• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice

Ok, perhaps it is not recycled corporate-CT being used (weakly) as general anti-capitalist propaganda.


Maybe someone is just trying to sell stock.
 
That's ridiculous. The study is still in its early stages and shouldn't be discounted yet. It is certainly news worthy.

this thread has centered on a conspiracy that evil greedy capitalist pigs are preventing a cure from getting exposure because it would cut into profits.

and i agree, it is ridiculous.
 
sorry to burst the bubble forming here...

Page 2: DCA: Cancer Breakthrough or Urban Legend? - ABC News

In the discussion section of the paper, the authors conclude with the following statement:

"Our work … offers a tantalizing suggestion that DCA may have selective anticancer efficacy in patients. The very recent report of the first randomized long-term clinical trial of oral DCA in children with congenital lactic acidosis (at doses similar to those used in our in vivo experiments) showing that DCA was well tolerated and safe (Stacpoole et al., 2006) suggests a potentially easy translation of our work to clinical oncology." (Emphasis mine)

In other words, the authors are saying that in their opinion these experiments in the lab and rats suggests that DCA may be a simple, effective treatment for cancer and we should move forward with clinical trials based solely on their theory and their results.

DCA is an organic chemical that causes liver cancer in laboratory mice when put in their drinking water.

It is not nontoxic. It is a byproduct of another chemical called trichloroethylene (TCE), which has been a source of concern as a cancer-causing agent for some time.

Here is what the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has to say about TCE:

"HIGHLIGHTS: Trichloroethylene is a colorless liquid which is used as a solvent for cleaning metal parts. Drinking or breathing high levels of trichloroethylene may cause nervous system effects, liver and lung damage, abnormal heartbeat, coma, and possibly death."

So before you start going out and adding DCA to your drinking water to prevent cancer, a degree of caution would be very prudent at this point.

It is way too soon to know whether this is a cancer treatment breakthrough or an urban legend or something in between.

I am acutely aware that there are cancer patients out there who are fighting every day for their survival, hoping that there is one last chance to get a treatment that may prolong or save their lives.

For some of you out there to inappropriately make them feel that DCA is the answer to their prayers based on this single early-stage report in a medical research journal is, in my opinion, not acceptable at best -- and despicable at worst.

Dr. Len Lichtenfeld is deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society.
 
This is why government funding is so very important in the medical field.

Should companies bury cures to maintain profit on purpose, the CEO's of those companies should be arrested and executed in my opinion.

A little too regressive for some people? :lol:

I could live with it.
How much of your money have you spent to bring this miracle to the people that need it? None you say because you want to maintain your life style? Well shouldn't you be arrested and executed?

.
 
Hmm. Science by press release instead of peer review, talks about cancer as if it were a single disease, and a conspiracy theory about Big Pharma.

Also, a biology-minded friend of mine read the description of how the treatment works and said "This is pure gibberish."
 
Pharmaceutical companies just like any other company exist to make profits. A cancer cure would put a huge dent in their profits.

And you believe that is right thing to do? Not make a cure because its not as profitable?
 
Hmm. Science by press release instead of peer review, talks about cancer as if it were a single disease, and a conspiracy theory about Big Pharma.

Also, a biology-minded friend of mine read the description of how the treatment works and said "This is pure gibberish."

Ohh, well you will have to have your bio-friend come here and explain why "This is pure gibberish." Otherwise we will have stay with the facts and laugh you off.
 
I saw this movie before. Except Sean Connery was angry at the destruction of the rain forest.
 
this thread has centered on a conspiracy that evil greedy capitalist pigs are preventing a cure from getting exposure because it would cut into profits.

and i agree, it is ridiculous.

Is it so hard to believe that profit is more important than human life? People don't care about each other for the most part. Now, perhaps the science is a bit off, but it has been shown to reduce tumors in some instances. Who knows. With some more time and research, it could make a difference. But no one would make money so. . .
 
Is it so hard to believe that profit is more important than human life? People don't care about each other for the most part. Now, perhaps the science is a bit off, but it has been shown to reduce tumors in some instances. Who knows. With some more time and research, it could make a difference. But no one would make money so. . .

That is a stupid argument.

If no one made money from things that weren't under patent protection, many of the things you take for granted, wouldn't exist at all.
You'd have no access to all the foods, chemicals and the multitude of things that no longer have patent protections.
 
This is one of the key issues with capitalism. Money is important -- it fuels the economy, and serves as a sort of motivator for many people. However, it undermines people in situations like this, when the well-being of humankind is of lower priority than making capital. This is where the government comes in, and where the media needs to come into play.

Once something like this hits the media, the support for it would grow rapidly. When the support for something grows rapidly, it is usually up to the government to make a decision concerning it. For the government to bash something like this would shed a very negative light on those in power, which would damage their reelection campaign quite a bit.

While I realize the probability of something so beneficial actually happening is slim, this is just one of the many times when we need to sit back and reflect on the system of government we've so long employed and defended.
 
Is it so hard to believe that profit is more important than human life? People don't care about each other for the most part. Now, perhaps the science is a bit off, but it has been shown to reduce tumors in some instances. Who knows. With some more time and research, it could make a difference. But no one would make money so. . .

it isnt so hard to believe some people would do such a thing. Say 20 or so people learn of this great new idea, but also know it would harm them financially. sure, they might all agree to keep quiet.

but we aren't talking about 20 people. We are talking about mankind. This study has been in peer review journals. it's ludicrious.
 
The blind hyper partisan hand wringing in this thread is despicable.

Here's a possible "cure" for many forms of cancer, but it's presented as a case of "No one cares". No one "cares" because there is a lot missing from the story. Call me when it's a proven, no **** reliable cure and not a "Gee in lab rats this seems to be effective".
 
If no one made money from things that weren't under patent protection, many of the things you take for granted, wouldn't exist at all.
You'd have no access to all the foods, chemicals and the multitude of things that no longer have patent protections.

And why is that a bad thing?

Most of the random stuff in our lives is not really necessary or needed.
 
The blind hyper partisan hand wringing in this thread is despicable.

Skip the lecture, ok? You're the only one who's wringing his hands. The discussion's been a good one.
 
And why is that a bad thing?

Most of the random stuff in our lives is not really necessary or needed.

So, you think we should actually have access to only the things we "need"?
 
And why is that a bad thing?

Most of the random stuff in our lives is not really necessary or needed.

A lot isn't needed, like cures for cancer, as most people don't have cancer.
It's part of what makes life better for everyone.

The poor today are much better off, than the rich and middle class 200 years ago because of these "unneeded" things.
 
It seems there has been press coverage, just not mainstream media coverage. One reason, as so many have pointed out, is that big pharma, who are big media advertisers, probably had big media spike the story. Due to lack of funding, as others have mentioned, it has been difficult to run major tests to determine if DSC does in fact cure cancer. The initial report from Canada reported early stage findings. No drug company is going to take the ball and run with it. They are more interested in finding a pharmaceutical cure for baldness, more money. I'd venture to say that big pharma would try to craft a law that would hinder and/or prevent the research and development of natural substances like DSC.

While there have been a number of articles on the Internet and in medical publications and journals, the fact is the information would be difficult to convey in a 90 second sound bite on the 6 PM news. You'd lose the audience in 20 seconds. I would suggest that the cure would have to be pretty damned conclusive at this stage before it could be translated into electronic news format that could compete with pictures of the latest homicide, talking dogs, lost pensioners and celebrity gossip.
 
That is a stupid argument.

If no one made money from things that weren't under patent protection, many of the things you take for granted, wouldn't exist at all.
You'd have no access to all the foods, chemicals and the multitude of things that no longer have patent protections.

People are motivated purely by profit, what they can gain from it, not by what could benefit mankind. That was my point, and I doubt it was a stupid argument-especially since you practically made my point. As far as the things I take for granted, personally, I feel like the world would be better off without the materialism.

it isnt so hard to believe some people would do such a thing. Say 20 or so people learn of this great new idea, but also know it would harm them financially. sure, they might all agree to keep quiet.

but we aren't talking about 20 people. We are talking about mankind. This study has been in peer review journals. it's ludicrious.

of course they would.

And why is that a bad thing?

Most of the random stuff in our lives is not really necessary or needed.

Exactly.
 
People are motivated purely by profit, what they can gain from it, not by what could benefit mankind. That was my point, and I doubt it was a stupid argument-especially since you practically made my point. As far as the things I take for granted, personally, I feel like the world would be better off without the materialism.

I didn't make any point for you.
There would be a demand for the product and there are means to produce it.

It's still a dumb argument because it's based on....nothing.
There is no reason someone wouldn't produce such a product.

All the people that reject materialism, still practice materialism. :lol:
 
I didn't make any point for you.
There would be a demand for the product and there are means to produce it.

It's still a dumb argument because it's based on....nothing.
There is no reason someone wouldn't produce such a product.

And yet such products are still being suppressed in favor of oil. And simply claiming that an argument is dumb and based on nothing doesn't make it so.

All the people that reject materialism, still practice materialism. :lol:

i doubt you have any idea what I or others here "practice."
 
This has a hiits of controversial products like kits added to your car that enhances mileage by 500 precent.

If the research can be examined by even other major universities, and the data shows to be repeatable then it may at least get reputable media coverage.

There is big money in holistic remedies and companies that manufacture those types of products which don't have patentable ingredents could create quite a controversy and make big pharm take serious notice.
 
And yet such products are still being suppressed in favor of oil. And simply claiming that an argument is dumb and based on nothing doesn't make it so.



i doubt you have any idea what I or others here "practice."
Well, we know you have a computer or some such similar device, so...
 
Back
Top Bottom