Cure found for cancer?

Of course even if it is true, it will never be made available.
Scientists & medical conglomerates make no jack off of cures, only discoveries that allow us to "live with it" sucking off of the tit of the pharmaceutical companies & corporate death factories like the Mayo Clinic that only takes terminal cases or sure things that could further their false reputation.
The Hypocritcal oath taken by Dr.s daily should be abolished... it is a waste of time.

http://www.wesh.com/health/9178673/detail.html

Researchers Say They Can Cure Cancer In Mice

POSTED: 4:41 pm EDT May 8, 2006
UPDATED: 9:46 pm EDT May 8, 2006

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. -- Monday night brought stunning news about the battle against cancer.

Researchers at Wake Forest University School of Medicine said they have found a cure for cancer -- in mice, that is.

However, they are hoping that what they have learned will someday be applied to human treatments.

Three years ago, Wake Forest researchers discovered a mouse that could not get cancer no matter how hard they tried to give it the disease.


Now, they said white blood cells from that mouse's descendants were injected into ordinary mice with cancer and their disease was completely wiped out.

The treatment worked with a variety of cancers, including those similar to end-stage human cancers.

“This is a really remarkable recovery from a very aggressive tumor,” Wake Forest cancer researcher Dr. Zheng Cui said.

The mice did not suffer any side effects from the treatment. They had no problems with rejection.

The goal now is to find a human treatment that could avoid the rejection problem by using a patient's own cells.

White cells from a cancer patient would be combined in a test tube with the specific anti-cancer gene and then given back to the same patient.

“The hope would be that those activated white blood cells would be able to treat that person's cancer successfully,” Wake Forest Pathologist Dr. Mark Willingham said.

In mice, the white blood cells were able to find the cancers no matter where they were located in the body, suggesting that the cancer cells produce some kind of signal that the killer cells can detect.

The treatment also worked with naturally occurring cancers.

Next steps include trying to determine exactly how the cancer-fighting mechanism works, and Wake Forest researchers are working on a specific test that can indicate cancer resistance in humans.

A cure is still a long way off, but they believe that, like mice, there are humans out there with genes to fight cancer.

For example, out of all people who smoke, only a small percentage get cancer. What keeps them safe is still unknown.
Copyright 2006 by WESH.COM. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Of course even if it is true, it will never be made available.
Scientists & medical conglomerates make no jack off of cures, only discoveries that allow us to "live with it" sucking off of the tit of the pharmaceutical companies & corporate death factories like the Mayo Clinic that only takes terminal cases or sure things that could further their false reputation.

Cancer would be the exception. There would be no better PR in the world than to be the company that cured cancer.

[lumberjim]

For example, out of all people who smoke, only a small percentage get cancer. What keeps them safe is still unknown.

huh?

Originally Posted by lumberjim

huh?

Yeah... I could not figure that out either.

[Pie]

Probably should be: "A small percentage don't get cancer."

Originally Posted by Pie

Probably should be: "A small percentage don't get cancer."

That is incorrect.
What confused me is, grammatically, that was odd for the rest of the article.
There has never been a study that shows a direct link between smoking and cancer. Both the American Lung and Cancer Associations have outright lied about that. Down to the lying photo of the "black lung" which is Black Lung, not the lung of a smoker, several coroners have stated, under oath. that without a microscope they cannot tell the difference between a smoker's lung and a non-smoker's lung. Even the EPA was brought before Congress and many lost their jobs and one was brought before charges for faking numbers to give OSHA fake number to make it ok to push through the Second Hand Smoke issue to force private property owners to alter how they use their own property, even though they were in compliance with OSHA and EPA standards for their associates and patrons.. smoking bans are unconstitutional, if you did not get that, BTW. Private property, as long as the air meets OSHA and EPA standards, which it does 99.999% of the time, what someone does on their own property is no one's business.
The AMA have never shown a link, no study by any school or private study have ever shown a cancer risk increase over 8% for smokers.
The rest is propaganda. "Common sense" = Superstition, show me the numbers.
This is, however, off topic for this thread.

[footfootfoot]

Yeah, protect your pockets if theya re deep. On bags of sand (for mixing with cement, for example) there is a warning to wear respiratory protection, to protect against silicosis. Osha mandates it. It is probably good advice. What's the risk to most users? (permissible exposure level) How is dumping a bag of sand and breathing the dust much different from spending a windy day at the beach?

Are we seeing a lot of silicosis from habitual beachcombers?

[rtexanssane]

QUOTE

"Now, they said white blood cells from that mouse's descendants were injected into ordinary mice with cancer and their disease was completely wiped out."

lol this is nothing new. Its just another way of saying that you need a healthy immune system to fight cancer.
Alternative cancer therapies have always said this. Its simple: avoid things that damage the immune system and you not only avoid cancer, but many other diseases.
Big seal clap for Wake Forest University

[Torrere]

I don't think so. They are not saying that health-minded mice avoid carcinogens. They're saying that they can cure late-stage cancers in mice. That is a significiant difference. Moreover, it is not common for white blood cells to destroy cancer.

They're saying that they bred a mouse which does not get cancer because it's white blood cells seek and destroy cancer. This ability is inherited by the mouse's descendants.

They can destroy cancers in other mice by injecting those mice with white blood cells from the super-mouse. By this method can eliminate even late-stage cancers. They claim there are no side-effects.

They don't know how the mechanism works or why this mouse's white blood cells destroy cancer, just that they do.

They're not sure how to get this working in humans yet. They're guessing that some humans also have cancer-destroying white blood cells (but you need to think of an ethical way to test for this). They've thought up a possible way to spread the benefits to humans, but they haven't tried it yet.

[Torrere]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

There has never been a study that shows a direct link between smoking and cancer.
....

The AMA have never shown a link, no study by any school or private study have ever shown a cancer risk increase over 8% for smokers.

The rest is propaganda. "Common sense" = Superstition, show me the numbers.

For the direct link, you should look at this article published in the New York Times ten years ago:
Direct Link Found Between Smoking and Lung Cancer

For scary numbers, look at pages 40 through 43 of Cancer Facts and Figures 2005, published by the American Cancer Society. They claim that, in the US, "tobacco use is responsible for nearly 1 in 5 deaths". They include nearly two pages of references, if you are looking for more numbers.

According to the Smoking and Cancer Mortality Table, published by the American Cancer Society, men who are current smokers are 23.3 times as likely to die from Lung Cancer as non-smokers. Men who are former smokers are 8.7 times as likely to die from lung cancer as non-smokers.

In the 1950s, Richard Doll surveyed over 40,000 doctors about their smoking habits. Two and a half years later, they surveyed the mortality rates. They found that people who smoked more than 25 grams of tobacco per day suffered from "excess mortality". The difference in mortality was statistically significant: BUT if they omitted deaths from lung cancer, the difference in mortality between smokers and non-smokers was was "no longer significant" (from page 4 of this pdf of the original study).

Interesting first article...
I hope to see more feedback from the science community.
The American Cancer Society is known to skew numbers and lie, so everything they state is suspect.
I have heard all of their stuff before.

[Skunks]

Originally Posted by Torrere

They're not sure how to get this working in humans yet. They're guessing that some humans also have cancer-destroying white blood cells (but you need to think of an ethical way to test for this). They've thought up a possible way to spread the benefits to humans, but they haven't tried it yet.

There's an established genetic connection. So solicit volunteers both from the non-cancerous public & current cancer patients. Non-cancerous volunteers would be screened for a family low on cancer, figuring that it's too early to tell what the specific nature of the gene is (I'm being vague here: someone with a better grasp of genetics could probably tell you how cancer-free the family would need to be to have the best chance of being cancer-immune without ruling out possibilities.) Then perform the "magic mouse blood cures cancer" test, subbing in the non-cancerous volunteer & the cancer patient accordingly.

Cancer is a disease with enough public support against it that rousing a massive amount of voluntary blood donations would be remarkably easy.

Although the whole idea of examining the non-cancerous members of society & looking for trends seems so obvious that I wonder what has come of it before.

[Undertoad]

Study finds no marijuana link to lung cancer

however

The study was confined to people under age 60 since baby boomers were the most likely age group to have long-term exposure to marijuana, said Dr. Donald Tashkin, senior researcher and professor at the UCLA School of Medicine.


The results should not be taken as a blank check to smoke pot, which has been associated with problems like cognitive impairment and chronic bronchitis, said Dr. John Hansen-Flaschen, chief of pulmonary and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania Health System in Philadelphia. He was not involved in the study.

[annoyedsas]

I have been reading the thread posted by rtexanssane which began in March I believe. It was about B17. After reading this and the following threads, I wondered if ANY of the people responding to this piece actually has cancer? I was using it for research of Earnst T Krebs Jnr. I found it very informative and correct. I cannot believe so many other users found it necessary to pull it to pieces even to the point of pointing out spelling mistakes. Firstly, I have a brain tumour (3 of them actually) and sometimes, when I am typing my spelling does not always come out correctly. So lay off. Secondly, I am using Apricot Kernals (high amount of B17) and I have not had any hospital toxins pumped into my body for 12 months now. Guess what - HERE I AM. Granted it is not the only thing I am doing, but it is a very important part of my regimen.
I am now advising three other people about ways to get through cancer - even the head of neurosurgery at my hospital rang me to refer a patient of his to me! So good on you rtexanssane, and thank you for trying to educate people.

[Trilby]

I find it very suspicious that this is your first post and it's THIS. Very, very suspicious. And, I don't think you are 'here' because of the apricot kernals. I think you are 'here' in spite of them. I think you are Spam and I think apricot kernal medicine is pure and utter bullshit.