Gold Coast based resident Stan Sheldon has for years claimed the abilities of Papaya leaves in curing cancer. A cancer survivor himself, he told the Gold Coast Bulletin how ingestion of Paw Paw leaves from the papaya tree led to a full recovery when all hope was lost.http://www.ozcarguide.com/health/health-a-z/cancer/2361-papaya-benefits-cancer-cure
The studies show that the pawpaw compounds not only are effective in killing tumors that have proven resistant to anti-cancer agents, but also seem to have a special affinity for such resistant cells.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/970908043817.htm
Over 100 scientific papers have been published concerning the biochemistry of pawpaw substances, including significant positive results of in vitro anti-cancer studies. Most importantly, an informal and unpublished clinical trial involving 94 cancer patients, undertaken by Dr James Forsythe of the Reno Cancer Screening and Treatment Center in Nevada, showed that a significant number of terminal patients responded positively to treatment with pawpaw extract. A selection of ten positive case studies demonstrate that pawpaw extract reduced tumour markers and tumour sizes, as well as increasing longevity.
Papaya leaf juice is claimed to have reversed cancer in many people living on the Gold Coasthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/9882730/Papaya-Leaf-Cure
in Australia. Harold W. Tietze in his book Papaya The Medicine Tree, describes how to make .....the Gold Coast Bulletin.
“PawPaw Cancer Plea Bears Fruit". Gold coast gardeners have responded to an appeal by
cancer victims desperate to find supplies of pawpaw leaves. And the Gold Coast man who,
14 years ago, first exposed the leaves as a possible cure for cancer has been tracked down
to a Labrador (Gold Coast) nursing home. The story of how Stan Sheldon cured himself of
cancer by drinking the boiled extract of pawpaw leaves was first told in the Gold Coast
Bulletin in 1978.
Now research in the United States has given scientific support to his claim, isolating a
chemical compound in the pawpaw tree which is reported to be a million times stronger than
the strongest anti-cancer drug. Mr Sheldon, says the discovery does not surprise him..... The recipe is as follows:
Wash and partly dry several medium-size papaya leaves. Cut them up like cabbage and
place them in a saucepan with 2 quarts/ litres of water. Bring the water and leaves to the boil
and simmer without a lid until the water is reduced by half.
Strain the liquid and bottle in glass containers.
The concentrate will keep in the refrigerator for three to four days. If it becomes cloudy, it
should be discarded.
The recommended dosage in the original recipe is 3 Tablespoons/ 50ml three times a day. It
is recommended to read Papaya The Medicine Tree for the interesting stories of "incurable”
people who have used this extract to beat their cancer, and for other medicinal uses of
papaya
The Queensland Institute of Medical Research has found a natural plant-based gel known as PEP-005 that can reduce and eradicate sunspots after two days.
Dr Jim Aylward discovered the enzyme in the plant known as the radium weed.
"My mother had been keeping a weed growing for years, and she knew that it had great effects against skin cancer," he said.
Institute spokesman Dr Peter Parsons says scientists are now looking at using the enzyme to treat a variety of cancers.
This team has developed a new anti-cancer drug derived from the sap of a plant called Euphorbia peplus or radium weed in Australia. In human clinical trials the drug has been very effective in the treatment of skin cancer, one of the most common forms of cancer.
These come from natural products that we can grow and use but still science insists on manufacturing pills.
Cancer = $$
Actually, there are cures for some forms of cancer. Surgery is an obvious one, but drugs like cisplatin can destroy some cancers completely.
I understand that if the cancer hasn't returned after 5 years it's generally considered to be gone for good i.e. cured.
A drug has been made available for ovarian cancer and administered to all females who want to participate under the age of 25 yrs for free. or was this just a trial?Actually, there are cures for some forms of cancer. Surgery is an obvious one, but drugs like cisplatin can destroy some cancers completely.
Yes but it is not a certainty the cancer will not return, that is what I would define as a cure, when we can be certain something will not return. Hence living with cancer, or living with the possibility it might return is the best we can do at present.
Yes but it is not a certainty the cancer will not return, that is what I would define as a cure, when we can be certain something will not return. Hence living with cancer, or living with the possibility it might return is the best we can do at present.
Cancer is a combination of genetic mutations, the circumstances that caused that set of mutations may still be present inside the body, it may be controlled by the usual routes or it may lead to cancer again. There are so many factors involved because it is the body itself,
Natural Chemical From Sea Sponges Induces Death In Cancer Cells Via Unusual Pathwayhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080827223119.htm
ScienceDaily (Aug. 29, 2008) — A chemical called candidaspongiolide (CAN) inhibits protein synthesis but also kills cancer cells by triggering caspase 12-dependent programmed cell death, according to an article in the Aug. 26 online issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Scientists Create New Process to 'Program' Cancer Cell Death. ScienceDaily (Sep. 8, 2010)
A drug has been made available for ovarian cancer and administered to all females who want to participate under the age of 25 yrs for free. or was this just a trial?Actually, there are cures for some forms of cancer. Surgery is an obvious one, but drugs like cisplatin can destroy some cancers completely.
Yes but it is not a certainty the cancer will not return, that is what I would define as a cure, when we can be certain something will not return. Hence living with cancer, or living with the possibility it might return is the best we can do at present.
We all may carry genetics or DNA associated with cancer but never get it. It is our lifestyle, the food we eat, the place we live, etc. What science should be concerned with is finding the initiator of mutations caused to our genes and control that, which sounds more feasible to me, probably less commercially profitable though.
Radium weed is used extensively here in its natural form, due to being the region on earth with most skin cancer disease. It cures it, it does not return, I can personally assure you that. why would we want to synthesise, manufacture or commercialise the weed?
My appology 'cervical cancer' not ovarian cancer. The injection was offered to all woman in Australia under 25yr old for Free.A drug has been made available for ovarian cancer and administered to all females who want to participate under the age of 25 yrs for free. or was this just a trial?
I have not seen that drug, but I doubt it came with a 100% cure.
I would hope that is had been proven to be 100% effective but it came with a warning that woman were not to stop having pap smears. Although I have known Australia to be the testing ground for various chemical, medical etc experiements, so if no other country has heard of this maybe Australians are just the 'test shop dummies' for this vaccine?!
Actually, there are cures for some forms of cancer. Surgery is an obvious one, but drugs like cisplatin can destroy some cancers completely.
Nearly all of the university’s royalty income comes from cisplatin and carboplatin, and nearly 20 percent of RCT revenues comes from the two drugs.2 Because of this monetary component to the lawsuit, many people—including officials at other universities having contracts with RCT,
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/madagascar-periwinkle-engineered-to-produce-anti-cancer-compound_100144659.html
The researchers have genetically altered plants into create chemicals they do not naturally make. The plant-produced compounds include molecules similar to cancer drugs................According to O”Connor, the resulting alkaloids vary only slightly from the compounds the periwinkle makes naturally, but such tweaks could prove useful for improving medicines that plants already make.
Exactly
Exactly
All this agreeing stuff is making me a bit nervous [::)]
I sense an impending attack. I'm heading for the underground bunker right now.
Flu vaccination ban goes national after fever, convulsions in children] Seasonal flu vaccinations have been suspended in Australia for all children under the age of five. The suspension comes after 23 children in Western Australia were admitted to hospitals with convulsions after receiving flu injections.
“To meet anticipated demand, manufacturers are producing between 160 million and 165 million doses this year, more than ever before … The CDC is accelerating development of two new tools to speed production of vaccine … One involves optimizing seed strains of virus used to make vaccine
Improved manufacturing techniques and invention of new adjuvants have greatly advanced the development of influenza vaccines, the fastest growing segment in the adult vaccine area, which is expected to generate $4 billion in sales by 2012.One way to escape the recession OR lower populations!
The chief of The Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control (SMI), Annika Linde, says in the article: "- The Vaccine is principally natural to the body. The mercury was necessary but the amounts are very small.
An independent academic who monitors social issues yesterday filed a lawsuit in the Central Administration Court against the Government Pharmaceutical Organisation and top health officials for failing to have human trials to test the type-A (H1N1) influenza virus vaccine following reports that six people had died after receiving the vaccine.
Cloves are definitely good for toothache, but also contain a tumour promoting chemical. BC's point is that a medicalised version would have this chemical removed.
The primary chemical constituents include eugenol, caryophyllene, and tannins. Cloves are said to have a positive effect on stomach ulcers, vomiting, flatulence, and to stimulate the digestive system. It has powerful local antiseptic and mild anesthetic actions. Japanese researchers have discovered that like many spices, clove contains antioxidants. Antioxidants help prevent the cell damage that scientists believe eventually causes cancer. On the other hand, in laboratory tests, the chemical eugenol, has been found to be a weak tumor promoter, making clove one of many healing herbs with both pro- and anti-cancer effects. At this point, scientists aren't sure which way the balance tilts. Until they are, anyone with a history of cancer should not use medicinal amounts of clove. For otherwise healthy non-pregnant, non-nursing adults, powdered clove is considered nontoxic.
Eugenol is a natural phenolic compound that is the main component of clove oil and it is present in reasonable amounts in several other spices like basil, cinnamon and bay leaves. It is used as antiseptic, analgesic and anti-bacterial agent in traditional medicine in Asia as well as in dentistry as main ingredient of cavity filling cement. Several biological activities of eugenol have been described in literature [8,9] and it has been proved not to be carcinogenic neither mutagenic
Yet the practice has always been controversial, primarily due to fluoride's undisputed status as a highly reactive neurotoxin. More recent studies suggest that ingestion of fluoride can damage the thyroid gland and reduce children's IQ levels. In 2006, a study published in Cancer Causes and Control found that exposure to large amounts of fluoridated water made seven-year-old boys four times more likely to develop a rare bone cancer known as childhood osteosarcoma.
In the new study, conducted on behalf of The Globe and Mail, researchers from Statistics Canada compared the tooth decay rates in the provinces of Ontario, which has Canada's highest fluoridation rate, and Quebec, which has the lowest. Using data on more than 5,000 people, the researchers found no clinically significant difference.
Quote from: author http://www.naturalnews.com/029630_fluoride_teeth.htmlIn the new study, conducted on behalf of The Globe and Mail, researchers from Statistics Canada compared the tooth decay rates in the provinces of Ontario, which has Canada's highest fluoridation rate, and Quebec, which has the lowest. Using data on more than 5,000 people, the researchers found no clinically significant difference.
Forests -- and other natural, green settings -- can reduce stress, improve moods, reduce anger and aggressiveness and increase overall happiness. Forest visits may also strengthen our immune system by increasing the activity and number of natural killer cells that destroy cancer cells.
"such as the killer sacrin "
Has saccharin ever killed anyone?
If not, then you are talking utter bollocks.
The researchers note that the findings gibe with other emerging evidence—including a study published last month in the American Heart Association's journal, Circulation—that shows people who down diet drinks are at a higher risk for obesity and metabolic syndrome (a medley of medical problems such as abdominal fat, high blood pressure and insulin resistance that puts people at risk for heart disease and diabetes).
"people who down diet drinks are at a higher risk for obesity"I think you assume too much.
So what?
People who down diet drinks are quite often on diets.
People on diets tend to be overweight.
people who are overweight tend to suffer from metabolic syndrome.
Anyway. I'm still waiting for the evidence that saccharin ever killed anyone.the diseases it causes are life threatening.
Also, if you don't think fluoride is good for teeth then it doesn't make sense to say "Fluoride which is added to our drinking water and food so governments can close dental facilities."with all doubt being cast on reports, studies and research, without reports,studies or research to back up the doubt. what do you think?
If it didn't work they couldn't close the dentists down.
And you forgot to include this quote from the same page you cited.
"All of Canada's dental associations and its national health agency, Health Canada, officially endorse water fluoridation. In response to the Globe and Mail report, Health Canada immediately sought to cast doubt on the study, pointing out that it failed to assess individual fluoride intake and correlate that with cavity rates."
The best evidence seems to me to suggest that, since many people use fluoride containing toothpaste, the effect of adding it to the water is less significant than it used to be.
Obviously, I can't bottle a trip to the forest.give it time...
But if you buy aspirin cheaply rather than wasting time and effort getting willow bark and chewing on it (in order to get a less effective remedy with worse side effects) then you will have more time and money left to go on vacation.I actually don't take aspirin but if there was an option/choice which there is not, I may prefer the natural garden variety and so may many others.
What did you think your point was?choice, why do we have to have a processed version if we can grow it naturally ourselves.
It's not as if a bottle of cloves transports me to the Spice Islands or whatever.
It's an argument in favour of planting trees in parks (which I wholeheartedly support); it's not an argument in favour of eating them.
We find natural cures etc but still we feel the need to synthesise and manufacture/make the components for these cures.
"with all doubt being cast on reports, studies and research, without reports,studies or research to back up the doubt. what do you think?"
Like I said.
The best evidence seems to me to suggest that, since many people use fluoride containing toothpaste, the effect of adding it to the water is less significant than it used to be.
I'm still waiting for evidence that saccharin causes disease.
Re http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/cancer-of-the-chudleigh-valley
Something like one person in 4 gets cancer so the grouping reported is nothing exceptional.
"people who down diet drinks are at a higher risk for obesity"
So what?
People who down diet drinks are quite often on diets.
People on diets tend to be overweight.
people who are overweight tend to suffer from metabolic syndrome.
Hamish McCallum, professor of wildlife research at the University of Tasmania, said it's unlikely the chemicals caused the devils' disease.
and some may think it best to find the cancer causing agent and deal with it so we don't need drugs.
His apparent preference for willow bark rather than aspirin seems to be based on the idea that natural =good and artificial=bad.No I didn't.
Authors Susan Swithers, PhD, and Terry Davidson, PhD, surmised that by breaking the connection between a sweet sensation and high-calorie food, the use of saccharin changes the body's ability to regulate intake.
"The data clearly indicate that consuming a food sweetened with no-calorie saccharin can lead to greater body-weight gain and adiposity than would consuming the same food sweetened with a higher-calorie sugar," the authors wrote.
Monsanto got their start in 1901 selling saccharin to a Coca-Cola addicted public. Questions arose about the safety of saccharin, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture tried to ban it. They failed in their effort against the Monsanto lobby machine.
What did you expect people to think you meant apart from that you want to get willow bark, because it's natural and therefore should be, as you put it "prime"?
A new vaccine added to standard therapy appears to offer a survival advantage for patients suffering from glioblastoma (GBM), the most deadly form of brain cancer, according to a study from researchers at Duke University Medical Center and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The vaccine also knocks out a troublesome growth factor that characterizes the most aggressive formof the disease.
The Duke vaccine is also novel in the way it genetically modifies these dendritic cells, researchers said. It uses RNA that "codes" for CEA, found in a number of cancers. This RNA is then duplicated millions of times, and mixed with the dendritic cells......"The advantage of RNA is that it can be used for all immunity types and can be taken from a single cancer cell," he said. "It's better than a DNA vaccine because we have eliminated a step. DNA vaccines need to produce RNA which then prompts the manufacture of proteins."
To date, researchers said no toxicity has been seen in patients during the ongoing phase 1 stage of the trial, which is designed to test safety. Duke is expected to start phase 2 testing of the vaccine's ability to elicit an immune response later this year.
What I am saying is if there is a free and naturally available product that is proven to work, then we should be given the info for a choice to use it if we want. we should be told about about all forms of medications without discrimination.
If science feels the need to manufacture/create the component found in the natural form because it is proven to be effective so their pharmaceutical company can control and make a profit from a remedy found in our gardens, then we should be well informed about our choices and the positive effects and negative effects of all natural and synthetic remedies. to make their own informed choice.
Aspirin causes internal bleeding, can kill a dog or cat, among other problems, yet it is freely available in the grocery store without mention of this and other bad effects of the drug (larger packaging is required for this, i would imagine). Ibuprofen and some pain killers have now been taken off the grocery shelves, even though the bad effects have been known for decades.
Does science have a conscience? Is science more concerned with getting funding to operate at the hands of multi-corporate rather than finding cures or identifying known cures freely available?
Is science a separate entity by itself then? Should pharmaceutical companies research for charitable purposes and not make profit like every other business aims to?
"you mentioned willow bark not me, i never knew about it til you mentioned it."exactly my point!
So what?
You clearly implied that you wanted it.
"yes, natural should be prime. after all isn't that where science gets the components for the synthesised, manufactured, man made version?"
No.
Not any more.
There are some drugs that are based on modified plant toxins, but most new drugs are based on an understanding of the system in the body that they are targeted at.
Wouldn't it have been better for you to ask about that before basing your ideas on a mistake?
In 1902, Monsanto's first product was none other than saccharin. Between the years of 1903 and 1905 their entire saccharin production was shipped to a growing soft drink company based in Georgia called Coca-Cola. In 1904 Monsanto introduced caffeine and vanillin to the growing soft drink industry.
By 1915, Monsanto sales hit the one million mark. Approximately two years later Monsanto began producing aspirin. Monsanto was the top aspirin producer in the U.S. until the 1980s.
Why do you persistently ignore the the fact that often compounds are manufactured to eliminate negative effects or risks, Sometimes compound have to be altered or sequences mutated to prevent the drug binding where it shouldn't and altering it's target.
But you need to provide proper evidence of your idea being better than mine.
For example, rather than citing silly websites that say that
"Artificial sweeteners are extemely toxic"
you should actually show some evidence that they have ever caused harm to someone.
Until you do that you are never going to convince me or anyone else.
In much the same way I am not going to be influenced by an hour and a half video from a guy who is trying to sell a book (for a profit- I mention that since you seem to hate profits so much when pharmaceutical companies make them).
I'm also not going to take you seriously when you say anyone interested in saccharin should look here.
http://www.dorway.com/
because it's a website about aspartame.
Are you trying to look foolish?
Saccharin
Products: Hermesetas, Sweet'N Low, Sugar Twin
Sweetness: 300 times sweeter than sugar
Pregnancy: Avoid when pregnant
Fun fact: Saccharin has been banned as a food additive (but not as a tabletop sweetener) from Canada since the '70s.
Discovered in 1879, saccharin is the oldest of sugar substitutes; however, its use only became widespread following the sugar shortage during World War II. While early lab studies showed that saccharin caused cancer in rats, numerous organizations, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the U.S. National Toxicology Program, have since removed saccharin from their list of suspected cancer-causing chemicals. Their reasoning: The process by which saccharin causes cancer in rats is not applicable to humans.
It seems to happen particularly with diet versions. A quick search on the Internet reveals a disparate group of mostly young addicts who regularly congregate online to share their battle with their drug of choice: Diet Coke.http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/16/1032054760242.html
They’ll call it AminoSweet. The public has learned aspartame is deadly, an excitoneurotoxic, carcinogenic, addictive genetically engineered drug that damages the mitochondria and interacts with drugs and vaccines. It is also an adjuvant, an immune stimulator put in vaccines to activate them. The outcry against this poison is worldwide as educated consumers reject it. Ajinomoto’s deceit is to change names so people will think its a new and safe sweetener
Brain tumor researchers have found that brain tumors arise from cancer stem cells living within tiny protective areas formed by blood vessels in the brain. Killing those cells is a promising strategy to eliminate tumors and prevents them from re-growing.
The research shows that cells are able to switch their genetic profile -- turning off genes expressed by blood vessel cells and turning on genes specific to lymphatic cells.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101014083343.htm
Bored Chemist is quite right to accuse you of trolling. You are making blanket statements and then refusing to back them up with evidence, clearly ignoring his questions and comments. Please answer his question, or at least acknowledge that your comments (in this case, on aspirin) are merely your opinion. You are usually very good at finding sources to quote, please do so to answer his question. After which, this thread can return to it's original topic.
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
(MSDS)
Aspirin
1. Product Identification
Synonyms: 2-Acetoxybenzoic acid CAS No.: 50-78-2 Molecular Weight: 180.16 Chemical Formula: C9H8O4 Urgent contact: Shanghai Sunivo Supply Chain Management Co., Ltd.
Tel: +86 21 3393 3299 Fax: +86 21 5830 7878
URL: www.sunivo.com
Address: Room 502, Building 5, Lane 289 Bisheng Rd., Pudong District, Shanghai, 201204 - P.R. of China
2. Composition/Information on Ingredients
Ingredient CAS No Percent Hazardous
Maleic Anhydride 50-78-2 99.5% No
3. Hazards Identification
EMERGENCY OVERVIEW
Toxic if swallowed. Irritating to eyes, respiratory system and skin.
Potential Health Effects Eye:
Causes eye irritation.
Skin:
Causes skin irritation. May cause dermatitis. May be harmful if absorbed through the skin.
Ingestion: May cause irritation of the digestive tract. May cause liver and kidney damage. Ingestion may cause high blood pressure, labored breathing, unsteady gait, lung edema, and coma. Human systemic effects include acute renal failure, acute tubular necrosis, cough, diarrhea, dyspnea (labored breathing), headache, hypermitility, nausea, vomiting, ulceration or bleeding from stomach. Toxic if swallowed.
Inhalation:
Causes respiratory tract irritation. Aspiration may lead to pulmonary edema. May be harmful if inhaled. | MSDS | Page
NTP said in one notice it is "especially interested in obtaining additional relevant scientific information in support of or against the petition to delist saccharin" because the three reviews split in their recommendations. Two scientific reviews favored removing saccharin from the Report but an October 30-31 advisory panel -- the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors Subcommittee for the Report on Carcinogens -- recommended by a narrow margin that the sweetener continue to be listed as an "anticipated" carcinogen.
Susceptible Populatations
Susceptible populations for the potential deleterious effects of artificial sweeteners include diabetics, children, pregnant women, women of childbearing age, breastfeeding mothers, individuals with low seizure thresholds, and individuals at risk for migraines. More studies are required for these susceptible populations. A focus on children is important because they have a higher intake of foods and beverages per kilogram of body weight (Renwick, 2006). Also, more research on the effect of artificial sweeteners on diabetic clients is needed because this population is likely to ingest larger quantities of sugar substitutes.
Because artificial sweeteners are in more than 6,000 products, including foods, medications, and cosmetics, it is impossible to completely eradicate them from daily encounters. Controversy exists over the toxicity of the artificial sweeteners presented in this article. Replication studies and long-term assays are required to decrease fear resulting from the limited research that currently exists.
This paper will examine the FDA’s role in the four most contentious artificial sweetener
In 1972, the FDA was faced with two studies suggesting saccharin caused cancer in laboratory animals.5 Rather than issuing an immediate and complete ban under the Delaney Clause, however, then- FDA commissioner Charles Edwards removed saccharin from the list of GRAS substances and issued an interim food additive regulation permitting continued its continued limited use pending further studies of its safety.6 Edwards candidly explained the reasoning behind his actions, admitting “Technically, I could have banned saccharin immediately under the Delaney Clause. in 1972,” but that he had elected not to because “saccharin was, at that time, the only remaining nonnutritive sweetener on the market. American consumers demand the availability of diet food products.
The American public proved to be considerably less alarmed than Commissioner Kennedy at the evidence of saccharin’s carcinogenicity.
Saccharin is another sweetener found in some soft drinks. It has been found to have teratogenic (causing abnormal fetal development and birth defects) effects in rats. It has also been shown to cause cancer in rats as well. Human studies have not found these effects. However, it is probably best to err on the side of caution when it comes to Saccharin..................."continued its continued limited use pending further studies of its safety"!
Modern drug design looks at the molecular level at parts of the body- for example the phosphodiesterase enzyme.
Then it produces chemicals (that are entirely synthetic) which will bind to that molecule - for example, the enzyme and inhibit it.
then they check to see if that compound actually does inhibit the enzyme in a chemical assay.
If it does they test it in animals.
If it's not too toxic and it does its job they test it in humans..
I ask again... If the natural product is no different in effectiveness, toxicity etc, Why do it?
is it just another 'political dogma'?
If the natural product is no different in effectiveness, toxicity etc, Why do it?
Science has grown so much and is growing is there any medicine found for cancer?
Spam link removed - Mod
only treatment is chemotherapy.There are in fact multiple treatments.
and more chemotherapy.
it will always be the treatment for cancer.
always.just like the last 50 years.
makes a ton of money.
only treatment is chemotherapy.There are in fact multiple treatments.
and more chemotherapy.
it will always be the treatment for cancer.
always.just like the last 50 years.
makes a ton of money.
Surgery
Radiation Therapy
Chemotherapy.
Often used in conjunction with each other. Cancer is a systemic disease, and thus best treated with systemic medications. I.E. if you cut it out, but miss a few cells that have already migrated from the primary site, the patient is at MUCH greater risk. So, one generally uses chemotherapy in to augment other treatments.
New treatments on the horizon are viruses targeted to the tumor cells, or injection of immunogenic antigens directly into the tumor cells. Cancer cells are rapidly growing, and an alternative to surgery is intra-arterial plugging of the arteries feeding the tumors.
A study of cancer drug research studies found 80% were fraudulent ...
A study of cancer drug research studies found 80% were fraudulent ...
Can you post a link to that study ?
The advantages from a profit point of view is that any company can make a drug,hire a couple of "reviewers" showing marginal improvement,discard,hide,suppress negative results,milk a few billion out of the drug and then move on to the next one.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice
This is very good article and shows just [how] bad the situation is and why you should never just believe any study no matter where it comes from.
The links are in the article.
A study of cancer drug research studies found 80% were fraudulent ...
Can you post a link to that study ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice
A study of cancer drug research studies found 80% were fraudulent ...
Can you post a link to that study ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice
I couldn't find "80%" in that article ...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
There's dishonesty in all walks of life, but you've yet to provide evidence that it's as high as "80%" in cancer drug research.
If modern cancer therapies were ineffective why do people with cancer survive longer now than in the past ? ...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cancerresearchuk.org%2Fprod_consump%2Fgroups%2Fcr_common%2F%40nre%2F%40sta%2Fdocuments%2Fimage%2Fcrukmig_1000img-12647.jpg&hash=b3ba62a720b084f4d775ad74d83af01d)
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/survival/latestrates/survival-statistics-for-the-most-common-cancers
| Cancer Type | Inclusions/Exclusions | 5 year survival Benefit from Chemo |
| Head and Neck Cancer, | (63% Australia, 47% USA Stage III & IV) | 4% |
| Esophageal Cancer, | 67% non metastatic | 8% |
| Stomach Cancer | 40% operable, 31% margin negative | 11% |
| Colon Cancer | Duke's C, 35% Australia, 21% USA | 5% |
| Rectal Cancer | Duke's B&C, 60% Australia, 38% USA | 9% |
| Pancreatic Cancer | ? | 5.6% "Objective Response" Insufficient Data for overall survival benefit |
| Small Cell Lung Cancer | 19% incidence | 3.5% |
| Non Small Cell Lung Cancer | 81% incidence, 21% operable | 5% benefit |
| Soft Tissue Sarcoma | No overall survival benefit | |
| Malignant Melanoma | No overall survival benefit | |
| Breast Cancer (node negative) | 85% operable, 64% node negative | 3% to 3.9% |
| Breast Cancer (node positive) | 85% operable, 36% node positive | 2% to 6.8% |
| Uterine Cancer | No overall survival benefit | |
| Cervical Cancer | 12% | |
| Ovarian Cancer | FIGO II-IV 79% | 11% |
| Prostate Cancer | No overall survival benefit | |
| Testicular Cancer, Seminoma | 95% Benefit from Chemo, 20% Relapse | |
| Testicular Cancer, Non-seminomatous | 95% | |
| Bladder Cancer | 5% (not significant?) | |
| Kidney Cancer | No overall survival benefit | |
| Brain Cancer | Grade II-IV, 62% - 82% | 6% (1 year) |
| Hodgkin's Lymphoma | Stage I-IIA, 15% Benefit Stage IIB-IV, 80% | |
| Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma, Large B | 50% | |
| Unknown Primary Site | No overall survival benefit | |
So, the question is... is a few percent survival improvement worth it? Perhaps 10%?
It certainly is worth it for those members of the 10%. And, unfortunately, one doesn't really know if one is in the surviving half or not, or whether the chemo would be of benefit to the particular patient.
Obviously each type of cancer is different. If I was a patient with fully encapsulated cancer with a clean resection and no lymph node involvement, I might consider not having chemotherapy until one noted recurrence or lymph node involvement.
On the other hand, in cases with more developed cancer and/or lymph node involvement, chemotherapy would seem to have enough benefit that one might choose the therapy.
"Yet aspirin creates a whole new lot of adverse effects.
I dont think i have to explain any further. "
Yes you do.
You need to tell us what those new adverse effects are.
I have been asking you to do this, as clearly as I could, in big letters for some time now and you have refused to answer it.
"and I dont remember him asking that particular question in those words."
These are the exact words, and I like an answer.
WHAT ARE THE BRAND NEW HEALTH RISKS?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice
This is very good article and shows just [how] bad the situation is and why you should never just believe any study no matter where it comes from.
The links are in the article.
Still no mention of a link therein to support your claim that a "study of cancer drug research studies found 80% were fraudulent".
The article, though not painting an exactly rosy picture of some scientists, would seem orders of magnitude off the rash generalisations you are making, and certainly does not support the argument that medical drugs are, in effect, worse than useless; though it would be nice to see more altruistic organisations getting the research investment occasionally.
A new kind of therapy is being investigated now, based on DNA sequencing of the cancer - this relies on very cheap DNA sequencing (which is not there yet, but is getting much better every year).that's right.you just keep on believing that.
Usually there are several key mutations that were required to make the original cell cancerous, often involving gene regulation, growth regulators, blood-vessel growth factors, apoptosis inhibition, immune system suppression, etc.
- By looking at these key mutations, it is sometimes possible to identify a small molecule which blocks one of these key mutations, or one of the upstream/downstream steps from this mutation, and in this way to block the uncontrolled cancer growth.
- It is also possible to prioritise which of the conventional cancer therapies might be more effective against this particular cancer
DNA sequencing is still too expensive to do large trials of this technique. And because the technique only analyses one person's cancer, it is not a "one size fits all" solution, but requires expert interpretation for each patient. However, more of the necessary logic should be able to be incorporated into diagnostic tools, over time.
One factor that makes cancer so difficult to treat is that DNA auditing is often turned off within the cell, and DNA copying errors are very frequent. This makes it likely that a subsequent mutation will bypass the treatment, and the cancer will resume its parasitic growth.