by metatron 7 Replies latest jw friends
New Scientist published an article claiming that an inexpensive off patent drug might be a cure for cancer. The trouble
is that , as with countless other potential treatments, there is no possibility of future profit - which translates into
no development or money for testing. If you want to know more, investigate dichloroacetate or dichloroacetic acid.
Apparently, the University of Alberta got some surprizing results with this drug and its potential mechanism for
disrupting cancer.
metatron
I will check it out. Thanks for the tip.
There seems to be a lot of remedies floating around out there. I dont know how effective they are, I hope I never have to find out. Cancer manifest itself in a lot of different areas and ways, which is why I've been led to believe; it is difficult for doctors to come up with a magic bullet. But I hope for everyones sake you are on to somehting.
Interesting news. There is more information on a University of Alberta website:
I strongly believe that there are gaping holes in medical knowledge caused by regulatory malfunction. Specifically,
collective medical knowledge tends to consist of whatever offers promise of great profitability since that is the only way
to pay for the huge cost of therapeutic development. If if stands no chance of making a lot of money, it does not get
confirmation as valid. What is needed is a whole independent research structure devoted to unprofitable therapy.
metatron
This is just like the oil issu(we can have the same things with different kind of energy) but the money makers don’t want to forget about what they make money out of … but that is forgetting about how much people would pay anyway to get what they want or need … It would be in our benefit to plebiscite in mass anything else and somehow to pay ourselves the scientists/ingeenier who are working for all those things … to become somehow associates with or without benefit in money, but benefit in comfort in the short to long run … (I mean we can create our own markets if we don’t let politician and big corporations forget about our choices because it makes their markets more profitable for them and only them) We need massive involvement to get there, but they know how to divide us to rule … So
This is fascinating. You'd think the cancer institutions would be all over this.
tall penguin
How could they possibly get millions for funding, and all the quackery if they had a cure? They got to keep that money machine rolling.
This is fascinating. You'd think the cancer institutions would be all over this.
Ya, you'd think they would eh? Unfortunately, they're not interested in a low cost cure for cancer as they wouldn't get the millions and millions of dollars for funding alot of useless projects that I've personally witnessed. I had a contract position several years ago for the Center for Research and Program Evaluation that was fully funded by the Canadian Cancer Society. One of my co-workers was given a $90,000/year for a three years grant. His research? Trying to discover why teenagers start to smoke. I told him point blank: "Are you kidding me? I can sum that up in two words: Peer pressure." He openly told me not to "say that too loud" or I may not get that job on a permanent basis. Needless to say, I didn't get that job on a permanent basis. It's not just them. The pharmaceutical industry makes a killing (in every sense of the word) off of chemotherapy so they have no interest in supporting a low cost drug that would kill their profits.
I wonder how long it'll be before this latest information on a cure for cancer is supressed.
