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

reply to post by ldyserenity

It is soluble in alcohol, and also, if we'd have left nature alone then we'd not have so much cancer and stuff.

How effectively does alcohol carry the compound to where it is needed? If it is dissolved in alcohol, can it be applied in low enough quantities to not be toxic and still be effective?

Yes, some people's lifestyles lead to some types of cancer. So what? What does that have to do with the topic? We are talking about a promising new drug and how a biased article distorted the actual research.

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

The scientists, manufacturers, and distributors are all just trying to make a living, I suspect. When people use the term "big pharma" they're talking about corporate interests that are focused on what corporations are created to do: Make money.

Making money has nothing to do with the health and well being of the populace. There is a conflict in our system.

If we had an honest government, which we do not, but if we did, I believe that medical research should be paid for by the tax payer so that there is no conflict of interest.

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

Medicines provided by Mother Nature have always been available.

My point is we wouldn't need all thier crap medicine at all if they stopped poisoning us daily. Nothing was said about anybody's habits. I could smoke a hundred cigarettes a day in the 1400's and never get cancer...reason being nobody was putting poisons in the tobacco. Sheesh. And nature was and is perfect, so it's not soluble, eat it instead of dissolving it and stomach acid will dissolve it.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Making money has nothing to do with the health and well being of the populace. There is a conflict in our system.

Food has a bit to do with our well being. Is there a conflict in making a profit from selling food?

I believe that medical research should be paid for by the tax payer so that there is no conflict of interest.

The research in this study was funded in large part by the NIH. That is tax payer money.

Medicines provided by Mother Nature have always been available.

And still are. It's just that in a lot of cases they have been greatly improved upon, both in being more effective as well as less toxic.

reply to post by ldyserenity

I could smoke a hundred cigarettes a day in the 1400's and never get cancer...reason being nobody was putting poisons in the tobacco.

Sure you could. I'm sure all that tar and crap is perfectly harmless. (Never mind the fact that there were no cigarettes in the 1400's).

And nature was and is perfect, so it's not soluble, eat it instead of dissolving it and stomach acid will dissolve it.

Eat it. Ok. How much should I eat to cure my pancreatic cancer? The traditional use is for arthritic conditions, not cancer.

Unfortunately, it is well known that triptolide has small margin between the therapeutic and toxic doses and shows serious toxicity on digestive, urogenital and blood circulatory system when its level rises beyond the upper limitation.16—18) Ding H’ research also showed that the acute necrosis of liver was the main cause of death.19)

www.jstage.jst.go.jp...

Originally posted by Phage
Food has a bit to do with our well being. Is there a conflict in making a profit from selling food?

No, but that's not analogous.

Are you being cute?

The conflict of interest I cited has nothing to do with profit per se; it has to do with the role of profit in a scenario where scientific inquiry is taking place.

The research in this study was funded in large part by the NIH. That is tax payer money.

I know. I said if we had an honest government tax payer funded research would be the answer. We don't have an honest government. We have government by corporate interests.

It's just that in a lot of cases they have been greatly improved upon, both in being more effective as well as less toxic.

I think you're dead wrong about that.

reply to post by Mary Rose

it has to do with the role of profit in a scenario where scientific inquiry is taking place.

Who is profiting from this research?

I know. I said if we had an honest government tax payer funded research would be the answer. We don't have an honest government.

So you think the research about this compound is invalid because it had government funding. Bummer, it seems to show a lot of promise.

There's tons of things that can fight tomers. I think the number one thing to avoid them is never to get diagnosed with one. If you feel terrible or something, then ya perhaps go see a dr. but the problem is I've heard of so many people getting diagnosed with cancer when they're feeling completely fine. And then they believe it and fall for the oldest trick in the book. I basically don't even go to dr's anymore unless it's for trauma care or I think I'm gonna die

reply to post by r2d246

I think the number one thing to avoid them is never to get diagnosed with one.

Right. Excellent idea.

I basically don't even go to dr's anymore unless it's for trauma care or I think I'm gonna die

Sudden weight loss? Think you're going to die?
Nausea? Think you're going to die?
Itchy skin? Think you're going to die?

You have a good plan there. Just tough it out.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

No -- the "All Cancers" makes a LOT of sense. What he was saying that in 30 years and billions of dollars of medical expenses, the AVERAGE increase in life expectancies for humans with ALL CANCERS factored in, was 1.5% greater in 1999 than it was in 1969.

You have to be careful with the statistics you use. You seem to have changed what you first said. First you said cancer rates (I assumed you were talking about survival rates) now you're talking about an increase in life expectancy. Which is it?

Obviously I'm talking about BOTH -- and you can make a case that Cancer treatments are spectacularly successful; for all you're money, you get a 50% chance of living a full life (or less, results may vary). And if you look ignore Cancer rates and say; How often do people die from cancer today versus 40 years ago? The last estimate I heard was 1.5% improvement -- though I saw it on a medical seminar show and it was only meant for other doctors. It's really, really hard to search for a Cancer stat -- much less get one in context.

What I'm saying is "I don't know" -- and we did actually undergo cancer treatments because NOT doing it, seemed like a bad idea. But this is with a cancer with better success rates. Other cancers, and you could say our treatments are a dismal failure.

More people are diagnosed at a younger age and treated -- we know that. But you factor in how long all people with cancer live on average -- and it doesn't look so good.

Not true.

In the past decades, gains in cancer survival have been largely driven by improvements in treatment, even for some cancers (breast and colon) for which there have been increased efforts to improve detection. In these latter cases, the results are attributable to both progress in detection and the surprisingly rapid improvement in survival at every given stage of diagnosis.

www.asco.org...




I didn't say cancer treatments weren't getting better. We are finding MORE cancer. But is that NEW cancer, such that what is in our food or environment is making us sicker, or is that just because of MORE testing? Some argue that SOMETHING isn't causing a lot of the Autism (because of more sensitive testing increasing the apparent rate) -- and then apply this in reverse to say Cancer treatments are awesome!

I'm saying that YOU and I don't know which is the right answer -- and you've glossed over this with a lot of confidence. The stats for survival in Cancer say "90%" if 9 people out of 10 live for 5 years. Again -- that kind of stat is almost useless if we can't know how many people REALLY had cancer 30 or 50 years ago. And if you detect the cancer earlier because more people are testing -- did you REALLY cure it, or did you just start the clock on "survival rate" earlier?

Just some questions. Please think a bit more before you answer -- I'm repeating the premise again.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

It's really, really hard to search for a Cancer stat -- much less get one in context.

Actually, it's not. And you can find them in just about any context you wish.
seer.cancer.gov...

The stats for survival in Cancer say "90%" if 9 people out of 10 live for 5 years. Again -- that kind of stat is almost useless if we can't know how many people REALLY had cancer 30 or 50 years ago.

The statistics are based on the number of people diagnosed with cancer, of course. How can they be based on people who did not have cancer or were not diagnosed? In your example it says that 9 out of 10 people diagnosed with cancer lived for 5 years (at least) after treatment. So what would that statistic have been 30 years ago? A higher percentage of people diagnosed with cancer and treated are living longer lives than those diagnosed with cancer and treated thirty years ago. Of course if your plan is like that of r2d246 (the "see no evil" method) you won't appear on either side of the board. You'll just be dead.

And if you detect the cancer earlier because more people are testing -- did you REALLY cure it, or did you just start the clock on "survival rate" earlier?

Which clock? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? Talking about a cure and in the same breath talking about a "clock" doesn't really make sense. I have been cancer free for 25 years. That sounds like a cure to me but if I had been killed by a car 20 years ago I would have had a 5 year survival, not a cure because the clock stopped at that point.

Originally posted by Phage
Who is profiting from this research?

I think that if we had an honest government, we should have tax payer funded research done by scientists who work for the government on salary.

So you think the research about this compound is invalid because it had government funding. Bummer, it seems to show a lot of promise.

I suspect that the research is riddled with problems. The masonic connection to the research is a red flag. Even if there were no masonic connection, there is a problem with a patent involved.

reply to post by Mary Rose

The masonic connection to the research is a red flag. Even if there were no masonic connection, there is a problem with a patent involved.

Oh yes. Philanthropy is very much a red flag. You really should be suspicious of the Shriners too. What they do for crippled children is highly suspect.

If there was no patent actual "Big Pharma" could steal this highly promising compound from those who developed it.

Originally posted by Phage
Oh yes. Philanthropy is very much a red flag. You really should be suspicious of the Shriners too. What they do for crippled children is highly suspect.

You are badly in need of an education about how things are actually done.

Have you done any investigation whatsoever into front groups? Do you even understand the concept?

Do you know anything whatsoever about the role of foundations/"philanthropy" in serving the interests of the powerful elite?

Have you ever heard of the Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations (1954)? That is an example of the kind of thing that goes on. The topic there is education not medicine, but the improper influence is the same. This link is to a 16page .pdf file: Dodd Report.

This is a 1982 interview of Norman Dodd:

Google Video Link

reply to post by Mary Rose

The report which was written as part of the McCarthy witch hunt? That report?
en.wikipedia.org...

He doesn't seem to mention the Shriners or the Masons but maybe we should just stick to the topic.

reply to post by Phage


I see. You dismiss the Dodd Report.

And you claim that front groups are off-topic on this thread, do you?

reply to post by Mary Rose

I see. You dismiss the Dodd Report.

Yes. The evil plot to merge the US with the Soviet Union didn't seem to go very well. But did you read the foreward to the report? The part where he says foundations have contributed "innumerable public benefits"?

And you claim that front groups are off-topic on this thread, do you?

Yes. The topic is:

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

reply to post by minettejo


I hope it works out for you man! Sorry to hear about your mother, theres still a chance though, hopefully this Medicine works for your mother, good luck!

reply to post by Phage


The point is, foundations/"philanthropy" are not what they seem.

Yes, I know what the topic is. The OP is about an article concerning research done by an institution connected with a secret society, apparently.

Cancer is an industry in the United States. The topic of "front groups" is highly relevant, from my perspective.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by r2d246

 

I think the number one thing to avoid them is never to get diagnosed with one.

Right. Excellent idea.

I basically don't even go to dr's anymore unless it's for trauma care or I think I'm gonna die

Sudden weight loss? Think you're going to die?
Nausea? Think you're going to die?
Itchy skin? Think you're going to die?

You have a good plan there. Just tough it out.

Well you don't just tough it out. You go seek some alternative treatments. Like take more vit-c for starters. If that doesn't work then maybe move on to some other chinese medicine type ideas.

Kemo has like a 98% mortality rate, so YA TOUGH IT OUT, your odds are way better!