What is Digg?Sponsored by FUNimation Enertainment
Little Frog. Big Mission. Can Sgt. Frog conquer the Earth? view!
funimation.com - Watch the wacky miss-adventures of froggy aliens marooned on Earth. Season 1, Part 2 available 11/24
117 Comments
- RainyDayNinja, on 05/28/2009, -2/+60My grandpa has an enormous tumor over half of his face, and I laugh at it every time I see him. It hasn't helped yet.
- thegrantman, on 05/27/2009, -11/+36They need to develop a cancer for cancer.
- Richandler, on 05/27/2009, -8/+28Laughter is the best cure.
- vsaint, on 05/28/2009, -3/+18Removing the head, or destroying the brain also works.
- blatant3, on 05/28/2009, -2/+16***** drug dealers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7P4iFg048k - donkz, on 05/28/2009, -1/+15Where's that "cure for cancer" comic that was on digg bout a couple of month ago...
http://digg.com/d1phz0 - cygnus2112, on 05/28/2009, -7/+19There's more money in treatment than in cure.
Is it really in the drug companies' best interest to rid themselves of a billion-dollar industry? - AndrewMoyer, on 05/28/2009, -0/+10Yo dawg, I heard you like cancer...........
- scamper22, on 05/28/2009, -6/+14yeah... you know... you think with billions of people in the world.... millions of brilliant scientists, they could cure everything... yet none of them want to cure cancer. They're all in bed with evil drug companies. All scientists are evil like that you know. Doctors are evil too. A lot of them are very smart, and when they see patients suffering of Cancer... they say to themselves "I could cure cancer, but that would hurt my pay," so I won't. I suppose its the same thing in all the government funded research labs and universities.
/s
If curing cancer was easy, someone in the world would have done it already... even if you think drug companies are the devil's own, there are millions of capable people who are not tied to that industry. - Daggorath, on 05/28/2009, -5/+13There's not alot of money in a cure, but if we can keep you hooked on our expensive treatment drugs forever there is tons of profit to be made off your suffering.
Love,
Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merk, and the rest of the drug companies who only care about draining your wallets and leaving you sick - bbparks, on 05/28/2009, -1/+8Most types of cancer are 90% survivable if caught early enough, and we need simple blood tests for early detection. The Canary Foundation is leading this effort (read about them in the Wired article below). Founder was the #2 executive at Cisco and started the research group after losing his mother to Ovarian cancer.
Because they don't have backing from Big Pharma (looking for treatment of late stage), they need help in research dollars. I'm a grad student and only gave $20, but donated in honor of somebody prominent that I know has had their life touched by cancer. Gift to charity + share an idea. It can work wonders when the "thank you" card shows up unexpected.
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/17-01 ... - kingmanic, on 05/28/2009, -1/+8It screams "Fraud". the site looks like an old dream weaver template. The information is so bad it's funny. It's "german" medicine hosted on a .ca site. It has every earmark of a fraud (vague, sciencey language without any science, and huge claims of effectiveness).
For instance:
"Dr. Hamer found that every DISEASE originates from an unexpected shock experience."
That sentence is pure *****. Almost every sentence of every paragraph the paged link to is ***** and anyone with even a rudimentary education biology will tell you so. - scamper22, on 05/28/2009, -1/+8@cygnus... what's your point?
of course some drug companies would choose profits over life. Some doctors would too.
The point is there are millions of brilliant people who do not work for drug companies, thousands of government funded initiatives... yet somehow they too have not found a cure for cancer. - seanayb, on 05/28/2009, -4/+10Kill it with fire
- nullcodes, on 05/28/2009, -5/+11No, killing every last cell is what works If you go for this stalemate is when the cancer cells can evolve against the treatment. Co-existence is NOT the answer, The cancer cell will keep trying to evolve against the stalemate. it's dangerous and playing Russian roulette..
The more the cancer cells are exposed to a drug in doses that don't kill it, the increased chance of it getting to evolve mutations that resist the drug. All it would take is one or two key mutations and suddenly you will have a tumor that is untreatable because it has evolved against the drug. This is a BASIC principle of evolution, even Pat Roberts would agree with it because it's micro-evolution.
This is the same reason why now bacteria can defeat many antibiotics out there.
To become cancerous, cells usually have to accumulate 5 or 6 differrent mutations, so the best strategy is to eliminate all the cells that have ANY of the 5 or 6 cancer specific mutations. - cjurdane, on 05/28/2009, -1/+7My problem with this is that, the main thing that makes cancer deadly is metastasis (the spreading of cancer). So if you keep the tumor alive you are just giving it more time for it to do metastasis and spread to a zone in the body where it could be deadly. It makes me angry and I have read a "proposed" cure for cancer that doesn't event mention how it will tackle this!
- xsecretfiles, on 05/28/2009, -0/+6That one is sad :(
- samard2002, on 05/28/2009, -3/+9That's my approach with my mother-in-law.
- bluddystool, on 05/28/2009, -0/+5I think everyone should read that before posting a comment.
- milkmage, on 05/28/2009, -2/+7there's less money.
if you were big pharma, what do you prefer? a one time charge to cure it, or months/years of multiple drugs to "keep it in check"? i figure they want to keep you alive (but with cancer) so you can pay them EVERYTIME you need a scrip for chemo and anti-nausea drugs.
the reason they keep researching "therapy" drugs is to take advantage of the patient's HOPE - spend more money on the latest treatment to boost the bottom line.
"both indsutry and academia are heartless bastards who" - yeah big pharma really cares about you, that's why they give they ***** drugs away.
my dad had cancer. he had really good insurance, and got the "good" drugs. the guy in the next hospital room over had the EXACT same cancer, no insurance, and got painkillers. - yeah, big pharma really gives a ***** about the patient.
you know who had heart, my dad's chemo doctor. he overperscribed the meds for my dad (since there was no co-pay) and gave the extra to the guy in the next room. deliberately committing insurance fraud to keep someone else alive.. THAT's HEART. don't give me that ***** about big pharma cares.. my sister works for Pfiizer. - lorddazzer, on 05/28/2009, -0/+5Not if you're playing Dead Space.
- dirtmaster, on 05/28/2009, -3/+8this is like the 30th cure ive seen yet no one has been cured.
- nullcodes, on 05/28/2009, -1/+6Maybe the drug companies don't get the huge profits with that, but it seems some German dude wants my credit card number before he tells me the cure which I'm sure is fully refundable if I die.
- MalarkeyPN, on 05/28/2009, -0/+5I'll repeat that - removing the head or destroying the brain.
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -0/+5Let's be honest here. There are thousands of different kinds of cancer. I hate when people oversimplify the problem by talking about "curing cancer" in terms of just having some miracle treatment that makes every kind of cancer magically go away. I mean, it'd be the equivalent of talking about a cure for all viruses, or all bacteria. No one drug can possibly deal with all of them.
- ricker2005, on 05/28/2009, -1/+5@Cygnus: Your problem is that, like many people, who seem to assume that all research is done by pharm companies. Even if all pharm companies were evil and didn't give a ***** about people (I don't believe that's the case), how do you explain the millions of scientists worldwide that work in academia? How do they benefit from not finding a cure?
- Necromancyr, on 05/28/2009, -0/+4Well, either he has a Bachelor's in ANY biological sciences area or a MS...or a PhD (I do) in that area and can tell you it's a fraud. Or half a brain to not believe every crackpot 'pharma doesn't make drugs that help people or cure stuff' conspiracy theory.
Seriously - if a company cures cancer that doesn't mean people magically stop getting it - it means one company makes a ***** OF MONEY curing everyone of cancer when they get it (or to prevent them from getting it).
Think. It does wonders for the idiocy that would otherwise come out of your mouth. - samirnasri, on 05/28/2009, -4/+8ill stick with killing the ***** out of it
- lyric123, on 05/28/2009, -1/+5This suggestion by Dr. Gatenby might prove hard to accept especially for those with cancer. The right thing in everybody's mind is to kill all the cancer cells to cure cancer, but this time, he suggests that trying to kill all these cancer cells might make it worse! If we think about his analogies, there is something that makes sense, but it still does not give the cure to cancer. I think there should be further studies made on this finding.
- CanceledCzech, on 05/28/2009, -0/+4lol, what happens when the cancer cancer kills the human cancer? Will it then go on to kill the human?
- yournamehere, on 05/28/2009, -0/+4cancer isn't one single disease, it takes many, many forms. to say 'cancer' in general is like going to China and telling someone you're looking for a specific guy whose last name is 'Chen'
- nullcodes, on 05/28/2009, -1/+4Apparently his mathematical model assumes that drug resistance requires energy, that's true at first then it becomes ***** .. only some types of resistance require energy .. and furthermore .. after some time .. you get resistant cells that aren't any less efficient than other cells and maybe even be able to use the drug as an energy source (though this one has only been shown in bacteria afaik). His assumptions were made about bacteria decades ago and they turned out false.
Also, if what he was saying is true, the cancer wouldn't have happened in the first place. Cancer itself is the tumor evolving against the immune system.
I usually trust mathematical models but this one I am skeptical. More research please. Meanwhile, keep finding cancer drugs. - Risingashes, on 05/28/2009, -2/+5This approach is the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of reality.
If after an extensive program only highly resistant cancer cells remain doesn't mean that the treatment caused those cells to appear. Left alone those cells would simply be amongst all the less resistant cancer cells that you failed to have treated.
Let's hope no one dies as a result of this stupidity. - kingmanic, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3NoMoreEnslaved:
I can almost think of it as a parody of all the other scam treatments out there. It's so blatantly scammy. You might be doing this to be ironic but there are simpletons who would take it at face value. But here is a tear down of some obvious things.
Sign of Fraud #1: Bad biology, attempt to use psycho analysis as a treatment for everything -
'Dr. Hamer found that every DISEASE originates from an unexpected shock experience. He established that such a sudden shock affects not only the psyche, but impacts at the same time (visible on a brain scan) the part of the brain that corresponds biologically to the specific trauma. Whether the body responds to the unexpected event with a tumor growth (cancer), with tissue degeneration, or with functional loss, is determined by the exact type of conflict shock. So far, Dr. Hamer has been able to confirm these discoveries with over 40,000 case studies. Since HEALING can only occur after the conflict has been resolved, German New Medicine therapy focuses on identifying and resolving the original shock. '
Sign of Fraud #2: Assumption that nature and evolution has specific goals.
'Dr. Hamer is the first to prove scientifically that cancer, for example, is not - as previously thought - a senseless proliferation of deadly cancer cells but rather part of a Significant Biological Special Program (SBS) of Nature that has been successfully practiced for millions of years of evolution.'
Sign of Fraud #3: claims of effectiveness way beyond even the best of modern science with no data of citation.
'Dr. Hamer’s German New Medicine has a success rate of 92% (details).'
Sign of Fraud #4: Science doesn't work the way the sites author thinks it does. Claims his work is beign suppressed
'Despite the fact that his scientific work had never been disproved, he lost, at the age of 51, his medical license on the grounds that he refused to renounce his findings on the origin of cancer and to conform to the principles of official medicine.'
Sign of Fraud #6: Cost
'GNM Seminar Costs:
* GNM ONE & TWO
(August 22-25): € 350.00
* GNM ONE & TWO & THREE
(August 22-28): € 500.00
* GNM SEMINAR ONE to FOUR
(August 22-30): € 600.00
'
Sign of Fraud #7:
whois data is extremely sparse:
Domain name: germannewmedicine.ca
Domain status: EXIST
Approval date: 2004/04/02
Renewal date: 2010/04/02
Updated date: 2009/03/05
Registrar:
Name: DomainsAtCost Corp.
Number: 45
Name servers:
ns1.webhostingcanada.org
ns2.webhostingcanada.org
% WHOIS look-up made at 2009-05-28 16:17:45 (GMT)
%
% Use of CIRA's WHOIS service is governed by the Terms of Use in its Legal
% Notice, available at http://www.cira.ca/legal-notice/?lang=en
%
% (c) 2007 Canadian Internet Registration Authority, (http://www.cira.ca/) - adriaaan, on 05/28/2009, -2/+5Thank his noodliness I don't live in America!
- wing05, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3http://www.medicorcancer.com/DCAtherapy.html
Looks promising, but their informal results also did find some people who developed a resistance to it.
I'm still of the thought of multiple vector approach including the vector where they inject a tumor with virii. Speaking of which, I haven't heard any news from that front in a while.
If that still doesn't get the resistant hold out cells, then treating cancer as a chronic condition using all the new weapons in the arsenal is the next fallback. - zombird, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3welcome to digg.
- GraceHead, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonis ...
- DouglasQ, on 05/28/2009, -2/+5IT'S NADDA TUMOR
- FreeTalkLIve, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3They need to look at why and how cancer goes into remission.
It's the only time that cancer vanishes. - piieerrrree, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2I think the problem comes from funding for these kinds of studies, not to mention creation and distribution of whatever treatment comes out from the study...
- barc0001, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2I think he's talking about other more aggressive forms of cancer. Something with a high cure rate wouldn't fall into this category, which I am presuming you had since it was eradicated 15 years ago and has not recurred. A friend of mine would probably benefit from this as he has colon cancer that metastasized and spread to his lungs. The original cancer in the colon is gone, but they've been nailing him with chemo for over a year and just battled the lung tumors to a stalemate, it's not gone. His current goal is to live for the next two years, so if this type of treatment was able to give hi a better quality of life with lower doses of chemo not affecting him as adversely and extend his lifespan I'm pretty sure he'd call that a good thing.
- RealDealRick, on 05/29/2009, -0/+2I agree but there are some well intentioned scientists out there. The problem is that the medical leaders with profit incentive do whatever is necessary to keep their mouths shut. The story about the FDA scientists who petitioned Obama to restructure the FDA is a perfect example of this.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/09/fda.scienti ... - Canadian0207, on 05/28/2009, -1/+3Anyone here ever heard of dichloroacetate?
- lilmentor3, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2cancer is one hell of a disease
- Zarchon, on 05/28/2009, -2/+4Nice story but I call BS. And there are no "good" drugs for cancer. I had terminal cancer and was given 3 years to live. That was in 2001. I took regular Chemo as well as joined a clinical trials study for another drug. The drug was pretty harsh and I quit the program two weeks early. Turns out the dosage they used was extremely high. That drug is now the standard proscribed drug at a much lower dosage. BTW I am still here and have no cancer as far as anyone can tell. As for your story that someone with cancer was only getting pain killers and the doctor cheated the system to save his life, yeah, it doesn't work that way.
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2That is why weed works.
- marytormey, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2If they want money then it is usually a scam.
- DougChristian, on 05/28/2009, -1/+3If you cure something, then there's no need to pay a pharmaceutical company to treat it for the rest of your life. On the other hand, a constantly evolving and complicated drug regiment to keep cancer in check for ever...now that's promising. The companies are required to make profits. What do we expect them to invest in?
Sorry to go political here, but this is all you need to know to understand why laissez-faire capitalism, Conservatism and Libertarianism are dead wrong. - DougChristian, on 05/28/2009, -1/+3Your argument is way off. You are failing to understand universal healthcare. Universal healthcare only addresses who is covered and who pays. This has nothing to do with where treatments come from and where profit motives lie. The big biotech and pharmaceutical companies are all multinational and the treatments for socialist, universal-healthcare countries come from them too.
What is needed is public sources of treatment. The budgets for things like NIH and NSF should be much much higher. It doesn't matter who's paying the healthcare costs, pharmaceutical companies do not have a motive to end disease. The public must pay for such things ourselves. And the government must ensure that private companies are not able to influence the direction of public research (which they do today). -
Show 51 - 100 of 119 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 