Canadian Scientists Cure Cancer... No One Notices?
- Thread starter Yassen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It was a serious freak mutation. Apparently,it blocks the receptor which allows HIV to attach to cells in the first place. Here's my source again.notimeforlulz said:
(there was a video here but now theres not)
yes cancer is easy to cure (my grandma had cancer shes all better now)
no the media will never cover it
yes its a money thing,
you don't believe me? fine I don't care if your friends or family members dies because you where to stubborn and proud to research the truth.
yes cancer is easy to cure (my grandma had cancer shes all better now)
no the media will never cover it
yes its a money thing,
you don't believe me? fine I don't care if your friends or family members dies because you where to stubborn and proud to research the truth.
Lysosomes are the self destruct unit inside cells and apotosis happens due to phagocytosis. And stopping glycolysis is the key to killing cancer cells? Sure, it will kill cancer cells, but it will also kill the person with the cancer cells. However, the natural cancer fighting cell is a part of the innate immune system named simply natural killer cells or NKC.
Another part of the article that states they wont use it cause there's no money to be gained from it since they can't patent it annoys me. We can actually go into a pharmacy and buy water with salt in it for a stuffy nose. Because it helps and it wont make you addicted to anything. You can't patent that either, but they can charge a lot for it.
I wont say this is all bogus, but medicines need at least 10 years of testing before they're ready to be used. I have also seen sources that claim this can be used in cancer treatment, but the article in the main post is clearly not well informed. At least not the part that is posted here.
Also there's a lot of other things we've never heard about. Nano beads that can be used for treating illnesses better due to a slower release into the system. This method will release the same medicine we've confirmed to be working over a greater time lapse. This will result in less side effects, less damage to kidneys and liver, less doses needed and it will even be cheaper.
There are the nose filters that would prevent the same effects from allergies at a very low price that would last long and not be very inconvenient. Patent bought by a pharmaceutical company to make sure that never hit the market.
The world of pharmaceuticals is complex and often unfair.
Another part of the article that states they wont use it cause there's no money to be gained from it since they can't patent it annoys me. We can actually go into a pharmacy and buy water with salt in it for a stuffy nose. Because it helps and it wont make you addicted to anything. You can't patent that either, but they can charge a lot for it.
I wont say this is all bogus, but medicines need at least 10 years of testing before they're ready to be used. I have also seen sources that claim this can be used in cancer treatment, but the article in the main post is clearly not well informed. At least not the part that is posted here.
Also there's a lot of other things we've never heard about. Nano beads that can be used for treating illnesses better due to a slower release into the system. This method will release the same medicine we've confirmed to be working over a greater time lapse. This will result in less side effects, less damage to kidneys and liver, less doses needed and it will even be cheaper.
There are the nose filters that would prevent the same effects from allergies at a very low price that would last long and not be very inconvenient. Patent bought by a pharmaceutical company to make sure that never hit the market.
The world of pharmaceuticals is complex and often unfair.
I'm in total agreement about premium name drugs and generic ones, I always just buy own brand ibuprofen and paracetamol as painkillers, the active ingredients are exactly the same as in Nurofen and Anadin, but one pack costs 26p, and the other costs £2.99 for the same thing.
However, it has shown in studies that if you have a doctor presecribe pills in a plain white pack with no brand name, and then to another group of patients, prescribe a branded pill in a shiny box, the latter group believe they are getting better results, so there's at the very least a psychological perk to paying more for the same stuff, daft as it sounds.
I'm so cynical now that the cheap stuff works, however, heh.
I remember recently there was a scandal where some pharmacists were telling customers 'don't pay the £7 fee for your prescription from the doctor, it's the same drugs as these generic ones off the shelf, for £1.50' as the £7 fee helped to balance out the costs of when a drug cost more than £7.
I can't really blame the pharmacist for wanting to help his patients, tho I imagine his boss wasn't happy about the loss of revenue, but then my own mother (who fortunately now gets free prescription drugs due to age) is on about 6 different drugs a day, so she'd be paying around £42 a month in fees, from an already small pension allowance, if she wasn't covered by the NHS. (Yay for social healthcare, I still for the life of me can't see how America convinced it's poor people they'd better argue against being looked after more cheaply, but that's for another thread.)
However, it has shown in studies that if you have a doctor presecribe pills in a plain white pack with no brand name, and then to another group of patients, prescribe a branded pill in a shiny box, the latter group believe they are getting better results, so there's at the very least a psychological perk to paying more for the same stuff, daft as it sounds.
I'm so cynical now that the cheap stuff works, however, heh.
I remember recently there was a scandal where some pharmacists were telling customers 'don't pay the £7 fee for your prescription from the doctor, it's the same drugs as these generic ones off the shelf, for £1.50' as the £7 fee helped to balance out the costs of when a drug cost more than £7.
I can't really blame the pharmacist for wanting to help his patients, tho I imagine his boss wasn't happy about the loss of revenue, but then my own mother (who fortunately now gets free prescription drugs due to age) is on about 6 different drugs a day, so she'd be paying around £42 a month in fees, from an already small pension allowance, if she wasn't covered by the NHS. (Yay for social healthcare, I still for the life of me can't see how America convinced it's poor people they'd better argue against being looked after more cheaply, but that's for another thread.)
Pretty much this ^.Owyn_Merrilin said:
Now, there may very well be some kind of breakthrough in finding a cure for cancer in the background, that got pulled way out of proportion by the reporter and their "Big, Bad, farmacy companies" stance. Or just their wish for controversy. For if this were real, all international news outlets would be screaming it from every channel and planning a follow-up on how international farma doesn't wish for it to spread - a scandal to rival Watergate.
Yeah, gonna suspend my judgement on this one until more information comes forward.
sad, but not surprising.
ya see, children, people are bastards. that's all there is too it. Cancer has been cured but no-one wants to fund it because there isn't a high enough profit margin.
Let's just hope this doesn't turn out like [i/] One Chance [/i]or [i/]I am Legend[/i]
ya see, children, people are bastards. that's all there is too it. Cancer has been cured but no-one wants to fund it because there isn't a high enough profit margin.
Let's just hope this doesn't turn out like [i/] One Chance [/i]or [i/]I am Legend[/i]
Also, some patients absolutely insist on being prescribed brand names, even if it is explained to them repeatedly and at length that generics are the same thing. Prescribing brand names by default can be the path of least resistance if a doctor is more interested on throughput than trying to make sure everybody gets the best deal.
Save countless lives, or make money? Hmmm...
A family friend of mine currently has brain cancer. He served four tours in Iraq and is a trained sniper. He has served his country. If he loses his life because people want to line their pockets- no, I'm not even going to make a spiteful comment. For the first time something has upset me so greatly that I can't make light of it. If there is a cure out there, my friend is getting it, and no level of human greed is going to take his life.
A family friend of mine currently has brain cancer. He served four tours in Iraq and is a trained sniper. He has served his country. If he loses his life because people want to line their pockets- no, I'm not even going to make a spiteful comment. For the first time something has upset me so greatly that I can't make light of it. If there is a cure out there, my friend is getting it, and no level of human greed is going to take his life.
I find this post sad, but not surprising.willofbob said:
You see, children, people are lazy. That´s all there is too it. The sensationalist and somewhat misleading nature of the article has been pointed out, but no-one seems to notice because they prefer to just throw their opinion out there.
Let´s just hope this doesn´t turn out like.... some kind of movie where ignoring previous posts in a thread leads to horrifying events.... yeah (**** off, it´s really early where I am right now).
Seriously, it´s fun how some people are willing to believe ANYTHING, including that a way to generate infinite energy has been invented or that somebody cured cancer (how do you even "cure" an entire class of disease at once ?), as long as it reaffirms their believe that people are *****.
http://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/abstract/S1535-6108%2806%2900372-2Togs said:
link for full text is on the right
And yeah, I'm pretty sure they don't say that anywhere. The paper has actual science.
EDIT: For the people who don't like clicking links, here's what they actually say:
I'm confused- if it stops the spread of cancer and kills the cancerous cells that are already there, how is it not a cure?Owyn_Merrilin said:
Also, all you people saying that there is no money to be made from a drug without a patent- where do you think generic drugs come from? There's less money to be made, but certainly not no money.
1. It doesn't do that.SuperMse said:
2. It doesn't always work.
3. What it does do isn't effective against all types of cancer.
4. It hasn't been tested yet. Saying what something does before you actually know what it does is dumb.
The reason generic drugs exist is because the trials have already been done and the medication has been demonstrated to be effective. DCA is in the trial phase now. If trials show that it works, and once we know what it works for and whether or not it is safe, then it can be approved for use as a medication.
Read the later comments, it's just sensationalist garbage. That and cancer isn't just one disease, it's a collection of very different diseases.Bloodstain said:
