Scientist Cure Cancer but...

[quote="BlackShogunFox"]



So check the sources. Are the people involved in the studies scientists in relevant fields? Is it a peer reviewed paper? I present sources that match the required criteria, and you don't. Simple.



Nope, and neither do you. You have a drawing. :)



So no, you don't care about the truth. See, I actually listen to the peer reviewed evidence if it's given, you don't. That's a difference between us, and it's not in your favor.



There aren't any that actually have been shown to work. Simple.



...Great. Water is toxic then.



...Great counter, I didn't understand your point at all. However it's not a lie. So...*shrug*.

I knew that you would not get it... The evidence has been falsified quote is me dissing your whole I have evidence claim.

Your sources seem kind of ... flimsy.

There's obviously more money in a cure than in treatment. The one who discovers the universal cure becomes lord and savior to millions, and they rake in ungodly quantities of money from the patent.

Also, none of the sources you cited suggest a universal cure for cancer, which is on a completely different scale than a treatment for one man's lymphoma. Every person's cancer is different, and the variance can be drastic in terms of what does and does not aid in treatment, drugwise.

It was stated that it killed brain, breast, and lung cancer.

That is more than one type of cancer killed...To try again you must insert another quarter!?

Seems like the OP is willing to believe anything typeset by a researcher. They are not in-fallible you know and you should always valuate you sources.

I have to say that if I found the cure for cancer, even if I was a completely selfish pharmaceutical company, I would still patent and market the product. Simply put, not only would I receive a large amount of money and goodwill the world over, the company would go straight into history and science textbooks, effectively becoming immortal.

I see what you mean but this is not about if the research is in-fallible. It is about why the pharmaceutical industry did not accept this like any other drug out there in the market today. That type of behavior is suspect to me...

Facepalm. Just ... okay, one more attempt at explaining this.

Not all cancers are the same. If a drug kills a dozen people's tumors, it may go on to kill a dozen people. Nothing is consistent. Because of that, your main point is flawed.

Mainly because there isn't a cure for cancer yet. http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/cancercure.asp
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/the_dca_zombie_arises_again.php

...Bahahahahaha, I should have figured Snopes would have something on this.

The stuff is toxic. Its toxic at therapeutic dosages. Why the fuck should anyone support anything toxic?







... Right.

Then why did you just not say that? Dang your sound like your trying to bite my head... On another note you are talking about the last article I was talking about the first one. My main point is flawed? I tell you this if you are talking about the title of this topic congradulations you missed the point. I am focusing mainly on how the industry looks past this and many other treatments because of their personal bias...

At Daedalus: When was DCA an internet meme?

At fatman: Ok...riddle me this what about the other hundreds of drugs on the market at this very moment that have been tested on people and have caused them harm? Harmful and toxic must mean two different things to you. Right?

I don't know if it is an internet meme but that isn't relevant. The main point is that DCA is not a magic one-shot cure to all cancers. You can't just take some and magically cure all your cancer. It might reduce cancer marginally and for that, it might be a good chemotherapy drug. It won't get rid of all the cancer and so it is not an ideal cure that you are seeking and over-hyping. None of this is proven with good clinical trials that test efficacy of DCA alone (a trial where all the other treatments don't interfere with testing DCA). You are trying to put DCA on some kind of miracle pedestal where it doesn't belong and criticize pharmaceutical companies for not sharing your deluded view. It's not really even up to the pharmaceutical companies to approve it for cancer treatment anyway, it's the FDA's, so you're really pulling at the "straw man argument" there.

Alright let me put my opinion out there.

My first post on this thread stays, I don't believe that anyone can disagree with that unless BigLundi and the others "purposely" wants to ask for proof.

The industry does indeed have secrets being kept from us to have better health, better living, and better way of financial living. The industry itself is composed of many corporations with different category.

Now I have one BIG question for everybody.
Now who the FUCK would let out a big secret that can improve health, money, and living at a rate that is considered impossible to hundreds of millions?
The answer is,almost nobody, except the ones who wants to make a one-shot scheme to make money off of it and profits off of it more than you do when this program of his/her is complete.

So if I can keep secrets, SO CAN THEY!!!

I don't expect this "Miracle cure" to be announced in the public anytime soon, in fact, they might just manipulate that cure to keep them healthy for the time being, then wear it's effect off and then, the people have to buy it again, thus leading in the same cycle as usual.

Something so exclusive HAS to be expensive!! ( Let me explain why )
If the big corporations find it IMPOSSIBLE to manipulate it's effects to only lasting it a certain time instead of it's permanent effects, then they will eventually sell it to a exclusive hospital or to some doctor that is only accessible to people with BIG MONEY. ( I am talking about tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands at that )

So my opinion on this, that this cure maybe is indeed found and the industry wants to keep it away as far away from the public as possible.

I don't want to post any links that proves this point, just reply if you find it agreeable or not.

You just posted a lot of speculation with no evidence. Without evidence I cannot believe you just like I can't just accuse someone of murdering without proving it with evidence.

It's an opinion to which I believe things how they are in my eyes. That's why I said I am gonna post my opinion.

It's ok if you don't believe or disagree with it. Like I wrote, I don't wanna post any proof.

But you haven't SHOWN that there's a 'personal bias' unless the bias is towards only accepting cures that actually have evidence to support their effectiveness.

All you've essentially said is, "There's a cure for cancer, and the only reason big pharma isn't telling anyone is cause they can't make money off it". Not only haven't you shown that there IS a cure, but you've made a huge speculation as to why pharmaceutical companies don't publicize it with no evidence other than your own personal conspiratorial bias. That's why people don't take you seriously in this thread. Meanwhile I've posted a link showing how 'cure studies' can easily be screwed methodologically, Daed has shown that Snopes already covered this so-called 'cure' in the past, and no evidence supports your position. Yet over and over you simply re assert that "This is the way things are, Big Pharma are being corporate greedy fat cats" and a whole bunch of other buzzwords of a conspiracy theorist.

Tell me, why should ANYONE take you seriously?



Name a single drug that does more harm than good, and the peer reviewed study that demonstrates this to be the case. Go.

Not only that, but name me a single drug people are forced to take, and don't have a choice in the matter. That'll be even more fun.

All drugs are optional. Chemotherapy, is optional. Going to a hospital, is optional. Nobody's forcing you to take their cures or their medicine, but people go anyway, because they're the BEST places to get these things. Why? Because they rely on evidence. Peer reviewed double blind studies and tests to figure out whether or not any remedy is worth prescribing. And they ONLY stick to remedies that WORK, and DON'T do more harm than they cure.

The amount of rigors conventional medicine has to go through to be accepted in modern hospitals is insane. Doctors and pharm reps remain intensely skeptical at all new 'cures' until they pass the rigors of the scientific academia. Meanwhile you read that something cures cancer on a personal blog site and simply accept it at face value.

Why?

@ Legendary Dollci

Then you'll excuse us if nobody takes your opinion seriously. Or cares about what you have to say.

Until there're references and proof, this is just a big steaming pile of bullshit. The article doesn't exactly look legit either, in fact it looks poorly made by an amateur.

Right... why is it that every SD thread turns into a battleground?