460 replies to this topic

[thefirstimmortal]

Hi TFI,

I got your letter today, and no problem regarding the request.

A

Thank You Anthony, and Anthony I want to extend my gratitude for your continued support. I know that in addition to your generosity you have spent a considerable amount of time and effort and I want to assure you that your sacrifice is appreciated very much. Again, thanks so much Anthony for all you've done.

any news on updated test results ?

I have all of my test results and medical reposts as of Sep 10th. They are sending out the Sept 27 CT scans seperately, they are not in yet. I will up date this information in the Prognosis thread after I place an order, there is some information that is interesting and relevant Cmorera, although I think we are all more exited about the bottom line, how big is the tumor. I also have both biopsy reports, so has any one seen Hedgehog lately?

Edited by thefirstimmortal, 09 October 2008 - 03:00 AM.

[brotherx]

Hi William,

Hedgehog was last seen Last Seen: 28-Sep 2008 - 05:46 AM

Cheers

Alex

Statistics
Joined: 18-Dec 2007
Profile Views: 2,309*
Last Seen: 28-Sep 2008 - 05:46 AM
Local Time: 9-Oct 2008, 03:06 AM
387 posts (1.31 per day)

Hi TFI,

I got your letter today, and no problem regarding the request.

A

Thank You Anthony, and Anthony I want to extend my gratitude for your continued support. I know that in addition to your generosity you have spent a considerable amount of time and effort and I want to assure you that your sacrifice is appreciated very much. Again, thanks so much Anthony for all you've done.

any news on updated test results ?

I have all of my test results and medical reposts as of Sep 10th. They are sending out the Sept 27 CT scans seperately, they are not in yet. I will up date this information in the Prognosis thread after I place an order, there is some information that is interesting and relevant Cmorera, although I think we are all more exited about the bottom line, how big is the tumor. I also have both biopsy reports, so has any one seen Hedgehog lately?

[maxwatt]

Hedgehog has a new position at his company, with a lot of responsibility. I think it's keeping him busy,

[Steve_86]

I hope all is going well.

Any updates?

[missminni]

THEFIRSTIMMORTAL latest development URGENT, for friends of The First Immortal - he needs help
please read this new thread...
http://www.imminst.o...t=0#entry272594

[Ringostarr]

I wish him the best. He is a true warrior - a great example of the FIGHT of the human spirit. I pray that he is able to take the resveratrol With the radiation. From everything I have read through the years, those two "in combo" are his best chance.

[Anthony_Loera]

TFI,

would you mind if I fly up to see you?

A

[thefirstimmortal]

Hedgehog has a new position at his company, with a lot of responsibility. I think it's keeping him busy,

OK, Thank You for the 411. He mentioned something to that effect that he had a new position coming up.

[thefirstimmortal]

I hope all is going well.

Any updates?

For the latest update
http://www.imminst.o...o...c=23100&hl=

I'm trying to keep it as current as possible, but I've had some time issues lately.

[thefirstimmortal]

I wish him the best. He is a true warrior - a great example of the FIGHT of the human spirit. I pray that he is able to take the resveratrol With the radiation. From everything I have read through the years, those two "in combo" are his best chance.

Kinda like the Radiation Doctor I met with Tuesday. He listened to my concerns and taylored the protocol to use the least invasive and least destructive methods first. He says he's going to call me tomorrow morning just to see how the new meds are working. I couldn't even get my other doctor on the phone to give me my CT scan results. We'll see if he calls tomorrow.

[thefirstimmortal]

TFI,

would you mind if I fly up to see you?

A

E-Mail me Anthony.

[thefirstimmortal]

You are all invited to attend services for William O’Rights.
Location: DEATHWATCH Thread.
Time: Shortly after Midnight, early Nov. 1st.
Refreshments: Meatloaf will be served; you will have to bring your own wine.
Host: Rev. William Constitution O’Rights.

The darkest night ain't black enough to keep the morning light from shining,
The highest wall ain't tall enough to keep the smallest man from climbing,

The more that you resist the tide, The more it pulls you in, The more you hang on for your life…

Attached Files

•  House_Pics__The_Cave__Diningroom_012.jpeg   184.99KB   48 downloads

[newshadow]

I suspect that using Resveratrol for cancer might be a political hot potato in the pharma community. After all the current chemo treatments and cancer pharmaceuticals generate $42 billion in business a year. I thought that might even be the reason that sirtris is pursuing its use for diabetes 2 instead. One wouldn't infringe on any major existing market that way. JMO

I can't tell you how pleased I was to see this statement here on this forum. It shows me that some of the people here are actually intellectual and wise. That combination turns me on and I hope to see more people using the rare combination in their efforts everyday. . It is absolutely crucial that we begin to utilize a critically reserved and almost paranoid sense of discernment when talking about any positive possibilities in the treating of life threatening disease and affliction. Furthermore to go the extra step and actually recognize the possibility of why the compound has been recently applied to other human ailments in our daily propoganda intake regimen, ie: diabetes 2, made me shout out loud a resounding "YES"! " By George I think shes got it!!" Missminni, please accept this "thumbs up" from me to you, for that unique and rare quality in thought. Woohoo!

If you want to go further into reality understand that the agenda has long been depopulation.I am certain that the real science has long ago surpassed what we have been able to see. It will not be long before even these supplements are regulated.

[missminni]

I suspect that using Resveratrol for cancer might be a political hot potato in the pharma community. After all the current chemo treatments and cancer pharmaceuticals generate $42 billion in business a year. I thought that might even be the reason that sirtris is pursuing its use for diabetes 2 instead. One wouldn't infringe on any major existing market that way. JMO

I can't tell you how pleased I was to see this statement here on this forum. It shows me that some of the people here are actually intellectual and wise. That combination turns me on and I hope to see more people using the rare combination in their efforts everyday. . It is absolutely crucial that we begin to utilize a critically reserved and almost paranoid sense of discernment when talking about any positive possibilities in the treating of life threatening disease and affliction. Furthermore to go the extra step and actually recognize the possibility of why the compound has been recently applied to other human ailments in our daily propoganda intake regimen, ie: diabetes 2, made me shout out loud a resounding "YES"! " By George I think shes got it!!" Missminni, please accept this "thumbs up" from me to you, for that unique and rare quality in thought. Woohoo!

If you want to go further into reality understand that the agenda has long been depopulation.I am certain that the real science has long ago surpassed what we have been able to see. It will not be long before even these supplements are regulated.

Their reaction to hurricane Katrina proved that.

[niner]

I suspect that using Resveratrol for cancer might be a political hot potato in the pharma community. After all the current chemo treatments and cancer pharmaceuticals generate $42 billion in business a year. I thought that might even be the reason that sirtris is pursuing its use for diabetes 2 instead. One wouldn't infringe on any major existing market that way. JMO

I can't tell you how pleased I was to see this statement here on this forum. It shows me that some of the people here are actually intellectual and wise. That combination turns me on and I hope to see more people using the rare combination in their efforts everyday. . It is absolutely crucial that we begin to utilize a critically reserved and almost paranoid sense of discernment when talking about any positive possibilities in the treating of life threatening disease and affliction. Furthermore to go the extra step and actually recognize the possibility of why the compound has been recently applied to other human ailments in our daily propoganda intake regimen, ie: diabetes 2, made me shout out loud a resounding "YES"! " By George I think shes got it!!" Missminni, please accept this "thumbs up" from me to you, for that unique and rare quality in thought. Woohoo!

If you want to go further into reality understand that the agenda has long been depopulation.I am certain that the real science has long ago surpassed what we have been able to see. It will not be long before even these supplements are regulated.

Global sales for cancer treating drugs increased by account for 8 to 9 percent of total global pharmaceutical sales. Now ask yourselves if that sliver of the drug market would be sufficient for the kind of gigantic conspiracy that is being proposed here. Do you think that there are a bunch of wealthy guys in a boardroom somewhere saying "Well, I kind of hate to see my mom suffering like that, but I sure wouldn't want to let this top secret cure for cancer get loose and destroy eight percent of our business. And gosh Jack, that's a real drag about your six year old daughter with neuroblastoma, but try to look on the bright side- Your bonus next year is really going to rock! Even after the funeral expenses and the cost of your wife's counselling, you'll still have enough money left over for another plane, another Mercedes and another boat!"

Further into "reality"...

[david ellis]

I suspect that using Resveratrol for cancer might be a political hot potato in the pharma community. After all the current chemo treatments and cancer pharmaceuticals generate $42 billion in business a year. I thought that might even be the reason that sirtris is pursuing its use for diabetes 2 instead. One wouldn't infringe on any major existing market that way. JMO

I can't tell you how pleased I was to see this statement here on this forum. It shows me that some of the people here are actually intellectual and wise. That combination turns me on and I hope to see more people using the rare combination in their efforts everyday. . It is absolutely crucial that we begin to utilize a critically reserved and almost paranoid sense of discernment when talking about any positive possibilities in the treating of life threatening disease and affliction. Furthermore to go the extra step and actually recognize the possibility of why the compound has been recently applied to other human ailments in our daily propoganda intake regimen, ie: diabetes 2, made me shout out loud a resounding "YES"! " By George I think shes got it!!" Missminni, please accept this "thumbs up" from me to you, for that unique and rare quality in thought. Woohoo!

If you want to go further into reality understand that the agenda has long been depopulation.I am certain that the real science has long ago surpassed what we have been able to see. It will not be long before even these supplements are regulated.

Global sales for cancer treating drugs increased by account for 8 to 9 percent of total global pharmaceutical sales. Now ask yourselves if that sliver of the drug market would be sufficient for the kind of gigantic conspiracy that is being proposed here. Do you think that there are a bunch of wealthy guys in a boardroom somewhere saying "Well, I kind of hate to see my mom suffering like that, but I sure wouldn't want to let this top secret cure for cancer get loose and destroy eight percent of our business. And gosh Jack, that's a real drag about your six year old daughter with neuroblastoma, but try to look on the bright side- Your bonus next year is really going to rock! Even after the funeral expenses and the cost of your wife's counselling, you'll still have enough money left over for another plane, another Mercedes and another boat!"

Further into "reality"...

I don't buy into the idea that depopulation is the agenda. Even though that is a side-effect. Take the pricing of cancer drugs. It is the same way that highway bandits price. How much are you willing to pay for your life? One example is the price of anticancer drug arimidex. The high price a few years ago was $6/pill, now it is $10/pill. How many lives did the extra $4 cost? $120 more a month meant folks on the margin of affording $6, couldn't have arimidex. I think medicine is more like roads, a community thing, than hot dogs, definitely a free market item.

The profit incentive is not community minded, success is only measured by who makes the most money. Profit is piles of money that ignore the cost to humanity of opportunities lost and environments destroyed. Alex de Tocqueville came to America to find out why we were successful. One thing he found that Europe did not have was a sense of community, and community service.

[niner]

I don't buy into the idea that depopulation is the agenda. Even though that is a side-effect. Take the pricing of cancer drugs. It is the same way that highway bandits price. How much are you willing to pay for your life? One example is the price of anticancer drug arimidex. The high price a few years ago was $6/pill, now it is $10/pill. How many lives did the extra $4 cost? $120 more a month meant folks on the margin of affording $6, couldn't have arimidex. I think medicine is more like roads, a community thing, than hot dogs, definitely a free market item.

The profit incentive is not community minded, success is only measured by who makes the most money. Profit is piles of money that ignore the cost to humanity of opportunities lost and environments destroyed. Alex de Tocqueville came to America to find out why we were successful. One thing he found that Europe did not have was a sense of community, and community service.

All drugs are expensive, and they wring the maximum amount of profit out of any and all that they can. That's just the Free Market. We used to have a lot more sense of community in America than we do today. There's a lot of reasons for that. Even when we had more of a sense of community, they still charged money for medicine. There is a balance to be struck between encouraging inovation and providing health care at an affordable price. I'm not sure that we have the balance exactly right, but I'm not sure it's that far wrong either. Drugs come off patent relatively soon after they are on the market, relative to other products, and the price usually drop a lot then. We do need to ensure that there's no collusion going on, which there sometimes is at the moment. Competition is good. I can now buy a year's worth of Claritin for about 15 bucks.

"Depopulation" is just another crazy-ass conspiracy theory.

[missminni]

I suspect that using Resveratrol for cancer might be a political hot potato in the pharma community. After all the current chemo treatments and cancer pharmaceuticals generate $42 billion in business a year. I thought that might even be the reason that sirtris is pursuing its use for diabetes 2 instead. One wouldn't infringe on any major existing market that way. JMO

I can't tell you how pleased I was to see this statement here on this forum. It shows me that some of the people here are actually intellectual and wise. That combination turns me on and I hope to see more people using the rare combination in their efforts everyday. . It is absolutely crucial that we begin to utilize a critically reserved and almost paranoid sense of discernment when talking about any positive possibilities in the treating of life threatening disease and affliction. Furthermore to go the extra step and actually recognize the possibility of why the compound has been recently applied to other human ailments in our daily propoganda intake regimen, ie: diabetes 2, made me shout out loud a resounding "YES"! " By George I think shes got it!!" Missminni, please accept this "thumbs up" from me to you, for that unique and rare quality in thought. Woohoo!

If you want to go further into reality understand that the agenda has long been depopulation.I am certain that the real science has long ago surpassed what we have been able to see. It will not be long before even these supplements are regulated.

Global sales for cancer treating drugs increased by account for 8 to 9 percent of total global pharmaceutical sales. Now ask yourselves if that sliver of the drug market would be sufficient for the kind of gigantic conspiracy that is being proposed here. Do you think that there are a bunch of wealthy guys in a boardroom somewhere saying "Well, I kind of hate to see my mom suffering like that, but I sure wouldn't want to let this top secret cure for cancer get loose and destroy eight percent of our business. And gosh Jack, that's a real drag about your six year old daughter with neuroblastoma, but try to look on the bright side- Your bonus next year is really going to rock! Even after the funeral expenses and the cost of your wife's counselling, you'll still have enough money left over for another plane, another Mercedes and another boat!"

Further into "reality"...

I think they're saying that after investing so much money in research and lobbying to get their products approved, they have an obligation to their shareholders to make a profit and get a good return on their investment. I think they are businessmen, not humanitarians.

[kismet]

"Depopulation" is just another crazy-ass conspiracy theory.

Amem, brother.

[niner]

I think they're saying that after investing so much money in research and lobbying to get their products approved, they have an obligation to their shareholders to make a profit and get a good return on their investment. I think they are businessmen, not humanitarians.

But there are lots of pharmaceutical companies that have no investment at all in cancer drugs. Why would they suppress a cure? And there are thousands of academics who could run a clinical trial, demonstrate that they had a cancer cure, and win not only the Nobel Prize but the adulation of the world. What's stopping them?

[missminni]

my response in red. Hi Niner...

I think they're saying that after investing so much money in research and lobbying to get their products approved, they have an obligation to their shareholders to make a profit and get a good return on their investment. I think they are businessmen, not humanitarians.

But there are lots of pharmaceutical companies that have no investment at all in cancer drugs. Why would they suppress a cure?

I didn't say that they would. It's Glaxo Kline that has the patent on Resveratrol now and they are pursuing it as a cure for diabetes. Do they market any cancer drugs?

And there are thousands of academics who could run a clinical trial, demonstrate that they had a cancer cure, and win not only the Nobel Prize but the adulation of the world. What's stopping them?

The money. I had a conversation with a research pharmacologist that treated my Mom at Johns Hopkins years ago in a clinical trial using nicotine gum to mitigate alzheimers. He told me that the pharmaceutical companies control what clinical trials are pursued. Because of the enormous cost of getting FDA approval (clinical trails etc) academics need the financial support of a pharmaceutical company to do the clinical trials. The nicotine gum didn't fit into the profit margin they had in mind and they abandoned the clinical studies because of that...in spite of the fact that results were pretty good. They are motivated by profit. I had this same discussion with a vet at AMC when she saw the amazing recovery Minni made using Res. She spoke to the hospital about doing studies with Res and was told that they only do clinical studies that are backed by pharmaceutical companies.

I just answered my own question about Glaxo Kline...which is actually Glaxo Smith Kline...
They are very invested in the cancer/chemo market...

http://www.kidneycan...GlaxoSmithKline
Overview

For company information, visit GlaxoSmithKline at Click Here

GlaxoSmithKline - one of the world's leading research-based pharmaceutical and healthcare companies - is committed to improving the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better, and live longer.


GSK Oncology is dedicated to producing innovations in cancer that will make profound differences in the lives of patients. Through GSK’s “bench to bedside” approach, we are transforming the way treatments are discovered and developed, resulting in one of the most robust pipelines in the oncology sector. Our worldwide research in oncology includes partnerships with more than 160 cancer centres. GSK is developing a new generation of patient focused cancer treatments in prevention, supportive care, chemotherapy and targeted therapies.

Edited by missminni, 31 August 2009 - 05:56 PM.

[niner]

my response in red. Hi Niner...
Hi Missminni, nice to see you around again!

I think they're saying that after investing so much money in research and lobbying to get their products approved, they have an obligation to their shareholders to make a profit and get a good return on their investment. I think they are businessmen, not humanitarians.

But there are lots of pharmaceutical companies that have no investment at all in cancer drugs. Why would they suppress a cure?

I didn't say that they would. It's Glaxo Kline that has the patent on Resveratrol now and they are pursuing it as a cure for diabetes. Do they market any cancer drugs?

And there are thousands of academics who could run a clinical trial, demonstrate that they had a cancer cure, and win not only the Nobel Prize but the adulation of the world. What's stopping them?

The money. I had a conversation with a research pharmacologist that treated my Mom at Johns Hopkins years ago in a clinical trial using nicotine gum to mitigate alzheimers. He told me that the pharmaceutical companies control what clinical trials are pursued. Because of the enormous cost of getting FDA approval (clinical trails etc) academics need the financial support of a pharmaceutical company to do the clinical trials. The nicotine gum didn't fit into the profit margin they had in mind and they abandoned the clinical studies because of that...in spite of the fact that results were pretty good. They are motivated by profit. I had this same discussion with a vet at AMC when she saw the amazing recovery Minni made using Res. She spoke to the hospital about doing studies with Res and was told that they only do clinical studies that are backed by pharmaceutical companies.

I just answered my own question about Glaxo Kline...which is actually Glaxo Smith Kline...
They are very invested in the cancer/chemo market...

I think GSK bought Sirtris for what they perceived (rightly or wrongly) as widespread benefits of the Sirtuin "platform". The fact that they are continuing to pursue the diabetes application really means nothing. This still doesn't answer the question of why all the drug companies that don't have a significant cancer portfolio wouldn't be interested in a cancer cure if it existed. Most academics don't have enough money to run a large human trial. Some have enough money to run large animal trials or small human trials. The NIH has a lot of money, and I believe they are funding some resveratrol trials. The hospital that said they only did trials backed by pharmaceutical companies might have meant that they only do trials that someone else pays for, and the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of money. There might have been a different answer if the vet had her own funding. I've spent time both in academia and the pharmaceutical industry, and I just don't buy the claim that pharma exerts an iron grip on which studies are and are not done. It's true that he who pays the piper calls the tune, but pharma is not the only source of money in the world. Also, America is not the only country in the world, (despite what some think...) and the FDA only makes rules for America. There are lots of other countries where drugs could get on the market without jumping through the kinds of hoops that the FDA demands. I'm not trying to claim that pharma is "good", or cares about people more than profits, but the idea that they are suppressing cures in order to make a little more money is just nonsense.

Edited by niner, 31 August 2009 - 08:49 PM.

[missminni]

my response in red. Hi Niner...
Hi Missminni, nice to see you around again!

I think they're saying that after investing so much money in research and lobbying to get their products approved, they have an obligation to their shareholders to make a profit and get a good return on their investment. I think they are businessmen, not humanitarians.

But there are lots of pharmaceutical companies that have no investment at all in cancer drugs. Why would they suppress a cure?

I didn't say that they would. It's Glaxo Kline that has the patent on Resveratrol now and they are pursuing it as a cure for diabetes. Do they market any cancer drugs?

And there are thousands of academics who could run a clinical trial, demonstrate that they had a cancer cure, and win not only the Nobel Prize but the adulation of the world. What's stopping them?

The money. I had a conversation with a research pharmacologist that treated my Mom at Johns Hopkins years ago in a clinical trial using nicotine gum to mitigate alzheimers. He told me that the pharmaceutical companies control what clinical trials are pursued. Because of the enormous cost of getting FDA approval (clinical trails etc) academics need the financial support of a pharmaceutical company to do the clinical trials. The nicotine gum didn't fit into the profit margin they had in mind and they abandoned the clinical studies because of that...in spite of the fact that results were pretty good. They are motivated by profit. I had this same discussion with a vet at AMC when she saw the amazing recovery Minni made using Res. She spoke to the hospital about doing studies with Res and was told that they only do clinical studies that are backed by pharmaceutical companies.

I just answered my own question about Glaxo Kline...which is actually Glaxo Smith Kline...
They are very invested in the cancer/chemo market...

I think GSK bought Sirtris for what they perceived (rightly or wrongly) as widespread benefits of the Sirtuin "platform". The fact that they are continuing to pursue the diabetes application really means nothing. This still doesn't answer the question of why all the drug companies that don't have a significant cancer portfolio wouldn't be interested in a cancer cure if it existed. Most academics don't have enough money to run a large human trial. Some have enough money to run large animal trials or small human trials. The NIH has a lot of money, and I believe they are funding some resveratrol trials. The hospital that said they only did trials backed by pharmaceutical companies might have meant that they only do trials that someone else pays for, and the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of money. There might have been a different answer if the vet had her own funding. I've spent time both in academia and the pharmaceutical industry, and I just don't buy the claim that pharma exerts an iron grip on which studies are and are not done. It's true that he who pays the piper calls the tune, but pharma is not the only source of money in the world. Also, America is not the only country in the world, (despite what some think...) and the FDA only makes rules for America. There are lots of other countries where drugs could get on the market without jumping through the kinds of hoops that the FDA demands. I'm not trying to claim that pharma is "good", or cares about people more than profits, but the idea that they are suppressing cures in order to make a little more money is just nonsense.

I wouldn't say they are suppressing cures, just not pursuing ones that aren't financially attractive. The drug companies without a cancer portfolio wouldn't pursue the resveratrol route now that GSK has the patent on it. Where's the money? Anybody can buy it. They would have to create a synthetic formulation, as did David Sinclair, who sold to GSK, who now owns the patent. Why would another pharma do the expensive clinical trials necessary if they don't own the patent? They must know as much as we do about the animal studies that have shown such promise for it as a cancer cure, yet it's not being pursued for that purpose.
Interestingly, there is a new drug called nitrosylcobalamin (NO-Cbl) that is finding success with curing cancer in dogs that is being pursued.
Call me cynical, but
I believe that pharmaceutical companies are motivated by profit margins, not the Hippocratic oath.

BTW, Minni is still doing great...no sign of cancer at all, and so is the other dog that had terminal cancer, Dolly.
She turned 12 this year. Minni will be 11 in Jan. Resveratrol really saved their lives. Both had biopsies that
gave them six months to live....and it is now almost 2 years and Dolly huge tumor totally disappeared, and Minni
gets a clean bill of health at every examination.

Edited by missminni, 31 August 2009 - 11:02 PM.

[niner]

my response in red. Hi Niner...
Hi Missminni, nice to see you around again!

I think they're saying that after investing so much money in research and lobbying to get their products approved, they have an obligation to their shareholders to make a profit and get a good return on their investment. I think they are businessmen, not humanitarians.

But there are lots of pharmaceutical companies that have no investment at all in cancer drugs. Why would they suppress a cure?

I didn't say that they would. It's Glaxo Kline that has the patent on Resveratrol now and they are pursuing it as a cure for diabetes. Do they market any cancer drugs?

And there are thousands of academics who could run a clinical trial, demonstrate that they had a cancer cure, and win not only the Nobel Prize but the adulation of the world. What's stopping them?

The money. I had a conversation with a research pharmacologist that treated my Mom at Johns Hopkins years ago in a clinical trial using nicotine gum to mitigate alzheimers. He told me that the pharmaceutical companies control what clinical trials are pursued. Because of the enormous cost of getting FDA approval (clinical trails etc) academics need the financial support of a pharmaceutical company to do the clinical trials. The nicotine gum didn't fit into the profit margin they had in mind and they abandoned the clinical studies because of that...in spite of the fact that results were pretty good. They are motivated by profit. I had this same discussion with a vet at AMC when she saw the amazing recovery Minni made using Res. She spoke to the hospital about doing studies with Res and was told that they only do clinical studies that are backed by pharmaceutical companies.

I just answered my own question about Glaxo Kline...which is actually Glaxo Smith Kline...
They are very invested in the cancer/chemo market...

I think GSK bought Sirtris for what they perceived (rightly or wrongly) as widespread benefits of the Sirtuin "platform". The fact that they are continuing to pursue the diabetes application really means nothing. This still doesn't answer the question of why all the drug companies that don't have a significant cancer portfolio wouldn't be interested in a cancer cure if it existed. Most academics don't have enough money to run a large human trial. Some have enough money to run large animal trials or small human trials. The NIH has a lot of money, and I believe they are funding some resveratrol trials. The hospital that said they only did trials backed by pharmaceutical companies might have meant that they only do trials that someone else pays for, and the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of money. There might have been a different answer if the vet had her own funding. I've spent time both in academia and the pharmaceutical industry, and I just don't buy the claim that pharma exerts an iron grip on which studies are and are not done. It's true that he who pays the piper calls the tune, but pharma is not the only source of money in the world. Also, America is not the only country in the world, (despite what some think...) and the FDA only makes rules for America. There are lots of other countries where drugs could get on the market without jumping through the kinds of hoops that the FDA demands. I'm not trying to claim that pharma is "good", or cares about people more than profits, but the idea that they are suppressing cures in order to make a little more money is just nonsense.

I wouldn't say they are suppressing cures, just not pursuing ones that aren't financially attractive. The drug companies without a cancer portfolio wouldn't pursue the resveratrol route now that GSK has the patent on it. Where's the money? Anybody can buy it. They would have to create a synthetic formulation, as did David Sinclair, who sold to GSK, who now owns the patent. Why would another pharma do the expensive clinical trials necessary if they don't own the patent? They must know as much as we do about the animal studies that have shown such promise for it as a cancer cure, yet it's not being pursued for that purpose.
Interestingly, there is a new drug called nitrosylcobalamin (NO-Cbl) that is finding success with curing cancer in dogs that is being pursued.
Call me cynical, but
I believe that pharmaceutical companies are motivated by profit margins, not the Hippocratic oath.

BTW, Minni is still doing great...no sign of cancer at all, and so is the other dog that had terminal cancer, Dolly.
She turned 12 this year. Minni will be 11 in Jan. Resveratrol really saved their lives. Both had biopsies that
gave them six months to live....and it is now almost 2 years and Dolly huge tumor totally disappeared, and Minni
gets a clean bill of health at every examination.

That's wonderful about Minni and Dolly. Drug companies don't pursue things if they think they aren't going to make money at them, that's true. I'd argue that GSK could make a lot of money with a Sirtuin active compound were it to show anti-cancer activity. If it was really good, I can't imagine they would just leave it on the table. If they are looking at resveratrol or other sirtuin compounds for diabetes, wouldn't that potentially canibalize their other diabetes drugs?

[missminni]

my response in red. Hi Niner...
Hi Missminni, nice to see you around again!

I think they're saying that after investing so much money in research and lobbying to get their products approved, they have an obligation to their shareholders to make a profit and get a good return on their investment. I think they are businessmen, not humanitarians.

But there are lots of pharmaceutical companies that have no investment at all in cancer drugs. Why would they suppress a cure?

I didn't say that they would. It's Glaxo Kline that has the patent on Resveratrol now and they are pursuing it as a cure for diabetes. Do they market any cancer drugs?

And there are thousands of academics who could run a clinical trial, demonstrate that they had a cancer cure, and win not only the Nobel Prize but the adulation of the world. What's stopping them?

The money. I had a conversation with a research pharmacologist that treated my Mom at Johns Hopkins years ago in a clinical trial using nicotine gum to mitigate alzheimers. He told me that the pharmaceutical companies control what clinical trials are pursued. Because of the enormous cost of The golden rule f do unto othersgetting FDA approval (clinical trails etc) academics need the financial support of a pharmaceutical company to do the clinical trials. The nicotine gum didn't fit into the profit margin they had in mind and they abandoned the clinical studies because of that...in spite of the fact that results were pretty good. They are motivated by profit. I had this same discussion with a vet at AMC when she saw the amazing recovery Minni made using Res. She spoke to the hospital about doing studies with Res and was told that they only do clinical studies that are backed by pharmaceutical companies.

I just answered my own question about Glaxo Kline...which is actually Glaxo Smith Kline...
They are very invested in the cancer/chemo market...

I think GSK bought Sirtris for what they perceived (rightly or wrongly) as widespread benefits of the Sirtuin "platform". The fact that they are continuing to pursue the diabetes application really means nothing. This still doesn't answer the question of why all the drug companies that don't have a significant cancer portfolio wouldn't be interested in a cancer cure if it existed. Most academics don't have enough money to run a large human trial. Some have enough money to run large animal trials or small human trials. The NIH has a lot of money, and I believe they are funding some resveratrol trials. The hospital that said they only did trials backed by pharmaceutical companies might have meant that they only do trials that someone else pays for, and the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of money. There might have been a different answer if the vet had her own funding. I've spent time both in academia and the pharmaceutical industry, and I just don't buy the claim that pharma exerts an iron grip on which studies are and are not done. It's true that he who pays the piper calls the tune, but pharma is not the only source of money in the world. Also, America is not the only country in the world, (despite what some think...) and the FDA only makes rules for America. There are lots of other countries where drugs could get on the market without jumping through the kinds of hoops that the FDA demands. I'm not trying to claim that pharma is "good", or cares about people more than profits, but the idea that they are suppressing cures in order to make a little more money is just nonsense.

I wouldn't say they are suppressing cures, just not pursuing ones that aren't financially attractive. The drug companies without a cancer portfolio wouldn't pursue the resveratrol route now that GSK has the patent on it. Where's the money? Anybody can buy it. They would have to create a synthetic formulation, as did David Sinclair, who sold to GSK, who now owns the patent. Why would another pharma do the expensive clinical trials necessary if they don't own the patent? They must know as much as we do about the animal studies that have shown such promise for it as a cancer cure, yet it's not being pursued for that purpose.
Interestingly, there is a new drug called nitrosylcobalamin (NO-Cbl) that is finding success with curing cancer in dogs that is being pursued.
Call me cynical, but
I believe that pharmaceutical companies are motivated by profit margins, not the Hippocratic oath.

BTW, Minni is still doing great...no sign of cancer at all, and so is the other dog that had terminal cancer, Dolly.
She turned 12 this year. Minni will be 11 in Jan. Resveratrol really saved their lives. Both had biopsies that
gave them six months to live....and it is now almost 2 years and Dolly huge tumor totally disappeared, and Minni
gets a clean bill of health at every examination.

That's wonderful about Minni and Dolly. Drug companies don't pursue things if they think they aren't going to make money at them, that's true. I'd argue that GSK could make a lot of money with a Sirtuin active compound were it to show anti-cancer activity. If it was really good, I can't imagine they would just leave it on the table. If they are looking at resveratrol or other sirtuin compounds for diabetes, wouldn't that potentially canibalize their other diabetes drugs?

It appears that their diabetes drug Avandia is having some serious problems by causing heart attacks as a side effect.. They need a replacement. That explains why the pursuit of res for diabetes instead of cancer. Their oncology pharms are extensive and very popular and bringing in tons of money. Why would they want to cut into a money making product line? They are not in the business of savings lives....they are in the business of selling drugs. I remember how I couldn't believe that dog breeders killed puppies that weren't up to standard. It was so hard to fathom that they could do such a thing. But money is the bottom line. This is a cruel world Niner. It's not the way we were taught it should be. Greed rules.

[cytg]

I think they're saying that after investing so much money in research and lobbying to get their products approved, they have an obligation to their shareholders to make a profit and get a good return on their investment. I think they are businessmen, not humanitarians.

But there are lots of pharmaceutical companies that have no investment at all in cancer drugs. Why would they suppress a cure? And there are thousands of academics who could run a clinical trial, demonstrate that they had a cancer cure, and win not only the Nobel Prize but the adulation of the world. What's stopping them?

"But there are lots of pharmaceutical companies that have no investment at all in cancer drugs. Why would they suppress a cure?"

- I think there is more than enough evidence of correlation, so why has noone disproved causation? Where are all the stuides that says the substance is non-effective?

(ps. i've been a regular reader of this forums incl. the medical progress of TFI for a long time. i was saddened that he didnt make it. was it true that he smoked during his disease?)

[missminni]

I think they're saying that after investing so much money in research and lobbying to get their products approved, they have an obligation to their shareholders to make a profit and get a good return on their investment. I think they are businessmen, not humanitarians.

But there are lots of pharmaceutical companies that have no investment at all in cancer drugs. Why would they suppress a cure? And there are thousands of academics who could run a clinical trial, demonstrate that they had a cancer cure, and win not only the Nobel Prize but the adulation of the world. What's stopping them?

"But there are lots of pharmaceutical companies that have no investment at all in cancer drugs. Why would they suppress a cure?"

- I think there is more than enough evidence of correlation, so why has noone disproved causation? Where are all the stuides that says the substance is non-effective?

(ps. i've been a regular reader of this forums incl. the medical progress of TFI for a long time. i was saddened that he didnt make it. was it true that he smoked during his disease?)

Sadly, it is true. Both his father and his attending nurse said he did.

[niner]

I think they're saying that after investing so much money in research and lobbying to get their products approved, they have an obligation to their shareholders to make a profit and get a good return on their investment. I think they are businessmen, not humanitarians.

But there are lots of pharmaceutical companies that have no investment at all in cancer drugs. Why would they suppress a cure? And there are thousands of academics who could run a clinical trial, demonstrate that they had a cancer cure, and win not only the Nobel Prize but the adulation of the world. What's stopping them?

"But there are lots of pharmaceutical companies that have no investment at all in cancer drugs. Why would they suppress a cure?"

- I think there is more than enough evidence of correlation, so why has noone disproved causation? Where are all the stuides that says the substance is non-effective?

I don't understand what you're saying here...

(ps. i've been a regular reader of this forums incl. the medical progress of TFI for a long time. i was saddened that he didnt make it. was it true that he smoked during his disease?)

From what I've read, yes. However, I don't think that's what did him in. I think it was the 40 pack-years that he smoked prior to his cancer being diagnosed.

[opendoor]

Avandia is having some serious problems by causing heart attacks as a side effect. They need a replacement. That explains why the pursuit of res for diabetes instead of cancer.

But GSK is about to announce early colon cancer trial results soon unless they have decided to wait. I think it's going to be good news. If the results are very positive, I wonder what they would do with SRT501.

Edited by opendoor, 13 September 2009 - 05:27 AM.

[niner]

Avandia is having some serious problems by causing heart attacks as a side effect. They need a replacement. That explains why the pursuit of res for diabetes instead of cancer.

But GSK is about to announce early colon cancer trial results soon unless they have decided to wait. I think it's going to be good news. If the results are very positive, I wonder what they would do with SRT501.

Is GSK running their own resveratrol trial in colon Ca? They haven't had enough time for that, have they? Are you thinking of this UCI/UCLA trial?

Primary Outcome Measures:
Test the hypothesis that resveratrol modulates Wnt signaling in vivo in colon cancer and normal colonic mucosa [ Time Frame: 3 years ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Estimated Enrollment: 12
Study Start Date: July 2005
Estimated Study Completion Date: December 2009
Estimated Primary Completion Date: December 2008 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Intervention Details:
Drug: Resveratrol
The first two patients receiving resveratrol pills will be treated at a dose of 20mg/day, the third and fourth patients at a dose of 80mg/day and the fifth and sixth patients at a dose of 160mg/day

Pretty disappointing regimen. I guess it was cutting edge in '05...