It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A virus that kills cancer: the cure that's waiting in the cold

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:37 PM
reply to post by pikestaff

Doesn't it seem that many things science does creates side effects that they do not perceive will happen?

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:39 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

Bravo... This guy should be protected by us, and kept away from TPTB.


posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:52 PM

Originally posted by grey580
A virus that eats cancer?
mmmmmm..... I don't feel like this ones a good idea.

and you think radiotherapy is ?

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 06:22 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

Instead of our government spending billions of money to feed the war machine, maybe they should be taking some of that money and using it toward research into possible cures for cancer. They use our tax dollars to kill people instead of helping humanity fight off deadly diseases and cancer. It's a shame when a person who has developed a possible cure in a laboratory, they need millions of dollars for testing and human trials. Meanwhile people who are battling cancer hope that a cure will be found before they die. Nothing like dangling a carrot before the horse.

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 06:36 PM
I wonder if a Kickstarter campaign could happen?

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

Created a virus that may kill cancer? This kinda sounds like the plot from I Am Legend.

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

Professor Essand cannot get funding?

Makes me think of an SNL skit from years ago. The President had cured cancer by infecting the 10 richest people in the world with it. It got cured in record time!

"It's funny, cuz it's true!" ~ Homer Simpson

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:08 PM
There will never be a cure for cancer. Why would they allow that? Look at the money it generates.
Cures are bad for business. They're into symptom or pain relievers in the form of a shot, surgery or pill.

Why heal someone when you can leach off their wallet the rest of their life?

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:11 PM
reply to post by rigel4

Agreed agreed agreed............strongly strongly agreed.

I will even give this bloke my own money. If we all do this, we can all help?
edit on 5-9-2012 by CaptainBeno because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:13 AM
Your body deals with cancer everyday they are just a big build up of free radicals, this happens when the immune system is impeded in a way that stops it from doing it's daily task to think cancer is uncurable without chemo is a joke. Some people here need to get out more just changing your diet can have the desired effect on cancer two ingredients that seem to do the job are tumeric and vitamin C and basically have a clean lifestyle for a while and work on getting your immune system to peak condition and it will disappear.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:01 AM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

How much you wanna bet there's an "accident" on the way? The poor doctor was doomed when she opened her mouth...

Screw the patents and the grants, get the formula out on the internet and make it viral! Make sure TPTB can't erase it from the world! If she waits for official funding and authorization, she'll find the morgue.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:39 AM
While i'll agree we need more anti-Pharma treatments and studies, we dont need to pay anymore for whats already out there.

Isn't Laetrile or Amygdalin rather already proported to do just that. Eat the cancer? If the compounds in amygdalin only react to cancer cells and destroy them while the rhodanese in our normal cells flushes the cyanate out of our system, is that not the same exact concept?

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:30 AM
reply to post by Whatifitdidhappen

That's a good point, actually. We have a right to be healthy, right? Why allow this cure or whatever to be turned into another money-maker for the rich to benefit from and the poor to break their backs just to get a look at it?

And that's exactly what would happen. Industrial giants would look at it and see nothing but all the green to be had from charging exorbitant amounts because they know full well that their corporations own the full rights and you can't get it anywhere else.

I'm calling it, right here. And if that's not how it goes, they will at the very least have a hearing to discuss the possibility. I'm calling that too.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 04:24 AM
Many are against a huge one world government or even American federal expansion. More are against big corporations. So when there is a breakthrough that gives the discoverer a potential monopoly on the industry, who should control it? Public or private?

I wonder if a cancer cure was discovered in China or Saudi Arabia, nations with a high rate of state business ownership, there would be a lower probability of suppression.
edit on 6-9-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:34 AM
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

I would imagine there would be.

Or they would make the cost of the cure some ridiculous ammount. Millions of a dollars for a single treatment that would cure a certain disease.

It would go much the way that cybernetic implants will probably end up. In the hands of the rich and famous and out of reach for those regular folk like you and me.


posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:25 AM
You would think that with the multi-millions that a group like Komen rake in every year, they'd be stumbling over themselves trying fund studies and trials such as this, but they don't.


Well, here's my opinion.

Let's look at Susan G. Komen for a second.
From their website, they list the following allocations for funds received in fiscal 2011
37% Education
23% Research and Awards
16% Screening
10% Fundraising
7% Treatment
7% Administration

Their goal is to "Cure Breast Cancer" but looking at that list, I don't see much activity that actually goes towards a cure. What I see is the funding of mechanisms that feed more people into the Cancer Machine and the funding of systems that enrich the benefactors of the Cancer Industry itself.

If cancer was actually cured, like they state as their mission, then there wouldn't be a need for an organization like Susan G. Komen to exist, right? That would be a good thing, correct?

Well, let's think about Komen and especially the 7% of revenue, listed as "Administration". From their own website you can view their reported financials and the current 2011 IRS Form 990 filing. Look at the numbers presented. You might be surprised.

From April 2010 to April 2011:

And the total number of paid employees?

For total salary expenses of:

Now, I'm no accounting expert and I'm sure someone with more experience parsing these forms could give a better explanation but to me, that's a #load of dough! Would YOU be willing to sacrifice that kind of cash if it meant someone not dying?

Now we see why our medical industry is a FOR-PROFIT business, not a charity.
Sickening indeed

P.S. I didn't purposely pick on Komen because I think they're a shady, wolf-in-sheep's-clothing revenue-generating machine started by a professional businessman's bored housewife. I picked on them because it sickens me that people prance around wearing a pink ribbon and thinking it actually means # in someone's life. It doesn't. It means dollars in someone's pocket.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:25 AM
Has anyone ever seen the movie I am Legend? In this movie they found the cure for cancer in a mutated virus. Long story short... all the people they injected with this virus eventually turned into something unnatural and it ended up going airborne. I am Legend is a great thriller though, if you haven't seen it I highly recommend it. Make you think twice about letting someone inject you with a mutated virus!

posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 01:30 PM
reply to post by TXRabbit

And it isn't just Susan B Komen - it's just about every single non-profit on the face of the planet. I worked for one, and I saw how they "massaged" the numbers in their efforts to be awarded their public funding so they could stand around five hours a day perfecting phrases like the one your avatar suggests. They had to make it appear as if their efforts were indeed working, but not working so well as to no longer require their support. Although it relieved me of my perceived obligation to donate to those less fortunate, watching how an organization operates when they don't have a profit margin to report to a board is as innocence-stripping an experience as prom night, but without the fun.

People simply cannot be trusted with the responsibility of stating "You don't need me any more - my work here is done, so please stop sending money to me". Yet that's what we're expecting them to do.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in