Cancer and the drug companies

[RDJ]

Do you accept though that pharmaceutical companies are not investing any effort into researching alternative treatments simply because there is no profit in it for them?

An assumption completely unconstrained by any relevance to reality. Consider for example, artemisinin and its later derivatives now standard current antimalarial treatment, having once been alternative, and now it's standard (for falciparum malaria) because research proved its effectiveness; we got it courtesy of TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine). Milan Brych's alternative treatment for cancer with apricot kernels - not now standard because research proved its ineffectiveness. Vitamin C, ginko biloba and echinacea = all ineffective in double-blind trials...

Furthermore, alternative treatments are not non-toxic. The poster child for this problem is Aristolichia debilis... In the early 90s, relatively young people were being admitted by the dozens to Belgian hospitals with renal failure, accompanied by upper urinary tract tumours, they all had in common attendance at a clinic that had been prescribing Chinese herbs to lose weight. Part of the concoction was aristolochic acid, a nephrotoxic chemical derived from Aristolochia vines... In Taiwan, one study found that one out of three people had received a prescription that included Aristolochia before the country banned the herb; Taiwan also has one of the highest rates of upper urinary tract cancers in the world.

Prove it works, is safe and better than what we've got... we will want it for our patients!

I know it's a popular point of view from people like yourself that people in professions like mine are completely deaf to any suggestions to try and improve the quality of life / save the lives of our patients, and that we are all in the pay of Big Pharma, and we refuse to consider alternative treatments. Seriously do you really think, do you really really think we are all so stupid and evil minded, that if there was an effective treatment that had a better result and/or a better side-effect profile than what we currently use, we wouldn't jump at the chance to use it, advise it and prescribe it? Sheesh.

And if that's what you really think, all I can tell you is, my reward cheque from Big Pharma is 37 years late in arriving. Could you Let Them Know and Hurry It Up.

[RDJ]

One could almost start to wonder whether the prolific use of vaccines and antibiotics might have something to do with people's natural immune systems malfunctioning.

Nice strawman you have there, shame should something happen to it.

Sigh. if you don't live long because of exposure to the use of serious childhood illnesses - try visiting some 19th-century graveyards to see what we mean - then you don't live long enough to get the cell replication errors and occasional "wild card" cells growing exponentially unregulated by normal growth inhibitors, = cancer. In other words if you die young from illness or injury, you never get old enough to die from cancers, strokes, and heart attacks. Personally most people I've seen prefer to have a better chance of surviving to adulthood and old age. No one gets out of here alive yet, we all are going to die of something.

The prolific use of vaccines is life-saving. The indiscriminate and unwarranted use of antibiotics is a serious problem. The solution is to vaccinate appropriately and not prescribe on the doctor's side, nor expect from the patient's side, antibiotics 'for everything'.

[Edbear]

One could almost start to wonder whether the prolific use of vaccines and antibiotics might have something to do with people's natural immune systems malfunctioning.

Considering that science still doesn't understand the cause, it's impossible to attribute one. Pure speculation. One does wonder about the modern lifestyle and its effect on our health. Likely the problems are a combination of many factors that are contrary to the design intent of the human body and of nature itself.

[bogan]

Vitamin C, ginko biloba and echinacea = all ineffective in double-blind trials...

This one does raise some CT flags though, Vit C is making a resurgence, and there is much talk of that double blind trial simply being shit. Far too low effective dosage, etc etc.

[Ulsterkiwi]

This one does raise some CT flags though, Vit C is making a resurgence, and there is much talk of that double blind trial simply being shit. Far too low effective dosage, etc etc.

As a cancer therapy, received wisdom is that anything which acts as anti-oxidant will not be much use. To put that in context, radiation and a huge range of the cytotoxic drugs (chemo) work because they produce free radicals and cause oxidative stress, thereby producing double stranded breaks in DNA. Cancer cells are not so good at repairing this damage and are effectively taken out.

Ascorbate (VitC) administered intravenously can achieve blood plasma concentrations which are impossible with oral administration. It has now been well established that VitC, in sufficiently high concentrations and in the presence of certain co-factors, can and does act as a PRO-oxidant, in effect capable of producing the same kind of damage as radiation and some drugs.

What has not been established however is the extent to which this happens in complex systems (the human body) and what, if any, effect happens if used in conjunction with other forms of treatment.

There are a number of documented and publicised case studies where VitC has been associated with cancer patients making unexpected recovery or gaining remission.

What is not so often talked about are the studies looking at patients in intensive care units who have been administered high doses of Vit C where there has been some link to the recovery rates of those patients after major trauma or surgical intervention.

In short, there is enough there to warrant closer scrutiny. While controversy remains however medical professionals have no choice but to proceed with caution. Use it to no effect and they are damned, don't use it as it is unproven and they are damned, usually by the media who have little or no understanding what they are reporting or on internet forums where people read those news reports and think that qualifies them to pass judgement. Unfortunately there has been so much controversy around the issue that the level of evidence now required to satisfy the detractors will have to be much higher and more extensive than might otherwise have been the case.

As I have stated before on this thread, I think it is up to the individual what it is they want to do with respect to unproven treatments and they should be left to make those decisions.

[scumdog]

One could almost start to wonder whether the prolific use of vaccines and antibiotics might have something to do with people's natural immune systems malfunctioning.

Now and again you post something sensible that I also agree with - this is one of those times!

In biology vaccines, antibiotics etc allow life forms which would otherwise have died off to stay alive and breed and create a generation of off-spring whose immune system etc is likewise compromised in that they too depend on the vaccines and anti-biotics to survive and so on for generations until the majority of life-forms are so affected.

And humans are just another life-form.

[FJRider]

... And humans are just another life-form.

A life form a simple virus can kill ...

Immunity is the key ...


Salvation is for those that believe in GOD. (but can't be bothered to get/afford the vaccine) ...

[Katman]

I was interested to see the article on the news tonight about the genetically modified herpes virus being used to combat skin cancers.

Clearly some outstanding cancer research is being conducted.

Doesn't let pharmaceutical companies off the hook though.

http://ethics.harvard.edu/pharmaceut...-public-health

[mashman]

I was interested to see the article on the news tonight about the genetically modified herpes virus being used to combat skin cancers.

Clearly some outstanding cancer research is being conducted.

Doesn't let pharmaceutical companies off the hook though.

http://ethics.harvard.edu/pharmaceut...-public-health

Cannabis oil is supposed to be good with skin cancers too I've read. Nature v's man

[bogan]

I was interested to see the article on the news tonight about the genetically modified herpes virus being used to combat skin cancers.

Hamilton is sitting on a gold mine then

[Katman]

Clearly Professor Marc Rodwin must be a conspiracy theorist as well.

[oldrider]

More for the conspiracy theorists to chew on.

I was with another alternative therapies advocate over the weekend, and as soon as he started talking I pegged him as a conspiracy theorist. I was right of course as I have yet to find an exponent of alternative medicine who claims the drug companies are squashing cures for cancer, who isn't a conspiracy theorist.

However, what seems so bleeding obvious that these people can't undrstand is that in every claim of a therapy that "definitely cures cancer, and there are hundreds of cases proving it!" Not one requires drug companies to develop it.

All examples, like Black Salve, infusions of Vitamin. C and so on are freely available as evidenced by the sheer number of sufferers trying them!

If these alternative therapies genuinely cured cancer, everyone would be using them and getting cured without needing the conventional therapies like Radiation, surgery and Chemo.

My visitor claimed that only 2% survive beyond 5 years with conventional treatment but the figure was 30% for alternative therapies. Absolute bollox of course.

In short, if there existed a cure for cancer, cancer would be cured. I guarantee you, though, the conspiracy theorists/anti drug exponents will not be able to accept this. Just like any conspiracy theory, they will never change their blind minds.

Following up on this post by Ed!

I saw a negative (about MMS) article in a news paper and then watched another on TV - so I did a little follow up just to see what it was all about!

Thankfully we are still free to read what we choose to without censure and I found it at times confusing but in the end somewhat enlightening.

I read all of this and compared it to Ed's post above and found it taught me quite a lot about Ed! :http://www.miraclemineral.co.nz/

[Edbear]

Following up on this post by Ed!

I saw a negative (about MMS) article in a news paper and then watched another on TV - so I did a little follow up just to see what it was all about!

Thankfully we are still free to read what we choose to without censure and I found it at times confusing but in the end somewhat enlightening.

I read all of this and compared it to Ed's post above and found it taught me quite a lot about Ed! :http://www.miraclemineral.co.nz/

Wouldn't it gain more credibility to go through my posts step by step and show where I have stated anything wrong? I always challenge people to do so and nobody ever does.

[bogan]

Wouldn't it gain more credibility to go through my posts step by step and show where I have stated anything wrong? I always challenge people to do so and nobody ever does.

Hi Ed, you forget about me and the battery thread already?

[Laava]

Cannabis oil is supposed to be good with skin cancers too I've read. Nature v's man

Didn't work for Bob Marley