Do you believe that a cure for cancer exists, but it's not available to the public because medical companies would lose money on treatments?
10
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
80 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
I don't think it has anything to do with capitalistic or non capitalistic.
I just think it's ridiculous to think scientists anywhere would keep that from humanity.
They have families too. Their families have people with cancer. For me personally? I feel it's fucking horrible to even have that conspiracy theory bullshit floating around out there.
Umbral
Level 8
Oct 2, 2018
9
Absolutely!!!
I have cancer and am going through a treatment which is working. In less than two months, my tumors have significantly decreased in size. I'm positive they will continue. I'm anxious to see how small they get before what is left will be totally removed. I have been having side effects that are far from pleasant but right now, it beats the alternative.
confidentrealm
Level 7
Oct 3, 2018
8
Please keep us updated and I will be following you from here on out. Your journey means more to me then you will ever know.
Best wishes to you!
So glad to hear your good progress
Are people showing up for your gallery event. ?
Unfortunately we categorize many different diseases under the term 'cancer'. They are different and they respond to different treatments. So there will never be a universal cure. We've done well on diseases such as leukemia in children -- it used to be a sure death sentence but that's no longer true. So the research on each different type must be completed and first a treatment, then possibly a cure (though I doubt it). The one thing they have in common is the fact that the earliest possible detection improves the chances for successful treatment or remission.
ladyprof70
Level 7
Oct 4, 2018
7
No. People get cancer all the time, and if a cure was available, money would made. Why would they not put a cure for cancer on the market?
Cutiebeauty
Level 9
Oct 3, 2018
6
While I don't believe this is a hidden cure, but to answer why it's simple, the medical business gets a fortune for treating people with cancers. That would be all the motivation necessary.
I vote no, because cancer is really, really, hard to cure. Cancer, and other diseases have been in our DNA for 1000's, and 1000's, and 1000's of years.
Minotaur80
Level 5
Oct 3, 2018
4
Correct there, because as the Oncologist told my 16 year old ( his patient) and myself, " Everyone has the seeds of cancer of one kind or another within them, but some can escape from it via a stronger, more virulent NATURAL Immune System and others succumb to it relatively easily.
In other words, it's just a roll of the dice as to who gets it and who doesn't.
Btw, to any of those poor ill-informed people out there reading this, YOU CANNOT catch Cancers from a Cancer Patient, it is NOT Contagious, BUT your rank ignorance CAN and DOES do great harm to those who are enduring the affects of the treatments such as hair loss, weight loss, pale skin, etc, etc,.?
AS a line from a poem written by my daughter, Lorrae, whilst undergoing Chemotherapy goes;
"Am I so different."
Am I so different that you feel you must stare,
simply because my Cancer treatments have made me lose my hair...………..
I don't believe anyone could cover that up. A whistle blower would make it known and as much as everyone thinks the "deep state" could cover it up, I disagree whole heartedly.
mattersauce
Level 7
Oct 3, 2018
5
Consider this: If there were a single cure for cancer, the one who introduced it and controlled it (patent, etc.) would quickly become (as in overnight) the wealthiest and quite likely most powerful person on this planet. The incentive for bringing it out is so much greater than the incentive to hide it that it makes that notion absurd. Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that a single cure will be found because of the variations involved.
However, it is possible that a single prevention could be found someday. What follows is an excerpt from an article (the URL is below the excerpt):
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
"One thing that all cancer cells have in common is that they use their DNA in different ways. They turn on genes that are normally turned off, or they silence genes that should be turned on. In order to figure out which DNA changes help cancer cells become metastatic, scientists at MIT focused on breast cancer. They looked at sedentary' cancer cellscells that stay in one placeand metastatic cancer cells, and they searched for genes that were turned on extra high in the metastatic cells. These scientists, led by a researcher named Li Ma, found that a special genecalled microRNA10-b (or miR10-b for short)was turned on at very high levels in metastatic breast cancer cells. They then set out to prove that miR10-b could cause breast cancer cells to become metastatic. They did this in a couple of ways. First, they looked at the cells by themselves in a Petri dish. They took away miR10-b from metastatic breast cancer cells and found that these cells could no longer invade a gel-like material in the Petri dish. (This experiment is the Petri-dish version of a metastatic cancer cell invading into nearby tissues.) And when the researchers forced non-metastatic breast cancer cells to express miR10-b by giving them extra copies of the miR10-b gene, these cells became better at invading. To get a little closer to real breast cancer, the scientists moved from Petri dishes to mice, which are often used as models for human cancer. They took non-metastatic breast cancer cells and forced them to make more miR10-b. As a control, they used non-metastatic breast cancer cells that did not have extra miR10-b. Then they put both sets of cells into the mammary fat pads of mice to see if the cells would form breast cancers. What they saw was striking. Both sets of cells were able to form breast cancers in the mice. But only the cells with the extra miR10-band not the control cellswere able to invade the muscle and blood vessels surrounding the tumor. Even more amazing, these cells metastasized all the way from the breast to the lungs. So Ma and her colleagues knew that miR10-b could make breast cancer cells more migratory and invasive."
Now, suppose they could find a way to detect cells making these changes and repair the DNA at the source. What causes cancer would always be with us, but it would not have a chance to get very far before being eliminated. I'm optimistic about advances in nanotechnology and that would be one mechanism that could be capable of doing this.
evidentialist
Level 8
Oct 2, 2018
6
I would say that the people who claim that there's some sort of conspiracy to hide a cure for cancer have a burden of proof that they have not met.
wjwolfe
Level 5
Oct 10, 2018
6
Wrong scientism breath I posted 2 facts ABOUT DR BRYZYNSKI antenoplaston therapy illegal in 49 states protected by Texas taxpayers but cheated by Emory University who stole the cure for Jimmah Carter brain cancer. ...greed and criminal powers that be are depending upon scientism and fake news to censor cure researcher who cannot be bribed or coopted like Polish DR BRYZYNSKI here in Houston for over 4 decades
Make no mistake, pharmaceutical companies are in the business of making customers not cures.
CheshireWarcat
Level 5
Oct 4, 2018
4
Total truth see my affirmation of @riverman1234
Where is the "Don't be ridiculous" vote? I recently attended a talk by a chemistry professor in Canada about a cure for pancreatic cancer that sounds fantastic. More and more solid treatments for many types of cancer are being developed.
Stephanie99
Level 8
Oct 3, 2018
6
The options of the pool are really limited to 2 bad choices.
But answering your question, we have already very good treatments for some kind of cancers, a cure for all of them in one unique solution is almost impossible given the huge difference between them.
Cancer is not a disease, is a family of diseases
Pedrohbds
Level 7
Oct 3, 2018
4
There's no more 'cure' for cancer than there's a 'cure' for the common cold. There are too many variants and they're too different to one another.
memorylikeasieve
Level 7
Oct 2, 2018
4
There are over hundreds of types of cancers and cancer kinda "evolves". So you'll never get that magic drug the will cure all kinds of cancer. You can target and treat cancer based on the specific type. However, if the cancer metastasis it becomes incurable. Viruses are alao incurable. You either build up an immunity to a virus or it kills you.
KenWG
Level 3
Dec 5, 2018
4
I really hope that one day they find cure for cancer as loosing to many good. People to this x
sunnn
Level 4
Oct 4, 2018
4
True, but on the plus side, it takes some s.o,b.'s too. 
@Gareth that’s a mean comment. No one deserves cancer just because they are an SOB.
@Science-guy I'm looking to see where I said "deserve" but all I'm finding is a lot of straw.
Of course it does. It is held secret along with carburetors (remember them?) that allow any car to triple its gas mileage, the stage for the faked moon landing and Elvis. Or not. I mean really....
There is however an effective way to dramatically lower one's risk of cancer, and it is well known. It is also free. Eat a nutrient dense, non-processed food diet and especially avoid refined carbs; cancer feeds on sugar. *See
Warbug hypothesis) Organic pasture raised etc if you can afford it. Don't drink at all or at least not to excess. Do not smoke. Keep your weight down. Exercise a couple of times a week short, but high intensity. Not a cure, but your odds of avoiding cancer go way, way down.
Mitch07102
Level 8
Oct 3, 2018
4
All cells need glugose as fuel. Organic is bullshit. No evidence other than it shrinks your wallet
@jwd45244 Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We are all part of a giant chemistry experiment. I choose to take less, rather than more risk.
@jwd45244
I'm sorry, there are huge differences between conventionally grown produce and organic produce.
For example, researchers at the University of Davis, CA, with the leading Agriculture and Food Science departments in the nation, found that organically grown plants have often100 times of more phytonutrients than conventionally grown foods.
Why? This is not an opinion. This is rock solid science.
When plants are sprayed with pesticides and fungicides they don't produce their own.
Organically grown foods produce their own pesticides and fungicides. These are called
Phytochemicals, literally plant chemicals.
Another name for plant chemicals is Phytonutrients.
These are antioxidants and prevent and reverse many chronic disorders, attacking
abnormal cells in the body. We evolved with phytonutrients.
@Bob4Health I think the more substantive issue that you are addressing but not stating directly is the toxicity of plants. We became humans with big brains and thrived because our ancestors ate a lot of animal fat and protein. I am largely a carnivore.
@Mitch07102 People had a hard time getting the calories necessary for a big brain. But, then we only had to live long enough to reproduce and raise offspring.
IT does not mean eating meat is healthy long term. Science says the opposite. You eat meat, not for health, as it is harmful to your health, has no fiber, causes heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and can take decades off your life.
I don't think in modern society you want to have the lifespan of someone 500,000 years ago or have any problem getting fat and calories for your big brain.
In fact, if you're like most Americans, you probably would do better with less fat and calories.
@Bob4Health Several points:
-Respectfully, don't be a nutrition theist. Familiarize yourself with what research actually says (not what you've heard) about eating a diet heavy in animal-sourced foods, especially fatty meat. Plants are not the wonder-foods you've been led to believe.
-When our ancestors died early, it was usually because of violence or infection or something similar. When they lived, they were remarkably healthy and largely disease free.
-I weigh a bit less than when I graduated high school. No, I was not and am not overweight. My waist is just less than one half my height, which for men is a great back of the envelope indicator.
-My biomarkers are those of a much younger man. I am 63 and take no medicine for anything, no chronic conditions, no high BP etc. I know I am an N of 1, but again, look at what research actually says.
@Mitch07102 This is aside from the ethics, which you choose to ignore, about causing sentient animals a lifetime of unnecessary suffering. The environmental impact is horrendous, factory farming is the leading cause of climate change. The leading driver of antibiotic resistance. It wastes 100x the water versus eating plants, in a world with a huge shortage of clean drinking water.
Actually, I am quite up on the latest scholarly research. I would ask you to site research. I actually am a scientist, though these days I choose to be a musicians. I don't see where you cited any sources.
Besides the health issues, which I'd be happy to direct you to, Big Aggie Meat Production is the leading cause of climate change. It causes toxic waste dumps, uses 90% of the antibiotics, driving antibiotic resistance.
The reason they are pumped with so many antibiotics is that they are crowded together in utter filth, their ecoli is quite commonly found, plus, with the science of evolution, more deadly Cdif and eColi will emerge, just as MRSA has.
There is replicated research by Neil Barnard, Presidents of the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine, as well as others.
Kaiser Permanente, because of the actual statistics, now recommends a plant-based diet for all their patients? Why? Because the actuary tables and statistics show that it greatly reduces future health issues, health costs, and thus increases their profits.
This research apparently was funded by Kaiser Permanente, those hippies.
A healthy, plant-based diet requires planning, reading labels, and discipline. The recommendations for patients who want to follow a plant-based diet may include eating a variety of fruits and vegetables that may include beans, legumes, seeds, nuts, and whole grains and avoiding or limiting animal products, added fats, oils, and refined, processed carbohydrates. The major benefits for patients who decide to start a plant-based diet are the possibility of reducing the number of medications they take to treat a variety of chronic conditions, lower body weight, decreased risk of cancer, and a reduction in their risk of death from ischemic heart disease.
The same is true for my health care, Sutter Health.
Not to mention, the most exciting nutrients we have found, are phytonutrients, literally, plant chemicals that act as antioxidants destroying free radicals and thus the "rust" or bad cells in the body.
These are not found in animal products.
Animal products contain no fiber. That's on of the reasons the WHO has linked eating meat
with cancer of the colon.
Both Medicare and Railroad Retirement now will pay for training in Neil Barnard's Plant-Based, low-fat diet as it is a CURE for diabetes, not covers symptoms, but an actual cure.
You might enjoy watching, Dr. Greger, how not to die. He reviews all the research published in the top scholarly journals in the world.
And, while I'd recommend Dr. Greger's documentary, here's some actual scholarly research.
Really when insurance companies are recommending it, that says all you need to know.
And, the research says most humans actually were eating a plant based diet.
[blogs.scientificamerican.com]
@Bob4Health I appreciate that you are a scientist. I am just a business guy. A few comments:
-I get the moral argument. Nonetheless, we are apex predators, it is how we evolved. No matter what you eat, other living things die.
-Yes, methods could be improved. I am not a big fan of antibiotics
-Be careful of the "science" in favor of plant-based diets. Confounding factors, research bias etc. It is not as clear as you may believe
-I suggest you follow Shawn Baker of Instagram. He can be strident at times, but he frequently cites research on this topic. He also points out that the climate change argument is overblown.
If your way of eating works for you, great. Mine works for me.
@Mitch07102 That may have been a point in time. The Plains tribes.
But, still, their diets were mostly plant-based. Even the Plains Tribes. For example, I lived
on the Pine Ridge Reservation and worked for the Oglala Lakota (Sioux) Tribe and am quite familiar with their diet and hunting. While everyone knows they hunted the Bison, most of their diets were gathering. They knew every edible plant in their biosphere. They loved fruit and berries. Woshopi was an example of a dish created with wild blueberries. Mother Earth was their pantry.
Apex predator? For a short period of our evolution., but, I digestive system did not evolve from that of a frugarious primate. Thus, the long-term consequences of eating meat. Thus, the high incidences of things like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and worse, cancer of the colon. Meat putrefies in the intestines which is not what we are designed for. that is why carnivores have short digestive systems.
Human's and other primate digestive systems are at 10x longer than carnivores. Thus, we are not truly evolved, when it comes to our health to consume meat. It is an emergency food when homo sapiens couldn't easily get enough healthy food.
The lack of fiber is one of the biggest problems for our health, as fiber is essential to our digestive systems. All plant protein and food contain fiber. Animal products contain none.
@Bob4Health Let's disagree. I will continue to monitor the science as it comes through my feeds and most importantly, me. So far, so good.
As a scientist, you can be open minded re: the dangers of plants and over-stated dangers of meat.
Time will tell. Good health, however you attain it.
If there's any active efforts toward suppression, I'd wager that it's on the prevention side: don't get sick in the first place and nobody makes money.
I don't think you have to work very hard to ward people away from vegetables, exercise, and meditation*, though.
- Obligatory Disclaimer: I'm not saying vegetables, exercise, and meditation will prevent all cancers; I'm using that as a quick and dirty way to point to lifestyle being a huge factor in wellness/illness in general.
stinkeye_a
Level 8
Oct 3, 2018
3
Yes fossil fuels and toxic dumpers with slow cancer nukes are exceeding the tolerance levels of most youth and aging seniors. ...one in 7 women get cancer so no cure for them but males are not dropping dead until age 81 so prEyer and corrupt theocracy rules the roosts
I have to wonder how many of the yes votes come from jaded Americans, who cannot see past their American bubbles to realize if a cure existed in another nation, that information would be leaked or made available. Now whether the treatment would be made available to most Americans, by their insurance companies, that I would argue probably not.
demifeministgal
Level 8
Oct 3, 2018
4
Cure for cancer? You mean kill all the people born in late June & July? I’m against that and I hope they never find a cure for cancer.
indirect76
Level 7
Oct 2, 2018
4
@indirect76 Kill all people born in late June & July?
@Stephanie99 He's being facetious . Referring to the zodiac- Cancer sign for people born in that time period.
@UrsiMajor Thanks. I'm not so into the zodiac signs. I completely missed that one.
^^Winner
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.