• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

A Cure For Cancer?

Anyway, I asked said immunologist a long time ago about cures for cancer, and as he pointed out that, if found, full-blown cures for the major cancers could eradicate a big chunk of the NHS deficit within a few years, as present treatments cost a lot both in chemical terms and man-hours. Also, the chemist who comes up with a proven cure is on an instant Nobel prize, and on that basis alone the idea of a supressed existing cure doesn't stand up .
Click to expand...

thats what I like to see in the Morning an optimistic view of the people in our small world.
 
I was taking it as read that the main point is that people would be cured of cancer - the rest is also true, though, and the point of the thread isn't the sufferers but the suprression of a cure - and "they" couldn't keep a cure for cancer down for long, is the upshot. The inference that the drug companies would deliberately sit on it is misguided - for them it's El Dorado.
 
Cancers can and do sometimes disappear on their own. It is great to hear that someone survived it with little formal treament.

However, one anecdotal case doesn't prove anything. Most patients would feel more confident about their treatment if it had been tested and proved to be beneficial.
 
techybloke666 said:
thats what I like to see in the Morning an optimistic view of the people in our small world.
Click to expand...

Yes - after all, think of all those other cures that have been supressed by nefarious companies etc. - the smallpox vaccine, for example.
 
JoeWestSydney said:
Choemotherapy was not common in those days, 1970s, and being Dutch and therefore possibly more open minded than you, Timble, he started on a course of Apricot Kernels and Bromelain - as recomended by an alternative practicioner in The Hague.

The cancer disappeared - spontaneous regression - he was told....

It may be rubbish to you Timble but it gave the guy in my example a life when you would have condemned him to death.

I do hope you are not a doctor

Joe
Click to expand...

If that's supposed to make me feel guiltly, it doesn't.
Nice story, proves nothing.
 
I was not trying to make anyone guilty timble - I was just a bit suprised at your complete rejection of something for which some evidence is available.

Do a bit of research on Ernest T Krebs.

Anyway whatever the cancer story Bromelain is still bl**dy good stuff working as both an anti inflamatory and digestive enzyme.

Be happy

Joe
 
The idea that cancer cures are being supressed doesn't really add up. Any company that came up with a cure for even one type of cancer would find that it's market value would soar. If any came up with a blanket cure for all cancers, then that value would soar even more. The production of that cure would then be a certain money-spinner - even an innoculation against cancer would be pretty much a license to print money. So the idea that companies are deciding to just sit on a potential goldmine and instead chose to make relatively smaller amounts of money is somewhat ignorant of how market forces work. The money to be made from a company's stock and the profit from it's product would be a prime mover for encouraging companies to release a cancer cure. It's almost as if we have to believe that the nefarious money-grabbing companies aren't really interested in making serious amounts of money, and not interested in promoting their company's prestige and market value.

[edit - changed are to aren't in the last sentence)
 
Jerry, who suppressed a smallpox vaccine?
 
Where are the whistle blowers?

Sounds all very smoke without fire.
 
escargot1 said:
Jerry, who suppressed a smallpox vaccine?
Click to expand...

No-one - I was being sarcastic, in order to point out that cures for the big killers haven't been supressed in the past ;)
 
Oh, right. :D

I am very interested in smallpox.
 
Philip Day

My Mum's gone nuts about Mr apricot Kernel himself, Philip Day.
The guy is a Religious fundamentalist- I've listened to some of his seminars where he tries to justify eating a cetain diet by using biblical quotes from the old testament.

I'm unsure as to why a cure as simple as apricot kernels and bromelain would be suppressed, and can offer no comment as I am not really a scientist. Either way, my mum has been buying apricot kernels under the table from health food shops who aprpently souldn't really be selling it. Philip Day claims that even eating a whole bag of the things wouldn't even give you a nosebleed.

I'm not totally sure how he claims to know all this stuff, but some of it is quite worrying- I can't eat an apple without having her stuff the pips into my mouth or eat a salad without seeds sprinkled all over it.
 
Jerry_B said:
The idea that cancer cures are being supressed doesn't really add up. Any company that came up with a cure for even one type of cancer would find that it's market value would soar.

...
Click to expand...

And, of course, if it was shown that any drugs company was suppressing a cancer cure, that company's market value would plummet.
 
Yes, especially if that company's directors were shown to have taken part in the conspiracy to supress any drug/treatment.
 
What if the cure for cancer turned out to be really cheap to produce ?
and a one time application.

Then the expensive keep people alive with Cancer medicines like the latest for breast cancer would make no real income for the companies.

so it still may be in the drugs companies interests to keep people sick and dependant on them.
 
Not really, because people with cancer generally die if not cured, therefore ending their use as a source of revenue. Cure them of cancer and keep them alive to get dementia, infections, parkinsons, strokes and all the other things which will have them on long term meds and that's your goldmine.
 
techybloke666 said:
so it still may be in the drugs companies interests to keep people sick and dependant on them.
Click to expand...

Which is why they want a cure for cancer. The longer people live, the more customers buying more drugs for a longer period. Hopw many people over 70 are not on at least two long-term medications?

If we all live to 200 it'll be bonanza time for big pharm.
 
techybloke666 said:
What if the cure for cancer turned out to be really cheap to produce ?
and a one time application.

Then the expensive keep people alive with Cancer medicines like the latest for breast cancer would make no real income for the companies.

so it still may be in the drugs companies interests to keep people sick and dependant on them.
Click to expand...

A cure, even one which involved a one-off application, would still be a money-spinner. The fact that it would be cheap to produce would be countered by the fact that you'd have a potential customer base of billions of people, and that customer base is recreated with each new generation of people. If the cure was the sole patent of one company, the licensing fee would also be worth a very large amount of money. Add to that the value that the product to add to the company's stock, and the whole situation is very lucrative. So, again, the idea that any company is sitting on a cure because somehow they'd rather earn less money doesn't add up.
 
customer base of billions ????

how many folk do you think die of cancer every year Jerry ?

hardly billions I assure you.

if we assume for ease that 10 million die from cancer every year and thats being generous, that is 10 million doses a year.

in reality only a percentage of them would get to use it anyway.

so we are not talking anywhere near how much money is spent on breast cancer patients with the new drugs being thousands of pounds a course.

Its not in the interests of western drugs company's to have cure alls for the three main killers of the western world.

Theres billions to be made on the back of ill people , they have a captive audience.
 
Which is why they want a cure for cancer. The longer people live, the more customers buying more drugs for a longer period. Hopw many people over 70 are not on at least two long-term medications?
Click to expand...

I was assuming we were putting all the killers into one basket here, having said that cancer is the most expensive of the big three to treat and makes the most for the drugs companies with the exception of Statins which seem to be the new wonder drug and everyone should be taking it if you listen to the drugs companies who push them.

I was refering to the drugs companies not finding one time cures for any of the big three.

Its not in the interests of anybody for people to live till they were 200 anyway.
The planet and its infrastrutures cannot cope with life spans of 200 years plus. Not without serious money being spent in third world country's and thats not going to happen.

100 years on this god forsaken shit bag of a planet is more than enough I would have thought.

keep the people sick and living with many medications is certainly something I would think they would be interested in, but living to 200 nah sorry I don't buy that.
 
I think you're missing the point, find the one off cure for cancer you make shedloads of money selling that. Something else will take it's place as a leading cause of death, that rquires research and treatment.

We're not going to run out of conditions that need treating at any time in the near future.

And one-off cures are developed for things that you might think would be bigger money spinners if treated symptomatically.

As I mentioned earlier it's possible to treat a lot of gastric ulcers with a course of relatively cheap antibiotics. Until the role of Helicobacter pylori in the aetiology of gastric ulcers was recognised lots of people suffered symptoms for years and took antacids, H2 antagonists or proton pump inhibitors to relieve the symptoms. Those agents were very profitable lines providing long-term regular income. Some pharmaceutical companies where sniffy and sceptical when the Helicobacter pylori link was identified, but they didn't supress it. If they had appropriate antibiotics they started promoting them for use in treating gastric ulcers, in addition to the other indications for these drugs.

BTW: techy the incidence of cancer - the number of people who develop cancer each year is around 10.9 million - that's the number of of potential users of any hypothetical cure, every year. If other cause of death can be reduced, lower respiratory tract infections are major killers, particularly in less devloped countries, the number of people who survive and develop cancer may rise, or at least stay stable if prevention becomes better in developed countries.
 
Cures are not the priority of drug companies. What are their priority are long term supressants. Many people are on 'long term' medicaition. How many people do you know who have been prescribed a 'one off cure' for something? People get long term creams for exzema, long term inhalers for asthma, long term tablets for depression (which get you hooked despite what they claim.) The list goes on. Also, in studies, st Johns wort is shown to outperform many antidepressants. GPs are not told this though. Drug companies would rather people take their money making products which can have far worse side effects, and keep patients dependant. It's all about money. The fact that people get some benefit from their products is just a side effect. Any 'natural cure' however miraculous is bound to be supressed by drug companies - it stops them making money. Also one off cures mean less of an income for them than if people have to take a life long cocktail of drugs.
 
Have you read a single word of what anyone has said on this thread so far?
 
techybloke666 said:
customer base of billions ????how many folk do you think die of cancer every year Jerry ?
Click to expand...

My point was that if a cure is discovered, and that can exist as some sort of vaccine or one-off preventative treatment that's administered at an early age, then a very large amount of people would need this.
 
techybloke666 said:
Its not in the interests of western drugs company's to have cure alls for the three main killers of the western world.

Theres billions to be made on the back of ill people , they have a captive audience.
Click to expand...

Please go back and read what I said earlier about markets, etc. and the idea that companies are sitting on potential goldmines but for some reason (according to the conspiracy) would rather make less amounts of money.
 
silvercoin said:
Any 'natural cure' however miraculous is bound to be supressed by drug companies - it stops them making money. Also one off cures mean less of an income for them than if people have to take a life long cocktail of drugs.
Click to expand...

So how come we have cures for major killers (i.e. smallpox) that haven't been supressed?
 
Have you read a single word of what anyone has said on this thread so far?
Click to expand...

I knew there was something I was supposed to do before I posted Lemon ;)
:)


My point was that if a cure is discovered, and that can exist as some sort of vaccine or one-off preventative treatment that's administered at an early age, then a very large amount of people would need this.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt disagree with you Jerry on that point :shock:
but IMHO money comes first in the drugs companies view and not the welfare of the patients.

Did you know that the FDA are instructed not to balance in any costs of the drugs they test when coming to a conclusion if the drugs are of benefit and safe

If the costs of the drugs are weighted against the effectiveness of the drugs they probably wouldnt even get past the FDA.

I,m talkiing about the cancer drugs here by the way.
 
techybloke666 said:
I wouldnt disagree with you Jerry on that point :shock:
but IMHO money comes first in the drugs companies view and not the welfare of the patients.
Click to expand...

So do you think the companies would make more money treating 10 million people a year for cancer, or from producing perhaps millions of treatments a year for it as a cure? You think that any company that invented a cure would rather sit on all that potential income generation and not want their companies stock to rise at all? From a purely money-orientated point of view, it seems rather daft to think that any company would somehow not want to profit from a cure - but that's what the conspiracy seems to be suggesting.
 
So do you think the companies would make more money treating 10 million people a year for cancer, or from producing perhaps millions of treatments a year for it as a cure? You think that any company that invented a cure would rather sit on all that potential income generation and not want their companies stock to rise at all? From a purely money-orientated point of view, it seems rather daft to think that any company would somehow not want to profit from a cure - but that's what the conspiracy seems to be suggesting.
Click to expand...

well that purely depends on how much the cure would cost really.

if the one off cure all tablet etc costs about 10,000 pounds a thro , I suppose it would be very proffitbale.

If however it cost £7.36 I think the drugs companies would make more per a patient over the period of the sufferers life with cancer based on the prices of the new cancer drugs which prolong life a little and the spin offs they sell like anti sickness tablets , chemo etc etc.

And BTW I don't think for one minute there has been a cure for cancer found Jerry, I don't think there ever will be a cure all for cancer.

I just happen to think that the drugs companies don't particualry need to find one, they are doing just fine ripping everyone off with the drugs they have now for cancer.

And not just cancer either plenty of other drugs are stupidly over priced too, compared to what they cost to manufacture.

There should be a watch dog over drugs companies to stop them putting what ever price they want to on their produce.
 
Jerry_B said:
silvercoin said:
Any 'natural cure' however miraculous is bound to be supressed by drug companies - it stops them making money. Also one off cures mean less of an income for them than if people have to take a life long cocktail of drugs.
Click to expand...

So how come we have cures for major killers (i.e. smallpox) that haven't been supressed?
Click to expand...

Wasn't the cure for smallpox found and written about long before major pharmaceutical corporations came into existence?
Most of the real cures in the past seem to have been found by public-spirited members of the medical profession, and not by pharmaceutical corporations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top