Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have fought hard for life- for my family members- so don't get me wrong- some lived and some not- but I feel at some point we all must go and cancer or other illnesses just part of the big equation to keep our population down - once we fix one thing something else comes- sad but true
yes its true, regardless of what happens, there ill always be something else that will kill people. but that doesnt mean we should stop trying
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
It doesn't make sense to me. The only way drug companies continue making money is mostly NOT by old drugs, but by new drugs that they bring on the market.
yes, but if you were a big pharmaceutical company, which do you think would bring you more profit?
1: a cure for cancer?
2: ongoing research and new cancer fighting drugs?
if you choose number one, then you are thinking in the short term. number two is the long term answer.
Here's the be all and end all argument as I see it: Why don't we see Canada or England or any other country with socialized medicine turn to these quack treatments? The for profit medical industry is one found only in the United States (on such a large scale anyway), we're pretending that other countries don't exist. Other countries actually have an interest in keeping people healthy at a low cost and guess what, they don't turn to plant seeds. I guess the conspiracy theorists have some bs explanation for that. But I don't buy it.
Canada doesn't have socialized medicine, it has a single-payer system. They are vastly different.
As has been pointed out above, cancer is not one disease. Some are highly curable, such as thyroid and testicular cancer, especially if caught early. For some, curative treatment is still a ways off, pancreatic cancer, for example. For many cancers, cure rates are high, such as some leukemias. Breast cancer and colon cancer results keep improving.
Hello Suzy-q, long time!
I'd like to point out to the uninitiated that "cure" relative to cancer is a rather dubious claim based on the criteria for being classified as "cured". I suspect that far too many people are unaware of the fact that a patient diagnosed with cancer, who then receives conventional cancer treatment will become a member of the " cured club" if they survive the treatments, and remain alive for 5 years. That's the magic number ... 5. What might come as a surprise to many is that should this "cured" person die from their cancer in year 6, they still get to keep the label "cured" and remain on the cured list for which our cancer statistics are based. If that sounds a bit off, it's because it is a self serving fraud which gives the cancer industry an illusion of effectiveness far greater than earned. Given that many cancer cases would likely exceed the 5 year survival timeframe WITH NO TREATMENT AT ALL, only highlights the fraud, while providing new nsight into the true meaning of the oft repeated message that the key to curing cancer is early detection. The earlier detected, the greater the likelihood one will remain kicking for that 5 year period to make the cured list.
Quote:
No one is hindering research, and laetrile is and always was a snake oil scam.
Not so, Suzy. There are a couple of books and documentaries from insiders exposing the coverup of positive results at Sloan Kettering where the Laetrile research was being conducted by one of the preeminent cancer researchers of that time. Not unlike a few other effective therapies squashed over the years by a very powerful pharma-cartel hell-bent on protecting their multibillion dollar cancer treatment monopoly.
Quote:
It would indeed take a large scale conspiracy to hide a cancer cure.
Indeed it is a very large scale conspiracy. It is also a very large and lucrative business, raking in BILLIONS. It's no secret that people can and do a lot of dastardly things for the love of money.
Quote:
Whistleblowers would shoot that down in no time flat.
The most in-danger species on the planet ... the "whistleblower". Fired, excommunicated, careers destroyed, reputations smeared, and sometimes they have terribly inconvenient accidents.
Quote:
In addition, most researchers get paid the same no matter what the outcome of their efforts (though a few will get patents that can be lucrative), and the prestige associated with positive results is more a motivator for them than financial rewards.
That dog doesn't hunt, and you know it! Research is paid for by the drug companies that stand to profit from positive research results, and the researchers aren't stupid. They know which side of their bread is buttered, and who it is doing the buttering.
Quote:
In addition, if a cure is found for a specific cancer there will always be a market for the drug because there will always be new cases diagnosed and there will always be a new condition for the researchers to turn their attention to. Then there is the fact that researchers and their families get cancer, too. Who would want to hinder research on something from which he might benefit personally?
That is a very WEAK argument. First, the FDA has all but built an impenetrable fortress around the pharmaceutical establishment's total monopoly over medical treatment, by prohibiting the use of the very word "cure" for any substance that isn't an FDA approved pharmaceutical drug. Even substances that have been scientifically proven to "cure" a disease, such as vitamin C and scurvy, cannot make the claim. Is this a fraud? You betcha.
Quote:
We already have two vaccines that can prevent cancer: the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. There is active research right now on developing drugs that use the immune system to fight cancers. Former President Carter took one for his melanoma.
Almost everyone who has looked carefully at the disastrous results associated with the HPV vaccine, and the shoddy basis underlying the claims of effectiveness, understands that the medical establishment has no competitor when it comes to fraud and conspiracy.
There is no such thing as conspiracies. Think of the hundreds (if not thousands) of people that would have to be quiet to keep that one "secret".
Why is there no such thing as conspiracy theories? People cannot shut up, let alone, thousands with the same "secret".
Manhattan Project. A case in point that destroys this argument.
Tens of thousands of people worked on the project to develop the atomic bomb. An effort to unlock the secrets of the atom, producing the most powerful weapon ever conceived, was no small feat, and secrecy was maintained quite well until the eventual mushroom cloud gave up the secret.
There are theories that speculate there are conspiracies or cover-ups involving cancer cures by various entities involving the medical and scientific professions and the (U.S.) government. (Does it concern only the U.S.?)
What do you think?
Poll:
Do you believe there is a conspiracy (to whatever degree) involving cancer cures?
5 = strongly convinced
4 = it's possible
3 = not sure
2 = unlikely
1 = don't believe at all
Cancer is big business. BIG Business! If there were a cure for cancer and it were allowed to be used, our economy would collapse.
The odds of survival are better today than in the past though, and cancer rates have been declining for many reasons in America. So there has been some improvement.
Actually, no, cancer incident rates are increasing worldwide at alarming rates.
And based on the fixed criteria for labeling a cancer patient "cured", statistics regarding survival rates aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
When you can claim that patient A is cured, and a survivor even when that patient winds up dead ... how legit is the survivor rate anyway?
Cancer is big business. BIG Business! If there were a cure for cancer and it were allowed to be used, our economy would collapse.
It's the biggest scam on earth.
Big scam yes .. But the economy would do just fine. We'd have a healthier and more productive populace, with Billions of extra dollars to spend on more worthwhile things.
The purveyors of poison would however need to find a more beneficial way of making a living.
The richest people in the world die of cancer, if there was a secret cure they would find it.
Exactly.
Quote:
how many undetected cancers are cured by the immune system?
I think it would be more accurate to say that the body rids itself of possibly cancerous cells every day. The potential to become a cancer is there but the immune system short circuits the process before a true cancer develops.
The risk of a man developing prostate cancer is high if he lives to his 80s; the question is why do some men die from it and others die with it, of some other cause.
Quote:
Far more concernig is the manufacturing processes that produce common consumer items and cause cancer. See the video, BLUE VINYL. There is an acceptance of cancer by our society in exchange for convience.
then agian if you live on the downwind side of a roadway you are susceptible to cancer. If you ever smelled gasoline fumes you are susceptible to cancer.
Although there are certainly carcinogens in the environment, whether we develop a cancer may in many cases be a matter of bad luck. One wonky cell escapes the immune system and gets to reproduce. After all, even sunshine is carcinogenic. There's no way to avoid everything that might trigger a cancer.
Quote:
Then again the latest 1 900 lawyers are claiming talcum powder causes uterine cancer...love to see the cause and effect of that!
Some women use talc on their lady bits. The theory is that it travels upward through the genital tract into the pelvic cavity, where it can end up on the ovaries (not the uterus).
Quote:
Oh yes, lawyers play a tug of war with research for profit which puts a wet blanket on research in terms of liability making efforts more conservative than otherwise might be.
I'm not sure where you are going with this. Cancer treatment has risks, but we accept greater risks because the alternative is often death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
yes its true, regardless of what happens, there ill always be something else that will kill people. but that doesnt mean we should stop trying
yes, but if you were a big pharmaceutical company, which do you think would bring you more profit?
1: a cure for cancer?
2: ongoing research and new cancer fighting drugs?
if you choose number one, then you are thinking in the short term. number two is the long term answer.
Since research has produced cures and there is continuing demand for those treatments, that is where the profit is. There is no profit in research itself, especially since many research leads do not pan out. The only profit is a cancer fighting drug that works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fellow26
Here's the be all and end all argument as I see it: Why don't we see Canada or England or any other country with socialized medicine turn to these quack treatments? The for profit medical industry is one found only in the United States (on such a large scale anyway), we're pretending that other countries don't exist. Other countries actually have an interest in keeping people healthy at a low cost and guess what, they don't turn to plant seeds. I guess the conspiracy theorists have some bs explanation for that. But I don't buy it.
Other countries use the same treatments we do. Some also have citizens with a similar propensity to be taken in by quackery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
There is no such thing as conspiracies. Think of the hundreds (if not thousands) of people that would have to be quiet to keep that one "secret".
Why is there no such thing as conspiracy theories? People cannot shut up, let alone, thousands with the same "secret".
I have often said the same thing. It just struck me that there is a group of people who would be very hard to silence about a "secret" cancer cure: the patients in clinical trials that show the drug works. How are you going to keep them and their families quiet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
this. it has been about 25 years since i read the article, so forgive me if my memory of it has faded, but a writer had a parent that had cancer. he found a doctor that treated her with hydrogen peroxide if i recall correctly. he gave the parent a particular amount that this doctor found had great success in eliminating various cancers from the body, or at least pushing them into full remission.
it worked so well that the writer pushed to have patient trials done to try and get the treatment certified for widespread use. however the people that did the trials did not follow the protocols the original doctor had set up, IE a specified amount of the drug administered, no alcohol during the treatment, etc. as such the testing showed no appreciable effect on the disease.
my feeling is that had the researchers followed proper protocol, instead of going at the research willy nilly, we would have a good treatment for cancer today that the average person could afford. it might not be a complete cure, i doubt that will happen in our grand childrens lifetimes, but it would relieve much of the suffering of the disease.
Hydrogen peroxide will not cure cancer. Attempts to use it have killed people, though.
I'd like to point out to the uninitiated that "cure" relative to cancer is a rather dubious claim based on the criteria for being classified as "cured". I suspect that far too many people are unaware of the fact that a patient diagnosed with cancer, who then receives conventional cancer treatment will become a member of the " cured club" if they survive the treatments, and remain alive for 5 years. That's the magic number ... 5. What might come as a surprise to many is that should this "cured" person die from their cancer in year 6, they still get to keep the label "cured" and remain on the cured list for which our cancer statistics are based. If that sounds a bit off, it's because it is a self serving fraud which gives the cancer industry an illusion of effectiveness far greater than earned. Given that many cancer cases would likely exceed the 5 year survival timeframe WITH NO TREATMENT AT ALL, only highlights the fraud, while providing new nsight into the true meaning of the oft repeated message that the key to curing cancer is early detection. The earlier detected, the greater the likelihood one will remain kicking for that 5 year period to make the cured list.
Hi Guy!
That's not the way it works. The five year time interval is used because for most cancers if it comes back after treatment it will do so within five years. Most folks who get to five years are truly cured. For my son who had leukemia diagnosed at age 13 it has now been 27 years.
There is no such thing as a "cured list". That's not how the statistics are kept. What is used is a survival curve, which tells how many people are alive at intervals after diagnosis.
It shows what percentage of patients are alive as time after diagnosis proceeds. Note how the graph shows a slower decline at about 5 years. The lines for the different years of diagnosis get progressively higher with more recent intervals, reflecting the increased survival in the more recent cohorts.
Untreated leukemia is quickly fatal, with patients dying from infection, anemia, and bleeding. The concept of lead time bias is valid, but it really only applies to early stage disease. Someone with late stage breast cancer, for example, is not going to live five years, and she is going to be miserable while she dies.
Quote:
Not so, Suzy. There are a couple of books and documentaries from insiders exposing the coverup of positive results at Sloan Kettering where the Laetrile research was being conducted by one of the preeminent cancer researchers of that time. Not unlike a few other effective therapies squashed over the years by a very powerful pharma-cartel hell-bent on protecting their multibillion dollar cancer treatment monopoly.
Laetrile does not work. It's a scam. Anyone can make a movie or write a book. The internet makes it easy these days.
Quote:
Indeed it is a very large scale conspiracy. It is also a very large and lucrative business, raking in BILLIONS. It's no secret that people can and do a lot of dastardly things for the love of money.
If you want to believe so. How do you get the patients who were cured by the secret cancer cures in clinical trials to not talk about it?
Quote:
The most in-danger species on the planet ... the "whistleblower". Fired, excommunicated, careers destroyed, reputations smeared, and sometimes they have terribly inconvenient accidents.
In the US, whistleblowers can get rich.
Quote:
That dog doesn't hunt, and you know it! Research is paid for by the drug companies that stand to profit from positive research results, and the researchers aren't stupid. They know which side of their bread is buttered, and who it is doing the buttering.
They don't profit from research that does not produce results. That's just money down the drain.
Quote:
That is a very WEAK argument. First, the FDA has all but built an impenetrable fortress around the pharmaceutical establishment's total monopoly over medical treatment, by prohibiting the use of the very word "cure" for any substance that isn't an FDA approved pharmaceutical drug. Even substances that have been scientifically proven to "cure" a disease, such as vitamin C and scurvy, cannot make the claim. Is this a fraud? You betcha.
Where does the FDA say that no one can claim vitamin C cures scurvy?
What the FDA says is a product cannot claim to treat a disease unless it has been scientifically shown to do so.
Quote:
Almost everyone who has looked carefully at the disastrous results associated with the HPV vaccine, and the shoddy basis underlying the claims of effectiveness, understands that the medical establishment has no competitor when it comes to fraud and conspiracy.
The HPV vaccine has been shown to be extraordinarily safe, with no deaths that can be attributed to it, and it is almost 100% effective in preventing infection with the strains covered by the vaccine. The effectiveness has been shown in studies done by different groups from around the world
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Manhattan Project. A case in point that destroys this argument.
Tens of thousands of people worked on the project to develop the atomic bomb. An effort to unlock the secrets of the atom, producing the most powerful weapon ever conceived, was no small feat, and secrecy was maintained quite well until the eventual mushroom cloud gave up the secret.
There are hundreds of thousands of people around the world doing cancer research. You are welcome to wear your tinfoil hat, but there would be no way to cover up a cancer cure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyNameIsBellaMia
Cancer is big business. BIG Business! If there were a cure for cancer and it were allowed to be used, our economy would collapse.
It's the biggest scam on earth.
There are cures for many cancers already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Actually, no, cancer incident rates are increasing worldwide at alarming rates.
And based on the fixed criteria for labeling a cancer patient "cured", statistics regarding survival rates aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
When you can claim that patient A is cured, and a survivor even when that patient winds up dead ... how legit is the survivor rate anyway?
Cancer incidence rates are increasing in some developing countries where the life expectancy is just now getting to an age where many cancers are diagnosed. In the past, people in those countries died before they got old enough to have cancer. In the US, rates for many cancers are decreasing. Lung cancer incidence is down because fewer people are smoking. Colon cancer is down because people are having precancerous polyps removed at colonoscopy.
As I mentioned above, there are no "fixed criteria for labeling a cancer patient 'cured'". Your argument has no basis in fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
