[quote]Prolifik wrote:
This article is full of shit, anyone with a bit of biochemistry knowledge will laugh at “there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria”…umm no mitochondria are not fucking cells they are inside cells.
[/quote]
Well, technically…
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I have read about something similar, about pharmaceutical companies not making a generic pill that treats a bunch of disease without side effects for cheap[/quote]
Suuuuuuuuurrrrreeee.
Just like that zero-cal ice cream.[/quote]
Sorry, I just do not remember the details. I heard about on the Charlie Rose show, his guest are pretty reputable. It was something about a drug which has been generic for decades and Big Pharma has been adding nonactive ingredients so they can make money off it but it costs consumers and insurance companies a ton of money that could be used (better) elsewhere.
Also, someone mentioned earlier there are different types of cancer but they are different not so much in location as it is generally thought. That means proven cures for breast cancer can help some but not others. Anyway, somewhere in that conversation of cancer specialist this mystery drug was brought up as well as the difficulty of getting accepted to treat cancer by the FDA because of one, that was not it approved use way back when, and secondly, that it was useful for particular strains of cancer and not particular locations of cancer as the paperwork required. This was several years ago and I do not know what has happened since.
[quote]Prolifik wrote:
This article is full of shit, anyone with a bit of biochemistry knowledge will laugh at “there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria”…umm no mitochondria are not fucking cells they are inside cells.
[/quote]
The article is a poorly written/researched description of what’s going on, but the biochemistry behind how DCA works is sound.
Except that it causes neuropathy in humans. . . my mother tried it when she was dying of cancer. It sure made the last few months a lot worse than they had to be.
This resurfaces every few years but has been around since 2007 (I’m sure of that because that’s when my mother died, though it might have surfaced earlier).
Even if big pharma stood to make no money off it there are plenty of not-for-profit organziations that would bust their assess to have this out to the public if it really did cure cancer the way they claim.
it doesn’t.
it’s a nice research step but it’s not a miracle.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I have read about something similar, about pharmaceutical companies not making a generic pill that treats a bunch of disease without side effects for cheap because there is no money in it. I hope the medicine in the story exists. This is a case where privitizing everything is not for the best.[/quote]
Hold on guys, do you know how much money it costs to study, test and release a new medication? Do you know how many FAIL Govt regulation?
Yes they want to make their money back with a profit, how is that a bad thing? After 10 years they lose the patent and generics can be made no matter what Big Pharma does, any drug producing company can take that patent after ten years and make a generic form.
If you really believe that our Govt that cant fund Medicare and Social Security would do a better job making medication for the US then I just dont know what to say. [/quote]
I work are a pharma trying to cure cancer for a short stint. They went thru $50 million in venture funds in about 9 months, mostly hiring scientists. They began clinical trials, I don’t think they ever produced more than a gram of the drug they were making/testing. I left, but they had received another $50 mill at this point to get them thru the first round of trials. You don’t pass round one, start over make a new cure, or sell the company and create a new one.
[quote]Prolifik wrote:
This article is full of shit, anyone with a bit of biochemistry knowledge will laugh at “there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria”…umm no mitochondria are not fucking cells they are inside cells.
Anyway curing cancer is like trying to cure poverty, there is no ‘simple’ cure ; there are so many causes and different disease progressions that you can’t just throw one drug at it and solve it, cancer is a complex disease (and it includes a wide range of tissues and cell types that would respond differently to medication).[/quote]
This, no more needs to be said.
Question- have there ever been studies or observations of the rates of cancer in wild animals? Ones living on their natural diet, removed from environmental pollutants (as much as possible).
BS. Where’s the published research? When scientists make s discovery they publish their work. They don’t leak it to less than reputable internet outlets. Unless its published in the red journal, the green journal, the BAR, radiation oncology or the like I don’t buy it. There are so many of these stupid “scientists find an everyday cure for cancer but evil corporations spoil it” articles out there its ridiculous.
[quote]kappa927 wrote:
BS. Where’s the published research? When scientists make s discovery they publish their work. They don’t leak it to less than reputable internet outlets. Unless its published in the red journal, the green journal, the BAR, radiation oncology or the like I don’t buy it. There are so many of these stupid “scientists find an everyday cure for cancer but evil corporations spoil it” articles out there its ridiculous. [/quote]
A mitochondria-K+ channel axis is suppressed in cancer and its normalization promotes apoptosis and inhibits cancer growth.
and many more.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Question- have there ever been studies or observations of the rates of cancer in wild animals? Ones living on their natural diet, removed from environmental pollutants (as much as possible).[/quote]
No need. The animals that aren’t killed by predators die of starvation or other nasties from nature long before cancer would have a go 
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Question- have there ever been studies or observations of the rates of cancer in wild animals? Ones living on their natural diet, removed from environmental pollutants (as much as possible).[/quote]
No need. The animals that aren’t killed by predators die of starvation or other nasties from nature long before cancer would have a go
[/quote]
Or Humans kill and eat them.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Question- have there ever been studies or observations of the rates of cancer in wild animals? Ones living on their natural diet, removed from environmental pollutants (as much as possible).[/quote]
No need. The animals that aren’t killed by predators die of starvation or other nasties from nature long before cancer would have a go
[/quote]
Or Humans kill and eat them.[/quote]
That would be the predators part 
[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
[quote]kappa927 wrote:
BS. Where’s the published research? When scientists make s discovery they publish their work. They don’t leak it to less than reputable internet outlets. Unless its published in the red journal, the green journal, the BAR, radiation oncology or the like I don’t buy it. There are so many of these stupid “scientists find an everyday cure for cancer but evil corporations spoil it” articles out there its ridiculous. [/quote]
A mitochondria-K+ channel axis is suppressed in cancer and its normalization promotes apoptosis and inhibits cancer growth.
and many more.[/quote]
Take note that the article you reference is 5 years old. And there are more like it, showing that DCA therapy has a theoretical basis and warrants further investigation. But that’s not what this bogus article states. It claims that LAST WEEK researchers “cured cancer”. With no link to any published data backing that up. They go on to claim that pharmcompanies wont produce said miracle drug, again no reference to any article supporting this statement.
There are hopeful breakthroughs in cancer research all the time. Check out boron-neutron capture therapy for instance. The problem is that while scientists wisely contain their excitement over these discoveries until research has determined the clinical effectiveness of the proposed treatment, laypeople do not. And by feeding on peoples inherent distrust of large corporations websites like these make an easy buck.
Heck, a quick snopes search on the title of this article is all you really need.
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Question- have there ever been studies or observations of the rates of cancer in wild animals? Ones living on their natural diet, removed from environmental pollutants (as much as possible).[/quote]
No need. The animals that aren’t killed by predators die of starvation or other nasties from nature long before cancer would have a go
[/quote]
Or Humans kill and eat them.[/quote]
That would be the predators part
[/quote]
After being a Wal Mart yesterday, humans as predators in the wild just doesnt compute.
not sure if this is the same cure mentioned above, if it is sorry, but I remember reading about this, then hearing nothing more about it.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Question- have there ever been studies or observations of the rates of cancer in wild animals? Ones living on their natural diet, removed from environmental pollutants (as much as possible).[/quote]
Tasmanian devils are currently going through a rather aggressive outbreak of a contagious form of cancer. Yes, you just read that. Contagious cancer.
Cancer has not been cured. As it has already been pointed out, cancer is not “one” sickness. Do you think big pharma is suppressing the cure for the common cold too?
Research scientists have the biggest egos of any human beings on the planet. I would bet 99.99% of them would give away every penny they have if it meant being immortalized as “the man who cured cancer”. The Nobel prize alone would guarantee this scientist 1 million dollars and last time I checked, most of these people aren’t getting millions from big pharma. So where’s the bribe?
Hide the cure so you can chop tumors for the rest of your life; Reveal cure and instantly become a millionaire-global-hero-jesus-of-medicine… What would you choose?
I stopped reading when it called Mitochondria a cell and then buttfucked the what it does.
Their methodology of explaining sounds like they don’t really have a strong grasp on how cancer even works.
Ex. Turning on the pro-apotiotic mitochondrial death pathway doesn’t do dick when you’ve already got anti-apoptotic proteins going bat-shit crazy (the kind of thing that happens in cancers [ex. Bcl-2]).