Cancer Cure?

cant you just tell us what the cure is ?

There isn't one. It's a different disease for each type. It's probably a mail virus.

Scientists in Alberta Canada have produced a drug called DCA.They have tested it against lung,brain and breast cancer cells but not healthy cells.

It kills cancer cells not healthy cells.

As Goring quite rightly states a cure for cancer is a premise for holywood movies and not for science fact. "Cancer" is the generic name for a set of diseases with similar characteristics, not the name of one disease.

Cancer is a major killer of the human race today.Any form of research should be congratulated.

have a look at this one http://miraclemineral.org/index.php

lastplace 23 Nov 17:32


Cancer is a major killer of the human race today.Any form of research should be congratulated

I agree 100% but when they do find something that works the government say it is too expensive.

I sometimes wonder if governments really do want to a cure.

nice read on this DCA here. http://www.cancer.gov/search/ResultsClinicalTrials.aspx?protocolsearchid=7019518

look at the trials

It seems to me the financial profit seems to out weigh human life.

Thanks Early Morning Riser

L& P - they have never found anything that works. The drugs the Gvt (well NICE actually) knock back tend to add 6 weeks or so to life expectancy, at a huge cost, and it is regarded as too expensive for the benefit conferred. A cure, thats very different.

interesting . http://www.cancerforums.net/about9920.html

The recent wonderdrug (is it Lixar?) can help patients with cancer of the liver to live another 6 months.

It costs £3,000 a month. What harm would £18k per person do to govt funds ?

The NHS won't supply it as it's deemed too expensive.

What's the facking point of telling everybody about it then ?

But the govt can send £MILLIONS to places like Ethiopia, where, since Geldof wasted his time 20 years ago, the population has doubled from 40,000,000 to 80,000,000 and they're still starving.

A complete waste of money as it will never get better.

sibaroni 23 Nov 18:23


L& P - they have never found anything that works. The drugs the Gvt (well NICE actually) knock back tend to add 6 weeks or so to life expectancy, at a huge cost, and it is regarded as too expensive for the benefit conferred. A cure, thats very different

Sib........please god you never get cancer, you would want anything, however expensive to help prolong your life.

why would the government of any country want a cure for cancer?

The money that is taken out of the tax payers purse each year to investigate the cure is breathtaking, now add up all the politians etc who sit on the boards of companies who are reciept of the said money etc and theirs your answer.

I refuse to belive that pratically every country in the world (civilised (sic) ) has been trying for a cure using its top specialists for donkeys years and have come up with zero.

i believe there is a simple cure for everything in nature. funny how they can find a quick vaccine for the swine flu. My m8 died this year of lung cancer, when diagnosed they told him they cant do nothing for him and told him he only had 4 months to live( and he never smoked in his life). Many people just takes the doctors word for it without trying anything that might work???. I myself would try anything rather than just curling up and dying. i believe money is the root of all evil with them drug companies and a cheap cure would not be in their investors interests. just look at aspirin. only good for headaches years ago now used in heart disease problems. people with inoperable cancer got nothing to lose trying these out.

well worth bumping up

Some great replys guys

i believe there is a simple cure for everything in nature

even cell aging?

Billions spent on killing and wars ( in whose name) and medicine is too expensive ?????

Morally corrupt politicians - all shades

EMR, about 13% of lung cancers occur in patients who are non smokers, altho many of those would be secondary cancer.

L & P, like most people, I have experience of cancer in my close family, including a death. I wasn't necessarily supporting the position either, but it is plain the the NHS cannot adopt every drug that comes out.

The Gvt (or in fact NICE), have the choices to make none of us would like. Taking on a drug for a couple of thousand patients, that would put a couple of months on their life (pretty sh*tty months at that), costs the same as offering a different treatement to children say, that would put years on their life.

The problem with the NHS system is that there is not, and can't be, infinite resources. So it will always be possible to point to the treatement or drug that falls just the wrong side of the line of what is affordable. And then, if you are a good reporter, you can go and find the person not getting the treatment, and write the story.

I don't envy NICE their job, but I do know this, they have changed the way they work to a certain extent. They used to give clinical reasons why they wouldn't adopt a drug whenever possible, masking the true reason, which was cost. They have now taken to telling the truth, and saying where it is appropriate, they are not adopting certain drugs because the money isn't there.

Which I personally applaud.

well said Sib.

My Mother was given a few months to live. The end was desperate. She was on liquid morphine and screaming to be put out her misery.

Indeed, Sib.

Good persuasive logical argument Sib, but I still think far more resources should be poured into saving lives rather than taking them

wot gets to me is that all this money people give to the like's of cancer research etc who then gives grants of millions of pounds to research labs/universities etc in the fight against cancer and to find better treatment for the disease. then when 1 is found the drug companies wants the nhs to buy it for rediculous prices.