Cheap, 'safe' drug kills most cancers

[atticus]

Quote from hels02:

How can something that kills cancer cells be 'carcinogenic'? Can you explain that better?

This is remarkable... I can't see why they won't just give it to people who are terminal... there are a lot of dying hospices I thought? If it didn't work, how could it hurt?

Thanks for posting that... if true, does that mean that all these drugs coming down the pipe for cancer (DNDN, CEGE, few others come to mind) are coming out with worthless concoctions with no chance at profit because the problem has already been cheaply solved?

It works on selective cell-lines. Some tumors are less dependent on glycolysis and hence will not be helped by inhibiting the Warburg effect. The carcinogenicity is linear dose dependent.

Dendreon's molecule is a band-aid. It will likely be approved because it's an immunotherapeutic and well tolerated. It's not the answer by a long shot.

 

[atticus]

Quote from hels02:

Where did you read that shit btw?

Late night cable TV con artists.

 

[universaltrader]

I hope once the testing is done they really get a going with this whole movement. You know that if this can really cure cancer that a patent won't be able to stop them. I mean are you serious? THIS COULD BE THE CURE FOR CANCER.

 

[horseman]

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

Where's the hundreds of billions of profits in that?

We believe in spending hundreds of billions of dollars to cure disease in this country, rather than a few measly million to prevent them.

Big pharma developed pills that they sell for around 35 billion per year (cumulatively) to drop cholesterol levels a few points (and that cause adverse side effects), when dietary changes and exercise would do far more at no cost (and have positive side effects).

And the government is the biggest purchaser of these drugs with your and my tax dollars.

Damnit.

There are more people making a living from cancer than there are dying from it. As a previous poster said "follow the money"

 

[ByLoSellHi]

Quote from horseman:

There are more people making a living from cancer than there are dying from it. As a previous poster said "follow the money"

Yes, but the money is in 'treating it,' and not curing it.

Put people on medications for life: Profit maximization.

Cure it with a cheap vaccine: Antithesis of profit maximization.

Paint me cynical.

 

[universaltrader]

Yes, but if that's the way people are going to view things then eventually we will all die out because people are so greedy. This is ridiculous.

 

[Kwiatkowski]

It seems remarkable that such a simple molecule hasn't been studied until now. Come on folks, this puppy has got 2 carbon atoms, 2 chlorines, 2 oxygens, and 1 hydrogen. Thats it! It's the acid in vinegar with two hydrogens replaced by 2 chlorines. Why wasn't this particular chemical studied 150 years ago? I guess I am skeptical.

 

[universaltrader]

I am wondering the same question.

 

[maxpi]

Be careful with that DCA folks, in my searches I discovered that it lowers cholesterol and triglycerides!!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8321813&dopt=Abstract

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/10/526

 

[traderdragon2]

Greed solves that problem. Someone with a real cure will undercut all the people with "treatments" that dont cure it.

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

Yes, but the money is in 'treating it,' and not curing it.

Put people on medications for life: Profit maximization.

Cure it with a cheap vaccine: Antithesis of profit maximization.

Paint me cynical.