Chinese Plant Compound Wipes out Cancer in 40 Days, Says New Research

page: 4
75
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by kreator666
 




Nothing good to say just a bunch of negativity.

 

You mean negative like this?

So, as in most cases, a natural compound found to be somewhat effective is used as the starting point to produce something that may be very effective.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You mean negative like this?

The study, is in fact, something that shows a great deal of promise for a new chemotherapy agent.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The compound shows great promise. It is not being suppressed, it is being studied and not only for the treatment of pancreatic cancer.
edit on 10/20/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


No. Negative like this:



And articles like that in the OP are not helping anybody.


There may be some retards who will read that and go out and ingest the plant without any further thought, but most people, especially nowadays with the availability of the Internet, will go to google and do some research before seriously considering using this as a cure. You cannot categorically say this article won't help anybody. If only for alerting people to the possibilities this plant offers, this article is useful, helpful. Do you know how desperate people with cancer (and their loved ones are) for a cure? Most of them could not afford to wait another ten years for Big Pharma to complete their studies and their trials and their approvals, before they could benefit from this plant.

I am not saying the extraction of the beneficial substance is not helpful. What I am saying is that people are not really as foolish as you think, especially when it comes to their health or those of their loved ones. The Chinese have been using this plant for ages. I am sure they know of a way to prepare this to reduce the toxicity. If not, then fine. But information like this is always useful, and there is always the freedom to conduct further research.
edit on 20-10-2012 by topquark because: typo




posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by topquark
 


You cannot categorically say this articles won't help anybody.
Yes, I can. Because the article does not mention that it is not the natural version of the compound which was used. Because the article does not mention that the natural version of the compound is not well suited for therapeutic use. Because the article does not mention that the natural version of the compound is toxic.

Because the tone of the article is complete anti "Big Pharma" distortion and that helps no one.


Most of them could not afford to wait another ten years for Big Pharma to complete their studies and their trials and their approvals, before they could benefit from this plant.
It is not the plant which may be of benefit. It is a particular and toxic compound.
edit on 10/20/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

It's disgusting that these 'Big Pharma' can prevent mainstream science from looking into natural solutions that could help people all over the world.
Do you have any idea how many products of "Big Pharma" are synthesized versions of natural compounds?

Interesting that your highly biased source failed to mention that the study involved such a synthesized compound. Interesting that your highly biased source failed to mention that the natural compound is not really useful. Interesting that your highly biased source didn't mention that the impressive results were found with the synthesized compound.

However, triptolide is poorly soluble in water, limiting its clinical use. We therefore synthesized a water-soluble analog of triptolide, named Minnelide.


So, as in most cases, a natural compound found to be somewhat effective is used as the starting point to produce something that may be very effective.

Together, our results suggest that Minnelide shows promise as a potent chemotherapeutic agent against pancreatic cancer, and support the evaluation of Minnelide in clinical trials against this deadly disease.

stm.sciencemag.org...

edit on 10/19/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



While the source might be biased -- are we sure that the "process" for making the active ingredient water soluble wasn't ALREADY something an herbalist might do? You know, like make a tea, or dissolve it in alcohol, fermentation or combine with a lipid?

It sounds like these studies are headed towards medicine -- but is that only going to result in some patented, expensive compound?

I can see how a lot of Bias and "fear of power" colors people's opinions of Big Pharma or Big Anything -- but let's put this in perspective. Since 2000, we've seen a 19% increase in "survival of cancer patients" LINK -- however, the problem with these statistics is that testing reveals ever more people GETTING Cancer, and of course finding it earlier. However, I remember watching a leading cancer specialist on a trade show about a decade ago, that the REAL survival rate of patients across all cancers, had only gone up 1.5%.

When my own wife got cancer, I can tell you, that even though I'm no stranger to statistics and how you get valid and invalid numbers -- I couldn't make anything out of the "success in cancer" rates. Because you had a 75% chance of a 5 year survival given X cancer of Y severity treated Z way. But what is the Survival rate of people who never got diagnosed but WOULD have been positive for cancer? We don't know. We only know that WHEN a Cancer is diagnosed, they've been really successful "CURING" it with Breast Cancer. However -- women get diagnosed much, much earlier now and in greater numbers.

So are we getting MORE cancer, or are they just finding it, waving their version of the Medical Magic Wand, and saying "you are cured" and you live 10 years and drop dead -- just like you would have if there were no TREATMENT to begin with? After years of this -- I don't really have a clue.

We might be better off banning GM foods, or processed foods, or ending all nuclear and Coal use because there is no possible way that we can know for sure what is causing more cancer. Every year there are thousands of chemicals invented and put in use with little or not testing at all. People assume all sorts of safety standards and regulations apply, but if it's not DIRECTLY put in your food or a drug -- then not that much.

>> I can really understand the cynicism. And the people on the conspiracy side can be myopic -- but those on the "This is MODERN Medicine side" can be just as myopic and support all sorts of drugs, treatments and vaccines with NO PROVEN efficacy. There have been scores of expensive drugs that were later proven to have less influence than the placebo effect -- and continually, people have amnesia about the prior promises and always push these errors as "something that just happened in the Old days." One day, these days will be the old days, and they may look back at our practices as little better than injecting Mercury (like they did in the Old Days).



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


You know, like make a tea, or dissolve it in alcohol, fermentation or combine with a lipid?
The plant has been used medicinally for ages. The active compound has been determined through science.


It sounds like these studies are headed towards medicine -- but is that only going to result in some patented, expensive compound?
Patented, probably. Expensive, that remains to be seen. Hopefully it will be effective.


I remember watching a leading cancer specialist on a trade show about a decade ago, that the REAL survival rate of patients across all cancers, had only gone up 1.5%.
A meaningless statistic. Using the term "All cancers" makes no sense. People do not contract "all cancers".


We only know that WHEN a Cancer is diagnosed, they've been really successful "CURING" it with Breast Cancer. However -- women get diagnosed much, much earlier now and in greater numbers.
Yes, and the earlier the diagnosis the more effective the treatment.
edit on 10/20/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Oh, and from the Article I was referencing, I read this bit;



Over 2.2 million of those cancer survivors listed in the report suffered from prostate cancer.


Wait! Isn't Prostate Cancer that thing that's so slow-growing that it's a toss up as to whether to treat it at all or not? That when trying to remove polyps, you can cause more damage than doing nothing at all... LINK

So if the public is so "wonderfully educated" and getting screened a lot more -- you could just say you are GOING to find more Prostate Cancer and if you start a stop watch on a man in his 50's with the disease, then if he drops dead at 80 from Prostate Cancer, you could take credit for 30 years of "treatment" if you were giving him Tamoxiphin or sugar pills.

I don't know the real answer. I would recommend Breast Cancer treatment but not always Prostate, and the others are all case by case. Best thing you can do is preventive care and eat right.

It will be great if this new plant destroys tumors. I would like it if some "socialist" countries did some of the studies, because I've grown a bit cynical about US companies "profits over everything." I've seen too many corporations like Monsanto and Goldman Sachs. If they could just drown babies and it was legal and this led them to make a million, they'd drown a baby every day, and they'd make sure they had a few bloggers saying; "Well, it's legal." That's a bit of hyperbole, but I haven't seen any historical reason to make me think there aren't plenty of companies that would stoop to the level of any bar you lowered.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by topquark
 


You cannot categorically say this articles won't help anybody.
Yes, I can. Because the article does not mention that it is not the natural version of the compound which was used. Because the article does not mention that the natural version of the compound is not well suited for therapeutic use. Because the article does not mention that the natural version of the compound is toxic.

Because the tone of the article is complete anti "Big Pharma" distortion and that helps no one.


Most of them could not afford to wait another ten years for Big Pharma to complete their studies and their trials and their approvals, before they could benefit from this plant.
It is not the plant which may be of benefit. It is a particular and toxic compound.
edit on 10/20/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


It is the compound that is beneficial, but it was extracted from this plant. Therefore, there may be a slim chance that the plant itself could be useful, no? That people who could not afford to wait could consult herbalists and Chinese doctors about the toxicity, and maybe find a way to circumvent it. They could also conduct their own research if they want. Maybe there could be a way, just maybe. Speaking for myself, this information is useful because I can use my own brain to cut through all the "bias" and do my own research and decide for myself. But at least I was alerted about the beneficial compounds present in this plant.

Saying the plant itself is useless is also a sort of bias, I think.

Science is not the last bastion of truth, especially with regard to human health. There are a lot of things the medical community is still clueless about.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Isn't Prostate Cancer that thing that's so slow-growing that it's a toss up as to whether to treat it at all or not?
Sure. If you're 85 years old and diagnosed with prostate cancer there may not be any point in treating it. If you're 60 it's another story.


I would like it if some "socialist" countries did some of the studies, because I've grown a bit cynical about US companies "profits over everything."
How does China fit into your comfort zone?
informahealthcare.com...



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Urantia1111
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


You're a long-time member. He's notorious for stuff like this.

In this case he seems to be rooting FOR the Medical-Industrial Complex to slightly alter what would be a nearly free cure for cancer then charging dying patients $1000/mg for it.

Sorry. I thought this was common knowledge.


He pointed out the facts, the motto here is "deny ignorance" after all.

I'm with you on the attack on big pharma, and I'm with you on the concept that the Chinese culture is ancient and extremely wise (it's arrogant for Americans or anyone else to think their people are "the best"). But, the facts are the facts. Most medical treatments are in fact derived from their natural counterparts and made to be more effective or deliverable. It doesn't excuse the corruption of big pharma or the fact that they wouldn't think twice about murdering millions by withholding something and making themselves a few more billion $'s.

Your source is biased. The other poster pointed this out and exposed what was being conveniently ignored. End of story.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by topquark
 


Saying the plant itself is useless is also a sort of bias, I think.

Did I say that? Who is stopping anyone from using it for whatever they wish?
edit on 10/20/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by moniesisfun
reply to post by OutonaLimb
 


Phage is not no-conspiracy, or pro-establishment. He's highly skeptical of everything, because he has a highly critical mindset. It's just that his standards for proof are quite high, is all. He can get on my nerves as well, but I still think he's an asset to this website. Cut him some slack.


I'm trying to figure out the reasoning behind you making that post.

Is it a case of phage and friends derail a thread because the content is too real??



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Iam'___'
 


"too real"


Nope, definitely not because of that. Go look up my post history. I jumped on Phage not but 20 or so posts ago. He's actually a decent guy who is genuinely concerned with the truth. That's why I felt like sticking up for him here.

There were idiotic statements made against him, which implied things which just aren't so.

That's why.

Because he's a decent human being and deserves the respect from this community for lending his knowledge, and time to try and help people out.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 

Well may I suggest that you make a thread to air your grievousness. Your post had absolutely nothing to do with the OP.

Back on topic, very interesting when one starts to look into all the evidence available.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iam'___'
reply to post by moniesisfun
 

Well may I suggest that you make a thread to air your grievousness.


No thanks.


Your post had absolutely nothing to do with the OP.


Neither did your post above directed to me. That makes you a hypocrite. It could have been dealt with via u2u.


Originally posted by Iam'___'
I'm trying to figure out the reasoning behind you making that post.

Is it a case of phage and friends derail a thread because the content is too real??


^

not on topic




posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by minettejo
My mother has just recently been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, by imaging, not by biopsy so we are still hoping.

Pancreatic cancer has a survival rate of less than 6% after one year, so really the only hope is alternative therapy or clinical trials. We have contacted a private clinic that will work with DCA (dichloroacetate), but now I am going to look for clinical trials involving Minnelide (the synthesized version of the thunder god vine).

I cannot thank you enough for posting this. There is almost nothing available to fight pancreatic cancer, and almost no such thing as remission from it.


I have not tried it or did anyone that i know of but it is said the hennep plant is a wonder cure for cancer when made into oil. Hennep oil. I'm curious if it really works and i guess it can't hurt to try. Check out this link and good luck.

phoenixtears.ca...



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 


I didn't say I isn't a hypocrite so that is yet again a pointless off topic argument, I too could turn threads into pure farce should I wish. I broke the rule of etiquette to back up the point of this thread, the OP, not to get brownie points from a prominent member or certainly not for 'precious stars'.

I've said my bit, you've not got the point and will no doubt continue as such.

Ignorance denied!



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 

I don't know why big pharma doesn't devote R&D into isolating these compounds and coming out with a new line of treatment methodologies. People will still buy and they'll still make money, or are they devoted solely to the production of potentially harmful drugs with side effects only..?



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
That's why it's called medical marerewanna



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


You know, like make a tea, or dissolve it in alcohol, fermentation or combine with a lipid?
The plant has been used medicinally for ages. The active compound has been determined through science.


It sounds like these studies are headed towards medicine -- but is that only going to result in some patented, expensive compound?
Patented, probably. Expensive, that remains to be seen. Hopefully it will be effective.


I remember watching a leading cancer specialist on a trade show about a decade ago, that the REAL survival rate of patients across all cancers, had only gone up 1.5%.
A meaningless statistic. Using the term "All cancers" makes no sense. People do not contract "all cancers".


We only know that WHEN a Cancer is diagnosed, they've been really successful "CURING" it with Breast Cancer. However -- women get diagnosed much, much earlier now and in greater numbers.
Yes, and the earlier the diagnosis the more effective the treatment.
edit on 10/20/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


No -- the "All Cancers" makes a LOT of sense. What he was saying that in 30 years and billions of dollars of medical expenses, the AVERAGE increase in life expectancies for humans with ALL CANCERS factored in, was 1.5% greater in 1999 than it was in 1969.

The "Earlier the Diagnosis, the more effective the treatment." Like I said; the important stat is MORE PEOPLE ARE NOT LIVING LONGER WITH CANCER. More people are diagnosed at a younger age and treated -- we know that. But you factor in how long all people with cancer live on average -- and it doesn't look so good. Now the "early detection" is probably having a lot of benefit in certain cancers.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
It's ALL about the money. And I mean ALL. Some of the stuff I see disgusts me.
edit on 20-10-2012 by davjan4 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
75
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join