PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice


KILLER_CLOWN
01-26-2012, 12:58 PM
Hubpages.com
Sun, 15 May 2011 17:05 CDT
Print
Canadian researchers find a simple cure for cancer, but major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.

Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is a little ripple in the news or in TV. It is a simple technique using very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders. So, there is no concern of side effects or about their long term effects.

This drug doesn't require a patent, so anyone can employ it widely and cheaply compared to the costly cancer drugs produced by major pharmaceutical companies.

http://www.sott.net/image/image/s3/66725/large/40764_f520.jpg

Canadian scientists tested this dichloroacetate (DCA) on human's cells; it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells and left the healthy cells alone. It was tested on Rats inflicted with severe tumors; their cells shrank when they were fed with water supplemented with DCA. The drug is widely available and the technique is easy to use, why the major drug companies are not involved? Or the Media interested in this find?

In human bodies there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria, but they need to be triggered to be effective. Scientists used to think that these mitochondria cells were damaged and thus ineffective against cancer. So they used to focus on glycolysis, which is less effective in curing cancer and more wasteful. The drug manufacturers focused on this glycolysis method to fight cancer. This DCA on the other hand doesn't rely on glycolysis instead on mitochondria; it triggers the mitochondria which in turn fights the cancer cells.

The side effect of this is it also reactivates a process called apoptosis. You see, mitochondria contain an all-too-important self-destruct button that can't be pressed in cancer cells. Without it, tumors grow larger as cells refuse to be extinguished. Fully functioning mitochondria, thanks to DCA, can once again die.

With glycolysis turned off, the body produces less lactic acid, so the bad tissue around cancer cells doesn't break down and seed new tumors.

Pharmaceutical companies are not investing in this research because DCA method cannot be patented, without a patent they can't make money, like they are doing now with their AIDS Patent. Since the pharmaceutical companies won't develop this, the article says other independent laboratories should start producing this drug and do more research to confirm all the above findings and produce drugs. All the groundwork can be done in collaboration with the Universities, who will be glad to assist in such research and can develop an effective drug for curing cancer.

You can access the original research for this cancer here.

This article wants to raise awareness for this study, hope some independent companies and small startup will pick up this idea and produce these drugs, because the big companies won't touch it for a long time.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/228583-Scientists-cure-cancer-but-no-one-takes-notice

mikey23545
01-26-2012, 12:58 PM
LMAO

KILLER_CLOWN
01-26-2012, 01:00 PM
LMAO

Figured i would post it just for you Mikey, there is hope but it cannot be ignored like voting for Obama, Romney, Gingrich, etc.

:)

mikey23545
01-26-2012, 01:01 PM
Goddamit KILLER, don't you have any idea what critical thinking is?

mikey23545
01-26-2012, 01:02 PM
Figured i would post it just for you Mikey, there is hope but it cannot be ignored like voting for Obama, Romney, Gingrich, etc.

:)

I'm sure you're a great guy in person, but man you are as far out in left field as it is possible for a human being to be.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-26-2012, 01:26 PM
I'm sure you're a great guy in person, but man you are as far out in left field as it is possible for a human being to be.

Actually i play the middle infield, equally yolked ya know!

Brock
01-26-2012, 01:40 PM
Q

orange
01-26-2012, 02:27 PM
The science of dichloroacetate and cancer (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/05/dichloroacetate_dca_and_cancer_deja_vu_a.php)

The business of dichloroacetate and cancer (http://www.thedcasite.com/the_dca_patents.html)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/University-of-Colorado-Boulder-sports-logo.png

JohnnyV13
01-26-2012, 05:06 PM
Hubpages.com
Sun, 15 May 2011 17:05 CDT
Print


[
In human bodies there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria, but they need to be triggered to be effective. Scientists used to think that these mitochondria cells were damaged and thus ineffective against cancer. So they used to focus on glycolysis, which is less effective in curing cancer and more wasteful.

The guy writing the article doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Mitochondria are not cells. Mirtochondria are cell organelles, which are protein structures WITHIN cells that perform specific functions--sort of like cellular machinery.

From this botched understanding, the best I can make out is that this would not specifically kill cancer cells, but would stop their "immortalization" (endless reproduction). Since cancer cells reproduce like crazy, the cell line would "burn out" and not replicate infinitely. Cells generally have a predetermined number of times they can be accurately replicated, determined by the number of "telemeres" one possesses.

Bump
01-26-2012, 05:29 PM
this article is probably bullshit. But if it were true, the pharmaceutical companies would get this person killed immediately and anyone who had been in contact with him. Curing cancer is never going to happen, too much money and corruption has won.

Ebolapox
01-26-2012, 05:32 PM
ROFL

it was funny in 2007, and it's funny now. it was intriguing in 1928, and it's already used in humans now for mitochondrial diseases.

there are ALREADY cures for certain types of cancer... unfortunately, morons don't realize that there are a LOT of different types of cancer. it's not a singular entity, but an almost limitless disease that manifests itself in every tissue of the body in different ways. example; there isn't ONE type of breast cancer, but SEVERAL. same with lung cancer, same with blood cancer (aka leukemia). I could continue, but it'll likely fall upon ignorant ears.

BigMeatballDave
01-26-2012, 05:46 PM
They don't cure shit. There is no money in the cure. The money is in the comeback.
Chris Rock

orange
01-26-2012, 06:50 PM
I suggest some folks should read #8. It does sort of work. And there are patents on it for further development.

Not for nothing is Ralphie rampaging.

KILLER_CLOWN sort of sideswiped reality for a change.

Brainiac
01-26-2012, 08:01 PM
I've invented a pill that turns water into gasoline, but the big oil companies aren't taking notice of that either.

petegz28
01-26-2012, 08:19 PM
I listened to a doctor talk about this tonight and he was very encouraged but did emphasize that this is still in it's early stages but if successful it will open up an entirely new area of science and medicine.

mikey23545
01-26-2012, 09:24 PM
I suggest some folks should read #8. It does sort of work. And there are patents on it for further development.

Not for nothing is Ralphie rampaging.

KILLER_CLOWN sort of sideswiped reality for a change.

Sideswiped reality...LMAO

KILLER_CLOWN
01-26-2012, 09:39 PM
This will be approved just like Laetrile was.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-26-2012, 10:06 PM
Sideswiped reality...LMAO

Orange and you should share a room, if not a cell.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-26-2012, 10:27 PM
Repeat business? FDA approves new cancer drug to treat toxicity caused by another cancer drug

(NaturalNews) The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a new cancer drug that allegedly treats the deadly side effects caused by another popular cancer drug. The new drug, Voraxaze (glucarpidase), is said to expel methotrexate, a commonly prescribed and highly toxic chemotherapy drug, from the body. But Voraxaze comes with its own set of harmful side effects, which shows that approving drugs to treat the side effects of other drugs is an endless, but highly profitable, cycle of toxicity.

Methotrexate's known side effects include kidney and liver destruction, skin rashes, mouth sores, damaged intestines, and death. The drug often lingers in the body following cancer treatments, as weakened organs become increasingly incapable of expelling it from the body. So to "fix" this problem, the FDA has decided to approve another drug that it says breaks down methotrexate and eliminates it from the system.

But Voraxaze, which is made from genetically-modified (GM) enzymes, carries with it harmful side effects of its own, including hypertension, arrhythmia, allergic dermatitis, nausea, and vomiting. And these are just the short-term side effects observed among a small clinical trial group of just 290 patients, which is the only trial that has been conducted evaluating the safety of Voraxaze.

Worse, Voraxaze received "fast-track" approval from the FDA based on a single clinical study of just 22 patients, which allegedly evaluated the drug's effectiveness. By all reasonable scientific standards, a single study with this ridiculously small amount of participants can hardly be considered a valid indicator of a drug's efficacy (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm287997.htm).

Contrast this with mainstream medicine's rejection of at least 24 separate studies, all with much larger sample sizes, that have identified a clear and definitive link between fluoride consumption and disease in recent days. "Further research" is always necessary when the issue involves proving fluoride's toxicity, or proving the benefits of an herbal or dietary supplement. But when a new drug is up for approval, one small, industry-funded study is enough for regulators.

So thousands of cancer patients who become poisoned by methotrexate, which is also used to treat psoriasis and arthritis patients, will also now receive an intravenous dose of GM enzymes that have never been definitively proven either safe or effective. Leave it to the FDA to once again pander to Big Pharma at the expense of public health.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/17/us-fda-voraxaze-idUSTRE80G2FE20120117

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034761_cancer_drugs_toxicity_Voraxaze.html#ixzz1kdL0wIWH

BIG_DADDY
01-26-2012, 10:29 PM
This will be approved just like Laetrile was.

I don't even know why you bother posting information for people to decipher. I know you want to help but the vast majority of people here anyway are are just sheeple following whatever the FDA says and far too lazy to start taking responsibility for their own health or their families. It's just far to easy to sit back and make fun of you and whatever you post.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-26-2012, 10:38 PM
I don't even know why you bother posting information for people to decipher. I know you want to help but the vast majority of people here anyway are are just sheeple following whatever the FDA says and far too lazy to start taking responsibility for their own health or their families. It's just far to easy to sit back and make fun of you and whatever you post.

I guess the reason being is that I can say hey I put it out there and it's each and every persons responsibility to do what's best for them. I don't take it personally that these people know not what they do, and if I can get a few to look into it then it's all worth it.

BIG_DADDY
01-26-2012, 11:03 PM
I guess the reason being is that I can say hey I put it out there and it's each and every persons responsibility to do what's best for them. I don't take it personally that these people know not what they do, and if I can get a few to look into it then it's all worth it.

Yea, I used to think like that too. Good to see you still trying.

JohnnyV13
01-27-2012, 10:15 AM
I guess the reason being is that I can say hey I put it out there and it's each and every persons responsibility to do what's best for them. I don't take it personally that these people know not what they do, and if I can get a few to look into it then it's all worth it.

Would help if you posted articles by people who actually know what they are talking about.

This guy doesn't even remember high school biology. Yet, we are supposed to trust his ability to discern that the evil big pharma goons are suppressing this magic bullet that will cure all cancer.

JohnnyV13
01-27-2012, 11:00 AM
Killer, I know you are looking for more validation for your lew rockwell evil intellectual property and evil big pharma is conspiring to hide cancer cures to protect their profits. I'm sorry, but this whole socio-political model is sub- moronic.

Do you really think the medical community would let family members die of cancer, just to save big pharma profits? Yes, doctors care so little about their wives that all 800k of them will agree to let them die to save revenue for oncologists. Btw, Ron and Rand are
part of the conspiricy.

Also, some reading comprehension on your part would really help. Your own moronic article states that DCA is 'widely available'. That means it already has a manufacturer, and if its off patent, it likely has multiple manufacturers. So, dumb ass, that's why no ones involved in big pharma. Second, its in trials. Alberta is publishing their results, and other doctors will try their solution. Some will prescribe it, off label, to cancer patients especially if the normal chemo isn't working, the patient agrees to try an experimental method, and they are confident the patient wont sue. Since DCA is ' widely availabe' that means its already approved.

Likely, its not a magic bullet, but will be one more tool in the box that is effective in some circumstances. I can tell you immediately why fixing the mitochondria has seemed counter intuitve: because it gives cancer cells MORE energy. And, after figuring out that mitochondria stops immortalization, they thought mitochondria were damaged. Apparently mitochondria are just 'switched off' in cancer cells and DCA turns them back on.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-27-2012, 11:59 AM
Killer, I know you are looking for more validation for your lew rockwell evil intellectual property and evil big pharma is conspiring to hide cancer cures to protect their profits. I'm sorry, but this whole socio-political model is sub- moronic.

Do you really think the medical community would let family members die of cancer, just to save big pharma profits? Yes, doctors care so little about their wives that all 800k of them will agree to let them die to save revenue for oncologists. Btw, Ron and Rand are
part of the conspiricy.

Also, some reading comprehension on your part would really help. Your own moronic article states that DCA is 'widely available'. That means it already has a manufacturer, and if its off patent, it likely has multiple manufacturers. So, dumb ass, that's why no ones involved in big pharma. Second, its in trials. Alberta is publishing their results, and other doctors will try their solution. Some will prescribe it, off label, to cancer patients especially if the normal chemo isn't working, the patient agrees to try an experimental method, and they are confident the patient wont sue. Since DCA is ' widely availabe' that means its already approved.

Likely, its not a magic bullet, but will be one more tool in the box that is effective in some circumstances. I can tell you immediately why fixing the mitochondria has seemed counter intuitve: because it gives cancer cells MORE energy. And, after figuring out that mitochondria stops immortalization, they thought mitochondria were damaged. Apparently mitochondria are just 'switched off' in cancer cells and DCA turns them back on.

dumbass hmm?

It's all about who you trust, so no it's not surprising that people would trust the establishment. I can never trust those on top who think the world is overpopulated and frankly see things like cancer as a boon. Some have said such wonderful things as "I would like to be reincarnated as a virus", So No you can forgive me for not trusting these people. There have been many instances of cancer cured thru such methods as Mega doses of vitamin C, Laetrile(vitamin b-17) and diet. Check out http://www.gerson.org/ as they cure most cases that come there way through non invasive means.

JohnnyV13
01-27-2012, 03:39 PM
dumbass hmm?

It's all about who you trust, so no it's not surprising that people would trust the establishment. I can never trust those on top who think the world is overpopulated and frankly see things like cancer as a boon. Some have said such wonderful things as "I would like to be reincarnated as a virus", So No you can forgive me for not trusting these people. There have been many instances of cancer cured thru such methods as Mega doses of vitamin C, Laetrile(vitamin b-17) and diet. Check out http://www.gerson.org/ as they cure most cases that come there way through non invasive means.

Yeah, if you want to figleaf your ego behind being a spelling nazi when a guy posts during working hours from a cell phone, be my guest. Unlike you, "conspiracy" is not normally part of my everyday writing. And, hello, I dropped letters from "intuitive" and "available".

But, I notice you never addressed the points that for your industry-wide conspiracy theory to be true, medical personnel would have to knowingly allow their siblings, parents, children and spouses to die of cancer to preserve their profits. That analysis has NOTHING to do with "who you trust". Also, Ron and Rand would have to participate.

Basic self-interest makes your beliefs impossible. Now, certainly, big pharma companies aren't going to spend money researching this path; because, hello, the potential profits aren't going to justify the R&D expense.

However, that isn't going to, and has not, stopped university researchers; who, apparently, have filed for use patents.

BTW, dumbass, I used to be a biotech patent lawyer, (though i usually patented genetically modified ag products). And my dad's a retired gastroenterologist. I grew up around numerous physician families. I've watched him treat lifelong friends and get consulted with cancer cases of his older sisters. If you think my dad let his friends, his sisters and my grandmother die to save big pharma, you don't know a damn thing.

O.city
01-27-2012, 03:42 PM
Cancer will never be "cured". Unless we figure out how to alter transcription factors and turn certain cells off without turning all cells off, it aint happening.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-27-2012, 09:58 PM
Grape seed extract kills head and neck cancer cells, leaves healthy cells unharmed
January 27, 2012

Nearly 12,000 people will die of head and neck cancer in the United States this year and worldwide cases will exceed half a million.

A study published this week in the journal Carcinogenesis shows that in both cell lines and mouse models, grape seed extract (GSE) kills head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells, while leaving healthy cells unharmed.

"It's a rather dramatic effect," says Rajesh Agarwal, PhD, investigator at the University of Colorado Cancer Center and professor at the Skaggs School of Pharmaceutical Sciences.

It depends in large part, says Agarwal, on a healthy cell's ability to wait out damage.

"Cancer cells are fast-growing cells," Agarwal says. "Not only that, but they are necessarily fast growing. When conditions exist in which they can't grow, they die."

Grape seed extract creates these conditions that are unfavorable to growth. Specifically, the paper shows that grape seed extract both damages cancer cells' DNA (via increased reactive oxygen species) and stops the pathways that allow repair (as seen by decreased levels of the DNA repair molecules Brca1 and Rad51 and DNA repair foci).

"Yet we saw absolutely no toxicity to the mice, themselves," Agarwal says.

Again, the grape seed extract killed the cancer cells but not the healthy cells.

"I think the whole point is that cancer cells have a lot of defective pathways and they are very vulnerable if you target those pathways. The same is not true of healthy cells," Agarwal says.

The Agarwal Lab hopes to move in the direction of clinical trials of grape seed extract, potentially as an addition to second-line therapies that target head and neck squamous cell carcinoma that has failed a first treatment.

Provided by University of Colorado Denver

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-01-grape-seed-neck-cancer-cells.html

Chiefspants
01-28-2012, 12:16 AM
Yeah, if want to figleaf your ego behind being a spelling nazi when a guy posts during working hours from a cell phone, be my guest. Unlike you, "conspiracy" is not normally part of my everyday writing. And, hello, I dropped letters from "intuitive" and "available".

But, I notice you never addressed the points that for your industry-wide conspiracy theory to be true, medical personnel would have to knowingly allow their siblings, parents, children and spouses to die of cancer to preserve their profits. That analysis has NOTHING to do with "who you trust". Also, Ron and Rand would have to participate.

Basic self-interest makes your beliefs impossible. Now, certainly, big pharma companies aren't going to spend money researching this path; because, hello, the potential profits aren't going to justify the R&D expense.

However, that isn't going to, and has not, stopped university researchers; who, apparently, have filed for use patents.

BTW, dumbass, I used to be a biotech patent lawyer, (though i usually patented genetically modified ag products). And my dad's a retired gastroenterologist. I grew up around numerous physician families. I've watched him treat lifelong friends and get consulted with cancer cases of his older sisters. If you think my dad let his friends, his sisters and my grandmother die to save big pharma, you don't know a damn thing.

Hey, uh, Killer, you planning on replying to this?

KILLER_CLOWN
01-28-2012, 12:23 AM
Hey, uh, Killer, you planning on replying to this?

He has it all figured out, no need.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-28-2012, 12:55 AM
Grapeseed Extract Kills 76% of Leukemia Cancer Cells in 24 Hours

Tuesday, January 06, 2009
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) A new study conducted at the University of Kentucky in the United States, and published in the journal Clinical Cancer Research, found that leukemia cancer cells exposed to grapeseed extract (GSE) were rapidly killed through a process of cell suicide known as "apoptosis."

In these laboratory studies, an astonishing 76% of leukemia cells committed suicide within 24 hours thanks to the ability of GSE to activate a protein called JNK, which regulates apoptosis.

In a healthy person, cancer cell apoptosis is a normal, healthy part of biology. Every living system creates cancerous cells. There are hundreds or thousands of "microtumors" in every human being living today, but cancerous cells in healthy people destroy themselves once they realize they're flawed. This cellular "realization," however, requires healthy cell communication, and that's dependent on the correct nutrients, minerals and proteins being available in the body.

Grapeseed extract appears to accelerate this process in cancer cells, helping them more rapidly assess their own flawed state so they can engage in apoptosis (cell suicide), thus protecting the larger organism (the body).

It's important to note that this recent study was conducted in a lab, not in human beings, so its conclusions cannot necessarily be directly translated into saying something like "grapeseed extract cures cancer," for example. However, it does indicate quite convincingly that if the unique phytochemical molecules found in grapeseed extract can be delivered to leukemia cells with sufficient potency, they may play an important role in cancer cells destroying themselves, thereby protecting the whole organism from runaway cancer.

If the results demonstrated in the labs at the University of Kentucky can be replicated in humans, it could potentially position grapeseed extract as one of the most powerful natural chemotherapeutic agents yet discovered.

Grapeseed extract has been studied and demonstrated to be remarkably effective at killing cancer cells for many different types of cancer, by the way, including cancers of the breast, prostate, lung, skin bowel and stomach.

Eat more grapes?
The conventional cancer community, of course, is quick to warn people not to simply eat more grapes in the hopes that grapeseed extract will help prevent their cancer. But I ask, "Why not?" Unlike toxic chemotherapy, eating grapes has zero negative side effects. At the same time, grapes offer numerous other health benefits, since they are a source of resveratrol and various protective phytonutrients.

Of course, you have to eat grapes with seeds in them, and since the global food supply has become so distorted over the past few years, it's difficult to find grapes with seeds in them. My advice? Buy your grapes from a health food store: Look for organic, seeded grapes. And when you eat them, don't spit out the seeds (obviously). Chew them up, and you'll digest the grapeseed extract that's naturally present in those seeds.

I've talked with conspiracy theorists who believe the seeds were purposely taken out of the grapes in the national food supply for precisely this reason (to remove the anti-cancer nutrients from food, thus keeping people sick). I disagree with that explanation, however: Seedless grapes are simply a product of consumer demand, in much the same way that consumers prefer seedless watermelon. If consumers actually knew about the health benefits of grape seeds, they might think differently, but thanks to efforts by the FDA and USDA, the mainstream public has remained virtually illiterate on nutrition for several decades, and you'll rarely meet an individual who is aware that eating grape seeds is actually good for you.

Don't be fooled by the cereal Grape Nuts, by the way. That's just a clever name. The cereal contains no grape seeds whatsoever. (It's made from roasted barley and other grains.)

Protecting healthy cells
Another important finding in the University of Kentucky study is that the grapeseed extract was not toxic to normal, healthy cells even as it helped cancer cells commit suicide.

This is hugely important because it shows, yet again, that Mother Nature's medicine is far safer than medicine created by Man. Conventional chemotherapy chemicals are extremely toxic to healthy cells, which is why chemotherapy causes permanent brain damage ("chemo brain"), kidney damage and heart damage. Grapeseed extract, however, causes no such damage, and there has never been a person who died from eating grapes. (There have been millions, probably, who were killed by chemotherapy.)

As Professor Xianglin Shi, the lead researcher of the study, said in a BBC article: "These results could have implications for the incorporation of agents such as grapeseed extract into prevention or treatment of haematological (blood) malignancies and possibly other cancers. ...What everyone seeks is an agent that has an effect on cancer cells but leaves normal cells alone, and this shows that grapeseed extract fits into this category."

In other words, grapeseed extract is now a candidate for a natural chemotherapeutic agent.

Grapeseed extract and endurance
The benefits of grapeseed extract don't stop with its anti-cancer potential, by the way: The antioxidant is also known to be extremely effective at reducing oxidative stress during exercise.

I posted another article today about the results of a fascinating preliminary clinical trial using grapeseed extract, the antioxidant used in Moxxor (which is a premium marine omega-3 oil supplement that contains grapeseed extract as one of its three ingredients).

The results of that clinical trial are extremely promising in showing that the grapeseed extract used in Moxxor may help reduce the level of oxidative stress experienced during exercise. This trial was conducted by Dr. Glenn Vile in conjunction with HortResearch, a New Zealand research institution.

This preliminary trial was conducted on competitive boat rowers who were given GSE one hour before engaging in vigorous exercise. (The trial was structured as a double-blind, randomized cross-over trial using placebo.) Results indicate that the rowers given GSE experienced a significant reduction of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), a chemical marker for exercise-induced oxidative stress. The reduction level was 34% + / - 6%

You can read more about that clinical trial here: http://www.naturalnews.com/025247.html

In all, this is fantastic news about grapeseed extract, as it demonstrates the ability of this natural substance to kill cancer cells in the lab. Given that grapes are a safe and customary part of the food supply, and that grapes are naturally intended to contain seeds, it seems quite sensible to conclude that human beings were intended to eat grape seeds and derive health benefits from them. Buy more (seeded) grapes!

If you're interested in Moxxor, by the way, there are currently over 1,000 NaturalNews readers who are Moxxor members, and they can introduce you to the product. Simply go to www.NaturalNews.com/Moxxor-information.html and click on the city nearest you to find a NaturalNews Moxxor team member. Or read more about the science behind Moxxor's anti-inflammatory properties here: www.NaturalNews.com/moxxor_health_benefits.asp

Note: This article makes no health claims about Moxxor, and Moxxor is not intended to diagnose, treat or prevent any disease. I have a financial stake in the success of Moxxor, and I currently take six to eight capsules of Moxxor each day.

Grapeseed extract is also available as a nutritional supplement from numerous sources, but one thing you'll notice about GSE in supplement form is that the actual nutrient is so tiny that most of the GSE supplements contain a lot of filler (silica, stearic acid, silicon dioxide, etc.). I've recently become more concerned about the cumulative levels of consumption of supplement fillers by people who take a lot of nutritional supplements, and I'm personally reducing my consumption of supplement pills while increasing my consumption of superfood-based powders and fresh product.

The best way to get grapeseed extract is by eating grape seeds. The second best way is to get it mixed in with a superfood powder or supplement that contains no filler. The least preferred way to get it is by taking a GSE capsule made with a lot of filler, so keep that in mind.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/025249_grapes_grapeseed_extract_cancer.html#ixzz1kjmz1Jz6

JohnnyV13
01-28-2012, 04:39 PM
Hey, uh, Killer, you planning on replying to this?

Obviously, he's not replying because he can't. Btw, his publishing grape seed extract studies simply proves this research is not being suppressed.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-28-2012, 04:51 PM
Obviously, he's not replying because he can't. Btw, his publishing grape seed extract studies simply proves this research is not being suppressed.

Repressed? no, ignored? yes. Sorry for your loss using the "approved" methods.

beach tribe
01-28-2012, 10:36 PM
Would help if you posted articles by people who actually know what they are talking about.

This guy doesn't even remember high school biology. Yet, we are supposed to trust his ability to discern that the evil big pharma goons are suppressing this magic bullet that will cure all cancer.

KC is pretty extreme, and regardless of the credibility of the source material, it's really not hard to imagine that these kinds of things take place.

beach tribe
01-28-2012, 10:39 PM
Call me crazy, but I honestly don't believe that the guys calling the shots want people to live longer. Especially not for free.

JohnnyV13
01-28-2012, 11:22 PM
Call me crazy, but I honestly don't believe that the guys calling the shots want people to live longer. Especially not for free.

Not big pharma, no. Because, if they can't profit from it, they aren't going to produce and market it.

However, you're forgetting about the incentives of practicing physicians, university researchers, and scientists with dying relatives.

Such people will have all the incentives in the world to utilize what is available. You're not going to have some magic cure that sits on the shelf to protect profits.

If a researcher can "cure" cancer, it would make him a medical icon that would be revered for generations to come. He/she would win nobel prizes, command enormous speaking fees and would win so much homage they wouldn't care a fig if big pharma makes a profit, they'll grab their own fame.

Obviously, scientists with dying loved ones (or dying self) will pull out all the stops. In fact, that was how the AIDs cocktail was developed. A researcher contracted AIDs, and tried to combine all the treatments that showed some promise to attack all of the biochem pathway's vulnerable points.

None of the treatments by themselve had a good effect, but together, they worked to halt progression of the disease and the AIDs cocktail was born. The only way he got his physicians to prescribe it was because he showed them his research. Plus, he was a doc himself (not a practicioner), and he could give a knowing waiver that would likely hold up in court in case of a later suit.

Conventional wisdom said the sides would be too much, but it worked. The guy used himself as his own lab rat.

Once published and demonstrated effective, docs will use it on their own patients for their own self interest. Think about it; if the patient dies, that's one less patient to pay them.

beach tribe
01-28-2012, 11:37 PM
Not big pharma, no. Because, if they can't profit from it, they aren't going to produce and market it.

However, you're forgetting about the incentives of practicing physicians, university researchers, and scientists with dying relatives.

Such people will have all the incentives in the world to utilize what is available. You're not going to have some magic cure that sits on the shelf to protect profits.

If a researcher can "cure" cancer, it would make him a medical icon that would be revered for generations to come. He/she would win nobel prizes, command enormous speaking fees and would win so much homage they wouldn't care a fig if big pharma makes a profit, they'll grab their own fame.

Obviously, scientists with dying loved ones (or dying self) will pull out all the stops. In fact, that was how the AIDs cocktail was developed. A researcher contracted AIDs, and tried to combine all the treatments that showed some promise to attack all of the biochem pathway's vulnerable points.

None of the treatments by themselve had a good effect, but together, they worked to halt progression of the disease and the AIDs cocktail was born. The only way he got his physicians to prescribe it was because he showed them his research. Plus, he was a doc himself (not a practicioner), and he could give a knowing waiver that would likely hold up in court in case of a later suit.

Conventional wisdom said the sides would be too much, but it worked. The guy used himself as his own lab rat.

Once published and demonstrated effective, docs will use it on their own patients for their own self interest. Think about it; if the patient dies, that's one less patient to pay them.

Good post, and I agree. Not saying that these cures can't be found, just saying that the best funded and most well equipped organizations to do so, won't be unle$$........

JohnnyV13
01-28-2012, 11:47 PM
Repressed? no, ignored? yes. Sorry for your loss using the "approved" methods.

The thing that you don't get, is you're pulling up papers of mostly preliminary research.

Do you really know how voluminous such studies are? Put it this way, one person couldn't read all of it in one field if they spent their entire life reading 24/7.

Most of these hopeful studies do not result in an effective end therapy.

Now, it is true that western medicine has tended to ignore naturopathic remedies up until 20 years ago. However, a number of legal decisions which made natural "food supplements" free of FDA regs has created the multi billion supplements business, caused numerous people to experiment on themselves with these remedies and has also caused mainstream science to publish studies like you're pulling up.

Now, when research does show positive naturalopathic remedies, the scientists try to isolate the active ingredients responsible for the effect. Then, they manufacture a drug with higher potency--usually making it more effective. Usually, its cheaper to manufacture (and purchase) the drug than try to buy and consume the quantity of the natural substance needed to get the same concentration of active ingredient. Thus, when a naturalopathic cure works out, it often seems like it is ignored because the end result is a traditional drug therapy under a pharm trade name.

For example, I'm sure you've heard about resveratrol--which is thought to play a significant role in slowing down aging. Resveratrol is found in grapes, yet the concentrations are fairly low. Currently, the scientist who did the key research in identifying resveratrol is working in a startup whose intent is to create a pill that has a resveratrol concentration of 500 bottles of wine.

Now, to your mind, that means that big pharma is ripping us off because they are taking something "free" and only offering it in a pill where they hold a "product by process" patent. Of course, you Lew Rockwell guys tend to forget about little details like the 500 bottle potency.

As far as I know, they haven't established the ability of resveratrol to prolong life. But, do you really think they want their drug not to work? If they succeed, they'll make Bill Gates and Buffet combined look like food stamp recipients. What would they care about the rest of big pharma?

KILLER_CLOWN
01-29-2012, 12:47 AM
The thing that you don't get, is you're pulling up papers of mostly preliminary research.

Do you really know how voluminous such studies are? Put it this way, one person couldn't read all of it in one field if they spent their entire life reading 24/7.

Most of these hopeful studies do not result in an effective end therapy.

Now, it is true that western medicine has tended to ignore naturopathic remedies up until 20 years ago. However, a number of legal decisions which made natural "food supplements" free of FDA regs has created the multi billion supplements business, caused numerous people to experiment on themselves with these remedies and has also caused mainstream science to publish studies like you're pulling up.

Now, when research does show positive naturalopathic remedies, the scientists try to isolate the active ingredients responsible for the effect. Then, they manufacture a drug with higher potency--usually making it more effective. Usually, its cheaper to manufacture (and purchase) the drug than try to buy and consume the quantity of the natural substance needed to get the same concentration of active ingredient. Thus, when a naturalopathic cure works out, it often seems like it is ignored because the end result is a traditional drug therapy under a pharm trade name.

For example, I'm sure you've heard about resveratrol--which is thought to play a significant role in slowing down aging. Resveratrol is found in grapes, yet the concentrations are fairly low. Currently, the scientist who did the key research in identifying resveratrol is working in a startup whose intent is to create a pill that has a resveratrol concentration of 500 bottles of wine.

Now, to your mind, that means that big pharma is ripping us off because they are taking something "free" and only offering it in a pill where they hold a "product by process" patent. Of course, you Lew Rockwell guys tend to forget about little details like the 500 bottle potency.

As far as I know, they haven't established the ability of resveratrol to prolong life. But, do you really think they want their drug not to work? If they succeed, they'll make Bill Gates and Buffet combined look like food stamp recipients. What would they care about the rest of big pharma?

Not at all, and i don't read much Lew Rockwell. I welcome anything that is more natural, My main problem is when Big Pharma shuts down competition using the revolving door at the FDA. Take for instance the Primatene Inhaler i use for asthma, it was taken off the market as of 12/31/11, and the company tells me they are having a hard time getting approval with the new propellant. The cfc propellant is outlawed and the new propellant is patented for another 8 years. I believe Big Pharma is using this as an opportunity to corner the market because they seem to get everything fast tracked, whereas the cheaper stuff that works BETTER(on me at least) is best case scenario the end of the year. How many millions of people have been using Primatene for 20-30 years? This will surely drive up the cost of health care because poor people will now flood to the emergency rooms for something that cost $10-$15 and lasted anywhere from 2 weeks to 4 months.

orange
01-29-2012, 09:48 AM
Take for instance the Primatene Inhaler i use for asthma, it was taken off the market as of 12/31/11, and the company tells me they are having a hard time getting approval with the new propellant.

Check the old thread.

go bowe
01-29-2012, 11:05 AM
I'm sure you're a great guy in person, but man you are as far out in left field as it is possible for a human being to be.

ahem, bep...

go bowe
01-29-2012, 11:08 AM
Orange and you should share a room, if not a cell.

hold on there, we have rules in this country about cruel and unusual punishment...

KILLER_CLOWN
01-29-2012, 09:45 PM
hold on there, we have rules in this country about cruel and unusual punishment...

Ok I chucklold.

Brainiac
01-30-2012, 08:33 AM
Not big pharma, no. Because, if they can't profit from it, they aren't going to produce and market it.

I'm not sure I agree with that. If people live longer, they will buy more drugs to treat all of the other health issues that afflict the older population.

Big pharma doesn't make their money from young people. They make it from people over 40 who take daily meds to control their blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes, arthritic pain, and all of those other diseases that you get as you get older. A cure for cancer would extend the lives of their best and most profitable customers.

JohnnyV13
01-30-2012, 10:03 AM
I'm not sure I agree with that. If people live longer, they will buy more drugs to treat all of the other health issues that afflict the older population.

Big pharma doesn't make their money from young people. They make it from people over 40 who take daily meds to control their blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes, arthritic pain, and all of those other diseases that you get as you get older. A cure for cancer would extend the lives of their best and most profitable customers.

I guess I wasn't specific. What I meant was that big pharma wont pursue naturalopahic cures or solutions without patent protections.

You might insist that your analysis would hold even in the above cases; but, you'd b forgetting the nature of organizational behavior. The type of long term strategic thnking that sacrifice short term performance for long term strategy is very rare in a blue chip entity. Why? Because the executive making the decision won't benefit. His concern is to generate the performance numbers needed for his next promotion. Even creating monumental future benefit doesn't help if some other guy gets the senior position with serious stock based bonuses.

You only get that type of behavior in entrepenuer run entities or in sectors cntrolled by oligarchs--like the tobacco industry.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-31-2012, 10:55 PM
Proof that the cancer industry doesn't want a cure - even if it's a pharmaceutical

Tuesday, January 31, 2012 by: PF Louis

(NaturalNews) A safe and effective cure for cancer has been discovered with a drug that was once used for unusual metabolic problems. Yet, the cancer industry shows no interest with following up on dichloroacetate (DCA) research from University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, reported in 2007. That's because DCA is no longer patented. (1)

That research also confirmed cancer as a metabolic malfunction, not a weird mutation of cells often explained away as a genetic issue. But the medical mafia doesn't want you to hear about it. But it confirms what most alternative cancer therapists already know.

Since Nixon declared the "war on cancer" in the 1970s, the cancer industry has succeeded with raising money for researching very expensive chemo substances at $50,000 to $100,000 per round or more for toxic therapies that rarely work. (2)

Chemo drugs usually lead to demanding more business with drugs to ease terrible side effects (http://www.naturalnews.com/034761_cancer_drugs_toxicity_Voraxaze.html). Meanwhile, more are getting cancer and more are dying from it, mostly because of the toxic treatments.

Explaining DCA research results
Evangelos Michelakis and the Alberta University research team tested DCA on human cancer cells outside the body and in cancerous mice with profound success. DCA was once used for unusual metabolic disorders. The worst side effects, which rarely occur, include some numbness and an affected gait.

The mice were fed DCA in water, and in weeks they had remarkable tumor shrinkage. This indicates DCA can be taken orally. DCA works by restoring the cells' mitochondria. Michelakis and his team had discovered that the mitochondria in cancer cells are not permanently damaged and irreparable. This is what mainstream medicine thinks.

With mitochondria malfunctioning, cancer cells use glucose fermentation for survival energy. This fermentation occurs when glycolysis (glucose conversion) occurs in an anaerobic cellular environment, which can be created by benign tumor masses, toxins, and low pH levels.

DCA restores mitochondria in cells to make them function properly. Another function of normal mitochondria is signaling apoptosis, or cellular self destruction. Normal cells die and become replaced constantly. But with cancer cells, the apoptosis signal is nullified, making cancer cells "immortal." (3)

The Alberta University researchers also realized that glycolysis fermentation in cancer cells produces lactic acid. The lactic acid breaks down the collagen holding those cells together in a tumor. This allows cancer cells to easily break away from a tumor shrinking with mainstream therapies.

The researchers reasoned this is why cancer metastasizes or spreads to different parts of the body or reappears after remission from chemo.

Tragic hypocrisy
Alternative cancer therapies have little or no problem with metastatic cancer or even cancer reoccurring after remission. Most alternative cancers simply cure cancers completely.

DCA offers the cancer industry an opportunity to come up with a pharmaceutical cure that is much cheaper and safer than their current standard of care. Yet the cancer industry is ignoring this opportunity. Instead, DCA is a homeless orphan begging for research funds to avoid legal issues with off label use on cancer. (4)

Alternative cancer practitioners have always simply tried out and when they succeeded shared them with others who cared more about healing than money and power.

The medical mafia has created a matrix that demands big bucks to make big bucks for sick care instead of curing. Everyone in on the scam makes out financially. The cancer industry accuses alternative cancer therapists of quackery and taking advantage of the desperately ill for financial gain. Accusing others of your motives and crimes is called projection.

The medical/pharmaceutical complex is crony capitalism that doesn't want a cure for cancer from anywhere.

Sources for this article include:

(1) http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971

(2) http://www.sawilsons.com/gonzalez2.htm

(3) http://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/retrieve/pii/S1535610806003722

(4) http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Donations/

(5) http://www.khanacademy.org/video/glycolysis?playlist=Biology

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034823_cancer_industry_patent_protection_drugs.html#ixzz1l6gsPSfo

mikey23545
01-31-2012, 11:13 PM
So does Dr. Paul use this stuff?

KILLER_CLOWN
01-31-2012, 11:26 PM
So does Dr. Paul use this stuff?

I don't think he needs it, he knows how to take care of himself. The guy is older than dirt and can run circles around most planeteers.

mikey23545
02-01-2012, 12:36 AM
I don't think he needs it, he knows how to take care of himself. The guy is older than dirt and can run circles around most planeteers.

I meant on his patients, dummy.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-01-2012, 12:38 AM
I meant on his patients, dummy.

Hard to tell what you mean, you claim to be conservative and want to vote for Romney and all. :spock:

durtyrute
02-01-2012, 07:09 AM
Oh Killer, you are crazy with your "cancer can be cured" madness. Silly you.

:thumb:

LOCOChief
02-01-2012, 09:00 AM
However, you're forgetting about the incentives of practicing physicians, university researchers, and scientists with dying relatives.

If a researcher can "cure" cancer, it would make him a medical icon that would be revered for generations to come. He/she would win nobel prizes, command enormous speaking fees and would win so much homage they wouldn't care a fig if big pharma makes a profit, they'll grab their own fame.Obviously, scientists with dying loved ones (or dying self) will pull out all the stops. In fact, that was how the AIDs cocktail was developed. A researcher contracted AIDs, and tried to combine all the treatments that hnnyshowed some promise to attack all of the biochem pathway's vulnerable points.

.

I've given this subject much thought over the last 30 years and Johnny's right on it. I've seen this specific scenario play out with the kind of practitioners that if someone was going to come up with the magic bullet it would probably be them and they couldn't no matter how desperately they wanted to.