Let us talk about Cancer Research U K and what is it exactly they do.A Fraudulent Charity?

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by jameshawkings

 

Tullio Simoncini says cancer is cause by the fungus Candida Albicans.

Could it be this fungus that finds its way into vaccines?

C. albicans is the fungus responsible for thrush and no, it does not cause cancer. It is a natural part of your body's flora.

A natural part of body flora until it invades damaged cells

reply to post by hypervalentiodine

You are most correct. You are becoming repetitive. Not to mention there is something wrong with your English comprehension skills. What part of "Five-year age-standardised relative survival rates for the most common cancers in men and women diagnosed during 2000-2001 are shown in Figure 1.1." do you not understand? Now I know you are being deliberately misleading yourself. Rather pathetic don't you think?

Oh I am not preaching to the public. I see very few people following pr commenting on this thread so fail to see how you arrive at that conclusion. I am not forcing people to believe what I say, merely presenting some alternative information that "science" chooses to ignore. Its all available information out there on the interwebz.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree, no?

I am not here to serve you up links and research on a dish. Mine was done some time ago so I have not got a nice handy list to hand but something tells me Cancer Research, or rather the results it has obtained so far, world wide, is not really much to crow about.

See, thats an opinion. Based upon facts and things I have seen, mission statements, yearly reports, etc. You can disagree with my opinion, as I can do with yours.

I am not interested in your explanations of how you think science works. I think its quite obvious how science works and that they are the ones who get to choose which research is done and which research isn't. For my part, they can scrap all animal based testing.

I will leave you now, with one last wikipedia quote about Cancer Research. Here's your "science":
Source

Issues Newsweek magazine published an article criticising the use of lab rats on cancer research because even though researchers frequently manage to cure lab mice transplanted with human tumors, few of those achievements are relevant to humanity.[14] Oncologist Paul Bunn, from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer[15] said: "We put a human tumor under the mouse's skin, and that microenvironment doesn't reflect a person's—the blood vessels, inflammatory cells or cells of the immune system".[14] Fran Visco founder of the National Breast Cancer Coalition completed:"We cure cancer in animals all the time, but not in people."[14] [edit] Funding Some methods, like Dichloroacetate[9] and Coley's Toxins, cannot be patented and thus would not garner the investment interest towards research from the pharmaceutical industry. Many claim that this is why such research is often slow moving, as it lacks funding from pharmaceutical companies. [edit] Innovation The organizational behavior of the large institutions and corporations that research cancer, may unduly favor low-risk research into small incremental advancements, over innovative research that might discover radically new and dramatically improved therapy.[16][17] Breakthrough-ideas are frequently scoffed at by the powers that be.

Now lets just examine this publicly available information for a moment....

Animal testing is largely pointless, we can cure it in animals but not in people? Wow!

Ah yes, the old patent argument. Not enough financial interest. But wait, weren't we donating something like 400 million pounds of our own money there?

And that last paragraph needs no commentary I think.

So basically what we have is a corporation that ignores public wishes, researches the things that it wants to while ignoring some of the more ground-breaking research and gets paid for doing so, while hoping to discover that one magic drug, compound or virus that will earn them bucketloads of cash. Well, thats just great! Now, where is the real health care in all this?

And seeing as how you can't even read the information presented, I will converse with you no more. I wish you well.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
What part of "Five-year age-standardised relative survival rates for the most common cancers in men and women diagnosed during 2000-2001 are shown in Figure 1.1." do you not understand? Now I know you are being deliberately misleading yourself.

Please read this post again. Or at the very least, please read the paper the website sources. They were followed up in 2000-2001, diagnosed prior to that.

Rather pathetic don't you think?

There is no need for insults. I have not gone out of my way to ridicule or insult you and I would appreciate the same courtesy in return.

Oh I am not preaching to the public.

This is a public forum and people are welcome to come in and debate your posts. I am exercising that.

I am not here to serve you up links and research on a dish. Mine was done some time ago so I have not got a nice handy list to hand but something tells me Cancer Research, or rather the results it has obtained so far, world wide, is not really much to crow about. See, thats an opinion. Based upon facts and things I have seen, mission statements, yearly reports, etc. You can disagree with my opinion, as I can do with yours.

As I said some posts ago, I do not disagree with your opinion, I disagree with the way you present it and the 'facts' within it. The bit I put in bold in the above quote is speaking in terms of an informed opinion and while you claim to have done this research some time ago, your opinion is overly ill-informed. Intuition does not constitute research.

Now lets just examine this publicly available information for a moment....

Animal testing is largely pointless, we can cure it in animals but not in people? Wow!

The thing with Wikipedia is that you really do need to check their sources before you cite them. I checked out the article they referenced for the quote. Neither Paul Bunn nor Fran Visco are in it and neither are their supposed quotes.

After doing a quick search, I will agree that perhaps animal models do not possess the same predictive power for drug efficacy in cancer as they do for other diseases. That being said, they do still offer indication of issues regarding toxicity. For that reason alone, I say it's worth it. We also use in vitro models such as Caco-2 monolayer tests, P450 assays, etc., before the animals so much as see the drug.

Regarding DCA: The compound itself isn't patentable, but the treatment is. Some time ago I was doing research for another thread I was posting in and found it to already have been patented. My post about it may be found here.

So basically what we have is a corporation that ignores public wishes, researches the things that it wants to while ignoring some of the more ground-breaking research and gets paid for doing so,

Corporations are not the only ones involved in cancer research. The vast majority of it comes from academic labs based at various universities or institutes.