Cancer is finally cured in Canada but Big Pharma has no interest.

Kelowna

Kelowna

WTF Sleepy Joe... Wake Up
Jul 5, 2011
1,380
16
0
Kelowna, BC
Cancer is finally cured in Canada but Big Pharma has no interest. The fact
that the international drug & medical industry have no interest is because the cure is really cheaper than a chocolate bar and it won't get them to gain any profits at all. Besides, if people had the cure so easily, how will these medical companies make money out of that?

LiveLeak.com - Cancer is finally cured in Canada but Big Pharma has no interest.

The next big "Raspberry Ketone" supplement perhaps??? If someone sells this shit on here let me know...
 


Not exactly.

DCA does show promise in treating some forms of cancer, but it's also been shown to enhance the growth of certain types of cancer (colorectal tumors) and has the potential to cause liver and kidney damage when taken at high dosages over a period of years.

But more important is to remember that pharma and big medicine aren't the only ones in the business of making drugs. Especially when it comes to finding new treatments for drugs that no longer have a patent. If enough scientists thought this were a viable cure for cancer, countries that have socialized medicine would be all over this. Since there would be no costs associated with developing the compound, the only costs would be in running the phase trials and getting approval from the various regulatory agencies. That should run right around $100-200 million. That's a small price for a government to pay compared to the cost savings that places like the UK and Canada would experience.

Like most things everywhere, there's some truth in here mixed with a lot of hyperbole.

That being said, universities and private donations have allowed for research to continue with DCA where it concerns cancer. Will it be a miracle drug? I doubt it. Could it potentially change the way we treat cancer? Most definitely.

As for marketing, I'd be careful. Like I said, high dosages over a sustained period of time are likely to cause liver and kidney damage. Not to mention the inherent risks involved with making medical claims. Proceed at your own risk.
 
this pisses me off, every other day someone somewhere cures cancer with some fucked up ingredient no one thought about.. problem is we're still dying of cancer!

no clue what to think at this point, are pharmaceutical companies and governments really that evil that they would let their people die because they can't turn a profit? I mean, the CEOs and owners of those pharmaceuticals probably have family members who are dying from cancer, don't they care that their treatments aren't working?
 
statelizard said:
Like I said, high dosages over a sustained period of time are likely to cause liver and kidney damage. Not to mention the inherent risks involved with making medical claims. Proceed at your own risk.
Click to expand...

yeah well obiously, even high dosage of water over a sustained period of time will also mess up your interal organs. In the video in the OP the dude shrunk the cancer over a period of weeks I believe, not years.
 
idiot in the video is intelligent enough to not call any names so claim remains unverifiable.

post a name of a scientist involved in this. ill perform a search on some science article database.

luckily, though, "the cancer" cant be cured because its just a broad term referring to "a bunch of rogue cells fucks shit up".

curing cancer is like taking a shot that magically protects you from all the viral infections.


btw, if you would quit sucking up to the big pharma myth, youd understand that even if they only made 10 bucks a piece, they would still be making a couple billion dollars a year because cancer is about the only real cause of death left.
 
And that's all well and good. But no doctor is treating cancer with this, which means that people would be self-treating if they get their hands on DCA. Aside from the fact that most people have no idea how to give themselves a slow bolus injection (the most likely administration route), there's also the fact they will have no way of knowing when their cancer is in remission, or will stubbornly continue to self dose for years because some marketer with no medical training told them this would cure them but their cancer is still persistant.

That part of my statement was clearly directed at people thinking of marketing this as the next raspberry ketone.
 
high dosages over a sustained period of time are likely to cause liver and kidney damage
Click to expand...

On the other hand, no dosage of this stuff "will" cause death. We are talking about certain death here.
 
Not exactly

wayn3 said:
because cancer is about the only real cause of death left.
Click to expand...

That isnt exactly true. This tedx talk is the best examination of againg I have seen, and googles new child company that is going to start targeting battling aging is based on some of his ideas.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMAwnA5WvLc"]Undoing aging: Aubrey de Grey at TEDxDanubia 2013 - YouTube[/ame]
 
EvilPenguin said:
this pisses me off, every other day someone somewhere cures cancer with some fucked up ingredient no one thought about.. problem is we're still dying of cancer!
Click to expand...

No, there's no conspiracy here. It simply takes 15+ years for a drug like this to get from lab to market. Just because he managed to shrink a tumor in a rat in a lab, doesn't mean we should start mass-producing it, and injecting hundreds of millions of humans around the globe with it.

If it manages to get through the rigorous and extensive testing involved, don't worry, I'm certain the distribution will be there.
 
Kelowna said:
On the other hand, no dosage of this stuff "will" cause death. We are talking about certain death here.
Click to expand...

No it won't because most forms of cancer are treatable. Your comment shows a complete lack of understanding of medicine and cancer in general. But it does show a high level of susceptibility to marketing and hyperbole.

Would you perhaps like to sign-up for my mailing list?
 
statelizard said:
No it won't because most forms of cancer are treatable. Your comment shows a complete lack of understanding of medicine and cancer in general. But it does show a high level of susceptibility to marketing and hyperbole.

Would you perhaps like to sign-up for my mailing list?
Click to expand...

Treatable != cure
 
statelizard said:
Your comment shows a complete lack of understanding of medicine and cancer in general. But it does show a high level of susceptibility to marketing and hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Susceptibility to marketing? what marketing? I am talking about a major find by Doctors at the University of Alberta.

Your comment shows a complete lack of understanding, PERIOD!
 
SeoReborn said:
Treatable != cure
Click to expand...

Thanks. I obviously didn't know that.

He said that no dosage means death. That isn't the case, and there isn't hard evidence that DCA will have any implications for cancer in people.

And when it comes to cancer, there will never be a "cure" because that's not how cancer works. It can regenerate at anytime because of the very nature of the disease. Treatable cancers are the closest we are likely to ever get. 5 years out, you're considered cancer-free.

Hoping for a cure for cancer is sort of like hoping for a cure for getting into an auto accident. To stop cancer from happening you have to stop the things that can cause cancer (typically bad cells). Since cancers develop through different mechanisms and for different reasons, a "cancer" cure is unlikely to ever happen. We may be able to cure individual types of cancer, but one drug isn't going to cure them all because different cancers act and grow differently. What we can do is develop better treatment protocols and more effective forms of treatments. Which DCA may or may not help provide.

Susceptibility to marketing? what marketing? I am talking about a major find by Doctors at the University of Alberta.

Your comment shows a complete lack of understanding, PERIOD!
Click to expand...

It may or may not be a major find. What my comment actually shows is the knowledge of someone who has worked in both university and private drug development. This was both an interest piece and marketing piece to get the public riled up and bring donations to the university lab so that testing could continue.

I hate to break it to people, but major pharma companies run phase trials on drugs that have lost their patent fairly frequently. If a pharma company thought this could cure cancer, they would jump on it. The costs to develop the drug would be minimal and even selling it in a generic form would net them a boat load of money.

But what do I know, I only have first hand experience with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluechinagroup
statelizard said:
Hoping for a cure for cancer is sort of like hoping for a cure for getting into an auto accident. To stop cancer from happening you have to stop the things that can cause cancer (typically bad cells). Since cancers develop through different mechanisms and for different reasons, a "cancer" cure is unlikely to ever happen. We may be able to cure individual types of cancer, but one drug isn't going to cure them all because different cancers act and grow differently. What we can do is develop better treatment protocols and more effective forms of treatments. Which DCA may or may not help provide.
Click to expand...

I don't know as much about this subject as I'd like to, but what about nano-technology? Say 30 - 50 years down the road, couldn't it be possible that there's some type of "cancer immunization" you take every few years, which is basically a bunch of nano-bots that constantly hunt out and destroy bad cells?

Or am I totally off base?
 
statelizard said:
Thanks. I obviously didn't know that.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.


statelizard said:
He said that no dosage means death. That isn't the case, and there isn't hard evidence that DCA will have any implications for cancer in people.

And when it comes to cancer, there will never be a "cure" because that's not how cancer works. It can regenerate at anytime because of the very nature of the disease. Treatable cancers are the closest we are likely to ever get. 5 years out, you're considered cancer-free.

Hoping for a cure for cancer is sort of like hoping for a cure for getting into an auto accident. To stop cancer from happening you have to stop the things that can cause cancer (typically bad cells). Since cancers develop through different mechanisms and for different reasons, a "cancer" cure is unlikely to ever happen. We may be able to cure individual types of cancer, but one drug isn't going to cure them all because different cancers act and grow differently. What we can do is develop better treatment protocols and more effective forms of treatments. Which DCA may or may not help provide.
Click to expand...

You do know that using the word treatable is very general and also covers chemotherapy treatment. You obviously do know that more people die from chemotherapy than the cancer itself.

I am not arguing with you over whether there is hard evidence that DCA will cure 'specific' cancers. More research etc is required.

If you define a cure as in once its gone, you'll never get it again, it won't ever happen. You could even say a tickly cough is incurable since you can't stop it happening again.
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
I don't know as much about this subject as I'd like to, but what about nano-technology? Say 30 - 50 years down the road, couldn't it be possible that there's some type of "cancer immunization" you take every few years, which is basically a bunch of nano-bots that constantly hunt out and destroy bad cells?

Or am I totally off base?
Click to expand...

I suppose that something like this could work. I mean that's the thing, anything that can act as an immunization, which is what we're really talking about when we say "cure", could prevent the development of cancer. But it would have to be something that actively sought out and destroyed "bad cells."

Something like that would be awesome, but like you mention, it's something that would likely be far into the future. For as much as we do know about cancer, we would need to know much more about it for something like this to be possible. Not to mention I don't think nano-tech is quite there yet, but I don't know enough about nano-tech, so maybe it could already do that if we had the right pathways and indicators.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom