What cancer therapies are available?

  • 107 Replies
  • 38400 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #50 on: 13/10/2010 06:57:37 »
"hey you are assuming again.
did I say?..
Quote
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."

On  the other hand you did say
"Where do I buy willow bark please? "
and
"natural cures should be prime and synthesized should be alternate"

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"?

And, re saccharin,
"Now science says it causes cancer in rats but that is irrelevant to humans!"
exactly, so why are you still going on about it being a "killer"?

Death toll still zero.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #51 on: 13/10/2010 07:11:34 »

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"?


you mentioned willow bark not me, i never knew about it til you mentioned it.

yes, natural should be prime. after all isn't that where science gets the components for the synthesised, manufactured, man made version?

In regard to Saccharin, if you watched the video, there is a natural alternative to sugar that has no calories and has other benefits too but we are unable to use it as we do Saccharin due to corporate monopoly.

Please watch the video on the link till the end with an open mind.

« Last Edit: 13/10/2010 07:16:21 by echochartruse »
A view with an open mind

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #52 on: 13/10/2010 08:34:46 »
back to cancer

Duke vaccine extends survival for patients with deadly brain cancers
Published: Monday, October 4, 2010 - 17:03 in Health & Medicine
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/10/04/duke.vaccine.extends.survival.patients.with.deadly.brain.cancers

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 13/10/2010 08:45:38 by echochartruse »
A view with an open mind

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #53 on: 13/10/2010 21:27:48 »
"you mentioned willow bark not me, i never knew about it til you mentioned it."
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?

What video did you want me to watch?
It's getting late. I had a look at one of the links you posted and it says
"Artificial Sweeteners: A History of Lies and Poison
Don’t have time to read this? Want the bottom line, the take away? Artificial sweeteners are extemely toxic and should be one of the foods you never, ever eat.!"
It's common experience that practically everybody in the Western world eats a variety of artificial sweeteners, yet we are still alive.

It is therefore perfectly obvious that the page you picked is talking obvious nonsense.

Yet you have the front to tell me "Please watch the video on the link till the end with an open mind."

Anyone who believes that sort of thing seems to have a mind so open it will let in any rubbish.

Another of your links tells me
"Caffeine – psychoactive, addictive drug; may cause fertility problems, birth defects, heart disease, depression, nervousness, behavioral changes, insomnia, etc."
Yeah; have you noticed that the people who drink coffee are all screwed up in this way?
I must be in real trouble- I drink diet cola.
But hang on!
Wait a minute; caffeine is natural. Practically nobody actually makes caffeine (except, perhaps, as a lab exercise) because it's easy and cheap to extract it from plants.
Since it's natural, it's another of your favoured "prime" chemicals.
Have you noticed that the links you cite don't actually agree with your professed views?


I am delighted to see that someone has developed another drug to add to the arsenal of anti cancer agents.
It's a little unfortunate that it acts on a cancer that's fairly uncommon.
"GBMs occur in only 2–3 cases per 100,000 people in Europe and North America. " (ex WIKI)
Still I have every hope that it will help those few people, and perhaps, the same idea will be extended to other cancers.

What you seem to have missed here is that, according to your doctrine, they should be opening up the patient's brain and adding a poisonous plant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphorbia_peplus
It is natural and, therefore, according to you should be "prime".
My thought is that we can do better than that. I think the people at Duke would agree with me.



« Last Edit: 13/10/2010 21:45:59 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Variola

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1063
  • Everyone should beware of The Pox...
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #54 on: 13/10/2010 22:37:49 »


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.

I agree totally. However what the public does not need is to be told to use natural remedies or the raw compound when it can have negative or unknown side effects. As has been mentioned before on here, several times, the raw or natural base for the medicine is NOT always the best way of taking it.


Quote
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.

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.
 
Quote
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.

And chewing the natural bark version of aspirin can have the same effects. It binds irreversibly to it's COX target. As I recall ( BC may know better) Aspirin is one of the less adulterated drugs there is. 

Quote
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?

[/quote]
  A potty-mouthed, impertinent female who thinks she is God's gift to men" -JimBob

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #55 on: 14/10/2010 00:22:29 »
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?

Hey! Way cool idea Ms V. JimBob and I are really into transcendental medication.
« Last Edit: 14/10/2010 01:33:11 by Geezer »
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #56 on: 14/10/2010 13:51:22 »
"you mentioned willow bark not me, i never knew about it til you mentioned it."
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?
exactly my point!
found in natural situation then synthesized, if you had read my posts.


I think you have missed the plot.
As you said here you are tired, haven't read my posts so why bother replying? Maybe you should have a nana nap and then if you feel up to it you can then read the posts, the link, the video and the report here  www.dorway.com, then try to understand it and then comment. Or maybe you are just too set in your ways to see another point of view.
A view with an open mind

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #57 on: 14/10/2010 14:25:35 »
Quote from:  author
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.

interesting firstly Saccharin then Aspirin.

I would suggest anyone having Saccharin and for those who care about their health
to see the 80 page scientific report.  www.dorway.com   that some can't face reading athe truth and not just because they are too tired. the scientific report just might open your eyes, change their point of view. Or should I assume you are saying not all scientific reports are correct?

we all know Aspirin causes internal bleeding if taken regularly. yes natural drugs can have adverse effects too but my choice would be to have natural first if possible.

I'm not saying because it is natural it is safe or the best method.
What I am saying is if there is a natural method that works why synthesis it or change it?

willow bark or aspirin it appears to me there are dangers with both. so why dont we have a choice? Unfortunartely most man created drug's effects are not known for decades. then it seems when they are revealed, some are brain washed by either advertising or their old ways or maybe what they have been taught or maybe their thought process is so rigid, no matter what proof you put in front of some, they refuse point blank to even look at it for any consideration, already having their mind made up.



A view with an open mind

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #58 on: 14/10/2010 14:33:59 »

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.
 

willow bark or aspirin?

i don't know about willow bark, never used it, never had the choice given.
But I do know that there is still negative effects and risks of the manufactured aspirin ( Still NOT eliminated) with brand new health risks.
A view with an open mind

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #59 on: 14/10/2010 19:49:45 »
Hang on. Go back and read what I said.

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..


Did you notice that the drug is entirely synthetic and there are no plants involved anymore?

Now don't write trash like ""I think you have missed the plot." when it is clearly you that missed the point.

Don't write "As you said here you are tired,"
when I hadn't said it. (I said it was late- that's not the same thing.
Don't write "As you said ... you ... haven't read my posts so why bother replying?
When, since I rebutted them I clearly had read them.

Don't write "Maybe you should have a nana nap and then if you feel up to it you can then read the posts, " when, as I pointed out, it is clearly nonsense.


Don't expect me to grub about in your multiple posts looking for a video. (Incidentally, did you know you are not meant to double post here?)

As for "Or maybe you are just too set in your ways to see another point of view."
I think the best reply is
Dear Pot,
Thank you for your comment's
signed
Kettle.

You seem not to have realised that I am not set in my ways; I'm quite happy to change them. That's the way science works.
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?

You publicise your strange beliefs (fair enough, I think free speech is important) and then when I point out that these beliefs are at odds with reality you talk gibberish and cite other sites that do the same.
You refuse to see the obvious truth that if saccharin killed people then most of us would be dead. We aren't so it doesn't.

You refuse to accept answers that are given.
For example "What I am saying is if there is a natural method that works why synthesis it or change it?" has been answered several times. Better selectivity, greater effectiveness lower toxicity better reproducibillity, lower cost (in many cases), fewer side effects, and so on.

You are showing all the signs of being a troll.


You refuse to answer questions asked bout your drivel.
Here's yet another question you won't bother to answer.
when you say "I do know that there is still negative effects and risks of the manufactured aspirin ( Still NOT eliminated) with brand new health risks."

WHAT ARE THE BRAND NEW HEALTH RISKS?


I suggest that if your next post doesn't answer that question clearly and succinctly you should leave the forum, (or be banned if the moderators agree that you are trolling).
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #60 on: 18/10/2010 00:17:33 »
OK truce?

what is trolling?
 
but if you had read my post with the link I especially asked you to read until the end, you would have seen the video expressing scientific evidence that artificial sweeteners are poison.
Did you read the 80 page scientific report on artificial sweeteners and the problems they cause?
Life threatening diseases!

aspartame = as·par·tame 

NOUN:

  An artificial sweetener, C14H18N2O5, formed from aspartic acid.

www.dorway.com = 80 page scientific report on artificial sweetener aspartame.


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?

OK, OK I mentioned a brand of artificial sweetener but all artificial sweeteners should be avoided.

The link to the scientists speaking out about artificial sweeteners is in your mind rubbish because one of the scientists or more wrote a book about it. Is that right?

Yes aspartame is an artificial sweetener and that is what the report is about and what I am speaking of here.

What i am trying to say about Asprin is we have substituted an artificial "willow bark" that had adverse effects but is natural for a product manufactured from the components of willow bark (I think from what you say)creating other risks such as internal bleeding, due to it thins the blood.

more health problems arising from Asprin
Constipation; diarrhea; dizziness; drowsiness; headache; indigestion; lightheadedness; nausea; mild stomach pain or upset; vomiting. Severe allergic  reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); black, tarry, or bloody stools; blurred vision; fainting; fast heartbeat; fever, chills, or persistent sore throat; loss of coordination; mood or mental changes (eg, agitation, depression, irritability); ringing in the ears; seizures; severe or persistent dizziness, drowsiness, or stomach pain; severe or persistent trouble sleeping; shallow or very slow breathing; tremors; unusual bruising or bleeding; vomit that looks like coffee grounds; wheezing.
to read more see link.
Read more: http://www.drugs.com/sfx/aspirin-side-effects.html#ixzz12eg0QFmt

So i think you are getting me wrong. either I am not writing it incorrectly for you to understand or you don't want to read the proof I submit.

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. 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=artificial-sweetener-linked-weight-gain
BC here is another link you refuse to read or maybe you have read it but disagree.

Calorie-Free Natural Sweetener Moves One Step Closer To Use In U. S.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080922104906.htm

if you want to be healthy and not have sugar why substitute for something that may have more health problems associated?

abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/story?id=3191903&page=1
good for sales not for health.

Quote
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

Stevia is natural and yet it is more profitable to use man made sweeteners.

When you buy your natural medication or synthesised medication you need to find out what other additives are included.
After all natural is not natural if manufactured and processed using non natural products.

http://dorway.com/dorwblog/aspartame-one-mans-poison-another-mans-profit/

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/

Quote
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

sorry for the extreamely long post I didn't want to multi-post.

« Last Edit: 18/10/2010 00:40:00 by echochartruse »
A view with an open mind

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #61 on: 18/10/2010 07:09:21 »
So, no answer then.
Since you cannot answer a simple question but seek to distract from it with a double posting that ends "sorry for the extremely long post I didn't want to multi-post." I think you have proved that you are trolling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
Bye.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #62 on: 18/10/2010 08:02:30 »
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0910-unraveling_brain_tumors.htm
Quote
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.

Now science has found that cells can change their genetic profile to stop the blood flow to tumors.

Quote
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
A view with an open mind

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #63 on: 18/10/2010 19:36:10 »
Still no answer.
Not very good at this thing called science are you? If you were then you would answer the question.

Incidentally why would I accept a truce from someone who is plainly defeated? (if you want to put it in those terms)
« Last Edit: 18/10/2010 19:43:04 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #64 on: 18/10/2010 22:29:53 »
BC since you assumed I was trolling, but cleartly I wasn't, just replying to your posts, I refuse to go back there and want to move on. should you persist in not reading my posts but persist in continuing to encourage me to continue on a subject wherby you can bully me and accuse me of things I have no intention to do, I shall not be answering your posts as there is no point if you don't read them or the links I submit to answer your questions.

« Last Edit: 19/10/2010 02:25:02 by echochartruse »
A view with an open mind

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #65 on: 19/10/2010 06:54:20 »
As I said before,
You are showing all the signs of being a troll.


You refuse to answer questions asked bout your drivel.
Here's yet another question you won't bother to answer.
when you say "I do know that there is still negative effects and risks of the manufactured aspirin ( Still NOT eliminated) with brand new health risks."

WHAT ARE THE BRAND NEW HEALTH RISKS?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #66 on: 20/10/2010 23:50:31 »
Ok If I wrote something you didn't understand then I will try to do better here.

what I am saying is,

I never knew I had the option of using willow bark.

You say there are health risks with willow bark, a natural tree and therefore it is better science creates a manufactured version to be able to control the dosage, and whatever.

Manufacturing Aspirin which does the job which it is intended for but creates a "brand new set of risks", one example: internal bleeding.

I don't want to harp on this subject. but I know that my posts are related. I don't start these post subjects.

In regard to cancer, a lot of things are connected to cancer. We seem to be more concerned with what is at the tail end of cancer rather than finding ways to eliminate the causes. Science is encouraged to create new methods, drug components rather than find the cause of the disease and eliminate it. This is not just my view.

My view is that we should all have a truthful, well educated choice on the environment we live in, the remedies we take and the procedures we require throughout our lifetime.
Science should be forefront in defending our natural right to decide and make the right choice.
If willow bark is never offered to me and I don't know about it I am misinformed about the options I have.

too many times some 'product' is created in science but the end product, such as waste, run off, etc are not thought about.

in regard to MG food, Tassie devils, it is all relevant.

you say so what more people are getting cancer
fat people drink diet coke. So what.
maybe not in those words but....

if you look at the other end to see that Saccharin is not a food substance and reminds me of melamine.
Saccharin passes through us unchanged, what goes in comes out. But is known to cause cancer in rats, obesity in people and can be fatal for fetus of mother as it transfers. Saccharin is just one sugar substitute. Sugar substitutes cause known health problems, other substitute sweeteners can be worse for your health, changing chemicals in your body that will eventually poison you. Why substitute. I have posted links to scientific sites for this.

Run off from plantations have been known to cause cancer both natural fields using chemicals and GM fields with rotting produce falling into our streams and in the soil. We should all have a choice in our environment, in our own health and we should look at elimination rather than finding a cure for cancer.


A view with an open mind

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #67 on: 21/10/2010 07:11:32 »
"Manufacturing Aspirin which does the job which it is intended for but creates a "brand new set of risks", one example: internal bleeding. "
Nope, as I explained, the willow bark has that problem too.
I said "Willow bark works as a painkiller because it contains salicylic acid. The same salicylic acid is produced in the body from aspirin. and it's what gets rid of headaches.
However, the free acid is rather toxic at high concentrations- in particular the phenolic hydroxy group damages the proteins in the stomach."



"My view is that we should all have a truthful, well educated choice on the environment we live in, the remedies we take and the procedures we require throughout our lifetime. "
Yet you cite web pages that are about the wrong materials and talk nonsense anyway.

You don't even notice the contradiction when you say
"Saccharin passes through us unchanged, what goes in comes out. But is known to cause cancer in rats, obesity in people and can be fatal for fetus of mother as it transfers. "

Meanwhile you refuse to answer questions and you refuse to listen to answers given to your points.

Why can you not admit you were simply wrong ?
and, before you waste bandwidth with anything else, let's see your answer to this

WHAT ARE THE BRAND NEW HEALTH RISKS?


Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #68 on: 21/10/2010 16:23:10 »
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.


*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #69 on: 23/10/2010 01:00:32 »
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.

I have answered the questions if you care to read the forum. I have included scientific evidence which has been described as "Rubbish" without providing any evidence of why it is deemed to be rubbish.

Yes I may mentioned Saccharin when I meant all artificial sweeteners and I have corrected this in my previous posts.

Saccharin = Cancer in offspring of breast-fed animals, low birth weight, bladder can¬cer, hepatotoxicity
http://www.nursing.upenn.edu/ahnp/Documents/whitehouse_the%20potential%20toxicity%20of%20artificial%20sweeteners.pdf

I've already submitted links to scientific sites that clearly state all sugar alternatives cause health problems.

You only need to look at the material safety data sheet to find the problems caused by Aspirin
if you look at the material safety data sheet for Saccharin you will find the document is mostly stated as "information not provided"

Quote from:  author MSDS_aspririn_BP.aspirin
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

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/04/980422065353.htm
Quote
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.

Shouldn't we have an informed choice on rememdies available?

it is apparent that people here are unaware of the danger of taking Aspirin but fully know the dangers of taking natural remedies. how can anyone make the right decision about their cancer therapy?

http://www.drugs.com/npc/willow-bark.html
I have since found Willow bark.
and now that I know about Willow Bark I am not interested in taking that either. At least that is my decision. It could be different for some others.

BC, You may like to provide evidence why you stated what I say is "Rubbish"

« Last Edit: 23/10/2010 03:39:02 by echochartruse »
A view with an open mind

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #70 on: 23/10/2010 18:38:09 »
"BC, You may like to provide evidence why you stated what I say is "Rubbish""
Because we are not rats.

At high doses saccharin causes cancer in rats- but through a mechanism that doesn't exist in humans.

In the meantime, rather than lying about having already answered it,
WHAT ARE THE BRAND NEW HEALTH RISKS?
« Last Edit: 23/10/2010 18:44:07 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #71 on: 23/10/2010 21:40:10 »
BC still not reading my posted links.

Please read the link associating artificial sweeteneers with obesity previously posted.
You are aware that Obese men are at increased risk for erectile dysfunction.
So its proven that artificial sweeteners cause obesity which in turn cause other illnesses and sometimes can be fatal.
Hang on isn't that why people take artificial sweeteners? So they don't get fat?
so now we find the very thing they take the artificial sweetener for to avoid is exactly what the artificial sweetener casues.

does that make sense to you. please read the scientific proof already posted.


Quote from:  authorhttp://www.nursing.upenn.edu/ahnp/Documents/whitehouse_the%20potential%20toxicity%20of%20artificial%20sweeteners.pdf
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.

'Replication studies and long-term assays are required to decrease fear resulting from the limited research that currently exists.'

"Fears resulting from limited research?"

Isn't Saccharin the most tested artificial product in our food on the market? with over 6,000 products including it I would hope so, but apparently Not.

Doesn't the FDA ban substances for human consumption that cause cancer in rats?

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. 

Congress not the FDA had the warning lifted from Saccharin because people wanted it..
Since the benefits of Saccharin is supposedly weight loss or non weight gain and artificial sweeteners has been scientifically proven to cause obesity then shouldn't Saccharin be taken out of our food chain as it is proven that it doesn't do what it has been approved for.
Quote from:  authorhttp://www.amazingpregnancy.com/pregnancy-articles/127.html
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"!

Doesn't the FDA ban substances tested on rats that cause cancer?
Please inform me.

please find the Saccharin MSDS posted separatly due to being so long and it is usless of me to just inclue the link if no one reads it and still wants proof. actually the MSDS basically states that not enough research has been undertaken, in my opinion. please see additional post.
Would you take something that has not been tested correctly for adverse human conditions and the evidence for its safety could not be provided?

here is the link to Saccharin msds
http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Calcium_saccharin-9923272
for those who want to know
« Last Edit: 23/10/2010 22:16:23 by echochartruse »
A view with an open mind

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #72 on: 23/10/2010 22:15:36 »
Echo, please don't post anything more about saccharine.  Are you intentionally misunderstanding what Bored Chemist asks of you?

What are the brand new health risks that you claimed are associated with aspirin once it's purified from willow bark?

You made this claim without being aware of the side effects of either.

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #73 on: 23/10/2010 22:38:43 »
maybe no one understood me.

You assume I was not aware of the side effects of either -WRONG

Please don't assume that I have intentionally misunderstood what bored chemist asked.

BC wanted to know what health risks are associated with the new product that replaces Willow bark.
at least that is my interpretation. New health risks to replace the old health risks. At least that is my impression of his question coming from my statement in that post.

What I am saying is that we have a natural product that does the job. possibly some natural products have side effects and some are not worthy of taking causing adverse reations.

aspirin I was told was invented to substitute Willow bark because of the adverse health risks willow bark contributed too.

willow bark has adverse effects, But so does Aspirin.

Aspirin is a product created to substitute willow bark I am told here.
Yet aspirin creates a whole new lot of adverse effects.

I dont think i have to explain any further. I have listed the problems associated with taking aspirin. We have substituted a natural product with adverse effects for another with adverse effects.

I know the side effects of Aspirin, I had never heard of willow bark before this forum.

If I had the chance of deciding myself which side effects I wanted to take I would hope that science has made it available to me freely.

It appeared that no one knew of the side effects of Aspirin here, which I find amazing that people can take a drug that they are unaware of the problems it causes.

so the manufactured version of willow bark does not exclude health problems.

I would be very interested if anyone will answer my questions.

also please dont write for BC I am sure he can write his own posts, and I dont remember him asking that particular question in those words.
A view with an open mind

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #74 on: 23/10/2010 23:50:59 »
So what are the new health risks? What are the risks of aspirin that are not found in willow bark?  You still claim this to be true, despite admiting that you knew nothing of willow bark mere days ago.

This is your last chance to answer this question that has been repeatedly asked of you.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #75 on: 24/10/2010 09:50:06 »
"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?
« Last Edit: 24/10/2010 14:18:34 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #76 on: 24/10/2010 21:05:01 »
The first mention of Willow bark was by Bored chemist post 325380 2/10/10. without evidence in support of his statement.

Ben V, I asked you in my post 326286 10/10/10 “Has cloves ever been responsible for tumors?” in response to your statement that cloves contain a tumour promoting chemical that the medicalised version would have removed. Your comment came without supporting evidence and without replying to my question.

My statement was  - why synthesise/create a product when we can use the natural form that is freely available?

Bored chemist’s statement “I said that it would make sense to use a purified product rather than the mixture of compounds formed in a plant... The other thing I said was that you can take something from a plant and modify it to make it more effective.”

OK answered in simple terms.

My next question was if the plant is easily available and works without adverse effect why do we need to synthesise it, such as Radium weed and Cloves.
Not once did I say that natural things are good for you as BC assumed.
When i said “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.”

Natural medication should be ‘prime’ I meant that take away the natural component and some medical therapies may not exist.  Natural components which have been proven to be effective should not need to be synthesised. As this synthesisation creates a whole new set of health risks which I have posted here again....(see my previous post 327823)
“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.”

Bored Chemist's quote
Quote
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..

Are you saying if it kills aminals then it can be tested on humans? such as Saccharin?

In regard to Aspirin/willow bark.

you are asking me to compare the 2 even though I was not the person who firstly stated Willow bark.

Well I have and it appears to me that all the synthesisation to create the purified product and the modification of the substance to make it more effective has not been proven but Aspirin's toxicity is apparently higher or the same as Willow bark.

unless you can prove different and since BC introduced Willow bark into this forum I think it's his duty to back up his statement not me.

I ask again... If the natural product is no different in effectiveness, toxicity etc, Why do it?
is it just another  'political dogma'?
A view with an open mind

*

Offline Variola

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1063
  • Everyone should beware of The Pox...
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #77 on: 24/10/2010 21:48:26 »
Quote
I ask again... If the natural product is no different in effectiveness, toxicity etc, Why do it?
is it just another  'political dogma'?

And you have been told why, repeatedly by both BC and myself.

Why do you keep ignoring the answers? Why keep asking the same question over and over to get mileage out of your anti-pharma stance.

This is why you have been accused of trolling Echo.
  A potty-mouthed, impertinent female who thinks she is God's gift to men" -JimBob

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #78 on: 24/10/2010 22:38:08 »
OK, Echo, please read this summary of the willow bark/aspirin question. It is merely a summary of information other people have posted elsewhere in this thread.

Dried, powdered willow bark has been used for thousands of years to treat pain and fever. Dried, ground-up willow bark was reasonably effective, but since the amount of the active ingredient (in this case salicylic acid) in any plant is very variable, depending on the growing conditions, time of year, etc., it was impossible to know exactly what dose was being administered on any given occasion. (This is a problem with "herbal" medicines generally.)

In the 19th century it became possible to isolate salicylic acid, and accurate doses could be given, but the side effects, notably a tendency to cause gastric bleeding, were a major problem.

It was discovered that salicylic acid could be chemically modified to form acetylsalicylic acid, and that this had similar pain and fever suppressing properties but a markedly improved side effect profile. This acetylsalicylic acid is commonly known as aspirin. Aspirin still has some side effects, most drugs do. We can chose to take them or not (that's what the information leaflet in the packaging is for).


*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #79 on: 24/10/2010 22:51:03 »
Quote
If the natural product is no different in effectiveness, toxicity etc, Why do it?

That's one hell of an "if".

Using the ground-up, crude plant material is foolhardy, because one doesn't know from one batch to the next what the concentration of the different ingredients may be. That being so, an overdose, or an insufficient dose, becomes not so much a risk as a likelihood.

Isolating a pure chemical compound from a natural source is certainly sometimes a useful way of obtaining a drug (penicillin, from mould, is a case in point). But once we know the chemical structure of a particular drug molecule, it makes not a shred of difference whether we isolate it from a plant (or whatever) or whether we synthesise it in the lab. So we do whatever is the most efficient (it may not be possibly to harvest sufficient of the plant of interest for example).

Beyond that, modifications to the molecular structure are all aimed at making the drug better, either by improving its efficacy, or reducing its side effects. The advantage of aspirin over salicylic acid is that it has fewer side effects. Many drugs used against bacteria or parasites (for example penicillins antibiotics or artemisinins for malaria are used initially in their natural form, but as the target infectious agents develop resistance chemically modified versions are often used because whereas the original drug is no longer effective, the modified version is.

So no. Not a political dogma. I hope that answers your question.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #80 on: 25/10/2010 07:06:02 »
"Are you saying if it kills aminals then it can be tested on humans? such as Saccharin?
"
Yes, of course I am.
All drugs are toxic because all things are toxic.
It's a good idea to have a rough estimate of that toxicity , measured in animals, before giving it to humans.

I don't think I have to say much about willow bark; I only introduced it as an example of an outdated natural remedy. Rosy has described it and its history quite enough.
Now, please answer the question
WHAT ARE THE BRAND NEW HEALTH RISKS?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 6564
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #81 on: 27/10/2010 03:39:41 »
Ben, etc.. I would like to point somehting out to Echo.

Echo -

There are no new health risks. In fact, aspirin is safer than willow bark.

"In 1897 Felix Hoffmann created a synthetically altered version of salicin (in his case derived from the Spiraea plant), which caused less digestive upset than pure salicylic acid. The new drug, formally Acetylsalicylic acid, was named Aspirin by Hoffmann's employer Bayer AG. This gave rise to the hugely important class of drugs known as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)."

Having taken aspirin for a very long time - it is the best drug for my arthritis, I can guarantee that the above statement is absolutely true.

If you wish to argue a point, the least you can do is get the facts correct.

Oh, and the digitalis I take for my heart's arrhythmia is MUCH safer than foxglove - from which the drug came - because the manufactured drug, which is exactly the same chemical as in foxglove - can be given in exact quantities, not the random amount that one gets with a tea made from the dried foxglove. Being random, it can cause death if the dosage is off by only a relatively small amount.

The whole thesis of your argument is scientifically indefensible.

You are polluting this forum which I might remind you is based on science, not hearsay and web myths.
« Last Edit: 27/10/2010 03:50:37 by JimBob »
The mind is like a parachute. It works best when open.  -- A. Einstein

*

SteveFish

  • Guest
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #82 on: 29/10/2010 01:08:10 »
In my experience there are three kinds of trolls.

1) Ideological trolls have a specific political or business viewpoint that they wish to advance. They drop their line in forums to disturb discussions that oppose their views. They do this by clever questions or responses that rile up the forum and essentially stop any useful discussion. In some instances these folks are paid for this activity.

2) Hobby trolls are the original version of trolling behavior. They just enjoy making others get angry and argue, and get enjoyment from this activity. They often have their own sites where they show off and brag about their accomplishments. They succeed in their hobby, and get the most enjoyment, from the maximum disruption they cause on a forum.

3) Dunning-Kruger trolls (wiki Dunning-Kruger effect if you don't know about the publication). These folks also have a hobby that involves a set of beliefs based on no evidence whatsoever. They are incapable of understanding evidence and the normal logic of argument so that what they say, especially in a science forum, is so outrageous that honest members just can't resist trying to explain. People interested in science are susceptible because they are often born teachers. This is our own Echochartruse.

The best way to deal with these people is to not respond at all, but my experience with myself and others is that this is almost impossible. So my compromise is to write very little. This type of troll is so caught up in their own belief that they often write volumes that we all just have to read if we want to help them. Read just enough to get the gist and only respond with one short point, such as Bored chemist's "what are the new health risks?" Don't say much of anything else and let the troll write his/her silly essays. They eventually realize that they are no longer having any fun. This is the only way to win a troll game.

Steve
« Last Edit: 29/10/2010 14:36:50 by SteveFish »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #83 on: 29/10/2010 06:58:09 »
I think you may well be right Steve.
The effect (detailed here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
is certainly consistent with Echo's behaviour.
I wonder if pointing this out will help him to realise this.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Hugh888

  • First timers
  • *
  • 5
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #84 on: 02/12/2010 06:43:58 »
# Detoxification, the removal of toxins from the body, is considered by  many clinics as a very important part of their treatment.  A variety of approaches are used, including colon cleansing, fasting, chelation, water therapy, heat therapy, and nutritional, herbal, and homeopathic methods. Max Gerson introduced coffee into the enema procedure, which causes the liver to release stored up toxins into the digestive system to be eliminated. Increasing your water intake may be one of the best ways to get rid of toxins in the body.
# Nutritional therapy: Two types or approaches are emerging. One is a specialized combination of nutrients used as a targeted cancer therapy, depending on the individual needs of the patient. The other, which also depends on the needs of the patient, is a more general approach seeking to boost health and strength.
# Psychology and Psychotherapy, although used at most clinics, would be considered an adjunctive therapy. Psychological counseling, support groups and even psychotherapy make up a critically important aspect of therapy in the world's most successful cancer treatment centers. Some doctors have reported that a traumatic psychological event in a person's life may trigger the appearance of cancer one to two years later. Music, meditation, relaxation techniques, and stress reduction have proven to significantly enhance the power of the immune system. Some therapists include emotional and even spiritual counseling, not only for the person's regular life, but in dealing with the trauma of cancer

*

SteveFish

  • Guest
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #85 on: 02/12/2010 15:47:54 »
Hugh888:

Your post is an embarrassing collection of assertions made by charlatans who steal money from the gullible and helplessly ill. With the exception than many real clinics employ counseling to help patients psychologically deal with their illnesses, not to cure an illness (if it isn't psychological in origin), there isn't a single medically correct statement in your post. All you have to do to prove me wrong is provide some credible research to support your points. This is a science site, so don't offer opinions or articles in websites that don't reference their claims for evidence, just provide us with some science. A forlorn hope.

Steve

*

Offline Variola

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1063
  • Everyone should beware of The Pox...
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #86 on: 02/12/2010 20:05:38 »
Steve,

Hugh888 is a spammer, I already flagged him up on another thread  [:)]
  A potty-mouthed, impertinent female who thinks she is God's gift to men" -JimBob

*

SteveFish

  • Guest
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #87 on: 02/12/2010 20:18:03 »
Thank you Variola. I thought he might just be a common troll. Steve

*

BalletGirl

  • Guest
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #88 on: 03/01/2011 14:28:42 »
Hi guys,
I'm new here so please dont start arguments with me if I get something wrong  [:-[]

I think that spending time with family and close friends helps to take your mind off whats going on around you. Most of the time you just need a distraction, because when you are focusing on something else, your brain cant be in two places at once, so the pain subsides for a while.

Anyway, thats just my opinion :)

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #89 on: 10/01/2011 06:56:38 »
"if any of you knew anything about health you would know that a healthy human has a ph above 7 and one with cancer has a  acidic ph around 3 or 4 and the way to cure cancer is with an alkalizing lifestyle where only alkalizing food is consumed and only distilled water is drank"

LOL
Normal blood pH is slightly alkaline and will stay that way pretty much whatever fad diet you eat.

[Sorry to have to modify your post BC but the poster you have quoted has now been banned for contravening forum policy - Regards, Mod]
« Last Edit: 10/01/2011 16:53:15 by peppercorn »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline cancer_war

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile
Re: What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #90 on: 23/01/2013 14:32:29 »
Hi,

For certain cure of cancer, cardio, aids etc. i wrote a petition to the US White House.
I need 100000 signature. Please sign it.

We demand $1 trillion/year fund to challenge against cardiovascular disease,cancer and death.
We want the creation of funds,at least $1 trillion/year, against all the diseases, primarily cardiovascular, cancer, diabet, genetic, AIDS, organ failures, that plague mankind.

We want funds for development of certain treatments, biological development of human organs, anti-aging and ultimately aim to stop death for biological reasons.

In addition to US budget, a special tax can be taken for immortality. Also by ensuring participation of the G20 countries, perhaps ensuring other countries this fund can be created.

The results of the researches and investigations must be available to public, In other words, it must be provided that everyone can reach the results.

It should be noted that, the biggest enemy is nature itself. Lets stop it immediately in order to stop the death of people.



http://wh.gov/yD9P
« Last Edit: 23/01/2013 14:38:06 by cancer_war »

*

Offline profound

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 96
    • View Profile
Re: What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #91 on: 25/01/2013 20:14:51 »
Science has grown so much and is growing is there any medicine found for cancer?

Spam link removed - Mod

only treatment is chemotherapy.


and more chemotherapy.

it will always be the treatment for cancer.

always.just like the last 50 years.

makes a ton of money.

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #92 on: 26/01/2013 02:34:06 »
only treatment is chemotherapy.

and more chemotherapy.

it will always be the treatment for cancer.

always.just like the last 50 years.

makes a ton of money.
There are in fact multiple treatments.
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.


*

Offline profound

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 96
    • View Profile
Re: What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #93 on: 26/01/2013 13:09:18 »
only treatment is chemotherapy.

and more chemotherapy.

it will always be the treatment for cancer.

always.just like the last 50 years.

makes a ton of money.
There are in fact multiple treatments.
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.




There are in fact multiple treatments.
Surgery
Radiation Therapy
Chemotherapy.

Yes,you are totally right.

Yes these have been around for decades and will continue for decades.Also known as cut/burn/slash.

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.

Of course these drugs don't work or have horrific side effects and you end up 6 feet under as wormfood but who cares?

They laugh all the way to the bank.

A study of cancer drug research studies found 80% were fraudulent,plagiarized,unrepeatable,had missing data,fudged,messaged,or written by people on the company's payroll or ghost written showing positive effects by "respected" people who had been given $10000 to $100000 to let their name be put on the research.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8169
    • View Profile
Re: What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #94 on: 26/01/2013 14:42:27 »
A study of cancer drug research studies found 80% were fraudulent ...

Can you post a link to that study ?

*

Offline profound

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 96
    • View Profile
Re: What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #95 on: 27/01/2013 16:27:41 »
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

This is very good article and shows just 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.

And it a shocking indictment of "research" and scientists.Read the whole article.


links are in the article.

"Worse, in medicine, it can delay the development of life-saving treatments or prolong the use of therapies that are ineffective or dangerous. Malpractice comes to light rarely, perhaps because scientific fraud is often easy to perpetrate but hard to uncover..."

more than two-thirds of the biomedical and life sciences papers that have been retracted from the scientific record are due to misconduct by researchers, rather than error...

Those who document misconduct in scientific research talk of a spectrum of bad practices. At the sharp end are plagiarism, fabrication and falsification of research. At the other end are questionable practices such as adding an author's name to a paper when they have not contributed to the work, sloppiness in methods or not disclosing conflicts of interest..


In medicine where the profit motive over rides all ethical considerations the fraud is even more prevalant.Billions rest on the marketing dangerous and ineffective drugs.

Glaxowellcome has been fined not millions but billions over the last 30 years for all sorts of practices.
This is on record.Just google them.You will be shocked.

*

Offline schneebfloob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 49
    • View Profile
Re: What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #96 on: 27/01/2013 16:53:19 »
I absolutely despise posts with an agenda, and over the past couple of days I have seen quite a number of them. Post after post of 'beware of the evil big pharma'.

I'm talking about stuff like this:
Quote
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.

No names named, no proof, pure conjecture. If you know something then you should be taking it to the authorities. I cannot stand this drivel. If you have something to add about cancer research then by all means go ahead. But this is not a forum for discussing conspiracies. Keep them to yourself.

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Re: What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #97 on: 27/01/2013 19:16:26 »

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.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8169
    • View Profile
Re: What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #98 on: 27/01/2013 19:18:48 »
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 ...

[attachment=17449]
 
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 ? ...


http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/survival/latestrates/survival-statistics-for-the-most-common-cancers
« Last Edit: 27/01/2013 19:29:14 by RD »

*

Offline profound

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 96
    • View Profile
Re: What cancer therapies are available?
« Reply #99 on: 29/01/2013 16:17:11 »
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 ...

[attachment=17449]
 
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 ? ...


http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/survival/latestrates/survival-statistics-for-the-most-common-cancers

The article has links in it in a pale blue.Maybe you are using a old black and white monitor and can't see.

The article clearly states more than 2/3 are fraudulent,etc.

2/3 =66%

80% is clearly more than 66% and the article states "at least".

Since big bucks is involved you almost certainly can guarantee the figure is higher because money makes people lie,cheat,steal and kill.Do you agree?
I mean that is what the NEWS is ALL about.Lying,cheating stealing and killing.Do you agree.

Do you watch the News?  And it is mostly about lying,killing,cheating,stealing.


There was anther paper with the an at least 80% figure implying it was more than 80%.

I can't find that at present but I will post when I do.

Now regarding your graph.It is very dodgy and very misleading.I wonder who put it together and what their agenda was.Where did you get it from?

Each year, more than 1 million cancer patients receive outpatient chemotherapy, radiation, or both. On the US National Library of Medicine website (PubMed), - is the news of a study estimating the overall contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year "survival" in adults in the US at a shameful 2.1%. Top this off with 201 side effects listed on the Chemocare website alone. The American Chinese Medicine Association says that "most cancer patients die of chemotherapy." How does this factor into the medical dictum "First Do No Harm"? It is actually misleading to promote chemotherapy for cancer treatment because it permanently damages the body and immune system and causes other cancers to spring


Here is proper graph with actual FIGURES of SURVIVORS  not MISLEADING percentages.

i mean 10000 got treated and 100 are alive or 10 are alive after 5  years.Look at those figures and how different from that misleading graph you posted.

Also a friend of my brother-in law just died of cancer today.He had been treated with chemotherapy "therapy" for the last 2 months.He was only 26.Leaves a wife and child behind.

http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/chemotherapy-effectiveness.html



http://articles.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2008/August/8.5chemo_survival.jpg
« Last Edit: 29/01/2013 16:33:18 by profound »