Scientists Cure Cancer, But No One Takes Notice

page: 6
242
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
*Sigh*

Not this again. I once decided to have no part in threads like these but there are just too many thing wrong with the entire article, scientifically and logically.

First of all, CANCER IS NOT INCURABLE. Stop referring to it like a death sentence, many cancers can be cured right now without the use of any miracle drugs. The curability depends on the type and stage of the cancer. Breast cancer if diagnosed before the cancer spreads can be cured by surgery, radiation, chemotherapy and hormonal therapy (which are all covered by health insurance even in many developing countries). A good portion of brain cancer can be cured by radiation therapy.

Second of all, THERE IS NO SIMPLE ANSWER TO CANCER. The underlying mechanisms involved in the transformation from normal cells to cancer cells are too complex to be overcome by one simple miracle cure.

Third, the part about the mitochondria and glycolysis are just messed up. Mitochondria are organelles present in every cell ESPECIALLY cancer cell. They do not kill anything and they are only partially involved in apoptosis. Glycolyisis does not produce lactic acid, and lactic acid is not the sole reason for the tumor's resistance to treatment.

Fourth....ok, I'm kind of geting tired of counting...
No one can entirely suppress any scientific finding. Even in no one in the researcher's institute or even the entire country of Canada takes notice of DCA in this animal model study (if it was a legitimate study at all), the researchers can just publish their results in a peer reviewed journal and their findings will be available for researchers all over the world; anyone interested can pick up from where they left off.

I'ts nice to think that one day there will be a simple answer to curing diseases, but that's just not going to happen. By far, this is only another Vitamin B17 remake.




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Erm BTW this was posted before, its a joke and stupid if the cure was not profitable then a charity would pick it up...

Think about it, cancer research charities? why not cancer cure charities? involve a slight bit of logic here people its embarrassing, no wonder everyone thinks you are conspiracy nutters...



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Unfortunatly, Cancer is Big Business. If there is a cure, imagine how many dollars will be taken from these peoples pockets. From Chemo and the chemicals they shoot you up with, to hospital bills and drugs. Cancer is making to many people rich and they would rather turn a blindeye to a cure. That is the sad thing. Money over life plain and simple.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Really? You have been here what a month and already you are a thread expert on what should and shouldnt be reposted?

Wow...It's important and just because it's been posted doesnt mean it isnt allowed to be posted again. Maybe you should check out the rules for duplicate posts because technically over half of ATS content has been discussed and rediscussed on here.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonbreath
 


Well that sounds great what about the NHS in the UK?



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by freakjive
 


Well I decided to do some research by starting with your source and then using google. The source you use is from 2007, and according to google there was a ton media coverage at that time. One of the first three sites was Newsweek, they published an article on it. The main problem was they were just conjecturing at that time on what DCA could do to cancer, and had limited testing done.

Now its around four years later and they just finished up with a Human trial on brain cancer, specifically on glioblastoma. They used 5 people, and two of them showed cancer recession. You can read more at cancer.org click here



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


The research was done in 2007, and the people who did the research have complaints that nobody is taking interest.

How is what you just wrote any sort of reflection of the truth of this situation, or any sort of adequate response to what I wrote? I'm not criticising anyone for not revealing research at this stage (if people are researching now, that's great)

I'm drawing attention to the fact that the people who conducted the original research are complaining that other researchers/ Big Pharma/ governments aren't taking this seriously.


My second post was more directed at the fact that you are somehow of the opinion that because you haven't heard about it, it must be some sort of cover up. Scientists are not obliged to shove all of their findings into main stream media. Asides from the fact that such a thing would be unfeasible and a waste of time, we have specialised outlets for publishing our findings called scientific journals. If you want to know what's happening in science, then that is where you look.

Both mainstream and alternative media have an annoying habit of sensationalising small findings before the researchers have had a chance to allow their research to come to fruition - counting the chickens before they've hatched. You will always see articles about how person X has found that such and such has had an effect on disease Y and how much of a 'breakthrough' it is. The reason you so rarely hear much more than that is because a.) media fails to follow up on it (likely because of how long it takes to generate more findings) and b.) one thing or another happens over the course of the proceeding research that makes its use as a therapeutic agent unfeasible.


Besides - most researchers will provide an outline of current projects via the administrative centres responsible for maintaining their research organisation? So again I say, your argument is more or less moot, and essentially another made-up nonsense which has no general basis in reality.


Most, but not all. Some research groups do projects that are commercially sensitive and are bound by contract to not discuss their nature with virtually anybody. The group I work with has a number of such projects. If you look at the web site of any given research group, they will generally have an overview of the areas they are interested in with a list of relevant publications. Occasionally, they will also have a list of current projects, often for the purpose of providing information for prospective students.

As for the comment about my post having no basis in reality: in fact one could conjecture that my opinion is far more valid than yours since a.) I have a degree in science, with major in chemistry (specialising in medicinal chemistry) and b.) am an active post-graduate level researcher within a university laboratory. As a consequence of a.) and b.), I have a greater insight and level of experience in these matters, which in turn lends a much higher degree of credence to my opinion of this work and whether or not it has been stifled by the government than you appear to. So in fact my argument has quite a large basis in the reality of science and medical research.


You constructed a false argument in a knee-jerk backlash. Probably over-sensitive that your made-up nonsense about the non-patentability of compounds had been called out.? Not best to counter such accusations with more made-up nonsense.


Made up? I take it you didn't look up the patent numbers I quoted? I agree that the compound itself cannot be patented - it's quite a common molecule and has been known for quite some time. It would be analogous to trying to patent water. However, the treatment can and has been patented.


The only legitimacies for the premise and aims of research not being shared at the outset of the research involve situations where the topic being investigated might have something to do with national security, or a product/ process/ compound etc that can be used to make money at the end of it all. Corporate advantage and all that.

Or, if it is in some way Mengelian, and thus shameful/ politically or legally risky to reveal.



More or less. Compounds/processes/technologies that are commercially sensitive will never be revealed until they have secured a patent.Then there are those that are trade secrets, etc. More often than not, the commercially sensitive projects are those that are intended to end up on the market.

Overall, my point is this: There is no coverup. Since 2007/2008, this paper has been cited over 200 times. As a comparison, I recently read an article related to my thesis regarding the nature of hypervalent bonds. This particular paper was one of the two papers to first describe what is now a commonly accepted model for hypervalent compounds. It was published in 1969 and since than has since been cited nearly 900 times. The original paper in this instance has been around for only 3 or 4 years and already has approximately one quarter of the number of citations as the 1969 paper I am referring to. It is quite impressive, to say the least.

As well, there have been subsequent studies published by the same group. Multiple, if I am not mistaken. Surely if this was a government cover-up, they would have been stopped shortly after the first publication? Not only that, but their research has had independent articles published about it by Science magazine, as I mentioned in my initial post.

And then of course there is the fact that their treatment has made it into phase II clinical trials. Considering that most lead compounds fizzle out before they so much as get a look in for phase I and further considering that their study would have to of been government approved, the theory that the government is hiding their findings seems rather unlikely, wouldn't you think?

So many times I see these threads here about how 'bad' various chemicals and drugs really are for you and about how various corporations/scientists/doctors are plotting to kill people with these dangerous and 'not properly tested' drugs. That's all well and good - I'm not here to argue for or against the dangers of presently available medicines. What I have a problem with is when those same sorts of people then go and issue threads about how some 'medical miracle' is not available to the public despite having had various research articles publishing its benefits without any real understanding of why it's not being marketed to them. The reason these things take so long (around 15 years from start to finish as someone else mentioned - not to mention the millions of dollars) is simply because of the rigorous testing that any potential therapeutic candidate has to be subjected to before it go go anywhere near a person. It strikes me as ironic that people complain about the dangers of modern medicine and how ill-tested they are while at the same time complaining about what essentially amounts to the fact that researches spend a significant amount of time making sure drug-candidates do what they are meant to without any severe side-effects. You cannot have it both ways.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mandrake
.

Third, the part about the mitochondria and glycolysis are just messed up. Mitochondria are organelles present in every cell ESPECIALLY cancer cell. They do not kill anything and they are only partially involved in apoptosis. Glycolyisis does not produce lactic acid, and lactic acid is not the sole reason for the tumor's resistance to treatment.


This is actually incorrect. The mitochondria respond to intracellular signals and release a small molecule (cytochrome c, if I'm not mistaken) that essentially initiates the entire apoptotic pathway. there are other pathways, but mitochondria mediated apoptosis is indeed a major one.

The major contributor to drug resistance is because of a membrane-transversing protein that is often over-expresed in cancerous cells. Look up multi-drug resistance for more information.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by roughycannon
Erm BTW this was posted before, its a joke and stupid if the cure was not profitable then a charity would pick it up...

Think about it, cancer research charities? why not cancer cure charities? involve a slight bit of logic here people its embarrassing, no wonder everyone thinks you are conspiracy nutters...


Mostly because there is no such thing as a cure for cancer. It is unique for each person, so it would be nigh on impossible to have a singular cure for it.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I noticed someone linked this article today on Facebook, so it must have resurfaced somehow ( I believe because more research has been done). Anywho- I'm commenting only at the sadness I feel after reading the comments. So many people (on ATS!!!) don't know there is a cure for cancer.
One member did post the Rick Simpson story "Run for the Cure". Thank you to that guy!
It seems a plant simply can't be the cure for anything. Most of the posts on here imply that they only believe that a cure can be made out of something unnatural. Otherwise, well, it's just a plant. That's Big Pharma's take on it, on account of the monies. I guess I'm just sad. Sad that so many people could be helped. Sad that they can't. Sad that the government made a cure illegal. Just sad.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElizaAshdene
I noticed someone linked this article today on Facebook, so it must have resurfaced somehow ( I believe because more research has been done). Anywho- I'm commenting only at the sadness I feel after reading the comments. So many people (on ATS!!!) don't know there is a cure for cancer.
One member did post the Rick Simpson story "Run for the Cure". Thank you to that guy!
It seems a plant simply can't be the cure for anything. Most of the posts on here imply that they only believe that a cure can be made out of something unnatural. Otherwise, well, it's just a plant. That's Big Pharma's take on it, on account of the monies. I guess I'm just sad. Sad that so many people could be helped. Sad that they can't. Sad that the government made a cure illegal. Just sad.


Not true at all. Quite a large percentage of drugs that make it to the market and that are currently undergoing testing are derived from natural products.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by freakjive
 


There is a very interesting book on this topic of cancer cures and how little is mentioned of them in the MSM. Mainly due to the fact, that others have also brought out, that these cures make 0 profit for big pharma and the AMA. If you are able to, I highly recommend buy and reading this book: Politics in Healing: The Supression and Manipulation of American Medicine. I was very impressed with the information within. Some cancer cures go back to the turn of the 20th century. Its sick how awfully these doctors that have discovered these cures have been treated in the past. Most had their license to practice taken away for the sole reason of not giving the patent rights to the AMA. No wonder medical services make up the largest percentage of our GDP.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
"Three Can Keep A Secret If 2 Are Dead"
Hopefully someone can go to the media about this :/
edit on 14-5-2011 by LegitSource because: Classified



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee

[SNIP]
Live Free or Die
edit on 14-5-2011 by nh_ee because: Typos


Thank you for this valuable information. I posted Dr. Simoncini's video's earlier. Keep spreading this information and see the fake whitecoats turn blue all around. Right now millions are dying with the fake cancer medicine pushed by the pharmakia which actually makes the cancer to grow back. And people go right along and believe that cancer can go into remission and reappear at will. what a load
edit on 15-5-2011 by Gemwolf because: Removed large quote



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Oddly, Wikipedia states this drug causes liver cancer in mice when it's used for long periods of time.. the cancer cure that causes cancer?

Source: wikipedia article


Carcinogenicity:

Long term use (a year or more) of high doses of DCA has been shown to increase risk of liver cancer in mice, however the dosages required for carcinogenicity (> 77 mg/kg/day) are significantly higher than suggested therapeutic doses in humans.[39] Studies of the trichloroethylene (TCE) metabolites dichloroacetic acid (DCA), trichloroacetic acid (TCA), and chloral hydrate suggest that both DCA and TCA are involved in TCE-induced liver tumorigenesis and that many DCA effects are consistent with conditions that increase the risk of liver cancer in humans at dosages much higher than used for cancer therapy.


Of course I doubt you need to take it that long



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
back in early 2009 i researched cures for cancer and came upon the wonderful work being done in canada and found out about the brain cancer trials being conducted using DCA. i even called and talked to the drs receptionist in canada at the university of alberta over this program and she said a major news story would soon be released on the importance of this product but nothing ever came of it that i know of.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
There has always been a cure for cancer for those willing to eat and live right. The problem is people are lazy and would prefer to pump their bodies full of crap and take a pill to fix the problem later. It's no different than people who are able bodied getting liposuction for their stomachs before even attempting diet and exercise.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaryStillToe
There has always been a cure for cancer for those willing to eat and live right. The problem is people are lazy and would prefer to pump their bodies full of crap and take a pill to fix the problem later. It's no different than people who are able bodied getting liposuction for their stomachs before even attempting diet and exercise.


really? because my uncle lived through vietnam. he came out alive and since then hes done nothing but drink beer and vodka, smoke 2 packs a day and eat nothing but junk fast food. He doesnt even work he sits on a couch and does the same thing everyday no exercise. Hes 65 now I believe... 20 sum when he left the military.

each person is unique. just because a doctor says something doesnt mean its always true. cigarettes used to be looked at as a good thing because doctors thought they reduced stress.... in the 20s?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by freakjive
 


the research article of the university is from 2007. I wonder how that played out. It says something about clinical trials starting in 2007. So either it did not work or it got suppressed.





 
242
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join