Cancer Cured For Good

[phooph]

I did a Google search on the compound described in this article and found nearly 5000 references. It is obviously not a secret in the cancer research community. Only a secret from those who really could use it. And this is not the only natural, safe, and unpatentable compound that produces these results.

Ruth


Cancer Cured For Good

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2008

By Bill Sardi and Timothy Hubbell ©2008


[article removed by request of author]

[Braggi]

I did a Google search on the compound described in this article and found nearly 5000 references. ...

Ruth, if this product cured cancer, scientists would be lining up for the Nobel prizes. If only it were true. Contrary to popular belief there is no conspiracy to prevent valid cancer cures from distribution to the masses. Isn't it interesting that rich famous people die of cancer despite all these miracle cures available on the Web? It's because there is no silver bullet.

First it's important to remember that cancer isn't a single disease but hundreds of diseases that work in a similar fashion. That's one reason there will never be a single drug or treatment that "cures" cancer. It won't happen that way. Genetic tinkering may reduce cancer rates, but even that won't cure them all.

Please go ahead and research and do share your results with us. But don't "believe." Let the promoters prove it to you. Then go to other sites that are not selling the magic treatment and see what they have to say. If there are links to sites that actually sell the product it's not an objective site but an infomercial. If their "proof" depends on testimonials it isn't proof. Proof comes in the form of repeatable studies published in major peer reviewed journals. Even a cancer treatment that reduces mortality by half is lauded as a breakthrough. Imagine if there was a treatment that was 100% effective! There would be parades in every city and town.

Just because it's "as seen on TV" or "as seen on the Web" doesn't make it a good product.

Be skeptical. Keep your money. Cancer cures will appear on front pages of newspapers across the nation and around the world when they actually are proved safe and effective. You can bet your pocketbook on it.

-Jeff

[phooph]

Jeff,

How many references in science and medical journals/websites do you need?

https://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/...311.pdf?ck=nck
https://www3.interscience.wiley.com/...30149/abstract
https://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/220/1/20
https://tinyurl.com/5pap8b
https://tinyurl.com/653xrb
https://tinyurl.com/5pfan6
https://tinyurl.com/4a72ys

I guess I'll stop at seven.

It looks like it is also being studied for a variety of conditions that would benefit from a boosted immune system, not just cancer.

There are a lot of compounds that have been found to be cheap, safe, and effective for treating various conditions that never make it into the pharmacy. The issue is whether or not they can be patented. Without a patent a drug company cannot protect its investment (approaching $1 billion) for the testing and approval process. If company A goes through a costly approval process with an unpatentable substance, then companies B, C, and D can take it to market without the approval expense, driving down prices and company A loses money.

If company A can secure exclusivity through a patent they can make back their investment and make a profit on top of that which is what it's all about. Just as insurance companies are in the business of making money, not paying claims, drug companies are in the business of making money, not curing diseases. Their shareholders would not stick around if they were a money losing do-gooder outfit. Most drug companies have cancer treatments that make them good money. Something that works too well or too fast is not as profitable as something that just sort of works. We do live in a capitalist economy, after all.

When the patent expires you will see two phenomena: the name brand vs generics battle as competitors begin manufacturing knock offs of the original drug, and the conversion of some drugs from prescription to over the counter accompanied by a big advertising campaign to generate brand loyalty and more customers. Claritin is one I can remember recently.

Cancer cells all have some things in common and there is more than one unpatentable substance that targets processes exclusive to cancer cells leaving healthy cells untouched.

No one is promoting this substance to the public. The only promoters are manufactures selling it to the science community for use in their studies. It is being studied in a lot of places but it hasn't made it out of the lab and into your pharmacy. The medical industrial complex has done an effective job of making it illegal to claim that something cures a disease that has not gone through the FDA approval process no matter how effective it may be. This is not all done to protect the public from quacks, but also to protect the industry from competition.

Ruth, if this product cured cancer, scientists would be lining up for the Nobel prizes. If only it were true. Contrary to popular belief there is no conspiracy to prevent valid cancer cures from distribution to the masses. Isn't it interesting that rich famous people die of cancer despite all these miracle cures available on the Web? It's because there is no silver bullet.

First it's important to remember that cancer isn't a single disease but hundreds of diseases that work in a similar fashion. That's one reason there will never be a single drug or treatment that "cures" cancer. It won't happen that way. Genetic tinkering may reduce cancer rates, but even that won't cure them all.

Please go ahead and research and do share your results with us. But don't "believe." Let the promoters prove it to you. Then go to other sites that are not selling the magic treatment and see what they have to say. If there are links to sites that actually sell the product it's not an objective site but an infomercial. If their "proof" depends on testimonials it isn't proof. Proof comes in the form of repeatable studies published in major peer reviewed journals. Even a cancer treatment that reduces mortality by half is lauded as a breakthrough. Imagine if there was a treatment that was 100% effective! There would be parades in every city and town.

Just because it's "as seen on TV" or "as seen on the Web" doesn't make it a good product.

Be skeptical. Keep your money. Cancer cures will appear on front pages of newspapers across the nation and around the world when they actually are proved safe and effective. You can bet your pocketbook on it.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

...
How many references in science and medical journals/websites do you need?
...

Ruth, thanks for sharing the links. The answer to your question is one that is repeatable. That is, one double blind, peer reviewed study with a large number of human participants. You have linked to ... none.

The substance looks promising based on what you have posted. Note that the citations are recent and perhaps this substance is under further study, but in google news I could find nothing current. Strange, that.

...
The issue is whether or not they can be patented. Without a patent a drug company cannot protect its investment (approaching $1 billion) for the testing and approval process. ...

I'll spare you the ine by line response, and just say this is really not an issue. The cancer industry is not a monolith but is made up of thousands of companies and millions of people. Any of them would love to offer a "cure" for any kind of cancer let alone a magic bullet that cures many. If the substance in question, or any substance, proves to be that magic bullet, researchers will be falling all over themselves trying to be the first to prove it. The Nobel prize alone is worth a million dollars and the customers following the brand that won that Nobel prize will be worth billions whether the company has competitors or not.

There are many different ways for companies to protect themselves. Manufacturing processes, compounding processes, administration processes etc. can all be patented. Anything can be trademarked. A cancer cure of any kind will spawn creation of thousands of clinics to administer said cure. The value could be worth $trillions. Lack of money will not be an issue.

If this substance proves itself it will come to market, you can be sure of that. Nearly every quack substance from the last hundred years has been studied ad nauseum and proven to be quackery. Universities have found the money to study all of them so a truly promising drug will certainly find funding. Whether it's truly promising is not possible to discern based on the articles you posted because they are not large enough nor are they controlled. They are, though, the kind of studies that can be used to generate funding on a larger scale if the studies are deemed valid.

Thanks again for sharing. I'll be interested to see where this goes.

-Jeff

[Zeno Swijtink]

If someone is interested in reading this article I can try to order it at my library at SSU - Zeno

****

Review Article · Übersichtsarbeit
Will Analogs of 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 (Calcitriol) Open a New Era in Cancer Therapy?
J. Reichrath

Hautklinik der Universität des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar
Address of Corresponding Author
Onkologie 2001;24:128-133 (DOI: 10.1159/000050299)


**Summary

Numerous in vitro and in vivo observations, demonstrating that 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 is a potent inhibitor of tumor cell growth, provided the rationale for using this seco-steroid hormone to treat patients with leukemia and various types of cancer. However, the therapeutic efficacy of systemically applied vitamin D analogs for treating cancer has not yet fulfilled its promise. A main reason for these disappointing results is that the use of systemically applied vitamin D analogs is limited by severe side effects, mostly hypercalcemia, at the supraphysiological doses needed to reach clinical improvement. New concepts for the development of cancer treatment strategies that are based on the use of vitamin D3 compounds are discussed in this manuscript. At the moment, different strategies that may enable the application of vitamin D analogs for the treatment of various malignancies, including malignant skin tumors, are employed. It has been shown that certain vitamin D analogs differ in their intracellular metabolism, nongenomic actions, pharmacokinetics, interaction with the vitamin D binding protein (DBP) or the vitamin D receptor (VDR). Several of these new concepts are based on recent laboratory results demonstrating that VDR requires heterodimerisation with additional nuclear cofactors such as the retinoid-X receptor (RXR) for sufficient DNA-binding or are based on new findings in the metabolism of vitamin D. Taken together, these new strategies hold promise that analogs of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 may herald a new era in the treatment of various malignancies, including skin cancer.

[phooph]

Ruth, thanks for sharing the links. The answer to your question is one that is repeatable. That is, one double blind, peer reviewed study with a large number of human participants. You have linked to ... none.

I have linked to two small human studies. It is the large number of human participants required and the time involved that generates a great deal of the high cost. As stated in the original article, a patent has been obtained for a process by which Gc-MAF is produced https://tinyurl.com/4yrreb but not upon the Gc-MAF itself.

The substance looks promising based on what you have posted. Note that the citations are recent and perhaps this substance is under further study, but in google news I could find nothing current. Strange, that.

One of the links above is to a Reuters article. The research has been going on since at least 1993 and seems to have originated in Japan. Imagine the public outcry if this were to become widely known. Thus you don't see it on the six o'clock news or google news or the front page of the PD.

I'll spare you the ine by line response, and just say this is really not an issue. The cancer industry is not a monolith but is made up of thousands of companies and millions of people. Any of them would love to offer a "cure" for any kind of cancer let alone a magic bullet that cures many. If the substance in question, or any substance, proves to be that magic bullet, researchers will be falling all over themselves trying to be the first to prove it. The Nobel prize alone is worth a million dollars and the customers following the brand that won that Nobel prize will be worth billions whether the company has competitors or not.

A million dollars is chump change in this industry. It would bring fame to the developer, but not great fortune. If the generic version is one one hundreth the cost of the brand name and works just as well, how many people and insurance companies will be willing to choose the higher priced product? That may work in the fashion industry but not the insurance industry.

There are many different ways for companies to protect themselves. Manufacturing processes, compounding processes, administration processes etc. can all be patented. Anything can be trademarked. A cancer cure of any kind will spawn creation of thousands of clinics to administer said cure. The value could be worth $trillions. Lack of money will not be an issue.

The federal government had to pass an orphan drug law to force drug companies to manufacture drugs for people with rare diseases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug
It may be necessary to create something similar for drugs such as this, however, the industry holds such sway over government that getting something passed would be difficult. Think of the large number of companies and people that would be put out of business/work if this product came to market and is as effective as it looks to be. As stated in the original article, the cancer industry is over $70 billion a year. What member of congress wants to back a bill that destroys profitable businesses and puts people out of work? This is the same issue that has kept the country from implementing a single payer health system like every other first world country.

If this substance proves itself it will come to market, you can be sure of that. Nearly every quack substance from the last hundred years has been studied ad nauseum and proven to be quackery. Universities have found the money to study all of them so a truly promising drug will certainly find funding. Whether it's truly promising is not possible to discern based on the articles you posted because they are not large enough nor are they controlled. They are, though, the kind of studies that can be used to generate funding on a larger scale if the studies are deemed valid.

They will only generate funding if there is money to be made. As I have stated before, there are countless books and articles about just such other substances that have proven promising but gone nowhere due to lack of patentability. Here is another instance where a promising treatment goes wanting. It was presented at the International AIDS conference the year it was held in San Francisco. I got a tape of Dr. Terry Pulse's presentation (since lost in a move somewhere). Although this treatment was the most impressive of all those presented, only pharmaceutical company products were reported in the media.
feed://www.aloemucilaginouspolysaccharides.com/?feed=rss2
Read the commentary that follows the first article. In my over 30 years investigating health issues, I have seen many, many of these often written by doctors who found some simple cure for a chronic or life threatening disease only to have their license threatened if they didn't shut up. You threaten the bottom line of some major company or industry and you are toast. It's no different than any other industry.

Thanks again for sharing. I'll be interested to see where this goes.

-Jeff

Exactly nowhere.

[phooph]

Zeno, thanks for hunting that up. I think the summary is sufficient as it illustrates the problem exactly. So far only the process by which Gc-MAF can be produced has been patented, not the end product, and since administering the Calcitrol directly to the patient so they would manufacture their own causes hypercalcemia it creates another undesirable condition.

Interestingly I found that the Gc-MAF is being studied to treat osteolpetrosis, the opposite of osteoporosis, a disease in which the bones become ever more and more dense and brittle and the marrow producing hollows narrow. It causes me to wonder why Gc-MAF would not reverse the hypercalcemia caused by the Calcitrol, but maybe the metabolism is different. I do know there has been a lot of press recently about the importance of Vitamin D in preventing cancer. Again, the industry is looking to create a patentable analog, not to use an unpatentable original.

If someone is interested in reading this article I can try to order it at my library at SSU - Zeno

****

Review Article · Übersichtsarbeit
Will Analogs of 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 (Calcitriol) Open a New Era in Cancer Therapy?
J. Reichrath

Hautklinik der Universität des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar
Address of Corresponding Author
Onkologie 2001;24:128-133 (DOI: 10.1159/000050299)


**Summary

Numerous in vitro and in vivo observations, demonstrating that 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 is a potent inhibitor of tumor cell growth, provided the rationale for using this seco-steroid hormone to treat patients with leukemia and various types of cancer. However, the therapeutic efficacy of systemically applied vitamin D analogs for treating cancer has not yet fulfilled its promise. A main reason for these disappointing results is that the use of systemically applied vitamin D analogs is limited by severe side effects, mostly hypercalcemia, at the supraphysiological doses needed to reach clinical improvement. New concepts for the development of cancer treatment strategies that are based on the use of vitamin D3 compounds are discussed in this manuscript. At the moment, different strategies that may enable the application of vitamin D analogs for the treatment of various malignancies, including malignant skin tumors, are employed. It has been shown that certain vitamin D analogs differ in their intracellular metabolism, nongenomic actions, pharmacokinetics, interaction with the vitamin D binding protein (DBP) or the vitamin D receptor (VDR). Several of these new concepts are based on recent laboratory results demonstrating that VDR requires heterodimerisation with additional nuclear cofactors such as the retinoid-X receptor (RXR) for sufficient DNA-binding or are based on new findings in the metabolism of vitamin D. Taken together, these new strategies hold promise that analogs of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 may herald a new era in the treatment of various malignancies, including skin cancer.