|
Post by austkyzor on Oct 20, 2010 10:24:29 GMT -5
qooqǝɯɐƃ - oh no, they've heard of him - and the fact that his trails have yet to finish Phase II There's also the fact that it's still a TREATMENT, not a cure.
|
|
|
Post by Rogers91 on Oct 20, 2010 14:20:40 GMT -5
Okay aust I get it the cure for cancer at this point seems impossible and just might be however there are obviously large strides and attempts being made to change our current treatment of cancer from a slice it out and poison the rest and if we can find a way to at least make that part less painful then we will be heading in the right direction...
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Oct 20, 2010 15:50:54 GMT -5
The above statement is correct.
There is no cure - only treatment, but there have been leaps and bounds made on improving treatment options. Perhaps there will come a day when nanites can sweep through your body and remove all cancerous cells, quickly and painlessly. This, I think we would all agree, would be a nearly perfect cancer treatment. Who knows, there may be a single company that monopolizes this treatment, it might be available via different companies, and it may even be universally offered as a free treatment. But - by the time such a treatment exists, there will have been many more treatments before it that were less effective, but more effective than what we have today. This form of evolution of medicine is what leads me to believe that - even if there was such a thing as a cure - it's not something that would just randomly be discovered in a lab - it would be something that would have slowly evolved through experimentation. Experimentation for medicine - tends to be on patients. So each phase of experimentation would have been a treatment available to some cancer patients.
There won't ever be some magic cure found in some lab that will be kept super secret.
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Oct 20, 2010 18:43:31 GMT -5
The above statement is correct. There is no cure - only treatment, but there have been leaps and bounds made on improving treatment options. Perhaps there will come a day when nanites can sweep through your body and remove all cancerous cells, quickly and painlessly. This, I think we would all agree, would be a nearly perfect cancer treatment. Who knows, there may be a single company that monopolizes this treatment, it might be available via different companies, and it may even be universally offered as a free treatment. But - by the time such a treatment exists, there will have been many more treatments before it that were less effective, but more effective than what we have today. This form of evolution of medicine is what leads me to believe that - even if there was such a thing as a cure - it's not something that would just randomly be discovered in a lab - it would be something that would have slowly evolved through experimentation. Experimentation for medicine - tends to be on patients. So each phase of experimentation would have been a treatment available to some cancer patients. There won't ever be some magic cure found in some lab that will be kept super secret. I think this says it best. I'll leave it alone now.
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
Post by FranticProdigy on Oct 20, 2010 20:09:51 GMT -5
There is a theory circulating that cancer has been cured, but a group of scientists are keeping it secret so that the market will continue to thrive.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Oct 20, 2010 20:57:36 GMT -5
"There is a theory that when the meaning of the universe is discovered, the universe collapses and explodes again. There is another theory that says this has happened before." -unknown
The point of the above quotation is that, some theories don't really do anything.
If cancer was curable and a cure was found and it was being kept secret - then its not curing cancer.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Nov 4, 2010 10:16:55 GMT -5
>.<
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Nov 4, 2010 11:55:53 GMT -5
Cancer already has cures, chemo radiation therapy. You didn't read anything in this thread, did you?
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Nov 4, 2010 19:48:43 GMT -5
No, he's come back as a troll, unfortunately...
|
|
Quinn
Star
[AWD:191c07]
The eye of compromise.
Posts: 580
|
Post by Quinn on Nov 5, 2010 17:51:52 GMT -5
No, he's come back as a troll, unfortunately... NO NO NO! That is the last thing I want to be . I just wasn't paying attention, and i'm sorry.
|
|
|
Post by SwimFellow on Nov 5, 2010 18:41:23 GMT -5
That's good. You wouldn't be eligible for a prize if you were.
|
|
|
Post by megapplepc on Dec 5, 2010 18:51:36 GMT -5
i doubt this would ever happen...but there might be rebellious companies who feel threatened even if it saved lives. they might ridicule it and even attack it....
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Dec 30, 2010 3:17:17 GMT -5
qooqǝɯɐƃ - oh no, they've heard of him - and the fact that his trails have yet to finish Phase II There's also the fact that it's still a TREATMENT, not a cure. OK, I just watched the documentary called Burzynski and as it turns out he did complete phase 2 trials. In 2009 actually. Not to mention the fact that he never got grants from the NCI to do that research. And then was harassed by the FDA as they took him to court 5 times to put him in jail and out of business and keep him distracted as the US gov't tried to get their own patent for antineoplastons approved (which is patent infringement). It should also be mentioned that in each trial the FDA had no case against the effectiveness of the antineoplastons. And yes, antineoplastons are a cure. If patients living the rest of their life without cancer isn't a cure, then what is? Of course, antineoplastons weren't/aren't highly effective. From what I saw the highest percent of people cured was 27.5%. So Burzynski has a long way to go to perfect his treatment but he can't do that while fighting the US gov't or without the necessary grants to conduct his research. However, antineoplastons provide a much higher cure rate than any of the conventional FDA approved cancer therapies.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Dec 30, 2010 3:48:47 GMT -5
There is no cure - only treatment, but there have been leaps and bounds made on improving treatment options. No, there is a cure. For christ's sake Burzynski's antineoplastons cured dozens or hundreds of people. And they would be curing thousands more if it weren't for that meddling FDA. *shakes fist disapprovingly* Perhaps there will come a day when nanites can sweep through your body and remove all cancerous cells, quickly and painlessly. This, I think we would all agree, would be a nearly perfect cancer treatment. Did you never stop and think that there are actually genes in your body that produce certain proteins and what-have-you that do this very thing? However, they can be shut off under circumstances such as not having a sufficient source of nutrients, i.e. being unhealthy. Weston Price, among others, observed what happened when people move off their natural nutrient-rich diets onto western foods that lack sufficient amount of nutrients. You guessed it, they developed degenerative diseases. Conditions that are so prevalent and so common today that we don't even think to question their cause. We just think it's natural... This form of evolution of medicine is what leads me to believe that - even if there was such a thing as a cure - it's not something that would just randomly be discovered in a lab - it would be something that would have slowly evolved through experimentation. Well, you're sort of right. Antineoplastons were, in fact, discovered in a lab... But they weren't a perfect cure right off the bat. Burzynski's research and experimentation was what made the cure what it is today, although there's still plenty of room for improvement. My point is, Burzynski didn't stand on the shoulders of giants for the most part, which is what I assume you were implying. There won't ever be some magic cure found in some lab that will be kept super secret. No you're right, it won't be kept super secret. The fact that there's an excellent documentary about it proves this point. You can't keep something this important secret for very long.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Dec 30, 2010 8:27:54 GMT -5
Removing all of the cancer from a body is not curing the cancer. Cancer is a genetic problem that occurs naturally with time - there is no cure. A cure would involve stopping the genetic mutation from occurring and the antineoplastons did not do this.
So as said before - there are only treatments, this one seems to be the most efficient treatment, but again - just a treatment.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Dec 30, 2010 15:40:53 GMT -5
That's a veeeeeeeeeeery technical way of looking at it. What we mean when we say "cure" is that there is no noticeable cancer left from the part(s) the person had cancer in, and is therefor not affected by it anymore. If the patient had a tumor, and that tumor was gone after successful treatment they'd be cured of cancer. You and me aren't dieing from cancer, so to say we have cancer is in actuality pointless, even if we have the slightest bit somewhere in our body. So antineoplastons do actually cure people.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Dec 30, 2010 17:13:13 GMT -5
In that case, surgery and chemotherapy are effective cures too.
Yes we might be arguing semantics - but the point is, really cancer has no cure - it's a condition, like old age. Eventually people get it, sometimes it's caused by environmental things, but really we can treat the symptoms and get rid of the cancerous cells, and no matter what we do, we'll never invent a magic drug that just get's rid of it, or prevents us from getting cancer. Our treatments and methods of dealing with it will get more and more advanced (euthanasia evolved to surgery, evolved to chemotherapy, evolved to antineoplastons, and the process will continue) - and we'll find better ways to deal with it, but we will never truly cure it.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Dec 30, 2010 20:33:35 GMT -5
Those treatments aren't effective. They have success rates of less than 10%. And the guideline for those treatments' success is living 5 years after treatment cancer free. So they could still die from cancer but be considered cured in the treatment statistics.It doesn't matter that these treatments focus on the symptom, if they get rid of a person's cancer and that person remains cancer free the rest of their life then they've been cured of cancer. And I would disagree that cancer is an condition, like old age. This implies that it's unpreventable. I'ma quote myself here... Did you never stop and think that there are actually genes in your body that produce certain proteins and what-have-you that [kill cancerous cell, thus preventing it]? However, they can be shut off under circumstances such as not having a sufficient source of nutrients, i.e. being unhealthy. Weston Price, among others, observed what happened when people move off their natural nutrient-rich diets onto western foods that lack sufficient amount of nutrients. You guessed it, they developed degenerative diseases. Conditions that are so prevalent and so common today that we don't even think to question their cause. We just think it's natural...
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Dec 30, 2010 20:46:29 GMT -5
Genetic mutation is an eventuality - if people lived long enough - EVERYONE would develop cancer of some sort. And while some cancers are preventable, some just happen - and you don't really get much say in the matter, regardless of what steps you took to avoid cancer.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Dec 30, 2010 20:53:19 GMT -5
Of course people get a say in it. And not all mutation will be cancerous. And the cells that ARE cancerous would, under the right circumstances, be targeted by your body and destroyed. The way to provide these proper circumstances is to eat right, like the indigenous people observed by so many doctors in the late 19th and early 20th century.
|
|