Cancer cure?

[porchrat]

Chemo is pretty much carcinogenic on its own also is it not, so is the radiation therapy?

Chemo carcinogenic?

Chemotherapy's whole thing is targeting rapidly dividing tissues... the primary characteristic of cancers. I doubt many cancers could actually thrive through a chemotherapy session. This is also why it hurts your body so much. The parts of your body that rely on rapid cell division (bone marrow replacing all those blood cells for example) suffer under chemo.

 

[Kloofvreter]

I believe there's other natural, effective cancer treatments that's been around for ages, but the pharmaceutical companies can't make money off these treatments so they do their best to disprove and ridicule them. Cancer treatment is a major moneymaker for them, and they'll lose a crapload of money if there was a natural alternative.

Read the history of Essiac Tea, very interesting:
http://www.healthfreedom.info/cancer essiac.htm

Also, apricot seeds (contains Laetrile):
http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/b17-laetrile-alternative-cancer-treatment-suppressed-50-years/

Ach, gott. It was only a matter of time before someone comes with this schit again.

 

[EMAM]

Chemo is pretty much carcinogenic on its own also is it not, so is the radiation therapy?

I've always said that it's not the cancer that eventually kills you, but the chemo!

 

[Hemi300c]

My wife is using Hemp Oil and we are going to see if that assists. I also take every evening before sleeping and no it does nothing because all the bad stuff is cooked out. (so it theoretically shouldn't be illegal as it is)

I saw on the news on Saturday there is a new breakthrough in checking for cancer and this new machine if approved gives almost immediate reading of positive or negative from a blood or even saliva. This should at least bring some costs down.

 

[EMAM]

I believe there's other natural, effective cancer treatments that's been around for ages, but the pharmaceutical companies can't make money off these treatments so they do their best to disprove and ridicule them. Cancer treatment is a major moneymaker for them, and they'll lose a crapload of money if there was a natural alternative.

Read the history of Essiac Tea, very interesting:
http://www.healthfreedom.info/cancer essiac.htm

Also, apricot seeds (contains Laetrile):
http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/b17-laetrile-alternative-cancer-treatment-suppressed-50-years/

Cannabis Oil FTW!

 

[Slingshot]

Please people. Don't eat apricot seeds. Not only are they not going to cure your cancer, they can be quite harmful.

Also note these conspiracy theorist things don't make an awful lot of sense. The pharmaceutical company that creates a cure for cancer basically dominates that market. They will crush all opposition in that market. None of their competitors will be able to compete. There is no logic behind telling me pharmaceuticals don't want to cure cancer, there is incredible money in it.

Also don't tell me researchers don't want to be the ones that discover a cure. The research team that makes this discover will make their mark on human history. Children will learn their names in school. They will be the subject of papers for generations to come. Fame and fortune for sure. There is plenty of incentive. The very fact that research like that discussed in the OP is happening is proof of this.

Ach, gott. It was only a matter of time before someone comes with this schit again.

You live in a dream world if you believe pharmaceutical companies are placing people's best interest before profit.
Let's say there's a natural cure for cancer, that anyone can prepare at home, or buy at the local market. Why would anyone want to buy expensive cancer treatments from the pharmaceutical companies?

 

[Pitbull]

My wife is using Hemp Oil and we are going to see if that assists. I also take every evening before sleeping and no it does nothing because all the bad stuff is cooked out. (so it theoretically shouldn't be illegal as it is)

I saw on the news on Saturday there is a new breakthrough in checking for cancer and this new machine if approved gives almost immediate reading of positive or negative from a blood or even saliva. This should at least bring some costs down.

Bad? People smoke cigarettes for 40 odd years and nothing happens. Have a blunt before bed will do nothing. Strongs with the wife, get her some good **** and have a smoke with her every evening

 

[Kloofvreter]

You live in a dream world if you believe pharmaceutical companies are placing people's best interest before profit.
Let's say there's a natural cure for cancer, that anyone can prepare at home, or buy at the local market. Why would anyone want to buy expensive cancer treatments from the pharmaceutical companies?

Stop talking kack. Goddamn pharmacies and quacks make a killing of homeopathic and natural bullschit remedies which do nothing.

EDIT: And you assume that no friends or acquaintances of the evil big pharma execs or their families get cancer?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Think about it. .....
Each session of chemo cost me between R10000 and R20000 - I had 18 sessions.
Work out how many people, countrywide have chemo every day. Now you wonder why a cure has never been found?
It's amazing that so many cures have been found for so many diseases but they cannot seem to be able to find one for cancer!

There are very good reasons for that. For starters, there's no one disease called 'cancer'.

Why Haven't We Cured Cancer Yet?

The conspiracy of a 'hidden cure because of profit' is also bunk:

10 Reasons Why Hidden Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories Fail

 

[Beachless]

Someone I used to work with had a mother dying from cancer. She was paying R600+ for 200ml of fruit juice and all sorts of other products made to prey on the desperate, I was really ashamed to be a human watching how people preyed on her and her mother.

 

[porchrat]

You live in a dream world if you believe pharmaceutical companies are placing people's best interest before profit.
Let's say there's a natural cure for cancer, that anyone can prepare at home, or buy at the local market. Why would anyone want to buy expensive cancer treatments from the pharmaceutical companies?

You didn't read what I wrote. I don't believe pharmaceutical companies place people's best interest before profit. I think that when it comes to curing cancer they're simply aligned. The pharmaceutical company that finds a safe cure for cancer has a superior product. It then becomes the only player in the cancer cure market able to pretty much name its price and simultaneously makes every chemo and radio product offered by its competitors obsolete. It wins financially in a very big way and its win has nothing to do with our benefit. That is just a bi-product.

Unfortunately you're the one living in a dream world. Worse you now push potentially dangerous "alternative" treatments onto people with life-threatening illnesses.

 

[Pitbull]

There are very good reasons for that. For starters, there's no one disease called 'cancer'.

Why Haven't We Cured Cancer Yet?

The conspiracy of a 'hidden cure because of profit' is also bunk:

10 Reasons Why Hidden Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories Fail

Sure, there is no 1 cancer. We all agree. The cancer itself though is a common. It's a disease caused by an uncontrolled division of abnormal cells in a part of the body. Which part is the difference. If you can get to the root you should be able to cure ALL cancers.

Edit: Well as per my limited understanding of cancer.

 

[Ockie]

Chemo carcinogenic?

Chemotherapy's whole thing is targeting rapidly dividing tissues... the primary characteristic of cancers. I doubt many cancers could actually thrive through a chemotherapy session. This is also why it hurts your body so much. The parts of your body that rely on rapid cell division (bone marrow replacing all those blood cells for example) suffer under chemo.

Yes, but the chemo damages healthy cells also, which makes it carcinogenic. So might get rid of the cancer that you have now, but who knows, you might just develop another cancer again from the chemo or get the same one again and this time with a vengeance? I am not saying chemo has no place. It certainly does. But I don't think anyone should be under any allusion as to what it actually does in the long run....and short term. Like mrs ant says ... might not even be the cancer that gets you, but the chemo.

 

[EMAM]

My wife is using Hemp Oil and we are going to see if that assists. I also take every evening before sleeping and no it does nothing because all the bad stuff is cooked out. (so it theoretically shouldn't be illegal as it is)

I saw on the news on Saturday there is a new breakthrough in checking for cancer and this new machine if approved gives almost immediate reading of positive or negative from a blood or even saliva. This should at least bring some costs down.

Bad? People smoke cigarettes for 40 odd years and nothing happens. Have a blunt before bed will do nothing. Strongs with the wife, get her some good **** and have a smoke with her every evening

Smoking is not going to cut it, and, as far as I know, neither is HEMP oil - you need PURE CBD oil.
You need the CBD oil found in the cannabis plant - this is not found in hemp. Why do you think hemp oil is legal and cannabis oil isn't?
I have been on pure cannabis oil for over a year now (stage 4 breast cancer) - is it working?......who knows but I have got nothing to lose.
Does it make me high? Nope, because I take it half an hour before bedtime, it helps put me to sleep too. Once or twice, I have taken it and not gone to bed and I did get high, so I have learnt my lesson!

 

[Jings]

You live in a dream world if you believe pharmaceutical companies are placing people's best interest before profit.
Let's say there's a natural cure for cancer, that anyone can prepare at home, or buy at the local market. Why would anyone want to buy expensive cancer treatments from the pharmaceutical companies?

Reminds me of the recent Ebola scare and how suddenly there was enough funds to do late stage clinical trials, and Merck signing a $5 million dollar deal.

 

[porchrat]

Yes, but the chemo damages healthy cells also, which makes it carcinogenic. So might get rid of the cancer that you have now, but who knows, you might just develop another cancer again from the chemo or get the same one again and this time with a vengeance? I am not saying chemo has no place. It certainly does. But I don't think anyone should be under any allusion as to what it actually does in the long run....and short term. Like mrs ant says ... might not even be the cancer that gets you, but the chemo.

The odds of you actually getting the same cancer again are basically zero. You can go into remission and have it re-emerge because the chemo didn't get it all but it can't start new all over again. You'd need the exact same genetic errors in the exact same spots of the exact same kind of cell. You're more likely to win the lottery a thousand times in a row.

 

[cupcake]

You didn't read what I wrote. I don't believe pharmaceutical companies place people's best interest before profit. I think that when it comes to curing cancer they're simply aligned. The pharmaceutical company that finds a safe cure for cancer has a superior product. It then becomes the only player in the cancer cure market able to pretty much name its price and simultaneously makes every chemo and radio product offered by its competitors obsolete. It wins financially in a very big way and its win has nothing to do with our benefit. That is just a bi-product.

Unfortunately you're the one living in a dream world. Worse you now push potentially dangerous "alternative" treatments onto people with life-threatening illnesses.

This is awesome the more non invasive ways we have to fight cancer the better.

The notion that pharmaceutical companies are hiding a cure for cancer is not logical. The big money is in new proprietary treatments. Also some of the most cutting edge reasearch in this field is being done by NGO's and academic institutions, so why? We already have a cure for some forms of cancer so why not keep that from us? This article proves that new breakthroughs are happening and being made available!

The thing is that all cancers are not equal and each category has sub categories that require different treatments and have a different prognosis and are mostly reasearched as different diseases that require a multifaceted approach. So to make a blanket statement that covers a cure for cancer as only one type of treatment is not realistic. It is my understanding that we will never be able to cure all types of cancer because some are simply too aggressive and the damage that is done to extensive to repair.

I think the prevention of cancer in the first place is actually the bigger issue, why the drastic increase in recent times? If I was to jump on the bandwagon of conspiracy theories this is where I would be looking for the secrets and lies!

 

[SirFooK'nG]

The odds of you actually getting the same cancer again are basically zero. You can go into remission and have it re-emerge because the chemo didn't get it all but it can't start new all over again. You'd need the exact same genetic errors in the exact same spots of the exact same kind of cell. You're more likely to win the lottery a thousand times in a row.

And this applies to Melanoma?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Sure, there is no 1 cancer. We all agree. The cancer itself though is a common. It's a disease caused by an uncontrolled division of abnormal cells in a part of the body. Which part is the difference. If you can get to the root you should be able to cure ALL cancers.

Edit: Well as per my limited understanding of cancer.

But there is no 1 root cause. That's my point. Read that first link I posted.

There are over a 100 types of cancer, and they all act differently, between and within themselves. You get different kinds of breast cancer, for example. They manifest and expand in different ways.

Although there are many common themes in cancer, such as loss of responsiveness to growth signals with a resultant ability to grow unchecked. Other common capabilities of cancer cells include evasion of programmed cell death (apoptosis), inducing the surrounding tissue to provide a blood supply (angiogenesis), evading the immune system, and invading the blood or lymphatic systems to travel elsewhere in the body and take up shop in other organs, such as liver, lung, or bone. Although there are, again, common molecular themes by which cancers do this, individual cancers acquire these necessary (to the cancer) abilities by many different ways.

Even cancers arising from the same cell type can be quite different. For instance, the breast cancer that killed my mother-in-law was a rare spindle cell variant, which is quite different from the much more common invasive ductal carcinoma that is estrogen and progesterone receptor positive. Indeed, even within individual cancers, different populations of cells can be quite different.

 

[porchrat]

And this applies to Melanoma?

It applies to every cancer. You can have that same cancer metastasize to a new area, you can have it re-emerge after you go into remission but it is still the same cancer as before. You can't get the same exact mutations again for a second time. Well, you can but the odds are astronomically low.