LMAO at people who believe we went to the moon in the 60s and can't beat cancer now

[WAITINGTO]

the other question is why would you want to cure all diseases. the world can only support a certain population and people won't stop wanting to have children so if the average person started living to 140 then we'd have a problem.

not even taking into account that people would not expect to work up until they are 120 and the system can't support people living on a pension or in a retirement home for 40-50 years. Even if they did work up until they were 120 that would leave massive unemployment rates for everyone.

what quality of life do you have at that age anyway

its not just about the medical field wanting to make money its about the world not descending into chaos into a situation where the government has to send death squads round to peoples houses at a certain age.

[Boba155]

ill tell you fukin this brah

how come they dont have a pill or injection thats stops your hair from growing for a period of time untill you take the pills.

this means all the barbers would go bank rupt. you really think they cant make a pill like that ? they just dont want it becuase it would kill the business. people would get a good haircut and rock it for a year or something.

same with cancer etc...

Please tell me this is a troll post or sarcasm. Please, I'll lose faith in humanity if not.

[whysodirty]

Please tell me this is a troll post or sarcasm. Please, I'll lose faith in humanity if not.

going with the flow brah

[Penile_Dementia]

Please tell me this is a troll post or sarcasm. Please, I'll lose faith in humanity if not.

I'm still getting repped by people agreeing with the opening post. Where's your faith now?

[donmiller212]

Again, people mentioning that companies make more money off of hospitalization, treatments, drugs, etc. failing to realize that these are all different companies, it is not one unit making all of the money. Business is competitive and I guarantee if there were any cures, some companies would be jumping all over it.

[Boba155]

I'm still getting repped by people agreeing with the opening post. Where's your faith now?

Morons like to huddle together, I'm not really suprised.

[Rrrrrr]

Some people need to read this:

Quacks typically charge that the medical profession, drug companies, the food industry, government agencies, and/or other "vested interests" are conspiring against "natural" cancer cures. No such conspiracy has ever been exposed. Yet many patients—especially those whom standard medicine cannot cure—embrace the notion that a small but dedicated band of rebels is defying the medical establishment by making natural cures available. And desperate patients may find it more comfortable to believe that cures are being suppressed than to feel that their situation is hopeless.

The conspiracy charge has two common scenarios. In one, opposition is based on fear of competition. In the other, a cure discovered within the establishment is suppressed. Neither of these situations makes sense.

The medical establishment is not a single entity. The health-care industry includes physicians, nurses, other health professionals, insurance companies, private consumer organizations, universities, government agencies (such as the FDA), hospitals, HMOs, other managed-care organizations, professional organizations (such as the AMA), pharmaceutical companies, and other private corporations. These groups may have competing interests; and, within each group, individual members may also have competing interests, and many have no financial stake in patient care. Some private physicians get paid for each patient they see, but others do not. Most who work for HMOs or other managed-care organizations are either salaried or capitated (receiving a fixed monthly sum per patient not per service). Those who pursue an academic career may be salaried and/or obtain money from research grants. For physicians on fixed incomes, more patients means more work, but not more money. Some physicians dedicate their career to public health and do not see patients at all. And if an expensive cancer treatment could be replaced by something much less costly, insurance companies would embrace it.

The medical professionals most likely to know about a new cancer cure would be those in academic medicine and research. New potential treatments are usually discovered by basic scientists who do laboratory research on the underlying mechanisms of disease. Their findings then suggest possible treatment strategies for those diseases. Drug companies or research institutes such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the National Cancer Institute (NCI), then fund clinical research to see whether the potential new treatment works—first on animals and then on humans. The final arbiter of such new treatments is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which decides whether new treatments are safe and effective for their intended purposes. Most cancer treatment is administered by surgeons, radiologists, and cancer specialists who administer chemotherapy. The majority of doctors don't treat patients for cancer.

What about scientists who discover new treatments? If they can demonstrate effectiveness, publishing their data will bring them fame and fortune. The benefits could include research grants, academic promotion, enhanced research facilities, speaking invitations, honors, awards, and other career opportunities. Even scientists who are selfish and greedy would have much to gain by making their information public—and so would the institutions in which they work.

What about drug companies? Won't they simply abandon a new drug that threatens their existing drugs? This scenario is also far-fetched. Drug companies are continuously looking for new drugs, because existing drugs have patents that will run out. Also, any company that can market a new drug that is effective against cancer will come out billions of dollars ahead, even if existing drugs become obsolete. Some conspiracy theorists claim that drug companies ignore "natural" substances that cannot be patented and therefore cannot be profitable. However, if a natural substance is found useful, drug companies can develop related chemicals that are more effective.

Even if a short-sighted drug company executive decided to suppress a new drug because it was too effective, the scientists involved might still go public with the information, for the general good if for no other reason. Among the dozens of people who have inside knowledge, someone is likely to have a conscience. The need for drug company support could be eliminated by obtaining a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Also, if the treatment really worked, other researchers would eventually be able to demonstrate to the world that the treatment did in fact cure cancer. This has never been done for any supposedly "suppressed" cancer cure.

Conspiracy theorists have claimed that if a simple and inexpensive replacement for today's treatments were found tomorrow, all U.S. medical schools would teeter on the verge of bankruptcy, because cancer treatment is such an important part of their income. This assertion has several flaws:

A "simple and inexpensive" replacement for today's treatments is very unlikely. Cancer is not a single disease, but group of more than 100 different types. No single treatment has proven effective for every cancer, and no such "magic bullet" is likely to be discovered in the near future.
Even if a magic bullet could be found, it would not be available soon and extensive testing would be required before standard treatments could be ethically abandoned in its favor. The necessary research would take many years, giving hospitals and medical schools time to adapt. Physicians and researchers would not be put out of work by any such innovation. If the new treatment results in an oversupply of cancer specialists, fewer physicians-in-training would choose this specialty, and some oncologists would retrain for another type of practice. Some researchers might need to change the focus of their research, but their basic skills should make that simple.
Widespread adoption of a quack cancer treatment would actually be the biggest threat its promoters could face, because competition would cause the price to drop.

Because standard medicine is based largely upon science and evidence, medical practice is constantly changing. New treatments, procedures, and avenues of research are created as our knowledge expands. Every time a new treatment is discovered, an older treatment becomes obsolete, or at least less important. Progress strengthens the health-care industry and is not a threat to it. Half a century ago, tuberculosis (TB) was widespread and incurable, entire hospitals were dedicated to the care of chronic cases. After antibiotics became available, the TB hospitals were emptied and TB specialists were rarely needed. The new TB treatments were not suppressed because of the impact they would have. Instead, the hospitals were converted for other uses and the specialists changed their practice.

Remember, too, that physicians, basic scientists, and even pharmaceutical company executives are people, with family and loved ones of their own. Many of the supposed conspirators are likely to be affected by cancer—either themselves or within their family and friends. It is difficult to imagine that anyone could be greedy and short-sighted enough to condemn their loved ones—and even themselves—to a premature death from cancer, no matter what the possible gain.

Source: http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...onspiracy.html

[Penile_Dementia]

Morons like to huddle together, I'm not really suprised.

it's like drawing fish from a barrel

[pantlegz]

Isn't the issue with cancer that it's all different because they're mutated human cells? Which is why all the treatments we have currently wreak so much havoc on the patients receiving them. If there were a cure, whoever found it would make it as soon a possible because it would mean tons of money for them and whatever company ends up mass producing it.

[DrTorpedo]

LOL ..... Do you even research?????

Do you? Because I don't think you do.

I think you're just talking out of your ass to try and sound smart but fail miserably because you're just a troll.

I guess I fail too, though, since I'm responding to this.

Nah bro they make much more with people being hospitalized feeding them their drugs which arent 100% going to work. They give people a treatment that actually works and they are out a customer. Cancer will always be around but they will make more money by not curing it.

Medical fields are as sickening as big oil

Again, there is SO MUCH more that encompasses medical treatment than just the chemo treatments a patient receives. Actually finding a cure will be much more profitable in the short run than any long term treatment currently available. Don't be so narrow minded.

[Ronnie87]

Surely the owner of a Pharma company would want to cure cancer, given that they most likely know someone who has got/had it or someone who died from it, most likely their parents/grand parents?

[C-Winger]

Surely the owner of a Pharma company would want to cure cancer, given that they most likely know someone who has got/had it or someone who died from it, most likely their parents/grand parents?

That's crazy talk man. Surely all the people in charge of Big Pharma, as well as all Governments, were clearly produced in test tubes or are just the spawn of evil itself, put here solely to stop cures, which apparently are a dime a dozen and grow on trees, from seeing the light of day.


And for all those who think that it's all about profits and that they have nothing to gain by producing a cure for cancer, are you suggesting that they are the only ones with an investment in cancer? I skimmed the thread a bit, but I didn't see anyone mention Big Tobacco. Don't you think that they would crack skulls for a cure to cancer, considering the following:

The tobacco epidemic is one of the biggest public health threats the world has ever faced. It kills nearly six million people a year of whom more than 5 million are users and ex users and more than 600 000 are nonsmokers exposed to second-hand smoke. Approximately one person dies every six seconds due to tobacco and this accounts for one in 10 adult deaths. Up to half of current users will eventually die of a tobacco-related disease.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/facts.../en/index.html

Higher taxes, regulations on smoking and information for consumers could avoid at least 115 million smoking-associated deaths in the next few decades, including around 25 million cancer deaths.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19693096

Tobacco use has been identified by the World Health Organization as the leading cause of death and disability in the world.1 To date, more than 24 different smoking-related diseases have been identified, including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and 10 different forms of cancer.2

The extent to which smokers understand the magnitude of these health risks has a strong influence on their smoking behaviour.3–5 Smokers who perceive greater health risk from smoking are more likely to intend to quit and to quit smoking successfully.6,7 The health risks of smoking are also the most common motivation to quit cited by current and former smokers, as well as the best predictor of long-term abstinence among reasons for quitting.8,9,10

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten...l_3/iii19.full



Now to be fair, I will acknowledge that it says tobacco deaths and not solely cancer, but I'm sure by now that it's pretty common knowledge that cigarettes are the cause of a huge percentage of lung cancers and a large contributor of cancers over all. I lost the source, but I think it was like ~80% of all lung cancers and ~30% of all cancers? Now, 6 million deaths a year doesn't sound very profitable to a company that relies on people being alive to smoke. And since the introduction of health labels on cigarette packages, sales have dropped significantly as well. Now unless you think that "Big Tobacco" is just a ironic term for small, innocent mom and pop tobacco shops... don't you think it would be in their best interest to NOT lose 6 million customers a year to death?

I'm not too sure about this next one since I have Universal Healthcare, but wouldn't the big insurance companies be the ones getting hammered as well?