|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Harpeau
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Location: Coquitlam, BC
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: Did Gerson find a cure for cancer? |
 |
|
Though Gerson therapy may be a cure for cancer, there is very little money to be made for doctors and Pharmaceudical companies. Maybe that is why they've been trying to gag it over the years. The film "Dying to Have Known" is very interesting. Any thoughts on the matter?
http://www.gerson.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ginormousaurus
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Location: 700 Ft. Pulpit
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
??
Does enema have more than one meaning? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pesawattahi
Joined: 30 Sep 2007
Location: it rubs the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I thought kimchee cured cancer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cancer is many diseases with many causes. Some genetic. Some from a virus. Some from exposure to chemicals. This is why some treatments work well for, say, skin cancer but don't work well for lung cancer.
To anyone that thinks there is no money in a cheap cancer cure, think again. Big tobacco. What would they pay to bundle a cheap cure for lung cancer with every pack of cigarettes they sell? The chemical industry which produces a lot of carcinogens and pays millions to safely handle and store them would fall over themselves if there was a cheap cure. It would save them untold amounts of money. If either of these industries really thought there was something promising in a cheap magic bullet, you can damn well bet they'd invest.
And what scientist doesn't want his name remembered along with Pasteur, Banting and Best, etc. Banting and Best could have easily taken out IP on insulin and made billions but they put the rights in the public domain. Three people can share in a Nobel. I gather the guy your ref isn't alive anymore so he can't. So lots of room for people to go down in scientific history. There's a lot of public grant money in cancer research to explore such treatments if there was any evidence of their efficacy.
So, explanation? Need to widen the conspiracy?
Last edited by mindmetoo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ryouga013
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Cancer is many diseases with many causes. Some genetic. Some from a virus. Some from exposure to chemicals. This is why some treatments work well for, say, skin cancer but don't work well for lung cancer.
To anyone that thinks there is no money in a cheap cancer cure, think again. Big tobacco. What would they pay to bundle a cheap cure for lung cancer with every pack of cigarettes they sell? The chemical industry which produces a lot of carcinogens and pays millions to safely handle and store them would fall over themselves if there was a cheap cure. It would save them untold amounts of money. If either of these industries really thought there was something promising in a cheap magic bullet, you can damn well bet they'd invest.
So, explanation? Need to widen the conspiracy? |
Or the money they would pay to have the cure silenced until they found one that would give them more money in the end (much like the electric car and oil companies) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ryouga013 wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Cancer is many diseases with many causes. Some genetic. Some from a virus. Some from exposure to chemicals. This is why some treatments work well for, say, skin cancer but don't work well for lung cancer.
To anyone that thinks there is no money in a cheap cancer cure, think again. Big tobacco. What would they pay to bundle a cheap cure for lung cancer with every pack of cigarettes they sell? The chemical industry which produces a lot of carcinogens and pays millions to safely handle and store them would fall over themselves if there was a cheap cure. It would save them untold amounts of money. If either of these industries really thought there was something promising in a cheap magic bullet, you can damn well bet they'd invest.
So, explanation? Need to widen the conspiracy? |
Or the money they would pay to have the cure silenced until they found one that would give them more money in the end (much like the electric car and oil companies) |
So there you go. Make the conspiracy bigger. How many billions did tobacco companies have to pay out to states? Do you really think big pharma is matching those funds?
And say what about all those nations with state funded health care systems. Sweden must pay out large amounts of money on cancer treatment. Is it in the grips of big pharma?
So now big pharma, what, controls whole nations?
See. Keep making the conspiracy bigger.
And the thousands of cancer researchers all around the world, each and every one ostensibly ready to take their place in medical history as one of the greats, they're all controlled by the shadowy arm of big pharma?
See. Keep making the conspiracy bigger.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peppermint
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: traversing the minefields of caddishness.
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've never heard of the Gerson therapy thing, but I've been following this with some interest
| Quote: |
Small molecule offers hope for cancer treatment
A small, non-toxic molecule may soon be available as an inexpensive treatment for many forms of cancer, including lung, breast and brain tumours, say University of Alberta researchers.
But there's a catch: the drug isn't patented, and pharmaceutical companies may not be interested in funding further research if the treatment won't make them a profit.
In findings that "astounded" the researchers, the molecule known as DCA was shown to shrink lung, breast and brain tumours in both animal and human tissue experiments.
"You typically get this eureka type of feeling. It's the most exciting thing a scientist can get," Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, a professor at the University of Alberta department of medicine and a key study author, told CTV News.
The study was published Tuesday in the journal Cancer Cell.
The molecule appears to repair the damage that cancer cells cause to mitochondria, the units that convert food into energy.
"Cancer cells actively suppress their mitochondria, which alters their metabolism, and this appears to offer cancer cells a significant advantage in growth compared to normal cells, as well as protection from many standard chemotherapies," Michelakis said in a written statement.
As mitochondria regulate cell death, cancer cells can resist being killed off.
For years, DCA -- or dichloroacetate -- has been used to treat children with inborn errors of metabolism due to mitochondrial diseases.
Until recently, researchers believed damage to mitochondria in cancer cells was permanent.
But Michelakis questioned this theory and began testing DCA, which activates a critical enzyme, as a way to "revive" cancer-affected mitochondria.
He says one of the most exciting things about this compound is that it might be able to treat many different forms of cancer because they all suppress mitochondrial function.
Therefore, DCA can primarily affect the cancer cells without affecting the normal ones.
Researchers also say DCA may prove to be effective because it is a small compound, thus easily absorbed in the body.
After oral intake, it can reach areas in the body that other drugs cannot, making it possible to treat cancer of the brain, for example.
In addition, because DCA has been used in both healthy people and ailing patients with mitochondrial diseases, researchers know it is a relatively non-toxic molecule that can be immediately tested in patients with cancer.
The compound, which is sold both as powder and as a liquid, is widely available at chemistry stores.
But because it's not patented or owned by any drug firm, it would be an inexpensive drug to administer. And researchers may have a difficult time finding money for further research.
|
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070116/cancer_dca_070116/20070116/
The University of Alberta is now doing human trials, but a smallish town in Alberta raised a substantial portion of the funding
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/04/fundraising-dca.html
Last edited by peppermint on Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| peppermint wrote: |
I've heard that DCA looks promising as a treatment:
The University of Alberta is now doing human trials, but a smallish town in Alberta raised a substantial portion of the funding
|
Yes. The cheap cancer "cure" that will never see the light of day is getting funding and getting human trials. If there is good science behind something, good science will rise above the noise.
(Although one should not hold out too much hopes. There are loads of cancer "cures" that worked well in test tube and animal models that fail in humans.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peppermint
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: traversing the minefields of caddishness.
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| After what I've seen in the past few months with chemo, any sort of cancer treatment that isn't that looks good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harpeau
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Location: Coquitlam, BC
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's very interesting. Let's hope that the Pharms don't "take them out". I've got nothing against making a profit, but the love of money is the root of all circumstances.
BTW, the film is very interesting. Any thoughts about it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| peppermint wrote: |
| After what I've seen in the past few months with chemo, any sort of cancer treatment that isn't that looks good. |
I do believe DCA is a form of chemo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peppermint
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: traversing the minefields of caddishness.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Even with the advances of the past few years, chemo is so bad, that a lot of cancer patients wonder if its worse than the disease.
The first type of chemo my mom was on had her so nauseous that she dropped 20 lbs within a month, and in the hospital 3 times in that time frame because she was so vulnerable to infection. She tried a different type last week, no nausea, but she's losing her fingernails (very painful), her immune system is expected to drop extremely low next week, and the docs are very concerned that it might cause her kidneys to fail.
DCA is a type of chemo yes, but one that sounds far milder than most of the current forms available |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corky
Joined: 06 Jan 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Best wishes and luck to your Mom and your family, Peppermint. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
riverboy
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| After what I've seen in the past few months with chemo, any sort of cancer treatment that isn't that looks good. |
Peppermint, you are 100% correct. I lost my mother to Cancer and the effects of chemos, were terrible. I still struggle with the logic used that you have to poison someone to make them better. And to this date, chemotherapy is still not effective.
I read an article saying that The New England Journal of Medicine said that homeopathic treatments were as effective as Chemotherapy. Perhaps a google search will find results.
I don't really know what the answer is, but i believe that the natural conservative nature of Western medicine is at fault in better treatments not being produced. Just look at how long Chiropractic and Accupuncture ahve been shunned by the western medicine.
Perhaps there is a conspiracy by drug companies, but it's not likely. I think it is just mass ignorance(conservativism) in the scientific community to look into, or develop better treatment.
My thoughts and prayers to you and your family Peppermint. All the best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| riverboy wrote: |
Peppermint, you are 100% correct. I lost my mother to Cancer and the effects of chemos, were terrible. I still struggle with the logic used that you have to poison someone to make them better. And to this date, chemotherapy is still not effective. |
Chemo keeps the cancer cells from dividing. Of course it keeps a lot of other cells from dividing too. The idea is if you can slow the cancer you can give other treatments and the body's own immune system time to work. Some cancers have no treatments after a certain stage and chemo offers the only hope, albeit a slim one. One needs to make a choice. 6 months really sick or 3 months on pain meds.
| Quote: |
| I read an article saying that The New England Journal of Medicine said that homeopathic treatments were as effective as Chemotherapy. Perhaps a google search will find results. |
You won't find that article. Homeopathy is just water. It provides nothing beyond what tap water provides.
| Quote: |
| Just look at how long Chiropractic and Accupuncture ahve been shunned by the western medicine. |
They are shunned because they are not effective for the diseases practitioners claim they are effective for nor do they have any demonstrable basis for their action. If there's a life energy then one should be able to show you can detect such energy. For example, a doctor might ask "what is pain". Well it's an energy in the nerves. Now medical science just doesn't go "well, sounds good" and walks away from the table happy they have a just so story. No, they demonstrate the mechanism, the biological systems, and the chemistry. Some ideas they previously had are shown wrong by research. From this emerges new treatments.
But bone crackers and pin cushion types don't do this.
Chiro is fine with lower back pain but studies show simple massage is as effective. Acupuncture is placebo. It's been shown there's simply do difference between "real" and "sham" acupuncture. The only effect is the white coat effect.
| Quote: |
| Perhaps there is a conspiracy by drug companies, but it's not likely. I think it is just mass ignorance(conservativism) in the scientific community to look into, or develop better treatment. |
The medical community is not ignorant. You'll notice they have that noble prize for medicine that many many work hard to win. Science is evidence based. It looks for treatments with actual evidence they are safe and effective. You don't need to make it much more complicated than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
