(11-01-2015, 10:24 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: 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.

You sure?  I'm pretty sure that it stated that it had been tested on people.

Even so, why wouldn't we hear about the testing or even more about the treatment?  If it's not being suppressed, where is it?

This is so promising and very logical and medically sound, so why wouldn't we be hearing about it?

Why wouldn't they test it on humans with cancer?  It's not like it could do damage, so why wouldn't they test it on humans who are desperate to try anything?

(11-01-2015, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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?  

You're so full of shit.  How do you continue to post it and just hope it flies?  I know a lot of people don't see it, which, I have to ask, are people just intimidated by him being a lawyer and assume everything he posts is true?

I often don't understand what I read?  You're such an offensive d bag.  How do you know what I read and how often I read?  Throw out some examples of me not understanding what I read to qualify that statement of "often."  I don't care because I see through you, but you just attempt to bash my name and 1 it's annoying 2 other people do assume you're right and just jump on board even when I point out how wrong you are.

You claimed that it wasn't to prevent cancer, but failed to answer my question about how a cancer could grow or do any damage if the shot stops the cancer from developing or growing. Typical you because you just moved on to other points and still somehow act like you already refuted it.

What happened to the information I posted on it?  If it's just being tested, then there should be reports on it.

(11-02-2015, 02:43 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: You claimed that it wasn't to prevent cancer, but failed to answer my question about how a cancer could grow or do any damage if the shot stops the cancer from developing or growing. Typical you because you just moved on to other points and still somehow act like you already refuted it.

This does not even make any sense.  Penicillin kills infection, but that doesn't mean you can use penicillin as a preventative vaccine.

(11-02-2015, 02:43 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I often don't understand what I read?  You're such an offensive d bag.  How do you know what I read and how often I read? 

I know because you just proved it with your comments in this thread.  You claimed the article said something that it did not say at all.

(11-02-2015, 02:43 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: it's annoying 2 other people do assume you're right and just jump on board even when I point out how wrong you are.

Actually Brad, you never do anything to prove me wrong.  All you do is say that I am wrong because you think that I am wrong.

(11-02-2015, 02:43 AM)BFritz21 Wrote:  I have to ask, are people just intimidated by him being a lawyer and assume everything he posts is true?

No.  They are just smart enough to see that I am right and you are wrong.

(11-02-2015, 03:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually Brad, you never do anything to prove me wrong.  All you do is say that I am wrong because you think that I am wrong.

(11-02-2015, 03:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  They are just smart enough to see that I am right and you are wrong.

I posted numerous examples on the old board!!  

How can you have the audacity to sit there and say that I did not?!

For instance, you posted that I said Chemotherapy didn't exist, when I never said that, and then, when I called you out on it (multiple times), you even posted a link to the thread proving that you were wrong!!!!!!

How the hell are you a lawyer when you lie this much?!  Isn't there rules against that on this message board?!  

(11-02-2015, 09:42 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: For instance, you posted that I said Chemotherapy didn't exist, when I never said that, and then, when I called you out on it (multiple times), you even posted a link to the thread proving that you were wrong!!!!!!

Everyone here has heard this story and is tired of it.  I am not going back over that all again.  All you do is deny the truth.  

(11-02-2015, 09:42 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I posted numerous examples on the old board!!  

No you did not.

If you did then why do you think everyone here who was also on the old board still thinks you are wrong and I am right?

(11-02-2015, 09:42 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: How the hell are you a lawyer when you lie this much?! 

No disrespect, but can you think about this question for a minute ?

I'm not suggesting all lawyers lie, but they sure do strategically omit facts though.

(11-02-2015, 02:31 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: You sure?  I'm pretty sure that it stated that it had been tested on people.

Even so, why wouldn't we hear about the testing or even more about the treatment?  If it's not being suppressed, where is it?

This is so promising and very logical and medically sound, so why wouldn't we be hearing about it?

Why wouldn't they test it on humans with cancer?  It's not like it could do damage, so why wouldn't they test it on humans who are desperate to try anything?

It takes a very long time to set up and go through clinical trials, especially on things such as this that aren't like anything done before.  As I said earlier, I would guess it would be close to 10 years of evolving testing before the jury is in.

(11-02-2015, 04:21 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: No disrespect, but can you think about this question for a minute ?

I'm not suggesting all lawyers lie, but they sure do strategically omit facts though.

At least the good ones do.  The bad ones tell the truth, leaving you with a sentence of 10-15 getting human booster shots from a guy named Steve (or so I've heard).

(10-31-2015, 05:54 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: 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.  

Woah Woah Woah. Some told me it was 125B?

Quote:Internet:
Drugs to counter traditional chemotherapy bring in a profit of like 125 billion per year, with income only rising.

Someone is lying...

(11-02-2015, 10:53 PM)MrRager Wrote: Woah Woah Woah. Some told me it was 125B?

Someone is lying...

What the hell are you talking about? 

You always come in my threads and try to act like you're so above me.

Before you bring your garbage to this thread, answer the question in this post, which was the last time you acted like a hard ass genius towards me.

(11-03-2015, 01:41 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: What the hell are you talking about? 

He is talking about the fact that you posted a link that said cancer treatment costed 125 billion a year, but now you are saying that their is no big money in the treatment.

Seems you are contradicting your self by saying that cancer treatment costs 125 billion dollars and then saying that cancer treatment doesn't cost that much and all the big money is made in "counteracting chemotherapy".

Please clear this up by posting links to back up your claims.  How much is spent each year in treating cancer and how much is spent in "counteracting chemotherapy"?  What exactly does it mean to "counteract chemotherapy" and why is it so expensive.  Because I know that chemotherapy and radiation treatment are very expensive.

And please, no more of your worthless opinion.  I want to see some actual facts.

(11-03-2015, 01:53 AM)fredtoast Wrote: He is talking about the fact that you posted a link that said cancer treatment costed 125 billion a year, but now you are saying that their is no big money in the treatment.

Seems you are contradicting your self by saying that cancer treatment costs 125 billion dollars and then saying that cancer treatment doesn't cost that much and all the big money is made in "counteracting chemotherapy".

Please clear this up by posting links to back up your claims.  How much is spent each year in treating cancer and how much is spent in "counteracting chemotherapy"?  What exactly does it mean to "counteract chemotherapy" and why is it so expensive.  Because I know that chemotherapy and radiation treatment are very expensive.

And please, no more of your worthless opinion.  I want to see some actual facts.

I already posted links with it and I obviously meant that the 125 billion is on drugs to counter the chemo.

My opinion's worthless?  That's hilarious coming from a known liar.

(11-03-2015, 02:01 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I already posted links with it and I obviously meant that the 125 billion is on drugs to counter the chemo.

Except you never posted any kind of link at all.  You just pulled some number out of thin air.

In fact I guaranteed that I would prove that you were wrong about that claim, but so far you have not been man enough to take my challenge.

You like to talk big and curse at me, but you are afraid to make a sig bet that I will not prove you wrong.

(11-03-2015, 02:04 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Except you never posted any kind of link at all.  You just pulled some number out of thin air.

In fact I guaranteed that I would prove that you were wrong about that claim, but so far you have not been man enough to take my challenge.

You like to talk big and curse at me, but you are afraid to make a sig bet that I will not prove you wrong.

I'm afraid?!  

You cannot admit you were wrong even when I used to post links directly proving you were wrong and you still couldn't admit it!!!

You want me to provide a link?  

Here you go, in science-based medical journal:

Quote:So we can find a cure. It has probably happened multiple times. But nobody wants to cure cancer. Too many researchers earn a living seeking a cure by remaining inside a narrow, restricted channel of dogma. Their institutions get grant money and survive from the funding. Big Pharma makes big bucks selling chemotherapy drugs, surgeons remove tumors and various radiation devices employ radiologists and firms making these machines. MRI and CT scans would not be needed for cancer if Rife technology were available today.

There.

(11-03-2015, 02:40 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I'm afraid?!  

You cannot admit you were wrong even when I used to post links directly proving you were wrong and you still couldn't admit it!!!

You want me to provide a link?  

Here you go, in science-based medical journal:


There.

Did you read the entire article? It is an argument AGAINST people who believe there is a hidden cure. 

This is the conclusion:

Quote:The grand conspiracy of the hidden cancer cure is a meme that I wish would go away, but for some reason persists. It is like an urban legend – it appeals to some ill-formed fear or anxiety produced by the complexity of modern society. It gives a focus to these anxieties, and gives the illusion of control. No one wants to feel as if they are being deceived, and so assuming there is a conspiracy feels like a good way to avoid being duped. But ironically it is the conspiracy theorists who are being duped, or who are doing the deceiving.

The notion of a hidden cure is also dependent on seeing institutions with which one is not personally familiar as faceless and monolithic organizations, comprised of obedient drones. But these institutions are made of people – ordinary people with flaws and feelings and families just like everyone else.

This quote is from the same article: 

Quote:Often the hidden cure conspiracy idea is framed around the claim that a pharmaceutical company would hide such a cure to protect their profits from other cancer drugs. This claim fails not only for the reason above but for a separate practical reason. It would take about 100 millions dollars of research (if not more) to prove that a drug was actually a cure for one type of cancer (let alone all types of cancer). Why would a pharmaceutical company spend that kind of research money on a drug they know they have no intention of marketing, just so that they can suppress it? Also – where would they do such research? How could they get past all the regulatory hurdles to perform human research without revealing what they are doing?

You literally just posted an article refuting that there is a hidden cure.
Now I don't want to say anything about if you are right or wrong, or if there is a cure out there or not, but Fred seems to have a point when he says you struggle to comprehend everything you read...
P.S. I think he wanted you to post a link about the 125B dollar figure you came up with and to explain what "countering chemo" means. 

(11-03-2015, 02:40 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I'm afraid?!  

You cannot admit you were wrong even when I used to post links directly proving you were wrong and you still couldn't admit it!!!

You want me to provide a link?  

Here you go, in science-based medical journal:

Quote:So we can find a cure. It has probably happened multiple times. But nobody wants to cure cancer. Too many researchers earn a living seeking a cure by remaining inside a narrow, restricted channel of dogma. Their institutions get grant money and survive from the funding. Big Pharma makes big bucks selling chemotherapy drugs, surgeons remove tumors and various radiation devices employ radiologists and firms making these machines. MRI and CT scans would not be needed for cancer if Rife technology were available today.

There.

Dude...You are an affront to the very core of the educational system when it comes to reading and comprehension.  You should be embarrassed you posted what you did above.  You literally posted the quote, that the journal was tearing apart, as factually defended by the journal.

(11-03-2015, 10:58 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Dude...You are an affront to the very core of the educational system when it comes to reading and comprehension.  You should be embarrassed you posted what you did above.  You literally posted the quote, that the journal was tearing apart, as factually defended by the journal.

Yep.  

Saw that wrong.