Jump to content
The Emma-Watson.net Forum

Recommended Posts

A friend sent me this article. Basically researchers in Canada may have found a drug that could be a pretty effective treatment to various cancers. I say treatment because although it can be the 'cure', cancer is still in effect a mutation of normal human cells meaning that cancerous can still form. What this drug does is change the cancer cells' mitochondrial function to make the cells stop growing and resume programmed cell death, apoptosis. In effect, it kills cancer cells. There is still hope.

 

Still, I am a bit disappointed that money still plays a major role in this drug's implementation. The article stated that because the drug does not need a patent, there's not much to this drug in terms of revenue and profit.

 

Further reading here.

Edited by sirbenedictvs
Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me stupid but i think i'll go with the scenario that the cure for cancer was already found years ago, but never got published because all those huge medical corporations would lose a great amount of money from the super expensive cancer treatments. But oh well. Money is much more valuable than human lives, we know that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me stupid but i think i'll go with the scenario that the cure for cancer was already found years ago, but never got published because all those huge medical corporations would lose a great amount of money from the super expensive cancer treatments. But oh well. Money is much more valuable than human lives, we know that.

 

 

lol That's what my thread is all about! The links I posted were published in 2009 and the first link talks about the pharmaceutical companies not wanting to go on with distributing the drug because they cannot make a whole lot of money off of it.

Edited by sirbenedictvs
Link to post
Share on other sites

lol That's what my thread is all about! The links I posted were published in 2009 and the first link talks about the pharmaceutical companies not wanting to go on with distributing the drug because they cannot make a whole lot of money off of it.

lol i know, i'm just saying this opinion because the majority of people i've talked about this with, find this idea absurd when it actually makes so much sense. I had read an article about 5 or 6 years ago, that the scientist who actually confirmed that they had found a cure longggg time ago, and that they were not allowed to put it out there, was mysteriously disappeared or something. It really disgusts me. It's all about that cursed thing called money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats great...it was on bbc few days back that they found a way which helps to prevents HIV from spreading...

Yeah I seen it it then too. (: It sounds quiet good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me stupid but i think i'll go with the scenario that the cure for cancer was already found years ago, but never got published because all those huge medical corporations would lose a great amount of money from the super expensive cancer treatments. But oh well. Money is much more valuable than human lives, we know that.

lol That's what my thread is all about! The links I posted were published in 2009 and the first link talks about the pharmaceutical companies not wanting to go on with distributing the drug because they cannot make a whole lot of money off of it.

lol i know, i'm just saying this opinion because the majority of people i've talked about this with, find this idea absurd when it actually makes so much sense. I had read an article about 5 or 6 years ago, that the scientist who actually confirmed that they had found a cure longggg time ago, and that they were not allowed to put it out there, was mysteriously disappeared or something. It really disgusts me. It's all about that cursed thing called money.

Exactly. It's totally disgusting. Don't get me started on money..

 

Lost several people because of cancer.

Edited by I am Not Purple
Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me stupid but i think i'll go with the scenario that the cure for cancer was already found years ago, but never got published because all those huge medical corporations would lose a great amount of money from the super expensive cancer treatments. But oh well. Money is much more valuable than human lives, we know that.

Gosh i really hope you're wrong (no offence), because that would be so terrible if it was true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me stupid but i think i'll go with the scenario that the cure for cancer was already found years ago, but never got published because all those huge medical corporations would lose a great amount of money from the super expensive cancer treatments. But oh well. Money is much more valuable than human lives, we know that.

If that were so why do even medical corporations families die of cancer? You'd think if they had a cure they would surely save the lives of their family, job be damned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that were so why do even medical corporations families die of cancer? You'd think if they had a cure they would surely save the lives of their family, job be damned.

lolya right are you kidding me? We're talking bout corrupted people here. No, they wouldn't care about their families. Money comes first. We don't live in Heaven. Plus i don't think they'd risk being exposed.

Edited by He is Not Purple
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. It's totally disgusting. Don't get me started on money..

 

Lost several people because of cancer.

 

Once again, I completely a gree with you widu. Our world is just so damn corrupt when it comes to money!

Link to post
Share on other sites

lolya right are you kidding me? We're talking bout corrupted people here. No, they wouldn't care about their families. Money comes first. We don't live in Heaven. Plus i don't think they'd risk being exposed.

Forgive me for saying this, but it's totally absurd to think everyone in the "medical corporation" industry as you call it care solely about money instead of their families. If that were the case why have families at all (if you say to keep up appearances I'll shoot myself).

 

Where is your proof that they care solely about money in relation to their families? Can you provide anything besides mere conjecture, possibly a first hand source (and a reliable one), even potentially a secondary source?

 

We don't live in heaven, but we don't live in hell either. I'm willing to bet that some would pass up the opportunity to save their family but not all, wealth isn't everything to all people. At the end of the day they are human beings, and it's in human nature to want to save others, especially those nearest and dearest.

 

Your argument here is a conspiracy theory that's not backed up by any evidence. I'd like to see some tangible proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem lies more with the aforementioned drug than with the corporations. If it really was that effective, cheap and with few side-effects, it would be in widespread use to battle cancer even if it was not labeled an anti-cancer med, don't you think? Even without initial big news announcements word would spread through the medical community like wildfire. But it hasn't.

The article is from 2007........by now doctors desperate to save people should have done large numbers of "field-tests" on their patients since the drug is widely available and legal. After all, can it hurt to try if people face death anyway? So that should have produced a lot of results, either way. But I don't see any of that. Maybe because cancer is after all more complicated than just a matter of mitochondria on/off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe because cancer is after all more complicated than just a matter of mitochondria on/off.

 

This is true. Afterall, cancer cells are mutations of normal human cells just eating away at surrounding tissue. Problems come when the mutated cells multiply enough to where the tissue (or organ) can no longer perform its functions. Again, caner cells are mutations. Who's to say that these mutations are all the same. The DNA sequence of the same cancer between people could be different; the drug itself hasn't gotten past the testing stage. Live human subjects have yet to even been fully treated with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me for saying this, but it's totally absurd to think everyone in the "medical corporation" industry as you call it care solely about money instead of their families. If that were the case why have families at all (if you say to keep up appearances I'll shoot myself).

 

Where is your proof that they care solely about money in relation to their families? Can you provide anything besides mere conjecture, possibly a first hand source (and a reliable one), even potentially a secondary source?

 

Your argument here is a conspiracy theory that's not backed up by any evidence. I'd like to see some tangible proof.

 

Yes my arguement is a conspiracy theory, i said that from my very first post. You're naive if you're asking for evidence. They wouldn't let out any evidence. I'm not saying everyone in the medical corporation is corrupted. But not everyone is aware of that fact about the cure being found since ages. And if one discovered that, doctor or journalist, something happens to them orrr apparently they "don't have enough evidence". Most people are like you. They are not willing to believe in something "bad" unless they're about to see "evidence". And i know you, believe me even if i had evidence to show you, they weren't going to be "enough" for you.

 

We don't live in heaven, but we don't live in hell either. I'm willing to bet that some would pass up the opportunity to save their family but not all, wealth isn't everything to all people. At the end of the day they are human beings, and it's in human nature to want to save others, especially those nearest and dearest.

 

Yes that's very touching. Apparently you have no idea about the power of money nowadays, especially in the hands of people with no ethics and morals.

Edited by He is Not Purple
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely if you had found a way to stop cancer growing/spreading, you would be able to make a fortune, why keep it secret ?

 

People will always get cancer, until they find out what triggers it to grow in people.

 

The trouble is, everybody is different, so the causes of cancer are multiplied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol That's what my thread is all about! The links I posted were published in 2009 and the first link talks about the pharmaceutical companies not wanting to go on with distributing the drug because they cannot make a whole lot of money off of it.

Disgusting. And wrong on so many levels. Makes me sick.

Edited by ohbehave
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely if you had found a way to stop cancer growing/spreading, you would be able to make a fortune, why keep it secret ?

 

People will always get cancer, until they find out what triggers it to grow in people.

 

The trouble is, everybody is different, so the causes of cancer are multiplied.

 

There is no specific 'trigger' to cancer. Certain things definitely heightens your risk of getting a cancer but in no way does it "cause" the cancer itself. Here's an example: I've heard of people getting lung cancer who have smoked for as little as two years, whilst one of my high school teachers being a 20+ year smoker not getting it.

 

Exactly what I was saying is that the 'cure' is probably out there and it's no secret at all. It's just the drug that is supposedly a very effective treatment is so common and does not require a patent, meaning that anyone can produce it and there isn't much money that can be made from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes my arguement is a conspiracy theory, i said that from my very first post. You're naive if you're asking for evidence. They wouldn't let out any evidence. I'm not saying everyone in the medical corporation is corrupted. But not everyone is aware of that fact about the cure being found since ages. And if one discovered that, doctor or journalist, something happens to them orrr apparently they "don't have enough evidence". Most people are like you. They are not willing to believe in something "bad" unless they're about to see "evidence". And i know you, believe me even if i had evidence to show you, they weren't going to be "enough" for you.

 

 

 

Yes that's very touching. Apparently you have no idea about the power of money nowadays, especially in the hands of people with no ethics and morals.

Ok you are telling me to believe you on blind faith? You are calling me naive for wanting evidence is absolutely ridiculous, I thought you were in College Dina, you would be laughed out of the building if you ever said that to a professor. I want evidence so I can believe what you're saying. I can say apples are actually blue but you can't see them because the government steals their pigment through nanobots but that doesn't make it true.

 

I would love evidence, want to know why? Blind faith has caused atrocities, ever heard of the Nazi's, Stalinists, the Jonestown incident, ect. I'm not going to blindly accept what you have to say without evidence because it's utterly absurd.

 

If you want to prove me wrong Dina, provide tangible proof, it's not hard. To say that they don't create any evidence, leave any trails is existential. No one's fool proof, we're all humans. If you can't back up your conspiracy theory except with "you're naive if you're asking for evidence" then you'll never convince anyone, least of all me.

 

If you want to continue this back and forth PM me, the way this is going it's not going to turn out very nice.

 

I seriously can't believe you just said all of that Dina, and trust me when I say you don't know much about me at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok you are telling me to believe you on blind faith? You are calling me naive for wanting evidence is absolutely ridiculous, I thought you were in College Dina, you would be laughed out of the building if you ever said that to a professor. I want evidence so I can believe what you're saying. I can say apples are actually blue but you can't see them because the government steals their pigment through nanobots but that doesn't make it true.

 

I would love evidence, want to know why? Blind faith has caused atrocities, ever heard of the Nazi's, Stalinists, the Jonestown incident, ect. I'm not going to blindly accept what you have to say without evidence because it's utterly absurd.

 

If you want to prove me wrong Dina, provide tangible proof, it's not hard. To say that they don't create any evidence, leave any trails is existential. No one's fool proof, we're all humans. If you can't back up your conspiracy theory except with "you're naive if you're asking for evidence" then you'll never convince anyone, least of all me.

 

If you want to continue this back and forth PM me, the way this is going it's not going to turn out very nice.

 

I seriously can't believe you just said all of that Dina, and trust me when I say you don't know much about me at all.

What is all this? I never told you to BELIEVE me! I DON'T want to prove you wrong. I DON'T want to convince you, why would i want that. This is not a contest of who's right. I just stated my opinion. I just stated MY opinion and i clearly said in the beginning "call me stupid but.." because i knew someone like you, would!

What is this "i thought you were in college" thing? I find this extremely offensive. So i stop this convo here because apparently having a personal opinion without evidence is something clearly a stupid person would do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...