Non-Toxic Cancer Cure: Conflict of Interest

13 Jun

June 13, 2011 – As a new movie begins to emerge, more and more information is streaming into the media about natural and non-toxic cancer cures. Speculation rises as fingers point to the government agencies and big pharmaceutical companies for trying to stop cancer cures that would not show any profit. The conflict of interest is mind-boggling when you see just how much money is involved and what’s at risk when non-toxic cancer cures are discussed.

University of Alberta Find Cancer Cure

Researchers in Edmonton, Alberta have made a surprising discovery: a drug used to treat metabolic disorders has shown to reduce and eliminate certain tumors. The drug, dichloroacetate or DCA, does not require a patent and can not be patented, so what does this mean? It means that no pharmaceutical company will manufacture this drug or pay the bill to test the drug because there is no money to be made in using dichloroacetate to treat cancer.

Cancer cells are seen as cells that are “immortal”, that is, they don’t seem to have an “off” button. The grow and grow and grow, while normal cells run their cycle and eventually die. Dichloroacetate has shown to reactivate the “off” button in cancer cells and once introduced to cancer cells, they begin to die and are no longer immortal.

Further testing will be necessary to prove this drug will work to treat cancer and it will be up to the University to partner with other organizations in order to raise the necessary funds for the second phase of testing. Privatization of cancer cures is deadly when you consider just how many people suffer needlessly when a likely cure is available but stuck in the fine print of government regulations.

Dr. Burzynski Offers Non-Toxic Cancer Cure for Four Decades

Since the 1970’s, Dr. Burzynski has held the belief that Antineoplastons have been able to cure many types of cancer; especially terminal and untreatable cancers. For the last four decades, he has been suppressed and hounded by government agencies because of his non-toxic solution to treating cancer. He has been in court many times on false charges and has been found not-guilty every time. He has been threatened and they have tried to take away his license but still he continues.

In 2009, the FDA-supervised clinical trials began, when it was obvious they could not shut him down. If the money is raised, third level testing may happen as early as 2011 but this funding is up to Dr. Burzynski. For years he has helped to treat many types of cancer but had his hands tied on many occasions. Parents were turned away if their child had not yet tried “conventional” treatments, those are chemotherapy or radiation therapy, because the FDA put limitations on what patients were allowed to try Dr. Burzynski’s treatment.

In his research, patients who tried Antineoplaston therapy were part of a large success rate. With no toxic side effects, this therapy looks to be promising and non-invading but there is still the hurdle of government approval. If this Antineoplaston therpay is approved, it will be the first time a single scientist will be granted rights to a drug and ultimately, the Big Pharma companies will be shut out for many years before it can be available as a generic drug.

The Conflict of Interest With Cancer Cures

With billions of dollars spent and raised each year for cancer research and treatment, it does not take one very long to realize that big Pharma does not want to cure cancer. Why would they? Why cure it when you can treat it for years and years and years? Think of all the billions of billions of dollars that would be lost if a cure was discovered or, in the case of the University of Alberta research, a drug was found that could not be patented – therefore, no one made any money from it.

Imagine a day when you get a cancer diagnosis and the doctor writes you a prescription for dichloroacetate and you simply go the the pharmacy, fill the order and take your two week course and voila – cancer is gone! Imagine treating cancer like a bronchial chest infection.

Or perhaps it will be a long-term drug that keeps the cancer away. There is still plenty of money to be made in treating chronic illnesses – which is what Big Pharma wants isn’t it? Why cure something when you can just treat it over a long-term period and make billions of billions of dollars and fund research for new drugs to lengthen your lifespan?

There is too much conflict of interest and frankly, I don’t understand how this is even legal. If you are a lawyer or stock-broker or in any position of power, it is un-ethical to continue when a conflict of interest arises. The whole pharmaceutical world is one big conflict of interest because the developing companies have everything to gain from making drugs that don’t cure the problem but rather, treat the problem. Even the organizations profit by fund-raising every year. Where would the National Cancer Institute be if we found a cure for cancer? They’d be in the same place the National Institute of Chest Colds would be: out of business. There is no need for such an organization once you’ve found a cure.

The Conflict of Non-Toxic Natural Cancer Cures Vs. Traditional

Where is it the government’s place to tell us what we can or can not do with our bodies? Who are they to say we can’t choose a non-toxic, non-invasive cancer treatment? The FDA already agreed Dr.Burzynski’s treatment was non-toxic and therefore, not harmful, so why was he not allowed to continue the treatment?

So many parents, so many individuals have been refused these treatments that may work, all because of dollar signs. So many terminal cases that would have jumped at the opportunity to at least “try” the above-mentioned methods and yet, they were not allowed. What did they have to lose – really? If it didn’t work, fine. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I have lost many friends and close family to cancer and I know they would have jumped at the chance to try something that may have worked. They would have loved to have had the option at least, the consideration of something worth trying.

It’s time the people begin questioning the government agencies that say they have our health in mind as they make their decisions. It’s time they be accountable and put under pressure to explain the reasoning behind so many decisions. There are cures for cancer – many of them I’m sure! But it’s not about curing cancer for these agencies, it’s all about treating them as chronic illnesses to maximize profit. Natural remedies exist, and they don’t have side effects or diminish quality of life: We just need to back up the companies who believe in them and help them do their research so one day, treating cancer will be no different than treating a bacterial infection.

Learn More About Natural Cancer Treatments

Dr. Burzynski has released a movie that is free to view for the next three days. It outlines his ordeals and trials as well as countless testimonials from parents and patients. You can view the movie here. Join him on Facebook too and follow the news as it happens.

You can also follow the latest news on the University of Alberta’s research: using dichloroacetate to treat cancer here


Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: