simple cure for cancer found, but cant be patented

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by dealwithit, May 23, 2011.

  1. #81 Carl Weathers, Jun 13, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2011
    It's all very convenient that you can pass off any conflicting evidence, provided by professional research, on the basis that the scientists (yes, ones with with PhDs) behind it are apparently all in bed with pharmaceutical companies. Arguing with you is clearly a waste of time, when all you have to offer is propaganda and stories about friends of friends who have been magically cured by this naturopathy. Why do I think alternative medicine is rejected by the masses? Because it is not clinically proven to be effective, and in a lot of cases, proves to be dangerous - especially given that untrained people are the ones administering.

    For example, in this case of bicarbonate administration to a breast cancer patient, that lead to her death.

    I saw your ridiculous suggestion of a Trojan Horse maple syrup/bicarbonate formulation, and understood what you were trying to say. However, there is absolutely no pharmacological basis to it, and it would never work to target cancer cells, or act as a carrier for sodium bicarbonate. It is just another example of the bullshit you speak of. I simply pointed out the counter-intuitiveness of it, as it amuses me how incredibly stupid you would have to be to believe in such a treatment.

    I assumed that your video related to sodium bicarbonate - and after watching the manipulative sob story about a dead kid, I switched off. Turns out this was some completely unrelated research you decided to include, and I made the mistake of assuming it was somehow related... You'll have to forgive me for that mistake. It's just that I'm noticing quite a pattern, that you tend to reject common (logical, rational, reasonable and proven) theories in favour of those held by a series of interconnected frauds. It sounds like Dr Burzynski is yet another example of a questionable name in the world of alternative therapies. Yet, despite you quite predictably following this list of alternative research, you somehow consider yourself enlightened, and me as a sheep. I fail to see how you are so 'outside of the box' in your thinking, when you completely reject any information that is not from the underdog, out of this idea that it's most likely contaminated by the funding of "Big Pharma". Yet, I am happy to review any research done by these rogue 'oncologists' (beyond tear-jerking videos), and see that we are yet to have any definitive results. I too, could take this opportunity, to say "the statistics speak for themselves", in order to negate what you believe to be the orphan cure to cancer. I could go as far as to question Dr Burzynski's integrity, given that his subjects are forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars directly to his bank account, in order to enter his unproven research. Given your hair-trigger for any research or clinical practice that might be influenced by fiscal gain, I'm surprised you don't loathe the guy.

    I don't need to understand that cancer cells are rapidly proliferating, because I have already acknowledged it. Of course they are resource hungry. Cutting sugar from your diet would only serve to limit the already starved healthy cells... So, even by your logic, that makes no sense at all. Also, while BRCA mutations are nearly a guarantee of breast cancer (and could be considered a precursor to the disease), fibrocystic breasts are not a precursor, and whether or not iodine fixes them in no way intervenes BRCA mutant related breast cancer.

    You should stick to the ad hominems, because your scientific bullshit is unconvincing.
     
  2. #82 riejgndtueodtrd, Jun 13, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 13, 2011
    So when we post evidence, it's wrong because it's not the evidence you wanted to see?

    It kind of sounds like you are with all this milk-bashing.

    So you're saying breast milk isn't animal milk? So are humans plants?

    So statistics prove that tumors are not made of cancerous cells, but in fact healthy, normal cells being used as a defense mechanism?

    Just because they're 40 years old, doesn't mean they don't work. The Bible is thousands of years old and people still believe in it. Healthy diet can help PREVENT cancer. It doesn't make existing cancer go away. Do you honestly think giving someone a salad instead of chemotherapy would be better for their cancer? By the way... all cells feed on sugar, not just cancerous ones.

    Do you really fail to see that the tumor IS the proliferation of cancer cells? Apparently you're not so well-versed after all.

    So I should just blindly follow you instead? Someone who doesn't even understand what cancer is?
     
  3. What makes you think the tumor is an attempt by the body to confine the spread of this "process" ?

    Also, since you are well-versed on "the subject of cancer," would you be inclined to discuss how DNA methylation and histone acetylation can lead to gene silencing in regions that transcribe for tumor suppressor genes? Let's talk about how "sugar" plays a role in that. Seriously, please don't ignore that.

    You make it sound like rich businessmen know more about science than biochemical researchers whose interests lay in improving the quality of medicine for people across the globe. Or do you think all scientists are "in on it" as well? Just so you know, there is a huge push in the medical industry to go nature-based because of the overwhelming support researchers have for plant-based medicine - but this isn't something you would likely accept about the industry, is it?

    Coral Calcium + 10,000 IU Vitamin D is non-toxic?

    Well, first off, that dosage of Vitamin D can be toxic. Hypervitaminosis D - PubMed Health

    Second, let's talk about coral calcium. If you're so against "refined sugars," why do you believe in buying a product that damages fragile ecosystems, and must be refined before it can be sold? Also, what's the difference between any other calcium and coral calcium? If I understand correctly, any toxins, pollutants, or poisons that are in the water, are going to be absorbed by coral as they form, and in certain parts of the world coral has been shown to have abnormally high levels of lead and mercury... so what is the magic reason behind its efficacy in battling cancer again?

    Thirdly, several marketers of coral calcium as an anti-cancer agent were found to be fraudulent and forced to pay millions of dollars for bullshitting. Oops. :rolleyes:

    Federal Trade Commission, plaintiff v. Direct Marketing Concepts, Inc., d/b/a Today’s Health and Direct Fulfillment, ITV Direct, Inc., d/b/a Direct Fulfillment, Donald W. Barrett, Healthy Solutions, LLC d/b/a Direct Business Concepts, Health So

    You know, there is evidence pointing strongly against this type of crap, and all it takes is five seconds on google. What makes you so sure that this is all real?
     
  4. Ah, I didn't know that, thank you for the information. I only knew the coral calcium thing because of my Sensai's vast wealth of knowledge, but then again he wasn't really explaining how to help cancer, just brought it up that it can do that when prescribing it to someone else to treat their blood pressure problems with herbs and natural nutrients/foods.
     
  5. #85 chiefton8, Jun 13, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 14, 2011
    Nice back peddle, because you did quite clearly state all milk causes cancer and followed that up by saying "it" (which one can only assume you meant milk) was particularly "detrimental in oestrogen dominant cancers"...whatever that means. You never said it was the hormones in milk that causes cancer. Next time write what you mean.

    Never the less, a search in Pubmed for "milk oestrogen cancer" reveals a grand total of six review articles, only one of which directly addresses this apparently obvious connection you speak of. This study, entitled "Possible health impact of animal oestrogens in food" states quite clearly,

    And then you said:

    Extreme abundance? This review articles states:

    That, even for hormones, isn't exactly anywhere close to extreme...nevertheless that begs the question of what is the toxic levels of oestradiol? I found a well cited article here that states the following:

    If you do the math, a women would have to drink between one hundred and one million liters of cow milk each day to equal the amount of estradiol made endogenously.

    Seems like you have some explaining to do with your assertion of EXTREME levels of estradiol in milk and its relationship to cancer. Perhaps you could provide some peer reviewed literature on the matter, which you haven't done one yet.

    And calling me stupid doesn't help your cause. It just makes you look like an immature two year old that nobody wants to take seriously.
     
  6. Firstly the FDA guidelines on what the RDA are for vitamins is completely laughable. I have personally taken 10.000 iu of Vitamin D for over 4 years. Side Effects; I've not had a cold in about the same time, but that can probably be attributed to the Allicin I take too. That said, i live in the UK where the vast majority are vitamin D deficient. Would i take that much if i lived in a sun laden country? Nope.

    I support the use of coral calcium and other highly alkalising treatments due to the fact cancer ferments in an acid rich environment. I base this on the work of Otto Warburg (Nobel Peace prize Winner) and others, who discovered cancerous cells are acidic.

    Do I think coral calcium is a magic bullet for cancer? Of course I don't. Do I think supplementing with alkaline rich supplements is an excellent approach to use alongside other treatments. Absolutely.

    Those people were probably sued for claiming it cured cancer and rightly so. Did i claim it was a cure? No i did not. I stated its usefulness as part of a regime in light of the very nature of cancer cells being acidic.

    I know nothing about methylation and histone acetylation, and i won't just google something to pretend otherwise. However, i would be delighted if you was to share your knowledge on it?

    Fantastic you know of a 'push' to use plant base medicines? Please point to where this is happening? Because usually what happens is they try to synthesise (and thus change) something natural in order to patent it. Not quite the same thing is it? It happened years ago at sloan kettering with apricot kernels.

    The fact of the matter is this; no i don't think all bio-chemist et al are 'in on it'
    But the the funding is only there to research and develop chemical drugs.
    And we all know how much they help don't we? The statistics speak for themselves. Despite the best intentions of researchers, the industry is owned by the pharmaceutical companies and thus what can be researched and prescribed is for profit and profit only.
     
  7. That's terrible for you. You must never see sunlight.

    So should we drink bleach to prevent cancer? And you can't just drop a random Nobel Prize winner and say he supports your argument. Link an article or journal or something.
     
  8. I'm struggling to converse with you much more on this subject, where as others are holding for a good debate, your idiocy is lowering the tone.

    If you assumed for one minute i was catergorising breast milk with animal milk then you're an idiot. That really shouldn't need to be said should it? Obviously to you, it did. Dimwit.

    I was talking about the make-up of tumours, in the fact they are not all cancerous tissue. The actual point i made was that after successful cancer therapies, tumours can be left behind (made up of just dead tissue) so the obsession with wiping out tumours is merely going after the symptom (when more importantly, the underlying cause should be addressed also)

    The fact you thought I was saying a tumour is a collection of non-cancerous cells (the word your looking for is benign) then again, you're an idiot.

    Chemotherapy does not work (please look up the stats)

    I've already addressed the issue of normal and cancerous cells feeding off sugar, go back and read it, and this time concentrate.

    No I'm not suggesting a salad would be a treatment for cancer. Hilarious.

    Right, now you've dumbed down this debate again, can you leave it to the people who have some informed opinion about it. Cheers.
     
  9. Indeed, luckily i get to travel a lot.

    There is tonnes of stuff on Otto Warburg and his discovery that cancer cells are acidic and cannot survive in an alkaline environment. Google it.
     
  10. I'll reply to anybody i missed out later/tomorrow...
     

  11. That's nice and all, but this observation is not evidence that bicarbonate can cure, prevent, limit or otherwise inhibit the growth of cancer in vivo. Perhaps you could link some peer reviewed studies?
     
  12. You're struggling to converse with me because I'm sarcastically pointing out all the obvious flaws in your terribly misinformed assertion.

    What? Breast milk is animal milk.... I ask again, do you consider human beings to be plants? Why is our milk not considered "animal" milk?

    Okay, so we should give all of our cancer patients a bottle of multivitamins, some diluted bleach, and send them on their way? No need to treat those massive tumors putting pressure on the patients' vital organs.

    Fixed your grammar. :wave:

    Well according to Alkaline Food | Balance pH With Alkaline Food and Alkaline Water, green vegetables are a good source of alkaline nutrition. Throw some fish, egg, or mushrooms on there and you've got a source of vitamin D too. That should clear your lymphoma right up!

    Oh great, another name without any relevant information. I'm not going to Google it. If you want to prove it, you Google it and post a link to what you find. If you choose not to do so, I'll continue to not believe in your stupid bullshit.
     
  13. Why not just eat garlic instead of taking allicin?

    Also, individual biochemistry plays a significant role in how the body functions. Some people have allergies, others don't. Some people can eat spicy food, others can't. Some people can drink milk, others can't. What works in terms of medicine for one person does not work for the other - look at it this way, there was a fellow who lived to be 102 years old but smoked cigars and drank rum on a daily basis. There are people who live all-organic lifestyles and die at the age of 45 from heart attacks. Yet the opposite is also true; there are people who die in their early 40s from smoking cigars and drinking alcohol on a daily basis, and others who live well past 90 through all-organic lifestyles.

    Do you see what I'm driving at?

    Also, in reference to your ingestion of 10,000 IU of Vitamin D as a testament for its efficacy - I'm not so sure I believe that to be true. So far, you have dodged everyone's polite request for you to provide some shred of evidence for anything you're saying, meanwhile laughing at us from the vantage point of your self-constructed high-horse of superior knowledge. I found something about Vitamin D that I can actually understand from a critical perspective; that is, if I choose to disagree with this, I can dig into the intricacies of how this theory was formulated, and from there decide to change certain things, piece it back together and see if it works better than it did before. Unfortunately, you have not given us anything open-source like this; instead we are hearing of magical, unverifiable truths we must simply accept because someone smarter than us postulated it.

    I chose to read this:

    Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Vitamin D

    Before you go and say that this is bullshit because it's a government website and therefore "in" on the conspiracy, ask yourself one simple question: is it possible that what they're talking about is science? And is it possible that this science can be reproduced? If so, then you should try to understand this:


    You don't have to believe what this says, though, look it up for yourself:


    1) Find out if Vitamin D increases the absorption of calcium
    2) Find out what "calcium toxicity" is
    3) Find out what the effects are, and see if it can promote cancer

    4) Look again at what was written on this crazy crackpot, pseudoscience website


    Wait a second, cancer ferments in acidic environments? What does that mean? If I understand correctly, fermentation is a process that organisms use to obtain energy, so what are you saying: is cancer caused by acidic environments or does cancer promote acidic environments? According to the work of Warburg, cancer cells are anaerobic. This means they can ferment sugar to obtain energy - and what is the byproduct of this anaerobic respiration again? I seem to be forgetting :confused: Please inform me.

    You understand that the alkaline-rich supplements you advocate are only treating the symptoms, not the root cause? Your argument is analogous to taking ibuprofen when you have a headache - and if you know what fermentation results in, you will clearly see that your point is moot. Perhaps you meant to say something else though, or in a different way?

    I'm glad you're being honest and not googling to pretend otherwise.

    DNA methylation and histone acetylation are two of the many mechanisms behind epigenetic changes, and have been shown to have some influence in the expression of certain genes that code for cancer-battling enzymes. This was a topic I researched extensively for school, and one of the most exciting things about this field is that every study is brand-new territory. It's very fresh, so every day new understandings are being integrated into our concept of how the body functions - and one of the areas researchers have looked extensively at, is the silencing of genes that code for these anti-carcinogens. DNA methylation is interesting because there's sites in your genetic code known as "CpG sites," where guanine is separated from cytosine by a phosphate. Environmental influences can lead to what's known as "methylation," where a methyl group is attached to cytosine. This is a problem for many reasons; but primarily because, through some yet-unknown mysterious mechanism, the methylated cytosine gets replicated after a particular strand of DNA which hosts that CpG island, has been re-wound post-transcription. Studies have observed that certain compounds in cigarettes can induce DNA methylation, which in-turn silences the expression of certain genetic material even if it may be considered a "dominant" allele.

    Histone acetylation works in a similar way... but it may be too much to elaborate further, as it is off-topic. Though, if you are curious, I can link you to some great studies that go more in-depth ;)

    ? There are no special studies or scientific inquiries necessary - as of the past 50-60 years, there has been a huge increase in the amount of natural medicine we've seen. Naturopathic doctors are considered primary care physicians by the AMA, whereas before it was just these drug-peddling medical doctors we are speaking of. Pharmaceutical profit is decreasing, the demand of natural supplements and organic foods is increasing, I mean... there's a lot of places you can look man. But your biggest indication will be in the education system, and I can personally vouch that there is a wave of change occurring right now. People who are genuinely interested in helping people live longer, healthier lives, aren't in it for the money, and will not be swayed by dollar bills nearly as easily as you may think.

    This is also partially because intellect often goes hand-in-hand with a deep-seated curiosity of the universe. Many people understand that money doesn't mean shit in terms of happiness. If the drive in someone's life is to help people live healthy, then money can only help that desire, not replace it.

    You're right when you say some researchers are bought out though. It's not like all doctors and scientists are pure-hearted; there are some malicious intents in the world, but this does not mean that the instance of one or two greedy people speak for the entire community at large.
     
  14. Mods should put this thread out of its misery.
     
  15. Since we're having a bit of discussion about statistics, I thought I might share some info on a relatively efficacious antineoplastic, imatinib.

    From the New England Journal of Medicine:

    and its 5 year follow up, again, from the New England Journal of Medicine

    I guess, if the statistics speak for themselves, certain people might want to open their mind to mainstream therapies?
     
  16. let's not forget a simple fact:

    the very same corporations who produce vast amounts of toxic, cancer-causing chemicals, are also the same companies who sell (expensive) cancer treatments.

    (dupont, monsanto, BASF, bayer, etc.)

    here is an interesting little canadian documentary on the subject:

    The Idiot Cycle (2009)
    RedPill.tv : The Idiot Cycle by JPS Films
     
  17. troy thats probably the only good post in 6 pages.
     
  18. * The allicin I take contains 180mg per capsule of stabalised allciin (per Prof. Peter Joslings work) I would have to consume a stupid amount of garlic to get anywhere near that daily. I think there is 4mg of allicin per bulb of garlic.

    * So are you saying you don't believe I've taken 10.000 iu of Vitamin D3 for 4 years? I'm not really sure how we can debate with sincerity if you're going to accuse me of lying? This is the brand i take 2 of a day (as does several of my family members) to no negative side effects. Like i said, no cold or flu in getting on 4 years. Not many can say that living in the UK.

    [ame=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Healthy-Origins-Vitamin-000-Softgels/dp/B002LC1INI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308071775&sr=8-1]Healthy Origins, Vitamin D3, 5,000 IU, 360 Softgels: Amazon.co.uk: Health & Beauty[/ame]

    * Actually, I'm open minded to think a body that consumes acidic foods could well be a catalyst for cancer, and in turn, consuming foods that cause an alkaline ash in the body would then be a very sensible thing in your combat against the cancer.

    * I completely refute your opinion that the medical industry is opening its arms to natural based medicine. Quite the contrary in fact. Look what happened across the EU just this April;

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-ban-hundreds-of-herbal-remedies-2171781.html

    Who do you think was behind this exactly? Oh no, not the pharmaceutical companies surely? I bet they never paid off politicians and lobbied for that.
    They don't want you to have access to natural medicines because then they cannot capitilise on it.

    * Evidence? It's so easy for you and all the other doubters to find papers and reviews rubbishing my claims. There are no huge extensive studies on alternative therapies because there is no profit to be had from them. So all we have is real life evidence. It cost millions to put a therapy through trial. Nobody is going to do that.

    For example; What more can i tell you than (The aluminum feee bi-carb / maple syrup protocol) completely wiped out a friend of a friends prostate cancer.

    This is the man that told me (his name is Kevin) he runs the KICT charity and is and absolutely honorable and special person who has saved so many children with his knowledge and generosity. Here he is giving a talk as special guest at a cancer seminar.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6JsCXjS8lg&feature=related]YouTube - ‪Cancer Defeated - Neuroblastoma - Cancer Control '07 Part 1‬‏[/ame]

    So what can i say? That man did nothing other than that protocol and the surgery he was scheduled to have was cancelled because the cancer had gone?

    So you answer me, how do you think that happened?

    Please don't say spontaneous regression FFS.
     
  19. Why not?
     
  20. #100 elysium, Jun 14, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 14, 2011
    Same for this guy right?

    My Dance With Cancer

    The bliss in your bubble of ignorance must really be something.
     

Share This Page