Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by WorldofWarcraft, Jul 16, 2017.
Then they need to make em cheaper and better.
This was old news about 10 years ago technically. Most just didnt know of it in the mainstream.
I hate agreeing with you about anything, but your post is perfect.
There was always a cure for cancer.
The real problem is finding a cure for cancer that doesn't kill the patient This is the problem that's been eluding scientists.
I don't come down on conspiracy theorists though. I think to myself, with all the horrible shit humans have done to each other, would the people in charge of a for-profit big pharma company, which makes lots of money off cancer treatments and pills, want to come up with a cure that would essentially put them out of business?
Is this about that holistic jamiacan doctor that got killed?
Do i think he was close to a cure? Yes.
Do I think he had a hit put out on him? Yes.
Was it related to his work? That is the trillion dollar question.
why do you think that getting an annual MRI would catch all cancer early?
I think the better question to ask would be, if a cure for cancer was found, would it be considered a disruptive technology?
If such a cure was found, what would be its impact on society? What would it mean for population growth? Resource management?
Would its impact be positive or negative?
The Black Plague was considered a terrible event in human history, but we can't deny that the evolution of our species benefited from it in the longrun. Its outbreak prevented Europe from reaching overpopulation like Asian lands, and it's survivors had a surplus of resources to live on.
The political structure changed as well, as a lot of the aristocracy passed away. It allowed for new leaders to emerge, with new ideas. The Renaissance was what followed. We explored new lands, discovered new cultures, expanded our empires.
If you could prevent the black plague knowing everything that followed in its wake, would it have been a wise move?
this all hinges on a not super well accepted historical theory.
Exactly. If there was a cure, rich and powerful people would never die of cancer.
I do think that there isn't enough focus on preventing cancer and heart disease though by educating people of the way diet is linked to several types of cancer and heart disease. The food industry tries to blunt that information, and government guidelines/recommendations do not go far enough to promote health.
i have never had anyone in my extended family ever have cancer and I only ever knew one person that has ever had it (a boy I was in boy scouts with 25 years ago). In the media they make it sound like cancer is running rampant everywhere. am I missing something? how is this possible?
The articleaning that I read said 80%
My wife has it, her mother just had a mastectimy. Brother-in-laws sister, mom had it, so on.
No, and I say this with access to physician leadership at every major cancer center in the United States, many more globally and heads of big pharma companies. For every promising new development, there's continued reminder of the various death sentence diseases where no real progress has been made for decades, and people die very quickly.
Vice news did a piece on weaponized diseases genetically coded to only attack cancer almost 2 years ago. I can not find a update on the testing for this anywhere in the 2 years since.
no, but the medica industry makes a killing off of chemo, im not one of those pothead activists but marijuana does help with cancer, so i can see why people think that part of why marijuana is still illegal is that big pharma would make more money off chemo treatment than they would off of weed
It's the number 2 cause of death by far and cancer rates are rising as quick as ever.
I think that our health care system has a great deal of politics involved. As a result it isn't easy to try out newer ideas. You also have the problem of cancer doctors promoting cancer treatments that are not all that beneficial. There has been some recent writings on that in news papers and the British Medical Journal.
As for new cancer fighting ideas, I wish that researcher Professor John Beard's cancer ideas would be researched further. He observed that cancer cells were the same as placenta cells. As a result he found that the pancreatic enzyme trypsin would be useful as a cancer treatment. A little on John Beard's story can be read here:
In a 1902 article written for the British medical journal Lancet, the English scientist John Beard, at the time Professor at the University of Edinburgh, first proposed that the pancreatic enzyme trypsin represents the body’s primary defense against cancer and would be useful as a cancer treatment. Beard came to his conclusion as the result of some 20 years of hard laboratory research, that today holds up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Despite his documentation and his impeccable reputation—he would be nominated for the Nobel Prize in 1905 for his work in embryology—the vast majority of cancer experts categorically rejected Beard’s thesis outright.
But not everyone dismissed Dr. Beard. A number of physicians concluded that Beard might be right, and with his support began employing injectable pancreatic enzymes in the treatment of their own patients diagnosed with advanced cancer, often with remarkable results as reported in the conventional scientific literature. These successes seemed to provoke an even more intense backlash against the treatment, in a heated debate that lasted right through the first decade of the 20th century. In response to his critics, in 1911 Beard published The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer and Its Scientific Basis, outlining his hypothesis, his decades of research and the promising and compelling results. Though released by a major London publisher to some very positive reviews, the book was soon forgotten as the scientific community and the media enthusiastically latched on to Madame Curie’s claim that radiation represented a simple, easy, non-toxic cure for cancer. It would be years before scientists realized radiation cured few cancers and was quite toxic—Madame Curie herself died as a result of her exposure to uranium—but by that time, Beard was dead and forgotten.
Thank you. Heading to Mayo Clinic tomorrow morning for some tests and consultations.
Those were very small trials and the highlights were around one or two miracle cases, with most cases unresponsive. The research is ongoing but they haven't had any kind of meaningful readout in the interim. That's sort of standard though, these studies take a very long time to set up, and you need to follow patients for long enough to get a line on various survival metrics (overall survival, invasive disease free surivival, progression free survival being common items on the Kaplan Meier). The fact that a single center study didn't readout in two years means little.
Meanwhile, you're seeing car-t therapies gaining traction with regulators, and everybody's trying to bring a checkpoint inhibitor to market. These are essentially tests of the same mechanism of action, without using live virus treatment.
Watch the Byrzynski Documentary. I don't know if it is real, but for inoperable brain cancer, it would seem worth pursuing, as that is what Byrzynski did his phase II FDA studies on.