kcinsu Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 http://www.moneytrendsresearch.com/scientists-cure-cancer-but-no-one-takes-notice/ also sub-topic: plastic waste cure? really? http://mashable.com/2012/03/07/plastic-eating-fungi/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoA Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 the cancer cure one is old hat - from last year. Thoroughly debunked: http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/GarySchwitzer/26536 Wish it were true though, my cousin has breast cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaosmachine Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Cancer drug resurfaces and threatens false optimism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoA Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I would love to read the full article, unfortunately i don't have access to that journal. I would love for a cancer cure to exist - and you can be sure that the pharmaceutical companies are working on it like mad, as well as research scientists at universities - because in the case of the former, it would mean unbelievable profit. In the case of the latter, world renown and winning the medical equivalent of the Nobel prize, plus the chance to go down in history as the person (or research team as is more likely these days) that cured cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoA Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Ehm, a cure for cancer is a cure for cancer. No matter the margins pharmaceutical companies can have. If there was a natural cure available that people would know about, cancer wouldn't be the huge issue it is. Claiming the pharmaceutical industry would hold back any natural cure is completely backwards. I suppose the pharmaceutical industry blocked any sex enhancing drugs as well, until they discovered viagra? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoA Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Ehm, a cure for cancer is a cure for cancer. No matter the margins pharmaceutical companies can have. If there was a natural cure available that people would know about, cancer wouldn't be the huge issue it is. Claiming the pharmaceutical industry would hold back any natural cure is completely backwards. I suppose the pharmaceutical industry blocked any sex enhancing drugs as well, until they discovered viagra? How is it backwards? People do know about cures for cancer, but they don't have their own broadcasting station to tell everyone about it. So you'd think it would need a broadcasting station? In the context of a cure for cancer you wouldn't need a broadcasting station. Do you have any idea how desperate people can be looking for a cure? They'd try anything. If there was a natural cure, we'd know about it already. Try to get that into your bubble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoA Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Ehm, a cure for cancer is a cure for cancer. No matter the margins pharmaceutical companies can have. If there was a natural cure available that people would know about, cancer wouldn't be the huge issue it is. Claiming the pharmaceutical industry would hold back any natural cure is completely backwards. I suppose the pharmaceutical industry blocked any sex enhancing drugs as well, until they discovered viagra? How is it backwards? People do know about cures for cancer, but they don't have their own broadcasting station to tell everyone about it. So you'd think it would need a broadcasting station? In the context of a cure for cancer you wouldn't need a broadcasting station. Do you have any idea how desperate people can be looking for a cure? They'd try anything. If there was a natural cure, we'd know about it already. Try to get that into your bubble. http://www.ncbi.nlm....QuerySuggestion So, where's the evidence the pharmaceutical industry is blocking the discovery of any natural cure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Also, research and positive results do not equate "cure". It just takes years of research. With or without the pharmaceutical industry doing their secret behind the curtain freemason voodoo mumbo jumbo. If you don't believe me, please listen to chen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoA Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kokeboka Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Retarded growth doesn't mean cure. The abstract doesn't specificy if it delays growth significantly enough or not. A cure for cancer would be too big a breakthrough for any lobby to contain. It would be like trying to contain the cure for TB. Research also supports that drinking red wine and eating red berries has a positive effect on cancer management - that doesn't necessarily equate to a cure. Lots of people go on about how illegal drugs cure this or that (I've spoken to someone fully convinced that LSD is great for schizophrenic patients); cannabinoids aren't made illegal because they secretly cure cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 *does backflip and lands on tinfoil hat* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoA Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Also notice the .gov. Wouldn't *any* government like to significantly reduce healthcare costs by having some cheap natural cure? It'd significantly reduce US's deficit, I'll tell you that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beariksson Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAAAh Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Daily mail says just eat less bacon, more blue berries and stay indoor on a full moon and you sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmanyo Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I don't think that good cancer cures would be easy to ignore. The health industry makes more money off of healthy people than it does off of the sick I think. Health insurance companies do, at any rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundwave Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 cancer is big money apparently there are known means of prevention but there's no money in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyd Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I think people get confused when they see "a cure for cancer." There isn't one drug that will cure the hundreds of different cancers that are out there, because most cancers differ in their etiology. Different chemos are used on different cancers because specific mutations are only present in certain types of cancer, and it's difficult to target certain genes/proteins based on the stage/overall prognosis. I would like to say there will be a cure for cancer within the next 10 years, but sadly I don't think we know enough about the disease to find a universal cure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I don't think that good cancer cures would be easy to ignore. The health industry makes more money off of healthy people than it does off of the sick I think. No! Health insurance companies do, at any rate. Yes! Most costs are made by the elderly (65+) and chronic diseased (which are strongly correlated). Think COPD/Astma, Diabetes, Cardiovascular diseases and last but not least the various forms of cancer also make up a huge slice of the total costs in healthcare. And huge growth is in the depression department. If you're actively thinking about helping the insurers you live a long healthy life and die suddenly. Preferably without any form of pain/illness. See how well aligned the interests of those lovely insurers are with yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.