PDA

View Full Version : Cure to cancer?


That One Guy
04-28-2012, 10:59 PM
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/z1ifXxbxhZc" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>


Anyone know anything about this? Probably too good to be true and since someone on the Mane seems to know everything, I can be lazy and just look here. It's kinda cool, too.

DBroncos4life
04-28-2012, 11:01 PM
I have to check the trade value chart and see what it says.

Dukes
04-28-2012, 11:09 PM
I wonder if the FDA has tied him in court for decades in an attempt to stifle his work like they did to Stanislaw Burzynski.

Agamemnon
04-28-2012, 11:14 PM
If there is no profit in it, Big Pharmaceuticals have no interest.

Swedish Extrovert
04-28-2012, 11:14 PM
Broncenstein will get on this pretty quick...

I'm aware of cures for several types of cancer, but given the intricacies of it, I doubt there will ever be a catchall cure. There are too many types of cancer and they're all different, and from what I understand about it, cancer is really a mutation of cells that already exist within you - it's literally your own body working against you, and that's why cancer patients go through chemo and radiation.

I doubt all cancer will be cured, but if we could figure out the more common and the deadlier ones: lung, breast, colon, leukemia (cancer of the blood), testicular, esophageal, malignant melanoma (skin cancer), etc., we would be in good shape.

Of course, I could be wrong. I'm not a doctor.

Dukes
04-28-2012, 11:17 PM
If there is no profit in it, Big Pharmaceuticals have no interest.

Same with the FDA. They are one in the same.

Dukes
04-28-2012, 11:22 PM
If you really wanna get into the meat and potatoes of this entire cure/treatment/money situation on cancer here is a wonderful example. The truth is not pretty nor inspiring.

http://vimeo.com/24821365

Agamemnon
04-28-2012, 11:24 PM
Same with the FDA. They are one in the same.

Oh I'm well aware. The branch of government that is supposed to regulate them actually belongs to them. That's why drugs like this without patents get stonewalled, and drugs that are truly poisonous and have to eventually be recalled get fast-tracked.

That One Guy
04-28-2012, 11:28 PM
Broncenstein will get on this pretty quick...

I'm aware of cures for several types of cancer, but given the intricacies of it, I doubt there will ever be a catchall cure. There are too many types of cancer and they're all different, and from what I understand about it, cancer is really a mutation of cells that already exist within you - it's literally your own body working against you, and that's why cancer patients go through chemo and radiation.

I doubt all cancer will be cured, but if we could figure out the more common and the deadlier ones: lung, breast, colon, leukemia (cancer of the blood), testicular, esophageal, malignant melanoma (skin cancer), etc., we would be in good shape.

Of course, I could be wrong. I'm not a doctor.

I know there's many theories on the origin but I think for the most part, a tumor is a tumor. There were a lot of things thrown out in a genetics class I took a while back but it dealt more with why the tumors originated rather than what they actually are.

I know the old practice, especially for academic institutions, was to release everything they discovered scientifically to the public domain so it's not surprise that this would have trouble getting someone to back it but if it's all true (which I'm wishing on a star that it is), I think there has to be some reflection as to the FDA approval requirements. It could say something as to the state of medicines if the only ones that can afford to test drugs are the big companies that get to consider the advantages/disadvantages to each scenario. While I don't necessarily buy the conspiracy theories, I would be skeptical if this drug happened to be privately owned by a cancer med maker and then was rejected. Smaller companies have to have an ability to test and produce as well or the big ones hold too much power and can't be kept honest.

Archer81
04-28-2012, 11:38 PM
My mother is on MEK inhibitors that stop her cancer cells from growing and dividing. To date, they are working. Last CT-scan her tumors had shrunk to the point they cannot be seen on the scan. Not approved by the FDA, they are in the trial stage.

Its ****ing amazing, is what it is.

:Broncos:

Dukes
04-28-2012, 11:42 PM
My mother is on MEK inhibitors that stop her cancer cells from growing and dividing. To date, they are working. Last CT-scan her tumors had shrunk to the point they cannot be seen on the scan. Not approved by the FDA, they are in the trial stage.

Its ****ing amazing, is what it is.

:Broncos:

Yeah I'm amazed the FDA hasn't deemed these treatments as "dangerous" discontinued them completely.

Agamemnon
04-28-2012, 11:43 PM
Yeah I'm amazed the FDA hasn't deemed these treatments as "dangerous" discontinued them completely.

They will likely keep them trial limbo forever instead...

Archer81
04-28-2012, 11:44 PM
Yeah I'm amazed the FDA hasn't deemed these treatments as "dangerous" discontinued them completely.

FDA trials. I should have been clearer. A "sister" drug is a B-Raf inhibitor (hope I am saying that right...) thats been approved by the FDA. The drug my mom is on is more or less tailored to a genetic mutation in her cells. That's why the meds are working. I hope this drug gets approved, it really does work. The side effects are pretty insane though.

:Broncos:

Dukes
04-28-2012, 11:52 PM
FDA trials. I should have been clearer. A "sister" drug is a B-Raf inhibitor (hope I am saying that right...) thats been approved by the FDA. The drug my mom is on is more or less tailored to a genetic mutation in her cells. That's why the meds are working. I hope this drug gets approved, it really does work. The side effects are pretty insane though.

:Broncos:

Sorry to hear about your mom Chris. Hope the treatments she's currently on continue to work without too many negative side effects. There are other treatment options available though. Start here. http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/

myMind
04-28-2012, 11:53 PM
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/z1ifXxbxhZc" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>


Anyone know anything about this? Probably too good to be true and since someone on the Mane seems to know everything, I can be lazy and just look here. It's kinda cool, too.

If it has emprical promise we can be sure it will be reviewed.
Unfortunately there is more profit in treating sickness than in curing it, so we're all basically ****ed until morality is regarded as a premium.

Swedish Extrovert
04-29-2012, 12:08 AM
I know there's many theories on the origin but I think for the most part, a tumor is a tumor. There were a lot of things thrown out in a genetics class I took a while back but it dealt more with why the tumors originated rather than what they actually are.

I know the old practice, especially for academic institutions, was to release everything they discovered scientifically to the public domain so it's not surprise that this would have trouble getting someone to back it but if it's all true (which I'm wishing on a star that it is), I think there has to be some reflection as to the FDA approval requirements. It could say something as to the state of medicines if the only ones that can afford to test drugs are the big companies that get to consider the advantages/disadvantages to each scenario. While I don't necessarily buy the conspiracy theories, I would be skeptical if this drug happened to be privately owned by a cancer med maker and then was rejected. Smaller companies have to have an ability to test and produce as well or the big ones hold too much power and can't be kept honest.

IDK, a lot of times, discovering the origin is half the battle in terms of finding the cure.

BTW, my sister is premed. She worked at an AIDS clinic last semester, and decided that she wanted to help people struggling with the virus. I really trying to get her to go into pathology.

teknic
04-29-2012, 01:00 AM
Cannabis has been known to effectively treat many different types of cancer (as well as many other illnesses) for a long while now. Among the cancers that cannabis has been proven to be effective as a treatment are breast, cervical, colorectal, glioma (brain), leukemia (bone marrow), lung, lymphoma, pancreatic, prostate, skin and testicular cancers. (references to scientific studies available upon request).

BroncoBuff
04-29-2012, 01:23 AM
Cannabis has been known to effectively treat many different types of cancer.

You sure about that, I thought cannabis treated symptoms only.

I agree Big Pharma are vermin, but in this area I'm a "Better Mousetrap" believer. If this works, people will find it fast.

Swedish Extrovert
04-29-2012, 01:27 AM
Cannabis has been known to effectively treat many different types of cancer (as well as many other illnesses) for a long while now. Among the cancers that cannabis has been proven to be effective as a treatment are breast, cervical, colorectal, glioma (brain), leukemia (bone marrow), lung, lymphoma, pancreatic, prostate, skin and testicular cancers. (references to scientific studies available upon request).

I've never heard that before.

I have heard some doctors recommend cannabis for cancer patients on chemo in order to relieve pain and re-stimulate appetite.

Swedish Extrovert
04-29-2012, 01:29 AM
Also, there's Marinol... weed in pill form.

I've also heard doctors say they would never recommend anything that involved inhaling smoke when there are other options available.

I'm no scientist, but my Dad is a chemist, and he says that all forms of smoke are carcinogenic.

alkemical
04-29-2012, 06:05 AM
I'm unable to see the vid...is this from rick smith?

www.phoenixtears.ca

barryr
04-29-2012, 07:09 AM
But the FDA can be trusted. I think people would be surprised, or maybe not, at what all medicines that can actually cure people, especially things found in nature, but are never taken seriously since no money to be had in it for the FDA and government. They can't control the rights to every weed and herb.

baja
04-29-2012, 07:40 AM
The last thing Big Pharma wants is a cheap cure for cancer. Cancer is a trillion dollar business you think they want a cure. Truth is there are many cures for cancer that have worked and tens of thousands have been cured. Here is just one example.

http://gerson.org/gerpress/

That One Guy
04-29-2012, 08:15 AM
I'm unable to see the vid...is this from rick smith?

www.phoenixtears.ca

I didn't watch anything but doesn't look like the guy in the video on your site. Maybe the guy in my video is your guy after he ate another guy.

gyldenlove
04-29-2012, 08:17 AM
Many drugs are good at curing cancer in animals - in fact if your pet rat ever gets cancer we are pretty sure we can cure it. Most of the trials that work out in animals fail to deliver when tried in humans for a number of reasons.

As for trials lacking with generic drugs, it is extremely expensive to run clinical trials and most governments have all but given up on running trials and are letting pharma companies do it, but obviously they will never run trials on drugs they can't patent. The solution would be to either have the government run trials with generic drugs or let pharma companies re-patent.

That One Guy
04-29-2012, 08:20 AM
The last thing Big Pharma wants is a cheap cure for cancer. Cancer is a trillion dollar business you think they want a cure. Truth is there are many cures for cancer that have worked and tens of thousands have been cured. Here is just one example.

http://gerson.org/gerpress/

Miracles happen. For this to be science, however, it has to have predictable and reproducible results. On a quick glance, I didn't look for any rigidly controlled studies and their success rates. Do you have an idea where that info can be found?

That One Guy
04-29-2012, 08:23 AM
Many drugs are good at curing cancer in animals - in fact if your pet rat ever gets cancer we are pretty sure we can cure it. Most of the trials that work out in animals fail to deliver when tried in humans for a number of reasons.

As for trials lacking with generic drugs, it is extremely expensive to run clinical trials and most governments have all but given up on running trials and are letting pharma companies do it, but obviously they will never run trials on drugs they can't patent. The solution would be to either have the government run trials with generic drugs or let pharma companies re-patent.

Why not go radical and allow experimental drugs to be used without approval on terminal patients? You have a cheap testing base and nothing to lose.

hambone13
04-29-2012, 08:30 AM
I know there's many theories on the origin but I think for the most part, a tumor is a tumor. There were a lot of things thrown out in a genetics class I took a while back but it dealt more with why the tumors originated rather than what they actually are.

I know the old practice, especially for academic institutions, was to release everything they discovered scientifically to the public domain so it's not surprise that this would have trouble getting someone to back it but if it's all true (which I'm wishing on a star that it is), I think there has to be some reflection as to the FDA approval requirements. It could say something as to the state of medicines if the only ones that can afford to test drugs are the big companies that get to consider the advantages/disadvantages to each scenario. While I don't necessarily buy the conspiracy theories, I would be skeptical if this drug happened to be privately owned by a cancer med maker and then was rejected. Smaller companies have to have an ability to test and produce as well or the big ones hold too much power and can't be kept honest.

How they originate is essentially what they are. They are unhealthy, continuing mutations of natural cellular replication. That's about as simplified as you can get.

gyldenlove
04-29-2012, 08:31 AM
Why not go radical and allow experimental drugs to be used without approval on terminal patients? You have a cheap testing base and nothing to lose.

That will come down to a very clear and disambiguous definition of terminal, and you will also need to change requirements for follow up treatment.

As it stands now, when you run a clinical trial you are required to pay for all relevant therapy for as long as it is needed, or provide the current best practice therapy for as long as needed. If you have a patient who has prognosis of 3-6 months survival, that patient could survive for 12 months and you would be on the hook for all the therapy for those 12 months - you need very deep pockets to take that kind of risk.

baja
04-29-2012, 08:33 AM
Miracles happen. For this to be science, however, it has to have predictable and reproducible results. On a quick glance, I didn't look for any rigidly controlled studies and their success rates. Do you have an idea where that info can be found?

That's the trouble so many cures have been squashed or discredited by big pharma because there was no money to be made. Look into Codex Alimentarius. Big pharma wants to control everything

gyldenlove
04-29-2012, 08:33 AM
I know there's many theories on the origin but I think for the most part, a tumor is a tumor. There were a lot of things thrown out in a genetics class I took a while back but it dealt more with why the tumors originated rather than what they actually are.

I know the old practice, especially for academic institutions, was to release everything they discovered scientifically to the public domain so it's not surprise that this would have trouble getting someone to back it but if it's all true (which I'm wishing on a star that it is), I think there has to be some reflection as to the FDA approval requirements. It could say something as to the state of medicines if the only ones that can afford to test drugs are the big companies that get to consider the advantages/disadvantages to each scenario. While I don't necessarily buy the conspiracy theories, I would be skeptical if this drug happened to be privately owned by a cancer med maker and then was rejected. Smaller companies have to have an ability to test and produce as well or the big ones hold too much power and can't be kept honest.

Drugs and therapies that are published rather than patented will never put through phase III trials for clinical use - in the last 20 years, I can't think of a single such drug or therapy.

That One Guy
04-29-2012, 08:33 AM
That will come down to a very clear and disambiguous definition of terminal, and you will also need to change requirements for follow up treatment.

As it stands now, when you run a clinical trial you are required to pay for all relevant therapy for as long as it is needed, or provide the current best practice therapy for as long as needed. If you have a patient who has prognosis of 3-6 months survival, that patient could survive for 12 months and you would be on the hook for all the therapy for those 12 months - you need very deep pockets to take that kind of risk.

Ahh... interesting. Thanks.

That One Guy
04-29-2012, 08:39 AM
How they originate is essentially what they are. They are unhealthy, continuing mutations of natural cellular replication. That's about as simplified as you can get.

Yeah, that's basically what I know of cancer. I've heard the theory that it almost always boils down to the telomere regeneration process (I'm rusty on my lingo as I haven't touched it in some time) being reactivated though they don't necessarily know why. If it were such a case, many different causes would be converging to create a similar endstate. That's basically what I envision the process as being. Whatever triggers the cells to go into super expando mode is generally unknown but the super expando is pretty much the universal endstate. Is that correct?

That One Guy
04-29-2012, 08:42 AM
That's the trouble so many cures have been squashed or discredited by big pharma because there was no money to be made. Look into Codex Alimentarius. Big pharma wants to control everything

Yeah, science is such a hassle.

People may only get one chance to respond to cancer. If they don't have the information to back up their theories, why would any sane person choose that method? There's a reason correlation doesn't equate to causality and this case is a perfect example. Those that would seek out organic treatments over radiation are probably doing other things in their lives differently as well. I don't know enough to discount your idea (and have no interest in doing so beyond skepticism) but I know there's plenty that would benefit in boasting of the 1 person in 100 who the treatment succeeds for because they can buck the system and declare organic to be the cure all.

baja
04-29-2012, 08:44 AM
Yeah, science is such a hassle.

People may only get one chance to respond to cancer. If they don't have the information to back up their theories, why would any sane person choose that method? There's a reason correlation doesn't equate to causality and this case is a perfect example. Those that would seek out organic treatments over radiation are probably doing other things in their lives differently as well. I don't know enough to discount your idea (and have no interest in doing so beyond skepticism) but I know there's plenty that would benefit in boasting of the 1 person in 100 who the treatment succeeds for because they can buck the system and declare organic to be the cure all.

did you even click on the link I provided?

http://gerson.org/gerpress/

That One Guy
04-29-2012, 08:47 AM
did you even click on the link I provided?

http://gerson.org/gerpress/

I did and I read the bone cancer story. It had no info other than she ate organic veggies and she is still alive after being diagnosed with terminally ill cancer. I think there's just as good chances that they blew the diagnosis 54 years ago as the lack of pesticide allowed her body to overcome cancer.

I've told you before, baja, you've provided and openly embraced so much kookiness that you don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore.

By the way, someone just died of starvation the other day after going on a sunlight diet.

baja
04-29-2012, 09:02 AM
I did and I read the bone cancer story. It had no info other than she ate organic veggies and she is still alive after being diagnosed with terminally ill cancer. I think there's just as good chances that they blew the diagnosis 54 years ago as the lack of pesticide allowed her body to overcome cancer.

I've told you before, baja, you've provided and openly embraced so much kookiness that you don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore.

By the way, someone just died of starvation the other day after going on a sunlight diet.

I know you mean well but you refuse to look a little deeper than main stream status quote.

For example;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tghUh4ubbg

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI

chanesaw
04-29-2012, 10:05 AM
Most cancers are the result of a loss of cycle control leading to uncontrolled cell proliferation. There are many stages of control and check points. The ones usually effected involve DNA replication. If there is a problem the cell is supposed to enter programmed cell death. Our bodies are constantly killing small undetectable tumors through our NK cells and cytotoxic T cells of our immune system, but cancer cells have means of evading the immune system or can grow too large for our immune cells to handle. Some of the more promising research to treat cancer involves boosting the immune response, but it will require much more research before it becomes viable.

This video only showed the tumors getting smaller, not eliminated. It also didn't mention if they reduce their ability to metastasize, but it is promising.

That One Guy
04-29-2012, 10:22 AM
This video only showed the tumors getting smaller, not eliminated. It also didn't mention if they reduce their ability to metastasize, but it is promising.

Isn't the only obstacle preventing new growth, really? If the meds are as cheap as they say with as few side effects, a lifetime regimen would be better than some alternatives. As far as I'm aware, the threat of cancer is when it continues to spread and take over other things. Even if all you do is stop the growth, it would seem to be sufficient as long as it wasn't already choking out the other organs.

Archer81
04-29-2012, 10:33 AM
Isn't the only obstacle preventing new growth, really? If the meds are as cheap as they say with as few side effects, a lifetime regimen would be better than some alternatives. As far as I'm aware, the threat of cancer is when it continues to spread and take over other things. Even if all you do is stop the growth, it would seem to be sufficient as long as it wasn't already choking out the other organs.


The medication my mom is taking is designed to do this. It stops the cells from growing and spreading. It can also shrink them (which its doing). The side effects can be brutal. Skin infections, dry skin, acne-like skin issues, nausea, loss of appetite and sunlight sensitivity.

:Broncos:

That One Guy
04-29-2012, 10:43 AM
The medication my mom is taking is designed to do this. It stops the cells from growing and spreading. It can also shrink them (which its doing). The side effects can be brutal. Skin infections, dry skin, acne-like skin issues, nausea, loss of appetite and sunlight sensitivity.

:Broncos:

Yikes. See, something like that I wouldn't want to rely on as a long-term solution. After long enough, people would say enough is enough. If it had milder symptoms though, the cancer may not need to be completely destroyed if controlling is sufficient. Obviously best case scenario is destroyed, though.

teknic
04-29-2012, 10:57 AM
I've never heard that before.

I have heard some doctors recommend cannabis for cancer patients on chemo in order to relieve pain and re-stimulate appetite.

Here's a list of links to medical studies that have been done on cannabis.
http://forum.grasscity.com/medical-marijuana-usage-applications/525051-granny-storm-crows-mmj-reference-list.html

Pharmaceutical companies have been against legalization solely for the reason that they can't patent the plant. There is no money to be made if a cheap, effective, natural treatment exists.

Archer81
04-29-2012, 01:17 PM
Yikes. See, something like that I wouldn't want to rely on as a long-term solution. After long enough, people would say enough is enough. If it had milder symptoms though, the cancer may not need to be completely destroyed if controlling is sufficient. Obviously best case scenario is destroyed, though.


The MEK-inhibitor works. But the side effects are really tough. The "sister drug" has milder side effects (just some nausea in the AM, dry mouth). They are going to start her on the B-Raf in late may or june. Her oncologist thinks it will achieve the same thing as the MEK and end the skin issues.

:Broncos:

broncosteven
04-29-2012, 01:24 PM
I wonder if the FDA has tied him in court for decades in an attempt to stifle his work like they did to Stanislaw Burzynski.

I saw the Burzynski Documentary. It wasn't well produced but it was very interesting.