Scientists Cure Cancer, But No One Takes Notice

reply to post by MrPolon


I meant proof that they were suppressing safer alternatives, forgot to delete the first half of the sentence.

Not all medicines are bad for you, there are a lot of drugs that are safe, paracetamol for example (as long as you don't ingest a stupid amount). Granted some drugs can be harmful, but the people who work for these drug companies put a lot of hard work and effort into researching these drugs to try and make them as safe as possible.

Originally posted by Time2Think


I'm also 100% off of caffeine now, and for the entire first week after I stopped drinking anything with caffeine in it, my entire head felt like it literally was going to explode; I was thinking that it was a side effect of being put on this Levetiraceta stuff but apparently it's just caffeine withdrawal - which is REALLY messed up to me considering caffeine is legal and basically everyone I know or ever met in my life drinks caffeine...

Firstly, I'd just like to point out this is exactly what severe caffeine withdrawal is like for some people, myself included. For me it feels like my head just wants to explode and then I'm too hot or too cold and constantly nauseous to the point where I throw up every pain killer I try to take. It's the worst. Not everyone has it so badly though.

I actually printed the article this thread focuses on out and took it in to show my Neurologist, and it was as if the guy was getting pissed off at me. He got all nervous, started telling me his son had cancer... (which I don't believe at all, but who knows), and was telling me that there was NO RESEARCH ON DCA going on at all - basically he told me to my face that the article was made up and a "conspiracy theory" (Keep in mind they have me on these weird drugs that make it VERY hard for me to focus) But after him going on an on about god knows what for 10-15 minutes he finally managed to load up PubMed or whatever it's called on the computer and was able to find this article.

I told him I would be willing to test out DCA, and that if it was at all possible I would like him to contact the doctors in Canada - he told me was going to talk to them, but we'll see what happens - my next appointment is on June 10th.

As far as right now, this medicine just makes me feel really dizzy - sort of like I'm a living zombie - for about 3 hours after I take it; other than that I'm feeling a million times better now that I'm off of caffeine. But part of me still thinks I'd be feeling even better if I wasn't on these meds...

My doctor is pretty much trying to convince me that he needs to give me another "bad haircut" so he can remove the new "tumor" but that despite what any doctor says, they are never able to surgically remove 100% of a brain tumor.

Personally I'd rather volunteer myself to new and current scientific research in hopes that other people with cancer can be helped.

Please pray for me.

This treatment is being studied, but has only just made it to phase II clinical trials. It would be silly not to try to more conventional options first and even then, I wouldn't recommend it. However, if you are skeptical of your doctor, I would get a second opinion.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine


You know it's funny but the guy pretty much said exactly the same thing to me, almost word for word... it's not that I'm really skeptical of him, it's that if there's a chance for me to be part of a new experiment that could potentially save tons of people, I'd like to be part of it - the problem is I have no idea how to do so, so I pretty much have to depend on him and others.

reply to post by Griffo


I'm still trying to understand how a "generic" version of a drug can be different, even if only slightly different, than whatever the REAL version of the drug is; for example this Keppra vs. Levetiraceta(m) thing.

Or why one pharmacy would automatically prescribe you to a generic version of a drug rather than the actual drug... without giving you any choice or saying anything about it to you at all.

When I asked my Neurologist about it, he pretty much just said it didn't matter, that as long as they weren't swapping between the two it wouldn't make any difference - I don't know what to think anymore... none of it makes any sense to me.

Originally posted by Time2Think
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

You know it's funny but the guy pretty much said exactly the same thing to me, almost word for word... it's not that I'm really skeptical of him, it's that if there's a chance for me to be part of a new experiment that could potentially save tons of people, I'd like to be part of it - the problem is I have no idea how to do so, so I pretty much have to depend on him and others.

edit on 25-5-2011 by Time2Think because: (no reason given)

Email the researchers yourself and find out. That's the best way.

Originally posted by Time2Think
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

You know it's funny but the guy pretty much said exactly the same thing to me, almost word for word... it's not that I'm really skeptical of him, it's that if there's a chance for me to be part of a new experiment that could potentially save tons of people, I'd like to be part of it - the problem is I have no idea how to do so, so I pretty much have to depend on him and others.

edit on 25-5-2011 by Time2Think because: (no reason given)

Email the researchers yourself and find out. That's the best way.

reply to post by Time2Think


There's a thing called a "me too" drug. Which is what pharmaceutical companies use to get one over on rival companies. The way drugs work is, they mimic the effect of a neurotransmitter that is present in the body and bind to the same receptor. They then either inhibit its actions or promote its actions (this is a very simple explanation of how drugs work but you get the picture.)

A rival pharmaceutical company will produce a drug that is similar to the rival drug, but different enough to stop them getting fined for copyright infringement. These 'me too' drugs will act in the same way, but because there is no copyright on them, they can be produced a lot cheaper

Yea and none of them know who the hell I am or care about me or the thousands of other people that are told to take these drugs; all any of them care about is getting their paychecks.

WTF difference does it make if me or somebody else has some crazy seizure and ends up in the back of an ambulance again? Then the hospital can just charge us another grand for a ride.

The world really IS f'd up anymore... and it's really starting to piss me off.

You want the ultimate cure, Drink ozonated water all day long, pathogens never survives in a rich oxygen environment. I have cured cancer once, 4 HSV2 and myself improved my health.

But No One Takes Notice.. no shìt...

So many different threads here about cancer cures, and people tend to listen to their "professional" doctors.

Are anyone doing anything to spread news that can save Family members all over the country?

Or should we argue what is truth to our illusion or what is really the truth, that some minds here in this world can`t handle.

Is it true that animals in the wild don't get cancer unless they live with humans? If so, that says a lot doesn't it? What about the claim that people in the wild who never eat processed foods never get tooth decay? How come animals don't get tooth decay?

reply to post by WWu777

Is it true that animals in the wild don't get cancer unless they live with humans? If so, that says a lot doesn't it?

Cancer kills wild animals too

What about the claim that people in the wild who never eat processed foods never get tooth decay? How come animals don't get tooth decay?

Well, yes, the absence of refined sugar prevents tooth decay, there are a few other reasons. They have different enzymes present in the saliva than we do, which helps prevent tooth decay and they also do not live as long as us, so they don't have the age related tooth problems that we do

In response to the original topic on the thread:

People have taken notice -- dichloroacetate is in clinical trials have begun in Canada and are likely to begin in the US by 2012.

Unfortunately it takes time for these breakthroughs to occur. dichloroacetate can be rather risky, and before they start waving the victory flag and injecting every cancer patient under the sun with it, they need to be sure its risks are outweighed by the benefits.

There is no big-pharma conspiracy. This is just the process. Let's hope it proves to be as successful clinically as it has in the lab.

reply to post by WolfofWar


Thanks for sharing the information in regards to the clinical trials. I know that steps are being taken, but reluctantly because of all the reasons stated in this thread. Mainly...they cannot make a buck off it.

reply to post by freakjive


All very well and good to complain about the big companies but in all seriousness... if you don't make regular donations into Cancer research then you are no better than the cashed up corporations. The only difference is they seek a profit while you seek a cure.

Funding for such trials would be a challenge for the academic community as DCA is a generic drug and early industry support might be limited. Fundraising from philanthropies might be possible to support early phase I - II or small phase III trials. However, if these trials suggest a favourable efficacy and toxicity, the public will be further motivated to directly fund these efforts and national cancer organisations like the NCI, might be inspired to directly contribute to the design and structure of larger trials. It is important to note that even if DCA does not prove to be the 'dawn of a new era', initiation and completion of clinical trials with a generic compound will be a task of tremendous symbolic and practical significance. At this point the 'dogma' that trials of systemic anticancer therapy cannot happen without industry support, suppresses the potential of many promising drugs that might not be financially attractive for pharmaceutical manufacturers. In that sense, the clinical evaluation of DCA, in addition to its scientific rationale, will be by itself another paradigm shift.

A Biologists Blog regarding Dichloroacetate and Cancer

Aaaa if they support a cure then all these college grads coming out to work in the medical field will have no jobs! And jobs are more important than millions of lives!

These post grads in debt need to begin working so they can repay their federal loans so I doubt any help will come from the feds in pushing a cure for cancer. Just face it, we're alone in this.

reply to post by LexiconV


Don't be so quick to judge...I work for a large hospital network and 1% of every paycheck is donated to our medical research foundation.

That being said, I do realize the point you are making and it's a very valid point. I hope that some of the posters on this topic come back to follow-up and read that. What good does it do to complain when you're not contributing or raising awareness elsewhere?

there sure are a lot of these alternative types of treatments i have friends that have dropped around me to cancer. im glad you guys on here are able to spread this awareness.

>:|

.Well recently i
was at a party at my old house on new years eve. My chum that owned the house had brought his new girlfriend round, whom he had been with years before but thats besides the point.His beloved dog had got cancer. ''Ruby'' a lovely natured pedigree dalmation. He has been giving the dog loads of b-17 foods ( krushed apricot kernels and the like, look it up.) Well his girlfriend started talking to me and turns out her best friends dad was a chemist and he'd made a medicine not of b-17 content i dont think, of antibiootic based dug im told...but may of picked that up wrong. He had proved the drgs killed cancer cells and not have the hectic effects on the humanbody whilst doing so.(sounds like THE wonder drug but anyhow). Well this man is very very rich as he got in touch with the big pharms firms to tell them what he had created and they instantly jumped at it and ''paid him off''.Of course this man expected this drug to be brought into production.Four years on and nothing.

Im not a bad judge of person, i personaly believed her.She didnt seem to be a bullsh*ter.
It dosent surprise me tbh but it kinda concretes it in.

All part of the big plan...

Positive

I may have posted in the wrong place sorry, new to this ... k|=|p

reply to post by BlubberyConspiracy

Aaaa if they support a cure then all these college grads coming out to work in the medical field will have no jobs! And jobs are more important than millions of lives!

Not really, in case you hadn't realised cancer is only one disease out of many that still needs to be cured. So even if a cure for cancer was found (it's not likely that there will be a single cure, considering that cancer is a wide array of diseases itself - I would compare it to asking for a single pill that will cure every single disaese humans have), there would still be a multitude of jobs for researchers to go into, for example:

- Alzheimer's disease
- Multiple sclerosis
- HIV
- Cardiovascular diseases (ischaemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, arrhythmia, etc)

That's also before we consider the fact that, if a cure for a specific type of cancer was found, it would generate a lot more jobs for people. Once a cure is found, the process doesn't just stop there; researchers don't just go, "Well done guys, time to shut up shop."

It opens up a whole new area of research - you would have researchers around the world analysing the molecular structure atom by atom to try and find why this molecule is effective at fighting cancer. How to make the drug more efficacious. How to make the drug less toxic. How to decrease the chance of adverse drug reactions. How to make make the drug more selective for its receptor/target. How to manufacture it for cheaper. How to....

The list goes on with ways in which a drug could be improved. That's the thing many people don't seem to realise when they are talking about finding a cure for cancer (or any other disease for that matter)