# Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice



## AphexDreamer (May 14, 2011)

Canadian researchers find a simple cure for cancer, but major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.

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.

This drug doesn’t require a patent, so anyone can employ it widely and cheaply compared to the costly cancer drugs produced by major pharmaceutical companies.

Canadian scientists tested this dichloroacetate (DCA) on human’s cells; it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells and left the healthy cells alone. It was tested on Rats inflicted with severe tumors; their cells shrank when they were fed with water supplemented with DCA. The drug is widely available and the technique is easy to use, why the major drug companies are not involved? Or the Media interested in this find?

In human bodies there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria, but they need to be triggered to be effective. Scientists used to think that these mitochondria cells were damaged and thus ineffective against cancer. So they used to focus on glycolysis, which is less effective in curing cancer and more wasteful. The drug manufacturers focused on this glycolysis method to fight cancer. This DCA on the other hand doesn’t rely on glycolysis instead on mitochondria; it triggers the mitochondria which in turn fights the cancer cells.

The side effect of this is it also reactivates a process called apoptosis. You see, mitochondria contain an all-too-important self-destruct button that can't be pressed in cancer cells. Without it, tumors grow larger as cells refuse to be extinguished. Fully functioning mitochondria, thanks to DCA, can once again die.

With glycolysis turned off, the body produces less lactic acid, so the bad tissue around cancer cells doesn't break down and seed new tumors.

Pharmaceutical companies are not investing in this research because DCA method cannot be patented, without a patent they can’t make money, like they are doing now with their AIDS Patent. Since the pharmaceutical companies won’t develop this, the article says other independent laboratories should start producing this drug and do more research to confirm all the above findings and produce drugs. All the groundwork can be done in collaboration with the Universities, who will be glad to assist in such research and can develop an effective drug for curing cancer.

You can access the original research for this cancer here.

This article wants to raise awareness for this study, hope some independent companies and small startup will pick up this idea and produce these drugs, because the big companies won’t touch it for a long time.

Source

I'd like to add there are a few inaccuracies in the article pointed out by twilyth at GN. Thank You Twilyth.

Here is the wiki on Dichloroacetic acid


----------



## W1zzard (May 14, 2011)

technically a lot of cancers are curable. mortality rate is nowhere near 100%.

interesting article though


----------



## Evolved (May 14, 2011)

So all these charities for finding the cure for cancer, a money grab?

We already have it... -_-


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 14, 2011)

DCA poses a risk of liver failure and yes, many organizations are researching it (NIH and FDA included).  Pharmaceuticals aren't investing in it because it is unpatentable so they are very unlikely to recoup their expenses.


----------



## W1zzard (May 14, 2011)

why is it unpatentable ?


----------



## TIGR (May 14, 2011)

I'm not sure what to think. Take a look at the edit toward the bottom:
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/19694...a_doesn_t_like_that_idea_very_much/index.html


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 14, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> why is it unpatentable ?


I guess because its knowledge is considered public domain so no one can claim privilage and/or exclusive access to it.


----------



## foxy@OC'd (May 14, 2011)

Huge company's arent interested because they cant make a profit....

IT would be good for the reputation of the company to provide a non profit cancer healing drug.. 

Fools


----------



## wahdangun (May 14, 2011)

so is this mean folding@home is useless?


----------



## meran (May 14, 2011)

what they do from 4 year folding?


----------



## Marineborn (May 14, 2011)

hmmmmmmmm interesting article this proves many things, pharmacies didnt have enough care to try to bury this.

and im glad research like this is coming out its my beleive that there is simple awnsers to all cures, companies always wanna make more and more money and people's pain, its understandable thats why its a buisness but its wrong.

i hope one day and this day will probably never come and it sounds hippiesh that we can just put down out greed mongering and just work towards the bettermeant of mankind and get rid of all this stupid shit that holds us back. \ENDRANT


----------



## meran (May 14, 2011)

my mother has been suffering from breast cancer and i haven't seen her for a month ,now she's in jordan taking radiation after 6 long months of chemo ,man i hope this is true coz not every one afford the cost and the pain of current treatment ,and hope all that have cancer to cure fast ,,,,,,,may god prevent cancer from all people


----------



## AphexDreamer (May 14, 2011)

Marineborn said:


> i hope one day and this day will probably never come and it sounds hippiesh that we can just put down out greed mongering and just work towards the bettermeant of mankind and get rid of all this stupid shit that holds us back. \ENDRANT



This right here would be "one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind". 

One can only dream.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 14, 2011)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

It's an old story but an interesting one.

And more info from credible sources (May 14th 2010)

http://www.cancer.org/AboutUs/DrLen...ichloroacetate-(DCA)-In-Cancer-Treatment.aspx

I work in health and fitness and i see all too often misleading articles, usually sourced from ill founded independant sites.  For medical/human physiological research this website is excellent:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

Remember though that the fortunes of many start with a product that everybody wants and you can supply cheaply.  DCA would be one such thing so it would be very easy to snap up a snazzy 'trademark brand name' and make a killing from it.

There's no conspiracy of silence.  Big Pharma can still make plenty money from other medical miseries.


----------



## twilyth (May 14, 2011)

Since I don't have the patience to write a civil response, I'll refer anyone who is interested to my response on GN

http://www.generalnonsense.net/showpost.php?p=123917&postcount=4

Thanks 54th for being the first poster not to buy into the Big Conspiracy bullshit and trying to provide some informed perspective.


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 14, 2011)

I don't see how the mitochondria can fight cancer, it makes no sense.

EDIT: This would involve the use of the Intrinsic apoptotic pathway. Which is essentially the Mitochondria releasing Cytochrome C and that binding with growth factors rendering them dysfunctional. Though you would still need the caspase 9 to be activated which initiate caspase 3 that then goes on to initiate apoptosis.



Whilst I see the methods behind this, I think they are being far too generous.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2011)

US Scientist blueprinted a few years back. Basicly paving the way for a cure within a few years. They were even up for the Nobel peace prize but lost it to a politically correct "green" movie. One of the many reasons I call BS on the peace prize.


----------



## Widjaja (May 14, 2011)

I always get the feeling, many wonderful things are held back in secrecy if it is going to affect a major corporations profit.


----------



## niko084 (May 14, 2011)

This I see here one month after my uncle dies of brain cancer. I hope for my aunts sake she doesn't find this article.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 14, 2011)

I don't know about this in particular, but it's not uncommon for the numerous treatments that have cured cancer in lab animals to be stalled through a combination of funding issues and red tape. And I'm sorry but while people may get over zealous about the conspiracy thing the medical field is indeed ruled by money. I mean the number of times I have had to correct doctors is ridiculous. They get all their info from pretty drug company reps over lunch. Touting the results of tests where they don't have to include numbers from people who had to drop out of the studies due to how severe the side effects were. Every time there's an herbal cure they have to try and reverse engineer it into a patentable drug with all these side effects the natural treatment didn't have. And you better believe that while the side effects aren't intentional, they certainly don't feel motivated to make a less harmful version of the drug. I mean would you mind the increased revenue from selling additional drugs to treat those side effects? Not if you love money. The only exception that comes to mind is TA 65. It's natural but the concentrations are so low it takes a patented process and tons of the plant to extract it.

An interesting side note, ever notice the most radical and experimental treatments go towards prostate cancer? I'd wager that's because it's the one the people running things are most likely to get.

Here's the latest promising treatment getting prioritized for prostate cancer testing http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-27/health/provenge.prostate.cancer.fda_1_provenge-prostate-cancer-attack-cancer-cells?_s=PM:HEALTH

I'm not saying it's a unilateral "we want people sick to make money thing", but there's certainly powerful people on the drug company and medical ends that are going to manipulate things as best they can for profit, but eventually cures for the big earners will break through into the mainstream. If they can be prodded into using that above treatment on people in earlier stages of prostate cancer that could be the big turning point. If successful people will be making a ruckus. My only concern would be an artificial delay in adapting it for other cancers.


----------



## hat (May 19, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> so is this mean folding@home is useless?



I'd like to see some attention to this point myself. If cancer is already so easily cured, then what's the point of folding@home and many WCG projects? To help develop more bullshit drugs when we already have a good one?


----------



## TIGR (May 19, 2011)

Even if cancer were cured by this drug, scientists still don't understand protein folding, so FAH remains an important effort IMO. Cancer isn't the only problem that FAH might help us understand and cure.


----------



## HammerON (May 19, 2011)

Agree^^^
Plus WCG is also looking at:


----------



## pantherx12 (May 19, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> I don't see how the mitochondria can fight cancer, it makes no sense.
> 
> EDIT: This would involve the use of the Intrinsic apoptotic pathway. Which is essentially the Mitochondria releasing Cytochrome C and that binding with growth factors rendering them dysfunctional. Though you would still need the caspase 9 to be activated which initiate caspase 3 that then goes on to initiate apoptosis.
> 
> ...



They do lots of different jobs, one of them being cell growth and death : ]


----------



## Peter1986C (May 19, 2011)

TIGR said:


> Even if cancer were cured by this drug, scientists still don't understand protein folding, so FAH remains an important effort IMO. Cancer isn't the only problem that FAH might help us understand and cure.





HammerON said:


> Agree^^^
> Plus WCG is also looking at:
> http://img.techpowerup.org/110519/WCG 30.jpg



I agree, people at this forum posting here are often simplifying things too damn much.


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 19, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> They do lots of different jobs, one of them being cell growth and death : ]



I know.


----------



## GLD (May 21, 2011)

More input peeps!


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 21, 2011)

There isn't any more input. 

Some people have claimed to cure cancer, but in reality it's kind of so full of holes no one is taking them seriously.


In short, you wont ever "cure" cancer, there are just too many things wrong with a cancer cell that makes it a cancer cell. Cutting it out and blasting your body with radiation/chemotherapy is the best thing we have, and will have. Perhaps if someone invented a dye that makes it easier to identify which cells are cancer, and which aren't then the surgeons could have a better success rate in taking them out without recurrence.


----------



## joe50000 (May 24, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> There isn't any more input.
> 
> Some people have claimed to cure cancer, but in reality it's kind of so full of holes no one is taking them seriously.
> 
> ...



now, thats just being pessimistic of you.  We can also:

Improve awareness of the symptoms and risk factors
Make treatment more widely available and accessible
Society could be more accommodating of cancer victims
The financial burden of treatment could be ameliorated
Pain management and reduction of symptoms associated with condition and treatment


----------



## Over_Lord (May 24, 2011)

Hope these companies die.


----------



## twilyth (May 24, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> There isn't any more input.
> 
> Some people have claimed to cure cancer, but in reality it's kind of so full of holes no one is taking them seriously.
> 
> ...


Actually, the best approach for irradiating tumors is a proton beam.  These do much less damage to surrounding tissue than even a gamma knife.  The problem is that you need a cyclotron to produce protons traveling at 60% of the speed of light.  In the US there are only 2 or 3 on the eastern seaboard and a new one is being built a couple of towns over from me that should go online in about 2 years IIRC.

But aside from that, there are some things that it might be possible to target that are specific to malignant cancer cells.  Angiogenesis inhibitors I think are being widely used for example.  You might also be able to attack the cell's ability to manufacture telomerase.  Telomeres are repeating strings of nucleic acids that get shorter with each cell division.  As far as we know, no mature cells manufacture telomerase and if a cancer cell were prevented from doing it, they would eventually start to lose whole sections of their genetic code.


----------



## Volkszorn88 (May 24, 2011)

Interesting read.


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 25, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Actually, the best approach for irradiating tumors is a proton beam.  These do much less damage to surrounding tissue than even a gamma knife.  The problem is that you need a cyclotron to produce protons traveling at 60% of the speed of light.  In the US there are only 2 or 3 on the eastern seaboard and a new one is being built a couple of towns over from me that should go online in about 2 years IIRC.
> 
> But aside from that, there are some things that it might be possible to target that are specific to malignant cancer cells.  Angiogenesis inhibitors I think are being widely used for example.  You might also be able to attack the cell's ability to manufacture telomerase.  Telomeres are repeating strings of nucleic acids that get shorter with each cell division.  As far as we know, no mature cells manufacture telomerase and if a cancer cell were prevented from doing it, they would eventually start to lose whole sections of their genetic code.



A telomerase inhibitor would be very beneficial actually. To find how it is structured, and then inhibit it would be very beneficial.

Though to get the best results I think some work should be done on artificial p53, see if injecting that directly into a cancerous mass would reduce the amount of growth and/or cells.


----------



## twilyth (May 31, 2011)

For anyone who is interested in some of the actual science involved in battling cancer, here is an excellent article "Crushing Cancer's Defenses."  Read this and you begin to understand why simplistic approaches like that in the OP have virtually no chance of ever succeeding.

By the way, the magazine it comes from Science News, is geared to a high school level of understanding.  This article in particular is very well written with an interesting mix of science and history and almost no jargon.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 31, 2011)

meh i rate this up there with teh cure for AIDs, techinically people who have the same resistence to the bubonic plaque are immune to AIDs / HIV since it changes the cells that AIDs /HIV attacks and takes over. but even though we know that we cant reverse engineer it yet to cure the world of it.

more on topic
This would help cancer patients but it wont out and out cure every cancer patient ever. so its progress but not exactly a bullet proof concept. same as the above situation.


----------



## twilyth (May 31, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> meh i rate this up there with teh cure for AIDs, techinically people who have the same resistence to the bubonic plaque are immune to AIDs / HIV since it changes the cells that AIDs /HIV attacks and takes over. but even though we know that we cant reverse engineer it yet to cure the world of it.
> 
> more on topic
> This would help cancer patients but it wont out and out cure every cancer patient ever. so its progress but not exactly a bullet proof concept. same as the above situation.



If you're talking about the OP, that's probably worthless.  If you're talking about immunotherapy for cancer, that's precisely the point - it's progress.

And the problem with replicating a genetic abnormality is that it involves the trivial little task of rewriting the DNA of every cell in your body.  How exactly are you proposing we do that?


----------



## Wile E (May 31, 2011)

twilyth said:


> If you're talking about the OP, that's probably worthless.  If you're talking about immunotherapy for cancer, that's precisely the point - it's progress.
> 
> And the problem with replicating a genetic abnormality is that it involves the trivial little task of rewriting the DNA of every cell in your body.  How exactly are you proposing we do that?



Jeff Goldblum managed it in The Fly.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (May 31, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> so is this mean folding@home is useless?



No offense but I thought that already. Especially when you factor in the environmental impact from all that power required. The point is to do something good for mankind right? Burning less coal and creating less nuclear waste would definitely qualify.


----------



## fullinfusion (May 31, 2011)

Im sure they have many other cures out there hidden. The big companies dont make. money if nobody needs long term prescriptions. 
It's a shame what this world has come down too, GREED!!!


----------



## twilyth (May 31, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> No offense but I thought that already. Especially when you factor in the environmental impact from all that power required. The point is to do something good for mankind right? Burning less coal and creating less nuclear waste would definitely qualify.



There has been periodic discussion of the patent issue for public domain discoveries like those being pursued by WCG and F@H.  The fact of the matter is that any drugs that seem promising still have to be tested.  That means putting them into a form that is easy to administer, preferably via the oral route as a pill.  A company can get a patent just on the delivery mechanism even if the drug is public domain.  Just look at drugs like Niaspan and Lovaza.  Niaspan is just a timed release form of vitamin B-3 (niacin).  There's no patent on any vitamin AFAIK.  And Lovaza is just a special type of purified fish oil.  But both of these are drugs that companies like Abbott are making nice profits off of.

And even if a drug doesn't get picked up by a pharmaceutical company, there are other ways to get it tested and out to the public.  The govt runs clinical trials all of the time through places like the NIH and other agencies.  I can't think of an example off hand, but if something really did show promise in treating cancer, you can bet you life that some govt, somewhere on the planet would be testing it and making it available.

All of the conspiracy nonsense truly is nonsense and if you believe shit like that, then presumably you still put out cookies and milk for Santa.

edit:  WV, last comment isn't directed at you.  Just wanted to make that clear.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 31, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> US Scientist blueprinted a few years back. Basicly paving the way for a cure within a few years. They were even up for the Nobel peace prize but lost it to a politically correct "green" movie. One of the many reasons I call BS on the peace prize.



You know, I hate that you say this (and that I agree with you so much).  At the same time, I see where you're coming from.

The nobel prize (no capitols, I have no respect for it) has become a joke.  A black man gets a prize for project Acorn, because he just so happened to also be president of the US (republicans could not raise good opposition).  I thought racism was dead in America.  What the heck does it say when the whole of the world is looking at things in black and white?

Bile aside, this article is a joke based upon poor science and magical hope fairies.  Twilyth put it right:



twilyth said:


> Since I don't have the patience to write a civil response, I'll refer anyone who is interested to my response on GN
> 
> http://www.generalnonsense.net/showpost.php?p=123917&postcount=4
> 
> Thanks 54th for being the first poster not to buy into the Big Conspiracy bullshit and trying to provide some informed perspective.



Not everything is a conspiracy.  If a magical, cheap, non-patentable drug (for the puposes of a patent it is not trivial to produce or a new and unique formulation) existed then countries like Mexico and China would never have cancer related death.  If either of them researched this crap, and found it actually cured, they would put it out to decrease the cost of public health care.

Anyone here from Europe?  Considering actually asking one of your specialists why they don't just hand this crap out in childrens toys?  IT CARRIES SUBSTANTIAL RISKS YOU MORONS!

Yes, your folk remedy might cure cancer.  I might also be crowned king of the nerds and reign with Pamela Anderson (from when she was hot, and not a train wreck) at my side.  Both situations are about as likely.


Blog based news should always, always be questioned.  It is not that they are all liars, but a puff piece about the "cure" for cancer draws in a lot of desperate people.  Human greed is a far more reliable quality than unbridled hate from an establishment that could make money and drive their costs into the ground.

Somewhere along the way people forgot that big drug companies have huge research expenditures.  It takes decades to get past the FDA.  Whenever a real study is published (by a respectable body of researchers) that actually confirms this then I'll listen whole hearted.

Until then f*** off!  I've had people in my family die from cancer.  It isn't something that some internet trolling prick should use to increase the number of hits on their blog.  Even assuming the best, they are spreading false hope (unintentionally) that creates greater pain whenever its proven as such.


I wish I was more level headed about this, but swindlers and con-artist preying on those twisted by the tragedy of cancer belong in a special level of Hell.  I say this, fully confessing that on the best of days I'm agnostic and on the worst I believe the myth of a kind and loving creator is the only way to cope with the burden of life's sorrow.


----------



## NinkobEi (Jun 1, 2011)

Sounds like a false story to me. Sorry. There are TONS of non-profit orgs out there that would jump on this if it were true. One example comes to mind the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. They have all the money in the world to support this program, if it had actual merit. This blogger is just blowing hot smoke.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 3, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> technically a lot of cancers are curable. mortality rate is nowhere near 100%.
> 
> interesting article though



funny thing, life has a 100% mortality rate. 

  cancer is the byproduct of a deficient or ineffective immune system period. Now the underlying mechanism of this problem is certainly what the artilce hints at. But why are cancer rates exploding. 

  I always tell anyone who asks, there is no reason drug companies would want healthy patients, wheres the profit in that.


----------



## qubit (Jun 4, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> I always tell anyone who asks, there is no reason drug companies would want healthy patients, wheres the profit in that.



Yeah, quite. Very cynical, but true. :shadedshu It's like batteries isn't it? They want them to be useful, but not last too long, to ensure repeat business.

Similarly with drugs, they make you a bit better, but not quite enough to cure the damn thing you're suffering from.


----------



## xBruce88x (Jun 4, 2011)

^ and often the side effects are worse than what you had to start with.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jun 4, 2011)

The US government shells out lots of cash to universities who research things often deemed "unprofitable" by the pharmaceutical companies.  The scientific community's system of checks and balances is rather fragile if not for their dedication to ethics . . .
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/r01.htm
http://www.nsf.gov/index.jsp
http://www.grants.gov/



Thatguy said:


> But why are cancer rates exploding.


http://www.who.int/features/qa/15/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr27/en/
Preventative care is part of the Hippocratic Oath.


----------



## twilyth (Jun 4, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> cancer is the byproduct of a deficient or ineffective immune system period. Now the underlying mechanism of this problem is certainly what the artilce hints at. But why are cancer rates exploding.
> 
> I always tell anyone who asks, there is no reason drug companies would want healthy patients, wheres the profit in that.



I never cease to be amazed by what some people believe.  I just wish I could tell if they make it up as they go or if they just parrot what they read on some obscure blog.

Anyone who bothered to read this article (in one of my previous posts) would know the many ways cancer evades the immune system.

And the idea that the drug companies have some sort of nefarious kabal to perpetuate human suffering is so utterly ignorant as to not even deserve comment.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 4, 2011)

twilyth said:


> I never cease to be amazed by what some people believe.  I just wish I could tell if they make it up as they go or if they just parrot what they read on some obscure blog.
> 
> Anyone who bothered to read this article (in one of my previous posts) would know the many ways cancer evades the immune system.
> 
> And the idea that the drug companies have some sort of nefarious kabal to perpetuate human suffering is so utterly ignorant as to not even deserve comment.



  Umm, show me the money

  you have cancer, right now, today , in your body. the difference between you and someone with a aggresive form is immune system performance. Cancers on a long enough lifespan are inevitible and are a byproduct of the degredation of dna/rna.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jun 4, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Umm, show me the money
> 
> you have cancer, right now, today , in your body. the difference between you and someone with a aggresive form is immune system performance. Cancers on a long enough lifespan are inevitible and are a byproduct of the degredation of dna/rna.


Did you read the article twilyth posted?  I found it quite interesting.  This bit may provide you with "the money":


> _Often cancer cells escape the siege by taking advantage of the body’s hesitancy to attack its own cells. Despite the best laid plans in a healthy body, some white blood cells do wind up targeting healthy lungs, skin or liver. When that happens, the immune system sets off fail-safes that silence or kill outright the rogue white blood cells. Many cancers call off attacks by triggering the same fail-safes. And that’s just the start: Some tumors are downright devious, surrounding themselves with minefields laced with anti-immune chemicals. “Tumors feather their own beds,” Berzofsky says._


We all do have cancer cells in our bodies and some people are more susceptible to tumors than others, but isn't that a bit like saying that water is wet?


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 4, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> Did you read the article twilyth posted?  I found it quite interesting.  This bit may provide you with "the money":
> 
> We all do have cancer cells in our bodies and some people are more susceptible to tumors than others, but isn't that a bit like saying that water is wet?



   Cacner isn't a virus, its a byproduct of a few different factors. One of which is the break down and error rate in rna/dna replication in cancer cells. 

  Cancer can have many cuases, some viral, some enviromental,some just based on time. Everytime a cell replicates, it gians the risk of th enext cell becomeing cancerous if the proper dna/rna transcrptions do not occur. Ie their is a file copy error. 

  the biggest problem is that the immune system, its sort of a organism, if has to know the host and it has to know how to identify what cells are behaving abnormally. 

   So how could the immune system fial to do such a thing. Theres a few ideas out that about immunsystem training disruption and the cuase of aggresive cancers. why would th eimmune system be hesistant to deal with a percived threat ? might be becuase it can't tell friend from foe. If it cannot differentiate, why is this occuring and what is the underlying solution. 

  Its all about the immune system, you can't remove transscription errors although there are things you can do to minimize them from a nutrional standpoint. some of its just the genetic roll of the dice to.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 4, 2011)

Where are you getting this idea that cancer is the product of a deficient immune system?

The two are very much separate.


----------



## twilyth (Jun 4, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Umm, show me the money
> 
> you have cancer, right now, today , in your body. the difference between you and someone with a aggresive form is immune system performance. Cancers on a long enough lifespan are inevitible and are a byproduct of the degredation of dna/rna.



Why don't YOU show me the money.  Cite a reputable source or I say you're full of shit.  I've already cited mine.  It's not my problem if you're too lazy to read it.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 4, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> DCA poses a risk of liver failure and yes, many organizations are researching it (NIH and FDA included).  Pharmaceuticals aren't investing in it because it is unpatentable so they are very unlikely to recoup their expenses.



Good point, lets not forget if there is no profit in life, there is always profit to be found in death........ Statins pose a real threat of Liver failure and in the UK alone there are 600,000 people prescribed statins but I am sure companies would rather use the risk excuse than the profitablity one.


----------



## xenocide (Jun 5, 2011)

I recall this article making front page of Reddit, and immediately being refuted by several news organizations.  The reason no pharmaceutical companies had invested in this alleged cure, was *because it had never been tested*.  It wasn't some global profiteering scheme, it was because it was still just a theory with no concrete evidence to back it up.

Also, someone mentioned the HIV\AIDS "cure" that has been making news, that actually did have a trial ran, and the man they ran the trial on is now HIV\AIDS-free.  That was a lot more complex and had gone through years of testing.  This cancer "cure" is basically just a theory that they modeled out but never tested.


----------



## Spectrum (Jun 5, 2011)

problem with cancer is that it's a mutation... mutations are very hard to cure or prevent


----------

