Canadian Scientists Cure Cancer... No One Notices?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

That actually makes me... very angry.

*grabs baseball bat*

That article is 3+ years old and it's not an actual cure but instead something to control it. Even if a pharmaceutical did take notice, it would be another 10+ years of testing and then discovering that their cure for cancer is a bust.

The real meat is the comments section.

If this is true, it will still be nearly a decade until the drugs is approved for human use. It still needs to go through many different studies and peer review then it needs to show its findings to the appropriate governing bodies. So lets assume that it is true, there is still plenty of reasons why it hasn't been adopted by the medical establishment yet.

Owyn_Merrilin:

AceAngel:
People, please, stop acting like you know Biology, because half of you don't know two craps of what is written there...

This paper have been proved as fact by the community and many third party supporters are angry about this fact.

Then the person who wrote the blog article didn't know what they were talking about; what I said about mitochondria was accurate.

Here's a link to the website of the university that made the actual discovery. The article that was linked was a piece of sensationalism; they're still in early trials, and in addition to this, the drug is already widely available, meaning there's no need for drug companies to invest further. Currently, it's an off label use that is being researched to become an on label use. Care to tell me where my biology fails?

Edit: Forgot to mention, according to the article I linked, the drug isn't even a cure for cancer. All it does is halt the growth, and allow other methods to kill the cells that are already there without having to worry about further growth. It's a break through, but not a cure in and of itself.

Indeed. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about medicine can tell you that there is no such thing as a "cure" for cancer. You do not get cured from cancer. At best, you have no detectable cancer cells and are in remission, but even people with no detectable cancer can relapse (or develop new cancers elsewhere in their body).

Also, *every single type* of cancer is different. It grows differently. It responds to different treatments. Heck, the same "type" of cancer in two different patients can have radically different behaviors, growth rates, prognosis, and outcomes. What is recommended treatment for one person can be completely wrong for the next.

Owyn_Merrilin:
Okay, my BS monitors are going off here. Mitochondria are a structure within the cell, not a type of cell. Further, they're essentially the powerplant of the cell; if cancer patients had non-functioning mitochondria, they'd be dead long before the cancer did anything. I'm going to have to see a more reliable source on this before I believe anything.

You ninja you.
The mitochondria is what gets the energy from the food you eat and the air you breathe.

The Moehlinator:
I am glad I am not the only one who read this and went "wha, who wrote this??"

I have a 4yr degree in biology (well, Clinical Laboratory Sciences, technically....but I am two classes from finishing my bio degree) and reading that was painful. Either the discovery is complete bs, or the paper was written by a pr guy with no bio background who skimmed the research. Mitochondria are not cells, the are organelles (pointed out above, I believe) and if they are not "turned on", your cells cannot perform metabolism and you would, in fact, die.

I am only a 10th grader in high school and I knew this (granted I learned this exact stuff this year though).

TheXRatedDodo:
I don't disagree with anything you've said. My own experiences cannot be used as a form of objective evidence, this I understand.
But bitter against pharmaceutical medicine am I? Yes, yes indeed.
I do think people are generally a bit too quick to pop a pill and make it all go away when they should really be examining the root of the problem though, and again, I have nothing to quantify this, but is anyone really going to disagree with that?
As far as depression goes, popping a pill will never truly be a replacement for a period of honest self-analysis and focused relaxation. Is this ever said to us? No. And this is why I am bitter against the pharmaceutical industry.

I don't really blame you, I agree with you as well, some doctors and patient are way too hasty in popping that pill. It's just a pet peeve when people use anecdotal evidence for me (same thing with statistics that aren't sourced, really gets on my nerves)

Though on the subject of "the pill is not a replacement for self-analysis", in some cases it is. Like I said, it all depends on the person, and to some balancing the chemicals in their brains is more effective than simply "willing" your way back to happiness. Some people take only the pill, some people go to therapy, some people take a combination of both, some people just go cold turkey. Different strokes for different folks.

Small Waves:
That article is 3+ years old and it's not an actual cure but instead something to control it. Even if a pharmaceutical did take notice, it would be another 10+ years of testing and then discovering that their cure for cancer is a bust.

The real meat is the comments section.

I'm really disappointed that "Dr. Strangelove" wasn't used as much.

I'll put this on the list of stuff thats apparently awesome that i'll never see put into practice.
Right next to a Thorium reactor...

SeaCalMaster:
Protip: Most science journalists don't actually have very good scientific knowledge. Their articles thus tend toward the sensational, and you should take them with a grain of salt.

I'd expand it to include news journalists in general. I've been personally involved in two news stories in my life and both times the thing printed/televised only had a loose attachment to the reality of the thing.

Completely unrelated: Any politicians out there need a campaign advisor? My credentials include being identified as such on national TV.

Yeah, its not real guys..

Owyn_Merrilin:
Okay, my BS monitors are going off here. Mitochondria are a structure within the cell, not a type of cell. Further, they're essentially the powerplant of the cell; if cancer patients had non-functioning mitochondria, they'd be dead long before the cancer did anything. I'm going to have to see a more reliable source on this before I believe anything.

Well, you are partially right. Not on the science, that shit is sound, but the BS thing. They cured a very specific TYPE of cancer, not cancer in general.

I'm sorry for being dense, but is this practice available at all anywhere? I mean, I understand it's not widely known and won't be picked up by big companies and that IS some nasty stuff,

but if a loved one has breast cancer or the like, is there a way I can get them this help? I don't care about traveling expenses of what the cost would be or what country I'd have to go to. I don't care if it's the smallest room in the smallest annex of that university. If this is real, if this is a viable cure, cand I get it?

...Or am I stuck until someone decides to make use of it because there is no money to be had and no independant organizations are picking up on this?

EDIT: I see. Nevermind then. Have to learn to read comments on other pages of a thread before getting worked up.

Friendshipandmagic:

Smagmuck_:

"America, Love it or Leave it."

I hear Canada is nice, I would move there if I had the money. :P

Do not move to Quebec, ils détestent votre anglais. :)

This is interesting.

I also heard that a doctor in Italy cures cancer with bicarbonate of soda. I can't judge the effectiveness of these treatments because of my relative lack of scientific knowledge, but I'm skeptical, because I believe that if it wasn't pseudo-science, at least some doctors, scientists, and mainstream media would take interest. Not everyone is about "big-pharma" profit, as the conspiracy theorists appear to believe. Surely there are independent people with scientific knowledge who would assess this. Do I have too much faith in humanity?

Thumper17:
Holy shit, this is intense.

Also, it's Edmonton, Alberta.

wait... *looks out window*

dude! I live there!

I live in the city that cured cancer!!

If this shit actually works it's amazing, and I hope it get's proven on several levels of testing so there is no doubt about it.

As for pharmacies, they are a business and would prefer it if everyone were on their deathbed buying only their licensed never to cure you pills, that is just a fact you always haveto remember, they don't want you well they want your money.

This is either a troll or a post by someone who really doesn't understand what they're looking at, as the article is obviously complete crap. The rough English, the mentioning of cellular structures as independent cells in the body, etc. Ladies and gents, you're either being made fools of or the OP himself is a fool, and either way you should all stop going "Oh my God capitalism is evil" and start considering how stupid you'd have to be to believe this without researching it yourself first.

No profit?! It's a cure for cancer!

http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/PharmacologicalandBiologicalTreatment/dichloroacetate--dca-

Thought I should link this real quick. The substance they're calling a "cure" is listed as a possible cancer causing agent by people who actually know what the hell they're talking about. It's also listed as causing "nerve and liver damage," along with further explanation that there's no factual evidence that DCA does anything to "cure cancer" or help in any way whatsoever.

DCA is also not available in the United States, due to its harmful nature, outside of clinical trials. See what happens when you bother to use Google for five seconds?

Hooray Canada. Now everyone tell your friends and spread the word so this news can get out to people, who have cancer (the news obviously isn't doing its job).

Twilight_guy:
Hooray Canada. Now everyone tell your friends and spread the word so this news can get out to people, who have cancer (the news obviously isn't doing its job).

There's no "cure for cancer." Studies have been going on for two years with no evidence that this crap helps in the slightest. This post is either a troll or an ignorant person spreading that ignorance to a lot of people on the internet, not that spreading ignorance on the internet is particularly difficult.

Smagmuck_:

Kpt._Rob:

Yes I realize that. It's kind of hard for a devoted liberal like myself to have not seen Michael Moore's documentary after all. My point was directed more towards the American capitalist system, one which I see being much slower to take up any treatment that isn't highly profitable.

"America, Love it or Leave it."

Thank you, that's very constructive. /sarcasm

Matt_LRR:

Point being that the drug being developed in Canada kinda shoots the "private medicine is the devil" argument in the foot.

-m

It would except for the fact that these drug companies are operating in a global economy, and it is the American healthcare system specifically which provides a sizable portion of the funding which lets them act like this because we suffer from the delusion that making people pay for their health is a good thing.

GodEmperor47:

Twilight_guy:
Hooray Canada. Now everyone tell your friends and spread the word so this news can get out to people, who have cancer (the news obviously isn't doing its job).

There's no "cure for cancer." Studies have been going on for two years with no evidence that this crap helps in the slightest. This post is either a troll or an ignorant person spreading that ignorance to a lot of people on the internet, not that spreading ignorance on the internet is particularly difficult.

Not a troll, a friend of mine showed it to me but I wanted to see what people on the Escapist had to say. I'm glad that some people could clear it up and show that the article was more sensationalism and how some of what it says is plain wrong. I apologise to anyone who got their hopes up, just wanted to see if there was any validity to this.

A higher T cell count is the only thing I can think of that would give some one better chances against HIV, that and some 3 drugs I know of that restrict the activity of HIV short of curing it. A bone marrow transfusion would be what was needed to give a HIV patient the T cells from a higher T cell individuals... And those higher T cell individuals make up more than 1% of the population. Is that what that cure was? Or was it some serios freak mutation. The method of trasplant sounds to me like they tried it and because of the T cells, and in combination with the anti-retro-viral drugs, the patients HIV sickness was lessened or he was given a better prognosis. If he was truly cured of HIV, I'm damn sure it'd be all over the news.

EDIT: This was meant as a reply to the "guy cured of aids" post but I forgot to hit quote.

The sheer amount of misinformation in this article AND the responses here.... is astounding.

So we have a viable cure for cancer that can work with a bit more testing, is cost effective and easy to aquire and doesen't fuck up the body like most cancer cures? But the companies won't use it because it won't make them money. Fuck that, corporate greed does suck!

EDIT: What? This is old news and it may just be sensational bullshit? God damn it, I got my hopes up...

Owyn_Merrilin:
Okay, my BS monitors are going off here. Mitochondria are a structure within the cell, not a type of cell. Further, they're essentially the powerplant of the cell; if cancer patients had non-functioning mitochondria, they'd be dead long before the cancer did anything. I'm going to have to see a more reliable source on this before I believe anything.

This.

I got to "Mitochondria Cells" and just stopped reading. Further sources needed I'm afraid.

xxx

Sad Twilight is sad. Silly humans, always out for money.

I mean, even if the article is wrong and whatnot ( I don't do science/biology) my statement still stands.

Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is a little ripple in the news or in TV. It is a simple technique using very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders. So, there is no concern of side effects or about their long term effects.

you know that saying "if its too good to be true, it probably isn't"?
I'm getting that feeling.

at the posts about "socialized vs privatized healthcare", please stfu.
nobody cares about your politics.

it's seriously worse than console wars.

Edit:

I'm aware this article is a few years old

:/
wow. You think there's a different reason, perhaps, that it never got media time?

notimeforlulz:
A higher T cell count is the only thing I can think of that would give some one better chances against HIV, that and some 3 drugs I know of that restrict the activity of HIV short of curing it. A bone marrow transfusion would be what was needed to give a HIV patient the T cells from a higher T cell individuals... And those higher T cell individuals make up more than 1% of the population. Is that what that cure was? Or was it some serios freak mutation. The method of trasplant sounds to me like they tried it and because of the T cells, and in combination with the anti-retro-viral drugs, the patients HIV sickness was lessened or he was given a better prognosis. If he was truly cured of HIV, I'm damn sure it'd be all over the news.

EDIT: This was meant as a reply to the "guy cured of aids" post but I forgot to hit quote.

You know that it's possible to use google right?

try 'aids transplant cure' and the first link answers all your questions.

deliberately replaced the patient's bone marrow cells with those from a donor who has a naturally occurring genetic mutation that renders his cells immune to almost all strains of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Doctors have not been able to detect the virus in his blood for more than 600 days despite his having ceased all conventional AIDS medication. Normally when a patient stops taking AIDS drugs, the virus stampedes through the body within weeks, or days.

And by the way, it was all over the news.

notimeforlulz:
A higher T cell count is the only thing I can think of that would give some one better chances against HIV, that and some 3 drugs I know of that restrict the activity of HIV short of curing it. A bone marrow transfusion would be what was needed to give a HIV patient the T cells from a higher T cell individuals... And those higher T cell individuals make up more than 1% of the population. Is that what that cure was? Or was it some serios freak mutation. The method of trasplant sounds to me like they tried it and because of the T cells, and in combination with the anti-retro-viral drugs, the patients HIV sickness was lessened or he was given a better prognosis. If he was truly cured of HIV, I'm damn sure it'd be all over the news.

EDIT: This was meant as a reply to the "guy cured of aids" post but I forgot to hit quote.

It was a serious freak mutation. Apparently,it blocks the receptor which allows HIV to attach to cells in the first place. Here's my source again.

(there was a video here but now theres not)

yes cancer is easy to cure (my grandma had cancer shes all better now)

no the media will never cover it

yes its a money thing,

you don't believe me? fine I don't care if your friends or family members dies because you where to stubborn and proud to research the truth.

Lysosomes are the self destruct unit inside cells and apotosis happens due to phagocytosis. And stopping glycolysis is the key to killing cancer cells? Sure, it will kill cancer cells, but it will also kill the person with the cancer cells. However, the natural cancer fighting cell is a part of the innate immune system named simply natural killer cells or NKC.
Another part of the article that states they wont use it cause there's no money to be gained from it since they can't patent it annoys me. We can actually go into a pharmacy and buy water with salt in it for a stuffy nose. Because it helps and it wont make you addicted to anything. You can't patent that either, but they can charge a lot for it.
I wont say this is all bogus, but medicines need at least 10 years of testing before they're ready to be used. I have also seen sources that claim this can be used in cancer treatment, but the article in the main post is clearly not well informed. At least not the part that is posted here.
Also there's a lot of other things we've never heard about. Nano beads that can be used for treating illnesses better due to a slower release into the system. This method will release the same medicine we've confirmed to be working over a greater time lapse. This will result in less side effects, less damage to kidneys and liver, less doses needed and it will even be cheaper.
There are the nose filters that would prevent the same effects from allergies at a very low price that would last long and not be very inconvenient. Patent bought by a pharmaceutical company to make sure that never hit the market.
The world of pharmaceuticals is complex and often unfair.

I'm in total agreement about premium name drugs and generic ones, I always just buy own brand ibuprofen and paracetamol as painkillers, the active ingredients are exactly the same as in Nurofen and Anadin, but one pack costs 26p, and the other costs £2.99 for the same thing.

However, it has shown in studies that if you have a doctor presecribe pills in a plain white pack with no brand name, and then to another group of patients, prescribe a branded pill in a shiny box, the latter group believe they are getting better results, so there's at the very least a psychological perk to paying more for the same stuff, daft as it sounds.

I'm so cynical now that the cheap stuff works, however, heh.

I remember recently there was a scandal where some pharmacists were telling customers 'don't pay the £7 fee for your prescription from the doctor, it's the same drugs as these generic ones off the shelf, for £1.50' as the £7 fee helped to balance out the costs of when a drug cost more than £7.

I can't really blame the pharmacist for wanting to help his patients, tho I imagine his boss wasn't happy about the loss of revenue, but then my own mother (who fortunately now gets free prescription drugs due to age) is on about 6 different drugs a day, so she'd be paying around £42 a month in fees, from an already small pension allowance, if she wasn't covered by the NHS. (Yay for social healthcare, I still for the life of me can't see how America convinced it's poor people they'd better argue against being looked after more cheaply, but that's for another thread.)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked