Top Ten Conspiracy Theories

[Red Phoenix]

Is the suppression of a cancer cure a uniquely American interest (and thus a conspiracy that interests mainly Americans and the occasional local fuck nut/facebook posting cunts). How does stopping a cure help those countries with free healthcare who spend billions every year on treatment?

 

It's the kind of fucked up, praying on the scared and vulnerable, cuntery that really fucking winds me up with the kind of twats who buy into conspiracy theories and spread them through social media like...well...cancer.

 

If you want to get all wound up, going on about local fuck nuts, etc, fair enough. I've had family members die from cancer too so you can believe that I'm fairly fucked off too when looking into some of this.

 

GcMAF, being something that naturally assists the immune system, is something that might turn out to be a big step forward with this problem in the future as well, if it's allowed to be fucking used of course. With it being natural it's not so easy to make cash from though, and it seems to have the potential to attack several diseases, not just cancer.

[Cardie]

If you want to get all wound up, going on about local fuck nuts, etc, fair enough. I've had family members die from cancer too so you can believe that I'm fairly fucked off too when looking into some of this.

 

GcMAF, being something that naturally assists the immune system, is something that might turn out to be a big step forward with this problem in the future as well, if it's allowed to be fucking used of course. With it being natural it's not so easy to make cash from though, and it seems to have the potential to attack several diseases, not just cancer.

 

At some point you'll grow up and stop believing in the tooth fairy and father Christmas.

[Red Phoenix]

By your own admission you haven't even read all of what you posted so based purely on a cursory read you've concluded that a niche doctor, performing unregulated tests/treatment on the vulnerable and selling an unregulated drug that led to the death of 5 children (he killed himself the same day those 5 deaths were announced) was executed as part of a government/pharmaceutical plot.

 

He wasn't a victim of some FDA conspiracy to stop a wonder cure he'd invented reaching the masses he was a snake oil salesman who's greed eventually caught up with him.

 

I think you're fairly clueless on this, I'll leave you to it. I didn't conclude anything either.

[Red Phoenix]

At some point you'll grow up and stop believing in the tooth fairy and father Christmas.

 

 

If you want to refute what I posted, go ahead. I'm shit at researching right? So you can pick the whole thing apart. Maybe start with how GcMAF is snake oil, have fun with that.

[Cardie]

I think you're fairly clueless on this, I'll leave you to it. I didn't conclude anything either.

 

He's (or rather he was) a right wing, christian preacher turned snake oil salesman who's greed caught up with him and rather than spending 20 years in jail he decided to do the one decent thing in his life and end it.

[Cardie]

If you want to refute what I posted, go ahead. I'm shit at researching right? So you can pick the whole thing apart. Maybe start with how GcMAF is snake oil, have fun with that.

 

Presumably Cancer Research UK are in on this conspiracy too?

 

And I can never decide if you're shit at it or just don't do it (after all, there are only so many hours in the day and with your switching specialist subjects like it's going out of fashion there's only so much you can actually do). Your copy and past skills are shit hot though. 

[Red Phoenix]

He's (or rather he was) a right wing, christian preacher turned snake oil salesman who's greed caught up with him and rather than spending 20 years in jail he decided to do the one decent thing in his life and end it.

 

It's a waste of energy talking with you with stuff like that. Research into the snake oil if you're so interested.

[Cardie]

Copy and paste is piss easy

 

 

The corresponding author, Nobutu Yamamoto, did not respond to a request for comment. However, the Anticancer Fund, which has been pushing journals to correct the record on GcMAF, laid out for Retraction Watch the problems it saw with this paper:

This paper and 2 

other

 

papers

 from the same group report results of the use of GcMAF to treat cancer patients. Later in 2009 this group published 

another article

 reporting their results treating HIV using again GcMAF. GcMAF is supposed to be a naturally occurring protein capable of activating macrophages. It is claimed that an enzyme called Nagalase would deglycosilate GcMAF, impeding macrophages’ activation. With all this background the authors of this series of articles claim they created a GcMAF resistant to Nagalase. The authors reported treatment success by measuring Nagalase in serum, stating, in the cancer-related articles, that it is produced by cancer cells. In the HIV-related article they claim Nagalase is a viral component.

After several patients asked our organization, the Anticancer Fund, about GcMAF as a cancer treatment, we decided to look for the evidence supporting its use in cancer. The IJC article reports the use ofGcMAF in 16 breast cancer patients. All patients had previously mastectomy or lumpectomy and all but one received radiotherapy or chemotherapy, prior to the initiation of the treatment with GcMAF.

1. The authors do not give any information on the staging of these patients. However, they determined that these patients had metastatic disease, based on an elevated level of serum Nagalase. Elevated Nagalase level is not a criterion to define metastatic disease in the 
   TNM classification of cancer
   , 7
   th
    edition. There is therefore no proof that the patients had residual disease after the standard treatment they received.

According to the information presented in Table 1, no patient received both radiotherapy and chemotherapy, which is rather unusual in the management of breast cancer patients. Especially, two patients who had lumpectomy did not receive radiotherapy which is recommended after lumpectomy.

Our organization tried to contact Yamamoto’s co-authors. We found out that Hirofumi Suyama, a co-author affiliated to the Nagasaki Immunotherapy Research Group in Japan, passed away in 2009. Pr. Hirofumi Suyamawas a professor of Forensic Medicine at the Nagasaki University who retired in 1987 and did not publish papers from 1991 until 2007, when he co-authored several papers together with Nobuto Yamamoto. The co-authors affiliated to the Socrates Institute for Therapeutic Immunology in Philadelphia, organization from which Yamamoto appears to be director, are untraceable.

The Nagasaki and the Hyogo Immunotherapy Research Groupst hat gave IRB approvals for these trials do not exist anywhere except in the papers from Nobuto Yamamoto. Moreover, three people listed in the approval documents denied being part of those groups or having ever participated in Yamamoto’s work.

The purported sponsors of this trial denied having supported clinical research on GcMAF. They supported Yamamoto’s preclinical work, in the 90s. The US Public Health Service from 1992-1994 and the Elsa E. Pardee Foundation only in 1998. When he was associated to other institutions rather than the Socrates Institute for Therapeutic Immunology.

We also found that Yamamoto forged the name of Pr. Charles E. Benson from the University of Pennsylvania, when he presented further results of GcMAF to treat some types of cancer and HIV to FOCIS meetings.

The most worrisome problem is that this article and others published in other peer-reviewed journals is used by some GcMAF manufacturers to support their claims and sell it illegally to patients. Plus these people are reporting their outcomes treating cancer, HIV, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Autism and other ailments, using invalid endpoints such as Nagalase; to promote the illegal marketing of GcMAF.

We have serious concerns at many levels concerning the development of this research and we have an obligation to find answers for the sake of desperate patients using this therapy.

[Red Phoenix]

Presumably Cancer Research UK are in on this conspiracy too?

 

I don't even know if there is a conspiracy, it's a theory. I didn't say anything about "Cancer Research UK" either.

[Cardie]

 I didn't say anything about "Cancer Research UK" either.

 

I know, I did.

[Red Phoenix]

Copy and paste is piss easy

 

What did you do? Follow a wiki page link? The wiki page is slightly biased, I almost warned you about that but was too busy responding to some of the daft shit you were saying.

 

Try harder if you're so bothered. Look into GcMAF research beyond a few retracted papers. You're so fucking biased yourself that it's probably pointless even trying to help.

[Cardie]

What did you do? Follow a wiki page link?

 

Nope.

[Red Phoenix]

I know, I did.

 

Yep. Hope you had fun.

[Red Phoenix]

Nope.

 

So it's all sussed for you then, right? Great. Top researching there Cardie. Later.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It's all bullshit anyway.  Only giving money you can't afford to Gloria fucking Copeland can cure cancer.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifLNvtjL1Ns

[Cardie]

Not sure why you seem to be holding me to a higher standard than you hold yourself or those you believe in.

 

On the one hand you have various agencies (including Cancer Research UK and the Anti Cancer Trust, who you can only presume are working for the treatment of cancer) denouncing the use of a dangerous, unlicensed, untested drug you can buy over the internet, linked to the death of 5 children, which appears to be based on no real science, forged/fraudulent papers, untraceable co-authors, and sponsors who deny all knowledge of sponsoring clinical trials.

 

On the other hand you have yourself, and Marc Ruggerio, a seemingly lovely chap involved in the Aids denial movement, bestowing the virtues of said dodgy cure backed up by there own research in predatory journals.

 

But hey, a bloke who looked like he was about to spend the rest of his life in Jail took the easy way out so it must be a huge conspiracy to stem the danger of a cancer cure.

[Red Phoenix]

Copy and paste is piss easy

 

It sure is, thanks for the reminder :

 

Time-lapse micro-photography shows that after about seven days of co-culture of GcMAF-activated macrophages with human breast cancer cells, the irregular growth of the breast carcinoma cells was arrested and the large protruding cell biomass was reduced. Figure 3A shows the human breast cancer cells and the GcMAF-activated macrophages at day one; the cancer cells, as expected, form an irregular layer that covers the field of observation. Individual cancer cells can be recognized as well as the naked areas of the plate as described above. GcMAF-activated macrophages appear as small cells that are attached to the cancer cells, in most cases, above them. It is interesting to notice that almost no macrophages can be observed in the naked areas of the plate, thus confirming the observation that GcMAF-activated macrophages seek for contact with the cancer cells. After seven days of co-incubation (Figure 3B ), no individual cancer cell can be recognized. After macrophage-induced apoptosis, their apoptotic bodies are all grouped together in the center of the field of observation, and most of the field is empty of cancer cells. Most GcMAF-activated macrophages surround and infiltrate the mass of cancer cell debris in the center.

 

Source : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3738989/

[Cardie]

You may want to read the references.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Copy and paste is piss

 

 

 

[Hmmm.... Trickier than you'd think, this.]

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Watching RP lecture others about research is quite honestly a bizarre and surreal feeling.

[Red Phoenix]

You may want to read the references.

 

I already did. They don't negate the paper or the results.

[Red Phoenix]

Watching RP lecture others about research is quite honestly a bizarre and surreal feeling.

 

Cardie has lectured me about research in the past, just returning the favour.

[Cardie]

Watching RP lecture others about research is quite honestly a bizarre and surreal feeling.

 

Thing is you'd be hard pressed to call any of my responses research, it's usually in response to a post from RP so it's not really required and instead just follows a similar pattern.

 

RP posts something about a heartfelt subject he's been looking into (different to the one he looking at a few days ago of course), quick scan for a name or link and you can tell without even looking the guy/woman/site will have questionable ideas/morals and generally be a bit of a kook or just genuinely unpleasant. Fortunately given RP rarely reads his stuff either you can excuse him of being as unpleasant as the people/places he puts his trust in.

[Cardie]

Cardie has lectured me about research in the past, just returning the favour.

 

Because you're the one who professes to be interested in these things*, so it's not unreasonable to assume you've done research. As opposed to myself who has said many times in discussion with you that a simple google search is usually enough to point out the gaping holes in your argument.

 

*Until things start going wrong at which point you feign disinterest and say you've only just started getting into it.

[Cardie]

I already did. They don't negate the paper or the results.

 

No of course not nothing wrong with those who are marketing and selling the snake oil being the authors of said paper, I think a genuinely independent report would probably further your case more.