PDA

View Full Version : Possible Breakthrough in Cure for Cancer


CanadianChic
08-30-2009, 07:45 PM
"The component of the saliva of this tick... could be the cure for cancer," she told AFP.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090828/health/science_cancer_brazil_animal_ticks

I hope the medical research and governments of other countries, whose citizens have donated millions of dollars to research, can put their collective egos aside and take this opportunity to research the potential breakthrough in a cure.

albino smurf
08-31-2009, 11:55 AM
This could be great news for my family's tick farm. Times have been hard with the recession and all.

Fedace
08-31-2009, 11:59 AM
This could be great news for my family's tick farm. Times have been hard with the recession and all.

FUNNY......:)

Fedace
08-31-2009, 12:01 PM
Anyway, Kidding aside. I think they have get over the hurdle of being able to get Grants and funding for this. Excellent Presentation and Proof will be the Key. If there is any kind of Merit to this discovery at all then they will Get Funding for it. If not from The government then the Private investers for sure. It is Too Big to let it die at this early stage.........

hollywood9826
08-31-2009, 12:15 PM
Maybe combine this tick juice with copper head juice and we will have something.

The venom of the Southern copperhead has been found to hold a protein called "Contortrostatin" that halts the growth of cancer cells and also stops the migration of the tumors to other sites. It will probably be ten or more years before contortrostatin is used in practical treatment but it has shown to be a novel anti-cancer drug in the lab. "Specialized Venoms" of Seneca, South Carolina, milks copperheads for their venom, which is used in research labs throughout the United States.

Joeyg
08-31-2009, 01:57 PM
Is "Grant" going to be helping with the research? It is sometimes very difficult to make sense of your creative use of capitalization.

super_forehand
08-31-2009, 02:57 PM
For anyone that went through med school or the likes, you know that cancer isnt a 1D, or even 2D disease. It emcompasses many forms and causes, and really is a range of different illnesses categorized into a super mega general label of "cancer".

One cannot ever find a cure for "cancer" because of that. It is like saying one found the solution to math. There are a billion problems in math, kind of thing.

Anyways, many "cancers" already do have cures, even so there are different types of cures, it really is complicated.

But I hope most can take away that a "cure for cancer" will never be found because there is no such thing, cancer is just a general label for a very broad category of diseases.

Golden Retriever
08-31-2009, 03:05 PM
Tick saliva?? Thanks but I will stick with the tiger penis soup.

ollinger
08-31-2009, 04:39 PM
Interesting, but two stumbling blocks
1) One generally can't patent something that occurs in nature, though the Human Genome Project would like to dispute that. The article notes she's applied for a patent for this protein, something most countries won't honor. No patent usually means less interest from drug companies and investors. (Example: lithium carbonate was found effective for bipolar disorder in 1949, yet didn't come to market in the US until about 1970 because it occurs in nature and couldn't be patented.)
2) The problem with cancer is how rapidly the cells mutate and develop resistance to molecules like this. The best bet is that this might be another drug in the holster to slow the growth of tumors, but "cure" seems less likely and will require quite a few years of study.

Puddy
08-31-2009, 09:34 PM
Is "Grant" going to be helping with the research? It is sometimes very difficult to make sense of your creative use of capitalization.

Ha ha - good call.

Fedace, WHY DO YOU CAPITALIZE WORDS THAT DON'T NEED TO BE CAPITALIZED?!?!?

Deuce
08-31-2009, 11:32 PM
Interesting, but two stumbling blocks
1) One generally can't patent something that occurs in nature, though the Human Genome Project would like to dispute that. The article notes she's applied for a patent for this protein, something most countries won't honor. No patent usually means less interest from drug companies and investors. (Example: lithium carbonate was found effective for bipolar disorder in 1949, yet didn't come to market in the US until about 1970 because it occurs in nature and couldn't be patented.)
2) The problem with cancer is how rapidly the cells mutate and develop resistance to molecules like this. The best bet is that this might be another drug in the holster to slow the growth of tumors, but "cure" seems less likely and will require quite a few years of study.
3) A cure for cancer will never happen because it would eliminate too many jobs.

aphex
09-01-2009, 12:52 AM
For anyone that went through med school or the likes, you know that cancer isnt a 1D, or even 2D disease. It emcompasses many forms and causes, and really is a range of different illnesses categorized into a super mega general label of "cancer".

One cannot ever find a cure for "cancer" because of that. It is like saying one found the solution to math. There are a billion problems in math, kind of thing.

Anyways, many "cancers" already do have cures, even so there are different types of cures, it really is complicated.

But I hope most can take away that a "cure for cancer" will never be found because there is no such thing, cancer is just a general label for a very broad category of diseases.



obviously he knew that...he was testing the board's medical knowledge...

aphex
09-01-2009, 12:54 AM
Is "Grant" going to be helping with the research? It is sometimes very difficult to make sense of your creative use of capitalization.

i heard coach Gould is involved in the project...has he found any investers yet fedace? what have you heard?

stormholloway
09-01-2009, 01:49 AM
3) A cure for cancer will never happen because it would eliminate too many jobs.

Here's the sad truth.

CaptainInsano
09-01-2009, 09:28 AM
Read the following: http://www.thechinastudy.com/

Hopefully not taken as a new age-type of mentality, the book is thorough and lead by a Dr. T. Colin Campbell, who has been a member of several expert committees that developed national and international policy on diet and cancer and food labeling (even on the one dictating the US Food guide).


In a nut shell, chronic diseases such as a variety of cancer, is strongly linked to diet.


PS: I'm not a vegetarian, I like a hamburger once in a while. But reading the book gave me a new perspective on what I choose to eat.

ollinger
09-01-2009, 11:16 AM
Eliminate too many jobs? Silly boys. There were far more jobs taking care of chronically debilitating conditions like polio and stroke, yet polio has largely been eliminated by vaccination and the stroke rate cut in half by having people take aspirin and blood pressure meds. Taking care of Alzheimers patients is a much bigger business than cancer (all those nursing homes), yet there's a raftload of promising drugs being studied currently. Too many people eager for a trip to Stockholm to suppress medical advances.

Deuce
09-01-2009, 09:02 PM
Eliminate too many jobs? Silly boys. There were far more jobs taking care of chronically debilitating conditions like polio and stroke, yet polio has largely been eliminated by vaccination and the stroke rate cut in half by having people take aspirin and blood pressure meds. Taking care of Alzheimers patients is a much bigger business than cancer (all those nursing homes), yet there's a raftload of promising drugs being studied currently. Too many people eager for a trip to Stockholm to suppress medical advances.
The world was very different in the age of polio than it is today.

From people "working to cure cancer", to the hospitals, to the drug companies, and, of course, various governments, etc., etc.... there are a crapload of jobs which are dependent on cancer remaining a staple in our various cultures.

There are also a lot of very powerful, influential entities who will simply not allow their financial profits to diminish.

It's similar to the situation with alternative fuel vehicles.... the big oil companies have done everything they can do to prevent the mass production of alternative fuel vehicles - because, obviously, alternative fuel vehicles are a very serious threat to the financial profits of the oil companies.

Somewhere along the way, one must admit the ugly reality that there are many, many people and entities out there who care far more about financial profit than they care about human health.

Joeyg
09-02-2009, 04:45 AM
Dick Cheney springs to mind. He always reminded me of Mr Burns from the Simpsons.

LuckyR
09-02-2009, 04:22 PM
3) A cure for cancer will never happen because it would eliminate too many jobs.

Yeah kind of like the way that the Dental profession has suppressed the cure for cavities: brushing your teeth and not eating sweets. Seems like the dentist's waiting room is still pretty full. Plenty of cancers are curable and curing them makes a tidy profit, thank you very much.

Too many boogeymen under the bed for some people...

El Diablo
09-02-2009, 05:14 PM
Under his rock, Deuce didn't hear that thyroid cancer is nearly 100% curable, the vast majority of skin cancers are curable, and getting that colonoscopy every few years after age 50 allows most colon cancer to be cured. People are starting to do routine chest CT in smokers, allowing more and more lung cancers to be found at a curable stage.

Deuce
09-02-2009, 07:56 PM
Yeah kind of like the way that the Dental profession has suppressed the cure for cavities: brushing your teeth and not eating sweets. Seems like the dentist's waiting room is still pretty full. Plenty of cancers are curable and curing them makes a tidy profit, thank you very much.
^ 'Treating' cancers is far more profitable than curing them outright - for obvious reasons.

Too many boogeymen under the bed for some people...
^ You really shouldn't criticize me just because you're more gullible than I.

Under his rock, Deuce didn't hear that thyroid cancer is nearly 100% curable, the vast majority of skin cancers are curable, and getting that colonoscopy every few years after age 50 allows most colon cancer to be cured. People are starting to do routine chest CT in smokers, allowing more and more lung cancers to be found at a curable stage.
^ Are you saying that cancer is not an extremely financially profitable business?
And are you saying that human beings will not corrupt, manipulate, lie, and deceive as much as is necessary in order to reap the most financial profit possible?

The dude under the rock is you...

Talker
09-02-2009, 08:01 PM
If cancer is cured too many people will receive SS checks every month.
The government can't have that, it's a bigger problem than cancer itself.

Fedace
09-02-2009, 08:06 PM
Here's the sad truth.

If you cure one type of cancer then there is always another type of cancer to tackle. so if you cure Ovarian cancer then Lung cancer needs a cure and so on. Cure or treatment for one type of cancer doesn't always work for another..

Joeyg
09-03-2009, 05:37 AM
Master of the obvious. A previous poster said the very same thing. He must have been on your "ignore" list, huh?

El Diablo
09-03-2009, 06:02 AM
Are there people who make money treating cancer? Sure. There are also people who make money rebuilding houses that burn down but I don't believe most of those fires are set by people in the construction business. Perhaps the paranoid among us DO believe that. When there are tens of thousands of people around the world working on ways to cure cancer, I frankly don't think it's possible to suppress their work. And for the same reason the mafia shakes down small store owners but not lawyers, doctors and engineers -- very independent and educated people simply won't be suppressed. And is there a single shred of evidence that an effective cure for cancer has been found and suppressed?? I'm waiting..............

LuckyR
09-03-2009, 10:30 AM
^ 'Treating' cancers is far more profitable than curing them outright - for obvious reasons.


^ You really shouldn't criticize me just because you're more gullible than I.




I was posting about "curing" not treating, hence my use of the word: "curable".


Sorry for the criticism, I didn't realize you treated cancer professionally.

David_Is_Right
09-03-2009, 10:46 AM
Are you saying that cancer is not an extremely financially profitable business?

And are you saying that human beings will not corrupt, manipulate, lie, and deceive as much as is necessary in order to reap the most financial profit possible?

Both these things are doubtless true. However, this still doesn't prove that a cure for cancer will be supressed for financial gain.

Deuce
09-03-2009, 08:27 PM
Are there people who make money treating cancer? Sure. There are also people who make money rebuilding houses that burn down but I don't believe most of those fires are set by people in the construction business. Perhaps the paranoid among us DO believe that. When there are tens of thousands of people around the world working on ways to cure cancer, I frankly don't think it's possible to suppress their work. And for the same reason the mafia shakes down small store owners but not lawyers, doctors and engineers -- very independent and educated people simply won't be suppressed. And is there a single shred of evidence that an effective cure for cancer has been found and suppressed?? I'm waiting..............
^ Oh... so you're one to play the "If you can't prove it, it ain't true" game, huh...
Well... if that's all you've got, I suppose it's understandable that that's what you go with.

And that 'analogy' at the beginning of your paragraph... pure high school.

I was posting about "curing" not treating, hence my use of the word: "curable".
^ Which is precisely why I replied:
'Treating' cancers is far more profitable than curing them outright - for obvious reasons.

Sorry for the criticism, I didn't realize you treated cancer professionally.
^ Oh!.. the overwhelming wit...

Both these things are doubtless true. However, this still doesn't prove that a cure for cancer will be supressed for financial gain.
^ Another saying essentially "If you can't prove it, it ain't true."

Grow up guys - this board is about expressing positions and perspectives.
You do yours, I do mine. Asking people for 'proof' that their perspective is 'right' is juvenile at best.

David_Is_Right
09-04-2009, 12:21 AM
I'm sorry that you're not willing/able to provide any foundation for your own wild assertions. I just thought you might be capable of forming an argument to connect the two things together. Is that "juvenile" too?

Golden Retriever
09-04-2009, 12:35 AM
Human is the cancer, so cancer is actually the cure. We should be spending more resource on eliminating the pain caused by cancer and let the patients die a natural but quick death. That is better for the patients and mother earth rather than trying to find a cure that probably won't happen.

Sounds cruel but thats the truth.

David_Is_Right
09-04-2009, 04:57 AM
The problem with your baffling and fatuous proposition is that nearly everybody prefers a longer rather than a shorter life.

Fedace
09-04-2009, 05:01 AM
The problem with your baffling and fatuous proposition is that nearly everybody prefers a longer rather than a shorter life.

You are right, Not everyone would prefer to live 120 years. but if the Quality of Life is better and you are able to stay younger, most people would take that opportunity. That is science that is coming in the future, and it isn't that far away. Pretty soon, 80 year old would look and act like a 60 year old. It is all part of research going on in Genetics and cell tech. Same field that is looking for cure for cancer.

Fedace
09-04-2009, 05:04 AM
Human is the cancer, so cancer is actually the cure. We should be spending more resource on eliminating the pain caused by cancer and let the patients die a natural but quick death. That is better for the patients and mother earth rather than trying to find a cure that probably won't happen.

Sounds cruel but thats the truth.

Yes human is a parasite of sorts, we live and consume what mother earth has to offer. As we live longer and healthier, we will have to control the population growth. Maybe in the future, 1 child per family rule would apply.

Golden Retriever
09-04-2009, 07:34 AM
The problem with your baffling and fatuous proposition is that nearly everybody prefers a longer rather than a shorter life.

Not for someone with cancer suffering from excrutiating pain continuously.

Golden Retriever
09-04-2009, 07:39 AM
Yes human is a parasite of sorts, we live and consume what mother earth has to offer. As we live longer and healthier, we will have to control the population growth. Maybe in the future, 1 child per family rule would apply.

Yeah, agent Smith states it the best. We are not mammals we are parasites. He is my favorite movie character of all time.

But somehow he is the bad guy. Well, guess I am the bad guy too.

Joeyg
09-04-2009, 03:00 PM
Golden Retriever and Dr Fedace. A marriage made in heaven!

aphex
09-04-2009, 05:03 PM
If you cure one type of cancer then there is always another type of cancer to tackle. so if you cure Ovarian cancer then Lung cancer needs a cure and so on. Cure or treatment for one type of cancer doesn't always work for another..

was one of your majors oncology? or did you study it for your phd?

Deuce
09-04-2009, 06:58 PM
I'm sorry that you're not willing/able to provide any foundation for your own wild assertions. I just thought you might be capable of forming an argument to connect the two things together. Is that "juvenile" too?
^ How about a few centuries of ever-increasing human greed?

I believe that honest persons with common sense will have seen by now that the human animal will do just about anything for financial gain. My position on cancer uses this as its foundation.
I thought this was inherently obvious - but apparently not to you.

As well, I would expect that someone who utilizes the juvenile "oh, yeah - prove it - if you can't prove it, it's not true" approach would have certainly offered proof of their own position before demanding proof of an opposing position. Obviously that was not done here - because you can, of course, have no more 'proof' that your position is 'right' than can I. All of which makes this entire "oh yeah? Prove it" scenario - which you, not I , brought up - extremely useless and unbearably juvenile.

David_Is_Right
09-05-2009, 09:30 AM
No need to get your panties in a twist anytime someone questions you, Deuce. If you make a claim, as you did, people might ask you for justification. If you give it, and it's convincing, they might agree. If you get all silly like you have above, nobody is going to listen to you about anything.

I didn't make a claim; you did. I merely asked to hear more about your reasons for making it.

mary fierce
09-05-2009, 10:19 AM
Deuce's fallacy is that he seems to assume greed is the ONLY thing that motivates human behavior. Perhaps this is a projection of his own psyche, but how then does one explain charitable giving, acts of heroism, sharing behaviors, etc. Even if one wishes to explain those altruistic actions as not so much selfless but rather a quest for glory, there are thousands of researchers in the world who would like the glory of finding a cure for a cancer. That certainly is one motivator ofscientific discovery, but one that works to society's benefit. It is also dim-witteed of Deuce to think that cancer is good for business in general. Perhaps one tiny aspect of business, but not overall. The more consumers, the more business. People dying prematurely is not a booster for the economy.

David_Is_Right
09-05-2009, 11:43 AM
It's also quite implausible to conceive of a cancer "cure" that would be some kind of one-hit wonder treatment. It is much more likely to be some kind of ongoing treatment, as current cancer treatments are.

Even in the unlikely scenario that a one-hit cure is found, the demand for such a vital product would ensure high prices anyway. A drug company could hardly lose with either proposition.

Deuce
09-06-2009, 10:23 AM
No need to get your panties in a twist anytime someone questions you, Deuce. If you make a claim, as you did, people might ask you for justification. If you give it, and it's convincing, they might agree. If you get all silly like you have above, nobody is going to listen to you about anything.
^ How is pointing out the long, long history of increasing human greed "getting silly"?

I didn't make a claim; you did. I merely asked to hear more about your reasons for making it.
^ This is a convenient way for you to back out...
By asking for 'proof' of a position, in a context like this, you are yourself making an assertion.

This is aside from the fact, of course, that asking for 'proof' of a perspective is asinine at the very least.

It's also quite implausible to conceive of a cancer "cure" that would be some kind of one-hit wonder treatment. It is much more likely to be some kind of ongoing treatment, as current cancer treatments are.

Even in the unlikely scenario that a one-hit cure is found, the demand for such a vital product would ensure high prices anyway. A drug company could hardly lose with either proposition.
^ I thought the (obvious) distinction between a cure and treatment had already been made in this thread.
As you seem unclear on the matter, I suggest you consult a dictionary.

Deuce's fallacy is that he seems to assume greed is the ONLY thing that motivates human behavior. Perhaps this is a projection of his own psyche, but how then does one explain charitable giving, acts of heroism, sharing behaviors, etc. Even if one wishes to explain those altruistic actions as not so much selfless but rather a quest for glory, there are thousands of researchers in the world who would like the glory of finding a cure for a cancer. That certainly is one motivator ofscientific discovery, but one that works to society's benefit. It is also dim-witteed of Deuce to think that cancer is good for business in general. Perhaps one tiny aspect of business, but not overall. The more consumers, the more business. People dying prematurely is not a booster for the economy.
^ That's quite a haughty and condescending post... and rather typical of what you offer on these boards.

When, exactly, did I state that "greed is the ONLY thing that motivates human behavior"?
I did not make any such statement - and for you to claim that this is my position is not only a falsehood, but a rather clear demonstration that you are so desperate to assert your agenda that you'll resort to these types of manipulations.

Greed is certainly not the only thing that motivates human behaviour - but history and the state of the planet have shown that it is definitely one of - if not THE - primary things.

One need only look at the automotive industry for strong evidence that human greed overwhelms human altruism.
Alternative fuel for vehicles has been a realistic possibility for years... yet, due to human greed, has been all but totally suppressed.
The oil industry is big and powerful, and simply will not allow anything to cut into their enormous financial profits - even if it means killing the planet - and, inherently, human beings - in the process.
Alternate fuel pollutes less - yet, when the decision comes down to polluting less (thus making the planet healthier for all forms of life), or financial profit, financial profit wins out.
Why in the world do you think the scenario would be different in the cancer industry?

Kobble
09-06-2009, 06:21 PM
The world was very different in the age of polio than it is today.

From people "working to cure cancer", to the hospitals, to the drug companies, and, of course, various governments, etc., etc.... there are a crapload of jobs which are dependent on cancer remaining a staple in our various cultures.

There are also a lot of very powerful, influential entities who will simply not allow their financial profits to diminish.

It's similar to the situation with alternative fuel vehicles.... the big oil companies have done everything they can do to prevent the mass production of alternative fuel vehicles - because, obviously, alternative fuel vehicles are a very serious threat to the financial profits of the oil companies.

Somewhere along the way, one must admit the ugly reality that there are many, many people and entities out there who care far more about financial profit than they care about human health.That is the truth.

Kobble
09-06-2009, 06:29 PM
Are there people who make money treating cancer? Sure. There are also people who make money rebuilding houses that burn down but I don't believe most of those fires are set by people in the construction business. Perhaps the paranoid among us DO believe that. When there are tens of thousands of people around the world working on ways to cure cancer, I frankly don't think it's possible to suppress their work. And for the same reason the mafia shakes down small store owners but not lawyers, doctors and engineers -- very independent and educated people simply won't be suppressed. And is there a single shred of evidence that an effective cure for cancer has been found and suppressed?? I'm waiting..............There are better drugs in research and clinical testing today than ever before, but we continue to use 80's technology, because all the red tape that is required to get a new drug, or therapy, on the market. Drug therapies are extremely expensive to get into clinical trails and mass produce. While, on the other hand, immunotherapy alternatives are poorly funded to begin with. Funny how all ends seem to be conveniently blocked off. The drug companies have no interest in an immune therapy that isn't sold in a bottle, and the FDA limits the introduction of drugs. I would look outside the U.S. for cancer therapy if I had cancer.

mary fierce
09-06-2009, 06:33 PM
The world is different than in the time of polio??? How so? Corporations and politicians and lobbyists didn't exist then?? I believe they did. Profit motive didn't appear in the 1990s, you know. If anything the world is more transparent than it used to be; journalists don't turn the other way and ignore the sexual escapades of politicians as they did in the days of Kennedy and Roosevelt, for example. It's alot harder to keep secrets than it used to be. I don't think you quite realize how silly you sound. I have friends who are molecular biologists doing cancer research; nobody's work is suppressed or stifled. If you have EVIDENCE to the contrary instead of just abject paranoia, PLEASE present it already instead of just blathering that this happens.

mary fierce
09-06-2009, 06:46 PM
As for alternative fuel vehicles, Honda and Chevy have plug-in vehicles ready in the next two years, something that become economically feasible in the last few years when gas prices got high enough. Exactly how are the oil companies preventing this development. Electric and natural gas buses are already abundant in many urban areas. Exactly what have the oil companies done to prevent this? Fuel efficient hybrids are proliferating exponentially. The Israeli government is in the process of building infrastructure to have car battery stations all over the country to do battery exchange for 100% electric cars, and the entrepreneur building it is currently collecting investors to do the same in the US. What are the oil companies doing to prevent this?

Deuce
09-06-2009, 07:14 PM
The world is different than in the time of polio??? How so? Corporations and politicians and lobbyists didn't exist then?? I believe they did. Profit motive didn't appear in the 1990s, you know. If anything the world is more transparent than it used to be; journalists don't turn the other way and ignore the sexual escapades of politicians as they did in the days of Kennedy and Roosevelt, for example. It's alot harder to keep secrets than it used to be. I don't think you quite realize how silly you sound.
^ That's priceless.
If you honestly cannot see how much more greed there is on the planet today than in the days of polio, there is honestly no hope for you at all.

I have friends who are molecular biologists doing cancer research; nobody's work is suppressed or stifled. If you have EVIDENCE to the contrary instead of just abject paranoia, PLEASE present it already instead of just blathering that this happens.
^ Here we go again with the ever-so-childish and asinine "If you can't prove it, it didn't happen".
It's incredible to what desperate levels people will stoop to create the illusion they are 'right'.
In the end, such practices end up fooling only the dumb.

Thank you, at least, for revealing your bias in the form of your "friends doing cancer research". I would strongly suspect that they'd be among the last to know what's going on on a more political - and less biological - level.

As for alternative fuel vehicles, Honda and Chevy have plug-in vehicles ready in the next two years, something that become economically feasible in the last few years when gas prices got high enough.
^ Yes, yes... we've heard all sorts of wonderful 'plans' for many years now.
And, with all of the wonderful promises we've heard over the past 25 years or so, all we've got to show for it today are a few token hybrid vehicles - far less than has been possible over the past 25 years.

Exactly how are the oil companies preventing this development. Electric and natural gas buses are already abundant in many urban areas. Exactly what have the oil companies done to prevent this? Fuel efficient hybrids are proliferating exponentially. The Israeli government is in the process of building infrastructure to have car battery stations all over the country to do battery exchange for 100% electric cars, and the entrepreneur building it is currently collecting investors to do the same in the US. What are the oil companies doing to prevent this?
^ Are you truly that naive and/or ignorant?
Or is this a ploy of some sort?
I cannot imagine anyone who has been an inhabitant of this planet to be that ignorant on this subject so as to even suggest that the oil companies - and various governments - have not suppressed the production of alternative fuel vehicles.

Wow.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_5_60/ai_65133031/


"It is impossible to explain something to a person whose position depends on his not understanding it."
.