




posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
That is total BS on the safety and efficacy comment you made. The FDA has extremely rigorous standards that small molecule based drugs must meet. That is why many drugs fail clinical trials and very few pass. This is why companies charge lots of money for their products since they have to compensate for the money spent on developing other drrugs that failed in clinical trials and hence failed FDA standards. Occasionally, even with those standards some drugs are recalled but that is far and few in between.

I worked in a biotech company as an intern and trust me, the FDA in their eyes is the watchdog and everyone tries their best to meet their standards.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


One thing I feel the need to point out is that the term "cure for cancer" is a stretch. What might be a better way to describe them is by calling them "treatments" rather then cure.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


While I do believe that the big pharma business has got too much power, and influence in many areas of life. I can't believe that a cure for cancer is being withheld. Ask yourself, if you were the scientist who found a cure for cancer woudl you allow anything to get in your way from making your discovery wide known? You'd be the savior of millions, the hero of billions, and a huge millionaire.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DavidKrabs
 


Yeah in some place cancer is being looked at as a chronic condition. Sometimes it caused by genetics and sometimes environmental factors.

Yes there is no single cure for cancer since there are many types of cancer. One drug that can work effectively against colon cancer, will not work against prostate cancer.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by gsup1
You can see that they tested these drugs that had IC50 ( concentration needed to inhibit 50% of whatever it is you are trying to stop) they ranged from .3 micro molar ( 300 nano molar ) to 22 micro molar. This is just basic study, they will mostly like try to get those drugs by changing the structute so that the it will be in the 100-50 nm range. You want nano molar range because you want the drug to be as potent as possible and as less toxic as possible when you give it in high doses to a patient. The 50 micro molar potency is fine but you need to do better in order to get a drug out there and find out what exactly in the aloe inhibits the growth of those cells. If you manage to get it down to nano molar, you need to proceed with mice experiments because you want to see how the drug acts in vivo ( in the body ) and see if it works. Then you would do these experiments in primates and if they are safe, you go onto humans. I know what you are thinking, this is slow and that is what they are trying to solve on how to find an animal model that can be used to predict results in humans. In vitro results only give a preview of the POTENTIAL for it to help against a disease. Basing results on just in vitro experiments ( in the cell culture plates where you cannot simulate the bodily environment ) is not a good idea.


I think you misunderstand my questioning.

What I was asking is how would one scale nm, etc, from a mouse model, etc, into real life dosages? Reason for such would be to determine how absurd of amounts of any given thing you would need to take to try to have results. Inherently, this then equates how absurd it would cost to attempt to maintain a regimen.

This perspective is important to have people not waste their money on half measures, and bring into reality the scale of potential adverse effects, for perspective, from trying to actually take how much of etc that would actually be needed.For instance there are many things that are fine in 'small' doses, but if you go and manage to eat half a pound of etc you might have a bad day.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
You try to make it as potent as possible, then do in vitro studies for toxicities..i.e there are toxicity assays against hepatocytes ( liver cells ) that you do in the plates and then you go on off into mouse to see how much you need to lets say kill a particular type of tumor. If it is successful there, you go onto monkeys. Then in Phase I clinical trials you give drugs to patients to determine if they have harmful effects. Since this is cancer, Phase I will actually involve cancer patients and not healthy patients as for other diseases. However, the does may not be therapeutic as they will determine that in the trials.

So no, there is no way to say ok, we used this much of the drug in the mouse and that means we'll need to give this much to a human, without doing clinical trials on human cancer patients. If you find a way to accurately predict the outcome of a drug against a particular cancer based on mouse results, then you would save 5 yrs in the drug development process and hence more drugs can come out.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by DavidKrabs
 



Originally posted by DavidKrabs
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


While I do believe that the big pharma business has got too much power, and influence in many areas of life. I can't believe that a cure for cancer is being withheld. Ask yourself, if you were the scientist who found a cure for cancer woudl you allow anything to get in your way from making your discovery wide known? You'd be the savior of millions, the hero of billions, and a huge millionaire.


You'll get no argument from me here. Both pharma and the medical profession are making huge profits "curing" cancer via surgery, chemo and radiation as well as the profits from screening and prevention services. If they could add more pills, potions or whatever to this cocktail, they'd be on it like a shot.

The problem is that the real cure for cancer was found more than 100 years ago and it basically comes down to living within the laws of nature. There's very little profit to be made from instructing patients on how to eat, rest, manage stress, avoid toxins and exercise properly although some small income to be made from managing fasts to support the body in healing itself. To be fair, there was little interest from the patients who didn't want to change their unhealthy lifestyles and were happier to put faith in doctors/medicines that promised easy "cures."

Reference: Natural Hygiene Society



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Really amazing job the OP did
keep it up im happy to see that there are some people still capable of helping the public like this



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by DavidKrabs
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


One thing I feel the need to point out is that the term "cure for cancer" is a stretch. What might be a better way to describe them is by calling them "treatments" rather then cure.


I donno about that. Both my urologist and my oncologist told me that radiation treatment would cure my cancer, and it did. How about I u2u their names, you contact them and tell them what you're saying...then report back on that discussion?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Slightly veering off topic, but I work in project to develop a sustainable plant based treatment for malaria, it is basically using fast-track breeding to develop a hybrid of Artemisia annua with a higher yield of the active compound Artemisia which has been used by the Chinese to treat malaria for 3000 years...anyway...I started researching other plants that have been tested against malaria. Syrian Rue has been shown in trials to not only treat it, but to completely destroy the parasitic protozoa. Same with Nigella sativa. Both, and this is where I get back to topic, are also proving very effective at killing certain types of cancer cells. Neither of these plants which are CURES are getting any serious attention by drug developers, yet the treatments are. Funny that.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Neither of these plants which are CURES are getting any serious attention by drug developers, yet the treatments are. Funny that.


Zyflamend, an herbal based preparation is in clinical trials for treating prostate and, I believe, breast cancer. Things do happen.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I appreciate all of your appreciation!

reply to post by Myendica
 


Funny response!

I don't know that I'll have the patience to PDF it, have never done it. I'm supposed to have been making a movie all this time.
Here it is in DOC form:
agimanhattanproject.com...
It'll be integrated into normal HTML there in a day or 2.


THANK YOU..............THANK YOU .........THANK YOU...........

I have copied it off of DOC and I will have it always, when the internet goes down I will still be able to CURE cancer for people that have no hope !!!!!

Thanks !!!
[edit on 22-8-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Thanks for all the great efforts from the posters in this forum. Great job guys!



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
wow great thread, so much information here.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
It would be awesome if I could share the webpage containing this info on facebook.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Whitbit
 


Hey Whitbit, check back a few pages, I created a PDF file with all the info in that you might find useful.

Sadly however, my mum lost her fight with cancer last week - turns out she had a particularly virulent form of it, the damn thing just ate her away in the end. We had her funeral today, what a sad affair. So many friends, we had about 120 people there to share the moment.

RIP Mum.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenChild
reply to post by Whitbit
 


Hey Whitbit, check back a few pages, I created a PDF file with all the info in that you might find useful.

Sadly however, my mum lost her fight with cancer last week - turns out she had a particularly virulent form of it, the damn thing just ate her away in the end. We had her funeral today, what a sad affair. So many friends, we had about 120 people there to share the moment.

RIP Mum.

My condolences. Lost my father that way too.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Thanks Johnny, it's not easy, I must admit.

Doesn't matter how much you were expecting it, when it happens it's still a shock to the system.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
So...do any of these cures actually work?





new topics
top topics
 
453
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join