Scientists Find Treatment to Kill Every Kind of Cancer Tumor

reply to post by iamhobo


Finally, I can tell people it doesn't matter if cigarettes give me cancer because there's a cure. No more putting up with their harassment.

J/K

Great find here, I hope it works out well, only time will tell.

bitsforbytes
reply to post by iamhobo

 

I find this to be good news. However, we are still not attacking the root of the problem.

We need answers on the origins of where cancer comes from in the first place.

The problem with this is that there is no money in prevention.

edit on 27-3-2014 by bitsforbytes because: (no reason given)

Nuke testing...

Seriously, since there are supposed to be maps that show the predominance of specific cancers in specific regions of the country I would tend to believe most cancers are caused by environmental factors. Toss in some lifestyle factors and demographic movement and you can probably explain the distribution.

Oaktree
reply to post by Phage

 

What I (and you?) consider money, pharmaceuticals giggle about, and while a cure would be a profit godsend to a company, that patent will end in +/-20yrs.

After that, the cure for cancer is stocked on a shelf next to the common allergy pill.

Also, it would stand to reason that a cure would eventually lead to preventative medication, possibly making the cash cow that cancer is, a thing of the past.

What, like there are not enough other problems with the human condition that they would run out of diseases to make drugs for?

Nahh...imagine being the first company to produce a cancer cure. Billions upon billions to be made. There is no way they would hide this.

For me chemo did the trick even though I was at a fairly advanced stage. Others are not as fortunate as I.

reply to post by Phage


That is wonderful news Phage, glad your a ok.

You must be special.

intrptr
reply to post by Oaktree

 

No money in a cure.

You said it. The money is in the medicine. Besides, I don't see anyone struggling to remove all the carcinogens from our environment. As long as they keep pumping cancer causing agents into our bodies, I don't really see the point in a cure.

"You're cured, now go eat and drink and breathe some more polluted swill. We'll be waiting."

Who will spend more money on health related medicines, procedures etc:

The person who dies from cancer or
The person who is cured and continues to live.

reply to post by Phage


It all depends on the allergy. If it is because the body can't properly neutralize sulfites or nitrosamines, then the allergy is not a true allergy, it is a metabolic issue that was misdiagnosed. If sulfites are not neutralized, they can destroy the elastins in the lung which can lead to COPD and also to cancer. If the nitrogen compounds cannot be neutralized, they cause high insulin levels and this can possibly lead to intestinal cancer because the action of the intestines is reduced and the contents move too slow. some nitrogen compounds also hurts the liver and kidneys, causing the cells not to die when they are supposed to. This can lead to cancer if the mutated cells don't die.

certain histamine responses trigger the body to destroy cancer cells. The mucus that builds up on these cells shields the ability of the body to identify the cancer. This slime is present on most cells, but it is thicker on cancer cells. There are things that break down this slime and other things that increase it's formation. I have not finished studying which of these is the best for targeting. Chemotherapy drugs sometimes attack this slime but it also reduces the slime on all cells so this process causes cellular damage all over.

There are about four or five classes of drugs that fight cancer, I haven't studied all of them yet to find the basis of the knowledge of their creation. I still have some types to do more research on.. I am more interested in stopping the cancer from forming, this means I have to study the basis of medicines. To design a medicine it is easier to know what causes the disease, I think the Pharma companies already know that but it would not be profitable to lessen their consumer base. So I'll just try to figure it out.

The article you provided does not address whether these people with asthma were being treated for the asthma with antihistamines. This is important as the treatment could be increasing the cancer risk. Examining all evidence pertaining to the research is necessary to make the right conclusion.

reply to post by rickymouse

So I'll just try to figure it out.

Ok.
I'm sure we all will be happy to hear your results. I know I will.

Oaktree
reply to post by deadcalm

 

Ahhh...the semantics police. What I should have said is that they would pay any price IF they could afford it. But whether they can or not, will not stop the drug companies for charging through the roof for this. I have no doubt that a family would take out a second mortgage or even sell their home if it meant that they could save a loved one's life.

Cancer, Heart Disease, Alzheimers, the list goes on...
Many of us have lost those we love, the pain is excruciating.

However, while we all struggle to afford the treatments that allow for a few more days/weeks/months with the ones we love, the actual cures always seem to be just over the horizon.

Yep...like the cure for polio
smallpox
measles
yellow fever
malaria
typhoid
whooping cough
tuberculosis
tetanus
diphtheria
chicken pox

All cured during the 20th century. But yeah, cures are not profitable so they are hidden from us. (BS in caps)

Lets just keep that glass half empty. Or perhaps it's the instant gratification generation when gratification isn't instant. Or perhaps it's just plain a lack of intel.

reply to post by Phage


I edited my last post at the bottom, which is very relevant to interpreting the article you posted. Please read the last paragraph.

reply to post by iamhobo


Anything in a positive direction towards Healing
or a cure, rather than "treatment" is Holy in My Book.

Do you have info on Who exactly is funding this research?

I really would like that.

S&F

Cheers to more "Good News" ! THX

reply to post by rickymouse

The article you provided does not address whether these people with asthma were being treated for the asthma with antihistamines.

How do you know? All you can see is the abstract. Or did you buy the article?

But you said this:

I'm sure they found out about this from a study on the coincidence that people with Asthma and some autoimmune diseases usually don't get cancer nearly as often.

You said nothing about antihistamines and can you provide the study you're talking about. The one that studied cancer in asthmatics who don't use antihistamines?


In any case, without antihistamines, it's not cancer that a lot of asthmatics have to worry about so much. The asthma kills them first.

reply to post by Phage


Histamines are needed to destroy cancer cells. New research shows that by using too much antioxidants the body does not break down cells that are mutated. Antioxidants most often prevent cell death, acting as antihistamines. It is good to consume foods containing antioxidants as long as the foods also contain chemistry that protects against such things utilizing the other chemistry of the plant or food to stimulate repair or protection.

I do not have access to the whole article so I, like you, can not properly assess the article to know the parameters of the research. I think I kind of mentioned that above.

Here is from an article...But the jury is out. In one study, giving mice a chemical to cause lung cancer didn’t result in any more tumors in the mice with asthma. (In fact, having asthma didn’t seem to cause OR affect the progression of mice who already had lung cancer.). Likewise, a study out of Canada found that people with asthma had a lower risk of developing 8 types of cancer. It was felt in those studies that an “overactive” immune system, as seen with asthma, may actually help eliminate cells that could become cancerous.

found here. lungcancer.about.com...

With Asthma, you are right, treating Asthma is very important also as it can kill you. Sometimes the treatment for things like that is worth the risk

Kaiju
Combine this with Mark Davis' delivery drug.
Which sadly is still in phase 1 testing after 15 years, while viagra went from application to pharmacies in a year and a half because the FDA "fast tracked" it because it was so promising.
It really doesn't seem like they are in a rush to cure cancer for some reason.
And let's not even get into Royal Rife.

Exactly. I see all these posts on here as I read through this thread and all I can think about is how this will never see the light of day and will fade away....

Big Pharma will make sure of that...

Payoffs, bribes, whatever...

Cancer is big business just as it is and that's why we haven't seen changes in decades.

Great news though. I hope and pray that I'm just a conspiracy nut and this does get "fast tracked" to end a lot of suffering, just like viagra ended a lot of suffering.

While this information is giving much needed hope, we're far from the excitement phase.
It takes years of trial before a new drug is available to more than a hand full of test subjects, and can hit a dead end at any stage.
Research is getting closer for finding better treatment options and a cure, but this discovery has me feeling very impatient!

Phase 1 trials recruit a small number of patients (up to about 30) to try to find out about drug side effects and the best dose to give Phase 2 trials recruit more patients (up to about 50) and look at how well the drug works for particular types of cancer Phase 3 trials are much bigger (100s or even 1000s of patients), and compare new treatments to the standard treatments to see which is better

I'm pretty sure this isn't one of the drugs that can be 'fast tracked' to market.

bbracken677

intrptr
reply to post by Oaktree

 

No money in a cure.

You said it. The money is in the medicine. Besides, I don't see anyone struggling to remove all the carcinogens from our environment. As long as they keep pumping cancer causing agents into our bodies, I don't really see the point in a cure.

"You're cured, now go eat and drink and breathe some more polluted swill. We'll be waiting."

Who will spend more money on health related medicines, procedures etc:

The person who dies from cancer or
The person who is cured and continues to live.

Actually, the person who dies after a long struggle to live. Maybe several months of treatments, maybe several years, but how much do you think all that cost versus popping a pill and it all goes away. Granted, the pill will probably be a 30-day treatment at $2,500 per pill a day, or some other costly way. I'm sure it won't be cheap either way.

Oaktree
I surprise myself with my pessimism lately.
If this turns out to be true, I would wager this never sees the light of day.

All the research will be purchased, patented, then deep-sixed until the "cure" can be turned into something that people become dependent on for life, rather than actually curing a disease.

No money in a cure.

no money....really....if this gets rid of the cancer, is it gone for good? or do you get treatment again if it comes back or you get another type of cancer??? if the cancer is gone and this person lives a long life,well, there are are kinds of medical stuff to treat over their lifetime, hows is that not profitable???

NAJZ...

Is the treatment available for animals....

Preeeeaze?!?!?

Need it for me cat...

Everyone is a doctor/scientist!

I find it very encouraging, there is a huge amount of investment in Cancer and HIV treatment etc. breakthroughs will continue and a "cure" surely will be found, as Marty McFly said, or was it Einstein, if you put your mind to it, you can acheive anything.

We are a trully marvellous race, brilliant and yet terrifying.

Now I wish there was a tablet to stop me killing myself with Alcohol, maybe I need to take Martys advice.

Thanks OP - love hearing about advances to cure this disease!