Scientists find treatment to kill every kind of cancer tumor!!!

reply to post by Blazer


I have to agree with you on this, the drug companies will buy it up and shelve it..

Castor oil will shrink tumors. I saw it work 1st hand on a tumor our dog had. A friend used it for her RA (castor oil wraps). Unknown she had a tumor in her uterus. One day it expelled all black and icky (it died). Doctors still do not know why but we do! She is now cancer free No sugars, all organic, castor oil, and cleansing.

reply to post by davesmart


So true , we have two in our immediate family battling cancer right now , one of which will be 95 in July & until last week had never been in the hospital . She has always been a picture of health & now went from being up & about doing her own house work to next to bed fast in two weeks being diagnosed with late stage cervical cancer.

The other in her 70s smokes like a train we are waiting to pin the exact type , location & stage down but suspect it maybe the same . It is similar symptoms & pain locations .

John

Originally posted by Foxy1
reply to post by SpearMint

 

um like the lab technican running the cancer scan who is making 90k a year or the company who is employing him? im sure this is awesome news to them..knowing they would be out of work.
do you think human life is more important than billions of dollars? maybe as a simple individual outside the picture possibly

What the hell are you talking about?

I think the way that people are lumping all pharmaceutical companies together , calling them 'Big Pharma' and then claiming that 'big pharma' wouldn't ever want to find a cure is much to much of an unrealistic generalization.

You have to remember that pharmaceutical companies are in competition with each other. They are just normal companies that solely exist to make money. Whichever company comes up with 'the cure' or a very effective treatment will make billions. This would allow them to make even more money. All the people they can keep alive will in the long run be buying more and more drugs off them as they get older and older.

Cancer can be very fast to kill a person once its diagnosed. Many people in this thread have said how family members passed away in less then an year after being diagnosed. This is certainly not very profitable for pharmaceutical companies in the long run.

I do appreciate that pharmaceutical companies wont go and fund research in things that ultimately can not be patented but this way of thinking alone proves they would go for something that is made up of complex drugs or treaments.

The Cure For Cancer

heh, has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

Originally posted by seentoomuch
Wow! Great news! I wonder if it would help against auto-immune diseases also, just reverse the procedure?

This would probably not help with an auto-immune disease at first glance. It's the exact opposite problem from Cancer and it's "do not kill" cells. The over active immune system attacks and weakens healthy cells -- often it's the side effect of an allergic reaction, or a "clever" bacterium releasing toxins that paint other cells as targets. In the case of things like Candida, the foods that make the yeast cell grow cause it to release more junk into the system and the body treats the yeast "junk" as a histamine and attacks it. In the case of AIDS, it's a virus that attacks T-Cell antibodies, and hijacks them to attack, so they ignore all "do not kill" signals.

Now, some of what I said is text book, some of it I just figured out -- and I'm not always sure whether things are facts or guesses, but I've been a really good "guesser" if past is prologue.

The trouble with the CD47 drug is going to be; "how do you remove the 'do not kill' signal from a Tumor and NOT healthy cells?" It's Radiology by another name if you cannot distinguish friend from foe.

Personally, I think that the REAL cure for cancer will involve a recently discovered (and something I've harped on for 20 years), Gene based "messaging system" in higher organisms. When the body is stressed, and needs to "adapt", Lymph cells look in the "junk DNA" and find past responses to similar stressors. This gets transmitted to the body with "please copy to 10 friends" message. Over time, if there is a lot of toxic stress on the body, eventually the "kill this message after 10 copies" on the telomeres goes missing, the "kill copy" tag is lost. Cancer is a spam email virus that never stops, and a tumor is basically like a "Denial of Service" where the system in that area is overloaded -- and the BODY causes the tumor as a stop-gap to deal with cells it can't control -- just as polyps form. They aren't dangerous by themselves so removing tumors doesn't always solve the cancer problem -- it's about the messaging errors.

So we will one day learn that cancers are contagious. That we can treat them with retroviruses. That they are messaging errors of our OWN BODY. That extra CD47 is probably a side-effect of the "keep copying" signal on the message. All proteins that are not to be disposed of by the immune system have this "do not kill" tag. I read about CD47 about a year ago BTW. Since Cancer is cells that have been stuck making copies of "do not kill" message, it's stands to reason that they'd be little other than broken, struggling cells producing messages and so there'd be a higher concentration.

This hints that reducing ALL STRESSORS of the body -- and improving the diet, will always be a good idea for Cancer. A stop-gap measure -- just like some Chemo that targets fast growing cells to kill off -- would be to stop all protein messages in the body. It would leave a person less "adaptable" and thus with a slightly weakened immune system, but it would also stop the reproduction of the "Band message cancer cells" that act like a virus -- perhaps long enough to clear the system even if the cancer has metastasized.

So there you go world; cure for cancer right there. But how do you do it? I'm not very good at following up on the other thousand ideas I get a day, so I'll have to wait twenty years for someone in a lab to go "Eureka!"

reply to post by paxnatus


This is a very delicate situation and there is nothing to apologize for. I am only talking because I belong to a rather small group of people that actually knows about the topic.

I am a kidney cancer research scientist and I do know everything you are talking about as I've been aware of stem cell research and stem cells clinical applications since 1996. Furthermore, several family members of mine suffered and some are still fighting for their life's after getting their cancer diagnosis (one cousin of mine has a malignant pancreatic cancer... he is fighting but the survival life expectancy is 3 years, 2 have already pasted and he's getting worse).

I'm really glad to know that things were done almost the best way possible. The best way is always the self transplantation (although some doctors still disagree) but that option depends on each individual physical condition.

I wish you and your mother all the best and do forgive me if I think that 1% is 1% too much. Right know I am working with some state of the art technology (to be honest I am developing new technologies) and it is astonishing how hard it is for us to induce a tumor. Just as a brief reference, someone I loved, my grandmother died old after having been diagnosed to have uterus cancer. It was the first time I heard the word, I was 5 or 6 years old. She lived enough to teach me to be a good human being. She died from her advanced age and other complications but her cancer had to be kept under control for almost 30 years.

reply to post by novrod


Thank you for your dedication and hard work in fighting cancer. I just sent you a personal message.

Kindly,
pax

Originally posted by douggie60
reply to post by Blazer

 

I have to agree with you on this, the drug companies will buy it up and shelve it..

The head of the research team, Irv Weissman, did start a company to bring an earlier treatment to market and a larger company did buy it and shelve it. He spoke about this in his KPFK interview. They are now trying setting up human trails through academic pathways to avoid that.

His interview is great. KPFK, 4/6/13, 5:00 pm PDT "Beneath the Surface".:

archive.kpfk.org...

My manager had cancer which he was able to defeat through a pure raw foods diet. I believe he was given a life expectancy and was told to start with chemo but instead he found some resources that led him to use this alternative approach. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone as a treatment since I don't know how great a role diet plays and I don't see it curing cancer... I'd imagine his case being a rare (strange?) exception. In any case I hope this research pans out into something viable.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


If you read the original Science Magazine article, this is much less than the cure-all for cancer reported in the news releases. I believe this project has great promise, but it is as yet an unproven therapy. After clinical trials are completed, we will have a better idea of what this will mean to cancer patients. The best part is that it stopped the spread of cancer in mice.

This is incredible! Im going to follow this thread for any updates. This is jumping the gun but does anyone know typically how long it takes if possible to successfully use this on humans once its worked on lab mice? 6 months? 1 year? 3-5?

If you are going to post a title like that you need include the list of each cancer and the dosage/compound/route of administration which cures it.

Anything else is just attention seeking, and to do it with cancer, is really is poor..

Cheers

There are hundreds of compounds shown effective in mice, doesn't mean it will work in humans. Go on pubmed and you will see many cancers are cured in mice. The systems are artificial and do not translate to humans as simple as you think.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
I think the way that people are lumping all pharmaceutical companies together , calling them 'Big Pharma' and then claiming that 'big pharma' wouldn't ever want to find a cure is much to much of an unrealistic generalization.

You have to remember that pharmaceutical companies are in competition with each other. They are just normal companies that solely exist to make money. Whichever company comes up with 'the cure' or a very effective treatment will make billions. This would allow them to make even more money. All the people they can keep alive will in the long run be buying more and more drugs off them as they get older and older.

Cancer can be very fast to kill a person once its diagnosed. Many people in this thread have said how family members passed away in less then an year after being diagnosed. This is certainly not very profitable for pharmaceutical companies in the long run.

I do appreciate that pharmaceutical companies wont go and fund research in things that ultimately can not be patented but this way of thinking alone proves they would go for something that is made up of complex drugs or treaments.

HaHa. I know people who used to work for Pharma companies, my opinion comes with a little real knowledge attached, not just my opinion. One guy I know still works in a small company after leaving his big pharma job.

Did you ever hear of professional courtesy? I am a builder and was also a real estate salesman for a few years. You don't cut down others of the trade or the whole thing crumbles, it is in the unwritten policies of most trades in this world.

reply to post by rickymouse


So you're suggesting a company would pass up the chance to be one the richest companies in the world. Plus miss out on repeat business from satisfied customers out of professional curtsey to other competing corporations in a failing world economy?

Of course they wont be interested in treatments that they can not make a profit from, but that doesn't mean they would throw away a good profit making treatment.

A huge percentage the people who would be saved from dying from cancer would be in the over 50 range and would then be in the market for more drugs and treatments for other age related illnesses for the rest of their lives. Its a win win situation for the company who finds the most effective treatment.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


Say you owned a big company and found a cure for cancer in a simple yet inexpensive compound that could not be patented. To release this information would mean that your present money making drugs were not necessary. Would you release the information knowing it would lower your sales. If you did release the info, would your stockholders react negatively.

Don't give me crap, I have owned a business for years and have a lot of friends that are business owners. A cure for cancer would also devastate the US economy because of it's structure.

reply to post by rickymouse


I own my own business also, its a dog eat dog world out there. Competing companies will lie, steal, cheat and kill to get on top. Also corporations are duty bound to do so by law.

A cure for cancer would also devastate the US economy because of it's structure.

lol the American economy is already pretty much doomed. But without even considering that, the idea that the entire American economy solely depends on dispensing the existing treatments for cancer is an idea born out of ignorance.

Say you owned a big company and found a cure for cancer in a simple yet inexpensive compound that could not be patented.

Like i said :

Of course they wont be interested in treatments that they can not make a profit from, but that doesn't mean they would throw away a good profit making treatment.

No one is talking about a simple compound that everyone can profit from. What a company would lose in profits from a small 2-5 year period where a person was dying from cancer they would then gain back from maybe 20 more years of them suffering from other age related illnesses that need expensive drugs and treatments. Its simple economics..

reply to post by PhoenixOD


People go to doctors a lot and also go for testing to make sure they are cancer free. Cancer stays keep hospitals afloat. Fifteen to twenty percent minimum of all money going through the medical field has to to with cancer one way or another. Knock of this money and a lot of people are out of work. A doctor will still be working but his office staff will be less. This would equate to a loss of at least a hundred thousand workers in the medical field in this country alone. Wake up PhoenixOD. I went to that first class in Economics for physicians. I also quit Pre-med because of what I heard that day.