Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice

ashurbanipal · May 18, 2011

kaya'08 said:
They have supposedly found a panacea for the biggest killer on Earth whose cure has eluded scientists for hundreds of years, for it to be mentioned only by "hub pages" which is some kind of blog website.

If such a thing where to happen it would be huge and it would be the biggest discovery in the field of medicine for years and the corner stone to modern health services. You would have to be either very desperate to believe this is true in order to believe it, or just seriously gullible.

I can think of several scenarios in which someone does in fact discover the cure for cancer, posts results on a website, and no one notices. Here are three:

1) While in fact the cure has been discovered, the answer is so simple, so unnerving, or possesses some other property such that the right people fail to take it seriously.

2) While in fact the cure has been discovered, someone with the power to do so covers it up.

3) While in fact the cure has been discovered, an unnoticed technical error in confirmatory trials leads us to believe disconfirmation.

The problem for people who take your position seems to be that you need a way to rule out these kinds of scenarios. How will you do so?

Just in case you think this is all too esoteric, you should consider that quite a number of valid scientific discoveries were actively suppresed, unnoticed, unappreciated, or otherwise ineffectual until decades, and in some cases, centuries after the initial discovery.

kaya'08 · May 18, 2011

ashurbanipal said:
I can think of several scenarios in which someone does in fact discover the cure for cancer, posts results on a website, and no one notices. Here are three:

1) While in fact the cure has been discovered, the answer is so simple, so unnerving, or possesses some other property such that the right people fail to take it seriously.

I highly doubt, considering the nature of cancer and how it can elude your own immune system, that the cure is that simple.

Even so, if these so called scientists did discover it, they would likely have significant empirical data to back up their claims, none of which i have seen. They would also likely submit their finds to the medical association too by which time it would be very very hard for the media to miss and not go on a frenzy about it.

I can assure you that no serious scientist or individual for that matter would post the most important medical discovery in recent centuries on facebook, twitter, on a website or on a blog and just hope that the medical association notices.

2) While in fact the cure has been discovered, someone with the power to do so covers it up.

That doesn't seem to be the case.

3) While in fact the cure has been discovered, an unnoticed technical error in confirmatory trials leads us to believe disconfirmation.

The problem for people who take your position seems to be that you need a way to rule out these kinds of scenarios. How will you do so?

Once these findings have been subject to proper scientific scrutiny, factuated and proved, then we can rule out the possibility this is either a stupid hoax or somebody looking for a bit of attention.

Just in case you think this is all too esoteric, you should consider that quite a number of valid scientific discoveries were actively suppresed, unnoticed, unappreciated, or otherwise ineffectual until decades, and in some cases, centuries after the initial discovery.

That's because it can take decades to complete medical trials and patented etc before it can be considered a proper drug that works that can be put on the market.

I can promise you this, who ever does find the cure for cancer, there going to be absolutely rolling in money. It's just a shame it hasn't happened yet.

Removable Mind · May 18, 2011

Kaya'08 said:
I can promise you this, who ever does find the cure for cancer, there going to be absolutely rolling in money. It's just a shame it hasn't happened yet.

Ditto!

And I might add that it wouldn't matter if the person(s) responsible were selling the cure out of an ice cream truck...they would become rich beyond one's dreams. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett's wealth would seem like that of successful neighborhood mom and pop market owners who just had Walmart move next door.

ashurbanipal · May 18, 2011

kaya'08 said:
I highly doubt, considering the nature of cancer and how it can elude your own immune system, that the cure is that simple.

This misses the point--I doubt it would be simple either, and I'm sure most scientists studying cancer think a cure would be anything but simple. Which is the exact reason why, if it did in fact turn out to be simple, it'd be doubted.

kaya'08 said:
Even so, if these so called scientists did discover it, they would likely have significant empirical data to back up their claims, none of which i have seen.

Don't get me wrong; my point is not to say that we should accept something on the basis of flimsy evidence. However, regardless of what the cure turns out to be (if there is one), in the initial stages, there will not be a signficant amount of evidence to support it. One or two small-scale studies are usually conducted on anything before it goes to a larger trial, in the event those studies are promising. There is not any way to know, for any given agent, whether you're looking at something that is on its way to successful large-scale trials, or not. So, foreclosing on the possibility in any particular case (this one included) is unreasonable.

kaya'08 said:
I can assure you that no serious scientist or individual for that matter would post the most important medical discovery in recent centuries on facebook, twitter, on a website or on a blog and just hope that the medical association notices.

I'm not as certain as you are, but I would grant that the usual procedure would be to write up a paper or two for publication...which is exactly what Dr. Michelakis has done. You can find some updates here:

News & Updates - DCA Research Information

kaya'08 said:
That doesn't seem to be the case.

If someone did a good enough job at covering something up, it would hardly appear as if something had been covered up...that's the point of covering something up, isn't it?

kaya'08 said:
Once these findings have been subject to proper scientific scrutiny, factuated and proved, then we can rule out the possibility this is either a stupid hoax or somebody looking for a bit of attention.

This misses the point again. In order for you position to have any force, you'd need to rule out the possibility that something could in fact be a cure for cancer but not be taken seriously for some reason. If you can't do that, the possibility should remain open.

kaya'08 said:
That's because it can take decades to complete medical trials and patented etc before it can be considered a proper drug that works that can be put on the market.

Well, I wasn't actually thinking about drugs, exactly. But consider the principle behind vaccination: it was first discovered in Turkey in the mid 17th century or possibly much earlier. However, it wasn't appreciated for what it was until just over two centuries later.

kaya'08 said:
I can promise you this, who ever does find the cure for cancer, there going to be absolutely rolling in money.

How exactly can you promise that?

kaya'08 · May 18, 2011

ashurbanipal said:
This misses the point--I doubt it would be simple either, and I'm sure most scientists studying cancer think a cure would be anything but simple. Which is the exact reason why, if it did in fact turn out to be simple, it'd be doubted.

But this isn't a case of doubt. If a group of legitemate scientists had made this claim MOST news outlets would have picked up on this just on the speculation alone.

But we dont know who the source is and we have seen NO empirical evidence whatsoever, nor have we seen an attempt by these so called scientists to patent this drug or to subject it to scientific scrutiny.

Don't get me wrong; my point is not to say that we should accept something on the basis of flimsy evidence. However, regardless of what the cure turns out to be (if there is one), in the initial stages, there will not be a signficant amount of evidence to support it. One or two small-scale studies are usually conducted on anything before it goes to a larger trial, in the event those studies are promising.

The scientists made the claim that the drug puts human cancer cells into remission, that isn't a small scale study - that is ground breaking and the sheer scope of this supposed discovery is enormous. There should be plenty of evidence to support this huge claim.

There is not any way to know, for any given agent, whether you're looking at something that is on its way to successful large-scale trials, or not. So, foreclosing on the possibility in any particular case (this one included) is unreasonable.

If this was legitemate, empirical data would be availible and most scientific circles would be very excited about this. However there is no evidence to say these scientists found anything at all.

I'm not as certain as you are, but I would grant that the usual procedure would be to write up a paper or two for publication...which is exactly what Dr. Michelakis has done. You can find some updates here:

News & Updates - DCA Research Information

If someone did a good enough job at covering something up, it would hardly appear as if something had been covered up...that's the point of covering something up, isn't it?

This misses the point again. In order for you position to have any force, you'd need to rule out the possibility that something could in fact be a cure for cancer but not be taken seriously for some reason. If you can't do that, the possibility should remain open.

Well, I wasn't actually thinking about drugs, exactly. But consider the principle behind vaccination: it was first discovered in Turkey in the mid 17th century or possibly much earlier. However, it wasn't appreciated for what it was until just over two centuries later.

How exactly can you promise that?

I'm sorry i just can't take this discussion seriously. Once i have seen hard data on the studies that these scientists have conducted and once it has been validated by the medical association i will assume this is just a hoax. If this where to be even remotely factual the scientists would have rushed to get their work validated and patented. Instead they post it on a blog and provide sketchy details.

But let me know if anything does pop up. Reminds me of the time when that South Korean or Japanese scientist claimed he had cloned a human embryo. When he tried to get his work patented he was soon named and shamed.

ashurbanipal · May 18, 2011

kaya'08 said:
But this isn't a case of doubt. If a group of legitemate scientists had made this claim MOST news outlets would have picked up on this just on the speculation alone.

Dr. Michelakis seems to be a legitimate scientist; he's a member of the faculty at the University of Alberta. His results were published in a peer reviewed Journal of Transitional Medicine (i.e. medicine that's transitioning from small laboratory or clinical studies to larger-scale studies).

The link provided in the OP is a blog made by people who picked up on his results. Admittedly, they are pushing DCA much farther than Dr. Michelakis is himself willing to do...at least so far. The bloggers were leaping farther ahead than they should. That doesn't mean that they won't eventually be shown to be correct.

What Dr. Michelakis was able to show is that it is possible to renormalize the mitochondria of a cancer cell, leading to apoptosis. This was previously considered not possible; mitochondrial damage was thought to be an effect of cancer, not the cause. For that alone, this is a breakthrough that should have been broadcast far and wide...that is, if you were right about how the world works.

kaya'08 said:
But we dont know who the source is and we have seen NO empirical evidence whatsoever, nor have we seen an attempt by these so called scientists to patent this drug or to subject it to scientific scrutiny.

The citation link was on the page I provided, along with quite a lot of other information. That link was to a page maintained by the University of Alberta, not some obscure blog.

kaya'08 said:
The scientists made the claim that the drug puts human cancer cells into remission, that isn't a small scale study - that is ground breaking and the sheer scope of this supposed discovery is enormous. There should be plenty of evidence to support this huge claim.

Dr. Michelakis had some slightly more nuanced claims than that, but that's not too far off. However, you seem to be confusing the scale of a study with the results.

kaya'08 said:
If this was legitemate, empirical data would be availible and most scientific circles would be very excited about this. However there is no evidence to say these scientists found anything at all.

I rebutted that claim in my previous post, and you've merely repeated it.

kaya'08 said:
I'm sorry i just can't take this discussion seriously. Once i have seen hard data on the studies that these scientists have conducted and once it has been validated by the medical association i will assume this is just a hoax. If this where to be even remotely factual the scientists would have rushed to get their work validated and patented. Instead they post it on a blog and provide sketchy details.

You seem to be confusing the scientists and their publications with some blog about those publications that popped up somewhere in this thread.

You also seem not to have picked up on the fact that Dichloroacetate cannot be patented; it was discovered in the 1850's and is now in wide use.

kaya'08' said:
But let me know if anything does pop up.

I already did; you didn't read at the link.

Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice

ashurbanipal

kaya'08

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence

ashurbanipal

kaya'08

ashurbanipal