Nathan ...
You should foward the link to Glenn Beck.
He could use this topic instead of the Elvis-sightings show he has scheduled.
Rub a Dub
Is the US government intentionally supressing a cancer cure?
by Nathan Natas 52 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
botchtowersociety
he has a good idea, yes, but i am very far from convinced it work. 20 odd people in a non-double blind study with questionable protecols is NOT convincing.
The results may not even be statistically valid. I wonder if he worked with the FDA when he designed the trial protocols. I think he is highly suspect.
Another peculiar aspect of the Burzynski trials is that people have to pay to be experimental subjects and the amounts of money are not insignificant.
This is nuts, I have not ever heard of a trial being conducted in this way before. It might not even be legal.
-
bohm
BTS, check out the bolded section of the article i quoted previously...
-
botchtowersociety
BTS, check out the bolded section of the article i quoted previously...
Sounds fishy, although "stable disease" and "partial response" could be counted as a "success" in an aggressive resistant late stage malignancy.
What gets me is this: With all the real, legitimate, exciting research taking place, why is it that likely quacks get all the headlines?
-
Nathan Natas
Bohm said, "Someone wrote to me recently and, as part of convincing me that I am "full of shit", he mentioned..."
Let the record show that I was not the person who was trying to convince you you were full of shit.
-
Mary
Is the US government intentionally supressing a cancer cure? No it is not. I am a cancer survivor, and was cured by radiation therapy. Is that not a cure?
I too am a cancer survivor. I had surgery and radiation afterwards and I'm alive right now. One thing that scares the hell out of me is finding out that the radiation I had initially could very well give me another kind of leukemia anywhere from 9+ years after having it. It's been 9 years now and that thought is always at the back of my mind.
In addition to our current oncology arsenal, I can tell you there are many new therapies in clinical trials, right now, using many different mechanisms of action.
Ya, and that seems to be the problem. There are ALWAYS new clinical trials going on and yet here we are, decades later and a 'cure' always seems to be 'right around the corner'-----kinda like the New System---but never materializing. Billions of dollars have been used for research and while we sometimes hear about a 'promising treatment'---it suddenly vanishes and you never hear a damn thing about it again. Or, you just keep hearing about how 'further testing is needed' before being able to submit it through the bureaucratic bullshit that is the FDA. Good example is a wonderfully promising technique invented by an engineer by the name of John Kanzius in 2005, using radio waves to eliminate most cancers from the body (Kanzius himself had leukemia). Here is a brief synopsis of what he invented:
"Kanzius RF Therapy is an experimental cancer treatment that employs a combination of either gold or carbon nanoparticles and radio waves to heat and destroy cancer cells without damaging healthy cells. The specific absorption rate for radio waves by living tissue in the proposed wavelengths and intensity levels is very low. Metals absorb this energy much more efficiently than tissue through dielectric heating; Richard Smalley has suggested that carbon nanotubes could be used to similar purpose. If nanoparticles were to be preferentially bound to cancer sites, cancer cells could be destroyed or induced into apoptosis while leaving healthy tissue relatively unharmed. This preferential targeting represents a major technical challenge. According to a presentation by Dr. Steven Curley, the types of cancer potentially treatable using Kanzius RF therapy include essentially all forms of cancer.
Kanzius built a prototype Kanzius RF device in his home, and formed Therm Med., LLC to test and market his inventions. The device was successfully tested at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in 2005. As of 2007-04-23, preliminary research using the device at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center has shown early promise. If federal approval is granted, testing on human patients may follow. An article published in late 2010 illustrates that radiofrequency fields induce intracellular hyperthermia and necrosis in pancreatic tumors without injury to the human pancreatic tissue grafts tested."
And while it's always good to hear 'promising news' regarding a potential cancer treatment, it can also be angering to see the ridiculous, drawn-out, never ending 'trials' that go on and on and on---meanwhile, millions of people are dying. Here is a link to the 'promising news' of the Kanzius Lab at the Anderson Center: http://www.kanziuscancerresearch.org/news/?id=1
Despite the fact that Kanzius' model was successfully tested in 2005, and despite the fact that none of the testings since have shown any side effects, it's still going to be another 2 - 3 years (at the very least) before it can be tested on humans. WTF? If it works, test it on someone who's terminally ill to see if it cures their frigging cancer! It's-that-simple. Or at least it should be. They keep pushing the date for human testing back too, because I looked into this when my brother in law was first diagnosed in 2009 and back then they were saying that human testing would be "another 2 - 3 years" down the road. So here we are, 2 years later and lo and behold, there's still no tests that have been done on humans. And for no other reason other than "Clinical research is a very tedious process."
Someone mentioned that the governement would love a cheaper treatment for cancer patients as they'd save billions in Medicare each year. Guess what's even cheaper than a cheap drug? People dying in their 50s and 60s. It would save a few trillion in pensions and Medicare eh?
My own feeling is that there are many different cures for cancer out there that have saved peoples lives. In 1938, Essiac tea came within 3 votes of being recognized by the Canadian government as a natural treatment for cancer. It doesn't cure everyone, anymore than chemo or radiation cures everyone, but it has certainly cured some. I think stem cell therapy and super-charging our our immune cells would prove the most promising treatment. There are certainly some drugs out there have saved lives, but sometimes the side effects are so bad, people stop taking them. Cryotherapy for cancer is another treatment that you rarely hear anything about, but it seems to have a pretty good success rate.
I know some might not agree, but to me, after 60 years of research and billions of dollars donated, the return on the investment has been pretty low....in the meantime, Big Pharma continues to rake in billions each year for the same treatment they've been using for decades: chemotherapy and radiation.
On a side-note, I recently finished a book called The Secret History of the War on Cancer by Dr. Devra Davis. She is Director, Centre for Environmental Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. The books describes the industry's knowledge and cover-up of their materials and chemicals which were known to cause cancer, and how the public was kept ignorant of these facts for decades. As a result of greed, money and powers, millions have died as a result. I would highly recommend the book.
-
bohm
NN:
Bohm said, "Someone wrote to me recently and, as part of convincing me that I am "full of shit", he mentioned..."
Let the record show that I was not the person who was trying to convince you you were full of shit.
ofcourse, but i think it is quite clear i quoted an article since i included headline and link to it.
if the content of the article is true the trials are very problematic.
-
botchtowersociety
I too am a cancer survivor. I had surgery and radiation afterwards and I'm alive right now. One thing that scares the hell out of me is finding out that the radiation I had initially could very well give me another kind of leukemia anywhere from 9+ years after having it. It's been 9 years now and that thought is always at the back of my mind.
It has been 17 years for me.
There are ALWAYS new clinical trials going on and yet here we are, decades later and a 'cure' always seems to be 'right around the corner'-----kinda like the New System---but never materializing.
I've already mentioned that there is no such thing as a single cancer cure, there are many different kinds of cancer. Some cancers have high cure rates with current marketed technology, and some do not.
Billions of dollars have been used for research and while we sometimes hear about a 'promising treatment'---it suddenly vanishes and you never hear a damn thing about it again.
I don't know where you are getting your news from, but some ideas that show early stage promise do not pan out in humans in the real world. It could be that they do not improve response rates, or that the risk/benefit profile is not sufficiently favorable to recommend their use.
. Or, you just keep hearing about how 'further testing is needed' before being able to submit it through the bureaucratic bullshit that is the FDA.
Agreed. The regulatory regime means that hundreds of millions of dollars must be spent and many years must pass before a therapy can be put into commercial use. This slows down the process greatly.
Good example is a wonderfully promising technique invented by an engineer by the name of John Kanzius in 2005, using radio waves to eliminate most cancers from the body (Kanzius himself had leukemia).
Kanzius isn't the only researcher working on gold nanoparticles. However, to my knowledge, no one is performing clinical trials using this method at this time. It may be that the method needs more refinement and/or validation in animal models before being tested in humans. Has Kanzius filed an Investigational New Drug application with the FDA? I don't think so. He may still be collecting data in order to do it. I write about biotech for a living, and cover many emerging cancer techs, but I haven't been following his story closely.
I think stem cell therapy and super-charging our our immune cells would prove the most promising treatment.
Stem cell derived immune system cancer therapies in clinical trials (I know the man who founded this company).
http://www.geron.com/GRNOPC1Trial/
http://www.geron.com/products/productinformation/spinalcordinjury.aspx
There are certainly some drugs out there have saved lives, but sometimes the side effects are so bad, people stop taking them. Cryotherapy for cancer is another treatment that you rarely hear anything about, but it seems to have a pretty good success rate.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/cryosurgery
It is being investigated, and is not yet at the stage where it can be run through clinical trials.
These things take YEARS to run through clinical trials. They also take a LOT OF MONEY to perform. Let's say you are a researcher and have invented and patented a promising new technique. You have to found a company, hire people, and find millions of dollars from angel investors to get you off the ground. Your small company will not be able to earn a dime until you can get final approval. This could easily take a decade. In the meantime, you have to keep raising funds in order to keep the research and trials going (since you have no sales). This is very, very expensive, and there is no guarantee that someone will not come up with something better in the meantime.
The FDA sets an extremely high bar. There are politics and personalities involved. It is a huge barrier to entry for those that are innovating new therapies. In the meantime, millions of people have died over the decades from a great variety of diseases because of our regulatory regime. You are preaching to the choir, Mary.
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/death-regulation.html
I know some might not agree, but to me, after 60 years of research and billions of dollars donated, the return on the investment has been pretty low....
Actually, there have been huge advances. Your odds of surviving are far higher today than they were 20 years ago, let alone 60.
in the meantime, Big Pharma continues to rake in billions each year for the same treatment they've been using for decades: chemotherapy and radiation.
Most chemo agents are in generic status these days. The big money makers for big pharma these days are drugs like Avastin, Herceptin, and Glivec, none of which are classical chemo drugs (the first two are monoclonal antibodies, the last one is a small molecule kinase inhibitor).
Since this subject interests you, shoot me a PM for info on what is going on these days.
-
JeffT
I know some might not agree, but to me, after 60 years of research and billions of dollars donated, the return on the investment has been pretty low....in the meantime, Big Pharma continues to rake in billions each year for the same treatment they've been using for decades: chemotherapy and radiation.
Mary, with all do respect, if you want to see the return on investment, look in the mirror. When my Dad started his research the life expectancy following a diagnosis of leukemia was two months. Sometime this year the number of living bone marrow transplant survivors will pass a million.
-
botchtowersociety
Mary, with all do respect, if you want to see the return on investment, look in the mirror. When my Dad started his research the life expectancy following a diagnosis of leukemia was two months. Sometime this year the number of living bone marrow transplant survivors will pass a million.
And indirectly, this may lead to a cure for HIV. Bravo!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/14/hiv-cure-berlin-patient_n_796521.html
There is a mutation that causes T-cells to have HIV immunity. It is present in a small percentage of the population. This transplantee (the Berlin patient) was cured of HIV after the allograft. His donor had the mutation, which gave him immunity. Gene therapies are already targeting this.