Governments Suppressing Cancer Treatment?

[titch]

I was standing at a bus stop this morning, when i heard one man talking to another,the 1st man said he had listened to a radio show that involved someone from the who that was telling the listeners about a cancer treatment that had a 90% clear up rate,but the UK government was not interested .


The treatment involved taking a drug that starved the cancer of oxygen (would that work even if it was possible?) and sitting under a bright light.



I find it hard to believe that this treatment would be suppressed,drugs companies would lose money (the treatment was meant to be very cheap) but the nhs would rip the suppliers arm off because they would save a lot of money.



Brian Adams, along with the who, where meant to be doing a concert in order to raise awareness of the treatment,but as i type this out i find it, sadly,even more unbelievable then when i heard it.




Regular browsers of this form may know a cure for cancer would be something very close to my heart,was the 1st man just playing a very sick joke on his friend?

A quick edit to say maybe this belongs more in urban legend/folklore?

 

[Mythopoeika]

Scientists are coming up with new techniques for fighting cancer all the time, yet many of these techniques seem to fade away into obscurity.
I have this fear that cancer researchers are afraid of losing their funding and their jobs if they actually find a cure, so they keep dithering about...
Whenever I read about new research, I can't help thinking that some of these techniques could be combined together, but nobody seems to be doing that - i.e. I don't think researchers all over the world are working together like they should.

 

[Anome]

What a load of rubbish. "Lose funding"? As opposed to winning a Nobel Prize in Medicine, and possibly making a fortune off patents, book deals, and the like?

There is no conspiracy to keep a cure for any form of cancer from being developed. Simply because it would be amazingly lucrative for any person or organisation that developed it.

 

[Mythopoeika]

So why do some of these revolutionary new techniques disappear?

 

[Timble2]

Usually because they don't work all that well, and what's becoming increasingly clear is that some therapies will only work for a specific subset of cancer patients with a particular type of cancer.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Then there's a fact that, as 'Wonder Drug - Magic Bullet' news stories, cancer cures only have a limited shelf life. They soon drop off the radar.

 

[hokum6]

This is how health stories are treated by the papers.

Kill or Cure is also an amusing yet tragic read.

 

[johncbdg1]

Scientists are coming up with new techniques for fighting cancer all the time, yet many of these techniques seem to fade away into obscurity.
I have this fear that cancer researchers are afraid of losing their funding and their jobs if they actually find a cure, so they keep dithering about...
Whenever I read about new research, I can't help thinking that some of these techniques could be combined together, but nobody seems to be doing that - i.e. I don't think researchers all over the world are working together like they should.

They have no fear of losing there job,it just takes time years in most cases to pass for humans to use for the new pills treatments etc,the researchers are working day and night to find cures for all forms of cancers,and most are paid a pittance for the job they are doing.yes i agree more funding is needed.

 

[titch]

it seems that its not a urban legend or a sick joke http://www.killingcancer.co.uk/killing_ ... 1/home.asp ,bit late for my sister but i hope that in the future it saves a lot of people.
Not quite the wonder drug the man at the bus stop was saying it was,but looks very promising.

 

[johncbdg1]

it seems that its not a urban legend or a sick joke http://www.killingcancer.co.uk/killing_ ... 1/home.asp ,bit late for my sister but i hope that in the future it saves a lot of people.
Not quite the wonder drug the man at the bus stop was saying it was,but looks very promising.

Sorry to hear about your sister,i have lost family members too,my brother gained a BSc (Hons) degree in Applied Chemistry and a PhD in Anti-Cancer Medicinal Chemistry.he is now Programme Leader MSc/Pg Dip in Instrumental Analytical Sciences (IAS) and the Module Co-ordinator for MPharm Projects (PHM403) and Spectroscopy (AS3070)

And funding is needed

 

[Dr_Baltar]

my brother gained a BSc (Hons) degree in Applied Chemistry and a PhD in Anti-Cancer Medicinal Chemistry.he is now Programme Leader MSc/Pg Dip in Instrumental Analytical Sciences (IAS) and the Module Co-ordinator for MPharm Projects (PHM403) and Spectroscopy (AS3070)

I reckon he's responsible for chemtrails.

 

[johncbdg1]

my brother gained a BSc (Hons) degree in Applied Chemistry and a PhD in Anti-Cancer Medicinal Chemistry.he is now Programme Leader MSc/Pg Dip in Instrumental Analytical Sciences (IAS) and the Module Co-ordinator for MPharm Projects (PHM403) and Spectroscopy (AS3070)

I reckon he's responsible for chemtrails.

You know not going take this reply on,but you are in wrong thread.

 

[fudgetusk]

https://drrichardday.wordpress.com/about-the-meeting/


About the Meeting


There was a meeting of paediatricians and students which took place on the 20th March 1969 at the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society, which was located on Ridge Avenue in Pittsburgh.

One of the speakers was Dr Richard Day, an eminent professor and physician, and Medical Director of the organisation ‘Planned Parenthood’.



At the meeting on the 20th March 1969, Dr Day asked the attendees not to take notes or record what he was about to tell them. Something which Dr Dunegan said he found unusual for a professor to ask of his audience. The reason Dr Day implied was that there would be negative repercussions – possibly personal danger – against him if it became widely known that he had talked about the information he was about to relay to the group. Dr Day told the group that what he was about to say would make it easier for them to adapt if they knew what to expect beforehand, something of an ambiguous statement which became clearer as Dr Day spoke.

-----------------------------
Suppressing cancer cures as a means of population control.

https://drrichardday.wordpress.com/2014/...n-control/

Order Of Truth / October 22, 2014


During the meeting in Pittsburgh, Dr Day touched on the subject of cancer, and what he relayed to his audience shocked then, and many readers may find his revelations shocking also.

Dr Day said “We can cure almost every cancer right now [1969]. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it’s ever decided that it should be released.”

Dr Dunegan recalls what Dr Day said very clearly, because he found it unbelievable (as did the other attendees) that an institute who could effectively treat one of the most destructive diseases known to humanity would withhold that knowledge.

Dr Day continued “But consider – if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as something else.”

 

[kamalktk]

Not curing cancer would not be a very effective means of population control, as cancer tends to affect people who have already reached or passed procreation age.

 

[rynner2]

Not curing cancer would not be a very effective means of population control, as cancer tends to affect people who have already reached or passed procreation age.

We need figures to back that up. A lot of children get cancer too. How do the figures compare for different age-groups?

 

[Xanatic*]

It depends on the type of cancer. With kids, it's usually leukaemia they get.

 

[kamalktk]

We need figures to back that up. A lot of children get cancer too. How do the figures compare for different age-groups?

Less than 1% of cancers affect children, and the survival rate for childhood cancer was already above 50% not long after the cited 1969 timeframe.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerinchildren/detailedguide/cancer-in-children-key-statistics

With the UK having roughly 1/5 of the US population (and assuming similar cancer rates as I can't find the numbers for pediatric cancer in the UK), roughly 3200 children get cancer in the UK annually. There are roughly 8 million children in the UK under the age of 15. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Age_structure) of which based on the 50% mortality rate of the late 60s/early 70's time period of the supposed meeting, we'd expect 1600 to die. The current mortality rate is less than 20%, so my best estimate would be approximately 600 children die of cancer annually in the UK.

Losing 600 children to cancer annually out of a population of 8 million children is not a very effective means of secret population control.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Dr Day said “We can cure almost every cancer right now [1969]. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it’s ever decided that it should be released.”

In 1969? I'm really not sure about that. Shocking, if true.

However, I've long held the strong belief that the latest technology is being withheld from us, and many promising new technologies are never heard from again. Also, if we found the cures to all types of cancer, an entire industry employing lots of scientists would shut down.
The only treatments the wider population is allowed to have in the UK are chemotherapy and radiotherapy, neither of which have a 100% survival record.

Also...if a cure for all known diseases (including cancer) is found, the 1% elite won't need us as guinea pigs any more...

 

[Xanatic*]

When you say allowed to have, are we talking treatment in public or private hospitals?

 

[Mythopoeika]

When you say allowed to have, are we talking treatment in public or private hospitals?

Public.
Yes, other treatments are available privately (for a price - such as CyberKnife), but they also don't have a 100% success rate.

Really, the best treatments now are only available as part of an experiment.
There was a young baby recently cured of leukaemia - that was done with targeted DNA therapy.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/11Novem...breakthrough-in-treating-babys-leukaemia.aspx
Why this can't be rolled out to the rest of us, I don't know.

 

[Xanatic*]

Cost? If a medicine is twice as likely to cure you but costs three times as much, then it's not a good idea.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Cost? If a medicine is twice as likely to cure you but costs three times as much, then it's not a good idea.

Cost is the reason that keeps being thrown up by the NHS.
DNA therapy need not be as expensive as it is. It's not some drug that has to be priced to pay off development costs, or make an obscene profit for big pharma.

 

[ramonmercado]

Cost? If a medicine is twice as likely to cure you but costs three times as much, then it's not a good idea.

But would you adhere to that position if you, relatives or friends could be cured by the more expensive medicine?

 

[Xanatic*]

That doesn't mean funds are not finite.

 

[ramonmercado]

That doesn't mean funds are not finite.

Of course not. But imho funding medicene is more important than tax cuts for the wealthy, or the likes of Microsoft paying no taxes.

 

[Xanatic*]

I'm talking about how things are, not how they should be.

 

[ramonmercado]

I'm talking about how things are, not how they should be.

But its nor an impossible utopian idea that corporations should pay taxes or that funding the NHS is more important than tax breaks for the wealthy.

It should be achievable in the short term.

 

[Coal]

Public.
Yes, other treatments are available privately (for a price - such as CyberKnife), but they also don't have a 100% success rate.

Really, the best treatments now are only available as part of an experiment.
There was a young baby recently cured of leukaemia - that was done with targeted DNA therapy.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/11Novem...breakthrough-in-treating-babys-leukaemia.aspx
Why this can't be rolled out to the rest of us, I don't know.

The first gene therapy cure worked as well, but next attempts attempts failed. I suspect they're treading carefully - one success is not a full trial and long term affects need to be evaluated as well.

 

[stu neville]

Mrs N works in Oncology - the actual issue is that "cancer" is an umbrella term for a whole raft of conditions that present similarly. Some respond extremely well to treatment, some do not, some can be present for decades without detection, some overwhelm the whole body in months. So yes, there are treatments for many cancers, but again much of the efficacy depends upon the patient - young, fit people are obviously better placed physiologically to put up with acute, gruelling treatments such as chemo than someone relatively elderly or frail. Some go for good, others only go dormant, just to resurface elsewhere years later. It's a whole, massive topic with many facets.

And this "suppressed cancer cure"? Nope: as has been said on here, the sheer amount of cash and brainpower by top universities and hospitals to try and fight cancer - elements of of which are publically funded such as the clinical trials - completely mitigates against that. Cancer costs a f*ck-ton to treat, so anything that could ease that burden would be welcomed with open arms by NHS and Med Insurance companies alike.

And as for the Facebook mantras about "big pharma suppresses this simple cure! spread the word!!", usually involving turmeric or similar - no they're not. For a start, the properties of whole range of spices and herbs is being investigated, as they do seem to have certain elements which have certain effects. And, as mentioned previously, individual bio-chemistry has a huge effect, so a blanket "x spice cures leukaemia" statement just isn't true. However, X spice may have helped patient A's own body to fight it, which is why the investigations are so important, and so widespread, and having so much money pumped into them.