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

Originally posted by lisa2012

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
Ive seen ton and tons of posts now in this thread where people are claiming that the pharmaceutical companies dont want there to be a cure because they will lose out on money. This just doesn't seem all that logical to me.

For a start they would be able to charge a hell of a lot for any effective treatment, also if someone did have their cancer cured then they will still be dying of something else at a later date. Whatever they eventually die from will probably require treatment and drugs of one kind . So the pharmaceutical companies are still going to make their money one way or another.

edit on 5-4-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

Hi Phoenix,

In a way i disagree because I work in the pharma industry and I can tell you that only in the chemo therapy part of the pharma they are cashing huge amounts of money. A cure will virtually eliminate this process. This process is a huge money making scheme.

Of course recently it is proven that the rate of success for chemo therapy is not that high and the risks are so great so in the near future they will try and do away with this. But like everything else I think it takes time.

A cure is bound to come on the market at one point. The problem is it should have been here already long ago. With all the science and research behind it is no reason that we do not have a cure yet. I think it was stalled or it is postponed. I absolutely find this disease very inhumane and I hope that in the near future will look back and ponder as to why we did not have a cure faster. So many people are dying because of this CANCER and even if the statistics do not reflect it I believe it to be the Disease of the Century ....

Exactly what I'm saying. TPTB will bury this. There is too much $ to be made of Chemo and keeping cancer victims functionally alive for as long as possible.

2030-2040 we "might" hear about this again, but I doubt it.

This will probably come back out once we reach a stage where everything is being done by Stem-Cells, Genetically modified, new organs grown on petri dishes and transplanted successfully, and then some country like Germany, Japan, or Ecuador will provide the Cancer cure first and everyone will flock there for it, forcing Big Pharma to finally have to decide to make it available here.

Plus we are 8 years behind on stem cell tech due to G W. Bu$h being Prez when he made stem cell research basically illegal

mark my word,
there's cure for every disease, except death.

the cure will be found sooner or later.

To have all the world in good health,there's a solution.Destroy banking system,put interest out of law.Then honesty will come back to humanity.Honest laboratories,honest judges,governments,etc etc.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by rickymouse

 

Your new avatar looks cranky, maybe you need a little vacation.

Lord Tywin Lannister from Game of Thrones. I tend to pick TV or movie characters I can relate to for avatars, and commonly of a show I'm currently invested in.

Back on topic though, the potential for this is kind of mind-boggling, though I have to wonder how they haven't thought of this line of approach before. I wonder if the company can be invested in?

It appears that the RBC are effected by the medications but the body starts boosting it's production of blood cells to compensate. This would mean that people with a problem with making blood cells properly may have a problem with this treatment. A lot of people have genetic problems which involve the P450 enzymes and a lot of meds target these enzymes. I'm not sure how this is going to work. I see some possible problems in about thirty percent of the population. This drug will not be for everyone but may work well on a lot of people. There are going to be some people with bad cancer which will have to have surgery and possibly radiation yet even if this works as well as they anticipate.

This is great news, but here is a great story of a cure that took place in my family over the past two months. There are too numerous to count natural cures available to us all. People just need to open their minds to the fact that these cures do exist and quit believing everything you're told by the medical establishment.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

During my father-in-law's struggle he has been told constantly things like, "You can't cure cancer...it never really goes away...it's always there, only the traditional doctors can help...this cure has only made you feel better but the cancer is there...etc."

It would be great if this pill is real, but remember that there has always been a cure for cancer and this pill is just another way for Big Pharma to capitalize. Why so many millions of dollars on cancer research and years and years of study and we finally have a pill. Maybe Big Pharma finally realized that the natural cures are gaining more and more steam, so if they don't want to lose out, they had better come up with something. Just a thought, anyways.

Atrial fibrillation is one of the most prevalent disease on the planet and is getting more and more prevalent due to the ageing population.
It's the leading cause of strokes and can have a major impact on our daily lives.
The costs for treating it are in the billions per year of which pharma used to make a fortune from it.

Now up until fairly recently (around 10 or so years ago) the only way of treating it was with drugs.
Some of these drugs had quite nasty side effects and all of them were expensive and the patients would be on them for life.

I was involved in the early days of treating this without drugs using a method called radio-frequency ablation.
Basically we put a catheter with a metal pole on the end into the patient's left atrium and burned a circle around where we thought the problem originated.
At first the results were barely okay but as time progressed the cardiologists got better and better and the technique was improved (and is still improving) to the extent that there's an 80-90% chance of a cure. To get this cure may take more than one procedure but it's still preferable (and a lot cheaper!) to drug therapy certainly in my eyes.

What I'm getting at is that at no time did we get any visits from "big-pharma" trying to shut us down or worse. Sure, they tried to counter our claims of success in the early years as we thought they would.
No-one was killed, our techniques weren't hidden or brushed under the carpet. We weren't bought off either.

What did happen was that one of the REALLY big pharma companies bought a start-up company who were involved in part of the technique and this start-up company is now one of the main two players in this area.

So to all of you who really believe this happens I can tell you from 1st hand experience that it really doesn't.
Pharma companies are big because they move with the times. If they see an opportunity to make money they will seize it even if one of their other arms loses money.
As long as they're ahead overall they're happy.

Originally posted by Blazer
Yet another in an extremely long line of cures, free energy devices, etc that will change the world and yet are swept under the rug and never heard from again.

Isn't it interesting how everyone one of these stories, there is zero follow-up. This miracle treatment will never be developed, and months and even years from now the very people excited about it today (including yourself) will not ask anyone else "hey what happened to that miracle cure"? Very soon you won't care, or you will be distracted by the next big thing which will also never come to fruition.

They "cure" cancer at least once a week, and AIDS gets "cured" at least once a month.

You're absolutley correct, no follow up will happen because there is more money to be made in treatment and management than a cure.

This is why I HATE all the pink ribbon BS and all these "fund raisers" for cancer. How many years now have people been donating and throwing money at the cancer societies? How much actual, tangible progress has been made? It seems to me these organizations are nothing more than places for rich people to get tax write-offs.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


This is very good news. I hope to hear positive results from the Safe Human testing as there could be millions of people that can benefit from this treatment.

Originally posted by the_philth
Consider this scientist dead within a few weeks ---- probably in a weird jogging accident or reports that he died in his sleep... you know... died of natural causes!

Yup the ones that were so close to findcures and free energy

Dead Scientists 1994-2003
www.stevequayle.com...

Dead Scientists 2004-2013
www.stevequayle.com...

Originally posted by MystikMushroom

This is why I HATE all the pink ribbon BS and all these "fund raisers" for cancer. How many years now have people been donating and throwing money at the cancer societies? How much actual, tangible progress has been made?

In some areas, a huge amount. There has been great progress in the hematological cancers: leukaemias (especially), lymphomas and myelomas. (Rituxan, Gleevec and Revlimid are major breakthrough pharmaceuticals/biologicals)

There has been very substantial progress in breast cancer.

There has been modest progress in prostate cancer, kidney cancer, and colon cancer.

There has been little progress in the worst cancers: brain, pancreatic, lung, liver.

Why are there no "awareness" societies for pancreatic cancer as opposed to tons for breast cancer---even though its a far more lethal disease with almost no progress? Because they're dead. You see lots of breast cancer "awareness" and fundraising because the treatments are good enough to keep people alive.

It seems to me these organizations are nothing more than places for rich people to get tax write-offs.

Not quite. But there's also the issue that medical research----as in the hostpitals and doctors doing it, not the scientists inventing it, is VERY lucrative. (which is why to the pharma or biotech R&D is so expensive---the clinical testing, not the science is super expensive because non-scientists make tons of $$$ off of it, and this is why the biotechs charge so much money for new treatments).

Scientists slave for 15 years and making $35 (postdoc)-$120k. Doctors & hospitals get contracts from pharmaceutical companies, and make tons. Top research doctors double and triple dip---$250k from their academic salary, $500k from the University clinic (seeing patients with lucrative insurance), a large and variable amount from their consulting fees, and biomedical shares & advisory committees, and ownership stakes in clinics and biotechs.

Great I'm happy , only one thing they wont sell it to us.....I think they already have the cure to cancer for maybe years now.. Why cure diseases if you can earn money on the infected...?

Hmm...

Very exciting.... but cancer chemistry research happens to be one of my personal 'hobbies', and I don't believe in silver-bullet one size fits all total chemical solutions to complexly diverse biological organisms inside of biological super-entities (humans) [biology being the highest order of chemistry]. The foundation of my perspective was built from months of day & night scouring www.pubmed.gov... (highly recommended), from reading the scholarly cancer research papers. It took me a couple weeks to get a good grasp on the language of the domain, but once I got it down it all became very elementary clear to me.

First, cancer 'killing' is 2 prong: There are 'choking mechanisms' (cutting off the food supply), and 'killing mechanisms' (inducing apoptosis being a key goal, but not quite a mechanism in of itself).

Next, there are hundreds of different 'types' of cancer. It isn't just 'brain cancer' or 'lung cancer', genetically (consider these 'species'). From there each type has numerous different 'cell lines' (sub-species) associated with them [over 36,000 different cell lines in one database alone], where in any given case these proginies may or may not be part of the lesion/tumor (collective organism of said cancer type and its lot of cell lines).

Now here's the kicker: While choking mechanisms tend to be rather universal (diabetes principles a good framework to follow), each cell line has different killing mechanisms. From there the killing mechanism for one cancer type or its various cell lines can actually empower others (perhaps within the very same 'organism'). To make matters worse, each has several different mechanism associated with it, that a full spectrum approach would entail about 5 or so different mechanisms and related pathway signals. Like a complex 3D puzzle where each piece that snaps into the main board has several pieces that attach to them to complete this puzzle, puzzle being the entire cancer killing effort, case by case, potentially 7 billion different puzzles on earth.

This is the same reason Big Pharm's approach stinks: Their lack of diversity in chem options has them vastly overkill dosing people with single chems where a complex array of chem's is needed. It's like waging a scorched earth military campaign on a small island that instead needed to have good crops planted. This is why 48% of all people diagnosed with cancer die within a couple years. That figure includes stage 1 & 2. What this means is Big Pharm's chems aren't necessarily 'bad', except they're being used entirely in the wrong way. They're dictating one size fits all shock & awe approaches to complex problems inside vastly diverse and complex human bodies. Compare to trying to FORCE everyone on earth to adopt the exact same religion + core religion-like political philosophies. Good luck with that.

I'm going to make big all-new thread about these challenges, as part of my overhaul of my old piece: "Cancer is DEAD: Cancer 'killers' from A to Z".

reply to post by Donahue


Hey I am new here don't know if this the right way to msg u privately. Will u plz tell me about ur cure....thx u

Originally posted by 0bserver1
Great I'm happy , only one thing they wont sell it to us.....I think they already have the cure to cancer for maybe years now.. Why cure diseases if you can earn money on the infected...?

I've already requested a quote from the manufacturer...

"They" isn't really a concept I consider, that is until something becomes Rx only. At that point, while I still know how to get many things without doctors, you're not supposed to be able to get nor possess such things. From there its gets all sorts of muddy, gray mud that is.

"Drug" after all is but another word for "chemical". The only chemicals that are the exceptions are the ones the DEA goes after, and their pharmaceutical variants. Stuff the FDA 'bans', all that really means is producer cant package up those substances into products intended for human use. For instance, ephedrine is banned by the FDA from use in human products, but I can legally order Ma Huang seeds and grow the plants, and make tea with them. Likewise, there's no systematic .gov effort to round up all the Sida Rhodifolia "wire weed" that grows all over my yard and everyone elses.

Another example is DCA (a cancer killer chem): I can order it, use it, and even sell it, as long as when I'm selling to people it isn't labeled for human use. This is an interesting example given that it has prescription uses, outside of cancer, but isn't prescribed for cancer, although a maverick Dr. can actually prescribe it if they so choose to do so. This is a very gray area chem, where usually with anything being prescribed this isn't the case. It's a very very old, mostly benign, patent free chem.

Until a chem is classified and legislated by the FDA or DEA, its pretty much open game across the board, even with recreational things, unless they are analogs to Schedule 1 (DEA) substances. Schedule 2 & 3 (FDA) substance analogs, aren't 'illegal', although if you're a business selling them for human uses they will put you out of business.

Originally posted by Blazer
Yet another in an extremely long line of cures, free energy devices, etc that will change the world and yet are swept under the rug and never heard from again.

Isn't it interesting how everyone one of these stories, there is zero follow-up. This miracle treatment will never be developed, and months and even years from now the very people excited about it today (including yourself) will not ask anyone else "hey what happened to that miracle cure"? Very soon you won't care, or you will be distracted by the next big thing which will also never come to fruition.

lol was pretty much just typing up the exact same thing, guess its the pessimist in me. you summed it up perfectly.

reply to post by rickymouse


SOOOOO VERY true. Just look at the billions of dollars spent annually. Main-stream medicine will NEVER allow cancer to be cured.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Hmm...

Very exciting.... but cancer chemistry research happens to be one of my personal 'hobbies', and I don't believe in silver-bullet one size fits all total chemical solutions to complexly diverse biological organisms inside of biological super-entities (humans) [biology being the highest order of chemistry]. The foundation of my perspective was built from months of day & night scouring www.pubmed.gov... (highly recommended), from reading the scholarly cancer research papers. It took me a couple weeks to get a good grasp on the language of the domain, but once I got it down it all became very elementary clear to me.

First, cancer 'killing' is 2 prong: There are 'choking mechanisms' (cutting off the food supply), and 'killing mechanisms' (inducing apoptosis being a key goal, but not quite a mechanism in of itself).

Next, there are hundreds of different 'types' of cancer. It isn't just 'brain cancer' or 'lung cancer', genetically (consider these 'species'). From there each type has numerous different 'cell lines' (sub-species) associated with them [over 36,000 different cell lines in one database alone], where in any given case these proginies may or may not be part of the lesion/tumor (collective organism of said cancer type and its lot of cell lines).

Now here's the kicker: While choking mechanisms tend to be rather universal (diabetes principles a good framework to follow), each cell line has different killing mechanisms. From there the killing mechanism for one cancer type or its various cell lines can actually empower others (perhaps within the very same 'organism'). To make matters worse, each has several different mechanism associated with it, that a full spectrum approach would entail about 5 or so different mechanisms and related pathway signals. Like a complex 3D puzzle where each piece that snaps into the main board has several pieces that attach to them to complete this puzzle, puzzle being the entire cancer killing effort, case by case, potentially 7 billion different puzzles on earth.

This is the same reason Big Pharm's approach stinks: Their lack of diversity in chem options has them vastly overkill dosing people with single chems where a complex array of chem's is needed. It's like waging a scorched earth military campaign on a small island that instead needed to have good crops planted. This is why 48% of all people diagnosed with cancer die within a couple years. That figure includes stage 1 & 2. What this means is Big Pharm's chems aren't necessarily 'bad', except they're being used entirely in the wrong way. They're dictating one size fits all shock & awe approaches to complex problems inside vastly diverse and complex human bodies. Compare to trying to FORCE everyone on earth to adopt the exact same religion + core religion-like political philosophies. Good luck with that.

I'm going to make big all-new thread about these challenges, as part of my overhaul of my old piece: "Cancer is DEAD: Cancer 'killers' from A to Z".

edit on 5-4-2013 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)

The one problem in looking up individual studies as you've done in your A-Z thread is that there are a lot of chemicals, compounds, plant extracts etc etc which work very well at attenuating and/or killing cancer cells...in a lab environment.
The problem is when we try to introduce them via the human body and that's where most of them fail.
For instance, did you know that paracetamol, given directly into a cancer cell is one its most potent killers?
However recently it's been found that it can actually promote the occurrence of some leukaemia's.

So whilst individual chemicals can work wonders in the lab, put them in the comparatively hostile environment of the human body and they fail miserably.

When you see a study saying such and such provokes this and that etc that's all very well but what's more important are the follow-up studies.
They are the ones that count and decide upon whether a certain therapy can or will be taken further.

reply to post by ShortStuff


The problem with dead people as far as the pharmaceutical corporations are concerned is that they don't take medicines. Old people take medicine, and one in three of us will stand a better chance of seeing old age if there is a cure for Cancer. What's more, can you imagine the profits to be made from a patented Cancer cure? Or how about the brand recognition and good will that corporation would accrue?

My Mum died of Cancer in January, within just six weeks of being diagnosed. I would have paid everything I have and gone into debt for the rest of my life to have had that cure just a few short months ago, and I would have thanked and sang the praises of the company who sold it to me.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


For what I read they now gonna test this on humans , before this cure hits the market , they probably overruled it on the fact that it also attacks healthy cells. The only way then, is to sell it in the pet-shop for treatment of rat cancer?

I don't know I only hope that one day they give it to us, but somehow I find that hard to believe...

reply to post by PhoenixOD

great... now we don't have the excuse of non-patentability of essential hemp herbal oil (I don't mean anything that can be gotten high from, I mean Phoenix Tears.). However, I predict 10 years of trials and withdrawal of application for approval just before approval is rewarded, citing 'side effects". That is, undisclosed side effects to the corporate profit margin.