Tobacco could help treat cancer – Research funded by Tobacco companies?
Ian Brockwell
July 22, 2008
After years of being told that cigarettes cause cancer (although there is no actual proof to confirm this), it seems somewhat ironic (or should we say convenient?) that researchers from the Stanford University in California claim that Tobacco could actually help treat cancer.
An article from the BBC reports that:
"They are using the (tobacco) plants as factories for an antibody chemical specific to the cells which cause follicular B-cell lymphoma, a type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
These antibodies are put into a patient newly-diagnosed with the disease, to "prime" the body's immune system to attack any cell carrying them.
If successful, this would mean the body would then recognise and destroy the lymphoma cells.
However, every patient's antibodies are different, and would need to be produced quickly once the diagnosis was made.
The idea is not a new one - attempts have already been made to grow these antibodies inside animal cells, with mixed success.
However, a plant-grown vaccine would be much cheaper and in theory could carry less risk to the patient, as animal cells might hold unknown viruses."
Unfortunately, many Universities receive funding from Tobacco, pharmaceutical and/or oil companies, and you have to wonder who benefits the most from such "discoveries". If tobacco really is a cause of cancer (as most scientists believe), one has to question the morality of it all. Smokers buy cigarettes from Tobacco companies, which apparently give us cancer and then they fund research into finding a cure (with the profits from their victims), which the smokers have to pay for again! As David Icke might say "Problem, Reaction, Solution"
The following is an extract from an article published in the New York Times (Feb. 2008)
"Officials at the University of Texas business school in Austin became uneasy when they realized that a reliable donor to student activities — the parent company of the tobacco maker Philip Morris — wanted a more prominent role in sponsoring events, and more interaction with students.
So the school decided two months ago to draw a line, and refuse all tobacco money for student groups, as well as for faculty research."
"But on some campuses, faculty who get tobacco money for research grants have led pitched battles over proposed bans. Last spring, because of such faculty opposition, Stanford University and regents of the University of California system rejected prohibitions on tobacco dollars....
"We take funding from corporations, from the Department of Defense, from many, many sources, but ultimately the responsibility for the science belongs to the faculty member who did the science," said Robert C. Dynes, president of the University of California system.
The California Board of Regents decided in September that rather than ban tobacco money, it would require research financed by tobacco companies to be approved by the chancellor on each campus."
I´m sure we have all received the advice of "Don´t bite the hand that feeds you" at some time in our lives and I´m sure these words are often heard at Stanford University? As for keeping control of the discoveries, J. Robert Oppenheimer might be a good example to oppose that theory? In another twist of irony, Oppenheimer (who was a chain smoker) died of cancer at the age of 62.
An article from the BBC reports that:
"They are using the (tobacco) plants as factories for an antibody chemical specific to the cells which cause follicular B-cell lymphoma, a type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
These antibodies are put into a patient newly-diagnosed with the disease, to "prime" the body's immune system to attack any cell carrying them.
If successful, this would mean the body would then recognise and destroy the lymphoma cells.
However, every patient's antibodies are different, and would need to be produced quickly once the diagnosis was made.
The idea is not a new one - attempts have already been made to grow these antibodies inside animal cells, with mixed success.
However, a plant-grown vaccine would be much cheaper and in theory could carry less risk to the patient, as animal cells might hold unknown viruses."
Unfortunately, many Universities receive funding from Tobacco, pharmaceutical and/or oil companies, and you have to wonder who benefits the most from such "discoveries". If tobacco really is a cause of cancer (as most scientists believe), one has to question the morality of it all. Smokers buy cigarettes from Tobacco companies, which apparently give us cancer and then they fund research into finding a cure (with the profits from their victims), which the smokers have to pay for again! As David Icke might say "Problem, Reaction, Solution"
The following is an extract from an article published in the New York Times (Feb. 2008)
"Officials at the University of Texas business school in Austin became uneasy when they realized that a reliable donor to student activities — the parent company of the tobacco maker Philip Morris — wanted a more prominent role in sponsoring events, and more interaction with students.
So the school decided two months ago to draw a line, and refuse all tobacco money for student groups, as well as for faculty research."
"But on some campuses, faculty who get tobacco money for research grants have led pitched battles over proposed bans. Last spring, because of such faculty opposition, Stanford University and regents of the University of California system rejected prohibitions on tobacco dollars....
"We take funding from corporations, from the Department of Defense, from many, many sources, but ultimately the responsibility for the science belongs to the faculty member who did the science," said Robert C. Dynes, president of the University of California system.
The California Board of Regents decided in September that rather than ban tobacco money, it would require research financed by tobacco companies to be approved by the chancellor on each campus."
I´m sure we have all received the advice of "Don´t bite the hand that feeds you" at some time in our lives and I´m sure these words are often heard at Stanford University? As for keeping control of the discoveries, J. Robert Oppenheimer might be a good example to oppose that theory? In another twist of irony, Oppenheimer (who was a chain smoker) died of cancer at the age of 62.
Print
Email
