This thread is all over the place.
I'm not sure I follow the argument. Surgery can provide a cure for early stage, localized cancer and there are constant advancements in surgical techniques (incorporating lasers, cameras, etc.). There are also constant improvements in early detection methods and imaging technology which leads to reduced usage of chemotherapy. Nobody's standing in the way of preventing advanced cancer.
I think there's also a misconception about how medical research is carried out. The real work is done in universities by people who couldn't care less about drug companies and have dedicated their lives to making significant scientific findings. The results are published in journals which are peer reviewed by other scientists who also couldn't care less about drug companies and well before any drug companies could have any influence.
That said, if a promising drug is too simple/inexpensive, it might be hard to find a private investor (i.e. a drug company) to finance the necessary clinical trials. But in the internet age people would definitely know that it exists and it would eventually get pushed ahead one way or another.
It's "Wmi" Einstein.
This thread is all over the place.
I'm not sure I follow the argument. Surgery can provide a cure for early stage, localized cancer and there are constant advancements in surgical techniques (incorporating lasers, cameras, etc.). There are also constant improvements in early detection methods and imaging technology which leads to reduced usage of chemotherapy. Nobody's standing in the way of preventing advanced cancer.
I think there's also a misconception about how medical research is carried out. The real work is done in universities by people who couldn't care less about drug companies and have dedicated their lives to making significant scientific findings. The results are published in journals which are peer reviewed by other scientists who also couldn't care less about drug companies and well before any drug companies could have any influence.
That said, if a promising drug is too simple/inexpensive, it might be hard to find a private investor (i.e. a drug company) to finance the necessary clinical trials. But in the internet age people would definitely know that it exists and it would eventually get pushed ahead one way or another.
He brings many good points for sure. One thing I wanted to comment on is that he comments on "detection methods and imaging technology which leads to reduced usage of chemotherapy".
Regarding that, many don't know that mammography for breast cancer can actually CAUSE cancer. It's true. The safer alternative is thermographic breast screening and it works by measuring the radiation of infrared heat from your body and translating this information into anatomical images. It uses no mechanical pressure or ionizing radiation--the two factors that can contribute to the creation of breast cancer. I've shared this info with many of my female friends.
This thread is all over the place.
I'm not sure I follow the argument. Surgery can provide a cure for early stage, localized cancer and there are constant advancements in surgical techniques (incorporating lasers, cameras, etc.). There are also constant improvements in early detection methods and imaging technology which leads to reduced usage of chemotherapy. Nobody's standing in the way of preventing advanced cancer.
I think there's also a misconception about how medical research is carried out. The real work is done in universities by people who couldn't care less about drug companies and have dedicated their lives to making significant scientific findings. The results are published in journals which are peer reviewed by other scientists who also couldn't care less about drug companies and well before any drug companies could have any influence.
That said, if a promising drug is too simple/inexpensive, it might be hard to find a private investor (i.e. a drug company) to finance the necessary clinical trials. But in the internet age people would definitely know that it exists and it would eventually get pushed ahead one way or another.
I do have to disagree with the last and final sentence there. There are many things on the internet that people don't know about because the majority of the population is too busy watching American Idol. Ask your friends and relatives if they've heard of Dr. Burzynski. All he's done is develop a natural medicine, with no side effects, that has a 25% success rate on people with inoperable brain tumors. These are people that were told that death was inevitable and that there's nothing more that can be done.
I just don't think it would ever see the light of day but that's JMO.
I do have to disagree with the last and final sentence there. There are many things on the internet that people don't know about because the majority of the population is too busy watching American Idol. Ask your friends and relatives if they've heard of Dr. Burzynski. All he's done is develop a natural medicine, with no side effects, that has a 25% success rate on people with inoperable brain tumors. These are people that were told that death was inevitable and that there's nothing more that can be done.
I just don't think it would ever see the light of day but that's JMO.
first off weekends, you left out one major factor about universities and them doing the research.
WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK FUNDS THOSE UNIVERSITIES TO DO THE RESEARCH? YEAH THATS RIGHT THE DRUG COMPANIES OR GOVT, WHO IS IN BED WITH THE DRUG COMPANIES.
My God i cant believe how brain washed and naive some people are, thinking the govt and drug companies are out there trying to help us
There is way to much to lose, then their is to gain by curing cancer. And like i already said, if people arent dying of cancer and now all living longer, it would destroy countries economies big time. If you think govts arent running numbers on what it would cost having all these people cured of cancer and living longer, you really must be living in some fairy tale world, cause its clear you dont understand the world operates on greed, money and corruption.
2 ways to control populations, Wars and Diseases. The populations would explode if we start curing diseases, that help to tame down the population somewhat. If everybody starts living to 100 because we cure everything, the world will be screwed.
Please get real. Npobody said that drug companies werent working on better meds, because of course they are. They are working on new meds everyday, that will treat cancer, not cure. There is no money in curing cancer, wake up and follow the money trail. When another giant disease like cancer comes around, that the drug companies can then fleece people with treating them for it, then cancer will be cured.
And the majority of people who get cancer and get treated for, almost always die because of cancer later on. So your theroy that they did of something else is really far fetched.
I have had so many family and friends die of all differnt type of cancers and with everyone it was the same story. Surgery, chemo, radiation and then die at some point, some just longer then others. Same game is being played out in peoples families everyday, everywhere by the money grabbing leeches.
Really stop being so naive about how the world operates. I would love for it to work the way you think it works, but the sad truth it doesnt, because humans are not a good species
I seem to remember from a former life I was living at the time (10,000 years ago) that a local sheep herder had skin cancer... 
Got to keep in mind that we did not have all the sun screens 10,000 years ago like we have today. Might have been eczema... 
But I do think it was skin cancer...
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
