Cancer Cure

we'llallhavetea_old · 14-04-2010 12:20am

personally i like to hear about these breakthroughs. a cure for cancer/better treatment can only be a good thing.

i don't understand why people want to put a negative spin on these things

would these people be grateful if their family and friends died of cancer, so to keep the world population down? really? if not, then why think like that?

sock puppet · 14-04-2010 12:28am

SugarHigh wrote: »

That's like saying an increase in birth rate won't increase the population because they will die eventually.

They don't need to reproduce to add to the population by simply being alive they are a +1 to the population. This is really simple and I can't believe you don't understand the concept.

Totally different scenarios. When babies are born, they grow up and have more kids of their own. This is what people worried about over-population are referring to when they speak of the problem - high growth rates. High growth rates can result in populations doubling in a very short space of time. Lower death rates from cancer would have no effect on growth rates, and thus have no effect on the doubling time. Funny that it's actually you that's incapable of understanding this concept.

A major breakthrough in cancer would lead to a once off increase in the population and have no effect on long-term population growth rates. It would take years to occur as more and more people get a chance at a longer life but eventually the population would stop rising.

In short if you want to avoid over-population then keeping the birth rate low is the only thing required (and they're already far too low in most of the Western world). We can still develop life saving medicines without bringing on the apocalypse .

Bob Z · 14-04-2010 12:29am

Ghost Train wrote: »

Yop

They Will have it licked

SugarHigh · 14-04-2010 12:29am

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

personally i like to hear about these breakthroughs. a cure for cancer/better treatment can only be a good thing.

i don't understand why people want to put a negative spin on these things

would these people be grateful if their family and friends died of cancer, so to keep the world population down? really? if not, then why think like that?

Because sometimes a rational response is more interesting than a uniformed emotional one.

we'llallhavetea_old · 14-04-2010 12:33am

SugarHigh wrote: »

Because sometimes a rational response is more interesting than a uniformed emotional one.

well i really hope you never lose a friend or family member to cancer.

iUseVi · 14-04-2010 12:33am

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

personally i like to hear about these breakthroughs. a cure for cancer/better treatment can only be a good thing.

i don't understand why people want to put a negative spin on these things

would these people be grateful if their family and friends died of cancer, so to keep the world population down? really? if not, then why think like that?

I think it's because people hear about "potential" breakthroughs every week and most of them never happen for one reason or another. So people are understandably wary of such stories.

we'llallhavetea_old · 14-04-2010 12:35am

iUseVi wrote: »

I think it's because people hear about "potential" breakthroughs every week and most of them never happen for one reason or another. So people are understandably wary of such stories.

its not about being wary, its about thinking if a cure for cancer came about that it would be bad. thats what i'm talking about.

SugarHigh · 14-04-2010 12:38am

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

its not about being wary, its about thinking if a cure for cancer came about that it would be bad. thats what i'm talking about.

I pointed out a negative effect that isn't to say it would be a bad thing overall.

Are you capable of anything other than simple emotional responses?

SugarHigh · 14-04-2010 12:38am

sock puppet wrote: »

Totally different scenarios. When babies are born, they grow up and have more kids of their own. This is what people worried about over-population are referring to when they speak of the problem - high growth rates. High growth rates can result in populations doubling in a very short space of time. Lower death rates from cancer would have no effect on growth rates, and thus have no effect on the doubling time. Funny that it's actually you that's incapable of understanding this concept.

A major breakthrough in cancer would lead to a once off increase in the population and have no effect on long-term population growth rates. It would take years to occur as more and more people get a chance at a longer life but eventually the population would stop rising.

In short if you want to avoid over-population then keeping the birth rate low is the only thing required (and they're already far too low in most of the Western world). We can still develop life saving medicines without bringing on the apocalypse .

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Stage5.svg
Notice how population growth occurs even though the birth rate decreased. It's called the Demographic transition model.

we'llallhavetea_old · 14-04-2010 12:41am

SugarHigh wrote: »

I pointed out a negative effect that isn't to say it would be a bad thing overall.

Are you capable of anything other than simple emotional responses?

its the fact that you pointed out a negative effect thats alien to me.

are you capable of any emotional responses?

SugarHigh · 14-04-2010 12:46am

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

its the fact that you pointed out a negative effect thats alien to me.

are you capable of any emotional responses?

Being emotional is not a good thing. I think you've been fooled by too many tv soaps that we should all be irrational beings who make choices based on emotional responses.

Le King · 14-04-2010 12:47am

Let's hope this works

we'llallhavetea_old · 14-04-2010 12:50am

SugarHigh wrote: »

Being emotional is not a good thing. I think you've been fooled by too many tv soaps that we should all be irrational beings who make choices based on emotional responses.

mwah! thats the second time you've said that to me.

i'm done with you :rolleyes:

brummytom · 14-04-2010 12:54am

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

the brits will try and claim it, they always do

Hey.. did you hear about this new cancer cure we've come up with?

sock puppet · 14-04-2010 12:58am

SugarHigh wrote: »

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Stage5.svg
Notice how population growth occurs even though the birth rate decreased. It's called the Demographic transition model.

That's totally irrelevant. That graph charts the shifts in a country's demographics as it gets richer. It doesn't explain exponential growth. What you also need to realise is that in that model initial birth rates are suitably high that a decrease in the death rate will result in sustainable population growth. When birth rates are low enough this doesn't happen. Also the initial decrease in the death rate is partly because of a decrease in the infant mortality rate. With cancer treatments we're talking about extending the life of people who are not going to (or are at least very unlikely to) have any more children.

SugarHigh · 14-04-2010 1:21am

sock puppet wrote: »

That's totally irrelevant. That graph charts the shifts in a country's demographics as it gets richer. It doesn't explain exponential growth. What you also need to realise is that in that model initial birth rates are suitably high that a decrease in the death rate will result in sustainable population growth. When birth rates are low enough this doesn't happen. Also the initial decrease in the death rate is partly because of a decrease in the infant mortality rate. With cancer treatments we're talking about extending the life of people who are not going to (or are at least very unlikely to) have any more children.

This doesn't make a difference. every year less people would while the birth rate would be the same.

you seem to be stuck on exponential growth. I never said it would cause exponential growth just that it would cause growth and it would not just be a once of thing.

mikom · 14-04-2010 1:27am

Scientists at a Cork research centre claim they may have found a better way of treating cancer than chemotherapy, instead using bacteria commonly found in pro-biotic yoghurt.
Their breakthrough has been hailed as being at the cutting-edge of science by an international expert.

That expert being none other than Derek Acorah.
Well.... he does know a lot about the yakult

SugarHigh · 14-04-2010 1:35am

An interesting paper that talks about the possible negative effects of medical advancement
http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft5f59n9wc&chunk.id=d0e85&toc.depth=1&toc.id=&brand=eschol

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft5f59n9wc&chunk.id=d0e1955&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e1900&brand=eschol

opinion guy · 14-04-2010 1:57am

SugarHigh wrote: »

An interesting paper that talks about the possible negative effects of medical advancement
http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft5f59n9wc&chunk.id=d0e85&toc.depth=1&toc.id=&brand=eschol

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft5f59n9wc&chunk.id=d0e1955&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e1900&brand=eschol

Hmmm....a bit less sugar methinks....

SugarHigh · 14-04-2010 2:07am

opinion guy wrote: »

Hmmm....a bit less sugar methinks....

Hmm....a few less opinions methinks....

opinion guy · 14-04-2010 2:12am

SugarHigh wrote: »

Hmm....a few less opinions methinks....

Touche, sugarjunky, touche...

ScissorPaperRock · 14-04-2010 2:23am

SugarHigh wrote: »

Being emotional is not a good thing.

Why is only being rational a good thing? Would anything really matter if people couldn't feel an emotional response to things? All that would matter would be survival and reproduction.

On topic - as one person who has recently witnessed the suffering and experienced the death of a loved one from cancer all I can say is even if this only prevents one person from having to go through that ordeal, it's something worth celebrating.

sponsoredwalk · 14-04-2010 6:11am

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

would these people be grateful if their family and friends died of cancer, so to keep the world population down? really? if not, then why think like that?

This seems to be the crux of the argument, it's always the other people who are causing the problems, in this case it is just being born because those doctors just had to go and attempt to cure cancer, woe is them.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Because sometimes a rational response is more interesting than a uniformed emotional one.

What you would call a rational response here I would call either being brainwashed or just plain 100% stupid.

I've already told you that there are modern day causes that are the sole reason why overpopulation will become a bad thing very soon. Why are you quoting demographics to further claims that are refuted in the same geography book you first read about overpopulation

You might not be aware of it but a simple wikipedia search will bring up amazing facts like "why people in developing countries practice overpopulation as a means of sustenance in order to just make a living because they are too poor to survive with 2 or 3 children".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Education_and_empowerment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Land

It's unfortunate this part of the article doesn't mention the adverse affects on land and the utter waste of land going to feed the cattle we intend to eat but what can you do... (another google search perhaps?).

okay!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism
http://consumercide.com/js/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=379:how-to-win-an-argument-with-a-meat-eater&catid=39:necessarily-vegetarian&Itemid=77
http://www.vegsoc.org/environment/land_use.html
http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/environment.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Wealth_and_poverty

SugarHigh wrote: »

Being emotional is not a good thing. I think you've been fooled by too many tv soaps that we should all be irrational beings who make choices based on emotional responses.

Seriously? Seriously?

SugarHigh wrote: »

An interesting paper that talks about the possible negative effects of medical advancement

Well at least you've spelt out where your coming from now, at least there's no hiding it anymore.

These damn doctors and their medicine eh? We don't need their medicine, we're doing fine without them eh?

I'm sure you're with Jenny McCarthy and her anti-vaccine rant too eh seeing as those doctors just come out with possibly negative medicine?

http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html

as opposed to all the helpful holistic alternatives...

Lanaier · 14-04-2010 8:17am

SugarHigh wrote: »

Didn't cancer overtake heart disease as being the biggest killer in the world?

With heart surgery advancing very quickly recently(There are robots being developed that can perform heart surgery) and cancer getting better treatment this will make over population an even bigger threat.

It sounds ****ed up to think of it that way but it's true that people need to die.

When most people in the world can barely afford food, let alone robotic heart treatment....I don't think you'll need to worry just yet.

Lanaier · 14-04-2010 8:46am

SugarHigh wrote: »

Being emotional is not a good thing. I think you've been fooled by too many tv soaps that we should all be irrational beings who make choices based on emotional responses.

hahaha, ok Commander Data, we'll try not to cry all over this debate with our annoying "humanity".
:P

Also: There are emotions; hence there are ****ty soap operas.

Not the other way around.

andy1981 · 14-04-2010 8:55am

My Dad had cancer.. 4 years in remission ( thats the term I think for cured)
He tried all sorts of stuff to get rid of it, obviously the year of chemo followed by radiation and a bone marrow transplant had a huge effect but he did try this horrible home made yougurt fungus thing.
He was given this herbal yogurt that he added water to every night. In the morning when more of the fungus had grown he would have to drink the stuff. Imagine leaving your uneaten sambos from school in your bag all Summer and in September opening your lunch box. The smell was awful!! But he would try anything.. point being there could be some truth to this yogurt thing!
Also had Reiki, went to Lourdes and Knock, some how had padre pio's glove!!
maybe it was the yogurt

Dyr · 14-04-2010 9:14am

even cancer can't stand cork

OutlawPete · 14-04-2010 9:46am

There have been different "therapies" that have been helping those suffering from Cancer.

The problem is that there are so many charlatans that they drown out the legitimate people, many of them doctors, that have remarkable case studies to back-up their claims.

Maybe people will remember Dr Pascal Carmody who the state brought to court.

The Joe Duffy started the whole campaign against the guy.

I remember Joe saying "So he just takes fohtoes duz he, takes fohtos of the cansir and charges ya thousands.." :rolleyes:

That was referring to the fact that Dr Carmody used Photo Dynamic Therapy, something that is now being used on hospitals as a cancer treatment, despite the Medical Profession referring to it a scam back in 2005.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/photodynamic

Carmody treated hundreds of Cancer sufferers that hospitals had sent home to die, many of them are alive today. He provided these case studies at his trial. Whether that is a coincidence or not, fuck knows.

Steve McQueen last few years were quite remarkable and tied closely to alternative cancer cures.

Dr William Donald Kelley, the author of One Answer To Cancer began treating him in 1980 in Mexico.

Apparently the hospitals gave him a month to live and wouldn't operate. Steve had become convinced that the Pharmaceutical industry were just really a money making entity run my the mafia according to this Dr Kelley. He was convinced the FBI were recording his calls also as a result of seeking alternative treatment.

Scientoligists even tried to take over the Kelley Program at one stage as they believed it to be remarkable, Kelley told them to fuck off. The National Enquirer broke the story even though Steve had begged them not to.

He lived for another five months but then was in fact operated on when brought back from Mexico, but died shortly afterwords.

NBC blamed Dr Kelley for the death of McQueen as he died shortly after complications to remove tumors. Dr Kelley claimed they operated only to make it look like they wanted to treat him when in fact they had given him a month to live and he kept him alive for five extra months and claimed this was akin to murder as he would have lived even longer without the operation.

In fact he was convinced Steve's tumors were shrinking and if they had wanted to operate, why not do it five months previous.

hobochris · 14-04-2010 9:53am

While an effective treatment is great, Its sad that the medical industry is so warped and profit orientated that they seek out treatment rather then all out cure, as the treatments where the money is.

14-04-2010 10:28am

hobochris wrote: »

While an effective treatment is great, Its sad that the medical industry is so warped and profit orientated that they seek out treatment rather then all out cure, as the treatments where the money is.

I read a very interesting article on alternet about a plant extract that can cure heroin addiction in one sitting.. It's a very strong hallucinogen though and there's no benefit to companies in curing patients in one treatment so it's now illegal in the US. Lobbying at work again.. No idea how it's allowed.

El Siglo · 14-04-2010 10:49am

Mousey- wrote: »

itll be like "i am legend", just based in cork

I can see that happening...

genericguy · 14-04-2010 10:57am

Deleted User wrote: »

I read a very interesting article on alternet about a plant extract that can cure heroin addiction in one sitting.. It's a very strong hallucinogen though and there's no benefit to companies in curing patients in one treatment so it's now illegal in the US. Lobbying at work again.. No idea how it's allowed.

it's allowed because the almighty dollar dictates how the world turns. in fact this cork thing (i'm sceptical becuase i haven't read a real paper on it yet, but i'll check it out during today) will go the same way unless there is a patent for it. i once met a US guy during a conference who discovered a real cure for prostate cancer with some absolutely incredible work that he did about ten/twelve years ago, but because somebody mouthed about it too early there was no position to patent the technology, and thus no cure.

opinion guy · 14-04-2010 11:12am

OutlawPete wrote: »

Dr William Donald Kelley, the author of One Answer To Cancer began treating him in 1980 in Mexico.

I just read some of the stuff in this link. :eek:
Didn't get much past the what is cancer on account of the psychotically wrong information there.

OutlawPete · 14-04-2010 11:28am

opinion guy wrote: »

I just read some of the stuff in this link. :eek:
Didn't get much past the what is cancer on account of the psychotically wrong information there.

That link is a complete transcript of Dr Kelley's book, it's not meant to point out any information as been correct or incorrect.

Dr Nicolas Gonzalaz has taken up Dr Kelley's work and indeed his trials have even been funded by the US Government.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/gonzalez/Patient/page2

Kanye · 14-04-2010 12:32pm

Only in Cork will you find someone smug enough to think they've cured cancer with Yakult.

They also believe Tanora is an aphrodisiac.

opinion guy · 14-04-2010 12:41pm

OutlawPete wrote: »

That link is a complete transcript of Dr Kelley's book, it's not meant to point out any information as been correct or incorrect.

Well whatever. The fact is some of the statements there are delusionally wrong. One thing thats not clear to me - is he talking purely about pancreatic cancer specifically or cancer in general ?

Dr Nicolas Gonzalaz has taken up Dr Kelley's work and indeed his trials have even been funded by the US Government.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/gonzalez/Patient/page2

Who is funding a trial proves nothing (hmmm except maybe bias....but thats another story)

OutlawPete · 14-04-2010 1:23pm

opinion guy wrote: »

Well whatever.

"Whatever"? What's with the attitude, I am just telling what the link was for, NOT for information on how to cure cancer, it was to point to what book the guy I was talking about wrote.

opinion guy wrote: »

Who is funding a trial proves nothing (hmmm except maybe bias....but thats another story)

Who said it proved anything?? :rolleyes:

Son Of A Vidic · 14-04-2010 1:28pm

We won't know for sure for 5 -10 years after some serious clinical trials have been conducted. But it's great news regardless, you just wonder if our health service was properly funded and not mismanaged, what else would be possible??

opinion guy · 14-04-2010 1:42pm

OutlawPete wrote: »

That link is a complete transcript of Dr Kelley's book, it's not meant to point out any information as been correct or incorrect.

Dr Nicolas Gonzalaz has taken up Dr Kelley's work and indeed his trials have even been funded by the US Government.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/gonzalez/Patient/page2

OutlawPete wrote: »

"Whatever"? What's with the attitude, I am just telling what the link was for, NOT for information on how to cure cancer, it was to point to what book the guy I was talking about wrote.

Who said it proved anything?? :rolleyes:

Pete as it was on anoter recent thread, its what you don't say that carries more weight.
I'm done.
Peace out

OutlawPete · 14-04-2010 1:43pm

opinion guy wrote: »

Pete as it was on anoter recent thread, its what you don't say that carries more weight.
I'm done.
Peace out

Good lad.

sponsoredwalk · 14-04-2010 1:50pm

Haha brilliant :pac:

Cancer Cure

Comments