Pages: 1

 

2007-01-30 01:27:55
citricacidx
Hooligan of War
+21|6505|Atlanta, GA
What kind of world do we live in where people are suffering everyday from cancer. A world where studies and experiments that costs billions of dollars are being conducted, yet a cure for cancer has been found and is being ignored. Why? Because it is nothing new and non profitable.

So how come you haven't seen this on ABC, BBC, CNN, FOX, NBC, etc? Money.

Imagine a world where cancer could be cured with something as readily available as aspirin. Now forget it. An inexpensive miracle cure for cancer. It would be like saying "take this generic aspirin and you'll be cured of cancer." But that's the very last thing pharmaceutical companies want. Maybe not the people behind the counter at your local drug store. But the big guys. The CEOs and Chairmen. The ones that stand to make a lot of money if they discover something new that could cure cancer instead of an already existing and generic medicine.

The Story:
Recently researchers at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada were conducting experiments with Dichloroacetate (DCA). Using human cells cultured outside of the body, DCA was shown to shrink lung, breast, and brain tumors. Rats deliberately infected with human cancer was shown to shrink when the rats were given DCA dissolved in water for several weeks. One scientist said "To treat the rats (in lab experiments) one dose of DCA is 0.7 cents per day per rat.”

But no time soon will you walk into Eckerd’s and see Pfizer's cancer pill or Johnson & Johnson's Cancer-be-gone. They stand to lose unfathomable sums of money.

This is not a fake post or one of those chain mail things that you pass around and feel nice for a second. I am writing this to raise awareness since the media around the world will not. We all know what a powerful tool the internet can be and now I am trying to harness that. I ask that you repost this bulletin wherever you can. MySpace, Facebook, your blog, your friends' blog. Just please spread it so that maybe we can bring attention to this sad situation.

If you don't believe me, just Google "Dichloroacetate cancer" (without the " "). Also, here are some links to other stories:
http://media.www.studentprintz.com/medi … p;xmlsyn=1

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl … tment.html

http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=8153

http://www.thestar.com/Health/article/171616

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10971

I am just a college student who thinks this is messed up. If you think it is messed up that there is a cure for cancer that is being brushed under the table because the big corporations won't make trillions of dollars, please pass this along.

Sincerely Disturbed,
Daniel Foley - [email protected]

(Please do not alter the text above. You can add your name after mine if you feel so inclined to show you also feel this is messed up.)

Last edited by citricacidx (2007-01-30 02:37:58)

2007-01-30 02:04:58
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6675|Canberra, AUS
I'm curious.

Do you even know what cancer (malignancy) is? It's basic nature makes it near impossible to cure, not without radically redesigning the very basics of the cells.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-01-30 02:25:18
citricacidx
Hooligan of War
+21|6505|Atlanta, GA

Spark wrote:

I'm curious.

Do you even know what cancer (malignancy) is? It's basic nature makes it near impossible to cure, not without radically redesigning the very basics of the cells.
Did you even really take a look into any of what I said?

Second Link wrote:

All normal cells are designed to die when no longer performing properly; their mitochondria activate a process called apoptosis that kills them off. Cancerous cells inhibit the mitochondria that kick off apoptosis, leading to cells upon cells that refuse to die - and thus cancer. DCA is designed to reactivate the dormant mitochondria and force the cancerous cells to consume themselves.
@Kmarion - I wasn't saying there isn't news about cancer treatments. I was saying this particular one has ACTUALLY shown that it works and yet there is almost no news coverage.

Last edited by citricacidx (2007-01-30 02:25:50)

2007-01-30 02:29:41
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6601|132 and Bush

citricacidx wrote:

Spark wrote:

I'm curious.

Do you even know what cancer (malignancy) is? It's basic nature makes it near impossible to cure, not without radically redesigning the very basics of the cells.
Did you even really take a look into any of what I said?

Second Link wrote:

All normal cells are designed to die when no longer performing properly; their mitochondria activate a process called apoptosis that kills them off. Cancerous cells inhibit the mitochondria that kick off apoptosis, leading to cells upon cells that refuse to die - and thus cancer. DCA is designed to reactivate the dormant mitochondria and force the cancerous cells to consume themselves.
@Kmarion - I wasn't saying there isn't news about cancer treatments. I was saying this particular one has ACTUALLY shown that it works and yet there is almost no news coverage.
Understood but I find it hard to believe that the mainstream media would miss something like a cure for cancer.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-30 02:42:29
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6716

Kmarion wrote:

citricacidx wrote:

Spark wrote:

I'm curious.

Do you even know what cancer (malignancy) is? It's basic nature makes it near impossible to cure, not without radically redesigning the very basics of the cells.
Did you even really take a look into any of what I said?

Second Link wrote:

All normal cells are designed to die when no longer performing properly; their mitochondria activate a process called apoptosis that kills them off. Cancerous cells inhibit the mitochondria that kick off apoptosis, leading to cells upon cells that refuse to die - and thus cancer. DCA is designed to reactivate the dormant mitochondria and force the cancerous cells to consume themselves.
@Kmarion - I wasn't saying there isn't news about cancer treatments. I was saying this particular one has ACTUALLY shown that it works and yet there is almost no news coverage.
Understood but I find it hard to believe that the mainstream media would miss something like a cure for cancer.
I say this stuff is BS. True if there is a cure of cancer, then the main stream media will report it...
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2007-01-30 02:46:31
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6675|Canberra, AUS
Oh come on. You cannot be serious.

A cure for cancer. Do you know how fucking huge a story that would be? Bigger than big. Only a braindead wouldn't think of covering it.

Plus: that is not a CURE. How much it may seem that this is a be-all and end-all, it is not. First - it leads to a reduction in the size of tumors and the eventual disappearance. That is NOT the same thing. Chemotherapy does exactly the same thing (in a more complicated and difficult way) - but the cancer can still come back. A CURE would be a drug which removes any cancer and removes any future possibility for cancer - this is a TREATMENT. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. There is NOTHING in this drug which may stop cancer recurrance. Plus, it doesn't cover all cancers - brain, lung and breast tumours are very important, but what about skin cancer? I'm far more concerned about that. It's a start, yes, but it is NOT the final answer.

Add to the fact that clinical trials haven't started yet (so we don't know for sure whether it works the same).

And you can't blame the pharmaceutical companies. They produce the product, they lose money, they go bankrupt, they stop producing. Either that's it or someone else has to start producing. As more and more companies are forced to produce eventually there is NOONE left to produce the drug. Then what? People's attitude will be 'Someone has to make it, but it's not going to be me.'
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-01-30 02:46:59
']['error
Banned
+630|6644|The Netherlands
maybe it's not bullshit, it would be great for all the people who have cancer ! i think this is the news they have been waiting for a long time!
2007-01-30 02:48:14
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6601|132 and Bush

I mean cmon, look how popular those yellow wristbands were (Lance Armstrong)..lol.
http://www.store-laf.org/

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-30 02:49:11)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-30 02:49:42
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6675|Canberra, AUS

']['error wrote:

maybe it's not bullshit, it would be great for all the people who have cancer ! i think this is the news they have been waiting for a long time!
This drug has NOT been tried in humans yet (not for cancers, anyway). This drug may lead to severe mental side-effects (highly accelerated ALS just to pick something random) and we wouldn't have the slightest clue yet.

I'm not saying this isn't good or important. This is VERY important. Research into this is absolutely essential and could lead to massive breakthroughs.

However, this is NOT the final answer. The OP is essentially saying that this is THE cure, THE end of the line for cancer and that the drug companies + media are greedy fuckups who don't care about it. To say this is imprudent and grossly unrealistic is putting it mildly.

Last edited by Spark (2007-01-30 02:52:43)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-01-30 02:54:28
citricacidx
Hooligan of War
+21|6505|Atlanta, GA
the drug has been used to treat metabolic disorders, so it's not going to just all of a sudden start causing severe mental side-effects such as highly accelerated ALS just to pick something random because they found a new use for it. I mean come on, if someone told you water is safe to drink, and you can also use it to wash your body. But if you wash your body with water, you'll start becoming schizophrenic (just to pick something random) would that make sense?

Last edited by citricacidx (2007-01-30 02:55:50)

2007-01-30 02:59:18
SysTray
"Generous mods" < Thats right Systray !
+180|6821|Delaware

Spark wrote:

Oh come on. You cannot be serious.

A cure for cancer. Do you know how fucking huge a story that would be? Bigger than big. Only a braindead wouldn't think of covering it.

Plus: that is not a CURE. How much it may seem that this is a be-all and end-all, it is not. First - it leads to a reduction in the size of tumors and the eventual disappearance. That is NOT the same thing. Chemotherapy does exactly the same thing (in a more complicated and difficult way) - but the cancer can still come back. A CURE would be a drug which removes any cancer and removes any future possibility for cancer - this is a TREATMENT. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. There is NOTHING in this drug which may stop cancer recurrance. Plus, it doesn't cover all cancers - brain, lung and breast tumours are very important, but what about skin cancer? I'm far more concerned about that. It's a start, yes, but it is NOT the final answer.

Add to the fact that clinical trials haven't started yet (so we don't know for sure whether it works the same).

And you can't blame the pharmaceutical companies. They produce the product, they lose money, they go bankrupt, they stop producing. Either that's it or someone else has to start producing. As more and more companies are forced to produce eventually there is NOONE left to produce the drug. Then what? People's attitude will be 'Someone has to make it, but it's not going to be me.'
You can't prevent cancer from happening at this very time no matter what. Even if you live a perfectly healthy life your cells can still mutate...So anyone advertising anything (including chemo) and saying their product cures cancer in the way you want it to be cured would be a liar.
2007-01-30 03:03:34
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6675|Canberra, AUS

citricacidx wrote:

the drug has been used to treat metabolic disorders, so it's not going to just all of a sudden start causing severe mental side-effects such as highly accelerated ALS just to pick something random because they found a new use for it. I mean come on, if someone told you water is safe to drink, and you can also use it to wash your body. But if you wash your body with water, you'll start becoming schizophrenic (just to pick something random)
Yes... but would using it on a prolonged basis in such high amounts really not have any effects? Two teaspoons a day every day for several weeks (months?) is alarmingly high.

Oh, and I don't think I would personally use this drug:

http://www.inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad25.htm wrote:

Two of the metabolites of chloral hydrate, trichloroacetic acid and dichloroacetic acid, have been shown to cause liver tumours in rodents. For example, trichloroacetic acid in drinking-water induced liver tumours in male and female mice when the exposure exceeded 200 mg/kg body weight per day (Herren-Freund et al., 1987; Bull et al., 1990; Pereira, 1996). There was no evidence of increased carcinogenicity, however, when male rats were exposed to   trichloroacetic acid at 360 mg/kg body weight per day (DeAngelo et al., 1997). Dichloroacetic acid in drinking-water induced liver tumours in male and female mice when the exposure exceeded 160 mg/kg    body weight per day (Herren-Freund et al., 1987; Bull et al., 1990; DeAngelo et al., 1991; Daniel et al., 1992a; Ferreira-Gonzalez et al., 1995; Pereira, 1996). Dichloroacetic acid also induced liver tumours in male rats when the exposure exceeded 40 mg/kg body weight per day
    (Richmond et al., 1995; DeAngelo et al., 1996)
Emphasis mine, especially that last sentance. At daily high doses (2 teaspoons is a huge amount compared to 40mg) it causes liver tumours. Great! Get rid of one cancer, get another.

EDIT: Hooray, it's a mild mutagen as well.

Same source wrote:

Dichloroacetic acid did not induce differential toxicity in DNA repair-deficient strains of  S. typhimurium but did induce lambda prophage in  E. coli. Dichloroacetic acid gave equivocal results for    gene mutation in  S. typhimurium TA100 and TA98. Dichloroacetic acid was weakly mutagenic in the  in vitro mouse lymphoma assay and induced chromosomal aberrations but not micronuclei or aneuploidy in    that test system. Dichloroacetic acid induced micronuclei in mouse polychromatic erythrocytes  in vivo and mutations at the  lacI locus in the transgenic B6C3F1 mouse (the Big Blue Mouse)  in vivo at an exposure that induces liver tumours in male mice. It is unclear whether dichloroacetic acid can induce primary DNA damage, as some assays are positive and others negative.
I personally will NOT use a drug until I am absolutely sure that all my children won't be born with a tail.

Edit 2: Fixed a few stray bold tags

Last edited by Spark (2007-01-30 03:08:30)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-01-30 03:03:55
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6601|132 and Bush

I agree that it is interesting but to go around calling it the cure for cancer is a little irresponsible.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-30 07:52:16
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6542|Texas - Bigger than France
^^^^agree with Kmarion

1) I would think that no one would ever delay introducing a cancer-killer into the market because:
a) Pill makers market care about their image and would not delay it unneccesarily...it would ruin their company.
b) Pill makers make more money by people buying their cure...so they would delay it to not make money?
c) Its the cure for cancer...obviously they could charge ANY PRICE and people would buy it.

I would think you have to cover the hurdle of testing before going to market.  It would be ironic if the cure for cancer caused cancer because it failed testing or something.

THE CURE FOR CANCER WILL BE HAILED AS ONE OF THE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENTS OF MANKIND.

So I think you have been conned.
2007-01-30 08:13:07
topal63
. . .
+533|6719
It's just another potential treatment - I agree with everybody else - other than the original poster.

And... I am not sure so sure that (the claim that) the Drug Companies could/would not make money on it.  So therefor it is being suppressed. It has not even gone through clinical trials yet!  I think they could/would make money on it.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-01-30 08:15:14)

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard