US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment

US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

erieangel -> US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/30/2012 9:13:58 PM)
I first heard about this on absurdity today. A little bit of research showed that the US government knew as far back as 1974 that cannabis can cure cancer. The discovery was made when the NIH funded a study at the Medical College of VA to prove that pot damages the immune system; instead researchers found that THC slowed the growth of 3 types of cancer in mice. The DEA quickly shut down the research and in 1976 Ford ended all public research and granted all rights of researching cannabis to the pharmaceutical industry which has been trying to develop a synthetic THC ever since. Since 2000, several more studies with THC have been conducted in Europe. (And I've been told by right wingers that countries with socialized medicine don't fund medical research). These new studies show results similar to the 1974 VA medical school research. But most in the US do not hear about these studies. On the flip side, on absurdity today, just prior to the cannabis story, it was reported that chemo tends to damages healthy cells (most people know that), causes tumors to grow and causes tumors to become immune to the chemicals used. All I know is that once my mother started chemo, she seemed to start going downhill extremely fast, her cancer metastasized and she was gone in a matter of weeks. http://www.youtube.com/user/IronicNewsReport/featured http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/marijuana-cures-cancer-us-government-has-known-since-1974/ http://www.nowpublic.com/thc_marijuana_helps_cure_cancer_says_harvard_study http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/what-if-cannabis-cured-cancer/

Tumblweed -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/30/2012 11:17:35 PM)
I am sick of this shit ! That is the 123,856,322 nd time they have done that. When are people going to learn to get a passport when they get cancer ? you are going to lose the house anyway, so why not be cured in Ghana, China, France, Venezuela or Cuba or something ? Staying here is a sentence to a slow death, the whole world knows this. Weed

subrob1967 -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/31/2012 12:21:01 AM)
That damned Obama! Look on the bright side, he's smoked so much pot in college, he'll never get cancer.

stellauk -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/31/2012 12:36:29 AM)
Okay, but I don't think this would help the cancer spreading through the Republican Party. Not even if everyone in the Tea Party became Rastfarians.

tweakabelle -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/31/2012 1:36:11 AM)
quote: (And I've been told by right wingers that countries with socialized medicine don't fund medical research) Just to sink this fallacy: We have 'socialised medicine' here. Funding for medical research is distributed by the National Health and Medical Research Council ( www.nhmrc.gov.au ). This system has the added advantage of ensuring that medical research is directed towards areas of actual need and health priorities rather than a private system where funding by Big Pharma tends towards areas that are expected to generate future profits.

DeviantlyD -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/31/2012 2:03:07 AM)
I'm not buying the idea that the US government tried to squash research in this area. I did check out the Harvard research bit and found a reputable site that discussed it. However, as the site indicated, the research done in 2007 was very preliminary and involves rats. There have been many studies that appear promising in animal models and later prove to be ineffective in humans. I'm sorry for what happened to your Mom. My Mom went through chemotherapy too. But many years later she is alive and well today.

Termyn8or -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/31/2012 2:29:17 AM)
Obama wasn't even born when they started witholding many cures from the public, making them only available to the rich, where have you been ? I mean really, if there was a drug that would make everyone live to be 300 years old, I think it should be illegal to give out to people. Seven fucking billion is enough. Really I am getting to the point of suporting WW3. No shit. T^T^T

DesideriScuri -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/31/2012 3:21:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: (And I've been told by right wingers that countries with socialized medicine don't fund medical research) Just to sink this fallacy: We have 'socialised medicine' here. Funding for medical research is distributed by the National Health and Medical Research Council ( www.nhmrc.gov.au ). This system has the added advantage of ensuring that medical research is directed towards areas of actual need and health priorities rather than a private system where funding by Big Pharma tends towards areas that are expected to generate future profits. How does a drug company generate future profits if they are funding research that aren't in areas of actual need? As an absurd example, if there is no demand for a drug that makes one's feet wider, are they going to drop buckets o' cash into research for that kind of drug? Of course not. They might do research into the next acne treatment, but that's only because they are going to be able to make money at it. That is the market talking. Government determining what gets research money is nice and all, but what isn't being funded when cancer treatments, Alzheimer's treatments, etc. are getting the funding?

MrRodgers -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/31/2012 4:22:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD I'm not buying the idea that the US government tried to squash research in this area. I did check out the Harvard research bit and found a reputable site that discussed it. However, as the site indicated, the research done in 2007 was very preliminary and involves rats. There have been many studies that appear promising in animal models and later prove to be ineffective in humans. I'm sorry for what happened to your Mom. My Mom went through chemotherapy too. But many years later she is alive and well today. Fact: Dated a woman whose teenage daughter had cancer. Fact: She read about a Dr. who treated a boy with a brain tumor who the Mayo clinic had pronounced...6-9 months to live and with great care. Fact: Was setting up her finances and life to take her daughter to this doctor. Sent all of her medical records to doctor. Fact: Dr. shrunk tumor in boy to almost nothing who is, thanks to this Dr.,...still living. Fact: FDA came and shut down doctor, taking all of his records and her daughter's records with them. Fact: Doctor sued, court ruled against FDA. FDA kept the records. Fact: f/u suit...Court again orders FDA to return records and show cause. Fact: FDA still and to this day, refuses to return records. Fact: daughter dies of cancer. Fact: Attended investment seminar in DC Fact: two Japanese doctors spent 7 years in Africa and found a cure for cycle-cell anemia. Fact: Investor calls me aside, tells me..."I have a son starting college and a brand new Mercedes, so I don't want to hear or see anything about ANY cure for this anemia. ____________________________ Fact: This country has one culture....MONEY. Fact: Americans are fish, living in water and not only don't know it...they don't care.

DeviantlyD -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/31/2012 5:39:31 AM)
I won't disagree with you on the culture of money thing. As for your friend, I think there must be some missing information there. It's sickle cell anemia. I'd be surprised if there is a "cure", considering the cause of it is an inherited genetic mutation. Those with two copies of the allele (homozygous) have sickle cell disease whereas those with only one (heterozygous) have sickle cell trait and usually don't experience a crisis unless under extreme oxidative stress. It's quite amazing how just one change of an amino acid (valine instead of the "normal" glutamine) in the production of hemoglobin can create such a thing. One change in a base pair, in one gene, out of thousands of genes packed into our chromosomes, which makes up our DNA. One tiny anomaly. For all the possible errors that can happen within our DNA it's amazing how much goes right.

Rule -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/31/2012 6:27:37 AM)
It is benificient to be heterozygous for the sickle cell allele in areas where malaria is endemic. Apparently it is better for a substantial fraction to die from the homozygous condition, than for all to die from malaria.

tweakabelle -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/31/2012 8:11:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Government determining what gets research money is nice and all, but what isn't being funded when cancer treatments, Alzheimer's treatments, etc. are getting the funding? Significant amounts of research don't focus on the development and testing of new drugs. For example, in the area of HIV, prior to the advent of antiretroviral therapies, there was no effective drug available. The focus was on HIV prevention through public education campaigns. Research was needed into the target groups to devise such campaigns and evaluate their effectiveness. Not the type of thing that would interest Big Pharma as there was no chance of them developing a product. Yet it had to be done and that meant funding it.

thishereboi -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/31/2012 9:10:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel I first heard about this on absurdity today. A little bit of research showed that the US government knew as far back as 1974 that cannabis can cure cancer. The discovery was made when the NIH funded a study at the Medical College of VA to prove that pot damages the immune system; instead researchers found that THC slowed the growth of 3 types of cancer in mice. The DEA quickly shut down the research and in 1976 Ford ended all public research and granted all rights of researching cannabis to the pharmaceutical industry which has been trying to develop a synthetic THC ever since. Really doesn't surprise me a bit. I have never trusted goverment agencies and that includes the DEA. Since 2000, several more studies with THC have been conducted in Europe. (And I've been told by right wingers that countries with socialized medicine don't fund medical research). These new studies show results similar to the 1974 VA medical school research. But most in the US do not hear about these studies. Was there a reason you couldn't just do the thread on the subject? Did you really have to drag the left vs right bullshitfest into this one as well? You do realize that the same goverment that is hiding the benifits of pot is the one that will be running any national health care we get? On the flip side, on absurdity today, just prior to the cannabis story, it was reported that chemo tends to damages healthy cells (most people know that), causes tumors to grow and causes tumors to become immune to the chemicals used. All I know is that once my mother started chemo, she seemed to start going downhill extremely fast, her cancer metastasized and she was gone in a matter of weeks. My mom had cancer in her lungs and after chemo most of it was gone. If chemo was really making the cancer grow as opposed to killing it, I am sure someone would have noticed that by now.

SlipSlidingAway -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/31/2012 9:35:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel On the flip side, on absurdity today, just prior to the cannabis story, it was reported that chemo tends to damages healthy cells (most people know that), causes tumors to grow and causes tumors to become immune to the chemicals used. All I know is that once my mother started chemo, she seemed to start going downhill extremely fast, her cancer metastasized and she was gone in a matter of weeks. My mom had cancer in her lungs and after chemo most of it was gone. If chemo was really making the cancer grow as opposed to killing it, I am sure someone would have noticed that by now. When my mom was diagnosed, she had a tiny lump in her breast and no symptoms. She was young, healthy and active. I watched as the surgeries, the radiation, chemotherapy and drug therapies DESTROYED her quality of life. Not over time, but almost immediately. She fought like hell for 5 years before it finally killed her. Cancer sucks. But cancer treatment the way it is handled today? In my opinion, it's often barbaric and very unrealistic. My mother might have died from the cancer if she'd not been treated, too. She likely would have. I'm not saying the treatments killed her directly. I am saying that she would not have suffered in the horrific fashion that she did prior to her death. Her pain could have been managed and she could have enjoyed the time she had left. It's a crap shoot. It was her decision to make and I supported her to the best of my ability. While the probability of a cure for her type and stage of cancer being so low, she grasped at anything within reach to hold on to hope. To this day, I'm not sure how I feel about that... She would not have found the claims about a cancer cure existing to be outrageous. She fully believed that cancer was big money and that finding a cure, or promoting one, would mean lost revenue to the people that controlled the purse strings. She firmly believed that, if a cure existed, it would not be offered to the average person and would not be made available to the masses. Economically there was just too much at stake. Cancer is a tricky business. There are enough success stories to make people do just about anything in search of their own happy ending. Still, in many cases, the treatment is worse than the disease itself.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/31/2012 12:04:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Government determining what gets research money is nice and all, but what isn't being funded when cancer treatments, Alzheimer's treatments, etc. are getting the funding? Significant amounts of research don't focus on the development and testing of new drugs. For example, in the area of HIV, prior to the advent of antiretroviral therapies, there was no effective drug available. The focus was on HIV prevention through public education campaigns. Research was needed into the target groups to devise such campaigns and evaluate their effectiveness. Not the type of thing that would interest Big Pharma as there was no chance of them developing a product. Yet it had to be done and that meant funding it. So, you're saying that government funding went towards public education campaigns and research into the effectiveness of same? What did Big Pharma do at that time? Didn't they continue to research new medications? If so, then, what's the problem? Let Big Pharma research their profit-building medications. Government can still fund other research. The way I read your initial statement was that all funding had to go through the government. If that is not accurate, it explains my question. Are we pushing back the next breakthrough because we're funding education programs? If we are, is that the most efficient use of our research funding? Is it government's duty to guide research into what it believes is best? What happens if you disagree that what is best? Just so you know, Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution does include support for the sciences and arts. However, it states, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." It does not include funding them. It's patent law.

erieangel -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/31/2012 9:19:05 PM)
My mom would have eventually died from the pancreatic cancer. But when she started chemo therapy, that's where it was--in her pancreas. Within a matter of weeks, it had spread to her breasts, her lungs, her liver. And the treatment made her so sick that she couldn't do anything. She was able to see her grand daughter get married, but had to return home immediately after the ceremony because she was so ill. I've become convinced of 2 things since my mom's passing. 1. If the doctors had found the cancer long before they did because she'd complained for several years of abdominal "upset", she might be alive today. 2. If she'd not had chemo, she might have lived longer and not passed in a nursing home, unresponsive, needing her children to wipe drool from her chin. She was only 63.

tweakabelle -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/31/2012 9:50:00 PM)
quote: The way I read your initial statement was that all funding had to go through the government. If that is not accurate, it explains my question. This reading is incorrect. I was pointing out that the claim "countries with socialized medicine don't fund medical research" was a fallacy. I didn't say or imply that all research funding was through the State here. That is not the case.

wittynamehere -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/31/2012 10:16:33 PM)
I've done a lot of research on this and agree with you that THC cures cancer and prevents tumors from growing in the first place. There's also something called DCA, check it out. No side effects, pennies per dose, cures cancer lickity split. The only catch? There's no money in it for the drug companies, so nobody gets to hear about it except through word of mouth.

Real0ne -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (8/31/2012 11:10:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Government determining what gets research money is nice and all, but what isn't being funded when cancer treatments, Alzheimer's treatments, etc. are getting the funding? Significant amounts of research don't focus on the development and testing of new drugs. For example, in the area of HIV, prior to the advent of antiretroviral therapies, there was no effective drug available. The focus was on HIV prevention through public education campaigns. Research was needed into the target groups to devise such campaigns and evaluate their effectiveness. Not the type of thing that would interest Big Pharma as there was no chance of them developing a product. Yet it had to be done and that meant funding it. So, you're saying that government funding went towards public education campaigns and research into the effectiveness of same? What did Big Pharma do at that time? Didn't they continue to research new medications? If so, then, what's the problem? Let Big Pharma research their profit-building medications. Government can still fund other research. The way I read your initial statement was that all funding had to go through the government. If that is not accurate, it explains my question. Are we pushing back the next breakthrough because we're funding education programs? If we are, is that the most efficient use of our research funding? Is it government's duty to guide research into what it believes is best? What happens if you disagree that what is best? Just so you know, Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution does include support for the sciences and arts. However, it states, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." It does not include funding them. It's patent law. are you kidding? this shit goes back to the kings realm and parens patria. while I agree with you they feed us 2 flavors of shit on every topic at the same time. You are right and so are the people who take exactly the opposite approach since the gub claims to in existence to protect you from cradle to grave as long as it suits the needs of the people aka gubafia and promotes "commerce", aka puts shit loads of money in the top tiers pockets while you get table scraps. your 100g is chump change compared to their multi millions. How about ohaha care? and how about the "general welfare" that has now evolved in everything and anything under the pretense of the "reasonable" doctrine in the legislature and courts that gets completely around ANY constitution? except in the narrowest sense. They have to leave a sliver so they can at least say they have not totally abolished it. Any fucking thing can be reasonable even murder for sport. as always they burn every candle from both sides at the same time. as an example there is nothing in the constitution for POLICE in america. Again that dates back to the kings realm stareting about the year 1300 BUT WE HAVE THEM. Like our 50 estates being sovereign, its all grounded in feudalism. Until it comes time to pay up then its all on you. If there is no money in it for the top tier you wont get it.... I dont give a shit what it is or who it cures. In fact they make laws to keep it from you.

tazzygirl -> RE: US withholds medical advancements in cancer treatment (9/1/2012 1:23:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel My mom would have eventually died from the pancreatic cancer. But when she started chemo therapy, that's where it was--in her pancreas. Within a matter of weeks, it had spread to her breasts, her lungs, her liver. And the treatment made her so sick that she couldn't do anything. She was able to see her grand daughter get married, but had to return home immediately after the ceremony because she was so ill. I've become convinced of 2 things since my mom's passing. 1. If the doctors had found the cancer long before they did because she'd complained for several years of abdominal "upset", she might be alive today. 2. If she'd not had chemo, she might have lived longer and not passed in a nursing home, unresponsive, needing her children to wipe drool from her chin. She was only 63. I would be curious if the initial set of biopsies came back clear or not? I am definitely not belittling your experience. I just wonder if, by the time they found it, it was already too late. It also depends on the specific type of cancer or tumor as to the course of best treatment. quote: All I know is that once my mother started chemo, she seemed to start going downhill extremely fast, her cancer metastasized and she was gone in a matter of weeks. This, unfortunately, tells me that her cancer was aggressive and quickly spread. You probably dont remember the stage they gave for her cancer. Once cancer metastasizes, surgery and treatment are often only for comfort, not for cure.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875