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

page: 6
75
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by xXSvenXx
 


I believe a not for profit phama should be formed and a % of all profits by all pharma's is donated for R&D. All medications should be capped in price, reasonably and reflecting the state of the country. ie: AIDS drugs in Africa should be free or dirt cheap. Medications should be affordable by all.

As a people, we can do better. No more patenting methods, that is just greed. We will always get ill and we will always need medication, it is as vital as the air we breathe and companies are profiting greatly on a basic human need, to live, comfortably and healthy.

Sure, treatments cost, R&D costs, but treatment is cheaper than a cure and it is a logical step for the big pharma to sink more money into treatments than cures, which is disadvantageous to everyone on earth.

We need to do better.




posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


The article in the OP is discussing a potential natural cure for cancer.
No. The article in the OP is discussing research using a synthetic analog of a natural compound. The natural compound is not well suited for use because it is not soluble in water. The synthetic version is and so can be delivered much easier and probably in lower doses than can the natural compound.


Of course, people sell natural products, but how much would it cost to buy this 'cure' from Big Pharma or a natural herb shop?
You may have a hard time buying it in a herb shop because it is quite toxic, you're welcome to try but be careful with it. I don't know how much it may cost if clinical trials find it to be effective.


Of course, the whole thread is based on the fact this compound actually does what it is supposed to, but rest assured forces will work to make sure if it is the magic cure, it will never see be mainstream medicine.
What are you talking about? Have you even read anything but that biased article in the OP? The research is being done by "mainstream medicine". But there is nothing magic about. This compound, like others being researched shows great promise as a chemotherapy agent.
edit on 10/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

According to the new research out of the University of Minnesota’s Masonic Cancer Center . . .


Very interesting. The University of Minnesota's Masonic Cancer Center.

I've never heard of such a thing. I had to google it to make sure it's real: The University of Minnesota Masonic Cancer Center.

Why would a university research center be masonic?



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
edit on 10/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


The article in the OP is discussing a potential natural cure for cancer.
No. The article in the OP is discussing research using a synthetic analog of a natural compound. The natural compound is not well suited for use because it is not soluble in water. The synthetic version is and so can be delivered much easier and probably in lower doses than can the natural compound.


Of course, people sell natural products, but how much would it cost to buy this 'cure' from Big Pharma or a natural herb shop?
You may have a hard time buying it in a herb shop because it is quite toxic, you're welcome to try but be careful with it. I don't know how much it may cost if clinical trials find it to be effective.


Of course, the whole thread is based on the fact this compound actually does what it is supposed to, but rest assured forces will work to make sure if it is the magic cure, it will never see be mainstream medicine.
What are you talking about? Have you even read anything but that biased article in the OP? The research is being done by "mainstream medicine". But there is nothing magic about. This compound, like others being researched shows great promise as a chemotherapy agent.
edit on 10/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


We can look forward to the eradication of pancreatic cancer then can't we!

Going by your glowing view of Big Pharma, they will be at work right now perfecting the doses and unleashing their product to the masses as cheaply as possible and cancer will be a thing of the past!



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


We can look forward to the eradication of pancreatic cancer then can't we!
Unfortunately, probably not (even though the article in the OP would have you believe that). But hopefully a treatment which is more effective than any currently available. Hopefully it will allow more lives to be saved or extended.


Going by your glowing view of Big Pharma, they will be at work right now perfecting the doses and unleashing their product to the masses as cheaply as possible and cancer will be a thing of the past!
What "glowing view"? Why can't you get it straight that I'm saying that the article in the OP is highly biased and distorts the facts? "Big Pharma" probably won't be involved with this reasearch at least until clinical trials have been performed. This testing has only involved pancreatic cancer and no claims have been made that this compound will make cancer "a thing of the past".
edit on 10/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


It's either them or the distinguished Shriners divison. Charitable philanthropic work.

I'm currently somewhat neutral on any possible motives, because during my brief, intermediary/non in-depth research on Ionic/Colloidal Silver, I found a few studies funded by them(Masons/Shriners) reporting positive results...



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


We can look forward to the eradication of pancreatic cancer then can't we!
Unfortunately, probably not (even though the article in the OP would have you believe that). But hopefully a treatment which is more effective than any currently available. Hopefully it will allow more lives to be saved or extended.


Going by your glowing view of Big Pharma, they will be at work right now perfecting the doses and unleashing their product to the masses as cheaply as possible and cancer will be a thing of the past!
What "glowing view"? Why can't you get it straight that I'm saying that the article in the OP is highly biased and distorts the facts? "Big Pharma" probably won't be involved with this reasearch at least until clinical trials have been performed. This testing has only involved pancreatic cancer and no claims have been made that this compound will make cancer "a thing of the past".
edit on 10/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I agree the article is biased and have already said we need a middle ground.

That doesn't stop me thinking 'Big Pharma' will try and make as much money as possible from something like this, they are a business and profit is their primary concern, not the health benefits to people.

If it turns out this compound will eradicate pancreatic cancer, would Big Pharma be willing to provide a a medicine as cheaply as possible to help as many people as possible, even if that meant a decrease in profits in the long term?



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


That doesn't stop me thinking 'Big Pharma' will try and make as much money as possible from something like this, they are a business and profit is their primary concern, not the health benefits to people.

"Big Pharma" does not hold the patent. The University of Minnesota does and has licensed Minneamrita Therapeutics LLC to produce it. Minneamrita Therapeutics LLC was founded by Ashok K. Saluja and the other researchers in order to take the drug to clinical trials. Not exactly "Big Pharma".



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
My question is obvious. Who the hell would think that anything synthetic is better or more helpful than what's supplied NATURALLY BY NATURE FOR WHAT MILLENIA??? Everything here is made perfect. We need not take anything and improve on it. ASPIRIN perfect example, it is NOT synthesized it is just the same as it was 100 years ago, simply white ash bark pulverized. The only thing we did is mix it with sugars and grains etc, to adjust dosages.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Who the hell would think that anything synthetic is better or more helpful than what's supplied NATURALLY BY NATURE FOR WHAT MILLENIA???
Because, in this case, the natural compound is not really effective because it is not water soluble.


ASPIRIN perfect example, it is NOT synthesized it is just the same as it was 100 years ago, simply white ash bark pulverized.
Seriously? You think that all the aspirin produced comes from trees? Aspirin is a synthetically altered form of salicin (more than 100 years ago). Salicylic acid, the natural version, is not really pleasant on the digestive system.
edit on 10/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
A thought provoking debate and I am always suspicious of the motives associated with big pharma and the billions donated into Cancer research, especially when you learn that some cures haven't evolved much over the last 10 years. That said, detection techniques and faster treatments have raised the success rates marginally.
With 1 in 3 people now actually likely to develop cancer it is always going to be an emotive topic.

Prevention is always better than cure so stay active, no heavy smoking or drinking and eating healthy should keep your body in check.

I'm pleased to see that natural ingredients are being developed into practical cures, every plant that mother nature grows has a purpose, humans are just stuck in their own little profit orientated mindsets to take some time to understand that.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by digitalf
 


I'm pleased to see that natural ingredients are being developed into practical cures, every plant that mother nature grows has a purpose, humans are just stuck in their own little profit orientated mindsets to take some time to understand that.
It's hard to find any pharmacological agent which did not originate from a natural compound. That doesn't mean that the natural compound is as effective, available, or safe as the synthesized one.
edit on 10/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by digitalf
 


I'm pleased to see that natural ingredients are being developed into practical cures, every plant that mother nature grows has a purpose, humans are just stuck in their own little profit orientated mindsets to take some time to understand that.
It's hard to find any pharmacological agent which did not originate from a natural compound. That doesn't mean that the natural compound is as effective, available, or safe as the synthesized one.
edit on 10/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I take your point, but I’m not sure there is enough evidence to support either claim, there have been clinical trials sponsored by the very pharma manufacturing the synthesized cure - imo too many conflicts of interest to be 100% sure there is no bias.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by digitalf
 

Clinical trials are not simply a matter of declaring, "This new drug works really really well". The trials are subject to third party review, just as the pre-clinical research about Minnelide is.

No one claims the system is perfect but it's probably a lot better than the methods used to find those medicinal plants millennia ago, "That's a funny looking plant. I wonder what it tastes like. I know, let's try Chin. He'll eat anything. I wonder how much he can eat before he gets sick."
edit on 10/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Patented, probably. Expensive, that remains to be seen. Hopefully it will be effective.


Yeah. Effective for profits.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

You figured it out. It's a profit deal. Profit is bad.


edit on 10/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Profit is bad.


No, profit is good when it's earned in an honest fashion by hard-working, honest people.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
It is soluble in alcohol, and also, if we'd have left nature alone then we'd not have so much cancer and stuff.
ETA For example FLOURIDE GMO THE CRAP THEY ADD TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS Fake DYES FAKE SUGARS (ASPARTAME) ETC ETC...
edit on 21-10-2012 by ldyserenity because: add



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Ah. I see. Hard working. And the pharmaceutical industry is composed of...who? Lazy scientists? Lazy manufacturers? Lazy distributors?

How much medicine do you think would be available if it weren't for profit?



new topics
top topics
 
75
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join