FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Topic started by: eSineM on June 13, 2010, 02:54:48 pm
-
Possible CURE FOR CANCER (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/possible-cancer-cure-found-in-blushwood-shrub/story-e6freoof-1225826874057)
How effing insane would that be.
-
Uh, wow. If they were looking for all of these years and all people need to do is eat a fruit...
-
???????What are you talking about??????? ??? :dontknow:
-
wow :o
-
Actually I'm discovering these kind of articles come up every couple monhts or so O_O then nothing usually comes out of it..
cancer is not a disease that needs a cure, it;s a problem in the body and your body CREATES the cancer, so getting rid of it dont work if your body is going to just recreate it..cancer is not the same for everyone and every place..they just call it cancer when it cant be explained and its creating tumors etc.
any *bleep* up in the dna that creates tumors and *bleep*, they just say its cancer.
changes in your diet to only veggies and *bleep*, raw, usually fixes it
-
That would be cool!! I've also heard that mole-rats are being studied to see if they cure cancer, so..there's always HOPE!
-
Yeah... I've got a Masters in pharmacology doing cancer research / drug development. One thing that I learned in grad. school is that we (humans) have "cured" cancers in lab animals hundreds of times, but that doesn't always mean that it will translate to an effective treatment in humans. eSineM was close in their description of cancer; basically any unregulated growth / reproduction of cells is considered to be a cancer (I just disagree that they call it cancer when "it cant be explained and its creating tumors etc." because there are many cancers that can very well be explained; it just may be that there isn't an effective treatment against the cancer, or that the cure is worse than the disease). But the ways that the cancer occurs is very diverse. Some cancers respond to growth hormones abnormally, like overproducing growth hormone receptors. Others don't respond to negative growth factors, flushing them out of the cells too quickly, or not having enough receptor on the cell membrane so that none enter the cell. Or they may just growth on their own without any cues from hormones.
When we talk about breast vs. colon cancer, we are only talking about the location in the body where the cancer occurs, not how the cancer is actually caused. Thus there are many different kinds of breast cancer, for example, each with a different way for the growth to occur. That is why some drugs are quite responsive with some breast cancer cases, but other cases won't respond at all.
Because all of the different types of cancers, it is very difficult to have any one drug target all cancers. Thus, this articles makes me very skeptical about the true efficacy of the drug. I'm not saying that it won't be effective in some cancers, just that it probably won't be a cure-all for all cancers. I also wonder what the "liquefying" is actually doing, and how it can distinguish between cancers and normal human tissues. If it only targets those cells that were actually exposed to the drug, then that may be why the article listed skin and colon cancers -- those being easy to target -- instead brain cancer, which would require extreme care to ensure that the doctor doesn't accidentally liquefy the patient's brain!
Because of the diversity in cancers, some of the more promising ways to truly treat many different cancers is not by trying to target the cancers themselves, but rather other cells in the body that the cancer needs in order to grow. For example, cancer tumors require blood vessels in order to get food, get rid of toxins, and to spread around the body (metastasize). So by targeting the newly formed blood vessels, it causes the tumors to "starve to death" regardless of how the cancers actually grows out of control. See this article which is only a year old that describes this type of treatment as well as the drugs that are just starting to come out on the market:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/eto/content/eto_1_4x_the_details_how_antiangiogenesis_drugs_work.asp (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/eto/content/eto_1_4x_the_details_how_antiangiogenesis_drugs_work.asp)
The OP's article reminds me of another cancer "cure" that was found in nature; taxol which was discovered from the bark of the Pacific Yew tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paclitaxel#History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paclitaxel#History)). Notice how long it took from initial identification and isolation of the drug to the time that it finally came out onto the market! Thus when the OP's article mentions that it'll be 7 years before human clinical trials, it doesn't really surprise me. This also points out why chemotherapies are so expensive; although the drug itself may cost only a few dollars to make, the cost for all of the research time by PhDs and MDs is enormous. Esp. when you consider that less than 5% of the potential substances actually make it out to the market. Thus I don't begrudge "Big Drug" companies from trying to make a profit on those drugs that actually do work, esp. the few years that they have exclusive rights on the patent.
-
Ditto 8)
-
changes in your diet to only veggies and *bleep*, raw, usually fixes it
I do think our diet plays a big role in health but sometimes it's not always the case. I had an uncle who was a "health nut" ate healthy, exercised regularly and still got cancer and died. I just had an aunt die of cancer last month. My aunt refused chemo, can't say I blame her as she was in her 80's and had pancreatic cancer which is very difficult. She never smoked and was not obese. Every one of my father's siblings who have died so far (those two included) have died of some form of cancer It just seems to run in the family.
I also think there is no rush to cure cancer it makes the drug companies and others too much money.
-
I don't think there is one single cure for cancer that would work for everybody. there are a lot of cures that have worked for some people, but I don't believe they would work for everyone, because everybody's bodies are different. Just like they can't say for sure what causes cancer, because some people get it from exposure to certain things, and others don't. and even people who are health nuts can get cancer. I think some of it is in the environment, and the rest is just in our bodies.
-
i'll believe it if a person says the he or she is no longer a cancer patient after getting a dose of this fruit. if this were true. the fruit will be sold for thousands maybe millions just for trade. and if it works. patient has undergo surgery to kill the cancerous cells then eat the fruit. i'm a bit skeptical about this though. but hey. there's a possibility for everything.
-
changes in your diet to only veggies and *bleep*, raw, usually fixes it
I do think our diet plays a big role in health but sometimes it's not always the case. I had an uncle who was a "health nut" ate healthy, exercised regularly and still got cancer and died. I just had an aunt die of cancer last month. My aunt refused chemo, can't say I blame her as she was in her 80's and had pancreatic cancer which is very difficult. She never smoked and was not obese. Every one of my father's siblings who have died so far (those two included) have died of some form of cancer It just seems to run in the family.
I also think there is no rush to cure cancer it makes the drug companies and others too much money.
cancer is not always caused by a constant bad diet, it can be caused by exposure to chemicals including asbestos, lead, mercury, even plastics and gases. Also things that are often found in health foods are bad for you. Veggies etc. were they GMO? Or organic? How about the food.. Any of it contain soy? like that tofu crap? Diet or lowfat stuff? (often bad suppliments) how about the sugars? coffee? Any chemical/fertilizers used in those beans? so many variables...
-
Haha...I don't really think eating fruit everyday will really prevent you from getting cancer...a full balanced diet with a healthy active lifestyle maybe. The thing is, most cancers arise from random DNA mutations...and yes some of these mutations are caused by outside factors, like UV rays, but most of the time it's just random. In cancer cells, their cell cycle goes out of whack and they start replicating out of control, making a tumor, but its when these cells travel to other parts of the body that makes the cancer dangerous. They could interfere with the functions of different organs, which is why it's really dangerous if these cells start to spread. Most cancers aren't even genetic, but its just random chance. So yes, do what you can to maintain a healthy lifestyle, because its good for you, but there is still a chance of developing cancer regardless.
-
Haha...I don't really think eating fruit everyday will really prevent you from getting cancer...a full balanced diet with a healthy active lifestyle maybe. The thing is, most cancers arise from random DNA mutations...and yes some of these mutations are caused by outside factors, like UV rays, but most of the time it's just random. In cancer cells, their cell cycle goes out of whack and they start replicating out of control, making a tumor, but its when these cells travel to other parts of the body that makes the cancer dangerous. They could interfere with the functions of different organs, which is why it's really dangerous if these cells start to spread. Most cancers aren't even genetic, but its just random chance. So yes, do what you can to maintain a healthy lifestyle, because its good for you, but there is still a chance of developing cancer regardless.
Thats' not true, its not 'random' at all. Check out the movie "Diseases Don't Just Happen" or "Where mind meets matter". These cancer rates have steadily been growing, in history it was unheard of to die of cancer and this wasnt because they couldn't detect tumors or cancer cells as many imply... Cancer is not random anymore than it is genetic. It is caused by DNA structure being read wrong and incorrect cells being created rather than the proper cells used to heal the body. Eating fruit everyday will not prevent cancer, in fact if you didn't eat anything else, you may still get diabetes from all the sugars hahahah The idea that it is random has only really been pushed by manufacturers of plastics and things that lead to cancer.. Even cell phones lead to cancer now days...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rdTcPzLYCw
-
;) Take good care of your body and mind...whatever you do affects your life and has consequences on your health.
-
Wow.
-
Yeah... I've got a Masters in pharmacology doing cancer research / drug development. One thing that I learned in grad. school is that we (humans) have "cured" cancers in lab animals hundreds of times, but that doesn't always mean that it will translate to an effective treatment in humans. eSineM was close in their description of cancer; basically any unregulated growth / reproduction of cells is considered to be a cancer (I just disagree that they call it cancer when "it cant be explained and its creating tumors etc." because there are many cancers that can very well be explained; it just may be that there isn't an effective treatment against the cancer, or that the cure is worse than the disease). But the ways that the cancer occurs is very diverse. Some cancers respond to growth hormones abnormally, like overproducing growth hormone receptors. Others don't respond to negative growth factors, flushing them out of the cells too quickly, or not having enough receptor on the cell membrane so that none enter the cell. Or they may just growth on their own without any cues from hormones.
When we talk about breast vs. colon cancer, we are only talking about the location in the body where the cancer occurs, not how the cancer is actually caused. Thus there are many different kinds of breast cancer, for example, each with a different way for the growth to occur. That is why some drugs are quite responsive with some breast cancer cases, but other cases won't respond at all.
Because all of the different types of cancers, it is very difficult to have any one drug target all cancers. Thus, this articles makes me very skeptical about the true efficacy of the drug. I'm not saying that it won't be effective in some cancers, just that it probably won't be a cure-all for all cancers. I also wonder what the "liquefying" is actually doing, and how it can distinguish between cancers and normal human tissues. If it only targets those cells that were actually exposed to the drug, then that may be why the article listed skin and colon cancers -- those being easy to target -- instead brain cancer, which would require extreme care to ensure that the doctor doesn't accidentally liquefy the patient's brain!
Because of the diversity in cancers, some of the more promising ways to truly treat many different cancers is not by trying to target the cancers themselves, but rather other cells in the body that the cancer needs in order to grow. For example, cancer tumors require blood vessels in order to get food, get rid of toxins, and to spread around the body (metastasize). So by targeting the newly formed blood vessels, it causes the tumors to "starve to death" regardless of how the cancers actually grows out of control. See this article which is only a year old that describes this type of treatment as well as the drugs that are just starting to come out on the market:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/eto/content/eto_1_4x_the_details_how_antiangiogenesis_drugs_work.asp (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/eto/content/eto_1_4x_the_details_how_antiangiogenesis_drugs_work.asp)
The OP's article reminds me of another cancer "cure" that was found in nature; taxol which was discovered from the bark of the Pacific Yew tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paclitaxel#History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paclitaxel#History)). Notice how long it took from initial identification and isolation of the drug to the time that it finally came out onto the market! Thus when the OP's article mentions that it'll be 7 years before human clinical trials, it doesn't really surprise me. This also points out why chemotherapies are so expensive; although the drug itself may cost only a few dollars to make, the cost for all of the research time by PhDs and MDs is enormous. Esp. when you consider that less than 5% of the potential substances actually make it out to the market. Thus I don't begrudge "Big Drug" companies from trying to make a profit on those drugs that actually do work, esp. the few years that they have exclusive rights on the patent.
As someone with with a great deal of medical knowledge what is your opinion on the work of John Kanzius? I think he was an amazing man regardless of whether or not his cancer machine ever works or not. So many possible breakthroughs in science can now be based on his inventions.
-
Thats' not true, its not 'random' at all. Check out the movie "Diseases Don't Just Happen" or "Where mind meets matter". These cancer rates have steadily been growing, in history it was unheard of to die of cancer and this wasnt because they couldn't detect tumors or cancer cells as many imply... Cancer is not random anymore than it is genetic. It is caused by DNA structure being read wrong and incorrect cells being created rather than the proper cells used to heal the body. Eating fruit everyday will not prevent cancer, in fact if you didn't eat anything else, you may still get diabetes from all the sugars hahahah The idea that it is random has only really been pushed by manufacturers of plastics and things that lead to cancer.. Even cell phones lead to cancer now days...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rdTcPzLYCw
Cancer can be caused by many different ways... Some of it is truly random, some genetic, and some by environmental factors (like the electromagnetic waves from electronics, including cell phones). Most of the time, it is a combination of several factors that will lead to cancer. Some cancers are thought to actually occur by multiple mutations in the DNA, not just one. For example some people have a genetic disorder, called Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_nonpolyposis_colorectal_cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_nonpolyposis_colorectal_cancer)), that predisposes them to colorectal cancers. The disorder is a defect in one of the DNA's repair mechanisms (mis-match repair, to be exact). This in itself doesn't cause the cancer, however the body is not able to repair certain defects in the DNA which may then lead to cancer. The secondary defects may be caused by random mutations or may be by toxins ingested as they pass through the digestive system. People with HNPCC tend to contract cancer at a much younger age than other cancers (ie in their 40s).
Also, as a person ages, there may be defects in the DNA that propagate and eventually a combination of them will lead to cancer. This is why most people are diagnosed with cancer later in life, and why most childhood cancers are thought to be genetic (the kids start life with one strike against them already, so it is that much easier to get a second hit to their DNA and contract cancer).
There may be several factors that lead to the increase in cancer rates... Some of it is environmental, including toxins, radiation, etc. Some of it is genetic; as we've become a more mobile society, genetic defects that were once relegated to only a small population has now spread through our species. Some of it is the life expectancy has increased, esp. through the medical advances in many other diseases that would have killed a person at a younger age in the past. And some of it is through increases in diagnosing efficiencies; more people are getting screened during routine medical checkups, and so the cancers are being caught much earlier. Also, as our understanding of certain genetically related cancers increase, some people that have a greater risk for genetic factors are getting screened even younger for that particular genetic condition.
As someone with with a great deal of medical knowledge what is your opinion on the work of John Kanzius? I think he was an amazing man regardless of whether or not his cancer machine ever works or not. So many possible breakthroughs in science can now be based on his inventions.
I hadn't heard of him until you mentioned his name. However from the blurb I read about him on Wikipedia, I would say that his idea sounds very plausible. What I read said his idea was to use a combination of radiowaves and nanoparticles of certain metals like gold to kill the cancer cells. The nanoparticles would be inserted into the cancer cells and the radiowaves would superheat those particles (much like the way a microwave heats things, esp metals (which is why you shouldn't put metals in a microwave oven)), and cause the cancer to die. It sounds very similar to a different treatment that I know a little bit more about... Photodynamic Therapy (PDT, see http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/photodynamic (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/photodynamic)) is a treatment that uses a combination of lasers and a photosensitizer in much the same way as Kanzius' treatment. The cancer cells are exposed to the photosensitizer and then the laser is shined on the tumor, causing those cells with the sensitizer to die without affecting the non-sensitized cells in the area.
The major issue that I could see with both of these treatments is the use of some sensitizing agent to target the cancer cells. For cancers that are external (like skin cancers, some colorectal cancers, cervical cancer, etc), it is easier to target since they can just be injected with the sensitizing agent. However other cancers that are buried in tissues may be more difficult to treat in this way. I know with PDT, there is some research going on to try coupling the sensitizer with other molecules that can target specific receptor mutations on the cells. For example, if a particular cancer causes a defect in a receptor of a cell (like the Her2Neu receptor in some breast cancers), some antibodies or other molecules that specifically bind to the defective receptors may be created to target only the cancer cells. The sensitizer is then coupled to these antibodies thereby making the sensitizer bind specifically to the cancer cells as well, allowing for the treatment of PDT (or Kanzius' RF treatment) to occur in more internal regions of the body without affecting the surrounding healthy cells.
-
As someone with with a great deal of medical knowledge what is your opinion on the work of John Kanzius? I think he was an amazing man regardless of whether or not his cancer machine ever works or not. So many possible breakthroughs in science can now be based on his inventions.
I hadn't heard of him until you mentioned his name. However from the blurb I read about him on Wikipedia, I would say that his idea sounds very plausible. What I read said his idea was to use a combination of radiowaves and nanoparticles of certain metals like gold to kill the cancer cells. The nanoparticles would be inserted into the cancer cells and the radiowaves would superheat those particles (much like the way a microwave heats things, esp metals (which is why you shouldn't put metals in a microwave oven)), and cause the cancer to die. It sounds very similar to a different treatment that I know a little bit more about... Photodynamic Therapy (PDT, see http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/photodynamic (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/photodynamic)) is a treatment that uses a combination of lasers and a photosensitizer in much the same way as Kanzius' treatment. The cancer cells are exposed to the photosensitizer and then the laser is shined on the tumor, causing those cells with the sensitizer to die without affecting the non-sensitized cells in the area.
The major issue that I could see with both of these treatments is the use of some sensitizing agent to target the cancer cells. For cancers that are external (like skin cancers, some colorectal cancers, cervical cancer, etc), it is easier to target since they can just be injected with the sensitizing agent. However other cancers that are buried in tissues may be more difficult to treat in this way. I know with PDT, there is some research going on to try coupling the sensitizer with other molecules that can target specific receptor mutations on the cells. For example, if a particular cancer causes a defect in a receptor of a cell (like the Her2Neu receptor in some breast cancers), some antibodies or other molecules that specifically bind to the defective receptors may be created to target only the cancer cells. The sensitizer is then coupled to these antibodies thereby making the sensitizer bind specifically to the cancer cells as well, allowing for the treatment of PDT (or Kanzius' RF treatment) to occur in more internal regions of the body without affecting the surrounding healthy cells.
What I found really interesting about his work is that while looking for a way to fight cancer (he lost his battle with cancer unfortunately :( ) he found a way to burn salt water! While it is an inefficient energy source as is I think it has great potential if they are able to overcome the toxic chlorine (from the Cl of NaCl/salt) byproduct.
-
Let's hope one day.
-
If it were that simple then it would be working for others that are fighting for their lifes. If it works then it great but I don't know if its to good to be true then it usually is. Hope its a good one that will work though. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :wave:
-
im sure they already have cure for cancer, but the moneys not in the cure. its in the meds, and treatments
-
Cancer can be caused by many different ways... Some of it is truly random, some genetic, and some by environmental factors (like the electromagnetic waves from electronics, including cell phones). Most of the time, it is a combination of several factors that will lead to cancer. Some cancers are thought to actually occur by multiple mutations in the DNA, not just one. For example some people have a genetic disorder, called Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_nonpolyposis_colorectal_cancer), that predisposes them to colorectal cancers. The disorder is a defect in one of the DNA's repair mechanisms (mis-match repair, to be exact). This in itself doesn't cause the cancer, however the body is not able to repair certain defects in the DNA which may then lead to cancer. The secondary defects may be caused by random mutations or may be by toxins ingested as they pass through the digestive system. People with HNPCC tend to contract cancer at a much younger age than other cancers (ie in their 40s).
Also, as a person ages, there may be defects in the DNA that propagate and eventually a combination of them will lead to cancer. This is why most people are diagnosed with cancer later in life, and why most childhood cancers are thought to be genetic (the kids start life with one strike against them already, so it is that much easier to get a second hit to their DNA and contract cancer).
There may be several factors that lead to the increase in cancer rates... Some of it is environmental, including toxins, radiation, etc. Some of it is genetic; as we've become a more mobile society, genetic defects that were once relegated to only a small population has now spread through our species. Some of it is the life expectancy has increased, esp. through the medical advances in many other diseases that would have killed a person at a younger age in the past. And some of it is through increases in diagnosing efficiencies; more people are getting screened during routine medical checkups, and so the cancers are being caught much earlier. Also, as our understanding of certain genetically related cancers increase, some people that have a greater risk for genetic factors are getting screened even younger for that particular genetic condition.
But that is all politics speaking in that post. The mainstream medicine point of view based on drugs and treatments to sell. In reality most of that has been debunked. For example the life expectancy was short in some periods of course due to things like the plague, making it completely off balance when factored in... but in generally even in the 1700's and 1800's the life expectancy was very good, the problem is most statistics took in the number of new born deaths,. child deaths etc,. Which was greater at that time... therefore if people lived to be 85 for example, with the kids dying at 3 months, that really offsets the calculation. It has actually been found that the life expectancy has gone down gradually for many decades now. The amound of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, cancer victims etc. has skyrocketed. The genetic mutations are generally caused by an outside source that can damage DNA, this is not normal in nature. Even mutant animals etc. are not usually that was due to the inherited genes and often do not pass it down. There are exceptions to everything, but in general it is chemicals and environmental exposure which causes any genetic mutations.. These are usually good ones over LONG periods of time in nature, but with chemicals and toxins everywhere, often now there are bad defects which damage DNA in a fuckedup way, sometimes causing death etc.
There are more hospital related deaths now than ever, the medications have worse side effects and cause death more than ever, the cancer treatments are rising only because cancer is rising, not naturally, but due to environment and dietary/lifestyle changes. Basically the only thing the doctors are good for now days is if you break a leg, or require emergency surgery or some other time sensitive issue (accident/injury, exposure, or waiting too long in bad health for years until its down to the last days). Even in all those cases, the odds are high an accident may occur... end up losing the leg because its broken... getting an infection... antibiotics resistant strains etc. There have been some advances, but most all of the advances bragged about are political, things like vaccines... they try to attribute everything positive to them, and ignore anything negative... Ignore the autism rates skyrocketing and the direct relationship to the vaccines... and ignore the ineffectiveness of the vaccine... but brag about how it wiped out a disease, coincidentally at the same time other preventive measures were taken which trump the use of vaccines.. like using soap haha.
the main thing people have to think about... is these "defects" to the dna... they are not natural in any way... so they are merely a SYMPTOM and not a source... The DNA has existed for thousands of years, and only improved itself... those who have serious defects die off and you end up with a more robust species... Now days ALL dna is getting damaged basically... damn near everyone is getting cancer... This is not natural no matter how you look at it. So all these theories about how to fight this disease is not realistic, its not a disease that people 'catch' , it is a product of the lifestyle, food, environment... and unless we change that, cancer will continue to rise, and no DRUG is going to suddenly fix ALL damage from ALL sources in ANY body... and that's exactly what would be needed to cure cancer with a pill or anything really... it would have to be a magic pill that fixes everything including the dna that has been damaged in that body. Since that wont happen... life expectancy will continue to drop, and ultimately we will all fall like the roman empire who apparently poisonded themselves with lead in their pipes and dishes. We are all being poisoned, and unlike the roman empire.. I dont think it is any accident. There are the elite that know whats going on, they know what to buy to avoid this damage... and its not coca cola and microwave food...
Even that wikipedia example mentioned "hightened risk" which is to say... if they get cancer like most everyone does... they are more likely to get it in this part of the body. This is not to say you will get cancer, it still would take something to trigger it... like outside influence etc.. Thats the so-called "mystery" behind cancer... they say they dont know where it comes from.. And the main reason is, everyone is poisoned from ALL sources everyday... depleted uranium in the environment, mercury, pharmaceuticals in the drinking water and prescribed... processed and nuked foods.. high voltage RF, so many thing, so many complex proteins put in the body that are 'foreign', and attacks on our cells... even breast cancer exams (mamograms) were found to INCREASE the chances of getting breast cancer! haha. If all this foreign stuff was out of the picture, then Lynch syndrome as you pointed out etc, would not be a concern. The body is pretty good at defending itself, but not against complex man chemicals like we ingest daily... Although it even does a damn good job on that! The odds of getting cancer would be SOOO low that people wouldnt think about it much... unfortunately the cancer rate is so high now, that you are hard to find someone who doesnt know someone with cancer, or someone even who has already died...
-
Interesting indeed
-
:thumbsup:
-
I don't understand how you can create a cure for cancer, since there are so many different types of it.
-
True...