Cure for AIDs and Cancer 'lost'
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhlsAgjhDTo

So, yeah. I'm not going to jump to conclusions about THE MAN keeping us down by refusing to treat us so we don't get better so that there's more money involved or anything, but I thought it was worth a discussion. Read the description too.

I'm a bit leery about discussing it like it's 100% fact. Has anyone heard about this before?

I'm finding it rather hard to go along with this.

A quick Google search doesn't link "Chrystyne Jackson" with "AIDS" at all, save other places where this video is posted. Nor can I find any mention of a Tom Synder working as a producer, but that probably isn't saying much. And again, a quick Google search reveals the name Tom Synder and AIDS linked directly only by this video.

I hunted down the website of the news office (I'm assuming it's this this station), and I can't even seem to find mention of the story there. Again, having no idea what the date of the story was, I cannot verify this for certain, but I can't find the story on the website.

The MySpace page that is linked the bottom proves most unhelpful in the verifying of the veracity of this story, but, in my opinion at least, casts some doubt on the poster. Well, at any rate, I have a hard time taking anyone who says he lives in "Occupied NWO Terrortory, Mexamericanada". The profile is set to private, so that's all the information I can glean on this guy.

I also did a search on Samir Chachoua. It does appear that the lawsuit existed, but like the "More Information" says, the decision to award Dr. Chachoua was overturned. It appears that he appealed the case all the way up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which also denied him.

Then of course, we have the basic idea that "The Man" is suppressing the information. You know, the same organization that couldn't keep the lid on wire taps.

In all honesty, it looks like something that conspiracy theorists got a hold of and blew massively out of proportion. Could Dr. Chachoua's method be the cure for cancer? I don't know. The only information I found about it...outside of more links to this video, was an excerpt from this book, but it only mentions the court case up to the point where Dr. Chachoua was awarded the money, with no mention to the subsequent overturning of the verdict and denial of appeals.

So, yeah...I'm filing this under "conspiracy theory". Either that, or the NWO/NAU/"The Man" has successfully pulled the wool over my eyes once more.

Well, I'm not finding the unnamed male anchor anywhere on KNBC's news team listing and, unless she's had a ridiculous amount of work done recently, the woman reporting on the story itself looks nothing like any photos I've been able to find of KNBC evening news co-anchor Ana Garcia.

I am extremely skeptical of this video's authenticity, but it's a well-done fraud if it is one.

I figured I could rely on you guys for debunking this sort of thing. I was very skeptical myself, glad my skepticism was properly placed. The video also looks rather shoddy, especially considering it was A - made and probably posted recently and B - seems to have been recorded with a crappy VCR or something.

If I remember correctly, there was another way to fight cancer. It involved people being immune to the virus, because of the similarities of AIDS to the Bubonic Plague of the Dark Ages.

I have work now, but I'll find it later on.

Wow.

Yeah, no credibility there.
Cancer can be caused by viruses, but that is just one of very few circumstances that can lead to it. But to be honest I can think of only a few situations where cancer is proven to be caused in the real world by a virus (leukemia, especially Feline Leukemia, being the only one that comes to mind at the moment, but even human leukemia is usually more tied to chromosomal instability.)


I've never ever heard of that before, and even if there was a cure-all for viruses, it's effects on cancer would be minimal and it would be completely ineffective in late stage terminal lung cancer. And.. err. vaccines just don't work in such a way that would be effective over such a broad range of diseases in the late stages, unless it was an excessive and cost-prohibitive cocktail... which would've never been approved for human testing in that state.
The problem with most cancer treatments are that: Most treatments, especially biochemical in nature, are unable to effectively distinguish between healthy and bad cells (with exception of a few very specific cases in very specific conditions), and that the cancer almost always compensates for the treatment before being completely eradicated. A method following that technique does absolutely nothing to compensate for either of those two issues, and it could therefore be postulated and anticipated that even if effective it would be no more effective than any current method.
Even in the case of increasing the general immune response would be ineffective, especially against terminal cancers.
Oh, there is another issue with cancer, it is in fact hundreds of different diseases lumped together by similarities, a "cure-all" for the whole lot of it is both unlikely and unattainable at the moment. There's just too many differences and too much going on (some oncogenes causing one cancer are completely inactive in another, or may be acting as a anti-proliferative (anti-cancer) factor in another. It's just too complex a game to believe in a "magic bullet" that can kill it all.)

"Losing" something like this would be impossible unless the entire scientific community was in on it, and UCLA has too good of a reputation to try to get away with it on their own (trust in Science is quite low now, any breach of ethics would send the reputation of any institution plummeting). Even if their copies of such a thing were "lost", for it to be anywhere near clinical trials, journal articles (especially) and patents detailing its creation would have to be out.
And anyone testing this sort of thing without it being approved for clinical trials, is well... I can't think of any other way to say it than "not a real scientist". Cancer is a tough game, and in many cases the "cures" can be worse than the disease itself. The risks for even the approved methods is quite high, sure the person is going to die anyways, but the quality of the remaining life can decrease considerably for many of them if something goes wrong. Testing something like this without proper approval or care would be completely irresponsible.

Oh, and if there was even a hint that something like this legitimately exists or did exist, major cancer centers would be blazing with attempting to find ways to use it effectively, and I can tell you straight out, that is not happening. There isn't even a murmur. The medical science research community isn't against the world. If an effective cure was created by "bad science", someone legitimate would test it under legitimate scientific means. The fact that this doesn't even give one hit on the Entrez NCBI/NIH website, which archives abstracts all peer-reviewed biomedical-related journals, implies there's nothing legit behind it. I mean, not even a "mouse model" test?

Sounds like garbage pseudoscience or a scam to me.

Should add though, I work for a Cancer center as a researcher, so that may imply a bit of bias. All of us here would be perfectly thrilled to be able to move on to a new topic if it meant Cancer was cured though.
Odd how it's perfectly reasonable for people to say, without recourse, my occupation is out to scam everyone, but we risk getting sued if we try to claim the same of these snake-oil salesmen that chomp at the bit over this kind of junk.

Am I the only one to notice the gross lack of lip-synching? Or the fact that ALL the interviews were filmed in the same book-filled room?

That said, this sounds vaguely similar to a real case a while ago where an anti-AIDS (cancer? one or the other, but not both) medication was killed. But that was a medication, not a "vaccine." Like, in pill form. Basically, I'm writing this off as a hoax designed to play on people's fears and recent events.

No, I noticed that, too. But given the general lack of quality in the video, I figured it could be passed off as technical problems instead of just a hack-job dub.

Ah, but hold the phone, gang, I found something new!

I found an article on the subject on a website that is linked to Explorer Magazine.

...However, a few things immediately popped out to me.

First, the article is written by a Joel Black, not Chrystyne Jackson as the video claims. It also has the "THE MOST EFFECTIVE THERAPY AGAINST CANCER AND AIDS IN HISTORY." as the "More Information" as the video, again credited to NBC news...again, without a reference. Not a link, not a note where to find it, nothing.

The article also drops the name of "Terry Dreyfus" as being "the first patient in the world to achieve a two and a half year remission from full-blown AIDS by receiving Dr. Chachoua's vaccines." In spite of Dreyfus being an apparent medical miracle, this article is the only one that turns up his name in relationship to AIDS on a Google-search. And again, the article stops well short of mentioning that the initial case was overturned, and that was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

I'm not a medical expert, so I cannot challenge the veracity of the "graphic proof"...other than the fact that bigger pictures would of been nice.

The article also gives us another fun by-phrase: Induced Remission Therapy. A google search on this does produce a bunch of hits, but none from any medical institute...save for here (Listed in the "Products" section) and here (included on a list of alternative medicines. Everything else seems to be on the same level as the Wellness Directory of Minnesota...which Dr. Chachoua apparently asked for money.

Another interesting note is that most articles pertaining to this are dated around 2000-2001. uruk (the guy who posted the video) apparently has a thing for 7-year old conspiracies.

Another thing that is bugging is that I see these people quote NBC (sometimes MSNBC) with the "THE MOST EFFECTIVE THERAPY AGAINST CANCER AND AIDS IN HISTORY." (all of them have the caps, too!) quote, but not one, not one that I saw gives a link or any kind of reference for that quote.

You don't really think the board of health would allow them to come up with a cure do you? Every doctor would deny such a thing exists, it's more profitable for them to treat a disease, virus, etc instead of curing it.

Yes, as a cancer researcher myself, I can say flat out that in the case of Cancer a cure is what is desired. If for no other reason (and the other reasons are much more important) than it is impossible for a "treatment for the rest of their life" to actually be effective. You kill the cancer flat out and completely, or the person dies, that's about the only two options.

Things aren't cured in many cases because they are unrealistic or out of our current reach to flat out cure without major ethics violations and risks.
The paranoia that the biomedical community wants to keep everyone sick for the purpose of continuous cash is not correct, at least for the bulk of it. Now, drug companies and direct service providers... I can't really comment on in that respect.
As an example, how about Gene Therapy? That's a method that a large number of people have devoted a lot of time and money in attempting to get past clinical trials where it has faltered due to complications. In most cases where it would be used, the effects would likely be permanent.
There has been a well publicized incident, as well, where gene therapy was tested as a one-shot cure of a familial condition, with at least one unfortunate complication/death, for instance.