Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice

By cgull8m

Canadian researchers find a simple cure for cancer, but major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.
Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is a little ripple in the news or in TV. It is a simple technique using very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders. So, there is no concern of side effects or about their long term effects.


This drug doesn’t require a patent, so anyone can employ it widely and cheaply compared to the costly cancer drugs produced by major pharmaceutical companies.


Canadian scientists tested this dichloroacetate (DCA) on human’s cells; it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells and left the healthy cells alone. It was tested on Rats inflicted with severe tumors; their cells shrank when they were fed with water supplemented with DCA. The drug is widely available and the technique is easy to use, why the major drug companies are not involved? Or the Media interested in this find?


In human bodies there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria, but they need to be triggered to be effective. Scientists used to think that these mitochondria cells were damaged and thus ineffective against cancer. So they used to focus on glycolysis, which is less effective in curing cancer and more wasteful. The drug manufacturers focused on this glycolysis method to fight cancer. This DCA on the other hand doesn’t rely on glycolysis instead on mitochondria; it triggers the mitochondria which in turn fights the cancer cells.


The side effect of this is it also reactivates a process called apoptosis. You see, mitochondria contain an all-too-important self-destruct button that can't be pressed in cancer cells. Without it, tumors grow larger as cells refuse to be extinguished. Fully functioning mitochondria, thanks to DCA, can once again die.


With glycolysis turned off, the body produces less lactic acid, so the bad tissue around cancer cells doesn't break down and seed new tumors.


Pharmaceutical companies are not investing in this research because DCA method cannot be patented, without a patent they can’t make money, like they are doing now with their AIDS Patent. Since the pharmaceutical companies won’t develop this, the article says other independent laboratories should start producing this drug and do more research to confirm all the above findings and produce drugs. All the groundwork can be done in collaboration with the Universities, who will be glad to assist in such research and can develop an effective drug for curing cancer.


You can access the original research for this cancer here.


This article wants to raise awareness for this study, hope some independent companies and small startup will pick up this idea and produce these drugs, because the big companies won’t touch it for a long time.

What Non-Christians Want Christians To Hear

Posted October 23, 2010 by John Shore in Atheists, Christianity.

  390 Comments

By way of researching a book of mine (“I’m OK – You’re Not: The Message We’re Sending Nonbelievers and Why We Should Stop“), I posted a notice on Craigslist sites all over the country asking non-Christians to send me any short, personal statement they would like Christians to read.

“Specifically,” I wrote, “I’d like to hear how you feel about being on the receiving end of the efforts of Christian evangelicals to convert you.” (To that I added, “I want to be very clear that this is not a Christian-bashing book; it’s coming from a place that only means well for everyone. Thanks.”)

Within three days, I had in my inbox over 300 emails from non-Christians across the country. Reading them was one of the more depressing experiences of my life. I had expected it to be a message of anger, but if you boiled down to one the overall sentiment most often expressed in the nonbelievers’ statements, it would be this: Why do Christians hate us so much?

Below is a pretty random sample of the statements non-Christians sent me. If you’re a Christian, they make for a mighty saddening read. Or they certainly should, anyway.

“The main thing that baffles and angers me about Christians is how they can understand so little about human nature that when, in their fervor to convert another person, they tell that person (as they inevitably do, in one way or another), ‘You’re bad, and wrong, and evil,’ they actually expect that person to agree with them. It pretty much guarantees that virtually the only people Christians can ever realistically hope to convert are those with tragically low self-esteem.”– E.S., Denver

“I feel that Christians have got it all wrong; it seems to me that they’ve created the very thing Jesus was against: Separatism.”– T. O., Denver

“I am often distressed at the way some Christians take as a given that Christians and Christianity define goodness. Many of we non-Christians make a practice of doing good; we, too, have a well-developed ethical system, and are devoted to making the world a better place. Christians hardly have a monopoly on what’s right, or good, or just.”– C.R., Seattle

“Christians seem to have lost their focus on Jesus’ core message: ‘Love the Lord your god with all your heart and with all your soul, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.’”– R.M., Tacoma, WA

“I have no problem whatsoever with God or Jesus – only Christians. It’s been my experience that most Christians are belligerent, disdainful and pushy.” — D.B., Atlanta

“Whenever I’m approached by an evangelist – by a Christian missionary – I know I’m up against someone so obsessed and narrowly focused that it will do me absolutely no good to try and explain or share my own value system. I never want to be rude to them, of course, but never have any idea how to respond to their attempts to convert me; in short order, I inevitably find myself simply feeling embarrassed–first for them, and then for us both. I’m always grateful when such encounters conclude.”– K.C., Fresno, CA.

“I don’t know whether or not most of the Christians I come across think they’re acting and being like Jesus was – but if they do, they need to go back to their Bibles, and take a closer look at Jesus.” — L.B., Phoenix

“I grew up Jewish in a Southern Baptist town, where I was constantly being told that I killed Christ, ate Christian babies, and was going to hell. So I learned early that many Christians have – or sure seem to have – no love in their hearts at all. It also seems so odd to me that Christians think that if I don’t accept their message my ears and heart are closed, because it seems to me like they have excessively closed ears and hearts to anyone else’s spiritual message and experience. They seem to have no sense of the many ways in which God reaches out to everyone. As far as I’ve ever known, Christians are narrow in their sense of God, fairly fascistic in their thinking, and extremely egotistical in thinking God only approves of them.”– B.P., Houston

“I wish Christians would resist their aggressive impulses to morph others into Christians. Didn’t Jesus preach that we should all love one another?”– M.G., Shoreline, WA

“I’m frequently approached by Christians of many denominations who ask whether I’ve accepted Christ as my savior. When I have the patience, I politely tell them that I’m Jewish. This only makes them more aggressive; they then treat me like some poor lost waif in need of their particular brand of salvation. They almost act like salespeople working on commission: If they can save my soul, then they’re one rung closer to heaven. It’s demeaning. I always remain polite, but encounters like these only show disrespect and sometimes outright intolerance for my beliefs and my culture. In Judaism, we do not seek to convert people. That is because we accept that there are many paths to God, and believe that no one religion can lay sole claim to the truth or to God’s favor. Each person is free to find his or her own way. To Christians I would say: Practice your religion as you wish. There is no need to try and influence others. If your religion is a true one, people will come to it on their own.”– M.S., Honolulu

“When did it become that being a Christian meant being an intolerant, hateful bigot? I grew up learning the positive message of Christ: Do well and treat others with respect, and your reward will be in heaven. Somehow, for a seemingly large group of Christians, that notion has gone lost: It has turned into the thunders and lights of the wrath of God, and into condemning everyone who disagrees with them to burning in the flames of hell. Somehow, present-day Christians forgot about turning the other cheek, abandoned the notion of treating others like they would like to be treated themselves; they’ve become bent on preaching, judging, and selfishly attempting to save the souls of others by condemning them. What happen to love? To tolerance? To respect?”–S.P., Nashville

“There are about a million things I’d like to say to Christians, but here’s the first few that come to mind: Please respect my right to be the person I’ve chosen to become. Worship, pray and praise your God all you want–but please leave me, and my laws, and my city, and my school alone. Stop trying to make me, or my children, worship your god. Why do we all have to be Christians? Respect my beliefs; I guarantee they’re every bit as strong as yours. Mostly, please respect my free will. Let me choose if I want to marry someone of my own sex. Let me choose if I want to have an abortion or not. Let me choose to go to hell if that’s where you believe I’m going. I can honestly say that I’d rather go to hell than live the hypocritical life I see so many Christians living.”– D.B., Seattle

“I had a friend who was, as they say, reborn. During my breaks from college she invited me to her church, and I did go a couple of times. In a matter of a month, at least ten people at her church told me that I was going to hell. The ironic thing is that I do believe in God; I’ve just never found a church where I felt at ease. However, in their eyes, I was nothing but a sinner who needed to be saved. I stopped going to that church (which in the past four years has grown from a small to a mega-church), but in time, through my friend, have seen some of these people again. None of them ever fails to treat me exactly as they did four years ago. All I can say is this: Constantly telling someone they’re going to hell is not a good way to convert them.”– A.S., Chicago

“I am a former ‘born again’ Christian. It’s been my personal experience that Christians treat the poor poorly–much like the Pharisees did in the parable of the old woman with the two coins. I found the church to be political to a fault, and its individual members all too happy to judge and look down on others. As a Christian, my own fervor to witness was beyond healthy. My friends would come to me to vent and express emotions, and all I would do is preach to them. I was of no real comfort to them. I never tried to see anything from their perspective.”– J.S.W, Philadelphia

“Once Christians know I’m gay, the conversion talk usually stops. Instead, I become this sympathetic character who apparently isn’t worthy of the gift of Christ. From my childhood in a Baptist church, I recall the ‘loathe the sin, love the sinner’ talk, but as an adult I can’t say I’ve often found Christians practicing that attitude. Deep down, I’m always relieved to avoid disturbing “conversion” conversations with Christians; discussing one’s most intimate thoughts and personal beliefs isn’t something I enjoy doing with random strangers. But at the same time, I feel as though Christians make a value judgment about my soul on the spot, simply because I am gay. I don’t pretend to know the worth of a soul, nor the coming gifts to those who convert the masses, but I would guess converting the sinful homosexuals would merit a few brownie points. But I get the feeling that most Christians don’t think we’re worth the hassle.”– R.M., Houston

“Religion always seemed too personal for me to take advice about it from people I don’t know.”– D.P., Denver

Ron Paul Shows Racist Colors In Washington Hearing

FEBRUARY 9, 2011

tags: Federal Reserve System, Ron Paul, Southern Poverty Law Center

by dekerivers

This is not the first time I have posted on the truly ugly side of Congressman Ron Paul.  That Ron Paul is a despicable racist is without question.  That Paul is now allowed to showcase that racism from a leadership position in the Republican House of Representatives is maddening.

Ron Paul is chairman of a House subcommittee overseeing the Federal Reserve.  Anyone who has listened to Paul speak for five minutes about the Fed knows he should be on medication.  When you mention the Federal Reserve one can see the ‘black helicopters’ start to fly in the head of Ron Paul.

The problem is that Ron Paul has a problem with anything that is black.

Which leads me to the Civil War……and would you believe back to the hearing that Paul chaired.

Stick with me.

At one point, when Paul opened up the hearing to questions from committee members, Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) directly took on DiLorenzo for his membership in the League of the South, an organization that has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “neo-Confederate” hate group advocating for Southern secession.

Clay then rattled off a list of some of DiLorenzo’s articles, including “More Lies about the Civil War,” “In Defense of Sedition,” and “The First Dictator-President,” which examines “how Lincoln’s myth has corrupted America.”

“After reviewing your work and the so-called methods you employ, I still cannot understand you being invited to testify today on the unemployment crisis, but I do know that I have no questions for you,” Clay concluded.

 The reason a racist was called to testify is because there was a racist chairing the committee.   The League of the South called slavery “God-ordained” and described segregation as necessary to the racial “integrity”. 

There was no reason that DiLorenzo should have been at the congressional hearing to speak about job creation and the unemployment rate.  He claims to be an economist but instead is best known for his life’s work of rewriting the history of the Civil War and Lincoln’s role in it.  DiLorenzo was at the hearing to make a point about the volume of hate that we can come to expect with the vile Ron Paul in charge of this subcommittee.

Question is how will the GOP, who hopes to court more of the black vote, deal with the in-your-face racism of Ron Paul?

Angry White Man (Ron Paul) | The New Republic

Angry White Man | The New Republic

The Hubris And Hypocrisy Of Newt Gingrich

DOUG MATACONIS   ·   WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2010   ·   19 COMMENTS

Considering that he’s looking more and more likely to run for President in 2012, John Richardson’s Esquire profile of Newt Gingrich is a must read, but the headline grabbing parts are likely to be the excerpts from the interview with Gingrich’s second wife Marianne:

Early in May, she went out to Ohio for her mother’s birthday. A day and a half went by and Newt didn’t return her calls, which was strange. They always talked every day, often ten times a day, so she was frantic by the time he called to say he needed to talk to her.

“About what?”

He wanted to talk in person, he said.

“I said, ‘No, we need to talk now.’ ”

He went quiet.

“There’s somebody else, isn’t there?”

She kind of guessed it, of course. Women usually do. But did she know the woman was in her apartment, eating off her plates, sleeping in her bed?

She called a minister they both trusted. He came over to the house the next day and worked with them the whole weekend, but Gingrich just kept saying she was a Jaguar and all he wanted was a Chevrolet. ” ‘I can’t handle a Jaguar right now.’ He said that many times. ‘All I want is a Chevrolet.’ ”

He asked her to just tolerate the affair, an offer she refused.

He’d just returned from Erie, Pennsylvania, where he’d given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values.

The next night, they sat talking out on their back patio in Georgia. She said, “How do you give that speech and do what you’re doing?”

“It doesn’t matter what I do,” he answered. “People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”

That’s a form of arrogance that strikes me as being rather dangerous in one who seeks great power.

"Forgiveness and Western Guilt" by Will Wlizlo

5/3/2011 

by Will Wlizlo

“We still value forgiveness, but we are very confused about it,” writes Wilfred M. McClay for the intellectual Christian-monthly First Things, “and in our confusion we may have produced a situation in which forgiveness has in fact very nearly lost its moral weight as well as its moral meaning and been translated into an act of random kindness whose chief value lies in the sense of release it brings us.”

McClay sees Western society to be in a state of moral crisis (when isn’t it?), an era in which traditional conceptions of guilt, forgiveness, and personal mores have been detached from psychological experience by the acceleration of science and technology, a devaluation of Christian life, and the advent of modernity. For one, forgiveness, by McClay’s reckoning, is too swiftly and carelessly meted out:

We live in an age in which being nonjudgmental in our dealings with others is increasingly viewed as part and parcel of being a civilized person, the only truly generous and humane stance. But without the exercise of moral judgment there can be no meaningful forgiveness, as surely as there cannot be mercy without a prior commitment to justice, or charity without a prior respect for private property.

Globalization and Western prosperity have also changed the landscape of our collective guilt in two notable, contradictory ways. Noting the ease with which we can gauge the suffering of members in the global community, “the range of our potential moral responsibility, and therefore of our potential guilt,” McClay writes, “expands to literally infinite proportions.” And after Sigmund Freud laid the groundwork for the Self-Help-Industrial-Complex, we adopted a more “influential therapeutic view that the experience of guilt does not involve any genuine moral issues but rather the interplay of psychic forces that do not relate to anything morally consequential.” Shameless Westerners, he contends, have been morally abstracted from a meaningful understanding of guilt, and have embraced a cheapened sense of forgiveness in response.

This is just the topsoil of McClay’s lengthy argument. His full essay—which also touches on victimhood, sin, and innocence—is worth diving into.

Rape of women in DR Congo 'tops 1000 a day' - Africa - Al Jazeera English

Rape of women in DR Congo 'tops 1000 a day' - Africa - Al Jazeera English

"If you believe Zuckerberg, I've got a bridge for you!"

Facebook Responds To Assange 

Claim It Is A 'Spying Machine'

The Huffington Post  Catharine Smith  First Posted: 05/ 3/11 06:15 PM ET Updated: 05/ 3/11 06:15 PM ET

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange recently said in an interview that Facebook is "the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented." Alleging that the social network is vulnerable to "pressure" from U.S. Intelligence, Assange said that the government could potentially exploit user data stored on the network.

Facebook offered a rebuttal on Tuesday.

"We don't respond to pressure, we respond to compulsory legal process," a Facebook spokesperson told Forbes. "There has never been a time we have been pressured to turn over data -- we fight every time we believe the legal process is insufficient."

A recent document, purportedly leaked from Facebook, states that most of your personal data and networking activities are subject to subpoena by police. In addition, it's well-known that authorities use Facebook at times to obtain information about suspects.

"The legal standards for compelling a company to turn over data are determined by the laws of the country, and we respect that standard," the Facebook rep told Forbes on Tuesday.

Watch Julian Assange's full interview here. 

9/11/2001 Fact

Did you know this fact? The very day the twin towers fell, large dumptrucks full of topsoil were brought in and spread throughout ground zero. This process continues to this day, fresh earth brought in, spread around, scooped up, and then hauled off. Do you know how they cleaned up nuclear molecular contamination of Chernobyl?, by the means they are doing ground of zero as we speak.

Ground zero was not contaminated with nuclear radiation, but it was contaminated by electromagnetic molecular disassociation. That why nothing successful has been built there since. The steel they install immediately rusts unexplainable. This is a result of a higher technology contaminating the area.

More Info: http://www.drjudywood.com/

Julian Assange Given Peace Prize

2011 MAY 11

by Ryan Patridge

Julian Assange, the founder of whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, has been awarded an award “for exceptional courage in pursuit of human rights”.

Christopher Hope 10 May 2011

Mr Assange was given the Sydney Peace Medal at a ceremony at the Frontline Club in central London today.

The Sydney Peace Foundation said that it was making the award to recognise Mr in recognition of the need “for greater transparency and accountability of governments”.

Professor Stuart Rees, director of the foundation, said: “By challenging centuries old practices of government secrecy and by championing people’s right to know, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have created the potential for a new order in journalism and in the free flow of information.”

Speaking at the event, Mr Assange referred to whistleblowers as “heroes” and said it appeared the website had played a “significant role” in the recent Arab uprisings in north Africa by releasing US diplomatic cables in December that were later translated into Arabic and French.

He said WikiLeaks was part of England’s historic “free speech traditions, these go back in the UK to the time of the English Civil War of the 1640s”. He said: “The real value of this award, and the Sydney Peace Foundation is that it makes explicit the link between peace and justice.

A video I was unable to embed covering the story can be found over at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8505669/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-given-peace-prize.html

Back to Basics: Parenting, the Divine Blueprint and the Boundaries of Free Will

Linda Steiner: Back to Basics in Parenting

Pre-scheduled release.

Back to Basics: Parenting, the Divine Blueprint and the Boundaries of Free-Will

Posted on May 8, 2011 by Dr. Linda Steiner
https://drlinsteiner.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/back-to-basics-parenting-the-divine-blueprint-and-the-boundaries-of-free-will/
We all come into the world with a divine blueprint – the unique guide to our spiritual evolution. And while we may all share this in common, our blueprints are customized and tailored to help us meet our own personal spiritual goals.
As parents, we certainly want what’s best for our children. But how parents relate to their children, in terms of expectations, is typically a function of what parents deem as “best”. Except in cases of abuse and neglect, most parents mean well when they prescribe or dictate certain goals, standards or aspirations for their children. But many parents may be shocked to learn that what they consider to be dedicated and responsible parenting, often constitutes a trespass across the boundaries of free will.
For example, I know a 12-year-old boy who has “professional” parents. His father is a lawyer and mother is a doctor. His parents want what’s best for their son, so they insist that he pull all “A’s” in the advanced-level classes where they insisted he be placed. Furthermore, they tell him that he must become either a doctor or lawyer when he grows up.
The boy, despite 3-4 hours of homework per night, does not get A’s, or even B’s. He is in over his head and stressed all the time. He’s unhappy and feels like a constant disappointment to his parents and dreads the prospect of following a career path that doesn’t serve his interests or resonate with his passion or gifts.
The boy has his heart set on working with aquatic mammals. But at the young age of 12, he spends his days under an oppressive parental cloud that not only over-shadows his childhood, but threatens to co-opt is future as well.
As parents, we simply haven’t the right to predetermine or confine the interests and pursuits of our children. We must keep them fed, housed, clothed, loved and cared for – but we mustn’t trespass on their free will.
We are each entitled to our one shot at a given lifetime. But many parents attempt to garnish the lives of their children either out of compulsion for control, or because they view their children’s lives as virtual second-chances as unrequited dreams.
To paraphrase from The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran, our children come to us and through us – but not from us. Parents are as bows – while children are as arrows. It is our job to maximize the ability of our arrows to fly as far and straight as possible – but in the direction of the arrow’schoice – not the bow’s.
While conscientious parenting is commendable, sometimes less is more. When we rein ourselves in a bit, we allow our children room to breathe and grow in the direction of the light.  Just as a flower turns its face toward the sun naturally, and without external guidance – so too, is our divine blue print self evident.
Too many restrictions on free will can lead to short and long terms effects of depleted self-confidence, lowered self-esteem, resentment, substance use or abuse and/or reactionary backlash. In extreme circumstances suicidal thought or tendencies may result. This is because free will is the soil that embeds the spirit. Restrict it – and you eliminate the sun, water and air supply.
True happiness can not be attained through material means. Occupations, money and status can not, in and of themselves, constitute the completion of one’s soul. Only those behaviors that resonate with the frequency of one’s vibrations can result in true happiness, and as parents, we have no greater responsibility than to shelter, support and facilitate our children’s spiritual growth.
So keep your child safe and well – but from a healthy distance.    Support them in the directions they choose and love them for who they are, unconditionally – with no strings attached. Allow them to explore what the world has to offer (both from within and without) and allow them to listen to the voice that speaks to them from their center. For it is their own inner voice – that speaks only to them – that holds the key to their Divine blueprint and the path that will ultimately maximize the potentialities of their spirit.

"Talk to Your Children" from Brain Rules for Baby