Promising cancer treatments always seem to disappear

[Cetacea]

This latest one using DNA will as well. I can't say exactly how many times I've read about exciting new "cures" only to find myself wondering a year or two later whatever became of them.
Two that come to mind are standouts. The Mayo clinic Vitamin C trial that vindicated Linus Pauling's claims with something like a ninety percent tumor eradication percentage using IV ascorbic acid and another was the anti-inflammatory drug, Celebrex, shown to wipe out lung cancer tumors.

If you do a google search on Celebrex you'll find nothing about lung cancer, only articles written about the dangers of the similar drug Vioxx...

[Joanne98]

1. They don't want a cure.

[Swede]

5. That's cause they don't have families and are immortal.

:shrug:

[LaydeeBug]

36. that's because they make more money on chemo. Trust they have the cure for themselves. nt

[petronius]

100. You think that pharma companies have a super-secret cancer cure reserved for executives?

:shrug:

[HowHasItComeToThis]

62. CORPORATIONS WILL KILL US. THEY ARE A CANCER

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Cetacea]

63. There are some here who want to believe scientists control

corporations rather the other way around. The expression "follow the money" was apparently coined from nutty tin-foil heads.

[stray cat]

38. People are ignorant of science and believe anything they read

and just because it works under ideal circumstances in mice treatments generally doesn't mean it will create immortality in humans

Its amazing how many people think a cure for cancer is available as if cancer is a single entity that one magic drug will cure. Cancer cells unlike bacteria - are your own cells and its hard to find really great drugs that won't kill the rest of you along with the cancer cells.

[Cetacea]

64. Celebrex was tried on humans. It's not a "cure". It's a treatment.

You are correct that there is no magic bullet all-encompassing cancer cure. But if I had lung cancer you can bet I would try taking a Cox 2-IF I knew about it's history.

[Fire1]

104. I thought I was the only one who believed that! Great minds think

alike.:hi:

[truedelphi]

2. I had never known that About Celebrex. good to know.

I just found a pamplet in the garage about the wonders of DMSO. We found a local supplier and bought some.

It is an amazing thing. You put it on whatever parts of your body that have arthritic aches and pains, and POOF, the pain is gone.

It cannot be sold for that purpose, it can only be sold for machine lubrication.

In several South American Countries, they inject DMSO intra-muscularly, to help chronic bipolar and schizoid complex patients rid themselves of their symptoms.

But no one here can do that legally.

[Cetacea]

65. DMSO is traditionally used on race horses as an anti-inflammatory.

It's an incredible substance. The reason it's a bit dangerous is that it absorbs right through your skin, and it does so instantly. All sorts of good (and bad) possibilities with that one!

[vanboggie]

85. I can buy it to put on my horse

Any equine supply store online carries it. EPF-5 works great for aches, pains and bug bites, too :)

[ohheckyeah]

89. I buy it at the Health Food Store.

They have both liquid and gel DMSO.

[GaYellowDawg]

111. That's because...

there are Ames testing data that demonstrate fairly convincingly that DMSO is itself a mutagen.

[Lucian]

3. Drug companies don't make money off cures.

They only make money prolonging people's suffering.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. Demonstrably false.

This is the same logic as the supposed car that runs on water.

The dollar value of a reliable broad-spectrum proprietary cancer cure would be almost infinite.

The dollar value of the patent on an engine that runs on water would be almost infinite.

[Cetacea]

17. But if there is an inexpensive treatment no one is going to shout about it.

Tryptophan and SSRI's come to mind. And it's very interesting that one bad batch caused an outright ban until well after Prozac and other drugs were firmly entrenched...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

59. Yes, money shapes decisions and often in bad ways

If it were found that common kitchen ingredients cured all cancers that would pose a $$$ problem for Pharma companies.

And they peddle a lot of expensive junk that doesn't help people much.

But to take it to the extreme that some do, that a conspiracy blocks development of effective treatments, is economically senseless.

And since they use the government to do the most basic research on cancer they wouldn't be able to hush up a real breakthrough.

Cancer is really, really difficult. There is no evolutionary reason for people to live as long as they do, let alone longer, so it isn't surprising that diseases of old age (which cancer is, for the most part) are not easily curable.

Most of our "cures" are simply helping the body cure itself and we do not seem to be (evolutionarily) designed with good cancer-fighting capabilities because they would have had a relatively small effect on survival of offspring..

[Cetacea]

82. Good points.

I now in the case of the latest NIH trials with IV Ascorbate there were complaints about lack of funding. It appears now that at the very least it may be used along side chemo and further studies are pending.

[Juche]

125. There is a conspiracy to block low cost cancer treatments

Depends on how you define conspiracy. It takes about a billion dollars to do all the clinical trials to bring a drug to market. And pharma usually picks up the tab. Some substances that are low cost are effective for cancer, however if they ever came to market pharma's $100,000 a cycle chemotherapy agents would have to compete with agents that cost $50 a cycle. So no way in hell Pharma is funding them.

So nobody can get the funding to do the trials. Private investment and public investment helps, but its not enough. Yet another danger of living in a plutocracy. Its not so much that pharma blocks new agents, just that they control all the major purse strings and hold tons of sway with 'medical professionals' so they can influence their decision making and can starve out cheaper, more efficient alternatives. How many doctors recommend magnesium citrate and vitamin D for depression? Those work well, but they don't make money for pharma.


Substances that inhibit glycolysis like dichloroacetic acid (DCA) and 3-bromopyruvate are dirt cheap, and because (I think all forms of) cancer uses glycolysis for energy, these drugs help kill cancer cells while leaving healthy cells alive. And DCA is already used to treat lactic acidosis, so it isn't a foreign substance that we don't understand. It is already used in medicine.

However DCA and 3-bromopyruvate cannot be patented. So anyone can make them. And a months supply likely only runs $20, vs the 10s of thousands you'd spend on pharma chemotherapy agents.



http://www.thedcasite.com/

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press/2002/July/020715.htm

http://toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Dichloroacetic+Acid#DichloroaceticAcid-UseAgainstCancer

The solution is to have more public funding of medical research, and to lower the costs of bringing a drug to market.

I believe pharma is working on drugs that also inhibit glycolysis, but those drugs will be patent protected. DCA has been used for years as a treatment for lactic acidosis, so we know it is safe for human consumption. But nobody can make money on it. So it has basically been buried as a cancer treatment.

When Pharma does bring glycolysis inhibitors to market, they will cost 100x+ more than DCA, and possibly have worse side effects (due to being on the market for less time).




Either way, again, all a problem of Reaganomics and letting a handful of powerful individuals and corporations control too many levers of power.

[Juche]

126. No, its true

Take an HIV vaccine. If you sell an HIV vaccine for $100, that is the only money you ever get. But if you get someone on HAART, they will take those drugs the rest of their lives. Some HAART drug cycles cost $10,000 or more a year.

There is a financial incentive to manage chronic diseases rather than cure them. That doesn't mean nobody can ever cure them, just that some very powerful interests have more to gain by keeping people sick but managed rather than cured.

Most HIV vaccine research is done by the public sector. The reason is there is no profit motive, so the private sector isn't interested.


The same reason is supposedly why our antibiotics are failing. Antibiotics are only taken for a short period of time (a few days or weeks). So pharma can't sell many of them. So they invested in drugs that have to be taken everyday for the rest of your life instead (statins, blood pressure meds, cox-2 inhibitors, diabetes drugs, etc). And drugs that were only needed for a few days once every few years were ignored. Now antibiotic resistance is growing because we haven't been keeping up with antibiotic R&D. There is no private financial incentive. The financial incentive is to find diseases people start suffering from in their 40s and sell them drugs they have to take everyday for the next 40 years. Like it or not, that is where the incentives lie.

The incentives of the health care industry are to keep people sick, but managed. There is far more money in that. You can pretty much cure type II diabetes with obesity surgery (which costs $15,000). But if you do that, then you end up dramatically cutting the amount of medical care that person needs for the rest of their lives.

If you give too much power and influence to companies and individuals that have a financial incentive to keep people sick but managed (vs healthy and cured), you are going to see some effects of that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. That doesn't even pass the common sense test.

A cure for cancer would be a gold mine.

[Cetacea]

21. Just like antidepressants. After a chemical alternative to banned Tryptophan

was created. Now of course you can buy tryptophan.

[Lucian]

26. It makes perfect sense to me.

Making cures for diseases would end drug companies. They wouldn't be making money anymore.

We've had the science to make cures for years. There's a reason why they're not out on the market, and I believe it's because no one would be making any money from them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Lucian, the 9-11 truther movement makes sense to you.

Chemotherapy drugs cure cancer, and who makes those? Drug companies.

[Lucian]

43. Well, yeah.

The 9-11 truther movement does make sense. Just like the JFK assassination, etc.

And chemo doesn't always cure cancer. I had an aunt and a friend die from cancer on chemo therapy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Right, the chemotherapy either cures the cancer, or the patient dies.

And drug companies don't get money from dead patients; just one more reason this conspiracy theory is as ridiculous as the truther movement.

[Lucian]

47. We could argue this for hours...

but I don't want to. It won't change your opinion or mine.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. Lucian, you already lost the argument,.

It's not a matter of opinion.

[Lucian]

53. I didn't lose anything.

[Cetacea]

55. LOL

[LeftishBrit]

90. Yes, they would be making money

Who uses the most drugs, and provides Pharma with the greatest profits? Yes- the elderly. And curing diseases in younger people results in more elderly people.

If (like me) you don't die of pneumonia at the age of 7 thanks to antibiotics, or (like a friend of mine) you don't die of Hodgkins disease in your early 20s thanks to chemo, then you have a greater chance of one day becoming one of those elderly consumers of painkillers, blood pressure drugs, etc.

Just on the basis of self interest, the Pharma companies would benefit from having us all live to be 100. (That is, those of us who can afford medications, or who live in countries where the government is prepared to pay for them. Most Pharma companies are less interested in making medicines affordable to poor people, especially those in developing countries!)

[laughingliberal]

56. That really would depend on whether the cure comes from a substance

which could be patented. Kind of like the finding by the scientists in Madrid that showed marijuana shrinking brain tumors in 2000. How would they find a way to patent it and keep people from finding their own cheaper sources if it proved to be a cure?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. Well, first they'd have to prove that it cured cancer.

It'd have to go through all the proper testing. And they'd have to get a novel use patent.

There, that's how they'd do it.

[wildbilln864]

73. once you cure someone's cancer...

their money ends. But if you treat them for cancer then you collect for the rest of their lives or until the cancer goes away! What about that don't you understand?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

86. I understand the argument. It's just a ridiculously stupid argument.

[wildbilln864]

97. yet you can't explain why! nt

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

99. No, I already have.

1. Anybody who had a cure from cancer would make a fortune from selling the cure.

2. Chemotherapy can already cure some forms of cancer. Cancer is a terminal illness, not a long term chronic illness. There are no drug companies making large profits by selling drugs that "keep cancer at bay" or anything like that over a long term. This is not like treating ADHD with ritalin.

3. The drug industry is a competitive business. If one company can cure cancer better than another, it will drive its competitor out of business.

Really, the idea that the drug industry suppresses a cure for cancer is a particularly stupid conspiracy theory that doesn't hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny by common sense.

Give it up.

[wildbilln864]

101. Ricky Simpson says he has a cure....

and these researchers say he's basically correct.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. Rick Simpson's a fraud.

[wildbilln864]

107. and we know this because you say...

or you have evidence?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

110. Evidence?

There is still cancer.

[wildbilln864]

112. that does not make Simpson a fraud! nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

113. Yeah, it pretty much does.

Just like every other snake oil salesman.

[wildbilln864]

117. no it pretty much does not!

your opinion doesn't count except with you.

[CreekDog]

30. Remind me not to ask you for any information on anything scientific

Your willingness to mislead me means that I shouldn't even bother.

[Cetacea]

42. You think posster is out to mislead you intentionally?

It sounds like paranoia. I'm sure this is what the poster believes. No need to insult.

[CreekDog]

54. I'm sure their intentions are good

but their statements are so biased how could i rely on them?

[Lucian]

45. I just think it's a conspiracy.

I'm not out to prove anything scientifically. I'm not a scientist.

I just believe drug companies are only out there for profit. Not for the benefit of others.

[Andy823]

4. I wonder the same things.

Whether it's breakthroughs in medicine, new sources of energy, etc., you hear about how great it will be, then it simply disappears and you never hear about it again. Kind of like if they come up with a "cure" how will they keep making billions on other drugs, and if they come up with something like a cheap source of renewable energy, what will the do to make millions by raising the price of oil! Sometimes I think those with the big bucks buy out inventions, patents and ideas so they "DON"T" get on the markets so they can keep on making billions by selling other products they own, or have money invested in.

I think we would be amazed if we really knew just how much we are being played by those with all the money!

[Cetacea]

57. Thank you.

[DavidDvorkin]

6. Usually it's because the initial promise didn't pan out

That's very common with drugs and treatments of all kinds. Peer review and attempts to duplicate results tend to kill a lot of exciting apparent new discoveries.

There's no need to assume conspiracies and cabals.

[Cetacea]

9. The two cases I referred to did pan out.

Although in the case of the Vitamin C cure the NIH researchers did complain about lack of funding. (and we have to wonder why this is?)

The Celebrex case simply disappeared with no mention of follow up results. There is absolutely nothing to be found on such an incredible finding.

[Cetacea]

11. Correction: Celebrex is goo-gable now.

And the findings applied to all Cox 2 inhibitors. However, shortly after the discovery we had the Vioxx debacle whereas Vioxx was allegedly found to cause strokes and heart attacks. This is about all the general public knows about Cox 2 inhibitors.

[KittyWampus]

7. Google Lodamine- nothing since 2008. It was tweaked to avoid side-effects and to allow oral dosing.

[Warpy]

8. My first lesson came with something called thymosin

In vitro, it showed great promise in mitigating the terrible problems associated with autoimmune diseases. I haunted the Harvard Med School library for months, reading journals and keeping up with it.

It fizzed as fast as I've ever seen anything fizzle when they got to in vivo studies. It wasn't dangerous, it just did nothing in living creatures with autoimmune diseases.

They're exploring its use in other things, like diabetes and heart attacks, and it looks more promising there, but my word, what a disappointment it was to see the whole thing fizzle out in the 80s.

The problem is that a lot of things look really promising in tissue cultures in glass dishes. Still other things work in animal models but don't work in people. Still others have side effects that don't show up until the first large scale clinical trials are held. Most discoveries don't pan out as useful drugs.

That's just a fact of research.

[Cetacea]

13. Animal trials notwithstanding, funding is a major problem

The vitamin C/NIH researchers complained about this just after their discovery. Still, with all of the money generated bu ACS and our government, what exactly is the problem?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Animal trials versus human trials (and $$$)

You have to hype animal results to get funding for development and human trials.

Then you have to hype the results of small human trials to get funding for big human trials.

And with big human trials you get the most accurate assessment, which is usually not good.

[Cetacea]

14. Both cases I referenced were tried on humans.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. No, they weren't.

The recent reopening of vitamin C research has been limited to animals and cultured cells.

[Cetacea]

22. Which "recent" are you referring to?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Mostly Mark Levine's work.

The same ascorbic acid as pro-oxidant that you were referring too below.

[Cetacea]

28. Phase one trial back in 2009:

http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2008/07/25/annonc.mdn377.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=ascorbate&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. Well then there you go.

It's in phase I. It hasn't disappeared.

[Cetacea]

50. Yup.

Finally. That's good news.

[wolfgangmo]

15. Ironically we know how to prevent cancer.

We just can't cure it.

This says alot about human nature in that we cannot seem to avoid carcinogens and lifestyle choices that seems to trigger cancers.

[laughingliberal]

58. Considering genetics is a risk for many forms of cancer, I don't think we're anywhere near being

able to prevent cancer. We are far from knowing what all the carcinogens in our world are.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. That's because cancer treatments are never as promising as their promoters claim.

Caveat emptor.

[Cetacea]

19. The ascorbic acid treatment is highly promising. Not profitable though.

Given IV, it creates hydrogen peroxide in the cells, which in turn destroy cancer cells. The NIH complained four years ago about lack of funding/interest.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Sure it is, if you can find a new use for vitamin c, you can patent that use of it.

Even if it weren't patentable, generic drugs are a huge business, and any company marketing it will drive out of business its competitors in the chemotherapy business.

At least if it worked.

[Cetacea]

31. Interesting.

I didn't know that.

[Archae]

24. There is no "conspiracy."

These so-called "treatments" failed scientific tests. Period.

"But I felt better after I took MultiMegaVitamin..."

Look up the placebo effect.

The latest quack con job is stem cells.
"60 Minutes" exposed a sociopathic liar selling this nonsense, last Sunday.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/16/60minutes/main6402854.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[CreekDog]

25. This OP and much of the thread is nearly useless and misleading

1) Talking about cancer as if it were one disease when it's not

2) Treating a breakthrough as though it will be in pill form or other usable form a year later and anything else is a trick or failure

3) Treating one's own uninformed observations about lack of effective treatments from breakthroughs as proof that there are none --there are a lot...how long did Patrick Swayze live after his diagnosis and how long did most patients with his type of cancer live just years before?


So while it feels good to just jump to conclusions that nothing works, we are all being tricked, etc. Doing so without facts means you are tricking everybody else with your statements...except you really are...unlike the scientists you are chiding.

[Cetacea]

33. So you feel that we are putting enough money into promising treatments.

Because that is my main complaint.

[CreekDog]

40. From your OP, I couldn't find that complaint

and yes, i'd like them to move forward on promising treatments in all areas.

[Cetacea]

48. There is an evolution in the thread.

Though I am still not satisfied why these cases in particular are not being VIGOROUSLY pursued. I am inclined to believe that it is lack of funding more than any other reason.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. It another thread, you're just positing a straight forward tinfoil conspiracy.

It's not so much "evolution" as it is moving the goal posts.

[Cetacea]

60. No I didn't.

I am simply observing how promising treatments seem to disappear. In this OP I gave two cases.

It so happens that the Celebrex findings have gotten indexed into search engines. After many years of stony silence.But I doubt very many people know this about Celebrex. But a lot of people know that Cox 2s can give them a stroke....

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

71. Vitamin C has done poorly in more controlled tests

It may be a worthy treatment requiring more work but it wasn't dropped for no reason. There were a couple of Mayo follow-up studies using more rigorous standards of patient selection that both showed no effect.

Pauling complained that the subsequent tests were not optimal and there's a controversy. And if there was more money in vitamin C there would probably be more testing.

But it wasn't just dropped for no reason. The highest quality studies we have so far show no effect.

The celebrex thing is promising and will, I am sure, be the subject of more work. These things are terribly slow and subject to a lot of hang-ups, as you know.

[Cetacea]

76. No. Read this.

The article I reference down-thread was written in 2008 treating it as a new discovery.

And the National Institute of Health on Ascorbic acid is extremely promising:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16157892?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

79. I my experiences researching cancer stuff for dying loved ones...

...most promising new treatments shrink tumors (an easy to measure thing) but do not decrease mortality.

Shrinking tumors does not, in and of itself, make people live longer.

Ironically, vitamin C killed some patients in trials by breaking up their tumors... which then killed the patient.

It's a very tricky disease.

When my father was dying I used to look for experimental trials for him and such and found time after time after time compounds that shrunk tumours without prolonging life.

I hope I do not appear to be mocking your OP in the thread. I have been trying to offer sympathetic and semi-informed opinion about the questions you raised.

[Cetacea]

81. Thank you.

I did not get the impression that you were mocking me, but thanks .

Sorry about your father. I went through a similar experience.

Quick question: I had a doctor once tell me that he knows of cases where long term smokers quit smoking and then promptly developed cancer. Do you think it's possible in these cases that it is what you explained above? The body begins healing and any tumors already forming become dislodged and then move around?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

84. That's possible, but people don't quit smoking at random

A person might quit because his lungs are starting to feel terrible, if you see what I mean. Or general health failing... immune function declining.

Also, I wouldn't be shocked if nicotine (or even carbon monoxide) actually retards the tumor formation that the tars spur. The reason I say that is that tobacco is the only substance you can set on fire and deeply inhale the smoke fifty times a day for forty years without dying. (Figure heavy smokers start average age 15, 40 years takes them only to 55.)

The mystery of tobacco isn't why it is so dangerous, but why it is so harmless. Smoking toilet paper or oak leaves like that would kill you in a week. (Like an effective virus, tobacco is mild enough to allow you to get killed by it. If it was like smoking newspaper nobody would have ever started.)

So if they found that tobacco smoke simultaneously causes lung cancer and slows its development it wouldn't shock me. (Lungs would probably be a special case, unlike tobacco-caused colorectal, breast, etc.)

[Cetacea]

92. Is it possible that nicotine, or tobacco itself are anti-oxidants?

I'm not sure if whether or not that has been established.

[cliffordu]

29. Yep - they want EVERYONE to die of cancer.

Makes perfect sense.

How big is the conspiracy to engender this??

[Cetacea]

39. Did you know about the two treatments in my op?

You don't think corporations ever sabotage one another? Or people in general?

[cliffordu]

87. Ten thousand people in on the coverup.

maybe twenty thousand.

:eyes:

[Cetacea]

93. lol.

.:+

[tavalon]

83. Big Pharma doesn't really care if you live or die and in fact, probably

prefer that you live long enough to spend lots of money on their drugs. A cancer drug that destroys tumors in 10 days may make a mint for the patent holder but Big Pharma isn't going to see it as very profitable.

[cliffordu]

88. Please, tavalon -

You and I have met and talked and I know you to be smart, level headed and your own thinking person.....I cannot believe that you believe that a conspiracy so vast could exist....SOMEONE would be at wikileaks immediately.

Not even the most powerful governments in the world can keep secrets.

There would be TRILLIONS to be made for a cancer CURE.

[tavalon]

94. I was not speaking of a vast conspiracy, I was saying that

big pharma and big medicine do keep certain things away because they aren't marketable enough or conversely, they are too easy to make at home. Neither big pharma nor big medicine have your health in the equation. We nurses and doctors do or at least most of us do but we aren't the corporations of which I speak.

Remember GHB? I mean before it became branded the date rape drug to end all date rape drugs? It may have looked like a government crackdown but the makers of Ambien and Lunesta were the ones behind the marketing blitz that created a monster out of thin air. And then quietly, when the hubbub died down, a small company got the right to create but not heavily market a drug called Xyrem. I guess Orphan Pharmaceuticals makes a little off of Xyrem, otherwise known as GHB but they could make twice what the companies make off of Ambien and Lunesta because GHB, er, Xyrem is the perfect sleep aid, it doesn't impact REM sleep and despite the lies about it causing deaths, it is almost impossible to OD on, there isn't a hangover the next day and so on. Problem is, the government at the behest of big pharma made GHB into such a demon, they couldn't really back down so it's a highly scheduled non addictive medication and few people get to have its benefit.

Now, that isn't a cancer drug but it isn't an isolated incident either. It's just the easiest for me to recite because I watched the whole thing come down from start to finish. It was quite the education.

Do you think our government really gives a damn about marijuana? But they did the corporations bidding and got themselves painted into a corner. It's beginning to look like they may find a way to step away from their mess but I guarantee you, big pharma is as pissed about it as paper manufacturers were when they first got rid of that pesky little plant.

[cliffordu]

95. OK...

:hi:

Howdy to the family, too.

[LiberalAndProud]

32. Cancer survival rates continue to rise.

... As do the costs of treatment. So I would argue that cures don't disappear.

My father in law was just treated for prostate cancer. He has been declared cancer free. Brand new treatment. Great results. Imagine that.

[Cetacea]

37. That's good to hear.

I am just making an observation of the coverage and the seemingly lack of follow-up studies, most of which I attribute to lack of funding and public awareness.

[LiberalAndProud]

44. Lack of funding.

4.8 billion per year from Congress. How much more should it be?

[Cetacea]

52. Five. Pull another five from defense.

[LiberalAndProud]

74. I look forward to the day we can argue over where the military budget cuts

should be allocated. That will be a good day.

[Cetacea]

77. We can only dream about it.

I don't see it happening any time soon barring an earth changing event.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

34. I treat my cancer using leeches.

Think you'll find anything about that on the Googles? Ha!

[MineralMan]

66. Uh, if we can't find the Celebrex "miracle" on Google,

suppose you provide a link to the studies that show it's effective against lung cancer.

Or, are we just supposed to take your word for it? I'm sorta unwilling to do that, you see.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

67. googling "celebrex lung cancer" brings up a lot of stuff

It's a bad candidate for a suppressed therapy, though. It is just being investigated for the first time.

[Cetacea]

68. It goes back to 2002.

The Vioxx debacle cause a halt in studies.

[Cetacea]

72. And here is what I am referring to:

This article from 2008 treats it as a new discovery ion it's headline, yet I knew about this in 2002. Why did the writer think this was news?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515215852.htm

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

75. Fair enough. I thought it new for that reason.

[Cetacea]

78. Thank you.

[northernlights]

91. it was the first of a particular type of trial

at least, that's my reading.

"The study is the first large randomized trial of Celebrex in lung cancer prevention...."

Researchers don't generally start out with huge, expensive trials based on a hunch or hypothesis. Smaller, less expensive studies with promising results, lead to bigger, more expensive studies, possibly modified based on earlier findings.

Cancer is a very complex disease.

[Cetacea]

70. Hi

You'd be correct to not trust me as my cognitive abilities seem to be in decline.

[Odin2005]

69. It's because most "promising cures" are shown not to work in the end.

That's why we regulate the stuff, so the stuff that doesn't work doesn't get sold as a miracle cure.

[Contrary1]

105. And sometimes the drug does work, but presents other problems.

As someone who has participated in a clinical trial for a promising cancer treatment, I may have a better understanding than some.

The drug I took was shown to be effective in slowing, and in some cases, even stopping the growth of cancer. The problem was getting a tolerable dosage level.

I was in a very small study group, about 65 women. By the end of 3 months, one-third had dropped out because of side effects. By the 6th month, I was experiencing so much joint pain, that I could barely walk. I did not want to leave the study, so I opted for a lesser dose. Initially, that helped, but after about 3 months on the lower dose, I was back to the same level of discomfort.

I finished the year. There were only about 15 of us still participating at that time. In the end, I told the doctor that if I had to endure that type of pain to stay alive, I would seriously think about whether I would want to.

[wildbilln864]

80. here's some studies...

link to cancer studies.
:hi:

[OneBlueSky]

96. ain't no money in curing cancer . . .

but there's a whole lot of money in treating cancer . . . and since the corporation's be-all and end-all is making money, guess where the cancer cures end up . . . yup, dead and buried . . .

[wildbilln864]

98. precisely! nt

[and-justice-for-all]

103. And why do they always vanish?

because of organizations(i.e. American Cancer Society) that make money of the suffering of others and the corporations that do not want to see cures for diseases, because curse are not profitable.

If there was no one suffering from cancer, then there would be no need for a cancer ward at the hospital or any need for a hospice.

CURES ARE NOT PROFITABLE.

The very same thing applies to AIDS.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

106. What, do you suppose, causes AIDS?

Just curious.

[wildbilln864]

108. stay on topic!

cancer is not aids. :banghead:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

109. The topic is loony conspiracy theories.

The claim that pharma companies are suppressing cancer cures is a loony conspiracy on par with the claim that HIV does not cause AIDS.

[wildbilln864]

114. the topic is...

"...that pharma companies are suppressing cancer cures..."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

115. Yes, and that's been debunked many times.

It's just a loony conspiracy theory.

[and-justice-for-all]

116. REALLY!!!!???

Ok, lets just see how long it takes for this story to end up dead paned...

The other obvious fact is the lack of media support when ever such things come up....remember that AIDS break through last year, probably not because it was buried that fast.... where or where did it go.

This is not conspiracy, do you honestly believe that big pharma and the like want to see cures for cancer and AIDS? It is rather obvious that they do not. Because cures do not make money.

[wildbilln864]

118. denial is not debunking!

It's been denied many times. The loony conspiracy theory is that it has been debunked which it has not!

[Mike 03]

119. Vitamin C didn't save my ex GF or my friend's GF, or my father

This is such dangerous bullshit. What saved my father was a stem cell transplant, which gave him two years of life that he didn't have.

[wildbilln864]

120. some studies....

Link to cancer studies.

[gravity]

121. There is no magic bullet for cancer

There are hundreds of different types of cancers, each requiring its own specific treatment plan. The breakthroughs that do occur will only help a fraction of the cancer cases, and the results vary by individual.

I am a cancer survivor, and had to undergo many different chemo drugs, radiation therapy, and a bone marrow transplant. It took all that to get it to cure and I still had a high risks of dying.

Most of these breakthrough's are just going to be another weapon in the arsenal used in the fight for cancer.

The chemotherapy drugs I have taken were around for decades and that patents have been expired long ago, so it isn't some conspiracy. A lot increases in survivor rates were just from doctors learning how to use their old treatments in better ways. There is nothing miraculous about it.

BTW, a lot of studies also are done with cancer cells in test tubes which can be promising on paper. Getting the same type of treatment concentrated on the tumor in the human body is a lot more difficult.

[wildbilln864]

122. did you try the concentrated oil...

from cannabis?

[gravity]

123. I had Marinol

synthetic THC as an appetite stimulant

[wildbilln864]

124. cool...

So you didn't try the cannabis oil. I'm not real familiar with that yet. Does it make you high like THC does also.