Skip to comments.
Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers
New Scientist ^
| 1/17/06
| Andy Coghlan
Posted on 01/17/2007 5:28:53 PM PST by LibWhacker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
To: biff
Now, can they afford to have a cheap cure? The smart money says yes yes yes, because aging takes its toll in one way if it doesn't in another.
To: G Larry
"Do you have any idea how HUGE the cancer treatment industry is??? "
Exactly! What industry wants to put itself out of business? NONE.
The tough rules of the FDA support the cancer industry in NOT finding alternatives. Do you know how EXPENSIVE it is for drugs, and TREATMENTS to get approved by the FDA.
No one but the drug companies can afford it.
42
posted on
01/17/2007 9:42:42 PM PST
by
JSteff
To: bill1952
"Heard it all in the 70s when it was swine flu and apricot pit extract."
Gee, I never heard that the bird flu was a cancer cure... Can you supply some supporting documentation?
43
posted on
01/17/2007 9:45:01 PM PST
by
JSteff
To: bill1952
44
posted on
01/17/2007 9:54:17 PM PST
by
Minutemen
("It's a Religion of Peace")
To: LibWhacker
45
posted on
01/17/2007 10:12:11 PM PST
by
tubebender
( Everything east of the San Andreas fault will eventually plunge into the Atlantic Ocean...)
To: LibWhacker
Personally, I think broccoli will kill you. Raw broccoli will kill you even faster.
Unless, of course, it has some bacon and cheese with it.
Then it's real good for you, especially if it's accompanied by a large glass of a good red wine.
46
posted on
01/17/2007 10:26:01 PM PST
by
garyhope
(It's World War IV, right here, right now courtesy of Islam.)
To: JSteff
The FDA is a tool of drug companies and basically run by them. Too simplistic.
While snake-oil, impure drugs, sloppy research, poor testing may have been the "good intentions" of it's founding, the FDA stands today as an example of bureaucratic excess
Know that it came about as an add-on to an agricultural act in the 1930's?
Like unions, I think that the FDA stifles personal research creativity and prevents the competitive delivery of promising drugs to the consumer.
Drug companies, if public, report to the stockholders. Of what benefit is it to BigPharm to curtail the introduction of new therapeutics?
Bayer aspirin, under todays' FDA, would have never make it to market.
JMO - YMMV
47
posted on
01/18/2007 12:15:02 AM PST
by
GoldCountryRedneck
("Idiocy - Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large numbers" - despair.com)
To: LibWhacker
48
posted on
01/18/2007 12:56:07 AM PST
by
TigersEye
(If you don't understand the 2nd Amendment you don't understand America.)
To: JSteff
>Gee, I never heard that the bird flu was a cancer cure... Can you supply some supporting documentation?
No need to be deliberately obtuse, J.
Now: Bird flu & new cheap unknown cancer cure.
Then, swine flu & new cheap unknown cancer cure.
Stay real.
49
posted on
01/18/2007 2:12:25 PM PST
by
bill1952
("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
To: GoldCountryRedneck
"Of what benefit is it to BigPharm to curtail the introduction of new therapeutics?"
The benefit to the drug companies is that nothing that is not patentable, that can not be afforded to be tested under FDA rules will make it to FDA approval, will not make it to the market.
"Nothing" means drugs and treatment protocols. No one other than the drug companies has the money to undertake the process to gain FDA approval.
"Bayer aspirin, under todays' FDA, would have never make it to market."
Which actually supports my statements. Bayer aspirin has it uses and deserves to be allowed on the market. So the question based on that becomes; how many similar effective drugs can not afford to get FDA approval, and do not make it to the market?
So how many are not on the market today because of this? How many effective treatment protocols are not offered because they can not afford to make it to the market?
Remember, if it is not patentable, no drug company will offer it. If it is not patentable, and can not gain FDA approval insurers will not be pay for it, so smaller market and alternative treatments will never make it to the market.
Who can afford to get it approved? Only drug companies. I promise you if a drug companies board found one of their labs had found a way to get a cancer fighting drug from a non-patentable substance, they would never even agree to spend the money to get FDA approval.
That is why the push in this country and the European countries to consider making supplements fall under the FDA approval process.
FDA is good for the drug companies, and the drug companies by their complex products needing complex approval process is good for the FDA.
Hence the statement I made.
Remember, the true goal of any government agency becomes to keep itself in business. Drug companies do that for the FDA.
No FDA approval means that insurance (the major pay-or of treatments) will not pay for it. Few can afford the price of approved drugs and treatment protocols.
I will share a TRUE story with you but that I will send by Freep Mail.
50
posted on
01/18/2007 10:18:14 PM PST
by
JSteff
To: bill1952
You forgot about the 100 mile per gallon carburetor and the 50 mpg air filter.
51
posted on
01/18/2007 10:24:03 PM PST
by
JSteff
To: LibWhacker
52
posted on
01/18/2007 10:26:04 PM PST
by
gilor
(Pull the wool over your own eyes!)
To: garyhope
Personally, I think broccoli will kill you. Recipe for broccoli or beets: Cut 1/2 pound into small parts. Cover with lightly salted water in a medium sauce pan. Bring to a rapid boil for twelve minutes. Drain. Place in dispos-all and puree. Order a pizza.
53
posted on
01/18/2007 10:34:56 PM PST
by
LexBaird
(98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
To: LexBaird
Perhaps with enough butter and salt, broccoli could be pureed and spread on top of a home made pizza and then covered with bacon and cheese. Then it might be OK.
54
posted on
01/19/2007 10:25:56 AM PST
by
garyhope
(It's World War IV, right here, right now courtesy of Islam.)
To: MHGinTN
but smoking does wonders to reduce MS, Lou Gehrigs, and breast cancer.
PS - just lost another friend to throat cancer - another one that never smoked or drank.
55
posted on
01/19/2007 8:09:05 PM PST
by
spanalot
To: spanalot
Perhaps I should go back to smoking ...
56
posted on
01/20/2007 9:28:39 AM PST
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support. Promote life support for others.)
To: MHGinTN
fand did I mention radon? Uranium miners that smoked less than half a pack a day had the lowest incidence of lung cancer. Those that did not smoke had more lung cancer.
57
posted on
01/20/2007 9:33:37 AM PST
by
spanalot
To: spanalot
The smoking hyped up the mucosal response and cleared more of the radon laden dust from their lungs?... Everything in life is a trade off don'tchaknow. BTW, I have a cinderblock foundation on my house ... haven't had the radon levels in the house checked, don't want to know unless I put it on the market as rental or for sale. me and my two old cats will tough it out ...
58
posted on
01/20/2007 9:42:19 AM PST
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support. Promote life support for others.)
To: MHGinTN
"The smoking hyped up the mucosal response and cleared more of the radon laden dust from their lungs"
Actually, the increased mucous lining prevents the radioactive particles from embedding in the membranes where they can do harm.
This was a great little article that was in the NY Slimes Sunday Magazine back in the early 80's when radon first became publicized.
59
posted on
01/20/2007 9:45:52 AM PST
by
spanalot
To: spanalot
This passage prompted my recalling the immortal cells of Henrietta Flack:
Crucially, though, mitochondria do another job in cells: they activate apoptosis, the process by which abnormal cells self-destruct. When cells switch mitochondria off, they become immortal, outliving other cells in the tumour and so becoming dominant. Once reawakened by DCA, mitochondria reactivate apoptosis and order the abnormal cells to die. I wonder, has anyone checked to see how those Flack cells metabolize?
60
posted on
01/20/2007 9:47:53 AM PST
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support. Promote life support for others.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson