Cheap, 'safe' drug kills most cancers
- Thread starter universaltrader
- Start date
Here is my opinion from a non-mdeical background but just my general idea of the topic.
There is no "cure" for cancer because it is a natural occuring mutation of cells in our body. The cells suffer a random mutation that kills us and in a vacuum it would happen normally in an extremely small % of all cells. We cannot successfully stop certain natural processes that occur in our bodies.
However, even though I believe in a natural clean world there were always be some normal cells that will sporadically mutate, we have created numerous things in society that forces a mutation to occur (smoking, improper diets, chemicals, etc..). We have created harmful substances that force many cells to mutate, either in defense to the external stimulous or that the outside chemcial or element simply causes a fundamental change in the cell structure which causes the cancer to occur.
Therefore, we cannot cure a natural occuring event but we can prevent or treat the things which accelrate the mutation or cause it to happen unintentionally.
For example, recent news is that a form of cervical cancer is linked to a virus. I have no doubt this virus affects the body by causing or forcing the mutation that leads to the cancer and the source of the virus is an environmental effect, but this virus is one external cause that has been isolated and an attempt has been made to kill the virus so that it will not have the chance to cause the cancer to begin. However, women will still get cervical cancer unfortunately caused by other negative stimulus as well as the random rare natural mutations that are possible.
Therefore, I feel that science will never cure cancer, but work to find what external factors force the mutation that would not ordinarily occur naturally and stop or "cure" that factor. For example, asbestos (cure - stop using it), smoking (cure stop smoking lol), virus leading to cervical (vaccine to kill virus), etc..
Further evidence of this is that we treat cancer once it is here byt simply trying to kill the mutated cells (chemo or radiation). In other words if a tree has an infestation of a beetle that kills trees we cut down the tree and all the trees around it to get it out of the forrest and take some surrounding trees to make sure we got them all. This is not a cure really, just a medieval approach. I think newer drugs treat the s side-effects of cancer to make it easier to live with or chemically attack the bad cells to kill them off with less damage than chemo.
This is also why studies say how eating broccoli or salmon help prevent some types of cancer because they have natural ingredients that (in a layman's guess) give cells the elements they need to stay healthy and stave off these harmful processes. The cure is not in nature, it is removing unnatural stimuluses but in our society that will not happen. I would not be surprised if rates of cancer in truly isolated tribes with no external pollutions, chemicals or unnatural foods are not only lower than in industrialized countries, but more in line with statistical studies (if it could be done) of truly natural random cell mutations that lead to cancer.
So all these talks of a cure for cancer are misdirected or limited useless unless they are truly focused on treating the factor that is proven with a higher than not degree of uncertainty (disproving the null hypothesis or some other statistical term I forgot) to casue the mutations.
Sorry for the long story but it seems that a cure could not really exist for what happens naturally in nature but we can work on figthing the unnatural causes we have created that lead to higher than normal occurences of these mutations which lead to cancer. For example, some cancers ar elinked genetically and you cannot cure your genes..... yet. I think atticus mentioned our environment and may have been saying something similar.
There is no "cure" for cancer because it is a natural occuring mutation of cells in our body. The cells suffer a random mutation that kills us and in a vacuum it would happen normally in an extremely small % of all cells. We cannot successfully stop certain natural processes that occur in our bodies.
However, even though I believe in a natural clean world there were always be some normal cells that will sporadically mutate, we have created numerous things in society that forces a mutation to occur (smoking, improper diets, chemicals, etc..). We have created harmful substances that force many cells to mutate, either in defense to the external stimulous or that the outside chemcial or element simply causes a fundamental change in the cell structure which causes the cancer to occur.
Therefore, we cannot cure a natural occuring event but we can prevent or treat the things which accelrate the mutation or cause it to happen unintentionally.
For example, recent news is that a form of cervical cancer is linked to a virus. I have no doubt this virus affects the body by causing or forcing the mutation that leads to the cancer and the source of the virus is an environmental effect, but this virus is one external cause that has been isolated and an attempt has been made to kill the virus so that it will not have the chance to cause the cancer to begin. However, women will still get cervical cancer unfortunately caused by other negative stimulus as well as the random rare natural mutations that are possible.
Therefore, I feel that science will never cure cancer, but work to find what external factors force the mutation that would not ordinarily occur naturally and stop or "cure" that factor. For example, asbestos (cure - stop using it), smoking (cure stop smoking lol), virus leading to cervical (vaccine to kill virus), etc..
Further evidence of this is that we treat cancer once it is here byt simply trying to kill the mutated cells (chemo or radiation). In other words if a tree has an infestation of a beetle that kills trees we cut down the tree and all the trees around it to get it out of the forrest and take some surrounding trees to make sure we got them all. This is not a cure really, just a medieval approach. I think newer drugs treat the s side-effects of cancer to make it easier to live with or chemically attack the bad cells to kill them off with less damage than chemo.
This is also why studies say how eating broccoli or salmon help prevent some types of cancer because they have natural ingredients that (in a layman's guess) give cells the elements they need to stay healthy and stave off these harmful processes. The cure is not in nature, it is removing unnatural stimuluses but in our society that will not happen. I would not be surprised if rates of cancer in truly isolated tribes with no external pollutions, chemicals or unnatural foods are not only lower than in industrialized countries, but more in line with statistical studies (if it could be done) of truly natural random cell mutations that lead to cancer.
So all these talks of a cure for cancer are misdirected or limited useless unless they are truly focused on treating the factor that is proven with a higher than not degree of uncertainty (disproving the null hypothesis or some other statistical term I forgot) to casue the mutations.
Sorry for the long story but it seems that a cure could not really exist for what happens naturally in nature but we can work on figthing the unnatural causes we have created that lead to higher than normal occurences of these mutations which lead to cancer. For example, some cancers ar elinked genetically and you cannot cure your genes..... yet. I think atticus mentioned our environment and may have been saying something similar.
i like the new approach with the same old chemical ! CHEMO ! after w.w.1 dupont needed to find a new use for mustard gas and so chemo was invented . what a cure ! poison the body till everything is dead, even your brain ! and the doctors even found new approaches on how to administer it . what really pisses me off is when i hear the drug companies talk about herbs and how dangerous they can be , but all these drugs wont hurt anybody and only a few side effects or death ! we can all be happy our FDA and gov. will make sure we will be safe. 
bgp
bgp
How do you know how much to use?
wow that doesn't sound right but, I guess he knows what hes talking about. I would still be a little afraid to do it though just because it's bleach!
I trade options part time and have lurked at ET for a long time but I was compelled to post in this thread because my main employment is in drug development mainly in the area of cancer.
This is a great topic to discuss but things need to be kept in perspective. DCA might be a potential candidate for cancer therapy but it must be understood that cancer drugs are extremely difficult to develop. There is no shortage of cytotoxic compounds that are capable of killing cancer cells in fact there are literally thousands that are known and that have been studied extensively (and this would include DCA). The grim statistic is that only 5% of all cancer drug candidates that enter clinical trials will make it to the market. There are many reasons for this that I won't go into here except to say that in the end for conventional chemotherapy it really all comes down to the therapeutic window of a compound - that is the small window between efficacy and toxicity.
The problem with classical chemotherapy is that it displays non-specific toxicity since the drug is very toxic not only to the proliferating cancer cells but also to the normal healthy cells. This is why the patients suffer such devastating side-effects to their immune system etc. State of the art cancer drug development now looks to find the subtle differences between cancer cells and normal cells and then develop drugs to target those differences (Gleevec for an example)
My main message is that unless the information comes from the scientific literature please be very skeptical of it...the ideas being spread here that cancer cells cannot exist if your physiological pH is above a certain level is simply not true and also consuming hydrogen peroxide could be potentially harmful and I can assure you it will not prevent cancer.
Cancer is an extremely complex disease yet major advances are literally made everyday because researchers at biotech and pharma companies around the world are driven by the need to help suffering patients and not because of money as some conspiracy theorists would have you believe.
This is a great topic to discuss but things need to be kept in perspective. DCA might be a potential candidate for cancer therapy but it must be understood that cancer drugs are extremely difficult to develop. There is no shortage of cytotoxic compounds that are capable of killing cancer cells in fact there are literally thousands that are known and that have been studied extensively (and this would include DCA). The grim statistic is that only 5% of all cancer drug candidates that enter clinical trials will make it to the market. There are many reasons for this that I won't go into here except to say that in the end for conventional chemotherapy it really all comes down to the therapeutic window of a compound - that is the small window between efficacy and toxicity.
The problem with classical chemotherapy is that it displays non-specific toxicity since the drug is very toxic not only to the proliferating cancer cells but also to the normal healthy cells. This is why the patients suffer such devastating side-effects to their immune system etc. State of the art cancer drug development now looks to find the subtle differences between cancer cells and normal cells and then develop drugs to target those differences (Gleevec for an example)
My main message is that unless the information comes from the scientific literature please be very skeptical of it...the ideas being spread here that cancer cells cannot exist if your physiological pH is above a certain level is simply not true and also consuming hydrogen peroxide could be potentially harmful and I can assure you it will not prevent cancer.
Cancer is an extremely complex disease yet major advances are literally made everyday because researchers at biotech and pharma companies around the world are driven by the need to help suffering patients and not because of money as some conspiracy theorists would have you believe.
Thanks for all the information. I did think that it was a little crazy to inhale bleach or whatever lol. But I think that what you said makes sense. There are many things out there which may be a treatment to cancer but could also be harmful. But all the advances that we have in this world and they can't find a good cure for cancer?
It is important to recognize that there will never be a "magic bullet" that can cure all cancers. Each and every cancer is different - ranging from localized solid tumors that like to grow and metastatize to leukemias and everything in between. Cancers are also different on a genetic level - this brings an extreme level of complexity and is on the surface an explanation for why one drug will not work for all cancers.
I can understand that progress may seem slow but great strides have been made and there are many more on the horizon.
The best cancer prevention is to lead a healthy lifestyle and have a positive attitude because ultimately that is all that is in your control. Cheers.
I can understand that progress may seem slow but great strides have been made and there are many more on the horizon.
The best cancer prevention is to lead a healthy lifestyle and have a positive attitude because ultimately that is all that is in your control. Cheers.
i find it hard to believe drug companies are doing it for the patient ! i really dont care that you are in the business . conspiracy theory yes . mr. beaker what did hypocrites say about drugs ? i want you to post the Hippocratic oath ! and dont tell me we've come a long way with new drugs. what did the w.s.j. have on the front page a week ago ? that 2000 yrs. ago THE CHINESE found a herb that the soldiers took to fight malaria. mr. beaker its not what we've gained, its what have we lost ! THINK ABOUT IT !
BGP
BGP