/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4199320]

Why can't we cure cancer?

I've read about drugs that halt angiogenesis to starve cancer cells to death. Are we even using this?

[Anonymous No.4199337]

I think this comic explains it pretty well...

[Anonymous No.4199336]

>>4199320
>Why can't we cure cancer?

The "physiology" (albeit, abnormal) of the cancerous state can be attributed to mutations in DNA -- regardless of the degree of involvement of both environmental and genetic factors. Such mutations cannot be remedied; cancerous cells cannot simply be returned to otherwise normal function.

>I've read about drugs that halt angiogenesis to starve cancer cells to death. Are we even using this?

There are therapies which target VEGF (and other growth factors which are pro-angiogenesis) in development in industry. Yet, there are still years from clinical application.

[Anonymous No.4199345]

>>4199337
well, thats a little depressing

[Anonymous No.4199356]

Cancer is sort of fucked up because of how simple it looks on the outside.
>oh god i've got cancer
>lets remove that chunk of tissue
>yay, cancer free :D
a couple years later..
>cancer is back
>shit is still in your DNA
>trololol you can't just get rid of me that easy

Its basically... immortal.
You can fight it and slow it down, and make it dormant for years and years, even until you die.. but you'll never completley, absolutley get rid of it.
Its the worst, scariest motherfucking thing you'll ever see.

[Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB No.4199484]

>>4199337
That's why it's becoming more and more likely that we're going to have to employ an extraordinarily aggressive strategy such as WILT in curing cancer.

http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes/oncosens

[Anonymous No.4199501]

There are stories of people discovering ways to cure diseases, including cancer, but they were never allowed to publish their findings because cancer is a huge source of money for medicine.

[Anonymous No.4199509]

>>4199501
>>Your face when

The pharmaceutical industry and medical lobby groups are really fucked up animals. But you can't really buy into the idea that there is a secret, magical cure for cancer sitting in a vault somewhere.

[Anonymous No.4199514]

go here

http://www.khanacademy.org/video/systemic-thinking-about-cancer?playlist=New+and+Noteworthy

[Anonymous No.4199517]

>>4199484

I'm all for curing cancer this way, but it's a dangerous road. If you can delete those genes in living specimens so cancer cannot use them, then you can delete or modify other aspects of your dna.

I can change any aspect of my genetic code to modify my being in any way I please.

[Anonymous No.4199520]

>>4199484

Oh wow. That article is absurd. "Yeah we can kill cancer, just engineer out (gene x) and everything will be just fine!"

Begs the question: How do you engineer out a gene from a large, multicellular whole organism.
Ill give you a hint: we have tried gene therapy plenty of times and it is not at all an easy thing to use without significant consequences (cancer being one).

Better yet: Why not engineer in protective genes and repair oncogenic mutations while we're at it?

[Anonymous No.4199522]

Dr Simoncini from Italy has cured many cancer patients with sodium bicarbonate (baking soda). He theorizes that cancer is actually a fungal infection (candida) and can be fought with an antifungicide like baking soda.

[Anonymous No.4199525]

>>4199337
>Michael Cancer Hall disagrees with it

[Anonymous No.4199542]

>>4199522
If I hadn't Googled it I would never have believed it.

[Anonymous No.4199548]

>>4199320
because ultimately cancer is a mutated human cell.

It's the same reason we can cure stupidity. Our body finds it morally reprehensible, but it can't unilaterally declare a cell or group of cells as the Jews.

[Anonymous No.4199581]

>>4199522
Read this as
>cancer is actually a fungal infection (canadian)

[Anonymous No.4199587]

>>4199542

It shouldn't be surprising. There are billions of dollars in profits to be made from cancer treatment. Why cure it when you can sustain the business model with a limitless supply of desperate patients?

[Anonymous No.4199597]

If there was a cure doctors would be out of jobs & we would be over populated.

All & all it is a terrible thing but think about the big picture.

[Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB No.4199604]

>>4199520
Do you know what telomerase is? Removing telomerase _cannot possibly_ cause cancer in the traditional sense (unless you're talking about ALT, which will require a separate ancillary solution).

[Anonymous No.4199615]

>>4199587

On the big pharm end, that is fairly accurate.

On the research end, no.

Big pharm and basic research are rarely connected. Basic research shows how difficult cancer is to treat. Where big pharm would have billions to gain from the plot you suggested, Basic research would have the same to gain from the opposite.

There probably isn't a conspiracy to deliberately not find cancer treatments.

[Anonymous No.4199638]

>>4199615
>>4199615

You need lots of money to pay for FDA trials and approval process. Are you telling me that money doesn't matter? there is no profit motive? Bullshit. At least, that is how it's done in the U.S.

Even the FDA has tried to steal from a Doctor's successful anti-cancer drug discovery. Google the "Burzynski movie" for info.

[Anonymous No.4199650]

>>4199638

Nobody is saying that clinical trials can't provide a chokepoint. I'm saying that if there was a sure-fire cancer treatment, basic research would know about it. Nearly all of the development is done there. Everything else is testing and manufacture.

[Anonymous No.4199658]

>>4199650

The cancer-fungal infection theory should be relatively easy to debunk or confirm. Somehow, I doubt any positive confirmation results would be published. Baking soda costs only pennies and will make those expensive cancer treatments obsolete. For now, the testimonials from patients will have to suffice.

[Anonymous No.4199664]

>>4199587
Im sick of hearing that argument, I'll tell you why, because the first company that cures a cancer get all the profit while the other companies get none.

And also, we have cured cancers, a bunch of them, breast cancer these days is a minor inconvenience not a death sentence, it seems to me people who make arguments like "its more profitable to derp" imagine the cure for cancer to be as easy as a round of antibiotics.

[Anonymous No.4199671]

>>4199587
There are many types of cancers and different treatment for each.

Besides, are there people so twisted that they want to watch the world burn to get moar money?

[Anonymous No.4199673]

>>4199658

>Somehow, I doubt any positive confirmation results could be published.

Fixed for you.

Though I have to agree with your subconscious notion that publishing negative results shouldn't be frowned upon. I bet some labs did try the baking soda idea and found nothing, leaving them unable to publish their results and leaving us to ask what-ifs

Regarding the fungi idea: not demonstrable, ergo, no reason to believe its true. Null hypothesis could not be rejected.

[Anonymous No.4199680]

>>4199664
>>4199664

If Dr. Simoncini is right about his theory, there would be no way to profit. Baking soda can't be patented and sold with a huge markup. Billions of dollars in future profits will be lost. Supply and demand, simple economics.

[Anonymous No.4199682]

>>4199680
if there was a cure for cancer and they were covering it up do you think they'd let themselves and their billionaire buddies die of cancer?

steve jobs had 10 billion and look where it landed him

[Anonymous No.4199685]

>>4199673
>>4199673

>The candida fungus is present in all cancer patients. Just coincidence? With a biological sample this should be easy to confirm by allowing it to grow.

[Anonymous No.4199686]

>>4199680

Dude, in the US the FDA and pharmaceutical companies aren't the primary drivers for this research, its the NIH, and they don't give a shit about profits, they're granted money by the US government to generate new findings.

[Anonymous No.4199695]

I think cancer is a fundamental mishap a cell can make. There's really only a few ways that a cell can go wrong, and failing to terminate if the normal apoptosis conditions are met and multiplying a whole bunch happens to be one of them because there's this mechanism that prevents the DNA from knowing how to stop splicing.

[Anonymous No.4199694]

>>4199685

>[citation needed]

Find more than one from a reputable source if you can.

[Anonymous No.4199704]

>>4199673
>>4199673
>Regarding the fungi idea: not demonstrable

The candida fungus is present in all cancer patients. Just coincidence? With a biological sample this should be easy to confirm by allowing it to grow.

[Anonymous No.4199736]

>>4199704

Once again

>[citation needed]

Find more than one from a reputable source if you can.

[Anonymous No.4199747]

>>4199736
volunteering to ask him?

[e-mail]

[Anonymous No.4199750]

>>4199320
1) Government gives research money. Research apparatuses that consume the money and divert it to researchers then spring up around this money source. This all happens regardless of how quality or worthwhile some research is towards solving something like cancer. Like there's a spigot of money spewing and people just look for the biggest bucket they can find to collect the money, regardless of any outside value of their endeavors. So basically there's actually little effective research going on now about cancer. The illusion that effective research is going on also contributes to this state.

2) Because of 1, certain wrong myths about health keep getting touted, myths that contribute to the prevention of useful research into the topic.

3) No good promotion mechanism for useful anti-cancer research that does appear. There's no main-stream organization with a solid incentive to inform the public of important research. Hypothetically, government is expected to fill that role, but they fail here too.

As an example of vitally important but not well-known health information:
-1,100 IU D3 in >55 year olds caused 60% less cancer incidence, 77% when cancers developed within the first 12 months are excluded http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/6/1586.full
-Supplementing 200 mcg selenium caused a 49% reduced prostate cancer incidence over 7 years http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12699469 . Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in america!

On the other hand, 3,000 women eating 65% more vegetables and 25% more fruit and 30% more fiber for 4 years had no reduction in breast cancer or total mortality in a 7 year follow up http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2083253/

These are gigantic numbers yet nutrition is still basically not investigated in any serious, systemic or rational way. Myths like 'fiber and vegetable keep you healthy' keep being repeated, in the literature as well as the public, despite no good scientific evidence.

[Anonymous No.4199752]

[Anonymous No.4199755]

>>4199736

The following includes excerpts of Dr. Simoncini's video clip and a short summary of Dr. Hamer's discoveries about the correlation between cancer and fungi.
Dr. Simoncini: "The madness of the cell is an invention, a hypothesis that nobody has ever demonstrated … For hundred years scientists suggest this hypothesis that nobody ever demonstrated. Never. This hypothesis has no evidence at all. At the same time it is only supported by negative elements. 8.5 million deaths for cancer … After hundred years of research it [cancer] is still surrounded by mystery."

Dr. Hamer discovered in 1979 (at the time head internist at a cancer clinic in Germany) that cancers are not "malignant" growths, but instead the result of biological survival programs (SBS) created to assist an individual during a biological conflict situation.
Dr. Hamer also found, as formulated in the Fourth Biological Law, that all cancers that grow during the conflict active stress phase (tumors of the lungs, colon, stomach, liver, kidney, prostate, uterus, breast glands, or the pleura and the peritoneum) stop growing as soon as the related conflict is resolved. During the healing phase, the now superfluous tumors are broken down and removed naturally with the help of fungi (!), like Candida albicans, or TB-bacteria. This is the reason why fungi and/or TB bacteria are always present in certain cancers; to be precise, exclusively in cancers which are controlled from the Old Brain (brainstem and cerebellum).

[Anonymous No.4199760]

Dr. Simoncini: "Candida is always found in the patients of the oncology wards. The problem is how the presence of the fungus is thought about. The wrong idea of the official oncology is that the cancer comes before and then the Candida attacks and enfeebles the organisms. But this is only a hypothesis, a wrong hypothesis. My opinion is that the Candida comes before, makes the cancer, and then invades the organism and causes death. Fact is that Candida is always found in the tissue of a cancer patient. Any other idea could be only an invention."

As examples of the simultaneous presence of fungi and cancer cells, Dr. Simoncini offers video material that shows fungal colonies in cancers of the colon, the lungs, the pleura and the stomach! Note, that these are all cancers that are controlled from the Old Brain, which proves the accuracy of Dr. Hamer's findings.

[Anonymous No.4199761]

>>4199747

So that's it? One guy? No published data?

The guy could be some hobo who got his degree from a diploma mill for all I know (or care for that matter)

I don't care if the guy is Albert Fucking Einstein, you still need to provide published data.

[Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB No.4199767]

>>4199760
Why is there none of that fungus in other types of immortalized cells, then?

[Anonymous No.4199769]

>>4199761
i wish people would have said this about string theory before they started using it as a science in its own.

[Anonymous No.4199782]

>>4199761

For example, in 1999 Meinolf Karthaus, MD, watched three different children with leukemia suddenly go into remission upon receiving a triple antifungal drug cocktail for their "secondary" fungal infections.(1)

Pre-dating that, Mark Bielski stated back in 1997 that leukemia, whether acute or chronic, is intimately associated with the yeast, Candida albicans. (2)

Finally, almost 50 years ago, Dr. J. Walter Wilson, in his textbook of clinical mycology, said that "it has been established that histoplasmosis and such reticuloendothelioses as leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, lymphosarcoma, and sarcoidosis are found to be coexistent much more frequently than is statistically justifiable on the basis of coincidence." (3)

Histoplasmosis is what we call an "endemic" fungal infection. It is most commonly acquired in regions surrounding the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys in the United States. One becomes ill by merely inhaling the tiny fungal spores of this fungus. (For more information on histoplasmosis and other endemic fungi, you can visit: http://www.doctorfungus.org/).). Three similar reports like this over the span of 40 years should convince us to at least study the role of fungi in cancers like leukemia a little more thoroughly.

[Anonymous No.4199786]

>>4199782

Source: http://www.loveoffering.com/fungus.htm

[Anonymous No.4199787]

>>4199522
There is much money to be made from offering people a false hope, when the situation is otherwise hopeless. For the vast majority, it is enough to merely sound scientific to justify these simple claims, and thus relieve them of their cash.

[Anonymous No.4199790]

>>4199761

References:

1. Karthaus, M. Treatment of fungal infections led to leukemia remissions. Sept. 28, 1999

2. Bielski: Boyd, W. Introduction to medical science. 1937. Lea & Febiger. Philadelphia, PA.

3. Wilson, J.W. Clinical and immunological aspects of fungus diseases. 1957. Charles C. Thomas. Springfield, IL.

4. White, M.W. Medical Hypotheses. 1996;47,35-38

5. Mycotoxins: Risks in Plant, Animal, and Human Systems. The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Task Force Report No. 139. Jan 2003. Ames, IA.

6. Etzel, R.A. Mycotoxins. Jan 23, 2002. 387(4). Journal of the American Medical Association

7. Cheeke, P.R. Natural toxicant in feeds, forages, and poisonous plants. 1998. Interstate Publishers, Inc. Danville, IL.

[Anonymous No.4199821]

I dont see the harm that this could cause, though. Whether or not pasting sodium bicarbonate on to the tumor will help fight the cancer, it certainly won't worsen the cancer, either. As a secondary treatment, I mean. Using this as the primary care could really be fatal.

[Anonymous No.4199823]

>>4199790

Congratulations, you just convinced me that some fungi can contribute to oncogenesis. Good start.

Doesn't convince me that fungi is the cause of all known forms of cancer, which is what >>4199522 argues. Mind collating key points from reputable
sources demonstrating that claim?

[Anonymous No.4199835]

>>4199522
>Dr Simoncini from Italy has cured many cancer patients with sodium bicarbonate (baking soda). He theorizes that cancer is actually a fungal infection (candida) and can be fought with an antifungicide like baking soda.

[Anonymous No.4199839]

>>4199823

Sorry, its 1:35am here and I need sleep. I have no dog in this fight. If you have access to a lab or someone with a lab it should be easy to confirm or debunk. Could it really be so simple? Unfortunately I have no access to a lab so I can't tell you for sure but Dr. Simoncini's results are convincing. goodnight.

[Anonymous No.4199872]

>>4199839

>it should be easy to confirm or debunk.

Short answer: Nope

Longer answer: We absolutely know that viral infection causes cancer. It's still hard to determine if a cancer is caused by a virus though.

1) Labs use different techniques to test for viral load
2) Tissue samples are handled differently
3) Large percentages of the population have these viruses and don't get cancer

And this is studying something we KNOW definitively is oncogenic. In fact, it's believed that viruses play a role in ~30-50% of all cancers.

The links used in that website, when searched for, either bring up that website again or bring up old, rather outdated books that state that fungal infection may play a role in some tumorigenesis.

They don't, in any way, support the idea that fungus causes all cancer and they definitely don't support the use of sodium bicarbonate as a therapy or cure.

And honestly, if your evidence of oncogenesis is from the age before genetic studies ('37,'57), it's almost as good as useless.

[M No.4199921]

We actually cured cancer in in the 1980's. Unfortunately we cured it in rats, not in humans.

[M No.4199931]

>>4199638
I'll tell you how it's done in the US at least with drug companies. Full trials on humans are extremely expensive, and for major drugs there is often a risk analysis done to determine which is cheaper:

1.) Performing full human trials
2.) Settling law suits if people develop serious complications

The truth is oftentimes it's much cheaper to settle lawsuits after people are harmed or killed from the medication than to do human trials. Of course, the risk analysis also factors in past problems with drugs of a similar chemical class, or problems reported with particular functional groups. A company would probably opt for extensive trials if a drug was entirely new.

[Anonymous No.4199932]

ITT: people without a (biochemistry, chemistry or molecular biology) degree and any research experience in academia or industry sling psuedoscience-bullshit around.

[Anonymous No.4199936]

>>4199320
you should compare the survival and cure rates for childhood cancers in 1980 and now, and tell me we can't cure cancer.

It's like building a cathedral in the middle ages. it's going to take 100 years or more to build. you can't rush something as monumental as understanding and curing cancer...

[Anonymous No.4199948]

How come no one has brought up DCA yet?

[Anonymous No.4199962]

>>4199948
how was it discovered dichloroacetate can influence mitochondrial activity? also, what is it's effect on normal metabolism in vivo?

[Anonymous No.4199967]

>>4199962
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/05/18/big-pharma-ignoring-potential-cancer-cure/

Here's a starting point. I know, not the best source but you can find some info from here. There is a group of people with cancer who make journals of their doses and results, and a lot of information as well. These people buy DCA (if it's too pure, it is harmful) and dose themselves.

http://www.thedcasite.com/

[Anonymous No.4199971]

>>4199962
There are also several publications in PubMed regarding DCA. I need to go to bed soon, but they aren't too hard to find.

[Anonymous No.4199991]

>>4199971
Thanks, just did a quick check myself but it looks liek the results are ambivalent across studies & contexts. It would probably work better if it was limited to people with tumours the size of a grain of rice or less, but if we could detect those tumours reliably, much bigger treatment doors would be open for us...

[Anonymous No.4200673]

>>4199686
Meaning, the NIH has a lot of interest in having as many people employed as possible, using government money...