It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A cancer is a bunch of defective cells (yes, often initiated by deteriorated/aged cells). Their ability to control their rate of growth is malfunctioning and the cells rapidly replicate. Once you remove ALL the defective cells the cancer will disappear. You are simply making assumptions by stating one would need to take DCA their whole life to suppress the cancer. It could be the case, but I doubt you know.
Cancer works like that. You have to suppress it all your life. Cancer is, by definition, the result of prolonged deterioration of the cell. These rates change based of the toxicity of an environment. You have to take the drug all your life in some way, or the cancer will eventually return.
Cancer isn't really a genetic problem that I know of, it could be caused by some rare genetic problems, but I think the main cause is natural radiation and the natural deterioration of cells as they split millions of times. Once you get a defective cell it will grow into a cancer as the cells replicate out of control. It's usually in a very confined area and the cancer remains as a single bunch of cells. It gets worse when parts of the cancer break off and move into other parts of your body and cause multiple cancerous growths. However, it's still possible to remove the defective cell areas and stop the cancer. Of course if you live in a environment that is mutating your cells than you'll continue to get cancer.
No, that's not the end of the cancer. Something physically caused that error. If it's their genes, then you better believe they are going to have to take something their whole life. If it's in their environment they have to take it until the environment is fixed.
And your knowledge is clearly boundless. Why don't you take a look at some of the methods in better detail and learn exactly how they purport to target cancerous cells, you might learn something.
There simply isn't in my knowledge any other way to do it.
Which ever company can design their own cancer treatment and patent it for themselves will make a massive profit, but it's very unlikely to happen. It's usually small teams of scientists or things that can't be patented by the big drug companies.
Do you actually know how much it can cost to get chemotherapy? Just look it up. They aren't going to simply throw away a whole industry just because of one simple little cure.
They will fight tooth and nail to make it's their way or the high way. And just look at that doctor who has been trying to pass his drug through the system since the 70's. They've literally done every in the book to suppress or steal his idea, short of murdering him. And I wouldn't be surprised if they did kill him. That's how immoral and heartless I believe these monsters are.
Originally posted by Griffo
To everyone who is stating that there is no money in curing cancer, take a second to read this hypothetical situation I will propose:
Imagine for one second that in tomorrow's headlines, GlaxoSmith Kline (GSK) announced that it had found a single cure for cancer and was going to market it to the masses **
Now, the other drug companies out there (Novartis, Pfizer, Astra Zenica, etc.) have two options which they can possibly take. Number one would be to just sit back, relax and watch GSK reel in an absolute fortune of profits. Number two would be to slam down 5 espressos, and leg it to the research laboratory where they would spend the foreseeable future trying to find a drug that was cheaper to manufacture, more efficient at targeting and destroying cancer or much safer to use (i.e. less side effects).
What option do you think the other pharmaceutical companies would take?
Plus, a lot of independent research groups are responsible for new drugs appearing on the market. I mean, the pharmacology and therapeutics department of my university is involved in researching and developing drugs that combat malaria, amongst other things. A couple of years ago, a load of PhD, Masters and undergrads were involved in the discovery of a new anti malarial drug, isoquine. Unfortunately the drug failed right before the marketing stages. But it goes to show that independent research groups can and will be involved in the discovery of new drugs on the market.
** I say a single cure, but because cancer is such a wide range and variety of diseases which vary physiological quite a bit, I doubt that there will be a single cure.edit on 24/10/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Gorman91
I google searched the first one you listed and found that high levels cause liver cancer. So I'm kind of skeptical about everything now.
Cancer is cancer. You can't really cure it, beyond killing everything that's there...at least until nano devices.
Why is THC not mentioned or did I miss it ?