Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

A possible cure for cancer?

profile picture
cow.
Posts: 416 - Karma: 200

works 30% of the time, 100% of the time.

this guy has a much better cure for cancer than is currently on the market. pretty magical. it's real, folks.

if the video is too long for some of you to watch, it's about a certain Dr. Burzynski, who comes up with a new theory on cancer treatment, which turns out to be correct. however he is plagued by the FDA (who is controlled by the large pharmaceutical companies) as they don't want to lose the retarted profit margin they have on cancer drugs that don't really work. he has to go through like 7 lawsuits (and is found guilty on only the last one for some minor injunction because of some shit the FDA pulled), and while he's on probation, one of the drug companies steals his ideas, and licenses it for themselves.


when i started watching (and i'm sure some of you might have this query) i searched burzynski up, to see if there was anything on him. like, is he some wierd dude who pulled this out of his ass? i only found 3 or 4 articles, 2 of which slammed him pretty hard. however, it says several times in the movie that the FDA was running a smear campaign, but i believe that his science was perfectly sound for one reason: the drug company took his idea. which means it was a good (fking awesome?) idea. which means that their smear campaign was total bullcrap. if this guy really was some quack who came up with a random idea, the FDA and drug companies would have simply disregarded him, not engaged him in many lengthy lawsuits (at the cost of peoples lives, i might add).

opinions?




i dearly hope this aint a repost.
Nov 27 2011 3:08PM
0 0
profile picture
Ski_Alot
Posts: 5900 - Karma: 3,627
wow, thats pretty amazing
Nov 27 2011 3:16PM
0 0
profile picture
DUKES
Posts: 5150 - Karma: 691
There has been a cure for cancer but the governments and organizations cover them up so that they can make money on the expensive treatments. It cost $50,000 for my moms breast cancer treatment.
Nov 27 2011 3:22PM
0 0
profile picture
howlongcanausern
Posts: 4982 - Karma: 1,737
i bet it was worth every penny.
Nov 27 2011 3:26PM
0 0
profile picture
theBearJew
Posts: 10951 - Karma: 15,633
didnt watch the video, but which form of cancer is he curing?
Nov 27 2011 3:27PM
0 0
profile picture
VT_FLO
Posts: 3806 - Karma: 147
This is straight off of yahoo answers.

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
Burzynski claims to cure cancer with extracts from human urine.

There shouldn't really be any need to say more, but here goes.

Burzynski is actually an MD (though his claim to a PhD is apparently dubious); however he had no specialty training in cancer and had no preclinical or clinical cancer research experience when he announced his 'cure for cancer' 35 years ago.

His ''antineoplastons" -the substances he has isolated from human urine which he claims cure cancer - have never been shown to have any effect on cancer; attempts to replicate his claimed results by the National Cancer Institute, the Japanese National Cancer Institute and Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals failed.

Be wary of unsubstantiated testimonials about miracle cancer cures. You have no way of knowing whether the person ever had cancer in the first place, much less has been cured.

And you have no way of knowing whether, if genuine, they are still alive.This is from Orac's Respectful Insolence blog:

''...Dr. Burzynski first gained fame for his antineoplastons back in 1988, when Sally Jesse Raphael featured four "miracle" patients of Burzynski, who, according to her, had had incurable cancer and failed conventional therapies but were then cancer-free, thanks to Dr. Burzynski. Unfortunately, four years later in 1992, Inside Edition followed up these four patients:

'In 1992, "Inside Edition" reported that two of the four patients had died and a third was having a recurrence of her cancer. (The fourth patient had bladder cancer, which has a good prognosis.) The widow of one of Raphael's guests stated that her husband and five others from the same city had sought treatment after learning about Burzynski from a television broadcast -- and that all had died of their disease. In 1995, a federal grand jury indicted Burzynski for mail fraud and marketing an unapproved drug. The indictment charged that he had billed insurance companies using procedure codes for chemotherapy, even though his treatment was not chemotherapy. He was tried in 1997 but not convicted.' ''

***EDIT***

Oh looky! A total of 8 answers, all from people who joined YA on the same day specifically to answer this question!

Suspicious? You decide!
Nov 27 2011 3:29PM
0 0
profile picture
cow.
Posts: 416 - Karma: 200
i'm aware of the crap a bunch of people put to him. but i cant help but think that the FDA spent 20 years getting people to hate him. they dont do that unless they had very good reason.

doesn't the drug company's approval of his very same compound make you a LITTLE suspicous!?

i went into that movie thinking it was bs.
Nov 27 2011 3:34PM
0 0
profile picture
Cufe.
Posts: 1950 - Karma: 262
and this is why i hate corporatist countries. you get great ideas beat down by mega corporations who want to profit off the pain of others. despicable.
Nov 27 2011 3:35PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,747
you cannot cure cancer, only manage it. It's not a bacteria or a virus or some other sort of pathogen than can be have a vaccine or some other cure.  a 'cure for cancer' is impossible. I don;t understand how this has been so amazingly difficult for people to understand.
Nov 27 2011 3:43PM
0 0
profile picture
Rachy
Posts: 4355 - Karma: 2,761
Old news. There have been several cures for cancer over the last few years that have gotten little to no publicity and are deemed too expensive or whatever.

How about the guy that was cured of HIV. Now that's a big deal (that no one knows about).
Nov 27 2011 3:47PM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
you can use very pure mdma to cure cancer, but the amount needed would be deadly
Nov 27 2011 3:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Panda_with_Guns
Posts: 3040 - Karma: 1,620
this. cancer is just mutated cells that split forming more mutant cells.
Nov 27 2011 3:53PM
0 0
profile picture
TheHamburglar
Posts: 3895 - Karma: 3,314
CBD has anti-carcinogenic properties, and hash oil has been known to reduce tumors to nothing just by skin application.
Nov 27 2011 3:54PM
0 0
profile picture
AGOF
Posts: 2038 - Karma: 3,602
i thought to cure aids you just needed about 250000 dollars in cash injected into you
Nov 27 2011 3:56PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,747
stop. god. it hurts.


HIV is the same as the common cold. you CANNOT develop an immunity to it.  The reason? the virus changes so frequently that as soon as your body has antibodies suited for it it's changed enough where they're completely useless. exact same thing as the common cold. you can't develop a vaccine since as soon as you develop it the virus has already changed enough where it just won't work.

That being said, there are certain people who don't have the proper receptors to be able to get infected with HIV (although they could still carry it).  That, however, is genetic and can't just be changed at will.  Why that person got curred? No idea, but it sounds like a load of bogus. Probably why the guys paper was rejected from any peer reviewed journals, since it just isn't good reputable science.
Nov 27 2011 3:59PM
0 0
profile picture
Toasty.
Posts: 6195 - Karma: 2,281
Like dayne (DUKES$) said, they have cures but they dont want to use them. After my mom beat skin cancer, after all the surgeries and kimo it came dam close to 150,000 dollars
Nov 27 2011 4:04PM
0 0
profile picture
Lucas
Posts: 4881 - Karma: 1,575
ITS ALL A CONSPIRACY!!!1!!1!!1111!
Nov 27 2011 4:05PM
0 0
profile picture
Anathema
Posts: 21048 - Karma: 5,061
maybe not "cure" an individual's cancer, but cure it as a whole, yes. what i mean by that is, you might not be able to take cancer away from someone who currently has it, but you can develop a way to detect it early on and effectively prevent your genes from mutating and altering the process of cell growth and division.

so really, you're right when you say it isn't curable, because if your cells are already fucked, how can that be changed. but if you look at the broad term, effectively eliminating people from developing cancer and therefore cancer is abolished from our population as a result, i'd say that means we've cured it.


Nov 27 2011 4:06PM
0 0
profile picture
BlakeG
Posts: 1450 - Karma: 1,030
yes but you can stop the massive amounts of cells turning cancerous aswell as you can reverse them to be un cancerous, Noah Wallace posted a link about it on his facebook wall about canadian scientists who made a drug that controlled the mitochondria from casuing the cells to rapidly multiply and become cancerours
Nov 27 2011 4:08PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,747
looked up further about this, he's actually homozygous for a gene that alters the receptors on certain HIV infected cells causing him to have a resistance. he's an extremely rare case to have these genes, and after a bunch of bone marrow transplants to enhance this then the virus in his body went downhill.  this is NOT something that can be done with anyone. this could only be done with certain individuals who have that specific gene. why it's rejected as a cure, as it can only cure a fraction of infected individuals.
Nov 27 2011 4:11PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,747
that's all fine and dandy that you can catch it early on and prevent it from spreading, but you'd have to be constantly doing checkups on every individual in the world every month or so to make sure they're clear of any cancerous cells.

if you catch it right away you can treat it, but how often will you catch it right away?? very very rarely.


and you cannot eliminate people from developing cancerous cells. impossible.  you can reduce the risks of developing cancerous cells, but there will always be that risk.

cancer is something you cannot eliminate.
Nov 27 2011 4:15PM
0 0
profile picture
Rachy
Posts: 4355 - Karma: 2,761
Thats what the article is about... that his findings were being rejected and slowly but surely it did get published, he ended up getting quite a bit of recognition in the community and so forth. And now apparently they are using the idea for various studies that are being published in scientific journals and so forth. All related to said receptors.

And as far as a cure for cancer, I thought the term "cure" was accepted to be, getting rid of the disease in which the life span after getting rid of said disease was no different than someone who had not had it. From what I've read is that this is becoming more common with certain types of cancer.

The huge step is ridding cancer without chemo/radiation/all the bad side effects that currently exist... which on a few instances has occurred.

But whatevs, I'd rather be hopeful than totally cynical. At least that's the perspective I'd want my doctor to have.

I understand if you're a medical student or whatever, but hope is what keeps people going. Weird sometimes accidental situations are what makes breakthroughs happen. Sure lots of stuff is crap, but sometimes something happens that's totally amazing. I like to hope for those amazing things.
Nov 27 2011 4:22PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51620 - Karma: 162,052
Repost but dope none the less.


The documentary was pretty ridiculous to any who haven't seen it. Worth the watch. Not sure if it's on netflix though
Nov 27 2011 4:24PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,747
^
you don't prove something right, you prove it wrong.

being cynical about a treatment is the only way to improve it; being hopeful about it won't help at all.

science advances through cynics. if you agree with an idea the idea ends there. if you disagree with it and try to poke holes in it then you might find holes. holes can then be patched, improving the idea.
Nov 27 2011 4:26PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51620 - Karma: 162,052
Watch the documentary burzynski.



He was sued multiple times by the fda for basically nothing. They tried to shut him down. At the same time they tried to steal his work and patent it.




IF they can't make money they don't give a fuck. If they can't patent it they can't make money off it. They've poured so much loot into the cancer industry.


It really isn't that crazy to think that there are better alternatives than shit from 30 years ago that itself is carcinogenic.


Really worth the watch. 2 or 3 hours long
Nov 27 2011 4:28PM
0 0
profile picture
Rachy
Posts: 4355 - Karma: 2,761
Not what I was meaning by cynical. I said be totally cynical meaning there is no cure, there won't be a cure, it's not worth looking into. Then referring to the doctor scenario. You better believe i'd be getting second, third and 8th opinions if I was told I was going to die from cancer. I'd find the doctor that says, maybe we can do this instead. That's the doctor I would want.
Nov 27 2011 4:33PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51620 - Karma: 162,052
C.R.E.A.M.


I think people underestimate the power of money, especially large amounts.


That doesn't mean it's true, but at the same time you can't just assume that everyone is looking out for your best interests. The almighty $$$ rules.


just saying, it's fucked but that's the way it is.
Nov 27 2011 4:36PM
0 0
profile picture
Radio
Posts: 946 - Karma: 12
i watched the entire video, and i dont belive everything i watch but this amazed me. i cant belive the fda is paid by large corperate companys and that they would do so much to get that doctor out of the way. they would alow hundreds of patients to die just so they could control the market
Nov 27 2011 5:23PM
0 0
profile picture
BmoChop
Posts: 2071 - Karma: 96
Click for larger image
Nov 27 2011 5:28PM
0 0
profile picture
gotti
Posts: 4269 - Karma: 4,550
completely false, considering cancer is mutated cells, most often caused by a gene mutation, causing them to replicated at a higher speed. If there were some way to isolate the mutated cells, it would not be difficult to kill them. The only problem is that you don't want to kill healthy cells and you want to make sure that all the mutated cells are killed or else the cancer will reoccur.
Nov 27 2011 5:35PM
0 0
profile picture
Anathema
Posts: 21048 - Karma: 5,061
not really. if you can find a way to prevent it that's proven to work, say perhaps by some sort of drug that prevents cancerous cells from developing in the first place, you don't need to "catch" anything. you just give everyone the drug and boom, nobody can develop cancer.
Nov 27 2011 5:38PM
0 0
profile picture
Wompuscat
Posts: 818 - Karma: 380
Okay I only read to a point where somebody said it is impossible to cure cancer. Not true. Cancer is simply caused by certain mutated/damaged genes that cause the cell to divide without limitation. To cure cancer one would need to understand the human genome to its core. We don't have the ability yet, but it is definitely feasible in the near future.
Nov 27 2011 5:47PM
0 0
profile picture
icon1234
Posts: 3081 - Karma: 1,475
Exactly this. You can cure cancer, but it would require the ability to repair mutated genes, which we cannot do atm.
Nov 27 2011 5:57PM
0 0
profile picture
DUKES
Posts: 5150 - Karma: 691
yep my mom is 4 years cancer free
Nov 27 2011 5:57PM
0 0
profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9215 - Karma: 5,398
Respectively, I beg to differ. The guy they cured of HIV was very lucky, if he didn't also have leukemia they would have never thought of giving him bone marrow that produces cells with modified receptors that HIV uses to enter the cell. They changed him so that the CCR5 (i think thats what they are) receptors were mutated so HIV couldn't infect his immune cells, and at the same time, the bone marrow transplant relieved him of leukemia. The bone marrow was changed via stem cells and such. Guys name is Timothy Ray Brown.

I don't know about this miracle cancer cure but it appears as though it doesn't work and I didn't look, but I bet there's no reasonable mechanism of action.

there's someone on NS whose name is CCR5 delta32 or something, which i believe is the mutated version of said receptor.

and see, genetic/stem cell research is pretty cool.
Nov 27 2011 6:07PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,747
^read my post right after that one. that article was very misleading.
Nov 27 2011 8:00PM
0 0
profile picture
NickSki.
Posts: 2009 - Karma: 61
Free in Canada.
Nov 27 2011 8:12PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,747
no, completely true.

you're diluting the definition of 'to cure'.  You even said exactly why it can't be cured. It's a gene damage to the part of the genome that controls cell reproduction.  A great example is of this is when the cells are exposed to radiation which damages their genes causing the very fast and uncontrolled replication.  It is purely impossible to revert that gene damage without going into every cell that is damaged and using some sort of restriction enzyme and cut out or repair every base pair that's damages/causing the uncontrolled reproduction.  If you could do that, you could cure it. You can't and almost certainly never will be able to do that, making curing cancer impossible.

you can have drugs and chemo and all sorts of treatments that will slow down the replication or kill the cells or you can physically remove the cells, but never truly cure it.

you can't prevent cancer either. you can greatly reduce the risks with all sorts of methods, but there is no way to ensure that absolutely none of your trillions of cells will ever become cancerous.

unless you consider that one could cure a broken arm by cutting it off, as they are no longer plagued with a broken arm, then you cannot cure cancer.
Nov 27 2011 8:13PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,747
oh, the word you're looking for is "remission"

" the state of absence of disease activity in patients known to have a chronic illness that cannot be cured. It is commonly used to refer to absence of active cancer..."
Nov 27 2011 8:16PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,747
I know this is not a scholarly source, but it gives a good general idea:

http://listverse.com/2007/10/04/top-10-incurable-diseases/
Nov 27 2011 8:23PM
0 0
profile picture
gotti
Posts: 4269 - Karma: 4,550
Meriam Webster defines cure as this:

-a course or period of treatment <take the cure for alcoholism>
-a complete or permanent solution or remedy <seeking acure for unemployment>
-recovery or relief from a disease

as u can surely see, the word cure has numerous connotations.

Also, a restriction enzyme would be no good because that just cuts out DNA based on specific nucleotide sequences and we wouldn't want to cut it out, we would want to repair it. What we need is what has been in the news a lot lately which I have alluded to in my previous statement. A Magic Bullet would be something which targets cancer cells and kills them. That would be the cure. Something such as a monoclonal antibody. See:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/411427

In conclusion, a cure can be a number of different things and to say something can't be cured is somewhat ignorant. There is a treatment for cancer, therefore it can be cured according to meriam webster.
Nov 27 2011 8:41PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,747
restriction enzymes aren't just used to cut out a section of DNA and that's it. they're used in almost any DNA modification. of course it's based off cleaving the DNA strand apart, but that's only the beginning of most processes. take a look at zinc finger nucleases, which you can use in allele edits and such. which is essentially exactly what you'd want to do.

also you'd have to know the sequence of each cell you were attacking and exactly where the mutation had occurred in that cell. not feasible at all.

and cancer is considered incurable by any medical definition
Nov 27 2011 9:27PM
0 0
profile picture
BE..
Posts: 1185 - Karma: 81
The only way I ever see there being a actual "cure"for cancer would be a genetically engineered virus that could either attck only cancer cells by itself of attack a marker that could be placed on cancer cells. Their really isn't any chemical that could do this because chemical are far to general in their target cells. IMO.
Nov 27 2011 9:33PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,747
frig. treatment and cure are completely different. treating something is not at all the same as curing it, although treatment is involved in a cure.

aids can be treated, it can't be cured.

malaria can be treated, it presently can't be cured (although there have been some incredible recent breakthroughs)


and I'm looking at this through the eyes of our modern science. sort of how Malthus looked at the human population growth through eyes of the science of his day and that's why his predictions were wildly off.  not comparing myself to Malthus, just I, like him, can't possibly know what new scientific advancements will come in the next little while.  30 years ago no one could predict the advancements we have today.
Nov 27 2011 9:35PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,747
that's what that guy was talking about with monoclonal antibodies and such which can be used to attack specific cells/pathogens etc.

this is already used as a treatment for some types of cancer.
Nov 27 2011 9:38PM
0 0
profile picture
Deluge
Posts: 4401 - Karma: 805
this.
Nov 27 2011 9:39PM
0 0
profile picture
gotti
Posts: 4269 - Karma: 4,550
in any court or anywhere where the definition matters, the meriam webster definition is used. Therefore a treatment is considered a cure
Nov 27 2011 9:40PM
0 0
profile picture
vauban08
Posts: 575 - Karma: 119
Cure for cancer? Why don't you ask Robert Neville, he can tell you a long story:

But seriously, this is good news. Cancer has caused so much grief throughout the ages.
Nov 27 2011 9:41PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,747
no! think about it logically for just a second.

you can't be cured without treatment

you can be treated without being cured


if you have a cut and wash it out and bandage it you are treating your cut. it hasn't yet been cured.
you could then rip the bandage off and get the cut dirty again, you did still treat it but it is still not cured.
Nov 27 2011 9:44PM
0 0
profile picture
DarthBall
Posts: 335 - Karma: 109
False. Just because an idea is found to be valid through a series of "hole pokes" does not mean that is the end of the idea. Many ideas are created vicariously through other ideas. It is very common practice in medicine to experiment with the foundations of unrelated ideas and apply them to your research. I have no quarrels with anything else you have said, it is all really on point, but come on man. An idea doesn't just end because everyone agrees with it.
Nov 27 2011 9:47PM
0 0
profile picture
gotti
Posts: 4269 - Karma: 4,550
logic doesn't matter in a court of law. the meriam webster definition does.

ya it may not be logical.
but cancer definitely can be cured.

you can't possibly foresee the future and say there is no substance that will be found in ten years that won't radically change biology as we know it.
Nov 27 2011 9:47PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)