Canadians cure cancer and no one gives a crap. (link inside)

[QUOTE="Overlord93"]Doubt this is true, this would be all over the news, I understand that US companies are money hungry, but this just isn't how it would go. The media would plaster this all over our TVs and slate the companies, maybe US news firms could be bought out, but the rest of the world? no. I call shenanigansInfinite_Access

Do you know that their is a substance that can cure herione addiction in less than 24 hours with no withdrawels! TRUE. But the pharmaceutical companies don't want anyone knowing that... also why it isn't approved in the USA, and is actually illegal. 24 hour cure of addiction to herione... illegal.. because the drug companies want profit... its gross to think about.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The topic title is misleading. Nowhere in the article you link (nor its source) is it established that this is a definately cure for cancer. As the source says: human testing needs to be done.

F1_2004

It's not a definite cure, but did you follow the source???

http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/

Yes I did, and as the source says more testing needs to be done.

I don't trust the source.

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The topic title is misleading. Nowhere in the article you link (nor its source) is it established that this is a definately cure for cancer. As the source says: human testing needs to be done.

worlock77

It's not a definite cure, but did you follow the source???

http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/

Yes I did, and as the source says more testing needs to be done.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]

It's not a definite cure, but did you follow the source???

http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/

F1_2004

Yes I did, and as the source says more testing needs to be done.

And?

I looked this up in the peer reviewed literature and this is what I came back with

http://glejak.pl/forum/files/DCA-3.pdf

http://thedcasite.com/Library/Dichloroacetate_induces_apoptosis_in_endometrial_cancer_cells.pdf

Basically it can cure some cancer types but some cancer types are known to be resistant to the drugs, HEC1A and HEC1B.

And there actually is a patent application for this

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080221211

I know I'll sound like an idiot to most, but cancer has been cured multiple times. I've seen it cured in people I personally know through alternative medicine methods that doctors are trained not to recognize. Not treated by chemotherapy or some other mainstream method and then beaten, but cured. Not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it makes no difference - a cure isn't cost effective for the industry so it won't get coverage in the media and no one will take notice. Just the way the world works.

[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Yes I did, and as the source says more testing needs to be done.

worlock77

And?

This is not a cure for cancer. DCA is a anticancer drug currently under review. its still in phase 2 clinical trials.

whoever wrote this article should be smacked in the face with a textbook on cancer. hopefull they will read it and actually educate themselves about carcinogenesis before bashing the medical world. Curing cancer is not that simple. Drugs requires years of testing before than can be approved,

did I mention DCA is known to cause liver cancer in mice. DeAngelo AB, Daniel FB, Stober JA, Olson GR (1991). "The carcinogenicity of dichloroacetic acid in the male B6C3F1 mouse". Fundam Appl Toxicol.16 (2): 337–347.

testing is required before it may be approved for human use.

please be careful on what you read on the inter. "hubpages" is not a credible source of information. the author has more opinion than any real facts in their article. I'm happy that many of the GS posters were smart enough not to believe this article right away.

STAR_Admiral

Wow. Checkmate.

4 years old, major side effects.

[QUOTE="Infinite_Access"]

[QUOTE="Overlord93"]Doubt this is true, this would be all over the news, I understand that US companies are money hungry, but this just isn't how it would go. The media would plaster this all over our TVs and slate the companies, maybe US news firms could be bought out, but the rest of the world? no. I call shenanigansworlock77

Do you know that their is a substance that can cure herione addiction in less than 24 hours with no withdrawels! TRUE. But the pharmaceutical companies don't want anyone knowing that... also why it isn't approved in the USA, and is actually illegal. 24 hour cure of addiction to herione... illegal.. because the drug companies want profit... its gross to think about.

Now why would "big pharm" not want to capitalize on a cure for addiction to an illegal drug? Also, might you care to back this post up with even just the slightest shread of evidence?

Actually, there IS a drug out there that induces rapid detox over a much shorter period of time (hours) named Naltrexone. I contemplated doing this myself, but watching videos of others going through it, thought better of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_detox

Of course there's still withdrawals, but the patients are put under during the process (from what I've heard, the withdrawal can kill you if not.....just what I heard), so maybe that's what he was referring to about no symptoms. And this is not a "cure" for addiction, addiction lasts a lifetime. It's simply removing the physical dependence.

I know I'll sound like an idiot to most, but cancer has been cured multiple times. I've seen it cured in people I personally know through alternative medicine methods that doctors are trained not to recognize. Not treated by chemotherapy or some other mainstream method and then beaten, but cured. Not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it makes no difference - a cure isn't cost effective for the industry so it won't get coverage in the media and no one will take notice. Just the way the world works.

jamejame

Why wouldn't the media cover it? Blowing a pharmaceutical conspiracy wide open would bring lots of viewers, cash and reputation. There's no benefits in suppressing alternative medecine for the media, so why aren't they covering it?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="F1_2004"] Well yeah, because they're running on donations from public since pharmaceutical companies won't give a dime since there's no money in it for them.Nibroc420

And?

*sigh*

"Big pharma" supporting it or not is entirely irrelevant to my point.

post

metroidfood

******* love Secret of Kells.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Infinite_Access"]

Do you know that their is a substance that can cure herione addiction in less than 24 hours with no withdrawels! TRUE. But the pharmaceutical companies don't want anyone knowing that... also why it isn't approved in the USA, and is actually illegal. 24 hour cure of addiction to herione... illegal.. because the drug companies want profit... its gross to think about.

Rekunta

Now why would "big pharm" not want to capitalize on a cure for addiction to an illegal drug? Also, might you care to back this post up with even just the slightest shread of evidence?

Actually, there IS a drug out there that induces rapid detox over a much shorter period of time (hours) named Naltrexone. I contemplated doing this myself, but watching videos of others going through it, thought better of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_detox

Of course there's still withdrawals, but the patients are put under during the process (from what I've heard, the withdrawal can kill you if not.....just what I heard), so maybe that's what he was referring to about no symptoms. And this is not a "cure" for addiction, addiction lasts a lifetime. It's simply removing the physical dependence.

Well if that is what he was talking about naltrexone is marketed under several brand names. So much for the phamaceutical companies not wanting anyone to know about it.

In human bodies there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria, but they need to be triggered to be effective.

Article

ಠ_ಠ

Mitochondria is an organelle.

[QUOTE="Rattlesnake_8"]A cure for cancer is not in the best interest of the health industry. The can charge you a LOT more for ongoing treatments for cancer. worlock77

Funny, just a couple of years ago my sister-in-law was cured of breast cancer via treatments accepted by the health industry.

[QUOTE="Darkwanderer000"]

Medival medicine was actually less dangerous than mainstream medicine today.

GabuEx

I'm sure it was just a complete coincidence that their life expectancy back then was like 30.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Darkwanderer000"]

Medival medicine was actually less dangerous than mainstream medicine today.

lordreaven

I'm sure it was just a complete coincidence that their life expectancy back then was like 30.

Andre the Giant was 7 feet 4 inches tall. Are most people 7 feet 4 inches tall?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Darkwanderer000"]

Medival medicine was actually less dangerous than mainstream medicine today.

lordreaven

I'm sure it was just a complete coincidence that their life expectancy back then was like 30.

A single data point does not refute a broad statistical fact. Life expectancy does not refer to the guaranteed age at which people will die, but rather refers to the expected age that an average human will live to. In medieval times the life expectancy was around 30-35; today it is around 75-80 in the Western world. That is just a fact, as is that the rapid rise in life expectancy in the last century and a half coincides perfectly with the rise of modern medicine.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Darkwanderer000"]

Medival medicine was actually less dangerous than mainstream medicine today.

lordreaven

I'm sure it was just a complete coincidence that their life expectancy back then was like 30.

That's about as relevant as bringing up Bill Gates when someone mentions that the average American makes $46,000.

Oh and by the way: Ghengis Khan only lived to the age of 65.

I was expecting a link proving that people didn't give a crap that Canadians cured cancer.

It turns out I was disappointed.

A single data point does not refute a broad statistical fact. Life expectancy does not refer to the guaranteed age at which people will die, but rather refers to the expected age that an average human will live to. In medieval times the life expectancy was around 30-35; today it is around 75-80 in the Western world. That is just a fact, as is that the rapid rise in life expectancy in the last century and a half coincides perfectly with the rise of modern medicine.

GabuEx

Learning how to wash our grimy hands helped a lot too. :P

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

A single data point does not refute a broad statistical fact. Life expectancy does not refer to the guaranteed age at which people will die, but rather refers to the expected age that an average human will live to. In medieval times the life expectancy was around 30-35; today it is around 75-80 in the Western world. That is just a fact, as is that the rapid rise in life expectancy in the last century and a half coincides perfectly with the rise of modern medicine.

metroidfood

Learning how to wash our grimy hands helped a lot too. :P

That too. All basically results of the development of germ theory, really, which is so taken for granted today that I don't think people really understand how much it fundamentally changed everything in the fields of medicine and public health.

That too. All basically results of the development of germ theory, really, which is so taken for granted today that I don't think people really understand how much it fundamentally changed everything in the fields of medicine and public health.

GabuEx

Germ Theory is only a theory so we can't use that for scientific research or anything useful.

Sweden finds cure for death, but no-one belives them!

[QUOTE="lordreaven"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I'm sure it was just a complete coincidence that their life expectancy back then was like 30.

GabuEx

A single data point does not refute a broad statistical fact. Life expectancy does not refer to the guaranteed age at which people will die, but rather refers to the expected age that an average human will live to. In medieval times the life expectancy was around 30-35; today it is around 75-80 in the Western world. That is just a fact, as is that the rapid rise in life expectancy in the last century and a half coincides perfectly with the rise of modern medicine.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

That too. All basically results of the development of germ theory, really, which is so taken for granted today that I don't think people really understand how much it fundamentally changed everything in the fields of medicine and public health.

tenaka2

Germ Theory is only a theory so we can't use that for scientific research or anything useful.

Serious or not?