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.

 

Open-source cancer research

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
When I look at this professor I think, "This is me". A couple of years ago I refused to pass from Academia to the Industry. I personally knew the big bosses there, Roche and Novartis, but I decided what for me was the obvious. If I stayed in the Academia environment I can share and discuss my ideas and develop my projects worldwide. However, if I moved to the "dark side" I would most likely have my results shaded and hidden because the industry does not need a drug that might cure cancer, it is more profitable to sell and develop drugs that keep people alive, suffering from cancer, for as long as possible. Do you think I am just naive and I prefer to live in a nice fairytale?

If you're thinking if I know what I am talking about I can tell you a short story... A friend of mine got married and now has a small child. Because he was, like me, getting older (who isn't), he decided to move from the Academia to a small pharmaceutical company. In beginning he was very enthusiastic. His object was to test many different drugs on biopsies obtained patients who died or are suffering from rare diseases. The goal was simple, test the drug on those biopsies and tell us if you see something "nice". Because we both have a broad knowledge of many different situations, when he was presenting his results to the company board he asked if, considering he knew that although the effect was not significant to those particular diseases there was an obvious potential to work on other rather common but not less deadly pathologies... The answer was this, "WE JUST WANT DRUGS ABLE TO DEAL WITH RARE DISEASES. IF THE DRUG WORKS ON OTHER PATHOLOGIES IT'LL LOOSE ITS STATUS AND THEREFORE IT WILL HAVE LESS VALUE.". When he came to me I just told him that's why I preferred to earn less money but to make a difference to many other people if possible.

I am a kidney cancer research scientist, not a student, I had to sweat blood to earn my PhD years ago. I refused to go to the industry to be where I am right now. My current and former bosses thought the same thing. If you move to the industry there's no way back. Move to industry and you'll sell your soul and loose the power of decision on what do do that might deviate from the companies main interest... or shall I say the only interest, TO MAKE MONEY.

Please do spend 12 minutes to watch this video. That is why I travel 200 Kms everyday just because I didn't want to work in Roche or Novartis 1 km away from my house front door: www.ted.com...
This is why I believe I did the right thing. I consider myself to be a well paid scientist but I do know I earl 1/10 of what I could earn even without counting with all the bonuses I would be granted.




posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Everything should be open source, all technology/medical advancements should be worked on by the best of the best, I can't believe bankers get paid more than people who save lives...

www.social-eyes.com



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by novrod
 


Thank you for being a 'proper' human being novrod.

You obviously listen to your conscience rather than your little 'shoulder devil' urging to take the money and forget about human beings.

The world could really do with a couple of billion more like you mate.

I've not watched the video yet, but i will.

Keep up the great attitude please, and if you do find anything Earth shattering that will cure cancer, please release the information ANONYMOUSLY...those who release their discoveries in their own names tend to go to prison on trumped up charges, or are targeted in other ways to silence them and their discovery.

Cheers.




edit on 9/12/2011 by spikey because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
colon, kidney, liver, detox/cleanse, B17, no sugar no dairy, no crap food, no chemicals, no deodorants, perfumes, hair dyes, sprays, clothes from china, mobile phones, and the list goes on and on. Cancer is self inflicted by life style,


Start getting back to all natural foods as in REAL ORGANICS.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by killemall
colon, kidney, liver, detox/cleanse, B17, no sugar no dairy, no crap food, no chemicals, no deodorants, perfumes, hair dyes, sprays, clothes from china, mobile phones, and the list goes on and on. Cancer is self inflicted by life style,


Start getting back to all natural foods as in REAL ORGANICS.


horay!!! Another awake soul around. Hello and so nice to read your post!

We have a natural built in ability to heal. THis is evident from the outside when we cut ourselves.

The water fasting cure for cancer, especially in the early stages are extremely successful, yet, the medical world will not acknowledge this. Of course not, water is so cheap!

We have been practicing water fasting for over 2 decades in our family and eat as raw as possible. The secret about the whole thing is not so much in the magic of water, raw fruit and vegetables, it lies in the fact that these contain no harmful toxic additives, are easy on the disgestive system and therefore gives the body the ability to constantly maintain live cells on a very healthy level.

But of course, instant gratification sounds so much easier and so much less work. Just pop a pill.

We got onto this path through the books written by South African lady, Essie Honiball, who was dying of TB. She was diagnosed to have only a few months left to live, when her then friend (later husband) took her to the hills, put her on a fast, and then helped her to remain excellent health. She lived on raw foods for the rest of her long long life.

There is a picture in her first book 'Hokai!' (meaning Stop! Enought!) of her standing in the garden when she was in her 30s. She is standing with a walking stick and looks 80. This was while she had TB. Then there was a photo of her in the sea in a bathing costume of her in her 70s after years of raw eating and she looks excellent! She moved from extremely unhealthy (dying) to hiking up mountains and swimming in galas and doing loads all day long!

I have found a vid of her at the age of 86. I can't watch it myself, but here it is. I saw the first pic on the vid and that is how she looked in her 30s.

www.youtube.com...

More about her:
www.stellenboschwriters.com...

Her books:
I live on Fruit:

More about fasting:

www.freedomyou.com...

www.moinhos-velhos.com...


Wake up world! you don't have to spend millions and you don't have to have cancer!



www.healingcancernaturally.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
There are people who eat right, exercise and live healthy lifestyles and still get cancer.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
From what I understand and connecting to a previous posters comments, once diagnosed with cancer, the avoidance of dairy, sugar, alcohol and red meat is highly advisable. Cancer needs food just like the body but feeding it "high octane" foods assists in the growth cancers.

OP Good luck with the open source cancer research, as the closed source version doesn't seem to be getting anywhere fast.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by novrod
 



"WE JUST WANT DRUGS ABLE TO DEAL WITH RARE DISEASES. IF THE DRUG WORKS ON OTHER PATHOLOGIES IT'LL LOOSE ITS STATUS AND THEREFORE IT WILL HAVE LESS VALUE."


VERY strange. Doesn't sound true to me.

Most drug companies push for off-label use to make more money. They sure don't block new applications.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Night Star
 


Although a healthy life can "remodel" our bodies by regulating/reducing the unwanted toxic intake, I must point to the fact that it will not save you for sure.

If you want an obvious and rather cruel example just go to the oncology pediatric department of your hospital.

Yes, we should avoid eating and drinking poison but do not be naive to the point of thinking that that's the solution. For all of you who do not believe in genetics I must say that genetics is the only way to deal with something inherent to the human body. Cancer is a result DNA mutations, either resulting from DNA damage caused by external factors or just by being unlucky enough for getting born with an imprinted mutation.

Please do not confuse science with common sense.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Maybe I didn't stress enough the real situation. The lab I was referring to just wanted to find drugs to treat rare diseases. If the drug can treat a broad spectrum of pathologies it will not meet the standards to justify charging 1000 fold more for the treatment. To make the common citizen believe that millions were spent to find a cure for his Venusian measles, that's where the big money is for a rather small pharmaceutical company that will be bought by a bigger one if they succeed.

Welcome to real life. Not all scientists are here to save you from a painful death. There are quite a few who prefer you to have an untreatable chronic disease.

If you get cured by just having to take one pill or vaccine imagine how much money you'll be "stealing" from the pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies that already own private hospitals.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by novrod
 



If the drug can treat a broad spectrum of pathologies it will not meet the standards to justify charging 1000 fold more for the treatment.


Yes it will - and it will also make a flugging fortune before it comes off patent. Rare diseases are rare - subtract the number of patients who can't afford the meds and the market is miniscule. But add a few off-label applications and suddenly it's a money-maker.



To make the common citizen believe that millions were spent to find a cure for his Venusian measles,


Common people tend to buy the bs no matter what.



that's where the big money is for a rather small pharmaceutical company that will be bought by a bigger one if they succeed.


No, it's not. The money is in block busters after development and testing - true, though, many funders choose to target "orphan diseases" for development and many wealthy donors are moved to donate because a child has a particular disease. But no one in Big Pharma is going to shell out the big bucks for a company or patent with a single-use miniscule market. They're in business to make money - and even at $10,000 per treatment, rare disease markets are just too small to make big money.



Welcome to real life. Not all scientists are here to save you from a painful death. There are quite a few who prefer you to have an untreatable chronic disease.


Welcome to ATS - please, feel free to click on my name above my avatar and check out my various threads on these topics promoting exactly that awareness.



If you get cured by just having to take one pill or vaccine imagine how much money you'll be "stealing" from the pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies that already own private hospitals.


Never mind those who want to keep selling their pills and cures and treatments yada yada yada. I do know the drill - I also know how Big Pharma operates and that the medical industry is just that -an industry- and in it for the profits. The fact remains - there may be more money for development of drugs to treat rare diseases, but once it hits the market, Big Pharma wants a MUCH bigger client base.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 



Unfortunately I do know what I mean when I said that the big money was in the treatment of rare diseases.
The important factor there that you misjudged about this was the scale of the pharmaceutical company.

Of course I agree with you that finding a new aspirin would bring you more profit then finding a new medicine for the Venusian measles.The reality is that this little companies are there to make a money because they were the ones to find a new drug. Of course the big pharma sharks like Roche or Novartis will buy the little ones and investigate the other possible uses for a particular new drug.

I do consider that spending time reading and sometimes posting here is a rather rewarding and important part of who I am. I am research scientist and I do appreciate all the opinions about everything I present as facts and potentially new explanations. Your opinion is very important because this way I can see what a well informed person thinks we're doing with scientific research.

In terms of credentials I can only tell you that what you think to know about pharma companies tend not to be the reality.

Just to tell you a bit more about who I am, I used to be in contact with people who where in charge of Roche's research strategies. By the way I'm in Basel, Swizerland. Roche and Novartis headquarters are just "around the courner" from my house.
Last year I go to personally know one of the toy-boys from Roche (responsible to find knew drugs). The best part of science is when we informally discuss our ideas and we get to know all the little details nobody else does. That promising scientist told me they have "unlimited" resources

to screen a new library of new compounds that is constantly being upgraded. The drill is to put one drop of that drug on cultured cells and see what happens. That job is performed by "hundreds of monkeys", preferentially working somewhere else in the world because the Swiss salaries are very high.
If something does happen then you move to stage two and further investigate that particular compound and start animal experimentation. The tests continue 'til you reach the point where you consider it's time to try a clinical application.

Last but know the least, the latest big achievement from Roche was to scare world countries with the swine flu. They sold that vaccine directly to governments that considered it to be a "must have". It didn't matter if there was no reason to be afraid of the swine flu that killed less people then the common flue. This big pharma companies know invest a lot of money to advertising wrong facts.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by novrod
 



what you think to know about pharma companies tend not to be the reality.


From the World Economic Forum's (WEF's) perspective and for the corporate New World Order (NWO), the real problem with cancer and other chronic NCDs is that not only are they incurable, but victims do not die - they often survive, disabled, for decades. The goal is to find treatments that keep people working until they drop dead, and to charge them up the wazoo for the privilege; survivors claiming already-paid-for benefits are unneeded, unwanted and unwelcome in the corporate NWO.



there was no reason to be afraid of the swine flu that killed less people then the common flue.


The real problem with pandemic swine flu was not the fatality rate - it was the potential for re-assortment and recombination with more virulent strains like H5N1 - and the number of victims who survive to become debilitated and disabled by flu-related chronic disease ( NCDs). The H1N1 swine flu was pandemic, and…..

NCD Pandemic Killing Over 37 Million This Year.

Granted, the recent swine flu pandemic is not responsible for the current NCD Pandemic, but it certainly will contribute to the escalating disability crisis that is breaking nations' backs and banks.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   


From the World Economic Forum's (WEF's) perspective and for the corporate New World Order (NWO), the real problem with cancer and other chronic NCDs is that not only are they incurable, but victims do not die - they often survive, disabled, for decades. The goal is to find treatments that keep people working until they drop dead, and to charge them up the wazoo for the privilege; survivors claiming already-paid-for benefits are unneeded, unwanted and unwelcome in the corporate NWO.


I must say that I often disagree with WEF's opinions. That rather simplistic point of view is only to disguise the fact that a cancer patient originates more profit than expenses. Why do I think this way? Do you really believe that the money a government spends with a patient is not for the benefit of other entities?

1 - world countries give benefits to pharma companies to start their business there
2 - pharma companies make billions and refuse to decrease prices claiming research is too expensive (it isn't cheap I know)
3 - health insurance companies retain money from insured people whenever they find a "legal way" to do it
3 - private hospitals do not treat you unless you're insured (or if you have no money)
4 - you must support your own health care borrowing money if necessary because public hospitals will not treat you in time
5 - many people end up mortgaging their houses
6 - the banks get their houses but cannot sell them, there comes the story of banks and their toxic assets
7 - some private companies bought those toxic assets and now own the country that gave the benefits to the pharma companies in the first place
8 - only then I can agree with you that it was a bad deal for your country but your money passed through many hands and therefore kept this financial Russian roulette running.

I wonder if WEF's considered this rather simplistic point of view as well.

We're just a small wheel of a giant machine whose sole purpose is to make money.

Is a patient too expensive? That just depends on which team you play.



edit on 27/11/2011 by novrod because: (no reason given)

edit on 27/11/2011 by novrod because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5

log in

join