Return to Website

Number Watch Web Forum

This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.

Number Watch Web Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: why does everything cause cancer?

Big pharma has made plenty of money from turning naturally occurring chemicals into drugs, but it is no longer allowed to patent such products, meaning that those who want new drugs developed from unaltered naturally-occurring molecules expect big pharma to put the billion dollars (per product) of R&D upfront (before they even know the product works), and if it does work, let a generic company cash in on that research, come along and have a carbon copy on the market at a tenth of the cost within 2 years of the original.

Big pharma is also less able to continue to do this because most of the low-hanging fruit has already been taken. Pharma is also in the rare position of having to give away the fruits of its innovation after just 20 years of development. Because the huge R&D costs have to be amortized over such a short period of time (less than you would usually even pay off a home loan in), on top of the R&D costs for failed drugs (i.e. most of them), new drugs are inordinately expensive. If Coca Cola and Ferrari were treated that way, rather than being allowed to keep their trade secrets (and you can hardly argue that the contents of a bottle of Coke, or the effectiveness of Ferrari's brakes don't have safety implications comparable to those of drugs) they'd probably just give up.

If you want more drugs, and cheaper drugs, you need to let the pharmaceutical companies retain the rights to their products indefinitely, or at least for much longer than at present. But that's not socialist enough for us (us including the Americans), so we don't do it.

Re: why does everything cause cancer?

I should declare my financial interest in the pharmaceutical industry (in which I work) for the benefit of those who don't already know. You can form your own view as to whether this interest influences any opinion I post here.

Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

Very good to hear a defence of the Drug Companies for a change, something that is all too rarely heard, especially in the left biased media. The moaning one has heard from such sources about their reluctance to develop drugs for urgent needs in Africa for nothing, never seems to be counted with suggestions that perhaps some of the African leaders could commission drug development as an alternative to salting away large quantities of cash into Swiss bank accounts.

Re: why does everything cause cancer?

It's a human tragedy that drugs needed to prevent or treat fatal illnesses in poor countries are not produced while drugs to treat non illnesses, or to bring some marginal improvement to treatment of illnesses in rich countries are developed. Far from this being due to drug companies being evil it is simple financial sense. It is also simple financial sense that accounts for the lack of development, indeed regression in development, in parts of the world like Africa over the last 50 years, which is the ultimate reason we do not have good drugs for many dangerous tropical diseases.

I firmly believe, again contrary to the prevailing politically correct mood, that the underdeveloped world is poor not because the west runs a (more or less) free market economy, but because the poor countries do not run anything resembling a free market economy. Free trade has time and again proven to be the most effective weapon with which to fight poverty. It is the communists in the UN, charities, and NGOs, not to mention governments of poor countries, who are keeping those places poor, not wealthy, productive westerners or some mythical global hegemony of supranational organisations and the super-rich. Let these places develop, and eventually they will (like China will within 10 years) have their own global pharmaceutical giants producing products for their own markets and overseas markets alike. And far from being a threat to western prosperity, global economic development will make us all better off and more secure. Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to explain why I am better off with a billion Africans currently struggling to survive on their subsistence farms rather than being 10 or 100 times more productive in a proper developed economy, making things I want to buy even cheaper than ever.

Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

I've just finished reading Dr Barry Groves' book "Natural Health and Weight Loss" and he quotes some very interesting research on cancer and its causes.

Re: why does everything cause cancer?

I take it your not a proponent of the trophoblast thesis of cancer.
=======
No. In fact, in almost a decade in basic and clinical cancer research, I haven't even heard of it. Which no doubt goes to prove that it's correct and that all the professors and drug companies that know it's really true are suppressing this information.

====
Please state why you think the trophoblast thesis is false.
====
I would have thought the fact that most tumor cells retain a lot of features of their tissue of origin and do not resemble trophoblasts at all would be adequate debunking. I can go further if you like, and ask why men (and women who have never been pregnant) also get cancer.

Have a look at http://trophoblast-theory-of-cancer.com/

This site is chock-full of ignorant garbage. Here are just a few false statements:

"The other theory of cancer states that normal cells, for some unknown reason, mutate into cancer cells..."

Whereas a lot of the mutations involved in cancer progression are already known and - hey presto - there are often characteristic patterns of mutation specific to different cancer types.

"As the percentage of cancer cells in a tumor approach 100%, all tumors start to look the same."

This is not true.

"Another problem with the mutation theory is that cancer cells are much simpler than normal cells. When a cell divides, both parts contains all the complex structures of a normal cell. When the cell mutates, what happens to those structures? They were inside the cell wall. If the cell wall breaks, the cell dies. How did those structures get out? Do they dissolve and are carried out as waste? No one has seen this occur in a cell and looking at a cell with a microscope is easy."

This is woeful. Mammalian cells do not have cell walls. The "structures that disappear" can do so by simply not being produced. If you have 5 of something in 1 thing and that 1 thing becomes 500000 things, what is the problem in not finding any somethings in your things? Why is "getting out of the cell" the only way you can lose a "structure"?

"Normal cells get energy from oxygenation, cancer cells get their energy from fermentation. "

Both are true and false. Large, poorly-vasculated tumors of course rely more on "fermentation" (anaerobic processes would be a better description), but those that can cause new blood vessel growth do so, and are generally more aggressive. Besides which, all cell types can respire aerobically and anaerobically when necessary.

And it's no coincidence that they're peddling their untested cures to the ignorant and desperate sick. These places are disgusting.

====
What's so bad about assuming cancer to be a single disease?
====

In what sense are chronic myeloid lymphoma and testicular cancer are the same disease? Why does the treatment for testicular cancer not work for chronic myeloid lymphoma and vice-versa?

====
Cancer rates were better in the west before the 'war on cancer'.
====

We died of other things, and in general rather younger. The longer you live, the more likely you are to experience any form of cancer in your life time.

====
I should point out, those vids I linked are over 1 hour each. Those with short attention spans needn't bother clicking the links, i.e. follow JamesV's example.
====

For those of us who don't have 2 hours to watch your propaganda, try making your own argument in your own, succinct, words. If you can't get my confidence in the "trophoblastic theory of cancer" above the 0% level with 5 minutes of written material then you're unlikely to do so with 2 hours. If you can get it above the 0% level with 5 minutes, then I might spend a few more hours looking into it. But I'm not going to start there. All number of things are possible - it's possible that faeries live at the bottom of my garden or that Pele the Hawaiian volcano goddess exists and will send me to hell for not believing in her, but the amount of time I am prepared to spend investigating these possibilities is directly proportional to the suspicion I have that they are correct, which is currently 0%, as for your "trophoblastic theory of cancer". It seems so unlikely as to not be worth investigating - but you are welcome to attempt (briefly) to persuade me otherwise.

====
Laetrile awareness is growing fast, it's doing the rounds all over mySpace, FaceBook etc.
====

And that's supposed to increase my confidence in its efficacy?

Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

>If you can get it above the 0% level with 5 minutes, then I might spend a few more hours looking into it.

I can't be bothered James. You sound like you've made up your mind. I doubt any words of mine will convince you. The proponents of laetrile have written plenty in support of it, far better than I can. But if refuse to believe it, then the most perfect words are as good as none.

I was posting to the open minded who weren't aware of it. Not the closed minded.

I advise you your 'above 0% in 5 miniutes rule' is wrong. Many ideas are difficult to grasp. Newton's ideas would never have gotten anywhere if people only gave them 5 minutes.

Re: Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

There was nothing 'close minded' about the points raised by JamesV, they were specific refutations of points raised by you and that site. If the evidence is not strong enough to withstand cursory scrutiny, then it is highly likely that the blastotroph hypothesis is empty.

Claiming that you couldn't be bothered writing a few cogent points of your own is a cop out

Re: Re: Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

It's not my responsibility to convince any of you about laetrile. I was never 'in' anything to be able to 'cop out'. The overly skeptical will have to do their own web research.
Closed vs open minded - I don't mind talking to people who're prepared to give the idea a chance.

In response to your other post about accumulated error in replication, yes that is a somewhat correct way of looking at it. ( although if you ever manage the strain to push your mouse over to those links I posted and then unload the weight of your finger onto the mouse button you would know I see it a bit different.)
But I don't accept this idea that we must treat all of these mutations differently. The result is always same - The mutated cells multiply without bound. The cure is the always the same - Kill the cancer cell.

And to large degree, conventional therapy is in agreement with this. The 3 types of cures all involve killing the cancer cell.
Radio - shoot the cancer with little bullets, while killing and mutating far more innocent cells in the process.
Chemo - poision the cancer while posioning far more innocent cells in the process.
Surgery - Cut it out, rather damaging and messy.

The most counter intuitive aspect of this problem involving new ideas is that people will strictly oppose spending anytime checking the other sides sources, giving the reason it would be a waste of time, but these same people will readily spend hundreds of hours arguing.
The other thing I find is that once they look at the source, the very often immediately convert. The trick is getting them to look at it. This is done by waiting till they're bored. Then sneak it on them. Just say 'here look at this' without telling them what it is. Of course, if they're on the ball they might see what it is straight away, but because their confrontational frame of mind hasn't been aroused they often give it a chance.
This way, I've converted several AGW nutters. A life time arguing with them in some internet forum would've only stiffened their belief in AGW. You know the feeling, right?

When R feymann, at the time acknowledged as one the best physicists in the world, gave a lecture on his theory, which had a proven track record of being right, to a bunch of other top physicists, they immediately dismissed it as nonsense. But as time went by, it turned out feynman's theory was correct. All those top physicists were wrong, or more specifically, there reaction to a new theory was wrong.
What does this mean?
You can't appeal to people's sense of logic to convince them of something. Even seeing it 1st hand is sometimes not enough. The best way to convince someone is to give them the sense a trustworthy authority believes it to be true.

The history of science is just a mass of this. Along with people not accepting theorys after they've passed scientific testing.

This is why i see it as futile 'playing ball' by arguing with skepics on internet forums. This is what I mean by close minded.
The best anology I can give it, it's like trying create a computer program without testing it, but simply by rationalising it by debating it with other coders. Even coders with 40 years experience can't do it. There are so many what ifs and buts, it just becomes impossible to decide which arguments are valid and which can be ignored. Such code will just not work, and before that it'll never be written, because the coders won't be able to agree on it.

If you want to test evidence with cursory scrutiny, use the wad of it already all over the internet.

Besides anything else, Laetrile therapy is non toxic, and can provides nutrition as a normal diet does. i.e. it costs you nothing since the laetrile foods you buy will also provide normal nutrition.
I've been on such a diet now for 2 months.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

"

The other thing I find is that once they look at the source, the very often immediately convert. The trick is getting them to look at it. This is done by waiting till they're bored. Then sneak it on them. Just say 'here look at this' without telling them what it is.[end quote]"
Ok, to me, you just lost all credibility right here.
You, literally, say that you fool people. Leave this to pseudo-religions not to science.
I am sorry, but if this is your technique you contradicted yourself as well with the coding example.
And by the way, since you have not sustained any of your arguments, and your posts are starting to get less and less accurate... I can't wait for your stunning revelation!!!!
By the way, I do think/know that some herbal medicine works. Use it myself to HELP with colds, soared muscles, joints etc... As far as cancer, which is degenerative and embedded in more than just blood flow and white blood cells.... well....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

>Ok, to me, you just lost all credibility right here.
And thid webforum is rapidly losing credibility with me. I thought I stumbled across a group of senior mathematicians. But it beginning to seem like it's another bunch of random dumb kids like most forums.

Getting people to look at sources is a requirement of peer review. Science doesn't care how it's done. By choice, by accident, or forced at gun point. It makes no difference.
That people on this site are refusing to click on the links,i.e. refusing to peer review, simply means they are not being scientific.

The 'stunning revelation' was in my 1st post. You are waiting for yourself to click on the links.

The rest what you say isn't worth responding to.

Re: why does everything cause cancer?

I advise you your 'above 0% in 5 miniutes rule' is wrong. Many ideas are difficult to grasp. Newton's ideas would never have gotten anywhere if people only gave them 5 minutes.

=====

The 5 minutes are not for you to convince me you are completely correct - all you have to do in that time is convince me that there is the faintest glimmer of a tiny possibility that you are correct. Even Newton would have been up to that task, so if you can't do it then I reserve the right to remain of the opinion that what you are claiming is false.

Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

Fine by me. I don't want to convince you. You can keep your 5 minutes. Don't click on those links!

Re: why does everything cause cancer?

The most counter intuitive aspect of this problem involving new ideas is that people will strictly oppose spending anytime checking the other sides sources, giving the reason it would be a waste of time, but these same people will readily spend hundreds of hours arguing.
The other thing I find is that once they look at the source, the very often immediately convert. The trick is getting them to look at it. This is done by waiting till they're bored. Then sneak it on them. Just say 'here look at this' without telling them what it is. Of course, if they're on the ball they might see what it is straight away, but because their confrontational frame of mind hasn't been aroused they often give it a chance.
=====

There are also videos out there on the web "proving" that 9-11 was an inside job and that NASA never sent men to the moon. Do you believe those things just because someone made a video about it and put it on the internet?

To paraphrase Lee, if these things cannot pass cursory scrutiny they will definitely fail once we get the big-gun analytical tools out.

Is it just me or is the cerebrally contrarian bent of this site and forum now attracting more and more net.kooks?

Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

Nope, I believe them based on the evidence and arguements they expound. 911 inside job, yes. Fake moon landing, no.

I take it you haven't seen zeitgeist the movie? Or moneymasters yet? Why am I not suprised. Stacks of well put together cases for all sorts of stuff are waitng for you at google video.
But people who abide by the non-scientific principle of never checking the sources will never accept or understand these theorys as vaild. But how can one judge something if they haven't reviewed it?
Do you grade your students without reviewing their work?

Going back to why I don't see much point in arguing these days. Science is not like maths. In maths arguing, and just arguing, can provide the solution. In Science though, it's possible to make a consistent statement which isn't correct. The correctness depends on evidence. What is evidence? Either you do the experiment yourself, or you believe some else when they say they've done it. And that's all it comes down to. In fact it doesn't matter if my arguements, or any one elses, are consistent.
Again, I go back to Feynmans lecture on QED. He kept having to tell the audience that it didn't matter if the theory didn't seem to make sense, it only mattered that it worked.
So, our problem is this, I present evidence, and you don't believe it. You say it's a lie, or a mistake. But to top it off, you haven't even looked at it.

All I can say to self consistent arguements like 'modern man lives longer now so age related disease are more prevelant', is that I don't see any evidence for this wrt to cancer. There are societys with long living people all over the world. But you won't believe this.
Not that it'll makes any difference to the closed minded, but the speakers in the links pander heavily to a vast array of critical questions. But it's all worth nothing if you don't believe their evidence. If you won't listen to me, then why are you going to listen to them?

Going back to what some critism I got about saying the youTube generation are more receptive. Yes, it's their willingness to believe anything, regardless of it correctness that allows these young people to accept the truth. It's a sorry world when the truth has to be passed on this way. But ( by example of Feynman )if the best scientists won't believe the best scientists when they expound the truth, what does that say about expounding the truth by pure arguement? It doesn't work. So why are you asking me to do it? Especially when, as I keep saying, your questions are answered in the links?

Re: Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

>> 911 inside job <<

The inside job can be partially blamed on the environmentalists. They forced the use of an "environmentally friendly" flame retardant on the metal beams in the World Trade Center. That flame retardant blew off where the planes struck. The bare steel beams lost their fire protection and failed earlier than they would have if the older, proven fire retardant had been used.

The two towers fell for different reasons. The north tower fell because the central core failed. The designer replaced the standard concrete protected core with two layers of drywall. This was to save weight. The impact easily compromised the core because the drywall didn't provide any protection. No one above the impact site could escape. That was the other "inside job."

The south tower's floor system failed first (bare steel beams soften in the fire). The plane struck off-center and didn't compromise the central core. There was a transmitting tower on the south tower (attached to the core). When the floors started to pancake, the tower doesn't immediately start to fall. You can see that the core was trying to resist the collapse. Too much weight from pancaking floors forced the core to follow. Had the proper fire retardant been used, the south tower might still be standing.

As usual, everyone except the environmentalist's meddling get blamed.

Jim

Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

JamesV,

>> Is it just me or is the cerebrally contrarian bent of this site and forum now attracting more and more net.kooks? <<

It depends on who you're calling a "net.kook."

Jim

Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

"Is it just me or is the cerebrally contrarian bent of this site and forum now attracting more and more net.kooks?"

It is almost as if denying the validity of AGW is becoming associated with the many ridiculous conspiracy theories out there. Mildly depressing, really.

Re: why does everything cause cancer?

It is almost as if denying the validity of AGW is becoming associated with the many ridiculous conspiracy theories out there. Mildly depressing, really.
=====

I'd be particularly worried about that. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for questioning the AGW scenario. Being associated with laetrile-proponents, 9-11-inside-jobbers, New World Order paranoiacs and the like will not help the cause.

Now, were I an AGW proponent, I could think of no better way to discredit the skeptics than to find a few high-profile skeptic sites and fill it with tin-foil-hat-brigade talk, but surely that's just my fevered imagination at work.

Re: why does everything cause cancer?

The inside job can be partially blamed on the environmentalists. They forced the use of an "environmentally friendly" flame retardant on the metal beams in the World Trade Center. That flame retardant blew off where the planes struck. The bare steel beams lost their fire protection and failed earlier than they would have if the older, proven fire retardant had been used.

=====

Let's be fair here. I somehow doubt contingency for full-frontal impact from a widebody airliner was included in the design specification for the building. If the impact ruptured the fireproofing I'm not surprised - environmentally friendly or not. Being hit by hundreds of tonnes of metal and fuel travelling at 500mph is going to break stuff.

Re: Re: why does everything cause cancer?

JamesV,

>> Let's be fair here. <<

Always.

You made me go back and look at the Nova/PBS video "Why the Towers Fell." I obviously shouldn't depend on my memory. The TV tower was on the north building. It started dropping first, indicating that the core failed first. The south building's outer wall fails first (due to fire-weakened floor supports), while its core resists the collapse. (I got the failure reasons right.)

Leslie Robertson was the lead structural engineer on the project. He designed, ". . . for the impact of the largest plane of its time, a Boeing 707."

Both buildings survived the impacts:
8:46 AM North Tower Hit,
9:03 AM South Tower Hit,
9:59 AM South Tower Falls,
10:28 AM North Tower Falls.

The South Tower lasted 56 minutes.
The North Tower lasted 1 hour 42 minutes.

Recommendations include:
Harden Stairwells,
Strengthen Fire Resistance,
Protect connections,
Provide Back-Up Supports.

To quote Jonathan Barnett, an expert on fire protection, "In fact, until 9-11, I was unaware of any protected steel structure that had collapsed any where in the world from just a fire."

Jim