Scientists cure cancer, But no one takes notice

[Saggy]

 

Here buddy, come sit on uncle SagaciousKJB's knee and I'll tell you all about the world.

 

blah blah blah blah

 

*hands stu a lollypop then ruffles hair*

 

haha ok sport, now go play outside with your friends.

Thanks mista! Gee boy I thought everybody was my friend, and that all the grown ups in the big wide world were all really nice! Golly it sure is nice to have people like you to tell me about the big baddies, I'd just sit here on my gullible butt otherwise.

 

Yh funny how patronising someone can make them feel, what's that word... oh yh patronised. Maybe wasn't your intention, but you sure did achieve it in some style.

Yeah, you're right... I guess I should have just tried to veil my point in the most transparent sarcasm I could think of to help take the edge off that.

[sivispacem]

 

You put the hose from the ozone machine into a glass of water and it adds an extra unstable oxygen atom to create ozone, you drink the water and the unstable atom detaches and turns into pure oxygen and goes into your blood stream and to all your cells and replenishes any low amounts of oxygen.

Hang on a minute, that makes absolutely no scientific sense. Ozone only undergoes atmospheric decay at extremely high concentrations- extremely harmful levels- and then only after a prolonged period. Even if it were to actually work, swallowing it would make no difference as there's little to no oxygen transfer from the stomach to the bloodstream anyway- if there was, then one could reach oxygen hypersaturation just by drinking tap water (which already contains a significant quantity of dissolved oxygen). And even if, somehow the oxygen were to separate from Ozone in a level not dangerous to human health (unlikely) and be diffused into the bloodstream from the stomach (even less likely) then it's likely to cause more harm than good. You only need a comparatively small increase in blood-oxygen levels to reach a point of oxygen over-saturation (AKA oxygen toxicity), itself leading to serious damage to the central nervous system. I mean, unregulated increases in blood oxygen level outside of controlled are incredibly dangerous- specialist training is needed for scuba divers to use enriched air (Nitrox, generally containing 50% more oxygen than air) and it limits maximum permissible pressures and depths to around 70% of those using standard ratio air mixes. So even if all these unlikely positive effects were to come about, how do you control the quantity of oxygen entering your bloodstream and prevent, say, retinal detachment, seizures or optic nerve damage from oxygen toxicity? I mean, a healthy human can maintain a level of oxygen saturation between 95 and 99% anyway, so how much positive impact do you think could be caused even theoretical without reaching complete saturation or a point of supersaturation with oxygen existing in a dangerous unbound state in the blood? After all, attempts to treat obstructive lung conditions with supersaturating levels of oxygen have actually led to increased carbon dioxide retention.

 

Also, Ozone only kills bacteria at a level well above the safe exposure level for humans. One of the disadvantages of having lungs, and blood.

 

In short, it's about as safe as drinking hydrogen peroxide. Which is, I note, another apparent cancer "cure". Despite it potentially forming contact explosives with organic lipids, being corrosive, a tissue necrotic and an organic oxidiser.

Edited January 14, 2012 by sivispacem

[Oakshaft]

I read on a website a few weeks ago that some Canadian scientists MAY have found a cure and were heading to a lab in the US to test it, its not the same as this one since this article was in may 2011, the one im talking about was in december 2011.

 

Either way I hope they find a cure soon!

[Mr.Mister]

I'm at the University of Alberta and this is the first I'm hearing of this.

Same here. I'll ask my dad if he knows anything of this

 

Scientists have been making progress the past couple years when it comes to slowing cancer growth, but curing it? Not sure

[Mike Tequeli]

I know a limited amount about the actual science involved, but I'm pretty sure if it was genuine then the drug companies would be all over it regardless of whether or not it was pantentable, well depending on the costs involved in mass production of it of course. Regardless, it's still a bit sensationalist to say they've "cured cancer" and using that kind of language does make you wonder about the people involved.

No drug companies would not be all over it, think about all the money coming in from cancer patients who pay for all the medications they're on. If there was a simple cure pharmaceuticals would lose a sh*t load of money. Business is business.

Do you legitimately believe this? You don't think there are huge monetary gains to be made from curing cancer? Anyone who could pull off such a feat would surely be recognized for it in reputation and government funding, aside from the stupidly large amounts of money that could be made.

[Jay]

Cancer probably is curable, but think about how many millions will be lost to medications made to control them. That's how f*cked up the world is. It's all about money.

The world would only get more f*cked up if cancer was cured and people stopped dying from it. The prevalence of cancer is economically important just as much as it is important for population control.

 

There was a sketch comedy program ages back where a scientist cured cancer, but then his colleagues threw it on the ground and admonished him, because they all had mortgages and kids in school to pay for and they didn't want the grant money to stop coming in.