Cancer cure being ignored by Big Business

[arctic_rogue]

Guys I was diagnosed with Lymphoma 6 months ago.
I underwent my first chemo treatment and almost died from a reaction
to it. I pray none of you get this disease because it sucks the life right out of you.

I am now supposed to get these damn drugs again in Jan and I really am considering passing.

Any drug for cancer patients that works without side effects should be approved.

My first treatment cost $5600.00 for 1 session.

Wishing you the best! Do they anticipate the same reaction this time around?

[smoothfun]

1st off I'd like to thank Ballsakic for his brave statement.
2ndly I want to express my regret that Ballsakic has to be going through this
cancer ordeal and I will say a prayer for you and all the others who are suffering with
this piece of shit disease.
I'm not even going to way in with my opinion on this topic as I tend to believe things about people that I'd prefer not to believe ; probably because most of the news we get is the type that boosts ratings not moral spirit.
It would be nice if the news we got on a regular basis was of a more positive nature , as I believe there are tons of "good" stories/news to report but , because of the nature of the beast we get the ratings news.
Ballsakic , fight the fight , win the battle and kick that cancer shit from here to hell!
POOL ON!

[Ballsakic]

Wishing you the best! Do they anticipate the same reaction this time around?

They dont know but that is all they have to fight this disease.

So I have to just try it again and hope.

[arctic_rogue]

They dont know but that is all they have to fight this disease.

So I have to just try it again and hope.

Well, best of luck. For what it's worth, I'm sure the Dobber community is behind you!

[dongjohnson]

There are tons of natural things, including cheap foods like cinnamon etc, that are tremendously effective against diabetes and cancer when used in concert with other things. But the FDA and Congress are owned by big business, no doubt.

[cdubb]

There are tons of natural things, including cheap foods like cinnamon etc, that are tremendously effective against diabetes and cancer when used in concert with other things. But the FDA and Congress are owned by big business, no doubt.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...-alternatives/

The evidence for cinnamon appears mixed. It either has no effect on blood sugar or a very small effect.

If it works it should be given to all diabetic patients instead of seeing them need an amputation of a toe or foot.

P.s. Ballsakic - good luck with the treatment

[dongjohnson]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...-alternatives/

The evidence for cinnamon appears mixed. It either has no effect on blood sugar or a very small effect.

If it works it should be given to all diabetic patients instead of seeing them need an amputation of a toe or foot.

P.s. Ballsakic - good luck with the treatment

Cinnamon was just one I grabbed off the top of my head. Magnesium is a cheap, abundant mineral that helps the body naturally regulate it's own glucose levels.
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Mag...hProfessional/
http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20031...-diabetes-risk

Here's one explaining the benefits of Vitamin C in doing the same thing
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0609122232.htm

There are dozens of things like that out there for virtually every major illness. However, the FDA knows where it's bread and butter comes from so they viciously attack and sue anyone making claims or recommending them as a potential treatment. As someone with a background in both of these areas, it's one of the worst instances of collusion in modern history, in any field.

The pharmaceutical and medical communities are two of the very biggest for-profit industries. They have no profit major in a cheap course of treatment that is effective long term. This basically means that if they cannot patent something, than that product/mineral/etc is denigrated as hokum.

[doulos]

I've never heard of cinnamon being "tremendously helpful" against cancer. Any evidence to back that up that I can look into?

[dongjohnson]

I've never heard of cinnamon being "tremendously helpful" against cancer. Any evidence to back that up that I can look into?

Not to be a dick but before questioning people, you may want to work on your reading comprehension sir, literally and figuratively.

Look more closely into what I said. "There are tons of natural things, including cheap foods like cinnamon etc, that are tremendously effective against diabetes and cancer when used in concert with other things."

As evidenced by both the tenor of the post (Cinnamon was merely an exemplar. I'm guessing you're not sure on that one either, "One that is typical or representative; an example" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exemplar) and the adverbs, a middle schooler would not deduce that I said Cinnamon itself was tremendously helpful against cancer. You made up both the words and premise.

Moreover, my reply provided tons of peer reviewed, solid evidence about my general claim (NIH anyone?). Sorry but shit, this is an epidemic of reading failure. I'm all for being a doubting Thomas (Oh my God, please don't make me explain that too) but you need to critically read statements several times before trying to punch holes in them.

I apologize if English is your second language.

FURTHERMORE, as to my general claim, a common anti-oxidant, Quercetin, is both a powerful potentiator for certain cancer fighting drugs and a potential tumor killer by itself.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10869101
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18322795

"There has been considerable interest in recent years in the anti-tumor activities of flavonoids. Quercetin, a ubiquitous bioactive flavonoid, can inhibit proliferation and induce apoptosis in a variety of cancer cells."

Have you ever heard of Bromelain? Here's what Sloan-Kettering's website said about it http://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/herb/bromelain...
"Studies done in vitro and in mice have shown that bromelain has chemopreventive (19) (25) and antitumorigenic effects (20) (26). Bromelain and other proteolytic enzymes were used as adjuvants in cancer treatments (7) (8) (9). It also increased the survival indices of animals bearing leukemia, sarcoma, lung, breast, and ascetic tumors (10); however, the anticancer effects of bromelain have not been evaluated in clinical trials."

[arctic_rogue]

I'm all for being a doubting Thomas (Oh my God, please don't make me explain that too) but you need to critically read statements several times before trying to punch holes in them.

I apologize if English is your second language.

Perhaps it was honest mistake? There is nothing there that illustrates an attempt to discredit you or punch holes. While that could have been the root cause, the question for research was posed in a way that would lead to a reasonable answer given. No need to be so condescending in my opinion.

[cdubb]

I apologize if English is your second language.

FURTHERMORE, as to my general claim, a common anti-oxidant, Quercetin, is both a powerful potentiator for certain cancer fighting drugs and a potential tumor killer by itself.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10869101
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18322795

not aiming to make the argument more heated, but first reference is from Alternative Medicine Review (impact factor 3.55) which is not exactly a major Scientific/medical journal like Lancet (38) or New England Journal of Medicine (53)

The researchers are from "Bastyr University" - a natural health arts and sciences university located in Kenmore, Washington. It offers degrees in naturopathic medicine, acupuncture and Oriental medicine, nutrition, herbal sciences, etc.

Cancer Prev Res (IF 4.9). 2008 Oct;1(5):362-8.
Stabilization of quercetin paradoxically reduces its proapoptotic effect on UVB-irradiated human keratinocytes. (aka when we make it in a safe drug form for humans it doesn't work)

Antioxidants promote positive changes in our bodies physiology, but not yet found a way to reproduce its effects in drug form.

Naturopathic medicine though popular, doesn't have rigorous science behind it usually.

Addendum:

http://www.altmedrev.com/publications/6/3/311.pdf
The same author DW Lamson's 2001 case report on a autistic child (cited to be caused by a vaccination) that is cured by transdermal secretin and can suddenly talk, but stops when not given the drug.

If he cured Autism he would be pretty rich by now. 18/21 of his articles are from the same crappy journal (must be not scientifically rigorous if it publishes a case series of ONE patient). the others are in a biochemistry journal from 1973. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?t...r_uid=12946240

Follow up RCT at actual pediatric hospitals show no effect.

http://aut.sagepub.com/content/9/3/256.short.
Randomized controlled trial of transdermal secretin on behavior of children with autism
- Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in speech, sociability, sensory, and health scores for treatment versus placebo periods.


http://adc.bmj.com/content/88/8/731.abstract
Arch Dis Child 2003;88:731-736 doi:10.1136/adc.88.8.731
Children with autistic spectrum disorders. I: Comparison of placebo and single dose of human synthetic secretin
- Compared with placebo, secretin treatment was not associated with significant improvement of CSBS standard scores from baseline to 2 or 4 weeks post-infusion. Five children showed clinical improvement in standard scores: two after HSS and three after placebo.

And then a systematic review
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...33622/abstract
Secretin Treatment for Autistic Disorder: A Critical Analysis
- A small body of literature and popular belief in autistic disorder communities supported the agent's efficacy. A number of controlled clinical trials did not show improvement in autistic symptoms with secretin compared with placebo, possibly indicating no role for the drug in autistic disorder.

[Bomm Bastic]

There are tons of natural things, including cheap foods like cinnamon etc, that are tremendously effective against diabetes and cancer when used in concert with other things. But the FDA and Congress are owned by big business, no doubt.

lol...Yes, i read that too, in the Cinnamon Journal of Medicine.

I love when people like you make these broad, ill-defined statements, w/out actually committing yourselves to an actual premise.

"Tons of natural things...", despite naming only cinnamon. But yes, there are indeed tons of natural things. That much we agree on.

"Tremendously effective against diabetes and cancer..." WTF?!? Curing? Preventing? Alleviating symptoms? Help a brother out.

"...when used in concert with other things." My fav....and there's that scientific term "things" again. I did hear that cinnamon when used in concert with anti-depressant things helps alleviates symptoms caused by Major Depressive Disorder.

Not to be a dick but before questioning people, you may want to work on your reading comprehension sir, literally and figuratively..

Oh but you are being a dick, as evidenced by...

I apologize if English is your second language.

Look more closely into what I said. "There are tons of natural things, including cheap foods like cinnamon etc, that are tremendously effective against diabetes and cancer when used in concert with other things."

Not to be a dick () but I'd rather not read that again. Thanks.

As evidenced by both the tenor of the post (Cinnamon was merely an exemplar. I'm guessing you're not sure on that one either, "One that is typical or representative; an example" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exemplar) and the adverbs, a middle schooler would not deduce that I said Cinnamon itself was tremendously helpful against cancer. You made up both the words and premise.

I find condescension is oft used by those who have no idea what they're talking about, in an attempt to make themselves appear more intelligent. Perhaps some cinnamon would tremendously effectuate against that?

Really just an observation on my part. Moving on....

Moreover, my reply provided tons of peer reviewed, solid evidence about my general claim (NIH anyone?). Sorry but shit, this is an epidemic of reading failure. I'm all for being a doubting Thomas (Oh my God, please don't make me explain that too) but you need to critically read statements several times before trying to punch holes in them..

First, I don't think "tons" means what you think it means. Nor "epidemic" for that matter. Just more condescending attitude, used to deflect. As if this post need any more.


As for the rest of your comments, most of what you listed (eg, vitamin-C, magnesium) are indeed beneficial. But they are naturally occurring vitamins and minerals, found in common fruits and veggies and are already (or should be) part of our daily dietary regimen. Hard to tell what you are alluding to, but I would seek medical advice before supplementing. Only those with metabolic definciencies should supplement and any such course of action should be monitored by your physician. Too much can cause ill-effects, and they may be contra-indicated (for those on other meds).

In closing, you are entitled to your opinion, however, you are not entitled to be a rude prick.

[doulos]

Well I got all the answers I needed.

I'll be referring my friends to doctors and not hippies thanks.

[dongjohnson]

Well I got all the answers I needed.

I'll be referring my friends to doctors and not hippies thanks.

"Oh, I don't like the reference points, it doesn't have enough hard science etc behind it" is a lazy rationalization that is killing us. That's largely because "hard science" aka medical research is often EXCLUSIVELY supported by pharmaceutical companies and their ilk.

I've worked in the medical and legal fields, and have family in other fields of business and the collusion that goes on regarding this stuff is frightening. Of course what we eat makes a difference in our health and can cure illnesses, who the hell is so short-sighted as to have a problem understanding that?

Yet that suggestion often gets one labeled as either a "hippie" or crazy conspiracy theorist for suggesting that large companies, who have a legal duty to do nothing beside seek maximum profit for their shareholders, suppress other methods of treatment.

The problem is that people often lack the sagacity to discern a complete sham, e.g. something like Noni Juice from more legitimate naturally occurring options. It's a case of the baby being thrown out with the bath water and is encouraged to the hilt by a group of people who really want chronic illnesses to continue.

[doulos]

"Oh, I don't like the reference points, it doesn't have enough hard science etc behind it" is a lazy rationalization that is killing us. That's largely because "hard science" aka medical research is often EXCLUSIVELY supported by pharmaceutical companies and their ilk.

I've worked in the medical and legal fields, and have family in other fields of business and the collusion that goes on regarding this stuff is frightening. Of course what we eat makes a difference in our health and can cure illnesses, who the hell is so short-sighted as to have a problem understanding that?

Yet that suggestion often gets one labeled as either a "hippie" or crazy conspiracy theorist for suggesting that large companies, who have a legal duty to do nothing beside seek maximum profit for their shareholders, suppress other methods of treatment.

The problem is that people often lack the sagacity to discern a complete sham, e.g. something like Noni Juice from more legitimate naturally occurring options. It's a case of the baby being thrown out with the bath water and is encouraged to the hilt by a group of people who really want chronic illnesses to continue.

I am totally on board with you here. After all "just a spoonful of sugar" (or cinnamon or whatever it is that is in style) helps the medicine goes down.

If it's good enough for Mary Poppins then it should be good enough for cancer patients!