Do you guys believe someone somewhere has discovered the cure for cancer?
- Thread starter RemixDeluxe
- Start date
- Views 4,666
- Replies 83
Absolutely not.
This idea that rich people are infinite and all powerful and all in cahoots pulling the strings of government, and health, and everything without anybody knowing is totally ludicrous
It is now common knowledge that the CIA caused coups in South America.
Do you really think some pharma company is worse at hiding secrets than the CIA?
This idea that rich people are infinite and all powerful and all in cahoots pulling the strings of government, and health, and everything without anybody knowing is totally ludicrous
It is now common knowledge that the CIA caused coups in South America.
Do you really think some pharma company is worse at hiding secrets than the CIA?
Last edited by Deboog,
Also, keep donating. So maybe they could "find" that's caused by a 100% bad luck:
www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/521219318/cancer-is-partly-caused-by-bad-luck-study-finds?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=science
www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/521219318/cancer-is-partly-caused-by-bad-luck-study-finds?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=science
People are aware of plenty of things the government denies so this absurd claim they accomplish these goals "without anybody knowing" is false. And yes they can maintain secrecy to accomplish projects. The problem is the only source deniers will accept are from the establishment, on occasions a whistle blower does come forth they cease being establishment, and that is the only credibility you will accept.
The idea that there are not sadistic people in power that can't maintain control over a population is totally ludicrous.
Last edited by jimbo13,
Cancer can't be "cured". Cancer is an inherent problem with the way our cells reproduce. There is always the chance of cancer the more we age since the more our cells reproduce, the higher the chance they will mess up and go wild (leading to tumors). The "cure" for cancer will be found when we figure out a way to perfect cell reproduction.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 5,484
- Trophies
- 2
- Location
- Sacramento, California
- Website
- lazerlight.x10.mx
- XP
- 5,486
- Country
My mother has had cancer for over a year and a half, and it was one of the worst kinds. Stage 4, triple-negative, invasive breast cancer. Couldn't have surgery because it was the kind that can spread. She initially got a heavy dose of chemo every week, then dropped to every other week because the chemo cocktail worked very well. She's had it under control and was doing good, but about 2 months ago, she began having splitting headaches and she couldn't think of words. She got herself checked, and found that while the initial lump was almost non-existent, it had already spread to her brain, liver, some bones, and lymph nodes. Got 10 sessions of radiation to her head, and was doing chemo every week, but she's now sick with some flu-like thing and had a fever and was extremely weak, so she's on anti-biotics and off of chemo for the next 2 weeks. She can hardly eat, but she tries to force herself to, else she'd get worse.
It has been a very trying situation for her, especially since her husband / my father passed this last September unexpectedly. If there was a cure for cancer, I'd almost do anything to get it.
It has been a very trying situation for her, especially since her husband / my father passed this last September unexpectedly. If there was a cure for cancer, I'd almost do anything to get it.
S
Saiyan Lusitano
Guest
Wars could end but will they? No, it's a profitable business. As depressing as it is, same goes for cancer.
D
Deleted User
Guest
D
Deleted User
Guest
Heh.
Well, pill of immortality doesn't exist. You can be immortal by cutting nerves in your body but i think that will result in pain and ability not to render touch and pain.
As others have said there are hundreds of types of cells, all of which can screw up in their own unique ways (likely many multiples thereof).
Going further the problem is not necessarily cancer itself but what it otherwise does to the body as part of it all. Judging by all the fat bastards in the world your body can survive well enough carting around a bit of extra mass (actually I wonder if the average mass of an average lethal tumour is less than that of having long hair), pumping some extra blood and looking at athletes and no athletes taking in a bit more oxygen.
However when that mass is located somewhere that starves something else of blood/energy/oxygen and in turn kills that or prevents it from doing what it needs to do then that is what tends to kill you. A cure would necessarily involve fixing that, and a cure like that would make no distinction between fixing a blood starved kidney from a tumour pressing on an input blood vessel, and an input blood vessel damaged by some trauma or something. I can not believe for a moment that the people sitting on such a cure would lack the imagination to want to commercialise that. Even if by some demented twist of chemistry it was the tumour itself that stored the chemicals/energy/whatever necessary it would in turn mean that a cancer would be induced to fuel the cure for another disease (to continue with the kidney theme ask anybody on dialysis if they would carry on business as usual for a month or three to then be completely cured).
More lucrative to treat than to cure? A few months of chemicals, all of which have to go through fairly extensive and expensive trials to last maybe a few years, and radiation vs a lifetime of other chemicals from my very same company that are well known and mass produced and theoretically other procedures? In the vaccinations thread I ran the numbers for treatment vs prevention, the conspiracy died on its arse before going anywhere. Do I have to do the same here? I had a quick look at costs of a course of chemotherapy and while it is not pocket change it is about in line with many other drugs per month.
If instead of cure you meant vaccination, or maybe some kind of ultra reliable and easy to deploy screening that could catch things before it ran amok, then it would run contrary to all I know of the matter. Admittedly that is not a huge amount but the overlap between than and sciences I do know is enough that if the cure almost any damage thing above would speak to a lack of imagination then the ability to turn around and detect trace indicators from a blob of goo would be so incredibly lucrative in everything really* that to not deploy it there is nigh unthinkable for any kind of money hungry types that would betray all ethics and somehow manage to silence all researchers on the matter.
*hands up anybody in the plastics, construction, clothing, water supply, wood, food, paint, makeup, semiconductor, banking (no mate I can't loan you this unless your cancer is sorted) or anything based on material goods field that would not want a trace contaminant test of that kind of accuracy, ease and reliability?
Going further the problem is not necessarily cancer itself but what it otherwise does to the body as part of it all. Judging by all the fat bastards in the world your body can survive well enough carting around a bit of extra mass (actually I wonder if the average mass of an average lethal tumour is less than that of having long hair), pumping some extra blood and looking at athletes and no athletes taking in a bit more oxygen.
However when that mass is located somewhere that starves something else of blood/energy/oxygen and in turn kills that or prevents it from doing what it needs to do then that is what tends to kill you. A cure would necessarily involve fixing that, and a cure like that would make no distinction between fixing a blood starved kidney from a tumour pressing on an input blood vessel, and an input blood vessel damaged by some trauma or something. I can not believe for a moment that the people sitting on such a cure would lack the imagination to want to commercialise that. Even if by some demented twist of chemistry it was the tumour itself that stored the chemicals/energy/whatever necessary it would in turn mean that a cancer would be induced to fuel the cure for another disease (to continue with the kidney theme ask anybody on dialysis if they would carry on business as usual for a month or three to then be completely cured).
More lucrative to treat than to cure? A few months of chemicals, all of which have to go through fairly extensive and expensive trials to last maybe a few years, and radiation vs a lifetime of other chemicals from my very same company that are well known and mass produced and theoretically other procedures? In the vaccinations thread I ran the numbers for treatment vs prevention, the conspiracy died on its arse before going anywhere. Do I have to do the same here? I had a quick look at costs of a course of chemotherapy and while it is not pocket change it is about in line with many other drugs per month.
If instead of cure you meant vaccination, or maybe some kind of ultra reliable and easy to deploy screening that could catch things before it ran amok, then it would run contrary to all I know of the matter. Admittedly that is not a huge amount but the overlap between than and sciences I do know is enough that if the cure almost any damage thing above would speak to a lack of imagination then the ability to turn around and detect trace indicators from a blob of goo would be so incredibly lucrative in everything really* that to not deploy it there is nigh unthinkable for any kind of money hungry types that would betray all ethics and somehow manage to silence all researchers on the matter.
*hands up anybody in the plastics, construction, clothing, water supply, wood, food, paint, makeup, semiconductor, banking (no mate I can't loan you this unless your cancer is sorted) or anything based on material goods field that would not want a trace contaminant test of that kind of accuracy, ease and reliability?
If there is a cure, it'll never be public. All the companies focused on cancer would die off instead of the cancer patients. They'll never let that happen.
What? I met someone that could not feel pain once. It resulted in a cheesy martial arts battle atop a crane. In the end it was not the fall the killed him, the hitting the ground at the end of it was what did that.
D
Deleted User
Guest
I'm just gonna repost this until this thread is closed.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
yeah i've already posted this several times but people don't read.
It's impossible to create a cure for cancer, as cancer isn't a disease in and of itself; as others have stated, it's more of a blanket term used to describe multiple different specific diseases. This is why actual researchers (who make their work public, contrary to what you might think) attempt to develop cures for specific types of cancer, rather than just "cancer". Regardless, if the medical industry is so greedy, why wouldn't they release the cure for cancer and make billions of dollars, as opposed to just sweeping it under the rug (thereby making exactly zero dollars)?
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
AncientBoi:
What Network is it on? I wanna see what you guys are talking about. N What time frame is it on?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
