This is just wrong. (Cancer Research)

[Bsuds]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/can-aspir ... -1.2714640

With all the money donated by us the public towards Cancer Research why can't some of it go to these studies.
There are inexpensive drugs available that possibly have Cancer fighting effects that need to be tested.

I don't blame the pharmaceutical companies because they are in the business to make a profit. But what about the Cancer agency/societies that get all the donated funds. They should be supporting anything that appears to benefit the fight of Cancer!

It makes no sense to me why these Drs have to fight so hard to get funding when so much money is wasted elsewhere.

[Liquidnails]

Cancer Research is one of the biggest rackets going.

[Glacier]

Follow the money. If there is no profit to be made, there is no research. In many cases when there is anecdotal evidence that a specific plant helps fight cancer, the plant is banned without any trials to disprove the plant works. And I'm not talking about marijuana. Anyone selling it as a cancer drug without clinical trials will end up in jail.

-------------------------------------------
"I live by the Nechako River. I make medicines from plants and trees. Dams kill the river.

Big companies are tearing down the old forests where my medicines grow. They spray poisons on the trees what they have no use for. Poison in the air and water." ~ Sophie Thomas, Traditional Healer of the Carrier Nation

[Xia33]

Cancer Research is one of the biggest rackets going.

10/10!!!

[the truth]

Cancer Research is one of the biggest rackets going.

non of these kinds of places want to find a cure. there is no money in that, they would all lose there jobs if they found a cure for whatever.
never going to happen

[hobbyguy]

This: http://www.cancer.org/research/acsresearchupdates/cancerprevention/aspirin-and-cancer-prevention-what-the-research-really-shows puts some perspective on the issue.

Yes, it appears that low dose aspirin can have an appreciable effect in reducing the occurrence of some cancers.

Yes, the research is being done. No, there won't be any quick answers, it will take 5-10 years to get any definitive answers.

Yes, the research is very, very expensive. So if the American Cancer Society is doing the research, how would a duplicate and very, very expensive research project help? There are other avenues regarding cancer "cures" that are showing greater promise that would suffer if the limited funds were put into a duplicate project.

This one is intriguing: http://wyss.harvard.edu/viewpressrelease/122/crossdisciplinary-team-from-harvard-university-and-danafarber-cancer-institute-brings-novel-therapeutic-cancer-vaccine-to-human-clinical-trials

As I understand it, a key issue with cancer is that the body doesn't recognize the cancer as a problem - and therefore get rid of it. The Harvard study is seeking to "teach" the body that cancer cells are "bad guys", and do so in a practical and targeted way.

Certainly wouldn't want to see work like that go by the wayside to fund duplicate research on aspirin.

[sobrohusfat]

EXCLUSIVE: A cure for ALL cancers is on the way as scientists make major breakthrough
MILLIONS of cancer ­sufferers have been given fresh hope of a cure after ground-breaking research.

The breakthrough came in a 16-year study of the only ­animal immune to cancer. The discovery by an Israeli specialist was last night hailed as “radical and potentially life-changing”. In a world first, Professor Aaron Avivi and his team found that cells from the blind mole rat and its cousin the naked mole rat secrete a substance that destroys cancer cells in mammals – including humans.

Experts think harvesting this substance and making it safe to digest could wipe out a disease that kills eight million people each year worldwide. Last night Prof Avivi, of Haifa University in Israel was heading to London where he is due to present his findings to professionals.

His radical approach studied the two species of rat that both live mostly underground – which the team discovered had led to a dramatic evolution of their metabolism. Blind mole rats outlive other rodents by at least 20 years with no outward signs of ageing. Researchers have never located a cancerous tumour on one of them.

The team tested the underground rodents and regular mice and rats with two potent carcinogens. Ordinary mice and rats developed tumours – none was found in the subterranean rats. The study, published in the widely respected BMC Biology Journal, concluded: “Blind mole rats are resistant to spontaneous cancer but also to experimentally induced cancer.

“It shows the unique ability of the blind mole rat to inhibit growth and kill cancer cells, but not normal cells. It has evolved efficient anti-cancer mechanisms.

“Exploring the molecular mechanisms may hold the key for understanding the nature of resistance to cancer and identify new strategies for treating humans.”

The study was described as “exciting” by Prof Penella Woll, of the University of Sheffield’s department of oncology. She said: “Other researchers have taken a similar approach, studying sea creatures with intrinsic cancer resistance to develop the anti-cancer drug ­trabectedin – so we know that this can succeed.”

Cancer care specialist Prof Sam Ahmedzai said: “If Prof Avivi’s research can help us identify what genetic changes have occurred in the blind mole rat – and if that knowledge can allow us to modify humans’ genetic codes – then this is a radically and potentially life-saving treatment.

“There will undoubtedly be many years of extracting the relevant parts of the mole rats’ genetic differences and then – the most difficult aspect – bringing those gene extracts into humans. Prof Avivi is to be congratulated on opening up an exciting new phase of research.”

Oliver Childs, of Cancer Research UK, added: “It’s a long way off, but it will be interesting to see if further research can find a way to help prevent or treat cancer in humans.”

In Britain, nearly 350,000 people are diagnosed with cancer every year. Macmillan Cancer Support predicts the number who will get cancer during their lifetime will rise to nearly half the UK population by 2020. Other studies forecast global cancer rates will increase to 16 million new cases by the same year.

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/hea ... eakthrough

[redwine]

I found this article very interesting:

http://www.mercola.com/article/diet/bee_pollen.htm

One of the most important articles ever published on bee pollen comes from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This article, titled "Delay in the Appearance of Palpable Mammary Tumors in C3H Mice Following the Ingestion of PolIenized Food," is the work of William Robinson of the Bureau of Entomology, Agriculture Research Administration. It was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute way back in October 1948, five decades ago. According to the article, Dr. Robinson started with mice that had been specially bred to develop and subsequently die from tumors. He explains, "The age at which mice of this strain developed tumors ranged from 18 to 57 weeks, with an average appearance at 33 weeks. Tumor incidence was 100 percent."

The pollen used in this study was supplied by the Division of Bee Culture and, according to the report, "was the bee-gathered type." One group of mice was fed mice chow only; another group was fed mice chow with the addition of bee pollen at a ratio of 1 part bee pollen to 10,000 parts food. Dr. Robinson's article states:

"Particular attention was given to the weight of the treated animals, since underweight can in itself bring about a delay in tumor development. No decrease in weight occurred in the animals receiving the pollenized food. Instead, a slight but fairly uniform increase was noted, possibly due to a nutritional factor in pollen."

In his summary, Dr. Robinson reveals the dramatic results:

"In the untreated mice [the mice not given bee pollen], mammary tumors appeared as expected at an average of 31.3 weeks. Tumor incidence was 100 percent. In the postponement series, [the mice given bee pollen], the average [onset of tumors] was 41.1 weeks, a delay of 9.8 weeks being obtained. Seven mice in this series were still tumor-free at 56 to 62 weeks of age, when the tests were terminated. I would like to emphasize that these mice were especially bred to die from cancerous tumors. Without the protection of bee pollen in their food, the mice developed tumors and died right on schedule.”

Given the fact that cancer is the number-two killer in the United States (heart disease is number one), we can all certainly agree that this is an electrifying article. What happened from it? Nothing. Even the National Cancer Institute, which published it, failed to follow up on this very promising line of research. It was dropped with no explanation.

[Poindexter]

Cancer Research is one of the biggest rackets going.

I was amazed that the papillomavirus causes more throat cancers than smoking. Shouldn't we have known about this? Does zero of our cancer research dollars gointo preventing cancers to begin with? Or are they only interested in the treatment where the money is?

Cancer research buried it's head in the sand on this virus. Aside from failing to educate the public, to this day there still is no way to diagnose whether you're a carrier and no wait to treat it once you have it. So far all we have is the controversial cash cow of a vaccine that prevents only certain strains. Not much when you consider the amount we've all invested into this.

http://m.cdc.gov/en/HealthSafetyTopics/ ... italHPV_FS
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1 ... study.html