HIDDEN CURE.Cancer is a deficiency disease caused by a lack of nitrilosides in the modern western diet just like scurvy is a deficiency of vitamin C. Big Pharma/FDA profiteers have covered up the cure and have declared it fraud and quackery for over 60 years.Watch WORLD WITHOUT CANCER YouTube documentary and investigate these facts.Thousands have been cured just by adding this essential compond to their diet without the self destructive and devastating drugs, chemo and radiation.Choose life.
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
I understand the death of cancer is very sad. but i believe that cancer is easibly curable. i think it is all a big fat lie to tell u the truth. proffesionals are unable to remove cancer from a human but they can create something like what you are using right now. how they mind a computer is mind boggling compare that to curing cancer and its suppose to be a peice of cake to get rid of
Haha light and beautiful. Social agendas?! OooOOo they might pay taxes, havkids, visit each other in the hospital, get married and divorced, go out for steak, retire and get a yauht
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
My brother is 39 and has a "very agressive cancer!" as all the doctors and "brilliant minds" said. My family and himself went to a doctor who is still labaled as a "quack" and guess what? He's getting better and better without radiation/chemo. There is a cure for cancer but the problem is not a cure. The problem is profit. They will keep searching for a miracle and the miracle is already here. check out: Dr. Simoncini, Sodium Carbonate, B17, (perhaps along with chemotherapy) etc... cancer=fungus
Marijuana cures cancer. Google the documentary, "What if cannabis cured cancer?" Our governments known about it since 1974. Look it up if you dont believe me, dont be a closed-minded idiot. EDUCATE YOURSELF!
@datworkers No, they can't share. Since developing drugs is so expensive (thanks to over regulation), they have to get backing money to do the research. Thus, the research doesn't belong to them - it belongs to the shareholders. this means they are not allowed to publish the partial result of their research, and are not allowed to give others permission to do followup on their work. Legally not allowed, mind you - they could go to prison for it.
"No wonder cancer has not been completely cured."
It hasn't been cured because of its sheer complexity. Every cancer is different. Even the same cancer in different patients can be different. To say cancer hasn't been cured because of not sharing information is simply ignorant.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@waycoolzing I do not deny the fact that it may be a potent drug in the future, but until it is properly tested, you cannot administrate it to patients. It has to take the same pathway that any other drug takes before being release in the market. You don't make experiments like Hitler did.
@siegfried182005 Hitler did experiments on people AGAINST THEIR WILL. The comparison is just wrong. Why not allow people who WANT to participate in drug trial, people who will die soon anyway, take or try whatever they want?
To remind you, the rabis vaccine, penicillin, and virtually all the old medication were tested this way. Tested on people who were sick, were gonna die, and decided to try a new drug that might kill them, but might save them too. Comparing that to Hitler... really.
@guyben13 That is what those companies in the countries mentioned above are using today: they know that anyone with money and very ill will do anything to live, and they offer an untested alternative to them, of course, not after cashing the check. There is no guaranties that the treatment is effective, and also on this pathway you open the road for those with all kinds of homeopathic drugs to make money literally from simple water.
@guyben13 Yes, they were tested this way, but now we are in the 21 st century, and we have strict regulations of what drugs come out on the market. We can't risk another thalidomide accident. This things just have to be taken slowly. It is clearly an ethical problem too: put out there an add about a "new cure" and you will surely have a queue on your door. I, as a future doctor, want to give my patients some kind of assurance that the drugs that i give them have positive results.
@siegfried182005 As a doctor: lets say you have a sick patient, going do die in a couple of months. There is no cure for him. However, there is a new drug that seems to do well on mice. Should he be allowed to try it, and maybe die, or should he just die?
I agree that you shouldn't open the door too wide: For one, You shouldn't allow payment for untested drugs. And maybe only for the terminally ill. But the system as it is now is broken. It actively inhibits life saving drug development.
@guyben13 It is illegal what you say there; i would go directly to jail for that. It is not possible to administrate a drug tested only on mice to humans without any other data of the possible adverse effects, the pharmacocinetic and the pharmacodynamics of the substance in humans and many others. There are some phases trough which a drug has to pass before it gets the green light:).
@siegfried182005 I KNOW it's illegal. I'm saying that it's WRONG for it to be illegal. The fact that it's illegal costs lives, AND inhibits drug development, AND pushes up the price of those drugs that do get developed.
It should be legal. That way university researchers could help develop life saving drugs, instead of limiting research to HUGE conglomerates. That way you could test natural compounds (such as penicillin and dog saliva (used for rabis)) even tough they aren't patentable.
@guyben13 Many drugs used in chemotherapy for example can have serious sides effects, like aplastic anemia, of agranulocytosis or even some types of cancers. You do not play with something like this, that is why you need it to be properly tested in the proper manner and in an controlled environment. Plus, the patient can die from the treatment, if you don't manage his condition respecting the protocols in use for the specific treatments.
@guyben13 I know that pharmaceutical companies are selfish, but in a capitalist world, you can't have it other way for now. Anyway, what it is presented in this video is a good start for a change. But remember: you need a lot of hundreds of millions of $ to develope tens of thousands of drug types a year. For now, we need those corporations to create drugs. Let this idea presented here to evolve, and we will see what comes of it. It may work, in may not work, time will tell.
@waycoolzing There are no clinical trials yet to verify the potential improvement of the survival rates in cancer patients by using dichloroacetic acid. Even if you have some results in vitro, and even in vivo on mice or human cells, that doesn't mean that it will work the same in the body of a human. You say that is verry effective. Prove that! Where are the studies with the subjects that had their life extended with the help of this chemical compound.
In Russia and Cuba and China they use some methods that are not backed up by clinical trial informations. They simply profit from the desperation of ill people with money. And to say that doctors prescribe poisons...you sure are ignorant about this matter. Those substances kill cells with high division rates, like cancer cells. They are indispensable in this field for now.
@waycoolzing you have to be carefull though, b17 is a big fucking scam. it has never been proven in a study and i have seen families wasting tons of money on that crap and have there relatives die anyway.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@TITOR002 without the F... I'd say you're a "Trekkie" - How did it begin? What happened? And Why did it happen? Maybe you could give a TED lecture and open our eyes. I would love to live in the Federation too. Just tell me when!
I hate that everything first of all needs to be "for profit". Let's fucking ditch the monetary system and start working together to achieve greatness, instead of working separately for some paper notes with ink on them.
The problem is that human nature makes it very difficult for people to give up time and resources without trhe expectation of compensation in return. The problem is not money, money is simply a symbol for work...and people do not work unless they get a reward.
@kshackleton Of course everyone wants some kind of reward, it's in the nature of us humans. But that the reward always has to be money is stupid. Many people work for better rewards than that. Volunteers etc. The reward can be seeing other people happy, building a school for a poor village, finding a cure to cancer to save people. I often work hard to help my friends with their grades, my reward is a happy friend and a sense of achievement. Money is unnecessary as an incentive for hard work.
@kshackleton When the reward is money, and the goal is money, we start to get into the real sickness of greed. You do things for money, not for the goodness that can come out of your product etc.
We empty the worlds resources and cripple our nature with our extreme consumerism and other things.
Why are there so many people dying from starvation, when the land on our earth could easily cover up for our needs? Answer is that there is no gain in feeding starving children, or making people smile..
Money is not the problem. It is simply an effective and convenient medium of exchange. The problem is human nature and the behaviour that flows from that.
@kshackleton There is no such thing as human nature. If there was we could not evolve ideas collectively. We would be stuck in the stone age. It's not human nature, but human behavior. Human behavior is a conditioned attribute based on the environment. The environment has almost always remained relatively similar -- that of resource scarcity. Because of that some people learn to horde resources for their own and familial survival. We need to change environment to change behavior.
@kshackleton Linux, in all different flavors. Gimp - the free "photoshop", blender - the free 3d renderer, not to talk about all the desktop environments, all the small free opensource programs
Even big companies like HP add to opensource, because it saves them moeny.
All this done for free, even without anyone being acknowledged for their work.
Why would they? Because knowledge costs nothing to copy. If you already did it for yourself, passing it along is free. Your model doesn't work here.
@kshackleton I meant your model for people. You say that "human nature makes it very difficult for people to give up time and resources without the expectation of compensation", while in reality there are a LOT of contradicting examples. The whole open-source scene, where virtually no one even gets real credit for their work, contradicts this model.
I'm saying that this present idea about human nature is wrong. Maybe it's an artifact of "capitalism", rather than the cause.
No, the model is sound. Perhaps the open-source people are working under the notion that their long-term benefits will outweight the short term cost. As a rule, even with many apparent exceptions, people in all cultures and economic models look to benefit in some form from their efforts. I suspect that evolution has had some influence in that regard...it's not cultural.
@kshackleton Sorry, nope :) "Capitalism" tries to hide that people will just do things "because it's nice". Because they can, and someone else needs it. Just like that. It is cultural making these people feel like "they are suckers".
It's easy to day "as a rule" and disregard "exceptions", or invent motives. Look at libravox - people making public domain audiobooks, for nothing. The linux forums, helping people with IT issues for nothing. People like helping, and will invest effort in it.
If I may make a suggestion...read a few books on evolutionary psychology. I recommend the Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. Quite a bit of what motivates us can be traced back to how our genes, shaped by our evolutionary history....wires our brains.
Open Source Forever..Open-source your life and the world. Patenting life should by definition NOT be allowed just like. people are dying every single day because of pure greed and the argument about the drug companies have to support their research with patents or else the will never invent anything again is bullshit. Look at Android and tell me that companies like Samsung or Google is not making money doing open source!
Treatment of cancer is global emergency. Holding information in a particular pharmaceutical company impedes development of new drugs. Eventually, just as many open source softwares have overtaken the software industry and produced even better programs for use, this will happen in pharmaceutical industry.
Any information related to human medicine should be free. All pharmaceuticals should be compulsed to release all drug information. It's the only way we can achieve cancer treatments earlier.
Now correct me if I am wrong, but what happens when a large pharmaceutical company takes his research and develops it further into a different string that could potentially be more successful then the first and then abruptly patents it so no other company can work with that, wouldn't that disable the "open-source" ideas of this video? To be honest I am quite confused about it.
@MrPahjay11 A project in development cannot be patented, only result can be patented. Which means that the pharmaceutical company must actually make the drug work before they can patent it.
@ilion12345 So say as a community, we find a way to create a end all cure to cancer. Technically we are in a race to find the cure and hopefully the cure doesn't fall into the wrong hands? I'm purely talking theoretical here. I'm just trying to get a broader conception of the field I am planning on entering out of college.
@MrPahjay11 Patenting is good if you know how to use it to protect the rights of researchers. A patent does not prevent others from doing further research on the patented drug, it only prevents others, who are not the inventors from making profit. Patents are published by the patent offices 18 months after publication, so the information is out there to be used by anybody interested in further improving drugs.
To reverse any "cancer" in the body watch RobertMorseND on YouTube. It is simple to regenerate damaged cells, eat raw fruits & vegetables. Eat living bioelectric flood for optimum health. Dont eat cooked/processed foods. Big Pharma perpetuates cancer myth and all ills to sell pills. Go RAW!!!
Yep that's right. All you have to do is eat raw food. All those scientists and pharmaceutical companies are EVIL and these authors of the books called things like "How I cured my cancer in 10 days" are both factual and in it for GOOD.
Or... perhaps they are the examples of extreme cases of spontaneous remission, whilst the rest of the population die horribly and only people with DECADES of research knowledge can help rid the world of cancer.
NOTHING wrong with capitalism AT ALL. Let's all compete with eachother and withold findings until we can profit from them. Sick of this shit. This video was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise suffocated world.
Sound really promising. It seems that cancer research has been making some good progress during the last couple of years. Cure is still a far from reality, but talks like this make me hopeful that the future without cancer is already with us today. Thanks to researchers like Mr. Bradner we can look at open-source as model not just for computer science, but for industries as well.
We need to stop investing in useless shit like religion and start investing it into science. If all countries did this and made it opensource, the advantages would be incredible.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@AmethystEyes If you go through the biochemical literature, you will see tons and tons of published material that say the exact things that he does, namely, a promising cancer therapy. But there is no way to reconcile the vast amount of data in the academic sphere with real world pragmatism. Quite simply, institutionalized research is not nearly institutionalized as much as it should be.
There's also the findings of Dr. Burzynski, who has his own clinic that is not funded by FDA or any other pharma companies. Instead, he is under constant attacks from established pharmaceutical and governm. agencies. Curing people will actually put an end to making money - something many companies cannot afford to happen. But it won't go on forever as the systemic collapse is upon all of us.
Wow!! Thank you for sharing your knowledge to other academics to further the research. You could be a billionaire overnight for having researched that potential cancer cure. You took the road less traveled by and that would definitely make a difference. You deserve a Nobel prize!
see focus on community and peservation should be our focus,with his change he could be saving millions but hes waiting on funding. yet we spend trillions on war to kill each other.
this is why i occupymelbourne, this is why i want a change.
@N3rdyDav3 Because research organizations and pharmaceutical companies like money, and giving your idea to others means they will get the money not you. Money both drives and retards the discovery of cures and treatment.
It's obvious that Bradner has a personal connection to his job. This is what scientists are supposed to be like. He and his work is a perfect representation of the power of passion.
Open source is big pharma going after naive researcher's ideas. I'm a researcher and I patent my inventions to raise funds to continue my projects. If I shared my knowledge for free, I wouldn't have the resources to finance my research, I wouln't even have a salary. Open source is a bad idea that only wealthy institutions or companies can afford.
@1marcelo Yip, a great world we live in with stupidly expensive drugs and insurance bringing medical care and the end user to their knees due to pure greed. Big pharma will take this molecule, alter it slightly and patent it then sell it at 1000%+ profit and then when patent comes to an end repeat the process.
@1marcelo Open source is not a bad idea. It's useful and effective. Just because it might be difficult to base an entire business model around it doesn't mean it's pointless.
Basically, all research could be made open source and everyone would benefit. We'd have to worry about parasite companies not doing their own research, but they would still have to be competent enough to produce the drugs and therapies cost effectively.
Benefit: faster, wider development of drugs and therapies.
@LithiumLogica It doesn't work like you think. Research is extremely expensive. I discovered a drug for a rare disease years ago and published the results without patenting. The project stopped because it was impossible to raise the millions of dollars needed for clinical trials. With other drugs I patented I was able to raise the money, the development continues and the profit will be shared by the researchers, academic institutions and big pharma (they thake a big share but at least it works)
@1marcelo That doesn't mean research cannot be done unless it's kept a total secret. The video above shows that it's perfectly viable to open source the research to allow collaboration. Your personal experience doesn't mean that all situations are like that or will be like that. Also, you have to realize that you were still working within the industry where it is common practice to keep information on lock-down, to guarantee profits. He's talking about breaking that mold.
@LithiumLogica No, I was working at an academic institution and I still do. I have also worked in the industry so I know both sides and I assure you Jay Bradner's story is amazing but it is the exception.
By the way, I just found out this drug had already been patented for use in cancer by Mitsubishi Pharma (great researchers, I've worked with them) many years ago, so the Dana-Farber team wouldn't have been able to patent this even if they wanted to.
@1marcelo And to be clear, it might not work to be open source within a conventional business model, but something can be built to produce a byproduct of open source information. Effectively, that's what he was discussing today. He isn't part of a big company, he's part of an academic institution and they produce the information as open source, which drives them to work harder, and allows many more companies and people to do more research that might turn out a viable product.
@1marcelo I am fairly certain that I could never walk a mile in your shoes, but as a consumer of medicine and not a researcher, the idea of a global scientific collaboration of ideas for the good of mankind warms my heart. If this experiment of sharing the source code of a molecule ends up generating profit and good health would you reconsider your stance?
@spinynorman1982 Thanks for your comment. Actually, in research, results are always published, even the ones produced by big pharma. Only the timing and the revenues are different. Companies patent their inventions (it is too risky to keep them secret for long) and after 18 months they are automatically published by the patent offices. These data are available for everybody to make further improvements and more research. Open source will only deprive researchers from a fair compensantion.
@1marcelo So, if I understand, any company that produces medicine based on independent R&D will give due credit and revenue to the researcher or team that brought about the discovery. Then to be made public after patents are filed. However, this person (speaker at TED) is trying to circumvent that process and encourage all researchers to immediately publish data so that it can be co-developed by rival companies which could potentially cause research grants to be lost on future developments?
@spinynorman1982 You understood correctly. I don't know why Bradner favors open-source research. Maybe he does not understand the patenting process, which is common among researchers, unfortunately. Many people are biased against patenting without having any knowledge about it. I also have to say that Bradner did not patent this drug and its use in cancer because this was discovered some years ago by a Japanese company. What Bradner discovered was only the mechanism, which is not patentable.
@1marcelo That's to the point, though. We need the mechanisms, but those aren't patentable so the work isn't public. It's throwing out a substantial amount of knowledge.
@LokiClock Knowledge about mechanisms doesn't cure people, drugs do. That's why the drugs are patentable and the mechanisms are not. I agree that researchers can use this knowledge for further developments and that is very useful. But publishing mechanisms and sharing the information is very common in science and nothing new. If you want to make career as a scientist you need to publish or to patent and then publish and that happens all the time. That's why the point of the talk is not clear.
@1marcelo If I could digress for a minute. You mentioned a phrase that I hear often. "Big pharma". Without knowing exactly what that is I can deduce that it means companies that perhaps own several patents on the most popular drugs. Why do Homeopath BS artists use this phrase to criticize science based medicine? Is there a lot of corruption within these companies? IF there is corruption I don't see how it would effect a chemical structure of a useful drug.
How many cancer cures are going to come out before they start curing cancer? There is a man in Canada who can cure cancer in LAN animals with a simple supplement.
It's amazing to see the leaps and bounds people are making in the effort to get on the top-side of cancer. It's equally amazing to see the researchers treating a cure as a human endeavor, rather than a business venture.
open source is anti-capitalism. there is no drive for profits, only for results. there is a common belief that capitalism rewards and encourages innovation, yet this is a prime example of how capitalism impedes innovation. it isn't until you remove the ability to profit that you can really allow inspired people to innovate. cancer will encourage people to find ways to stop it. as long as there is a problem, someone will try to fix it, no profits needed.
DMT its a drug that activate your pineal glande and people say that transport you to another dimension, and people say that find salvation from their own mistakes and cure themselves so my point is if you are going to die better try everything.
@mistergreenhat open source is the future we all wish for but will only become a reality once we as the people of this world, take charge of our destiny and free ourselves from the strangle hold placed on us by the multinational corporations, and especially banks, that control all aspects of our governments, the economy and ultimately our lives.
i look forward to the day when we realise sharing is much more satisfying than hording great wealth that we will never use.
We don't have a legal team that will hide the drug until it becomes profitable to release it. I left the world of cancer research because of pharmaceutical companies, now I wonder if I should return.
Great example on collaboration provides tremendously better results than competition. This paradigm shift will hopefully change the world for the better in the future, when we will be able to see through our outdated society.
@Alpinex105 why do you type "the scientific method requires competition" ? ...science is based on accurate observation of fact/evidence ...simply curious
@gaiagale Exactly... the competition comes with explaining these facts... Academic debates happen all the time....they are reviewed extensively... competition is what allowed us to dismiss old irrelevant theories. Theories are modified as well... there is a huge amount of debate there.. both A and B could work... now which one works better?
Who dislikes this??
o0bassist0o 4 days ago
Check out my vids and i'll donate 5p to cancer research every time someone clicks on the ads :)
njw1383 2 weeks ago
HIDDEN CURE.Cancer is a deficiency disease caused by a lack of nitrilosides in the modern western diet just like scurvy is a deficiency of vitamin C. Big Pharma/FDA profiteers have covered up the cure and have declared it fraud and quackery for over 60 years.Watch WORLD WITHOUT CANCER YouTube documentary and investigate these facts.Thousands have been cured just by adding this essential compond to their diet without the self destructive and devastating drugs, chemo and radiation.Choose life.
Tealy855 1 month ago
You know what I think about all this?
watch?v=0o-Di0cBSMk&feature=relmfu
DarkRival31 1 month ago
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 2 months ago
Google Run from the cure
Bellairatone 2 months ago
Chemo therapy is like a transistor radio..........Outdated.
Methyljasmonate 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I understand the death of cancer is very sad. but i believe that cancer is easibly curable. i think it is all a big fat lie to tell u the truth. proffesionals are unable to remove cancer from a human but they can create something like what you are using right now. how they mind a computer is mind boggling compare that to curing cancer and its suppose to be a peice of cake to get rid of
TheDarkSideOfJesus 3 months ago
Love it!
Bfavrestarr415 3 months ago
absolutely inspirational
milkiorange 3 months ago
Chemist: Sir, I found the cure for cancer.
Boss: Oh I'm sorry.
Chemist: Uhh, I said I found the cure for cancer...
Boss: Yes I know, and we will out of job because of that.
Chemist: I think I haven't found the cure for cancer.
Boss: Wheew, that's good.
lolragemore 3 months ago 14
Comment removed
Nelisje 3 months ago
Haha light and beautiful. Social agendas?! OooOOo they might pay taxes, havkids, visit each other in the hospital, get married and divorced, go out for steak, retire and get a yauht
missmelisification 3 months ago
cannabis
hungrykiller666 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
My brother is 39 and has a "very agressive cancer!" as all the doctors and "brilliant minds" said. My family and himself went to a doctor who is still labaled as a "quack" and guess what? He's getting better and better without radiation/chemo. There is a cure for cancer but the problem is not a cure. The problem is profit. They will keep searching for a miracle and the miracle is already here. check out: Dr. Simoncini, Sodium Carbonate, B17, (perhaps along with chemotherapy) etc... cancer=fungus
texasB666 4 months ago
Problem, capitalism?
raiki15 4 months ago 2
@raiki15 the real mankind cancer is capitalism
sroland81 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Marijuana cures cancer. Google the documentary, "What if cannabis cured cancer?" Our governments known about it since 1974. Look it up if you dont believe me, dont be a closed-minded idiot. EDUCATE YOURSELF!
OGkush2011 4 months ago
Wait... Laboratories are not sharing information and findings with each other already? No wonder cancer has not been completely cured....
datworkers 4 months ago
@datworkers No, they can't share. Since developing drugs is so expensive (thanks to over regulation), they have to get backing money to do the research. Thus, the research doesn't belong to them - it belongs to the shareholders. this means they are not allowed to publish the partial result of their research, and are not allowed to give others permission to do followup on their work. Legally not allowed, mind you - they could go to prison for it.
Yes, this inhibits research. Capitalism...
guyben13 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@datworkers
"No wonder cancer has not been completely cured."
It hasn't been cured because of its sheer complexity. Every cancer is different. Even the same cancer in different patients can be different. To say cancer hasn't been cured because of not sharing information is simply ignorant.
KemaTheAtheist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
@waycoolzing I do not deny the fact that it may be a potent drug in the future, but until it is properly tested, you cannot administrate it to patients. It has to take the same pathway that any other drug takes before being release in the market. You don't make experiments like Hitler did.
siegfried182005 4 months ago
@siegfried182005 Hitler did experiments on people AGAINST THEIR WILL. The comparison is just wrong. Why not allow people who WANT to participate in drug trial, people who will die soon anyway, take or try whatever they want?
To remind you, the rabis vaccine, penicillin, and virtually all the old medication were tested this way. Tested on people who were sick, were gonna die, and decided to try a new drug that might kill them, but might save them too. Comparing that to Hitler... really.
guyben13 4 months ago
@guyben13 That is what those companies in the countries mentioned above are using today: they know that anyone with money and very ill will do anything to live, and they offer an untested alternative to them, of course, not after cashing the check. There is no guaranties that the treatment is effective, and also on this pathway you open the road for those with all kinds of homeopathic drugs to make money literally from simple water.
siegfried182005 4 months ago
@guyben13 Yes, they were tested this way, but now we are in the 21 st century, and we have strict regulations of what drugs come out on the market. We can't risk another thalidomide accident. This things just have to be taken slowly. It is clearly an ethical problem too: put out there an add about a "new cure" and you will surely have a queue on your door. I, as a future doctor, want to give my patients some kind of assurance that the drugs that i give them have positive results.
siegfried182005 4 months ago
@siegfried182005 As a doctor: lets say you have a sick patient, going do die in a couple of months. There is no cure for him. However, there is a new drug that seems to do well on mice. Should he be allowed to try it, and maybe die, or should he just die?
I agree that you shouldn't open the door too wide: For one, You shouldn't allow payment for untested drugs. And maybe only for the terminally ill. But the system as it is now is broken. It actively inhibits life saving drug development.
guyben13 4 months ago
@guyben13 It is illegal what you say there; i would go directly to jail for that. It is not possible to administrate a drug tested only on mice to humans without any other data of the possible adverse effects, the pharmacocinetic and the pharmacodynamics of the substance in humans and many others. There are some phases trough which a drug has to pass before it gets the green light:).
siegfried182005 4 months ago
@siegfried182005 I KNOW it's illegal. I'm saying that it's WRONG for it to be illegal. The fact that it's illegal costs lives, AND inhibits drug development, AND pushes up the price of those drugs that do get developed.
It should be legal. That way university researchers could help develop life saving drugs, instead of limiting research to HUGE conglomerates. That way you could test natural compounds (such as penicillin and dog saliva (used for rabis)) even tough they aren't patentable.
guyben13 4 months ago
@guyben13 Many drugs used in chemotherapy for example can have serious sides effects, like aplastic anemia, of agranulocytosis or even some types of cancers. You do not play with something like this, that is why you need it to be properly tested in the proper manner and in an controlled environment. Plus, the patient can die from the treatment, if you don't manage his condition respecting the protocols in use for the specific treatments.
siegfried182005 4 months ago
@guyben13 I know that pharmaceutical companies are selfish, but in a capitalist world, you can't have it other way for now. Anyway, what it is presented in this video is a good start for a change. But remember: you need a lot of hundreds of millions of $ to develope tens of thousands of drug types a year. For now, we need those corporations to create drugs. Let this idea presented here to evolve, and we will see what comes of it. It may work, in may not work, time will tell.
siegfried182005 4 months ago
@waycoolzing There are no clinical trials yet to verify the potential improvement of the survival rates in cancer patients by using dichloroacetic acid. Even if you have some results in vitro, and even in vivo on mice or human cells, that doesn't mean that it will work the same in the body of a human. You say that is verry effective. Prove that! Where are the studies with the subjects that had their life extended with the help of this chemical compound.
siegfried182005 4 months ago
Ahhh Harvard, always keeping the best scientists within your range! :)
notreveh 4 months ago
@waycoolzing I think you are wrong...
In Russia and Cuba and China they use some methods that are not backed up by clinical trial informations. They simply profit from the desperation of ill people with money. And to say that doctors prescribe poisons...you sure are ignorant about this matter. Those substances kill cells with high division rates, like cancer cells. They are indispensable in this field for now.
siegfried182005 4 months ago
@waycoolzing you have to be carefull though, b17 is a big fucking scam. it has never been proven in a study and i have seen families wasting tons of money on that crap and have there relatives die anyway.
Your1maginaryFriend 4 months ago in playlist Weitere Videos von TEDtalksDirector
the results of proper science and proper cooperation of people leads to amazing advancements
while making products just to sell them results in waste and stagnation
why is it so hard for people to be humane towards each other
KilluaXIII 4 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@WemmiLinks And you're someone who gives a shit about such a trivial number. The video is great.
jawkster 4 months ago
Very interesting!
Geshem1983 4 months ago 2
Comment removed
q09999 4 months ago
hemp oil ?
twistedbass15 4 months ago
Read "The China Study" by T. Colin Campbell Ph.D and watch "Cancer is curable now and your immune system" from maxAwareness channel.
nccmrm97 4 months ago
(Open mouth) Just wow!
SuperBAdkins 4 months ago 3
Beautiful, from start to finish.
agoddamnatheist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
@TITOR002 without the F... I'd say you're a "Trekkie" - How did it begin? What happened? And Why did it happen? Maybe you could give a TED lecture and open our eyes. I would love to live in the Federation too. Just tell me when!
JackChord 4 months ago
I hate that everything first of all needs to be "for profit". Let's fucking ditch the monetary system and start working together to achieve greatness, instead of working separately for some paper notes with ink on them.
TITOR002 4 months ago 2
@TITOR002
The problem is that human nature makes it very difficult for people to give up time and resources without trhe expectation of compensation in return. The problem is not money, money is simply a symbol for work...and people do not work unless they get a reward.
kshackleton 4 months ago
@kshackleton Of course everyone wants some kind of reward, it's in the nature of us humans. But that the reward always has to be money is stupid. Many people work for better rewards than that. Volunteers etc. The reward can be seeing other people happy, building a school for a poor village, finding a cure to cancer to save people. I often work hard to help my friends with their grades, my reward is a happy friend and a sense of achievement. Money is unnecessary as an incentive for hard work.
TITOR002 4 months ago
@kshackleton When the reward is money, and the goal is money, we start to get into the real sickness of greed. You do things for money, not for the goodness that can come out of your product etc.
We empty the worlds resources and cripple our nature with our extreme consumerism and other things.
Why are there so many people dying from starvation, when the land on our earth could easily cover up for our needs? Answer is that there is no gain in feeding starving children, or making people smile..
TITOR002 4 months ago
@TITOR002
Money is not the problem. It is simply an effective and convenient medium of exchange. The problem is human nature and the behaviour that flows from that.
kshackleton 4 months ago
@kshackleton There is no such thing as human nature. If there was we could not evolve ideas collectively. We would be stuck in the stone age. It's not human nature, but human behavior. Human behavior is a conditioned attribute based on the environment. The environment has almost always remained relatively similar -- that of resource scarcity. Because of that some people learn to horde resources for their own and familial survival. We need to change environment to change behavior.
Youanden 4 months ago
@Youanden
No such thing as human nature? The evidence refutes your claim rather dramatically.
kshackleton 4 months ago
@kshackleton Linux, in all different flavors. Gimp - the free "photoshop", blender - the free 3d renderer, not to talk about all the desktop environments, all the small free opensource programs
Even big companies like HP add to opensource, because it saves them moeny.
All this done for free, even without anyone being acknowledged for their work.
Why would they? Because knowledge costs nothing to copy. If you already did it for yourself, passing it along is free. Your model doesn't work here.
guyben13 4 months ago
@guyben13
I did not describe a model. I simply described money for what it is...a medium of exchange. Money is not the problem.
kshackleton 4 months ago
@kshackleton I meant your model for people. You say that "human nature makes it very difficult for people to give up time and resources without the expectation of compensation", while in reality there are a LOT of contradicting examples. The whole open-source scene, where virtually no one even gets real credit for their work, contradicts this model.
I'm saying that this present idea about human nature is wrong. Maybe it's an artifact of "capitalism", rather than the cause.
guyben13 4 months ago
@guyben13
No, the model is sound. Perhaps the open-source people are working under the notion that their long-term benefits will outweight the short term cost. As a rule, even with many apparent exceptions, people in all cultures and economic models look to benefit in some form from their efforts. I suspect that evolution has had some influence in that regard...it's not cultural.
kshackleton 4 months ago
@kshackleton Sorry, nope :) "Capitalism" tries to hide that people will just do things "because it's nice". Because they can, and someone else needs it. Just like that. It is cultural making these people feel like "they are suckers".
It's easy to day "as a rule" and disregard "exceptions", or invent motives. Look at libravox - people making public domain audiobooks, for nothing. The linux forums, helping people with IT issues for nothing. People like helping, and will invest effort in it.
guyben13 4 months ago 2
@guyben13
If I may make a suggestion...read a few books on evolutionary psychology. I recommend the Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. Quite a bit of what motivates us can be traced back to how our genes, shaped by our evolutionary history....wires our brains.
kshackleton 4 months ago
@guyben13 It's true. Internally created rewards are far more motivating than external rewards.
kaimialana 4 months ago
ClC1=CC=C(C2=N[C@@H](CC(OC(C)(C)C)=O)C3=NN=C(C)N3C4=C2C(C)=C(C)S4)C=C1 (Open Source Cancer)
TinoForever 4 months ago
Good news for humanity. Hope this becomes an increasing trend.
hpmishra 4 months ago 2
If only the entire world worked like this... but the sad truth is that it will never happen..
BeortheMad 4 months ago
Don't forget to check out Dr.Tullio Simoncini cancer cures!!!
edgarssk 4 months ago
Informative, innovative, motivating, eye-opening and deep-felt - this is how TEDtalks are supposed to be!
DigitizedSelf 4 months ago 3
Open Source Forever..Open-source your life and the world. Patenting life should by definition NOT be allowed just like. people are dying every single day because of pure greed and the argument about the drug companies have to support their research with patents or else the will never invent anything again is bullshit. Look at Android and tell me that companies like Samsung or Google is not making money doing open source!
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
If I was a millionaire I'd Fund these guys.
It's all about globally sharing Info regarding Cancer and all diseases
GrahamTVdotNet 4 months ago 3
Treatment of cancer is global emergency. Holding information in a particular pharmaceutical company impedes development of new drugs. Eventually, just as many open source softwares have overtaken the software industry and produced even better programs for use, this will happen in pharmaceutical industry.
Any information related to human medicine should be free. All pharmaceuticals should be compulsed to release all drug information. It's the only way we can achieve cancer treatments earlier.
patilsaurabhr 4 months ago 53
this is awesome
TheJovanist 4 months ago
Lets get going boys - end cancer
austpom333 4 months ago
wow this is TEDx... good work... :)
BopZ61191 4 months ago
so interesting! although i am only in high school, i wanna research soooo BAD!
FurkanKhan100 4 months ago
move your mic noob! its rubbing your cheek!
KaylinJH 4 months ago
super sexy logo they got there :D
defect530 4 months ago
It's nice to see an actual scientist instead of a profiteer with a fancy degree.
Raaszhecku 4 months ago 111
''Not a business a model, it involves all of you, this research is funded by the public''
Thyextendedself11 4 months ago
Now correct me if I am wrong, but what happens when a large pharmaceutical company takes his research and develops it further into a different string that could potentially be more successful then the first and then abruptly patents it so no other company can work with that, wouldn't that disable the "open-source" ideas of this video? To be honest I am quite confused about it.
MrPahjay11 4 months ago
@MrPahjay11 A project in development cannot be patented, only result can be patented. Which means that the pharmaceutical company must actually make the drug work before they can patent it.
ilion12345 4 months ago in playlist samhans96's favorites
@ilion12345 So say as a community, we find a way to create a end all cure to cancer. Technically we are in a race to find the cure and hopefully the cure doesn't fall into the wrong hands? I'm purely talking theoretical here. I'm just trying to get a broader conception of the field I am planning on entering out of college.
MrPahjay11 4 months ago
@MrPahjay11 Patenting is good if you know how to use it to protect the rights of researchers. A patent does not prevent others from doing further research on the patented drug, it only prevents others, who are not the inventors from making profit. Patents are published by the patent offices 18 months after publication, so the information is out there to be used by anybody interested in further improving drugs.
1marcelo 4 months ago
Oooh I'm a tumor I'm a tumor, I'm a tumor. I'm a tumor, oooh I'm a tumor.
So cancer cells actually have a molecular way of "saying" that? Wowee.
dookiecheez 4 months ago
To reverse any "cancer" in the body watch RobertMorseND on YouTube. It is simple to regenerate damaged cells, eat raw fruits & vegetables. Eat living bioelectric flood for optimum health. Dont eat cooked/processed foods. Big Pharma perpetuates cancer myth and all ills to sell pills. Go RAW!!!
marjorielard 4 months ago
@marjorielard
To reverse serious delusions, do some actual research.
dookiecheez 4 months ago
@marjorielard
Yep that's right. All you have to do is eat raw food. All those scientists and pharmaceutical companies are EVIL and these authors of the books called things like "How I cured my cancer in 10 days" are both factual and in it for GOOD.
Or... perhaps they are the examples of extreme cases of spontaneous remission, whilst the rest of the population die horribly and only people with DECADES of research knowledge can help rid the world of cancer.
bersaba 4 months ago
NOTHING wrong with capitalism AT ALL. Let's all compete with eachother and withold findings until we can profit from them. Sick of this shit. This video was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise suffocated world.
Typhoonbladefist 4 months ago
The human spirit is truly unbeatable.
Congratulations sir, well done.
Mrmoc7 4 months ago
Sound really promising. It seems that cancer research has been making some good progress during the last couple of years. Cure is still a far from reality, but talks like this make me hopeful that the future without cancer is already with us today. Thanks to researchers like Mr. Bradner we can look at open-source as model not just for computer science, but for industries as well.
Piitsi 4 months ago
Comment removed
Slashtap3 4 months ago
the real breakthrough will be when this model is shown to be enormously profitable, as it has been in other fields
BroBroDude 4 months ago
0:15
sladkajes 4 months ago 5
@sladkajes They fixed the intro volume, we can stop doing that on every video :P
Nyphur 4 months ago
@Nyphur I myself can't stand the sound of it... and thus I neeeeeed doing that on every video! DFTBA!
sladkajes 4 months ago
We need to stop investing in useless shit like religion and start investing it into science. If all countries did this and made it opensource, the advantages would be incredible.
ForYeensSake 4 months ago
If are not aware that cancer stems from processed food, we are really behind..
chriswanderer90 4 months ago
I don't know what open-source cancer is, but if it is free I will take one
AtomicSushi92130 4 months ago
please addd some vids on how biotech research is actually done.
b29349 4 months ago
Imagine if Pharma companies start sharing such information at least about the incurable diseases, this world can be a lot of happier place to be!
omdeepak 4 months ago
This is the future.
DirectInjected 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
yes fuck propriety!
xjustamem0ryx 4 months ago
Open source... we people NEED information.
We dont pay for Windows or pills... :)
calucalu123 4 months ago
@calucalu123
How come you don't pay for pills?
AmerginMacEccit 4 months ago
@AmerginMacEccit just saying ... we should not pay for an OS neither for pills to keep our health. Its where the systems have taken us to.
calucalu123 4 months ago
First half was good, after which it became a sales pitch. And btw there are millions of compounds that yield the same results his did.
D0KTOR7 4 months ago
@D0KTOR7 what do you mean?
AmethystEyes 4 months ago
@AmethystEyes If you go through the biochemical literature, you will see tons and tons of published material that say the exact things that he does, namely, a promising cancer therapy. But there is no way to reconcile the vast amount of data in the academic sphere with real world pragmatism. Quite simply, institutionalized research is not nearly institutionalized as much as it should be.
D0KTOR7 4 months ago
@D0KTOR7
There's also the findings of Dr. Burzynski, who has his own clinic that is not funded by FDA or any other pharma companies. Instead, he is under constant attacks from established pharmaceutical and governm. agencies. Curing people will actually put an end to making money - something many companies cannot afford to happen. But it won't go on forever as the systemic collapse is upon all of us.
natushkatzm 4 months ago
Wow!! Thank you for sharing your knowledge to other academics to further the research. You could be a billionaire overnight for having researched that potential cancer cure. You took the road less traveled by and that would definitely make a difference. You deserve a Nobel prize!
jamestakeshi 4 months ago
see focus on community and peservation should be our focus,with his change he could be saving millions but hes waiting on funding. yet we spend trillions on war to kill each other.
this is why i occupymelbourne, this is why i want a change.
lennonstube 4 months ago
Absolutely brilliant!
shadywalker 4 months ago
My only question is why wasn't this standard practice already?
N3rdyDav3 4 months ago
@N3rdyDav3 Because research organizations and pharmaceutical companies like money, and giving your idea to others means they will get the money not you. Money both drives and retards the discovery of cures and treatment.
FDSCEV 4 months ago
I hope this gets to the public soon!
HumanCapitalSolns 4 months ago
I wish we had more labs, companies like this who are willing to take a hit to their bottom line for the betterment of humanity.
BJ219 4 months ago
cannabis oil and daily juiced, fresh cannabis cure cancer. educate yourself , don't listen to the propaganda.
shell7324 4 months ago
doing things for the love of it is much more powerful than doing it for money.
benaberry 4 months ago
This man is a hero!
Choirathlete 4 months ago
Open source cancer? Oh no!
ionz75 4 months ago
I don't understand... why no standing ovation for this man?
vagine26 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Use this link.
cancer-pre
vention.net/
IvanMarinIvkovich 4 months ago
It's obvious that Bradner has a personal connection to his job. This is what scientists are supposed to be like. He and his work is a perfect representation of the power of passion.
Yoshithedino12345 4 months ago
Comment removed
Yoshithedino12345 4 months ago
You want to know about cancer, watch "forks over knives"
bluefootedpig 4 months ago
Can I get some of this molecule to be injected into me?
DrQuijano 4 months ago
Why can America do amazing things like this quietly but loudly do the things I see on the Daily Show?
groMMit1981 4 months ago
Open source is big pharma going after naive researcher's ideas. I'm a researcher and I patent my inventions to raise funds to continue my projects. If I shared my knowledge for free, I wouldn't have the resources to finance my research, I wouln't even have a salary. Open source is a bad idea that only wealthy institutions or companies can afford.
1marcelo 4 months ago
@1marcelo Yip, a great world we live in with stupidly expensive drugs and insurance bringing medical care and the end user to their knees due to pure greed. Big pharma will take this molecule, alter it slightly and patent it then sell it at 1000%+ profit and then when patent comes to an end repeat the process.
groMMit1981 4 months ago
@1marcelo Open source is not a bad idea. It's useful and effective. Just because it might be difficult to base an entire business model around it doesn't mean it's pointless.
Basically, all research could be made open source and everyone would benefit. We'd have to worry about parasite companies not doing their own research, but they would still have to be competent enough to produce the drugs and therapies cost effectively.
Benefit: faster, wider development of drugs and therapies.
LithiumLogica 4 months ago
@LithiumLogica It doesn't work like you think. Research is extremely expensive. I discovered a drug for a rare disease years ago and published the results without patenting. The project stopped because it was impossible to raise the millions of dollars needed for clinical trials. With other drugs I patented I was able to raise the money, the development continues and the profit will be shared by the researchers, academic institutions and big pharma (they thake a big share but at least it works)
1marcelo 4 months ago
@1marcelo That doesn't mean research cannot be done unless it's kept a total secret. The video above shows that it's perfectly viable to open source the research to allow collaboration. Your personal experience doesn't mean that all situations are like that or will be like that. Also, you have to realize that you were still working within the industry where it is common practice to keep information on lock-down, to guarantee profits. He's talking about breaking that mold.
LithiumLogica 4 months ago
@LithiumLogica No, I was working at an academic institution and I still do. I have also worked in the industry so I know both sides and I assure you Jay Bradner's story is amazing but it is the exception.
1marcelo 4 months ago
By the way, I just found out this drug had already been patented for use in cancer by Mitsubishi Pharma (great researchers, I've worked with them) many years ago, so the Dana-Farber team wouldn't have been able to patent this even if they wanted to.
1marcelo 4 months ago
@1marcelo And to be clear, it might not work to be open source within a conventional business model, but something can be built to produce a byproduct of open source information. Effectively, that's what he was discussing today. He isn't part of a big company, he's part of an academic institution and they produce the information as open source, which drives them to work harder, and allows many more companies and people to do more research that might turn out a viable product.
LithiumLogica 4 months ago
@1marcelo I am fairly certain that I could never walk a mile in your shoes, but as a consumer of medicine and not a researcher, the idea of a global scientific collaboration of ideas for the good of mankind warms my heart. If this experiment of sharing the source code of a molecule ends up generating profit and good health would you reconsider your stance?
spinynorman1982 4 months ago
@spinynorman1982 Thanks for your comment. Actually, in research, results are always published, even the ones produced by big pharma. Only the timing and the revenues are different. Companies patent their inventions (it is too risky to keep them secret for long) and after 18 months they are automatically published by the patent offices. These data are available for everybody to make further improvements and more research. Open source will only deprive researchers from a fair compensantion.
1marcelo 4 months ago
@1marcelo So, if I understand, any company that produces medicine based on independent R&D will give due credit and revenue to the researcher or team that brought about the discovery. Then to be made public after patents are filed. However, this person (speaker at TED) is trying to circumvent that process and encourage all researchers to immediately publish data so that it can be co-developed by rival companies which could potentially cause research grants to be lost on future developments?
spinynorman1982 4 months ago
@spinynorman1982 You understood correctly. I don't know why Bradner favors open-source research. Maybe he does not understand the patenting process, which is common among researchers, unfortunately. Many people are biased against patenting without having any knowledge about it. I also have to say that Bradner did not patent this drug and its use in cancer because this was discovered some years ago by a Japanese company. What Bradner discovered was only the mechanism, which is not patentable.
1marcelo 4 months ago
@1marcelo That's to the point, though. We need the mechanisms, but those aren't patentable so the work isn't public. It's throwing out a substantial amount of knowledge.
LokiClock 4 months ago
@LokiClock Knowledge about mechanisms doesn't cure people, drugs do. That's why the drugs are patentable and the mechanisms are not. I agree that researchers can use this knowledge for further developments and that is very useful. But publishing mechanisms and sharing the information is very common in science and nothing new. If you want to make career as a scientist you need to publish or to patent and then publish and that happens all the time. That's why the point of the talk is not clear.
1marcelo 4 months ago
@1marcelo If I could digress for a minute. You mentioned a phrase that I hear often. "Big pharma". Without knowing exactly what that is I can deduce that it means companies that perhaps own several patents on the most popular drugs. Why do Homeopath BS artists use this phrase to criticize science based medicine? Is there a lot of corruption within these companies? IF there is corruption I don't see how it would effect a chemical structure of a useful drug.
spinynorman1982 4 months ago
@spinynorman1982 In general it means companies that withhold cures and treatment to make them more profitable. It's bollocks.
WiseIsWise 4 months ago
"lab animals"
WyldOrbit 4 months ago
How many cancer cures are going to come out before they start curing cancer? There is a man in Canada who can cure cancer in LAN animals with a simple supplement.
WyldOrbit 4 months ago
Bloody brilliant.
It's amazing to see the leaps and bounds people are making in the effort to get on the top-side of cancer. It's equally amazing to see the researchers treating a cure as a human endeavor, rather than a business venture.
ShallowBeThyGames 4 months ago
open source is anti-capitalism. there is no drive for profits, only for results. there is a common belief that capitalism rewards and encourages innovation, yet this is a prime example of how capitalism impedes innovation. it isn't until you remove the ability to profit that you can really allow inspired people to innovate. cancer will encourage people to find ways to stop it. as long as there is a problem, someone will try to fix it, no profits needed.
greycloud24 4 months ago
DMT its a drug that activate your pineal glande and people say that transport you to another dimension, and people say that find salvation from their own mistakes and cure themselves so my point is if you are going to die better try everything.
DMT ENJOY LIFE open sourse rocks
tenisplayer 4 months ago
Wow. If this could be done it would be profound!
tdurran 4 months ago
Open source is the future
mistergreenhat 4 months ago 2
@mistergreenhat open source is the future we all wish for but will only become a reality once we as the people of this world, take charge of our destiny and free ourselves from the strangle hold placed on us by the multinational corporations, and especially banks, that control all aspects of our governments, the economy and ultimately our lives.
i look forward to the day when we realise sharing is much more satisfying than hording great wealth that we will never use.
TheGreatAfricanGuru 4 months ago 11
Dr. Bursinsky
frydayupinhere 4 months ago
AMAZING!
sashakid 4 months ago
Open source biochemistry.
mikeye9 4 months ago
i like this guy *thumbs up* brother
esepablo19 4 months ago
We need more people like this guy.
popescualexandrucris 4 months ago 60
i think if we really want to reach Technological singularity we have to do it open source. capitalism is to inefficient XD
support open source ecology!
support the zeitgeist movenment!
Nutzername36 4 months ago
open source cancer research doesn't pay the share holders of the drug companies but I applaud him doing so
mike6459 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Vote Obama 2012!
He is fixing the 8 years ""Bush Effect"" !
ginofrater 4 months ago
We don't have a legal team that will hide the drug until it becomes profitable to release it. I left the world of cancer research because of pharmaceutical companies, now I wonder if I should return.
Also, mic ras is vastly different from P53. >.>
hunterbender 4 months ago
This is much better then the political videos they have been posting
Nunchucks67 4 months ago
He raises an interesting point about patients, medical industries and competition. LET SCIENCE BUILD ON SCIENCE.
Alpinex105 4 months ago
This talk is by far a favorite of mine out of all the ones I've watch, I can't wait to see more like this,
RobertWilfredFoxton 4 months ago
Great example on collaboration provides tremendously better results than competition. This paradigm shift will hopefully change the world for the better in the future, when we will be able to see through our outdated society.
Uribaani 4 months ago 44
This has been flagged as spam show
@Uribaani Indeed ...open collaboration for mutual benefit and mutual profit
gaiagale 4 months ago
@Uribaani Well the scientific method requires competition.... but not the corp kind ;)
Alpinex105 4 months ago
@Alpinex105 why do you type "the scientific method requires competition" ? ...science is based on accurate observation of fact/evidence ...simply curious
gaiagale 4 months ago
@gaiagale Exactly... the competition comes with explaining these facts... Academic debates happen all the time....they are reviewed extensively... competition is what allowed us to dismiss old irrelevant theories. Theories are modified as well... there is a huge amount of debate there.. both A and B could work... now which one works better?
Alpinex105 4 months ago