(10-29-2015, 04:17 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: "One of"?  You act like I made them frequently.  It was only one if I recall correctly.  I may have mentioned it in another thread or two, but they weren't my threads.

However, you think Cuba and its limited resources could really find a cure before us?

What about the wrapping Chemo in protein, where'd that go?

You made several.  Each was a train wreck to be honest.  There is no such thing as a "cure" for cancer as you define it.  There are many treatments for cancer currently which "cure" the patient of cancer which you don't consider a cure.  Very simply, cancer is due to abnormal cells.  Abnormal cells are caused by changes in the cell's DNA.  The things which can affect the cell's DNA is practically unlimited.  The only way we can "cure" cancer as you define cure is to prevent anything from affecting the cell's DNA.  That is an impossible task.

Developing new medical treatments starts with brain power because if you can't think it then you can't develop it.  There are smart people all across the globe.  Including Cuba.

(10-29-2015, 06:02 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Interleukin-2 has nothing to do with what I just described.


Leave it to Fred to post irrelevant things over and over and assume that we're all just too stupid to know better.

Actually gets old real quick, and yet people still continue to praise him and give him rep points.

Mind blowing.

Relax, Brad.  All I was doing was asking a question.

Isn't Interleukin-2 a protein used in conjunction with chemotherapy?

I was just asking because I have no idea what it means to "wrap chemo in protein".

(10-30-2015, 03:00 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Relax, Brad.  All I was doing was asking a question.

Isn't Interleukin-2 a protein used in conjunction with chemotherapy?

I was just asking because I have no idea what it means to "wrap chemo in protein".

It was a thread I had on the old board a while back, and I thought you commented on it.

Anyways, cancer loves protein, so wrap the chemo in protein, and the cancer attacks the protein and tries to take it in, which, in turn, releases the chemo in/on/around the cancer, which kills it without killing the healthy cells and healthy parts if the body.

There obviously still might be some damage to healthy cells, but nothing major, and it was working on patients tested.  

Not long after, I stopped being able to find anything on it.

(10-30-2015, 03:18 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: It was a thread I had on the old board a while back, and I thought you commented on it.

Anyways, cancer loves protein, so wrap the chemo in protein, and the cancer attacks the protein and tries to take it in, which, in turn, releases the chemo in/on/around the cancer, which kills it without killing the healthy cells and healthy parts if the body.

There obviously still might be some damage to healthy cells, but nothing major, and it was working on patients tested.  

Not long after, I stopped being able to find anything on it.

Brad, every cell in your body is made of protein.  So how is it the protein in question is only used by the cancer cells and not normal cells also?  It has to do with cell surface receptors.  You have to find a surface receptor which is specific to the cancer and not the normal cells.  Since cancer deals with abnormal cells from different tissues within the body; the receptors will most likley be different among each cancer line.  It is a lock and key analogy.  Even if you find a selective receptor for the cancer, you still have to be able to find a protein which will bind to the chemo molecule (without the chemo denaturing the protein) and will still physically fit the cell's receptor on the molecular level.


And to be clear, no one is suppressing a "cure" for cancer.  The first pharmaceutical company with a "cure" for cancer will be the most valuable business in the world overnight.  People would pay any price for that med.

(10-30-2015, 02:58 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You made several.  Each was a train wreck to be honest.  There is no such thing as a "cure" for cancer as you define it.  There are many treatments for cancer currently which "cure" the patient of cancer which you don't consider a cure.  Very simply, cancer is due to abnormal cells.  Abnormal cells are caused by changes in the cell's DNA.  The things which can affect the cell's DNA is practically unlimited.  The only way we can "cure" cancer as you define cure is to prevent anything from affecting the cell's DNA.  That is an impossible task.

Developing new medical treatments starts with brain power because if you can't think it then you can't develop it.  There are smart people all across the globe.  Including Cuba.

Name them.  Since it was several, it shouldn't be hard to come up with them.

(10-30-2015, 04:05 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Brad, every cell in your body is made of protein.  So how is it the protein in question is only used by the cancer cells and not normal cells also?  It has to do with cell surface receptors.  You have to find a surface receptor which is specific to the cancer and not the normal cells.  Since cancer deals with abnormal cells from different tissues within the body; the receptors will most likley be different among each cancer line.  It is a lock and key analogy.  Even if you find a selective receptor for the cancer, you still have to be able to find a protein which will bind to the chemo molecule (without the chemo denaturing the protein) and will still physically fit the cell's receptor on the molecular level.


And to be clear, no one is suppressing a "cure" for cancer.  The first pharmaceutical company with a "cure" for cancer will be the most valuable business in the world overnight.  People would pay any price for that med.

It was a specific type of protein that attacked each cancer.  And it may be used by other cells, but cancer loves protein and attacks it more than other cells.  That is why such high protein diets, like ones with meat, are bad, because the protein feeds cancer cells and helps them grow.

A cure would wipe out the need for all of the drugs to counter chemo and all of the other treatments.  There's more money in the treatment than there is in a cure because it would be impossible to patent, or there would be variations of it and companies would just keep making cheaper ones.

(10-30-2015, 10:00 AM)BFritz21 Wrote:   There's more money in the treatment than there is in a cure because it would be impossible to patent, or there would be variations of it and companies would just keep making cheaper ones.

This makes no sense at all.

Pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars every year to find cures for all types of illnesses including cancer.  They make their big money when they find cures.

Why would the patent laws that apply to all other medications not apply to treatments for cancer?

(10-30-2015, 11:14 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This makes no sense at all.

Pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars every year to find cures for all types of illnesses including cancer.  They make their big money when they find cures.

Why would the patent laws that apply to all other medications not apply to treatments for cancer?

What other cures does a single pharmaceutical company have a patent on?

Not all drugs require a patent, which is pointed out in this article from May that says a cure for cancer has been found in Canada.  

Even if that's not a valid cure, the point remains the same that not all drugs require a patent, so why would a pharmaceutical company spend billions of dollars on something for other companies to exploit?

Figured a lawyer would understand about patent laws, even if it wasn't his specialty.  

(10-30-2015, 04:57 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: What other cures does a single pharmaceutical company have a patent on?

Not all drugs require a patent, which is pointed out in this article from May that says a cure for cancer has been found in Canada.  

Even if that's not a valid cure, the point remains the same that not all drugs require a patent, so why would a pharmaceutical company spend billions of dollars on something for other companies to exploit?

Figured a lawyer would understand about patent laws, even if it wasn't his specialty.  

The article you posted a link to had to be a joke, even I know that Mitochondria are not cells.  EVERY cell has a mitochondria.  

But the good news is that if this really is a cure for cancer lots of people already know about it and will continue to research it.  Pharmaceutical companies are not the only people doing cancer research.  And people dying with cancer are desperate and will try anything.  So if there is any truth to this claim lots of people will be cured by it soon.

(10-30-2015, 08:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The article you posted a link to had to be a joke, even I know that Mitochondria are not cells.  EVERY cell has a mitochondria.  

But the good news is that if this really is a cure for cancer lots of people already know about it and will continue to research it.  Pharmaceutical companies are not the only people doing cancer research.  And people dying with cancer are desperate and will try anything.  So if there is any truth to this claim lots of people will be cured by it soon.

So you just ignore the rest of my post?  The parts about the patents?

(10-30-2015, 11:27 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: So you just ignore the rest of my post?  The parts about the patents?

No.  I directly answered the part about the patents.  Even if this process can not be patented it will become very popular if it really works.  The research is being done, and cancer patients will search out and find any possible cancer cure.  So if this works then it will not matter if it can be patented or not.

A cure for cancer is not something that need a huge marketing program to sell.  In fact look at how many people sought out Laetrile even when they were being told it was useless, and that was before the internet existed.  Just think if Laetrile had actually worked or if one of these new unconventional cures starts working.  It would be all over the world in no time.  

(10-31-2015, 11:34 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  I directly answered the part about the patents.  Even if this process can not be patented it will become very popular if it really works.  The research is being done, and cancer patients will search out and find any possible cancer cure.  So if this works then it will not matter if it can be patented or not.

A cure for cancer is not something that need a huge marketing program to sell.  In fact look at how many people sought out Laetrile even when they were being told it was useless, and that was before the internet existed.  Just think if Laetrile had actually worked or if one of these new unconventional cures starts working.  It would be all over the world in no time.  

When did you directly answer the part about the patents?

All of the test runs with wrapping it in protein had positive results, and now it's next to impossible to find anything about it.  Things can be suppressed.

(10-31-2015, 12:19 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: All of the test runs with wrapping it in protein had positive results, and now it's next to impossible to find anything about it.  Things can be suppressed.

Actually if you found it on the internet then it is not being suppressed at all.

Perhaps it was just junk science like so many other claims about curing cancer.  Or maybe there is more research being done.

All I know is that sick people spend lots of money on junk science.  And that means the drug companies are not keeping anything suppressed.  Now that anyone and everyone has access to the internet there will be no way to keep a legit "cure" a secret.  If it really works then word will spread quickly.

(10-31-2015, 12:19 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: When did you directly answer the part about the patents?

When I pointed out that the existence of a patent does not make any difference in the news of a legit cure spreading to people who need it.

Every year people spend BILLIONS of dollars on herbal and other homeopathic medicines.  The fact that many of them are not subject to patent protection just doesn't matter.

(10-31-2015, 01:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually if you found it on the internet then it is not being suppressed at all.

Perhaps it was just junk science like so many other claims about curing cancer.  Or maybe there is more research being done.

All I know is that sick people spend lots of money on junk science.  And that means the drug companies are not keeping anything suppressed.  Now that anyone and everyone has access to the internet there will be no way to keep a legit "cure" a secret.  If it really works then word will spread quickly.

I haven't been able to find it since, which I pointed out.  What happened to it if it's not being suppressed?  I've tried different search engines with about 10 or more variations of anything that could bring up any sort of match.

It's not junk science as it pointed out the reasons for it working with it having being used on people and working.  If there was more research being done, then why wouldn't we be hearing about it?  You just claimed it would spread quickly, so how would something so promising be kept quiet during research?

Another example of what's so annoying about trying to have a debate with you is that you just post false garbage that has often times already been addressed.  It gets so infuriating because you're always convinced you're right because you think we're too stupid to see.

You've even posted, on at least one occasion, a link proving you were wrong, yet still claiming it proved you were right.

(10-31-2015, 01:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When I pointed out that the existence of a patent does not make any difference in the news of a legit cure spreading to people who need it.

Every year people spend BILLIONS of dollars on herbal and other homeopathic medicines.  The fact that many of them are not subject to patent protection just doesn't matter.

But it does keep the drug companies and people that benefit from any cure being found likely to keep it suppressed, which is what looks like is happening.

There's more money in a treatment than there is a cure, which I pointed out and which is why no cure has been found, because then companies would just keep out-doing each other in finding cheaper ways to make it make it and sell it.

And please don't tell me that you're trying to compare herbal and homeopathic medicines to something with an actual medical basis like wrapping Chemo in protein because the cancer attacks the protein.

(10-31-2015, 02:24 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: There's more money in a treatment than there is a cure, which I pointed out and which is why no cure has been found, because then companies would just keep out-doing each other in finding cheaper ways to make it make it and sell it.

This argument makes no sense.  

There is not more profit in a "treatment" than there is a cure.  This just is not true.  If a drug company came up with a cure for a serious type of cancer they would be sitting on a gold mine.  That is why they spend so much money looking for a cure.

Second, there are a lot of people doing cancer research other than drug companies.  So the profit motive in treating the symptoms would not effect them because they have no profit motive to just treat the symptoms.

Third,  there was more money in treating the symptoms of all sorts of serious diseases like polio, leporsy, and tuberculosis yet all those diseases have pretty much been wiped out. 

Fourth, they have discovered many successful treatments for cancer.  If your theory was true then we would not have chemotherapy, or any type of radiation treatment.

All of these points prove that you are wrong.

(10-31-2015, 02:24 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: It's not junk science as it pointed out the reasons for it working with it having being used on people and working.  If there was more research being done, then why wouldn't we be hearing about it?  You just claimed it would spread quickly, so how would something so promising be kept quiet during research?

Just because you read something on the internet does not mean it is 100% true.

I bet I can find a dozen examples of false claims on the internet regarding cures for cancer.  Same with diet products and pretty much any type of medicine.  The internet is full of crap that is nothing but lies and/or complete junk science.

If there really was some valid cure out there on the internet then how do you think the big drug companies got to every single person who saw it and silenced them?  Don't you realize how many people who have cancer are scouring the internet for cures?  How could any valid reported research just be wiped away without all these people knowing about it?

(10-31-2015, 03:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This argument makes no sense.  

There is not more profit in a "treatment" than there is a cure.  This just is not true.  If a drug company came up with a cure for a serious type of cancer they would be sitting on a gold mine.  That is why they spend so much money looking for a cure.

Second, there are a lot of people doing cancer research other than drug companies.  So the profit motive in treating the symptoms would not effect them because they have no profit motive to just treat the symptoms.

Third,  there was more money in treating the symptoms of all sorts of serious diseases like polio, leporsy, and tuberculosis yet all those diseases have pretty much been wiped out. 

Fourth, they have discovered many successful treatments for cancer.  If your theory was true then we would not have chemotherapy, or any type of radiation treatment.

All of these points prove that you are wrong.

You're so full of shit.  

Once again, I don't know if you're incapable of understanding things, or if you just keep posting bullshit and hope that I'll give up or forget the points that I've ALREADY MADE.


The money isn't in the treatment itself, but rather in the drugs to combat the harm that the treatment does.  Drug companies make millions and probably billions of dollars in selling drugs to combat things like Chemotherapy.  Treatments for the other diseases you listed don't cost that much, especially when they're a lot less common.  

Foruth, what the hell are you talking about?  We're talking about the drugs to counter those treatments, which is what this is about.  Yes, they're successful sometimes, but not always, and they all require drugs to counter it, whether they eliminate the cancer or not.

(10-31-2015, 03:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just because you read something on the internet does not mean it is 100% true.

I bet I can find a dozen examples of false claims on the internet regarding cures for cancer.  Same with diet products and pretty much any type of medicine.  The internet is full of crap that is nothing but lies and/or complete junk science.

If there really was some valid cure out there on the internet then how do you think the big drug companies got to every single person who saw it and silenced them?  Don't you realize how many people who have cancer are scouring the internet for cures?  How could any valid reported research just be wiped away without all these people knowing about it?

IT HAD BEEN TESTED AND THERE HAD BEEN A GOOD NUMBER OF PEOPLE WITH THEIR CANCER ELIMINATED BY IT.

That's why I keep saying I don't know where it went and disappeared to.

If you can find a cure for cancer (it's actually just a treatment that is so good it could be considered a cure) with as much scientific backing and logic as this one that's not just some crazy or bogus idea, I'll be happy to read about it.

(10-31-2015, 05:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: IT HAD BEEN TESTED AND THERE HAD BEEN A GOOD NUMBER OF PEOPLE WITH THEIR CANCER ELIMINATED BY IT.

AND IT WAS ON THE INTERNET SO IT HAS TO BE 100% TRUE!!


Look, Brad, you often do not understand what you read.  Just like you claimed that this story said these people in Cuba were getting a once-a-year shot to prevent cancer.

The fact is that there is a massive group of people working to fight cancer.  This includes universities, private medical research funded by the Cancer Society, and big pharmaceutical companies.  They all know what is going on all over the world with cancer research.  There are also probably millions of private individuals searching the internet every day because they have cancer themselves or have a friend or family member fighting cancer.

It is impossible for promising research results to be posted on the internet for the whole world to see and then have it just wiped away without a trace.  Even if the "Big Drug Mafia" got to the original source there would already be  lots of other research organizations looking into it.  

There is currently a lot of research involving using aspirin to prevent bowel cancer.  How would this be possible if the "Big Drug Mafia"  wiped out anyone doing research with drugs that can not be patented?  

(10-31-2015, 05:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: IT HAD BEEN TESTED AND THERE HAD BEEN A GOOD NUMBER OF PEOPLE WITH THEIR CANCER ELIMINATED BY IT.

That's why I keep saying I don't know where it went and disappeared to.

If you can find a cure for cancer (it's actually just a treatment that is so good it could be considered a cure) with as much scientific backing and logic as this one that's not just some crazy or bogus idea, I'll be happy to read about it.

If you're refering to the protein treatment, incorrect.  It was mice and rats that have had it work.

As I stated earlier in the thread, that is the reason you aren't finding anything new about it.  It is NOT being suppressed.  It is being DEVELOPED for a means of testing in clinical trials.  But at this point, is still a HYPOTHETICAL for human use.


For those who are not aware what this concept is, the chemo drugs are encased or bonded with a particular protein (or proteins) that the cancer cells will attemt to consume, and in such will consume the chemo drug.  Because the drug surrounded by proteins that are benign to the rest of the bodies cells, the chemo won't effect the bodies healthy cells, only the mutated cancer cells which consume those proteins.