cancer cured for good

ethan · 20 Nov 2008 at 16:42

I do not know how genuine or reliable this article is but it might provide for an interesting read:
http://www.thenhf.com/articles/articles_792/articles_792.htm

platypus · 20 Nov 2008 at 16:44

Well that looks reliable..

PESolution · 20 Nov 2008 at 16:45

platypus said:
Well that looks reliable..

+1

ScarySquirrel · 20 Nov 2008 at 16:45

Sadly, the treatment you have just read about is not available anywhere.

Handy.

ethan · 20 Nov 2008 at 16:46

platypus said:
Well that looks reliable..

I never said it was. It was presented so that somebody with a lot more medical knowledge about this thing could give an opinion.

nikebee · 20 Nov 2008 at 16:50

ethan said:
I never said it was. It was presented so that somebody with a lot more medical knowledge about this thing could give an opinion.

"cancer cured for good?" would have been a better title, posing a question rather than giving a statement

ethan · 20 Nov 2008 at 16:53

Splitting hairs over chosen headline titles more like

Merely repeating what it said: the validity of which could be determined by others

KNiVES · 20 Nov 2008 at 16:56

Stupidly misleading title.

antijoke · 20 Nov 2008 at 16:57

KNiVES said:
Stupidly misleading title.

+1

Cosimo · 20 Nov 2008 at 16:57

The addendum, says it all.

Google on "Gc-MAF" brings up some interesting reading.

tuffty747 · 20 Nov 2008 at 16:58

anticonscience said:
+1

+2

Gahh this thread must be annoying for the guy that doesn't like the '+1...' posts

int · 20 Nov 2008 at 16:59

The article itself reads way too far into the journal papers referenced there. It's a step in the right direction but "4 cancers cured without remission" implies 4 patients, which is nothing compared to the large amount of people they would have carried the tests out on.

I'll find/read the papers in a bit once I've finished reading for my course

bledd · 20 Nov 2008 at 17:00

looks bs

why is it not on bbc?

GravyMonster · 20 Nov 2008 at 17:03

bledd. said:
looks bs

why is it not on bbc?

because its BS

blix · 20 Nov 2008 at 17:03

This kind of BS gets on my nerves.

Cosimo · 20 Nov 2008 at 17:04

bledd. said:
looks bs

why is it not on bbc?

None wants to waste their time telling them about it.

Wicksta · 20 Nov 2008 at 17:13

ethan said:
I never said it was. It was presented so that somebody with a lot more medical knowledge about this thing could give an opinion.

Yes because half of GD are working on cancer cures right now!

ethan · 20 Nov 2008 at 17:17

Yes because half of GD are working on cancer cures right now!

Are there not any medical students or Doctors or people that might be generally interested then on this forum?

A.N.Other · 20 Nov 2008 at 17:19

It's an intersting line of research, but it's far from a cure. They haven't even taken it to proper clinical trials, so any conclusions made are a complete waste of time.

Vasquez · 20 Nov 2008 at 17:20

the curing of cancer would probably be a terrible thing to happen as it helps control the population.