Virus kills cancer - discovered

[ReconRat]

YACC (Yet Another Cancer Cure)

If this works, get it to market.

Quit fooling around...

Scientists discover virus that kills all grades of breast cancer ‘within seven days’

[serpentracer]

dude there are stories all over the world about people that have got rid of aids and cancer.

it's the usda and the cdc will not approve all kinds of products that work for both.

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

dude there are stories all over the world about people that have got rid of aids and cancer.

it's the usda and the cdc will not approve all kinds of products that work for both.

sad but true.

[Casper]

dude there are stories all over the world about people that have got rid of aids and cancer.

it's the usda and the cdc will not approve all kinds of products that work for both.

Big pharm won't let it happen.

[smashweights]

Pretty cool research so far, though I doubt infecting breasts with HPV and this virus is anywhere near cleared to be safe enough. This research will probably end up leading to them discovering pathways that can be used to target cancer cells and make better targets for pharmaceuticals.

dude there are stories all over the world about people that have got rid of aids and cancer. it's the usda and the cdc will not approve all kinds of products that work for both.

Oh boy... If this were true, we'd see places all over the world with AIDS and cancer virtually eliminated. That's not the case. If you guys really think "Big Pharma" and the gov't are just out to screw you, look no farther than some past medicines that were allowed:

-Diethylsilbestrol prevented spontaneous abortions. Oh, but it also made many of the resulting babies get cancers. Could have avoided that.

-Thalidomide was used to treat morning sickness in pregnant women. But it also made your baby be born without any limbs. Not ideal.

-Prior to 1998, Ex Lax contained an ingredient that caused cancer.

Point is that these safety processes really are there for a reason. Along the lines of this article, infecting people with HPV (a virus known to cause cancer) and another virus is far from feasible outside of a petri dish. Though, we do currently use live viruses for medical therapy in attenuated vaccines, but even these have to be limited to certain healthy people.

[Casper]

Pretty cool research so far, though I doubt infecting breasts with HPV and this virus is anywhere near cleared to be safe enough. This research will probably end up leading to them discovering pathways that can be used to target cancer cells and make better targets for pharmaceuticals.

Oh boy... If this were true, we'd see places all over the world with AIDS and cancer virtually eliminated. That's not the case. If you guys really think "Big Pharma" and the gov't are just out to screw you, look no farther than some past medicines that were allowed:

-Diethylsilbestrol prevented spontaneous abortions. Oh, but it also made many of the resulting babies get cancers. Could have avoided that.

-Thalidomide was used to treat morning sickness in pregnant women. But it also made your baby be born without any limbs. Not ideal.

-Prior to 1998, Ex Lax contained an ingredient that caused cancer.

Point is that these safety processes really are there for a reason. Along the lines of this article, infecting people with HPV (a virus known to cause cancer) and another virus is far from feasible outside of a petri dish. Though, we do currently use live viruses for medical therapy in attenuated vaccines, but even these have to be limited to certain healthy people.

Not out to get us per se, just our money. There's not nearly enough money in a cure to cover what they're making now.

[smashweights]

You really think a company like GlaxoSmithKline would intentionally ignore the potential to make literally BILLIONS of dollars with a patent-protected cancer medication in the name of making sure all their competing pharm companies in the world could keep raking in the dough?

Not to mention that all the independent, academic researchers on the planet are collectively avoiding researching these real cures and chasing down faux treatments like this one at Penn State?

Cure for AIDS and cancer make great headlines, but you have to temper what you're actually reading: two viruses that a huge majority of people are already infected with, HPV and AAV-2, when combined in a lab in a petri dish in a specific way that's different than how many people are already infected can kill cancer cells. It's a neat discovery and hopefully amounts to something, but if it dies off as nothing, it's probably not because Big Pharma is suppressing their research lab, but rather that things that kill cells in a lab may not kill them in a person or might also kill the person. Don't forget that fire, gasoline, cyanide, and other deadly things kill cancer cells in the lab too.

[Gump]

But the person who drives the mobile breast scanner around will loose his/her job!!!

[smashweights]

But the person who drives the mobile breast scanner around will loose his/her job!!!

They'll be fine. You can't cure it if you don't know it's there. Preventing cancer is a whole other beast.

[ReconRat]

I read up a little bit on this one. It's been in the news before. Apparently it's a naturally occurring virus inside the bodies of 80% of the population. This might account for how some people never catch stuff or get rid of it on their own. BUT, researchers know that it's not that simple, there is some other combination of factors that allow the virus to do this task. That they don't understand yet.

[baptizo]

People have literally cured themselves of cancer going with a plant-strong diet along with other non-approved cures. Curing cancer is bad business for the Pharm's.

[smashweights]

People have literally cured themselves of cancer going with a plant-strong diet along with other non-approved cures. Curing cancer is bad business for the Pharm's.

Ask Steve Jobs how that therapy worked out. More likely these are people that went into spontaneous remission while foregoing more proven treatments, aka: the lucky ones and they just happened to try out eating veggies every day. By this rationale that "curing is bad for Big Pharma" we should be still be treating, not vaccinating against polio, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, influenza, rubeola, pertussis, diptheria, chicken pox, shingles, meningococcal disease, Hepatitis A & B, HPV (which causes cancer, GASP!), pneumonia, typhoid fever... need I go on?

Did you know there are people in Africa who have cured AIDS by raping virgins or babies? It's being suppressed because rape isn't good for Big Feminist.

Edited May 3, 2012 by smashweights

[fizzer]

Ask Steve Jobs how that therapy worked out. More likely these are people that went into spontaneous remission while foregoing more proven treatments, aka: the lucky ones and they just happened to try out eating veggies every day. By this rationale that "curing is bad for Big Pharma" we should be still be treating, not vaccinating against polio, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, influenza, rubeola, pertussis, diptheria, chicken pox, shingles, meningococcal disease, Hepatitis A & B, HPV (which causes cancer, GASP!), pneumonia, typhoid fever... need I go on?

Did you know there are people in Africa who have cured AIDS by raping virgins or babies? It's being suppressed because rape isn't good for Big Feminist.

^this. And all the other rational thoughts from smashweights.

While it is true that all the testing and safety regulations slow down the speed at which new treatments can reach the public, if we just let anything through we could end up killing or hurting more people through unintended side effects. Our system is not perfect, but no system can be. One trial showing some virus killed cancer cells does not mean that we've found a cure. Sure I might know a guy who lived to 100 and smoked a pack of cigarettes a day his whole life, but I wouldn't recommend doing the same.

[baptizo]

Ask Steve Jobs how that therapy worked out. More likely these are people that went into spontaneous remission while foregoing more proven treatments, aka: the lucky ones and they just happened to try out eating veggies every day. By this rationale that "curing is bad for Big Pharma" we should be still be treating, not vaccinating against polio, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, influenza, rubeola, pertussis, diptheria, chicken pox, shingles, meningococcal disease, Hepatitis A & B, HPV (which causes cancer, GASP!), pneumonia, typhoid fever... need I go on?

You're really drawing a broad brush with your comment about spontaneous remission - got proof?

There is, OTOH, ample scientific evidence to support the plant-strong diet along with other natural cures and treatments for cancer.

Does everyone survive cancer? No, of course not and I for one saw my dad die quickly from lung cancer so I'm for anything natural vs. the poison's used in modern medicine.

[smashweights]

You're right I am. The point is that without controlled studies, there's no way to indicate what caused someone to go into remission. If I happened to be one of the lucky ones who did so naturally but happened to run around a light pole outside everyday since my diagnosis, how can we distinguish between spontaneous remission and running around light poles as a cure without controlled studies?

But there's no, to my knowledge, any scientific literature to point to plant-strong diets CURING cancer. If there is ample evidence in the journals, I would love to see it. While there is data to suggest that higher fruit and veggie diets may reduce the occurrence of particular cancers (namely colon and prostate), there's nothing to indicate that these findings aren't simply the summation of the healthier lifestyles people who tend to eat more fruits and veggies typically have, ie: more exercise, less booze/smoking, etc.

http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/DietandNutrition/vegetarianism

There ARE significant studies showing modern "poisons" do improve outcomes for people who already have cancer. Are cancer treatments poison? Absolutely! Cancer is simply a normal cell in your body that won't stop growing because it's either lost the ability to stop itself from growing or is making it's own signal to keep growing. Therefore, to kill these cells one has to use something that kills human cells: aka poison. So broadly labeling chemotherapeutics as bad simply because they are toxic is a bit of an ignorant rush to judgment as is the idea that finding a cure for a disease is not in the best interests of a company, as we can clearly see with the number of cheaply curable diseases.

And sorry about your father, I'm sure that wasn't easy to go through. Many people have lost loved ones to cancer. I lost my grandmother to pancreatic cancer and my grandfather to lung cancer.

[serpentracer]

lets not forget aids is something that magically appeared in gay men in san fran in the late 70's

viruses just don't appear out of thin air. I think I seen it in a magazine a long time ago that the hiv "virus" has never been photographed or seen by anyone at all. it's just a theory that it causes aids. which is the name given to the condition of someone's immune system. some drugs can technically give you aids.

the cdc is purposly missleading the public.

people listen to doctors all too often. and what the doc says is the word of the land. the problem with that is a doctor that you go to isn't any more aware of anything that you are. they're only repeating what they've been taught. they're not doing any of the research.

now if you talk to a scientist or biologist that is into the research of all of this you'd find out really quick the cdc and big pharm flat out fabricates a lot of what the public hears about.

like eating animal fat is bad for you. but no research has ever proven cholesterol causes heart disease but they go around telling you it does.

a bowl of cereal (heart healthy even) has a higher clycemic index than a can of pop.

sugar HAS been linked to cancer. and the usda, cdc, and your doctor all tell us to load up on carbs....sugar.

Edited May 5, 2012 by serpentracer

[smashweights]

lets not forget aids is something that magically appeared in gay men in san fran in the late 70's

viruses just don't appear out of thin air. I think I seen it in a magazine a long time ago that the hiv "virus" has never been photographed or seen by anyone at all. it's just a theory that it causes aids. which is the name given to the condition of someone's immune system. some drugs can technically give you aids.

the cdc is purposly missleading the public.

people listen to doctors all too often. and what the doc says is the word of the land. the problem with that is a doctor that you go to isn't any more aware of anything that you are. they're only repeating what they've been taught. they're not doing any of the research.

now if you talk to a scientist or biologist that is into the research of all of this you'd find out really quick the cdc and big pharm flat out fabricates a lot of what the public hears about.

like eating animal fat is bad for you. but no research has ever proven cholesterol causes heart disease but they go around telling you it does.

a bowl of cereal (heart healthy even) has a higher clycemic index than a can of pop.

sugar HAS been linked to cancer. and the usda, cdc, and your doctor all tell us to load up on carbs....sugar.

There is so much stupidity in this post I don't even know where to begin. It's on par with someone saying there's a conspiracy hiding the fact that exploding gasoline doesn't really power your motorcycle.

-Google "HIV Electron Microscopy" there's your picture of the HIV virus. The idea that "drugs can give you AIDS" is also absurd. While some drugs can cause immunosuppression, chemotherapeutics and glucocorticoids for instance, they do not cause Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome the same way that HIV does.

-The idea that "doctors are only repeating what they've been taught" is true, but that applies for everyone in every specialty ever. Your bike mechanic is just repeating what he's been taught, he never did the research to determine how to build an internal combustion engine from a sheet of steel or the physics that goes into it. There are lots of doctors actually doing research, thousands in fact. They typically have dual degrees, MD/PhDs, and are actually doing the research themselves, who then write papers about their discoveries that clinicians read and then apply to how they practice medicine. Hell, even medical students are doing the research. So you're actually completely wrong.

-You must have meant ask anyone with an art degree about the CDC and Big Pharm lying to you because I have spent the last 8 years of my life working with both university scientists and biologists as well as hospital-based researchers and physicians, some of which have been doing disease research since before the double-helix structure of DNA was discovered, and not one of them has ever said the CDC or "Big Pharm" flat out fabricates what the public hears. In fact, many of them are doing research on the very vaccines and medicines that will be coming out over the next decade that the CDC and "Big Pharm" will be passing along to you thanks to their work.

-Cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease... now you're really drinking the kool-aid. Research the Framingham Heart Study or spend a day on PubMed reading the original research on correlations between cholesterol levels and heart disease instead of spouting off dangerous health advice on the internet. Here's just one of MANY such articles from the Journal of the American Medical Association: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/256/20/2835.short and just in case you're too lazy to actually read some journals, here's a quote from the abstract "nonfasting HDL-C and total cholesterol levels are related to development of CHD [Coronary Heart Disease] in both men and women aged 49 years and older." It took me about 10 seconds to find that so there's no excuse for not knowing this.

-Cereal has a higher glycemic index than pop. This is about the closest you come to something truthful. SOME cereals do have higher glycemic indexes than SOME pop. Not surprisingly, these are primarily your heavily processed, non-whole grain, sugar-coated cereals. Cereals, however, have the added benefit of vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc. giving them other factors to consider than simply carbohydrate loads, making them a better recommendation than soda.

-The CDC, USDA, and your doctor DO NOT all tell you to go load up on sugar. Most are working to curb excessive sugar intake, get soda out of schools, and encourage healthier eating so we can reduce the ever-climbing incidence of diabetes in America. Your brain only functions on glucose (sugar) and, in instances of starvation, ketone bodies so you do actually need to eat carbohydrates and a decent amount of them. Lower glycemic index carbohydrates, whole grains, and the like are what is actually recommended.

Please go get your facts straight before you post this shit.

Edited May 7, 2012 by smashweights

[serpentracer]

There is so much stupidity in this post I don't even know where to begin. It's on par with someone saying there's a conspiracy hiding the fact that exploding gasoline doesn't really power your motorcycle.

-Google "HIV Electron Microscopy" there's your picture of the HIV virus. The idea that "drugs can give you AIDS" is also absurd. While some drugs can cause immunosuppression, chemotherapeutics and glucocorticoids for instance, they do not cause Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome the same way that HIV does.

-The idea that "doctors are only repeating what they've been taught" is true, but that applies for everyone in every specialty ever. Your bike mechanic is just repeating what he's been taught, he never did the research to determine how to build an internal combustion engine from a sheet of steel or the physics that goes into it. There are lots of doctors actually doing research, thousands in fact. They typically have dual degrees, MD/PhDs, and are actually doing the research themselves, who then write papers about their discoveries that clinicians read and then apply to how they practice medicine. Hell, even medical students are doing the research. So you're actually completely wrong.

-You must have meant ask anyone with an art degree about the CDC and Big Pharm lying to you because I have spent the last 8 years of my life working with both university scientists and biologists as well as hospital-based researchers and physicians, some of which have been doing disease research since before the double-helix structure of DNA was discovered, and not one of them has ever said the CDC or "Big Pharm" flat out fabricates what the public hears. In fact, many of them are doing research on the very vaccines and medicines that will be coming out over the next decade that the CDC and "Big Pharm" will be passing along to you thanks to their work.

-Cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease... now you're really drinking the kool-aid. Research the Framingham Heart Study or spend a day on PubMed reading the original research on correlations between cholesterol levels and heart disease instead of spouting off dangerous health advice on the internet. Here's just one of MANY such articles from the Journal of the American Medical Association: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/256/20/2835.short and just in case you're too lazy to actually read some journals, here's a quote from the abstract "nonfasting HDL-C and total cholesterol levels are related to development of CHD [Coronary Heart Disease] in both men and women aged 49 years and older." It took me about 10 seconds to find that so there's no excuse for not knowing this.

-Cereal has a higher glycemic index than pop. This is about the closest you come to something truthful. SOME cereals do have higher glycemic indexes than SOME pop. Not surprisingly, these are primarily your heavily processed, non-whole grain, sugar-coated cereals. Cereals, however, have the added benefit of vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc. giving them other factors to consider than simply carbohydrate loads, making them a better recommendation than soda.

-The CDC, USDA, and your doctor DO NOT all tell you to go load up on sugar. Most are working to curb excessive sugar intake, get soda out of schools, and encourage healthier eating so we can reduce the ever-climbing incidence of diabetes in America. Your brain only functions on glucose (sugar) and, in instances of starvation, ketone bodies so you do actually need to eat carbohydrates and a decent amount of them. Lower glycemic index carbohydrates, whole grains, and the like are what is actually recommended.

Please go get your facts straight before you post this shit.

this is all coming from scientists. I didn't make up one single part of it. if you would open your mind past what the gov tells you and read a few books you might learn a thing or two. or not. jesus is real too right?

and for your gas analogy....it doesn't "explode" it burns. so you're wrong right out of the box.

and drugs can give you aids. aids is a term given to a immune system that is beyond help. some drugs will purposly do that. so basically they do give you aids.

oh and the cereal in question is a can of coke has an index of 63. look how many "healthy" cereals have a higher index...oh and these pretty much all will have a "heart healthy" sticker on the box.

Shredded Wheat - 67-83 average 75

Special K - 54-84

Total - 76

http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/whattoeat/a/glycemicindlist_2.htm

some more facts to make your head explode...

◦There’s never been a single study that proves saturated fat causes heart disease.

◦As heart-disease rates were skyrocketing in the mid-1900s, consumption of animal fat was going down, not up. Consumption of vegetable oils, however, was going up dramatically.

◦Half of all heart-attack victims have normal or low cholesterol. Autopsies performed on heart-attack victims routinely reveal plaque-filled arteries in people whose cholesterol was low (as low as 115 in one case).

◦Asian Indians – half of whom are vegetarians – have one of the highest rates of heart disease in the entire world. Yup, that fatty meat will kill you, all right.

◦When Morgan Spurlock tells you that a McDonald’s salad supplies almost a day’s allowance of fat, he’s basing that statement on the FDA’s low-fat/high-carbohydrate dietary guidelines, which in turn are based on … absolutely nothing. There’s no science behind those guidelines; they were simply made up by a congressional committee.

◦Kids who were diagnosed as suffering from ADD have been successfully treated by re-introducing natural saturated fats into their diets. Your brain is made largely of fat.

◦Many epileptics have reduced or eliminated seizures by adopting a diet low in sugar and starch and high in saturated animal fats.

◦Despite everything you’ve heard about saturated fat being linked to cancer, that link is statistically weak. However, there is a strong link between sugar and cancer. In Europe, doctors tell patients, “Sugar feeds cancer.”

◦Being fat is not, in and of itself, bad for your health. The behaviors that can make you fat – eating excess sugar and starch, not getting any exercise – can also ruin your health, and that’s why being fat is associated with bad health. But it’s entirely possible to be fat and healthy. It’s also possible to be thin while developing Type II diabetes and heart disease.

◦Saturated fat and cholesterol help produce testosterone. When men limit their saturated fat, their testosterone level drops. So, regardless of what a famous vegan chef believes, saturated fat does not impair sexual performance

want more proof cholesterol has little to do with heart disease? google the latest in heart disease research. you'll find it's little about cholesterol and a lot about inflammation.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/05/28/cholesterol-heart.aspx

Edited May 10, 2012 by serpentracer

[smashweights]

Yes, gasoline doesn't explode, it burns (except in the case of engine knock, IIRC) but that is partly my point: I don't spout off engineering advice because it's not what I know.

-You have claimed this is all coming from scientists, yet haven't cited a single scientific paper. While I'm not claiming you're making it up, you're possibly getting your information from bad sources and likely non-scientists masquerading opinion and anecdotes as science.

-If you'd like to argue over AIDS vs. immunosuppression terminology go ahead. But it doesn't change the fact that HIV causes AIDS.

-"There’s never been a single study that proves saturated fat causes heart disease." And there never will be. There will never be PROOF that a single risk factor absolutely causes a disease in ALL cases. Just like you can smoke your whole life without getting lung cancer, you can eat shitty your whole life and never have a heart attack. Doesn't mean smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, it means it's a risk factor. Here's just one study published in the journal of preventive medicine that shows a correlation:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743585710493

"Of the individual saturated fatty acids, the average population intake of lauric and myristic acid was most strongly related to the average serum cholesterol level (r > 0.8, P < 0.001). Strong positive associations were observed between 25-year death rates from coronary heartdisease and average intake of the four major saturated fatty acids, lauric, myristic, palmitic, and stearic acid (r > 0.8, P < 0.001); the trans fatty acid elaidic acid (r = 0.78, P < 0.001); and dietary cholesterol (r = 0.55, P < 0.05). Conclusions. Interpreted in the light of experimental and clinical studies, the results of these cross-cultural analyses suggest that dietary saturated and trans fatty acids and dietary cholesterol are important determinants of differences in population rates of coronary heartdisease death."

-Your next 3 points about the 1900's, autopsies, and Indians are just affirming the fact that a risk factor is not an absolute cause of a disease. These are very loose generalizations and prove absolutely nothing.

-No one cares what Morgan Spurlock says, period.

-The brain is made up of "fat." That is true, just like every other cell in your body. Please cite the research associated with this ADD claim, however. ADD is also a psychological condition and, again, likely multifactorial. No one is claiming you should have a zero saturated fat diet.

-Again, please cite your data on epileptics and sugar's link to cancer, primary research or an article with citations to primary research please.

-To your point about fat and behaviors is kind of circular reasoning. You generally don't get fat without behaviors that get you fat. Again, being overweight is a risk factor, not a definitive cause. Can you be healthy and fat? Sure, because healthy is a subjective term. There are a plethora of conditions associated with higher risk in being purely overweight regardless of other risk factors like cholesterol or diet.

-Last bullet point: again, no one said saturated fat and cholesterol have no positive role in your body. Cholesterol is made into all sorts of hormones in your body: testosterone, estrogen, cortisol, aldosterone, for example. It's excessive amounts that are related to poor health conditions. Likewise, excess vitamins can cause diseases in excess.

Finally your article, the lone citation. Your resource, after you told us "people listen to doctors all too often. and what the doc says is the word of the land. the problem with that is a doctor that you go to isn't any more aware of anything that you are. they're only repeating what they've been taught. they're not doing any of the research" your source of information is... a doctor, and what appears to be one who does not do primary research to boot. A bit problematic for your logic eh? Not to mention an article with the disclaimer "Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author" and contains ZERO citations to current research literature. Not to mention significant conflicts of interest in being hosted by a "natural health product website" that's trying to make money off of people who distrust the current medical industry. Dr. Rosedale, the author, is also selling a diet book claiming to have a simple "21-day diet plan." I haven't read the book, and it may be good advice, but again it's a potential conflict of interests. That's not to say there isn't some truth anywhere to be found, but it's not a reliable source and not worth basing health decisions on.

HOWEVER, YOU ARE CORRECT in that heart disease and inflammation are very strongly associated! Would it surprise you that this is currently being taught in medical schools across the country?

Look, science and health are a constantly evolving subject and new answers are coming out every day AND the average human is changing every day. So even if something is true today, it may not continue be true in 40-50 years, either because the data was wrong or because people have simply changed. You are right to be skeptical and question things, but ensure that your information comes real scientific work and not unproven observation and anecdotes.

PS- my head is still intact :-P

Edited May 10, 2012 by smashweights

[Tpoppa]

You guys are going to run out of tin foil.