Quote :

"Canadian researchers find a simple cure for cancer, but major pharmaceutical companies are not interested. Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is but little ripple in the news or on TV. It is a simple technique using a very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders, so there is no concern of side effects or other long term effects. The drug doesn’t require a patent, so anyone can employ it widely and cheaply compared to the costly cancer drugs produced by major pharmaceutical companies. Canadian scientists tested dichloroacetate (DCA) on human cells; it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells and left the healthy cells alone. It was tested on rats inflicted with severe tumors; their cells shrank when they were fed with water supplemented with DCA. The drug is widely available and the technique is easy to use, but why are the major drug companies not involved, or the media not interested in this find? http://www.moneytrendsresearch.com/scientists-cure-cancer-but-no-one-takes-notice/ "

This is the second claim of being able to cure cancer by a second source. The first claim came from Dr. Burzynski, which you can see the whole movie here: http://youtu.be/0zBBfN5mQa8



Anyone know of any more evidence?

3/19/2012 12:29:25 PM

then cure somebody and post before/after pics and video on youtube.

wash rinse repeat

/conspiracy

3/19/2012 12:35:17 PM

Uhm...what? There's video right there, bryan.

3/19/2012 12:36:58 PM

GeniuSxBoY, ok GeniuSxBoY. thanks GeniuSxBoY.

have a nice day GeniuSxBoY

3/19/2012 12:48:52 PM

3/19/2012 12:52:04 PM

Time to start smoking again

3/19/2012 1:10:59 PM

Does the Article Title End With A Question Mark?

Then the answer is no.

3/19/2012 1:14:02 PM

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/cancercure.asp

3/19/2012 2:20:13 PM

So fake. This whole thing reads like a facebook status.

REPOST THIS ON 17 PEOPLES WALL. GET THE WORD OUT.

3/20/2012 4:19:52 PM

^what about the video?

3/20/2012 4:23:32 PM

i watched the video. a couple things stood out.

i would definitely give this guy a chance if i had a terrible diagnosis.

he obviously has a personal agenda to succeed and not look out for mankind. If he truly thought he had a cure, he would go on a podium, tell the world, and give up his patent.

maybe it's a moral thing for him where he doesn't want people to be charged out the ass, but that's not how the world works.

3/20/2012 4:26:24 PM

I tell you one thing, getting your voice heard is harder than you think, especially when you have the establishment working against you.

Ron Paul is on the podium every day speaking the truth and is blown off daily.
He has said the same message for 30 years and everything is mathematically and scientifically sound.

Not everyone has the patience of Ron Paul. Most people would quit after they find resistance noting that it's futile.

[Edited on March 20, 2012 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

3/20/2012 4:33:45 PM

^no it's not. hell look. he's got youtube/twitter/FB, that alone is more than any peon has ever had at his disposal in all of human history



hell it is already working. he has 200+ views on a fucking obscure retarded ncsu alumni forum that is slowly dying

can't be that bad buddy.

3/20/2012 4:46:19 PM

Quote :

"no it's not. hell look. he's got youtube/twitter/FB, that alone is more than any peon has ever had at his disposal in all of human history hell it is already working. he has 200+ views on a fucking obscure retarded ncsu alumni forum that is slowly dying can't be that bad buddy."

What are you saying? I don't even...

3/20/2012 4:51:11 PM

CANCER IS CURED GENIUSBOY! GET SOME TICKETS TO CANADA AND SHOW THE WORLD!

3/20/2012 4:52:37 PM

I don't have cancer though.

3/20/2012 4:57:45 PM

well take the trip anyways... there's always a chance he has a cure for inferior shitty genetics too

3/20/2012 5:00:34 PM

What is your opinion on cancer? Do you feel it's impossible to cure?

3/20/2012 5:05:20 PM

jesus. you're sounding more and more like santorum the more you post


JUST STOP

but in all seriousness yeh i think it's possible. do you really think this guy has the cure?


[Edited on March 20, 2012 at 5:16 PM. Reason : ,]

3/20/2012 5:13:17 PM

The question is Why not?


Would you have questioned Jonas Salk when he found the cure for Polio?

3/20/2012 5:23:59 PM

and the talking and the debating and the sentences and the finding errors in lexicon and the polarization and clever questioning and the politics of it all and the conspiracies and the debating and the youtube and the patents and the media and the opinions and society and government


but yeh i think he might have a cure. sure. just keep curing people and let the chips fall where they may.

3/20/2012 5:30:36 PM

lol, you got snopes'd. I think you're done.

3/21/2012 8:59:16 AM

I cured my cancer with weed maaaaaaaaan.

3/21/2012 9:39:48 AM

It's not science until it's replicated and confirmed by independent research groups.

3/21/2012 9:46:21 AM

Quote :

"It's not science until it's replicated and confirmed by independent research groups the democratic party and various hand picked state run media groups."

i gotta go with str8foolish on this one.

3/21/2012 9:58:57 AM

PEER REVIEW IS AN APPEAL TO CONSENSUS FALLACY!

3/21/2012 10:15:01 AM

Don't you guys know we once believed the scientific consensus when they said the Earth was flat? And yet, today we now know the Earth is in fact *checks textbook* round.

3/21/2012 10:20:53 AM

This is like the tower of babel. We all want to aim for a common goal, however, everyone is speaking a different language. Nobody can get along because there is no bridge to close the gap between reality, relativity, and fantasy.

[Edited on March 21, 2012 at 8:23 PM. Reason : .]

3/21/2012 8:21:29 PM

^^ we know the earth is round today not because of textbooks. but because we have live video and images coming down daily showing us the earth from the ISS


don't kid yourselves. you know there'd be conspiracy theorists all over(just like this thread is at this point) if it was 'only in a textbook' as you say.

3/21/2012 8:24:41 PM

ATTN: Pack_bryan

Quote :

"merbig: I have proof the world is flat: If the world was round, then why are all pictures of the horizon shows that it's flat? Have you ever seen the world being round? Ever viewed it with your own eyes? "

Quote :

"merbig: ^ I know the Earth is round? How do you know what I know? That's a big assumption."

3/21/2012 8:30:55 PM

Of course a 50m x 2km x 500m trapezoid image of the surface of the world is flat.

I 100% agree with them too.

3/21/2012 8:41:27 PM

Quote :

"Would you have questioned Jonas Salk when he found the cure for Polio?"

Salk first tested his vaccine on himself, his wife, and his children.

So clearly these researches need to give their families cancer and see how effective DCA really is.

3/21/2012 10:03:07 PM

Is it possible to give someone cancer?

3/21/2012 10:09:48 PM

From cancer being solved to the Earth being flat. Kids, seriously.

3/21/2012 10:19:00 PM

^^**** **** did not give me cancer.

[Edited on March 21, 2012 at 11:03 PM. Reason : ]

3/21/2012 10:39:34 PM

Quote :

"well take the trip anyways... there's always a chance he has a cure for inferior shitty genetics too"

HAHAHAHAHAHA

3/22/2012 12:13:49 AM

Quote :

"^^ we know the earth is round today not because of textbooks. but because we have live video and images coming down daily showing us the earth from the ISS don't kid yourselves. you know there'd be conspiracy theorists all over(just like this thread is at this point) if it was 'only in a textbook' as you say."

Have you ever seen an atom?

3/22/2012 9:06:16 AM

Also, have you ever seen a tree grow?

3/22/2012 9:59:09 AM

Quote :

"Have you ever seen an atom? "

It's worse than that even. We know atomic theory is wrong.

3/22/2012 10:03:31 AM

Have you ever heard the wolf cry to the blue corn moon? Or asked the grinning bobcat why he grinned?

3/22/2012 11:40:43 AM

Can you sing with all the voices of the mountains? Can you paint with all the colors of the wind?

3/22/2012 4:02:51 PM

hey geniusxboy. any updates?

3/23/2012 3:06:05 PM

You're going to die by cancer or chemotherapy.

3/23/2012 5:37:24 PM

While we're prognosticating...

I confidently predict that you get cancer in the next 24 hours

Better go get a checkup

3/23/2012 8:01:48 PM

pack_bryan will die of a heart related issue, not cancer

3/24/2012 11:11:36 AM

This is not being hidden, there are a ton of ongoing clinical trails. Academia does clinical trails, too, and generally care less about profits/patents.

http://clinicaltrialsfeeds.org/clinical-trials/show/NCT01029925

It's obviously gonna take awhile to get approved or whatever, but if you have cancer you can probably work your way onto a clinical trial somehow. Only single-agent trials for late state, so probably won't be approved there, but early stage in a neoadjuvant context are likely to be approved.

Also, DCA is not necessarily the best treatment and the field of cancer metabolics is huge and very hot. Seriously, cancer research is almost completely saturated, essentially nothing is dying due to lack of exposure. Lots of promising stuff in the pipeline...

3/24/2012 6:19:34 PM

I just don't understand why these tests aren't made known to patients.

I mean I do understand... it's corrupt.

I'm sure thousands of people who are diagnosed with cancer are willing to be guinea pigs for a potential cure.

Whose research is in the lead?
Where do you go for real news on cancer progress?
Why are we still using chemotherapy?
Who is in charge of monitoring all these studies?
How do the monitors know where to find these studies?

3/24/2012 8:06:22 PM

What part of the process do you think is corrupt?

Cancer is a very difficult problem to solve on both the levels of finding new targets and drugging them and actually getting a new treatment approved.

On the level of the basic biology of cancer, every single cancer is different. Depending on the cell or origin, cancers have different driver mutations, response to traditional cheotherapeutics, and radioresistance. Once a cancer disseminates, through some combination of the lymphatics or circulatory system, a "cure" becomes close to impossible. Most treatments rely on the fact that cancer cells are actively dividing; disseminated tumor cells often enter into dormancy and become completely resistant to any of these therapies. Once treatment concludes and the patient is considered in remission, these disseminated cells can recur years later. Any current treatments (including DCA) are much too toxic for any kind of prophylactic treatment. And it now appears that in many cancers, dissemination occurs very early: perhaps years before there are any clinically detectable lesions.

Further compounding the difficulty in treating cancer is the enormous heterogeneity of any one tumor. From a single cell, the tumor cells differentiate into probably hundreds of different "lineages", each with different mutations or transcriptional and signaling profiles. The extreme toxicity of chemotherapeutics is due to the fact that they are the most general possible agents to kill dividing cells.

On the actual drug approval side, single agent trials are very rare and only used with late stage cancers. I've been personally involved in these trials, and these patients are very sick. Almost unimaginably so. These people die during infusions just because they were going to die within days anyway, so it's almost impossible to get statistically significant results required for single-agent approval. The FDA, drug companies, academia, everyone is very risk-averse about this because they would expose themselves to huge liabilities otherwise. Therefore any treatment is usually at least dual-agent and requires concurrent administration with current treatment modalities. This has it's own downsides which probably also eliminates some good drugs.

It's really a combination of very fundamental and practical problems that makes it hard to get treatments approved. Industry has put more and more of the burden of target validation and even clinical trials on academia and I would hesitate to call these people corrupt. It's been a long time since I've gone a week without seeing someone die and it's not pleasant. Industry may be removed from these experiences, but the people doing the actual work are very aware of the reality of the disease and profit is the farthest thing from their minds (in general).

Chemotherapy is used because it is currently enormously better than the alternatives in the vast majority of cases.

If you are really set on getting a treatment (like DCA), you can eventually find a doctor that will prescribe it. It may be personally expensive, but off-label uses are allowed in oncology.

Getting treated at academic centers or in big cities is enormously helpful for getting on any clinical trial. There may be large out-of-pocket expenses associated with this regardless.

Despite the slow progress and everything else, there's been a lot of progress and a transition to entirely new modalities. Google IL-2 therapy for a good example. People are also using aptamers, antibody fragments, mesenchymal stem cells and even Salmonella to locally deliver drugs to disseminated cancer cells--all of this on actual clinical trials, in patients.

Anyways, I am obviously very personally invested in this and will try to check in... there are a lot of good people doing good and very hard work in this field...

[Edited on March 24, 2012 at 8:52 PM. Reason : .]

3/24/2012 8:49:44 PM

geniusxboy is about || this close to finding NWO leaders who are holding him and ron paul back


^good luck on your search.

3/24/2012 9:01:00 PM

Quote :

"What part of the process do you think is corrupt?"

The FDA, insurance, and doctors.

Doctors will prescribe chemo over anything else because it's covered by insurance. FDA won't allow new drugs on the market. Insurance won't cover anything not approved by the FDA.

It's a cycle of non-innovation.

3/24/2012 9:08:57 PM