Will Cancer Ever Be Cured?

rgp said:
"OMGosh, I sometimes wonder where you get your ideals from that lead you to such conclusions and beliefs."

Well, I think things through, as opposed to just believing what I'm told.

And they're ideas .... not ideals

Again, 'those' diseases make billions of dollars, for thousands of people.

Greed is a very strong motivator !

Family & friends aside .......... few actually care wether you live or die.
Click to expand...
We agree on this, “few actually care“
 
I tend toward the belief that lumping all the types of cancer together and expecting a 'cure' for all 'cancer' is probably unrealistic. Since any type of cell in our body can (apparently) experience the out of control growth that I think is 'cancer', wanting a cure for cancer to me is like expecting one cure for Japanese Beetles, Fire Ants, Crab Grass and Dandelions.

I had endometrial cancer, it has a 90% cure rate because it is caught (usually) early, and they can just remove it without killing the patient. But that is a totally different animal than a cancer of a type of cell that is in a vital organ.

I think I've listened to some podcast about maybe having targeted vaccines created to help a person's immune system fight a particular type of cancer, that sounded hopeful.
 
StarSong said:
I would find it very dispiriting to believe my fellow humans, particularly scientists, are so corrupt.

That's neither a world in which I choose to live, nor an attitude I choose to embrace.
Click to expand...

I agree, but there are examples of industries that were/are dedicated to their own greed, such as the tobacco industry in the past, and the sugar industry (not the right word but I don't know what to call them) that we are struggling against today.

But, I applaud your refusal to embrace an attitude of hopelessness. Even when faced with a corrupt industry (which I don't think cancer research/treatment is anyway) there are always some people who keep fighting, and a few brave souls who will leak info from the inside, so that eventually change happens.
 
HoneyNut said:
I agree, but there are examples of industries that were/are dedicated to their own greed, such as the tobacco industry in the past, and the sugar industry (not the right word but I don't know what to call them) that we are struggling against today.

But, I applaud your refusal to embrace an attitude of hopelessness. Even when faced with a corrupt industry (which I don't think cancer research/treatment is anyway) there are always some people who keep fighting, and a few brave souls who will leak info from the inside, so that eventually change happens.
Click to expand...
I'm not naive - clearly there is plenty of corruption throughout the world, the business world in particular. I just don't believe that extends to those scientists who've dedicated their careers, if not their lives, to curing various cancers.
 
StarSong said:
there is plenty of corruption throughout the world, the business world in particular. I just don't believe that extends to those scientists who've dedicated their careers, if not their lives, to curing various cancers.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, and seems quite proven by the cure rates of many types of cancer now. My uncle got melanoma in his 30s and died, but by the time my father got melanoma in his 50s cancer treatments had advanced and he was cured. I'm not even sure what the poster meant by saying there was a cure for cancer that was being hidden. Lots of people have been cured and aren't providing a stream of revenue to some monolithic 'they'. Unless they mean they think there is a secret vaccine that prevents against all cancers and is being hidden. But like another post said, there is a vaccine to prevent the virus that causes one type of cervical cancer and that is not kept secret.

On the other hand, there is corruption in the research and medical field too. When I got Lyme Disease it was absolutely devastating to find out that treatment for Lyme was politicized and doctors prevented from properly treating it, and research funds awarded to researchers with vested interest in being against proper treatment. The health insurers absolutely grab onto the excuse to not provide adequate treatment, and doctors risk their license and careers if they do provide adequate treatment. I suffered for many years until I was so lucky to find an infectious disease specialist who contracted Lyme himself after he retired. He was so dismayed by the inability of people to get treatment he came out of retirement. His office would not accept any type of medical insurance and he was too old to have to worry about losing his license. They aggressively treated my Lyme and finally I actually got well and didn't need any medication anymore. But the experience has seriously damaged my trust or respect for the medical profession.

And this past year I have been watching YouTubes about sugar, and they say stuff like the processed food industry gives big donations to the politicians, the politicians put people who pooh-pooh the damaging effects of sugar in charge of public health and then the researchers who would study/publish the effects couldn't get research money, and how this has delayed for years people getting information. It would all sound kind of like bullhockey but I have since mid December been maintaining my goal of no more than the equivalent of 3 1/2 teaspoons of sugar per day, and my triglyceride level has dropped from being a bit over the limit to down in the middle of the good range. So I am thinking the YouTubes about sugar are probably spot-on.
 
HoneyNut said:
Totally agree, and seems quite proven by the cure rates of many types of cancer now. My uncle got melanoma in his 30s and died, but by the time my father got melanoma in his 50s cancer treatments had advanced and he was cured. I'm not even sure what the poster meant by saying there was a cure for cancer that was being hidden. Lots of people have been cured and aren't providing a stream of revenue to some monolithic 'they'. Unless they mean they think there is a secret vaccine that prevents against all cancers and is being hidden. But like another post said, there is a vaccine to prevent the virus that causes one type of cervical cancer and that is not kept secret.

On the other hand, there is corruption in the research and medical field too. When I got Lyme Disease it was absolutely devastating to find out that treatment for Lyme was politicized and doctors prevented from properly treating it, and research funds awarded to researchers with vested interest in being against proper treatment. The health insurers absolutely grab onto the excuse to not provide adequate treatment, and doctors risk their license and careers if they do provide adequate treatment. I suffered for many years until I was so lucky to find an infectious disease specialist who contracted Lyme himself after he retired. He was so dismayed by the inability of people to get treatment he came out of retirement. His office would not accept any type of medical insurance and he was too old to have to worry about losing his license. They aggressively treated my Lyme and finally I actually got well and didn't need any medication anymore. But the experience has seriously damaged my trust or respect for the medical profession.

And this past year I have been watching YouTubes about sugar, and they say stuff like the processed food industry gives big donations to the politicians, the politicians put people who pooh-pooh the damaging effects of sugar in charge of public health and then the researchers who would study/publish the effects couldn't get research money, and how this has delayed for years people getting information. It would all sound kind of like bullhockey but I have since mid December been maintaining my goal of no more than the equivalent of 3 1/2 teaspoons of sugar per day, and my triglyceride level has dropped from being a bit over the limit to down in the middle of the good range. So I am thinking the YouTubes about sugar are probably spot-on.
Click to expand...
Sugar is a killer, that's a fact, HoneyNut.
 
The best cure for most cancers is to avoid getting them in the first place.

If humans stopped eating so much sugar, ditched processed foods, reduced animal-based food intake dramatically (and outlawed pumping livestock with antibiotics), stopped drowning agriculture with pesticides, didn't smoke, reduced smog, consumed far less alcohol, and got more exercise, our health would soar. Obesity would again be a rarity; heart disease, strokes, cancer and diabetes levels would drop like a rock.

None of this is a secret. Tens of thousands of articles, books, and studies have been published with mountains of evidence. Websites abound with studies proving the above.

We know how to be a healthier species but choose otherwise. Instead we pray for magic pills that will allow us to continue our indulgences, then vilify scientists for not "helping" us or accuse them of having already created said magic but withholding it from us.
 
StarSong said:
The best cure for most cancers is to avoid getting them in the first place.

If humans stopped eating so much sugar, ditched processed foods, reduced animal-based food intake dramatically (and outlawed pumping livestock with antibiotics), stopped drowning agriculture with pesticides, didn't smoke, reduced smog, consumed far less alcohol, and got more exercise, our health would soar. Obesity would again be a rarity; heart disease, strokes, cancer and diabetes levels would drop like a rock.

None of this is a secret. Tens of thousands of articles, books, and studies have been published with mountains of evidence. Websites abound with studies proving the above.

We know how to be a healthier species but choose otherwise. Instead we pray for magic pills that will allow us to continue our indulgences, then vilify scientists for not "helping" us or accuse them of having already created said magic but withholding it from us.
Click to expand...
That's the ironic part, we have bodies that oversee the approval of the food we eat, and even though it's well known that everything in the way of food today contains a ridiculous amount of sugar, it continues to be allowed to be made that way and sold, so really, push comes to shove, who is to blame?

The blame comes nowhere close to being solely the consumers fault.
 
StarSong said:
That's true. However, each of us is ultimately responsible for choosing what we purchase and eat.

If Twinkies didn't sell, Hostess would stop making them.
Click to expand...
Right, and in knowing the absurd amount of sugar that goes into the making of so much of what consumers eat nowadays, Twinkies, along with a host of other food related products should be banned, and a driven effort made to legislate laws prohibiting the use of so much sugar by the makers of food, yet nothing changes in that regard (they don't care), so why should fingers be pointed solely at consumers?

I hear a lot of whining and bitchin' about health costs and such... oh he was a smoker for x-amount of years and shouldn't be covered under insurance, and she has always been an overweight woman her entire life, so why should medical cover for the cost of her insulin.

Change needs to happen at the top, not at the bottom.
 
Aunt Marg said:
absurd amount of sugar that goes into the making of so much of what consumers eat nowadays, Twinkies, along with a host of other food related products should be banned, and a driven effort made to legislate laws prohibiting the use of so much sugar by the makers of food
Click to expand...
Aunt Marg said:
Change needs to happen at the top, not at the bottom.
Click to expand...

Whoever got the change to the package labeling that lists the 'added sugar' deserves a medal IMO, it has been very enlightening to discover that "fruit" yogurt was essentially candy, and one of the 'healthy' frozen meals that I regularly ate had 27 grams of added sugar, more than the WHO limit-recommendation for an entire day's sugar!

I wish they would immediately pass a law against commercials of sugar-y food, it is torture to me to watch them - not easy to be a recovering sugar-addict! :)

The argument that the food industry can't change without a law against excessive sugar content because they need the law to level the playing field and ensure a brand that tries to decrease sugar doesn't get unfairly competed against by a brand that keeps all that yummy addictive sweetness, that seems like a valid argument to me.

Previously I thought a tax on sugar would be good (with the proceeds somehow going to cover the expenses of diabetes etc), but now I realize it is much better to just legislate out the sugar, and when people have to spoon sugar onto the food themselves they would control the amount better. Like, if I had to spoon 6 and a half spoonfuls of sugar onto that 'healthy' meal I used to buy, I think my eyes would be opened, ha ha.
 
Murrmurr said:
With advances in gnome studies and the like, I'm surprised we haven't already seen a cure. And I hate to sound cynical, but current cancer treatment generates a lot of revenue. But then, when a cure is discovered, I imagine it will be very expensive, so I guess I am just being cynical.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree with you more mur. It’s a huge money maker for doctors and pharmaceutical company’s.
 
StarSong said:
That's true. However, each of us is ultimately responsible for choosing what we purchase and eat.

If Twinkies didn't sell, Hostess would stop making them.
Click to expand...
And if cigarettes didn't sell, The Marlboro Corporation (among others) couldn't afford to influence legislators. But they can, so it's still perfectly ok for them to add a plethora of chemicals to make their product burn smoother and longer, and increase its addictiveness.

Hostess goodies used to be made with less sugar. Adding more sugar (to any food) greatly increases shelf life, so Hostess did that so they could reduce production and cut the cost of waste = more profit. They also make their Twinkies and cupcakes and stuff about 1/3 smaller than they used to, also to increase profits. But the smaller, more sugary ones don't taste nearly as good as the old ones, and Hostess can't afford to change their production equipment back (plus they have more competition), so their strategy isn't working as well as they hoped. They messed up.
 
Pappy said:
I couldn’t agree with you more mur. It’s a huge money maker for doctors and pharmaceutical company’s.
Click to expand...
You mean doctors and people in the pharmaceutical companies don't, or can't get cancer? You can do better than that!
 
Pepper said:
The same way you know what you do, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what "I" do & how I do it. What that has to do with the medical / reasearch community ?, I have no idea.

No body really "knows" what they have, or what they know. But in my opinion , they are sitting on many things, and only a few within the community really know what those are.

"Unfortunately" ?

What's unfortunate ?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top