1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How an easy solution against cancer is being wasted again

Discussion in 'BlackHat Lounge' started by unknownn, Sep 4, 2012.

  1. unknownn

    unknownn BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    605
    Sitting in a refrigerator in a Swedish laboratory is what promises to be a cheap and effective cancer treatment. So why are the trials to bring it to market not going ahead?



    ‘Lack of how much money? Give me a figure,’ I pressed. ‘What sort of price are we talking about to get this virus out of your freezer and give these people a chance of life?’

    Magnus has light brown hair that, like his voice, refuses to cooperate. No matter how much he ruffles it, it looks politely combed. He wriggled his fingers through it now, raised his eyes and squinted in calculation, then looked back into his laptop camera. ‘About a million pounds?’



    That Magnus’s virus could be held up by a minuscule £1 million dumbfounded me.

    ‘That’s a banker’s bonus,’ I said. ‘Less than a rock star’s gold toilet seat. It’s the best bargain going. If I found someone to give you this money, would you start the clinical trials?’

    ‘Of course,’ replied Magnus. ‘Shall I ask the Swedish Cancer Board how soon we can begin?’



    ‘The trouble with Magnus’s virus is Magnus is Swedish,’ he says, wincing and clutching the air with frustration.

    ‘It is so,’ Magnus agrees sorrowfully. Swedishly uninterested in profiteering, devoted only to the purity of science, Magnus and his co-workers on this virus have already published the details of their experiments in leading journals around the world, which means that the modified virus as it stands can no longer be patented. And without a patent to make the virus commercial, no one will invest. Even if I could raise the £2 million (I want only the best version) to get the therapy to the end of phase II trials, no organisation is going to step forward to run the phase III trial that is necessary to make the therapy public.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9508895/A-virus-that-kills-cancer-the-cure-thats-waiting-in-the-coldc.html
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  2. ThreadKiller

    ThreadKiller Power Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    303
    Location:
    London
    Queue the "cancer can be cured with apricot kernels" and "the big pharma conspiracy wants us to have cancer" posts. 3-2-1 go
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  3. unknownn

    unknownn BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    605
    apricot kernels are not so effectiv like the modified virus expecially not in an end stadium
     
  4. MarkKB

    MarkKB Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    1
    Remove sugar / refined carbs and you have the cure for cancer
     
  5. unknownn

    unknownn BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    605

    that wont help people in end stadium
     
  6. ThreadKiller

    ThreadKiller Power Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    303
    Location:
    London
    It's that easy huh. Great. The biggest killer of the human kind is now gone. Let off the fireworks and ring the church bells.

     
  7. MarkKB

    MarkKB Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    1
    Who said it has to be hard? If you read the research on cancer you'll see that cancer was very uncommon among tribes who didn't consume sugar. (and other nations around the world w low cancer rates) Remove the cause and there you go.. You have the cure for cancer. Its That simple.
     
  8. unknownn

    unknownn BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    605
    Removing something isnt a cure.Also number one causing cancer isnt sugar but modified food ,low nutrition in food and additional chemical components in food
     
  9. MarkKB

    MarkKB Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    1
    ^^ your right removing something isnt a cure. But the fact is ot will disapear and thats what wehere looking for at the end of the day.

    The evidence to back up sugar as the cause of cancer is huge. (and not modified food /low nutrion / etc)
     
  10. unknownn

    unknownn BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    605
    Dude sugar exist already for a long time.In the 80's people were also drinking a lot of softdrinks and still there wasnt many cases of cancer.It started increasing when nutition of food got lower and when they started adding gen modified food.There are studies proofing that gen modified food causes cancer + infertility .Numbers of infertility is exploding since 1990
     
  11. phatzilla

    phatzilla Supreme Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,366
    Likes Received:
    1,017

    you're retarded
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  12. MarkKB

    MarkKB Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    1
    @unknownn

    1. Statistics clearly indicate that 2 centuries ago quanity of sugar consume per capita was 15 pounds (in the USA - in other Countires it was less) Now people comsume more than 150 pounds per capita per year. I'm not sure where u get this data from that cancer was rare in the 1980's this is certainly not true (although it may have been less common then it is today). Sugar consumption rose dramatically from 1980 and on (in particular HFCS) so has cancer rates (same thing as obesity which is also caused by excess sugar consumption)

    2. Data to support gen modified food as main cancer agent = poor. Gen modified food = new cancer isn't
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2012
  13. Chris22

    Chris22 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    1,059
    Magnus clearly hasn't heard of indiegogo..
     
  14. Narrator

    Narrator Power Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    396
    Occupation:
    Internet Marketing
    Location:
    /dev/null
    Correlation does not imply causation.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  15. loclhero

    loclhero Supreme Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,453
    Likes Received:
    2,413
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Copperhead Road
    [​IMG]
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
  16. unknownn

    unknownn BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    605
    @mark

    your statistic is totaly wrong.You can also take as example fluoride which started from 1990 and telling that fluoride causes cancer is just bullshit.The year of increase of fluoride matches with the year of of increasing cancer but they have no relation together.Its just statistic without any proof.However modified food has many studies where its proofed that it causes diffrent cancer same as low nutrition and you can trust me in the 80 there wasnt much cases of cancer of people under 50


    @Chris he already said that funding isnt the major problem if you would read it carefully
     
  17. MarkKB

    MarkKB Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    1
    @ unknownn


    May I know which part of statistics I mentioned is wrong?


    The fact that sugar intakes increased by 1000% over the past 2 centuries is clearly documented.


    The data to support the role of sugar in cancer mortality ranges far beyond the correlation of higher intake of sugar = higher cancer. It's supported by numerous avenues of research. John Yudkin found that the higher consumption of sugar per capita in country = higher cancer rates. When it comes to fluoride the data is scarce (at best) as there are 1,000 thibgs that increased during 1980 and onward. The thing about sugar is that ALL data supports this.


    Research in mice also supprts this theory BTW. (and other research).


    Also same arguments you write could be held against the theory of gen modified food. Data to support sugar in cancer mortality is far higher than gen modified food. Again, gen modified food = new phenomenon cancer isn't
     
  18. webwhizz

    webwhizz Power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    Messages:
    692
    Likes Received:
    656
    Occupation:
    P-R-0
    Location:
    scotland
    no your wrong, its electricty causes cancer
     
  19. unknownn

    unknownn BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    605
    @mark your stats are wrong.You are trying to proof something which is nonsense.Sugar is unhealthy no question about it but it isnt responsible for the mass cancer.Take a look for the alternative which is being used for sugar since 1990 its aspartame.Its a rat posion which people are drinking with the light products and its proofen on many studies that its causing cancer.You wont find studies about sugar which are so clrealy like from modified food and chemical staff.

    webwhizz electric smog and not electricity itself.Its responsible that your body can't rebuild/detox as it should during your rest times.
    There is a great scientist about it from USA.
     
  20. lisper

    lisper Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    24
    Occupation:
    Lead developer of some German research project
    Location:
    Currently Brussels, Belgium
    From that same article: 'Our results are only in the lab so far, not in humans, and many treatments that work in the lab can turn out to be not so effective in humans.'

    yeah...