LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksSome of my wife's friends say "you know they have a cure for cancer, but they are making too much money to let people know. I say its a bunch of B S! How could "they" who ever "they" are, keep something llike that secret? Filix.
9Likes
March 12th, 2012, 04:43 PM
Some of my wife's friends say "you know they have a cure for cancer, but they are making too much money to let people know. I say its a bunch of B S! How could "they" who ever "they" are, keep something llike that secret? Filix.
If it's a secret, how did they find out about it?
The whole idea is nonsense.
If someone had such an idea or a product, you can bet everything you own that those greedy 'Big Pharma' companies would be all over it like white on rice. Whoever this genius is would be overwhelmed with offers of money, resources, benefits beyond their wildest dreams. And then other companies would try to outbid the other ones. A pharmaceuticals manufacturer would pay anything to get their hands on something that would guarantee their cash flow and their competitive advantage against all the other such companies - forever.
The thing that gives this away is that it's about a "cure for cancer". It isn't a single disease. It doesn't have a single cause.
It's entirely possible that there might be such a product or process for one kind of cancer in one part of the body. It's almost like saying we can have a single vaccine for all transmissible diseases. Transmissible disease is a category of wildly varying conditions much like cancer is a category of wildly varying conditions. And outcomes. And treatments. And preventions.
One question for all such claims. How does it affect mesothelioma? If it won't work for that one, 100% lethal, specific cancer in the lung, it's claim to be a "cure for cancer" is immediately shot down.
Im sure I'm not the only one to hear wild claims like this. Thankyou both for your comments. These stupid claims tend to tick me off. adelady, why would the fact that if it won't work for mesothelioma it can't be true? Thanks. Filix.
Im sure I'm not the only one to hear wild claims like this. Thankyou both for your comments. These stupid claims tend to tick me off. adelady, why would the fact that if it won't work for mesothelioma it can't be true? Thanks. Filix.
Sorry for the double post.
Because mesothelioma is 100% fatal. If there's a "cure for cancer" that would be the test case.
As soon as someone says, well it's good for breast or stomach or bladder or some other cancer in some other specific part of the body, then it's just like all the other treatments and approaches we've already got. Some only work for some cancers in specified circumstances. Some are more generally applicable. But we've got lots of them.
Cancer affects different genes in different people, plus the fact that cancer affects different organs. No two cancers are the same, it would be very difficult to cure something like that. Most research involves making slight improvements to treatment.
I don't see the logic in that argument. How come "they" wouldn't make even more money by actually curing people?Originally Posted by filix
Random thoughts;
1- Is it possible to keep a big secret? Yes, the manathan project involved hundreds if not thousands of people (many who had no clue what the project was actually about).
2- Is it possible to kill people by the thousands for profit or allow thousands of people to die for money? Yes, the war racket and cigarette corporations among many others have demonstrated this. Also cancer causing chemicals and environmental elements can and most likely are being fed and sprayed, causing cancer and many people to die, but there is little capitalistic profiteering or systemic incentive to Prevent a problem, the object is to make money even if it kills millions of people, its a systemic problem.
3- If there is a they Steve Jobs was not apparently part of them.
4- Cure must be more profitable? No, not automatically. A cure for cancer (assuming there was "one" cure for arguments sake), can be less profitable, if it cant be patented like DCA, there goes billions and billions in yearly profiteering.
5- As Harold14370 pointed out, if its secret how do they know about it? Without further indications or clues, how do we know the secret cure is for cancer and not for alzeimers?
Not really equivalent though; a national defence project in war time is going to be easier to protect than something that is morally dubious - where are the whistleblowers? Anyway, within a few years (maybe less) of the Manhattan project starting, the Soviets knew about it and were attempting to infiltrate it.
Well, it would be just as easy to keep a price fixing consortium secret to ensure those involved maximize the profits.4- Cure must be more profitable? No, not automatically. A cure for cancer (assuming there was "one" cure for arguments sake), can be less profitable, if it cant be patented like DCA, there goes billions and billions in yearly profiteering.
My thought was that they could make even more money out of all the drugs and treatments used now if they could also guarantee a successful outcome (by slipping a secret dose of the cure in after you have milked the patient of all they have).
No. It can't see how it would make economic sense. Cancer isn't one thing. In some places we'd reject it anyhow, much as millions of Americans are rejecting preventing types of cancer, which is even better than a cure. Real conspiracies don't get much more complex or involved more people than secret birthday parties.
I do not subscribe to the secret cancer cure conspiracy theory. The term "cancer" is used to describe a rather broad group of genetic disorders that manifest similarly (unregulated cell division) to one another. Each instance of cancer can implicate multiple permutations of genes that regulate cell growth and cell death. The same cancer can be caused (or aggravated) by different genes in different individuals as well. Additionally, there are a wide variety of unidentifiable causes for the genetic damage that leads to cancer. Given all this, I find the notion of a single "cure for cancer" to be highly improbable. For any given cancer to be truly cured (as opposed to controlled or managed with "bandaid" treatments the way they are now), cancer patients would require personalized treatment to repair or reverse the damage to their system on a genetic level, after the culprit genes were identified in each individual case.
It seems to me that whoever possessed the technology to identify the problematic genes and then repair them would probably be able to price this technology at a going rate that was greater or equal to the average cost of cancer treatment today (seeing as there is such a high value placed on curing cancer and healthcare in general). Additionally, they could market "maintenance therapy" to cancer survivors for life, to ensure the genetic deficiencies do not return and cause a relapse of the cancer. Therefore, living cancer patients would be worth more than dead ones to whichever several industries that would seek to profit off cancer treatment. This last paragraph is speculation, of course, but is not unreasonable.
Good point, lol. This is how I feel about many conspiracy theories.If it's a secret, how did they find out about it?
yes I believe...
"God who healeth all thy diseases." Psalms. No need to buy anything, but get the King James Bible.
Except it obviously doesn't work as well as medical science.
You do? Why?
Dude...you're trolling right?
because it is trueYou do? Why?
You mean you believe it's true.because it is trueYou do? Why?
well if you call belive in darwins evolution theory... than you can call this also a belief... but if you say there is more than belief evolution theory... than that's what I meanYou mean you believe it's true.because it is trueYou do? Why?
It is? Who has it? The pharmacy companies? How do you know? What evidence do you have to support that?because it is trueYou do? Why?
As stated many times before, there will likely never be one single "cure" for every type of cancer.
1. All cancers are different. As a result, they have to be treated in different ways, so there pretty much can't be some fix-all cure.
2. To completely get rid of cancer, you have to get rid of every single mutated cancer cell in the body. This is possible, of course, especially when the tumor is localized. That's why it's particularly important to catch it early. When it goes on for too long, though, it metastasizes and becomes a new animal. How do you propose we track down and kill all of the cancerous cells without killing the patient's? Let's try to tackle a specific example, like chronic myelogenous leukemia. It is caused by a translocation between chromosomes 9 and 22, leading to the formation of the BCR-ABL protein, which then basically causes an unregulated production of immature leukocytes. How are you going to "cure" that? Change the person's DNA? You can bet your bottom that if we could willfully change someone's DNA to whatever we wanted, big pharma would be raking in the cash from willfully changing people's eye color, hair color, height, etc. Oh, we can't do that, so that brings us back to tracking down and killing cancerous cells without killing the patient's.
3. Let's say there was a cure (lol). Who's to say it would be cheap? This has always baffled to me.
4. Okay, we're still assuming we have a cure. But, we can't release that cure because there's no money in it. The only real money is in giving these patients continuous treatments over the course of their lives. So, the longer we keep them alive, the more money we get, right? We can develop a cure, but not a decent enough treatment to keep the patient alive for more than a year? Surely we'd want our patient to live so we could keep charging them...right? Really? How does that make sense?
5.If the big pharmacy companies have a cure....why do the CEOs die of cancer?
The slight problem here is that there is evidence that evolution is true.
There is no evidence that a cure for cancer is available and being deliberately withheld.
Do you get it now?
I don't have evidence... so yes than you can say its all untrueIt is? Who has it? The pharmacy companies? How do you know? What evidence do you have to support that?because it is trueYou do? Why?
As stated many times before, there will likely never be one single "cure" for every type of cancer.
1. All cancers are different. As a result, they have to be treated in different ways, so there pretty much can't be some fix-all cure.
2. To completely get rid of cancer, you have to get rid of every single mutated cancer cell in the body. This is possible, of course, especially when the tumor is localized. That's why it's particularly important to catch it early. When it goes on for too long, though, it metastasizes and becomes a new animal. How do you propose we track down and kill all of the cancerous cells without killing the patient's? Let's try to tackle a specific example, like chronic myelogenous leukemia. It is caused by a translocation between chromosomes 9 and 22, leading to the formation of the BCR-ABL protein, which then basically causes an unregulated production of immature leukocytes. How are you going to "cure" that? Change the person's DNA? You can bet your bottom that if we could willfully change someone's DNA to whatever we wanted, big pharma would be raking in the cash from willfully changing people's eye color, hair color, height, etc. Oh, we can't do that, so that brings us back to tracking down and killing cancerous cells without killing the patient's.
3. Let's say there was a cure (lol). Who's to say it would be cheap? This has always baffled to me.
4. Okay, we're still assuming we have a cure. But, we can't release that cure because there's no money in it. The only real money is in giving these patients continuous treatments over the course of their lives. So, the longer we keep them alive, the more money we get, right? We can develop a cure, but not a decent enough treatment to keep the patient alive for more than a year? Surely we'd want our patient to live so we could keep charging them...right? Really? How does that make sense?
5.If the big pharmacy companies have a cure....why do the CEOs die of cancer?
how do you know there is no evidence? you mean you BELIEVE THIS???The slight problem here is that there is evidence that evolution is true.
There is no evidence that a cure for cancer is available and being deliberately withheld.
Do you get it now?
It's quite simple: claims are made fairly often - no evidence is presented 1.
1 Okay, there's a possibility that evidence exists, yet, if it does, why is not presented when the claims are made?
oke we agree on that one the next question will be is it possible the evidence can be burnt or buried or just make it disappear?(we are talking about bilions business and smart people in here right???)It's quite simple: claims are made fairly often - no evidence is presented 1.
1 Okay, there's a possibility that evidence exists, yet, if it does, why is not presented when the claims are made?
If the "evidence" has been burnt or made to disappear then, wait for it, there is no evidence.
Is there any evidence that this "evidence" did exist at some time and has been disposed of?
Or are you simply grasping at straws and believing (for the sake of believing) that it existed?
im just talking with you about possibility's im not claiming anything... so one more time is it possible the evidence can be burnt or buried or just make it disappear?If the "evidence" has been burnt or made to disappear then, wait for it, there is no evidence.
Is there any evidence that this "evidence" did exist at some time and has been disposed of?
Or are you simply grasping at straws and believing (for the sake of believing) that it existed?
Incorrect:
You: because it is true.
That's a very specific claim.
One more time: If the "evidence" has been burnt or made to disappear then, wait for it, there is no evidence.so one more time is it possible the evidence can be burnt or buried or just make it disappear?
That's an implicit acknowledgement that it could be disposed of.
I'll ask again: what evidence do you have to support your belief?
You equated your belief with a "belief in evolution": was this a deliberately fallacious conflation (i.e. you admit that that you have no evidence - especially of a similar strength) or do you actually have evidence?
And some of those people are scummy to the core. But that's because they're greedy as well as smart.(we are talking about bilions business and smart people in here right???)
One thing we all know. They charge like wounded bulls, unimaginable amounts, for many of those cancer drugs. They know that people will pay through the nose for the possibility of a cure, even for just a few more months or weeks of life, and they are ready, willing and able to rake that money in hand over fist.
The bad ethics tend to come in when they're willing to defend, or to keep selling, drugs that don't work very well or have unacceptable side-effects rather than in withholding effective drugs. But most of those ineffective drugs are OTC or other drugs rather than cancer drugs which are already pretty toxic.
you can talk to yourself whatever you want to make it sound logic and right... the question are simple is it possible there is evidence??? yes you said... is it possible the evidence is burn buried and made dissaper... (there is actually only one answer) but you trying to tell yourself some storys... using to much logic so we forget what is it all about... (kinda how some act extremely in their religion) we can talk further when you are ready for real conversation discussion and not trying to grave yourself in a bunker on the forehandIncorrect:
You: because it is true.
That's a very specific claim.
One more time: If the "evidence" has been burnt or made to disappear then, wait for it, there is no evidence.so one more time is it possible the evidence can be burnt or buried or just make it disappear?
That's an implicit acknowledgement that it could be disposed of.
I'll ask again: what evidence do you have to support your belief?
You equated your belief with a "belief in evolution": was this a deliberately fallacious conflation (i.e. you admit that that you have no evidence - especially of a similar strength) or do you actually have evidence?
Judging from looking at his activity and the fact he has a forum Ph.D., I believe he is trolling.Blackscorp are you really this dumb or are you trolling?
Once again you're being particularly stupid or particularly dishonest.
You claimed that it is true (as per the link in my previous post).
If it is in fact true that means there must be evidence that you have access to.
If you have no evidence then all you have is a belief (as I pointed out in post #21).
And in fact you admitted in post #25 that YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE.
I have agreed that evidence MAY have existed and been destroyed (and I'll even admit that it MAY exist), but the fact remains that if YOU have no evidence then your claim that it is true is nothing more than an unsupported belief on your part.
afcourse just like with every theorys... if you wanna read it is a belief... than read it like that... im fine with it...Once again you're being particularly stupid or particularly dishonest.
You claimed that it is true (as per the link in my previous post).
If it is in fact true that means there must be evidence that you have access to.
If you have no evidence then all you have is a belief (as I pointed out in post #21).
And in fact you admitted in post #25 that YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE.
I have agreed that evidence MAY have existed and been destroyed (and I'll even admit that it MAY exist), but the fact remains that if YOU have no evidence then your claim that it is true is nothing more than an unsupported belief on your part.
That is not what theory means. A theory is NOTHING to do with belief. A theory is a conclusion supported by evidence.afcourse just like with every theorys... if you wanna read it is a belief...
You have zero evidence for your ludicrous belief, therefore it is not "like a theory". In fact it is totally unlike a theory.
It's a belief because you have no evidence.
It's not a theory because there is no evidence and no observations to support it.
When you claimed it is true you were wrong.
It's that simple.
funny how you got only the half of my posts meaning... but hey its at least something
if you feel good with this belief im fine... I don't feel the urge to get my right... or to convince you...It's a belief because you have no evidence.
It's not a theory because there is no evidence and no observations to support it.
When you claimed it is true you were wrong.
It's that simple.
Do you have evidence?
No: as you admitted in an earlier post.
yep that's what I said you wanna hear what you wanna hear and what you don't wont to hear you don't hear (hear=read)
So when I heard "no evidence" from your statementyep that's what I said you wanna hear what you wanna hear and what you don't wont to hear you don't hear (hear=read)
I was only "hearing what I want to hear"?
I don't know which part of "no evidence" makes it difficult for you to understand that all you have is an unsupported belief, but you're coming across as genuinely stupid.
like I said make it whaterever fits you better...So when I heard "no evidence" from your statementyep that's what I said you wanna hear what you wanna hear and what you don't wont to hear you don't hear (hear=read)
I was only "hearing what I want to hear"?
I don't know which part of "no evidence" makes it difficult for you to understand that all you have is an unsupported belief, but you're coming across as genuinely stupid.
It worked for me, I'm still relatively healthy after my prostate cancer diagnosis almost 20 years ago, with no medical treatment, but I did get the Cancer Society pamphlet and changed my lifestyle a bit, and tried to stop hating people. Malignant is a big word with big meanings.Except it obviously doesn't work as well as medical science.
Many people merely scan posts, Blackscorp, or at least it seems that way.
So we should give up all medical treatment, for all diseases because you are OK. Well, that will save society a whole lot of money. I wonder why no else thought of it.
And this from someone who claimed to be a "fan of science". Unbelievable.
| « Voice lessons will cause psychological problems | Healthy water? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
