Nope. 'Cancer' is way too general a designation for way too many illnesses that respond differently to treatments.

Which cancer-I am an AML survivor-5 years-acute myloid leukemia. A bone marrow transplant from a stranger saved me. Too many cancers-I had blood. Can't simplify.

No. Two reasons:

1. People working in Pharma lose loved ones to cancer same as everyone else.

2. A cure would be worth more than witholding it could ever pay.

That would be subscribing to a conspiracy theory.

I am willing however to think that Big Pharma tends to sabotage the process by not exploring avenues that don't involve revenue-generating drug therapies. Also the approach to treatments are mechanistic rather than wholistic.

That isn't a conscious attempt to prevent finding a cure, it's more of a systemic mindset and a conflict between the goal of making money and curing cancer, which don't necessarily cleanly overlap.

Two of the biggest cancer cure quacks, Linus Pauling and Adelle Davis-- both died of cancer.

On the one hand we have medical science, which uses clinical studies, peer reviewed journals, double blind tests and so on. Science is slow, but it's certain.

On the other hand we have alternative medicine. Alternative medicine fights any attempts by the FDA that the producers of the mixtures put on the market are proven safe and effective. Doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

One does wonder why people put "big pharma" under the microscope, and at the same time take everything big herbal says as the truth.

Alternative medicine gets around the whole medicine regulation thing by calling what they sell "supplements." As it stands now, a hillbilly could go into hsi backyard, gather a bunch of weeds in a tin bucket, boil it up, bottle it up and legally sell it as a "supplement." (ex: Willard water, St. Mary's tea)

So many of the public buy into the "big pharma" lie. They really believe that going to a health food store and getting advice from the high school dropouts that work there is better than going to an accredited doctor.

And people buy into the idea that alternative medicine or cancer quacks are bold, innovative heroes out to save us all. The truth is the exact opposite: the alternative medicine crowd are promoting old, worn out superstitions.

We aren't immortal and we are going to die of something, heart failure used to be the big bad wolf but we found treatments for that now it is cancer, which as has been said isn't one thing it is a whole heap of disorders. If we beat that then we can look forward to Alheimers and the other dementias getting us.
Instead of worrying about living forever I wish we put more effort into the reasons why suicide is the leading cause of death for 15-44 year olds and is 4th for 45-64 year olds. Think that would do more to give the most good years of life to the most people.

It's lucrative to make customers not cures

Not a chance but try putting all your research dollars into finding the CAUSE

Real people work at pharma companies. You think they'd watch their own kids die of cancer while they sat on a treatment?

You suggest a disgusting slander of a lot of amazing people.

I notice you have the "homeopathic" tag. For the record, that is the silliest non sense that ever quacked. I hope you aren't a fan. This would indicate a badly broken bullshit filter.

If the big plharmaceutical compaies had found a cure, they would market it at a huge profit just as is some other cancer drugs including the one that the CEO jumped up more than 5000%. No, if they had it, they would be becoming rich marketing it to desprite patients. [nytimes.com]

I think that in the U.S., medicine is more geared towards makign a profit than it is in actually curing people.

As an example, I had leukemia and the medication to tret it costs over $8,000 a month. The drug ws designed "manage" the disease nto cure it, so they expect patients to have to taek it for the rest of theri life. In my case, I had pretty much always been healthy because i ate right and exercised, and when diagnosed, I changed my diet to a mostly vegan vegetarian diet for health. What happened is that I revoered faster than any other patient they have had before, and the drug ended up curign me, as it does for only a very small percentage of people, even though ti was not designed to actully cure people.

Wha tis apparent to me is that if they manage to cure a small percentage of persons, they cna mange to cure a great many more with further research. However, i doubt they want to cure people, because it woudl nto be profitable. To keep peopel on a medicatin that costs over $8,000 a month for the rest of their life is very profitable, but to cur ethem stops the streams of revenues.

The above motives apoplies to most medial conditions, nto just cancer, because it is hihgly profitable to just manage disease and never actually cure it.

Midicine is one area whee capitlaism has ovbiously failed, because the motivation is nto for the greatest benefit of people, but just to make peopel rich on the backs of patients continually suffering.

That is why I support socialized medicine. If you want to see how socialized medicine really works, watch Michael Moore's film "Sicko". (Comeobyd really needs to convince Michael Moore that he comes up with really lousy titles to his movies, which keep sa lto of peopel form watchign them.)

No, not while people insist on ignoring the known carcinogens, 'inherent in the system'. People are constantly raising money for Cancer support, yet not many are game to ban things that are known to be carcinogenic.
Lists like this are available: [davidsuzuki.org] not all cancer causing, but bad enough for comment and to avoid.

No, that's ridiculous. If pharmaceutical companies could sell a cure for cancer, they would even if nobody involved had even an inkling of compassion. Even if they were motivated entirely by pecuniary interests, nobody ever made money selling medicine to dead people.

However, I don't think every pharmaceutical industry employee is involved in a massive conspiracy to let people die. They too have loved ones who contract cancer. Hell, they themselves get cancer. To accuse them of willfully allowing tens of thousands of people to die every year while they sit on a cure isn't just ridiculous, it's fucking repulsive.

No.

I highly recommend this series. It shows what the future of cancer treatment may be.

I found it really educational. (And I've had Cancer). So already got an education,

[discovery.com] Please note - test subjects will die.

Also watched "First in Human" trials this past year. It was intriguing stuff.

Sometimes the cures for advanced cancer can also kill you. (ie if the cancer cells are making up your lungs (as an example) removing them will make it impossible to breath).

They are working on this. The trials are fascinating.

Stem cell therapy from the person's own body is looking hopeful but needs way more research.

I've had cancer. My view is it's really amazing more people don't have cancer. We produce deviant cells all the time. Usually the body handles it - but when it can't? Cancer. And this can happen to any part of you.

That our bodies work this well much of the time is just stunning. IMHO.

No.

No, I do not. Period. And here is why...

People say pot cures cancer, yet after thirty years of use, I got cancer.

People say certain mushrooms cure cancer, yet after years of consuming them, my mom got cancer.

People say that (enter any crap here) cures cancer, yet no one has proven it.

Here’s the thing...there ARE certain natural chemicals that kill cancer cells. Very true. But NOTHING cures cancer. If you kill ten out of a million cells, how could you call that a cure?

True biology is not my forte, I’ve only a minor and focus in it, however, I learned quite a bit. I have had both parents, two grandparents, myself, and my daughter all be diagnosed with cancer. Only my daughter and I have had the luck to have ours removed. My mom is suffering right now, and I’ve lost everyone else.

Actually, people who propagate these rumors only aggravate the situation by giving false hope to people. And it makes me sad, among other things. Uneducated people cause more harm, than good.

I do hope one day, we will find an answer, that doesn’t include in vitro gene splicing. I do hope one day, we find a solution to any disorder/disease that causes people to suffer.

yes I believe there are cures for lots of different types of cancer out there, quite often in the natural world and these are being shit down in favour of pharmaceuticals

Not exactly but I do think new studies could be rolled out faster and tested on more patients. Standard treatment has shot my energy level straight to hell, maybe there are some of us who would want to try promising treatments instead of just having the best statistical chance of surviving five years. I don't think most medicine is real science anyways since it's mostly abductive reasoning and not deductive.

Nope..I had stage 3 throat squamous cancer..I went through 35 rounds of radiation and 3 rounds of chemo.. My brother is on experimental immunotherapy for Melanoma..as others have stated..all cancers are different..all treatments are different depending on what type of cancer you have/had
.

I think there very well could a cure. I don't know how true it is that cannabinoid oil cures cancer, but I've heard about it. Look at it this way. Either there's a cure and it's being suppressed by either the government and/or pharmaceuitical companies, or the greatest minds in medicine have been researching this topic since 1600 BC and still haven't found a cure, then it's not going to happen most likely unless some "miraculous" form of medicine is discovered.

We already have cures for a number of cancers. Far from effective in all circumstances, but many people who develop cancer do become cancer free after treatment.

I think the pharmaceutical companies will do whatever they see as being in their own best interests. I struggle to see any situation where that comes in the form of developing a more effective treatment for cancer, and then not marketing it. A cure for HIV is a bit trickier. A $100,000 cure, or $10,000 a year for treatment for life (potentially another 20-50 years.) Playing the long game, withholding the cure might make commercial sense under those circumstances, but not for something like cancer, that's likely to kill you within the space of weeks, months or just a few years.

Also, if you're going to keep it secret, how do you patent it? And if you don't patent it, how can you be sure someone else won't make the same discovery and start selling it?

There have been lots of breakthroughs, some so very expensive, treatments rather than drugs, Seems to be different cures for different cancers. Cancer is more complex than simply a virus, and we havent got the flu or cold under control yet.