Cancer Drug That Shrinks All Tumors

[ExpandMyMind]

Researchers are one step closer to uncovering a cancer treatment that could be applicable across the board in killing every kind of cancer tumor.

After successful trials in mice, the cancer drug that so far has shrunk or cured all types of tumors it has been tested against will now move to human clinical trials, thanks to a $20 million grant.

A study published March 2012 discusses researchers' find that the one-for-all antibody drug successfully blocks a specific protein, CD47, from tricking the body's immune system into not destroying harmful cells. Though this protein is present on the surface of healthy blood cells, the team from Stanford University's School of Medicine determined that CD47 levels were significantly higher in all cancer cells.

The single antibody treatment works by blocking the protein's signal, thus instructing the body's immune system to attack the cancer cells.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/cancer-drug-shrinks-tumors_n_2972708.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Here's hoping it is transferable to humans!

Though I know that if it's a success then I'll probably end up smoking again...

[Coffey]

Or eat Soursop....

It was already proven to shrink/cure cancer tumors, but the pharmaceutical company testing it couldn't synthesize it so they just stopped testing with it. (They couldn't patent it unless they synthesized it)

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/02/13/soursop-graviola-cancer-cure-strong-evidnce/

Edited March 29, 2013 by Coffey

[ExpandMyMind]

Or eat Soursop....

It was already proven to shrink/cure cancer tumors, but the pharmaceutical company testing it couldn't synthesize it so they just stopped testing with it. (They couldn't patent it unless they synthesized it)

http://www.collectiv...strong-evidnce/

I've read about that before. The thing that I think we need to realise though is that, in a way, it is like cannabis. Cannabis has been shown to be effective in treating some kinds of cancers, but smoking or otherwise ingesting it will do nothing - it has to be administered in the correct way. I think that with Graviola is it is the same. Chemicals inside the plant/fruit/flower may be beneficial to cancer treatment, but going out and buying a bucket-load in the hopes that you'll remain cancer free is not really a sensible thing to do. The Japanese mushrooms are the same.

I'm not sure just how beneficial the plant may be though. As you say, it cannot be patented, so what has stopped other medical professionals from coming along and working with it? If the 'hiding a cancer cure' CT is real, then it would be the patented treatments that are hidden from the public - this possible treatment is not. I know that cancer is big business, but surely there are some (probably a vast majority) of scientists who genuinely want to find a cure. You can hide and hold onto a patent, but not a free-growing organism. I don't think it's realistic to think that there is a cure just waiting, yet no one or even company has jumped at the chance to produce it, just because it can't be patented.

[Frank Merton]

I wonder how many wonderful things go untested because of the stupid patent laws and profit orientation of the drug companies.

[Taun]

I remember watching a report once that the old 'horror drug' Thalidomide was almost 100% effective in killing caner cells - it works by closing the capillaries that lead to the cancer cells and the cells 'die of starvation'... Apparently one thing that cancer cells do - that makes them so deadly - is that they draw all the capillaries to them thus taking all the nutrients and starving all the normal cells...

Unfortunately, the same thing that makes Thalidomide so effective - the closing of the capillaries - also led to many horrible birth defects in the 1950's... Thalidomide was marketed as a very effective method of stopping a woman's headaches and menstral (sp) pains... Tragically if the woman was pregnant it also caused the developing embryo to not develop arms and legs...

[Coffey]

I've read about that before. The thing that I think we need to realise though is that, in a way, it is like cannabis. Cannabis has been shown to be effective in treating some kinds of cancers, but smoking or otherwise ingesting it will do nothing - it has to be administered in the correct way. I think that with Graviola is it is the same. Chemicals inside the plant/fruit/flower may be beneficial to cancer treatment, but going out and buying a bucket-load in the hopes that you'll remain cancer free is not really a sensible thing to do. The Japanese mushrooms are the same.

I'm not sure just how beneficial the plant may be though. As you say, it cannot be patented, so what has stopped other medical professionals from coming along and working with it? If the 'hiding a cancer cure' CT is real, then it would be the patented treatments that are hidden from the public - this possible treatment is not. I know that cancer is big business, but surely there are some (probably a vast majority) of scientists who genuinely want to find a cure. You can hide and hold onto a patent, but not a free-growing organism. I don't think it's realistic to think that there is a cure just waiting, yet no one or even company has jumped at the chance to produce it, just because it can't be patented.

If they can't patent it, they can't make money from it. Pharmaceutical companies only care about money, not peoples health.

It also works by eating or drinking it. The report was kept hidden from the public until recently.

[Render]

If they can't patent it, they can't make money from it. Pharmaceutical companies only care about money, not peoples health.

It also works by eating or drinking it. The report was kept hidden from the public until recently.

Generalisation doesn't really do much for you yanno. Pharmaceutical companies need money to go through aaaaaallll the stages of research and later on development. Because they want to create cures. Show some gratitude to the scientists that have created vaccines will ya.

And what report was hidden from the public until recently? The 1997 report that Purdue university published about graviola? Or all the other studies that have been done since 1976?

The pharmaceutical company had a big problem. They'd spent years trying to isolate and create man-made duplicates of two of the tree's most powerful chemicals. But they'd hit a brick wall.

They couldn't replicate the original. And they couldn't sell the tree extract itself profitably-because federal law mandates that natural substances can't be patented. That meant the company couldn't protect its profits on the project it had poured millions of dollars and nearly seven years of research into.

It's sad that it's promising and can't be synthesized. Maybe when techniques for synthesizing further develop, which they have, this graviola can make a comeback in research. But a company is gonna have to find investors willing to spend tons of money on something that has a high chance of not being able to be synthesized. That's not so evident to do.

Instead of blaming pharma why don't you try and do something about it then, you try synthesizing a natural compound. Go ahead.

Oh and btw: The most detrimental effect attributed to graviola is that it "may cause neural dysfunction and degeneration leading to symptoms reminiscent of Parkinson's Disease" [source: Memorial Sloan-Kettering].

So maybe that's why researchers aren't extremely motivated for the moment to jump on the Graviola train. Not synthesizable and may cause Parkinson.

Always easy to blame pharma...it's more challening to actually do some research around it and realise it isn't that easy.

[ExpandMyMind]

If they can't patent it, they can't make money from it. Pharmaceutical companies only care about money, not peoples health.

It also works by eating or drinking it. The report was kept hidden from the public until recently.

I don't doubt that pharmaceutical companies would be capable of holding back better treatments for cancer, but I doubt that so many individual scientists would. Besides, much of cancer research is charity based (though I know that they can be just as bad as some companies).

In what way does it work by eating or drinking it?

[Coffey]

I don't doubt that pharmaceutical companies would be capable of holding back better treatments for cancer, but I doubt that so many individual scientists would. Besides, much of cancer research is charity based (though I know that they can be just as bad as some companies).

Any scientist who comes forth with a cancer cure is blocked by the FDA and medical board. (forget the proper name of it) I've watched countless documentaries on it, it's disgusting. Simbi has the best ones though, I'm sure she will link them if she sees this thread. Simbi knows more about how corrupt it is than me.

In what way does it work by eating or drinking it?

I'm not sure you'd have to find the documents if they are still available. It's just normal biology, we eat somehting, get nutrients form it and hey presto we don't get cancer. Along with not eating all the processed stuff as well obviously. It's just natural really from what I got from it anyway.

Snip

I show gratitude to those who develop cures yet the FDA blocks them for their friend. (Big pharma...)

[bmk1245]

Generalisation doesn't really do much for you yanno. Pharmaceutical companies need money to go through aaaaaallll the stages of research and later on development. Because they want to create cures. Show some gratitude to the scientists that have created vaccines will ya.

And what report was hidden from the public until recently? The 1997 report that Purdue university published about graviola? Or all the other studies that have been done since 1976?

The pharmaceutical company had a big problem. They'd spent years trying to isolate and create man-made duplicates of two of the tree's most powerful chemicals. But they'd hit a brick wall.

They couldn't replicate the original. And they couldn't sell the tree extract itself profitably-because federal law mandates that natural substances can't be patented. That meant the company couldn't protect its profits on the project it had poured millions of dollars and nearly seven years of research into.

It's sad that it's promising and can't be synthesized. Maybe when techniques for synthesizing further develop, which they have, this graviola can make a comeback in research. But a company is gonna have to find investors willing to spend tons of money on something that has a high chance of not being able to be synthesized. That's not so evident to do.

Instead of blaming pharma why don't you try and do something about it then, you try synthesizing a natural compound. Go ahead.

Oh and btw: The most detrimental effect attributed to graviola is that it "may cause neural dysfunction and degeneration leading to symptoms reminiscent of Parkinson's Disease" [source: Memorial Sloan-Kettering].

So maybe that's why researchers aren't extremely motivated for the moment to jump on the Graviola train. Not synthesizable and may cause Parkinson.

Always easy to blame pharma...it's more challening to actually do some research around it and realise it isn't that easy.

Excellent post!

Usually sensational/antipharma articles forget to mention adverse effects, or other problems, for example, CT rant about evil pharma and Triptolide didn't mentioned adverse effects, such as anti-fertility, or that triptolide is poorly soluble in water, and team had to synthesize water soluble Millenide (Rohit Chugh et al, Sci Transl Med, 4(156) 156ra139 (2012)).

[bmk1245]

Any scientist who comes forth with a cancer cure is blocked by the FDA and medical board. (forget the proper name of it) I've watched countless documentaries on it, it's disgusting. Simbi has the best ones though, I'm sure she will link them if she sees this thread. Simbi knows more about how corrupt it is than me.

[...]

The one. whose practice is based on fantasy?!

Yeah, right, we need more hot air and brainfarts...

[Coffey]

The one. whose practice is based on fantasy?!

Yeah, right, we need more hot air and brainfarts...

No the one who has actually cured people and has evidence of it....

[bmk1245]

No the one who has actually cured people and has evidence of it....

Anecdotal... Praying, or singing kumbaya, while standing on the head, probably cured more... Edited March 29, 2013 by bmk1245

[Coffey]

Anecdotal... Praying, or singing kumbaya, while standing on the head, probably cured more...

Actually no, it's science.

[bmk1245]

Actually no, it's science.

Right, show me qi/chi in scientific literature.

And science says that there is no difference whether you puncture acupoints, or just random needling, or even if no puncture at all.

[Coffey]

Right, show me qi/chi in scientific literature.

And science says that there is no difference whether you puncture acupoints, or just random needling, or even if no puncture at all.

How can it be in scientific literature if the FDA blocks it... lol

[+and-then]

I remember watching a report once that the old 'horror drug' Thalidomide was almost 100% effective in killing caner cells - it works by closing the capillaries that lead to the cancer cells and the cells 'die of starvation'... Apparently one thing that cancer cells do - that makes them so deadly - is that theyw all the capillaries to them thus taking all the nutrients and starving all the normal cells...

Unfortunately, the same thing that makes Thalidomide so effective - the closing of the capillaries - also led to many horrible birth defects in the 1950's... Thalidomide was marketed as a very effective method of stopping a woman's headaches and menstral (sp) pains... Tragically if the woman was pregnant it also caused the developing embryo to not develop arms and legs...

This was a focus of cancer research for a long time - it may still be - they are called anti-angiogenesis drugs. Substances that impede the formation of blood vessels that "feed" the tumors. My 91 year old step dad takes a form of it for his wet macular degeneration. It seems to be helping but one tiny injection into the eye, once per month is 2000 dollars!

[bmk1245]

How can it be in scientific literature if the FDA blocks it... lol

Ah, sure, but going farther - FDA with evil pharma traveled back in time and plagued Europe with Black Death... Dammit, Gorgoroth must be pharma's child...

[Coffey]

Ah, sure, but going farther - FDA with evil pharma traveled back in time and plagued Europe with Black Death... Dammit, Gorgoroth must be pharma's child...

That doesn't even make any sense to the discussion. Most people resort to silly comments when they can't back up what they are saying.

[bmk1245]

That doesn't even make any sense to the discussion. Most people resort to silly comments when they can't back up what they are saying.

Holy... just listen to yourself... You come up with any half witted CT and its OK. But... You may bring really bad stuff that FDA forbade. Whats that? Start counting

[Coffey]

Holy... just listen to yourself... You come up with any half witted CT and its OK. But... You may bring really bad stuff that FDA forbade. Whats that? Start counting

What CT?! I posted facts. LOL

The FDA themselves put a huge cost on trials to stop anyone but huge corporate pharmaceuticals from doing it. If you're too blind to see that then it's not my fault. That's a fact and nothing I or you cna say changes that.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Coffey

[bmk1245]

What CT?! I posted facts. LOL[...]

Nope, you posted anecdote{s}

[...]

The FDA themselves put a huge cost on trials to stop anyone but huge corporate pharmaceuticals from doing it. If you're too blind to see that then it's not my fault. That's a fact and nothing I or you cna say changes that.

Huge cost- what that will be?

[Coffey]

Nope, you posted anecdote{s}

No i made opinions from facts. huge difference.

Huge cost- what that will be?

For trials.

[ExpandMyMind]

Ah well guys, no need to further this Pharma-conspiracy-debate. You're passionate about it, and I appreciate that - from both sides - but it kinda takes away from the potentially awesome news from the OP. There might be a viable treatment for cancer just over the horizon!

Edited March 29, 2013 by ExpandMyMind

[Queen in the North]

I guess there must be some side effects from it, as it uses a ubiquitous receptor?

Still great news though