Post: #1

Sorry if this is a repost since it is old news, but I thought I'd bring it to as many people's attention as possible.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=677_1354418535

The fact that so many could be helped for virtually nothing but are not receiving said help because the profit margin isn't big enough is disgusting. I'm all for capitalism and capital based incentive, but this is a step beyond that. It's gross and negligent from those with the ability to help millions.

Post: #2

Western Capitalism is most profitable in its most destructive and dangerous aspects.

War is the most profitable venture know to mindkind, that alone should tell you enough how fucked up things are.

Thus there will never be a cure for Cancer. The market keeps on growing and business is great for the Big-Pharma/Cancer cartel. They don't give a fuck if you or me die as they are getting rich and researchers are getting grants to run around in circles while building up personal accolades and that CV.

Cancer is the disease of ignorance. Cancer is highest in the most ignorant societies (the West) as Humans become more arrogant and ignorant to their environments things start to turn toxic.

We were given the gift of great intelligence but humans are also plagued by dumb dumb as bricks also. The test was for us to always excel and keep things in balance.

Post: #3

I'm skeptical about this stuff. I get your point and all but still, I have to believe that if someone really had a cure for cancer that was demonstrably legit, that would be the biggest news story on the planet since the moon landing. Probably bunk. I remember there was doctor in Italy not long ago running around claiming he was curing people's cancer by injecting their tumors with baking soda. That turned out to be bullshit as well.

Post: #4

I bet the Susan G. Komen foundation has more than enough money to fund stage 2 testing for this. Of course, they would lose out on their cash cow too.

Edit: Apparently there was a very small (50 patients) stage two study done.

Quote:On 24 September 2007, the University of Alberta's Department of Medicine reported that after the trial funding was secured, both the Alberta local ethics committee and Health Canada approved the first DCA clinical trial for cancer.[25] This initial trial was relatively small with enrollment of up to 50 patients. The trial was completed in August 2009.[26] In May 2010 the team published a press release[27] stating no conclusions could be drawn as a result of the trial. A paper describing the results was published[28] but not linked from the press release. Only five patients had been treated with the drug during the trial.

Post: #5

Somewhat overblown hype. Despite the sensationalistic claims of this news clip, human clinical trials have been been in progress since 2007.

No one is being denied or kept away from dichloroacetic acid. There are three clinical trials ongoing already and open to volunteers. And despite claims that DCA is being ignored because it is too cheap to make (the drug itself has existed since the 1800s), its use in cancer treatment has already been patented. So there is money if the trials are successful.

The problem is, DCA can cause liver failure. Which is fatal 100% of the time. DCA's use in humans for anything other than burning warts off of the skin is still unknown. In fact, it's not even known what dosage levels are safe to keep from killing people. Since 2007 because of the above video there's been home enthusiasts killing themselves through liver failure by self-medicating what this hype video claims is a miracle drug "with no side effects". Liver failure and death can definitely be side effects of DCA usage in humans.

While possible that DCA could prove useful against cancer, there's also a whole lot of ways to get yourself killed by it. We still don't understand cancer well, and there's many people who have been told that they have terminal cancer that then proceed to live 20, 30 or even more years despite a severe diagnosis. For those people to shorten their lives by decades self-medicating with an overhyped "miracle drug" that they were told is cheap, safe, and has no side effects, to then die in a matter of weeks by taking DCA is, at a minimum, irresponsible. That there are self-medicating home users confusing Dichloroacetic acid with the other DCA of Deoxycholic acid makes what data home users are putting on the internet even more murky and difficult to make useful scientific conclusions from.

Post: #6

You wouldn't be the first person that has noted that there's more money in the treatment (keeping you coming back for more and more drugs) than the cure. There's more money in treatment than preventive medicine, which is another aspect that our health/pharmaceutical industry likes to avoid. They won't send you for an MRI, stating the cost for a test/procedure that may not uncover an underlying issue. They'd rather you actually get sick, then treat the illness, while an MRI may have allowed them to catch it early and greatly shorten the period of treatment or not allow them to admit a patient for a longer hospital stay.

Post: #7

(12-02-2012 09:33 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  You wouldn't be the first person that has noted that there's more money in the treatment (keeping you coming back for more and more drugs) than the cure.

If I am wrong about this, I hope the medical professionals will correct, but I don't think that there is much of a difference between "treatment" and "cure." A cure is just a really good treatment. There will likely never be some magic pill that eliminates cancer from the human body. Rather, there are treatments that have different levels of efficacy in forcing cancer into remission and extending life spans.

If there's ever a "cure" for cancer, it probably won't be some wonder drug, but rather a treatment based on repairing things at the genetic level.

Post: #8

(12-02-2012 11:18 PM)j r Wrote:  

(12-02-2012 09:33 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  You wouldn't be the first person that has noted that there's more money in the treatment (keeping you coming back for more and more drugs) than the cure.

If I am wrong about this, I hope the medical professionals will correct, but I don't think that there is much of a difference between "treatment" and "cure." A cure is just a really good treatment. There will likely never be some magic pill that eliminates cancer from the human body. Rather, there are treatments that have different levels of efficacy in forcing cancer into remission and extending life spans.

If there's ever a "cure" for cancer, it probably won't be some wonder drug, but rather a treatment based on repairing things at the genetic level.

But even the current treatments are not even successful. Chemothoery has a poor track record, and only words 2% of the time and yet it is still the go to treatment for Cancer therapy. Many natural treatments are widely available but are not used as if you crossed into the natural world it would open a can of worms the Mega Cancer Industry does not want to open. Once you open the natural route (which is illegal) it automatically is better then the traditional nuclear-chemical route and would thus need more research and investigation.

Steve Jobs is a classic example of this. He died from Pancreatic Cancer and lived a healthy life for 7 years + on natural treatments. He outlived the survival and outlook forecasts at his condition and though hid condition did deteriorate and though he did seek traditional treatments in his final months the spin is that he died because he did not seek "treatment" sooner when it was in fact his natural treatments that keep him alive for all those years prior.

The meme is that "Steve Jobs regretted now seeking treatments sooner" But this is a doublespeak that does not make any sense. Beucase it his the natural treatments that kept him alive in the first place form his diagnosis PRIOR to 2003. Another twist of speak because Steve Jobs did not disclose he was sick until 2003. This does not meat he was not sick prior it is that he did not publicly come out with it until 2003 (people whiten his small circle mused after he was sick privately prior to 2003. Some say in 1998 he was diagnosed.. some say as early as 1994!). From a tactical standpoint disclosing you have the most deadly cancer publicly when you are trying to propel Apple to be the largest company on the globe is not a smart move. Whom the hell is going to invest in a company when its mastermind would be in his perceived deathbed.

So even then with what we know he outlived the average lifespan of a cancer from a few months... to nearly 8 years - and this is from what we know. But the Hamster of modern medicine views this as a failure because Steve Jobs decided to go to hippies to get treatment and not the white lab coats. The mainstream media accounts of this are all mis-qoutes and The "9 months" meme of non-treatment is bullshit also.

See how this makes no sense?

As we said a treatment is a means of prolonging life and hopefully maintaining the same level if not a terrible drop off in quality. Steve jobs was able to go 7-8 years (publicly) on a cancer that kills many in months. If he would of went the traditional path initially he would of been dead in 2004/2005.

I'll sit here and wait for the Doctors to come here and dog me but the facts don't lie - traditional treatment is complete crap - and if natural treatments were not banned by law we would be seeing more positive outcomes from Cancer diagnosis. Modern Medicine aside from its surgical advances is crap because it shuns all notions of prevention and shuns all notions of natural remedies which outdated modern medicine by a thousand years to begin with.

Modern Medicine is a monopoly and rakkett no different from Big-Oil, Big-Agra, etc. No bloody difference. There is no incentive in making people better as a healthy population means no industry for these people to live off of.

Big-Oil helped fund the push towards chemical based medicine. Benzene is a root for the majority of pharmacological chemicals and the mega corps like DOW, EXXON etc pumped a shit ton of money into Medical schools many decades ago to make the industry dependent.

No better than Vultures. All the mega-monopolies dance hand in hand to the same song. All are interwoven and all benefit each other. Big-Pharma, Big-Agra, Wall Street, Big-Oil, Big-Government - Are all the same - All want you sick, fat, in debt, and docile.



** This is not a paintbrush that dams all doctors to being blood thirsty vultures. I am sure 80% of doctors are well mannered and good hearted people whom just have been mistaken to think their profession was the best way to help people. I can't fault them for this as being a doctor is a internal commitment to help people but one must understand that forces greater then you, your practice and the care you offer push the industry towards the destructive sick-for-profit industry it is.

Post: #9

Kosko, in order for me to accept your view, I would have to be convinced that the well-meaning 80% of doctors and Phds in biology, chemistry and every other field that studies diseases and treatments have been tricked by a bunch of CEOs and finance guys into pursuing shoddy medicine, when there are all sorts of "natural" treatments and remedies hiding in plain sight.

Don't get me wrong. I have no great amount of faith in Big-anything, but I have even less faith in random dudes with YouTube videos promising that they have the cure to everything. I can believe that there are non-traditional methods of treatment that might work, but that the medical profession has not figured out how to integrate them into the prevailing treatment methods. Maybe traditional medicines need to be processed and administered in a particular way and therefore don't work very well under the clinical conditions in which western medicine is administered. That's all quite possible, but also quite different than the conspiracy theories that you are putting forward.

Also, I'd like to see a citation on your claims about Jobs.

Post: #10

If you guys don't think there is a conspiracy to hide cures go to any health food store in Canada and see if they stock B17. Watch the owner tremble in fear if you mention it.

Post: #11

(12-03-2012 12:57 AM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  If you guys don't think there is a conspiracy to hide cures go to any health food store in Canada and see if they stock B17. Watch the owner tremble in fear if you mention it.

B-17 has been proven to not cure Cancer. I read an article on this awhile back. I believe it can also be toxic as well. But then again, so is Chemotherapy. Why do you believe it's effective in treating Cancer? Got any worthwhile links?

Post: #12

From what I understand, Steve Jobs screwed himself by turning to natural medicine. While pancreatic cancer is pretty much a death sentence, the particular type he was afflicted with had a good chance of recovery with normal Western medicine. If he'd done that right away he'd probably be alive right now.

Post: #13

(12-03-2012 01:07 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  From what I understand, Steve Jobs screwed himself by turning to natural medicine. While pancreatic cancer is pretty much a death sentence, the particular type he was afflicted with had a good chance of recovery with normal Western medicine. If he'd done that right away he'd probably be alive right now.

Great point. I've said the very same thing before. Maybe the same thinking that prompted him to create the iPhone and the iPod also ultimately led to him choosing Holistic Medicine over treatments with a more proven track record. In this particular case thinking "outside the box" wasn't rewarded.

Post: #14

(12-03-2012 01:02 AM)CMan0928 Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 12:57 AM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  If you guys don't think there is a conspiracy to hide cures go to any health food store in Canada and see if they stock B17. Watch the owner tremble in fear if you mention it.

B-17 has been proven to not cure Cancer. I read an article on this awhile back. I believe it can also be toxic as well. But then again, so is Chemotherapy. Why do you believe it's effective in treating Cancer? Got any worthwhile links?

Chemotherapy is 100% toxic and even doctors will not argue this. It has a 1% cure rate yet is widely available. But why is a simple vitamin not provided in a western " democratic " society. Why am I not given the choice ?

B17 does not have a 100% cure rate of cancer, probably around 20% last time I checked. But it will prevent it, which is most important. I would love to read this article you found calling a B vitamin toxic. It is called a vitamin for a reason, not a drug.

http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/asp...ative.html

http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/lae...anide.html

last link destroys the myth that b17 is toxic and contains cyanide

Post: #15

Wikipedia is not very kind to the whole "B-17 cures cancer" story:

Quote:Since the early 1950s, a modified form of amygdalin has been promoted under the names laetrile and "Vitamin B17" as a cancer cure. In reality, neither amygdalin nor any derivative such as laetrile is in any sense a vitamin. Studies have found such compounds to be dangerously toxic as well as being clinically ineffective in the treatment of cancer. Taken by mouth they are potentially lethal because certain enzymes (in particular, glucosidases that occur in the gut and in various kinds of seeds, edible or inedible) act on them to produce cyanide. The promotion of laetrile to treat cancer has been described in the medical literature as a canonical example of quackery, and as "the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history."

The U.S. National Institutes of Health evaluated the evidence separately and concluded that clinical trials of amgydalin showed little or no effect against cancer. For example, a 1982 trial of 175 patients found that tumor size had increased in all but one patient. The authors reported that "the hazards of amygdalin therapy were evidenced in several patients by symptoms of cyanide toxicity or by blood cyanide levels approaching the lethal range."

The study concluded "Patients exposed to this agent should be instructed about the danger of cyanide poisoning, and their blood cyanide levels should be carefully monitored. Amygdalin (Laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment". (source)

It appears that advocates who traveled to Mexico for access to Laetrile are deceased. While arm wrestling champion Jason Vale, who made at least $500,000 from his illegal sales of laetrile, fraudulently marketed the substance and was convicted by the USDA for doing so.

It's appears that small-pharma and holistic have elements that are good at selling expensive snake oil of dubious clinical value as a cancer cure for high profits.

Post: #16

speakeasy Wrote:I remember there was doctor in Italy not long ago running around claiming he was curing people's cancer by injecting their tumors with baking soda. That turned out to be bullshit as well.

That's just because he forgot to add some hydrogen peroxide into the mix

Btw, while I'm sure that profit motives are at work too, the demand must also play a part. That is, people don't have any qualms about spending hundreds of thousands of $ just for a chance to live 6 months longer. If we still lived in an age where people were actually capable of saying "I've had a happy life, now it's my time", there would be much less incentive for this. I'm probably too harsh, but hey.

Post: #17

(12-03-2012 02:03 AM)Blackhawk Wrote:  Wikipedia is not very kind to the whole "B-17 cures cancer" story:

Quote:Since the early 1950s, a modified form of amygdalin has been promoted under the names laetrile and "Vitamin B17" as a cancer cure. In reality, neither amygdalin nor any derivative such as laetrile is in any sense a vitamin. Studies have found such compounds to be dangerously toxic as well as being clinically ineffective in the treatment of cancer. Taken by mouth they are potentially lethal because certain enzymes (in particular, glucosidases that occur in the gut and in various kinds of seeds, edible or inedible) act on them to produce cyanide. The promotion of laetrile to treat cancer has been described in the medical literature as a canonical example of quackery, and as "the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history."

The U.S. National Institutes of Health evaluated the evidence separately and concluded that clinical trials of amgydalin showed little or no effect against cancer. For example, a 1982 trial of 175 patients found that tumor size had increased in all but one patient. The authors reported that "the hazards of amygdalin therapy were evidenced in several patients by symptoms of cyanide toxicity or by blood cyanide levels approaching the lethal range."

The study concluded "Patients exposed to this agent should be instructed about the danger of cyanide poisoning, and their blood cyanide levels should be carefully monitored. Amygdalin (Laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment". (source)

It appears that advocates who traveled to Mexico for access to Laetrile are deceased. While arm wrestling champion Jason Vale, who made at least $500,000 from his illegal sales of laetrile, fraudulently marketed the substance and was convicted by the USDA for doing so.

Sounds like small-pharma and holistic is good at selling expensive snake oil as a cancer cure for high profits.

You can't legally re-create the Study that was tossed out. The Study on B-17 was tossed on via political means and not on the actual science its self. The Chair of the board whom was responsible for the dismissal of that study was removed and not 100% but involved in legal issues dealing with fraud/ethics. The chair of the board had a personal negative relationship with the Doctor whom fielded the study. But the Science behind the study was never disputed before it was dis-allowed and labelled as 'quackery'. Its just you legally can't recreate the study (you can but you can't disclose the findings or else you are reprimanded or stripped of your professional titles). A Female researcher whom tried to go down this rabbit whole was blacklisted and had her funding removed while doing so. She can still research but is unable to get any meaningful funding.

Here is a truncated version of his Thesis: THE UNITARIAN OR TROPHOBLASTIC THESIS OF CANCER (1950)

I have the full PDF at home but not on this computer I am at. I can't find the full PDF download link anymore.

Laetrile is toxic because it has cyanide compounds in it but the cyanide compounds are bonded are only released in the presence of cancer cells and once unbounded on then bond to the Cancer cells. Laetrile is less toxic then table sugar atomically and any deaths derived form it were from a bad batch or bad diagnosis. Its easier to get Crack/Cocaine then Laetrile, and that alone should make you scratch your head and think for a second.

Jason Vale is a con-man and nothing more. he is no different then Big-Pharma only he was a small time operation while big-Pharma is a Hundred + Billion industry. If Vale was smart he would of went to work for a Big Pharmaceutics company instead of trying to sell fraud out his back-door. He would of been compensated more in the private sector.

People think this is a game. There is Billions and Trillions of dollars at stake here. Researchers are forever whores to grants/funding will continually go around in circles to forward their CV. While Doctors - all good people - are lead into a dark room with a blindfold on the size of a football field to find a nickel.

Any my knock on Doctors is that if you go to school for 10 years and only learn half the puzzle it does not make a full picture. You can in doctrine anybody in anything. People need to research the origins of University to begin with. Universities in their early days were nothing more than Propaganda farms set up by rival institutional religions or oligarchs and Aristocratic Societies with most being faith based. You had Christians, Jesuits, Protestants all setting up their schools to lure/force people into their establishments so they could adopt their mantras and ideologies. This is essentially what University is and this is essentially the higher up you go in your studies the more restrictive things get. Gone are the days of Church's and Oligarchs funding schools and today's world funding comes mostly modern institution's of power and control like: A. Government or B. The top end of the economy which is run .. surprise.. surprise by the Vultures I described above: Big-oil, Big-pharma, Big-media, Big-Agra.

Anybody needs to take in more Red-Pill if they can't come to terms with this. Western Society from top to bottom is no good for Men and completely a female minded trope which deals outside of logic and divine truth. Nothing in Western Civilization makes sense if you really peel back and look at for what it is. Its a self-destructing organism which is slowly eroding at itself by creating and eating poison. you can't keep on believing the 20,30,40+ years of bullshit you have been served your life or unplug from it and forge your own path.

Post: #18

(12-02-2012 08:31 PM)kosko Wrote:  Western Capitalism is most profitable in its most destructive and dangerous aspects.

War is the most profitable venture know to mindkind, that alone should tell you enough how fucked up things are.

Thus there will never be a cure for Cancer. The market keeps on growing and business is great for the Big-Pharma/Cancer cartel. They don't give a fuck if you or me die as they are getting rich and researchers are getting grants to run around in circles while building up personal accolades and that CV.

Cancer is the disease of ignorance. Cancer is highest in the most ignorant societies (the West) as Humans become more arrogant and ignorant to their environments things start to turn toxic.

We were given the gift of great intelligence but humans are also plagued by dumb dumb as bricks also. The test was for us to always excel and keep things in balance.

So what you are saying is a private company should spend 100 million dollars on research to see if a drug that anyone can make for free can cure cancer?

*I'm assuming you watched the whole video.

Post: #19

(12-03-2012 02:59 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  So what you are saying is a private company should spend 100 million dollars on research to see if a drug that anyone can make for free can cure cancer?

A lack of profitability doesn't mean things aren't researched. There's multiple genetic-based cancers that certain ethnic groups are prone to, but the population size effected is too small to ever be profitable. Out of self-interest these various obscure ethnic groups have raised millions to research these cancers they themselves are prone to. It's pretty amazing to see 12 million being spent to research a cancer that somewhere around 60 people have ever had in the entire world, and only a population of 48,000 worldwide could ever have.

Post: #20

There would be an obscene amount of money for whoever patented a cancer cure.

Same principle as clean energy: Yes, Big Oil would lose a load of money, but do you really think that everyone they are holding to ransom wouldn't jump at the chance to get rid of those chains?

If there was a means of creating a cure for needing petrol, then the West could tell the Middle East to fuck itself.
Same with cancer - yes, these massive corporation have massive power, but that'd all be nullified in the same way that other once dominant industries were thrown under the bus.

Post: #21

I honestly don't see any reason to not develop a cancer cure if it's technical feasible. So, 50 companies will go bankrupt if they couldn't/wouldn't develop a cure while still providing expensive treatments, the 1 company that did create a cure is like "fuck you other bitches we rich now". They would have a product that would be better and cheaper than its competitors. How fuck would that shit not sell like hotcakes?

People like to think of Big Business as one Big monolithic thing, but every company is out for itself against all the other companies which have their own divergent interests.

Post: #22

(12-03-2012 06:39 AM)cibo Wrote:  People like to think of Big Business as one Big monolithic thing, but every company is out for itself against all the other companies which have their own divergent interests.

This right here is my issue with most conspiracy theories. For those of you familiar with game theory, it's a basic prisoner's dilemma. If everyone cooperates in the conspiracy, then each party will make money. Each party, however, also has the incentive to defect from the conspiracy and make a lot more money. This is why conspiracies tend to fall apart over time. Someone always defects.

Post: #23

(12-02-2012 11:18 PM)j r Wrote:  

(12-02-2012 09:33 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  You wouldn't be the first person that has noted that there's more money in the treatment (keeping you coming back for more and more drugs) than the cure.

If I am wrong about this, I hope the medical professionals will correct, but I don't think that there is much of a difference between "treatment" and "cure." A cure is just a really good treatment. There will likely never be some magic pill that eliminates cancer from the human body. Rather, there are treatments that have different levels of efficacy in forcing cancer into remission and extending life spans.

If there's ever a "cure" for cancer, it probably won't be some wonder drug, but rather a treatment based on repairing things at the genetic level.

That's true, but I'm speaking about disease in general, and not cancer specifically. And I still believe preventive medicine would also catch more cancers early, helping many cancer sufferers avoid long, painful, debilitating treatments.

Post: #24

(12-03-2012 07:06 AM)j r Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 06:39 AM)cibo Wrote:  People like to think of Big Business as one Big monolithic thing, but every company is out for itself against all the other companies which have their own divergent interests.

This right here is my issue with most conspiracy theories. For those of you familiar with game theory, it's a basic prisoner's dilemma. If everyone cooperates in the conspiracy, then each party will make money. Each party, however, also has the incentive to defect from the conspiracy and make a lot more money. This is why conspiracies tend to fall apart over time. Someone always defects.

While I do agree a normal PD model works here since this is a scenario of a one-off game, do be aware PD still allows for co-operation if you lessen and/or increase the payoffs for co-op vs defect and/or you make the game iterative.

Post: #25

Why wouldn't they create a cure? They could name their own price if they wanted. Who wouldn't pay $50K to get cured by cancer? They would find a way to be profitable. There are like 1 million people with cancer so you can do the math and see that with a legit cure they can make money.