I came across this; if true the implacations are staggering! so I post this. If any one comes accross more info on this It would be of great use! http://www.sott.net/articles/show/228583-Scientists-cure-cancer-but-no-one-takes-notice
I'm not such a cynic that I can bring myself to actually believe that, if there were a cure for cancer out there, my wife's oncologist A) wouldn't know about it; or B) wouldn't prescribe it out of some warped sense of servitude to the money-grubbing big pharmaceutical companies. I think these sorts of claims are fairly common. Some time ago I heard an interview with an Italian physician who claimed he could cure virtually all types of cancer by simply applying sodium bicarbonate to the affected tissues. This deadly scourge could be almost eliminated overnight if the medical community would just open its mind and start using his treatment. I'm not a doctor, but ... come on.
I don't doubt that there is a bit of truth to this article, and to the claim of "cure" for those specific cancers. Will science take note? Probably not because they are looking for THE cure, not a cure. They are also looking for a cure which can generate profits and positive marketing and establishing their brand. Sadly this is what medicine, like any other business has become: a search for the biggest profit margin.
I believe that there may be remedies that sometimes work. But I balk at the idea that THE cure is known.
Whether there is a cure or not is a moot point. The entire medical community and researchers, including the big pharma, make MULTI-billions of dollars a year on cancer. Some have their entire careers wrapped up in it. Why kill a cash cow with a "cure"? I am NOT saying ALL medical people are like this. Most of them are decent, well meaning people. But they are not the ones in control. The big fat cats at the top are not interested in "cures", they are interested in "treatments". To cure is a one time money maker. To treat, however, is a constant flow of cash.
if we found such a cure and the cure was supressed... and I learned of the supression I would sue becuse of my mother and all those who DIED becuse of such supression. and so would millions of those who ALSO lost loved ones needlessly due to the supression.
I think we should restrain conspiratorial thinking to some degree. Loads of money would be made in selling the cancer drugs which would be very expensive at first. Not only that, there is the competition to see who can get the patent first. As tragic as cancer is, I think there's a tendency to think there has got to be a cure. But in reality, some diseases and problems are difficult to cure or solve.
More money would be made keeping the dying dying, as fucked up and perverse as it sounds. I've come to the conclusion to expect the worst from selected few proofed me wron
I don't believe any "cure" that isn't patentable will ever be accepted by the AMA and your doctor is highly unlikely to suggest anything that is not officially accepted by the AMA or it's equivalent in other countries. The AMA was created to defend allopathic medicine from chiropractic and they have been suppressing all other forms of treatment since. I don't think doctors are evil and withhold treatment they know would cure their patients, they are just part of a system that has been designed to protect the power of the drug companies, the AMA (and whatever their equivalent is in Canada, the UK, or wherever), and the institutions that receive research grants. Chances are your doctor believes all alternative treatments are fraud because all the official sources of information say they are and the rules doctors operate under tell them what treatments they can prescribe. The insurance companies also have a huge influence by dictating what they will and will not pay for. Watch the documentary Dieing to Have Known (it can be streamed from Netflix) for a taste of how the brilliant minds of mainstream medicine react to one alternative treatment. Their arrogance and lying made me so angry, I don't know how the guy making the documentary controlled his emotions during those interviews, I would have lost it! I don't know if the treatment that started this conversation is legit or not but I've looked into alternative treatments enough to know how mainstream medicine treats them. I'm sure their are some wonderful doctors out there who are exceptions.
I haven't seen that documentary yet (But am currently streaming it on youtube. Looks kinda' flaky so far but we'll see) but I looked up that therapy on wiki and this is what it said: Initially, Gerson used his therapy as a treatment for migraine headaches and tuberculosis. In 1928, he began to use it as a treatment for cancer, its best known application.[5] Gerson Therapy is based on the belief that disease is caused by the accumulation of unspecified toxins, and attempts to treat the disease by having patients consume a vegetarian diet including hourly glasses of organic juice and various dietary supplements. In addition, patients receive enemas of coffee, castor oil and sometimes hydrogen peroxide or ozone.[9] The original protocol also included raw calf liver extract daily but this practice was discontinued after several patients died following an outbreak of Campylobacter infection.[10] Gerson's daughter, Charlotte Gerson, continued to promote the therapy, founding the "Gerson Institute" in 1977. Well, I can understand why science would be skeptical of that (Coffee enemas?!), lol. My own immediate reaction is extreme doubt... and amusement.
I gather from the Snopes investigation that the jury is still out on DCA, but that research on it is not being suppressed. Hopefully, it will turn out to be effective.
True or not the U.S. will do anything and everything they can to surpress it, if you want this treatment you will have to travel to Canada, in my case the Canadian border is about 25 miles from me if G-d forbid I ever needed to.
No it's not true... And that "big pharma" is withholding a cure for cancer just because of profits, is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories out there... Even if we for a moment assume that they ARE exclusively motivated by profits, and that it IS more profitable to keep a person alive for a year or two, rather than outright cure them (Resulting in living 30-40-50 years longer, and being in the workforce and paying taxes for 30 years) why do they only treat you for six months or a couple of years at best? Surely it would be easy if they have the cure for cancer, and even more profitable, if they could keep you alive for ten years at 10.000 dollars pr month, rather than just a year or two?
Secretbanana there is more involved here then "big pharma", cancer is big business, money is being made by doctors, hospitals and anyone and anything related to cancer, if there were a cure this would all go away, you bet cancer cures are being withheld for these reasons and more. As they say follow the money.
I don't buy it. I don't believe a cure for cancer exists. I don't believe the knowledge of a cure could be effectively suppressed if really found. I believe if its found, it will be made widely available, like the polio vaccine. I find many conspiracy theories to be no more than paranoia, possibly supported by a sense of powerlessness in the face of tragedies.
