View Full Version : Why Medicine Won't Allow Cancer to be Cured
frugal-one
8-12-13, 6:06pm
Someone just sent this to me. I find it very interesting. You make your own determination of the validity!
August 03, 2013 |
By Dr. Mercola
Imagine a commercial plane crashed and there were some fatalities involved. You can be sure that would make the headline of every major newspaper. Well, we have the equivalent of 8-10 planes crashing EVERY DAY with everyone on board dying from cancer.
Nearly two million Americans are diagnosed with cancer every year—one person out of three will be hit with a cancer diagnosis at some time in their lives, in spite of the massive technological advances over the past half-century.
Western medicine is no closer to finding a “cancer cure,” while cancer has grown into a worldwide epidemic of staggering proportions. The statistics speak for themselves:
In the early 1900s, one in 20 people developed cancer
In the 1940s, one in 16 people developed cancer
In the 1970s, it was one in 10
Today, it’s one in three!
According to the CDC, about 1,660,290 (1.66 million) new cancer cases are expected to be diagnosed in 20131. If overall death rates are falling, why are incidence rates still on the rise? The answer is simple: the 40-year “war on cancer” has been a farce.
The cancer epidemic is a dream for Big Pharma, and their campaigns to silence cancer cures have been fierce, which is a tale well told in the documentary film featured above, Cancer: Forbidden Cures.
The Cancer Machine
Please understand that cancer is big business. The cancer industry is spending virtually nothing of its multi-billion dollar resources on effective prevention strategies, such as dietary guidelines, exercise and obesity education. Instead, it pours its money into treating cancer, not preventing or curing it.
Why would they shoot their cash cow? If they can keep the well-oiled Cancer Machine running, they will continue to make massive profits on chemotherapy drugs, radiotherapy, diagnostic procedures and surgeries.
The typical cancer patient spends $50,000 fighting the disease. Chemotherapy drugs are among the most expensive of all treatments, many ranging from $3,000 to $7,000 for a one-month supply.
If the cancer industry allows a cure, then their patient base goes away. It makes more sense to keep a steady stream of cancer patients alive, but sick and coming back for more. How did this societal monster come about?
The featured documentary is enormously informative. It details how the pharmaceutical industry partnered with the American Medical Association (AMA) in an ingenious plan to overtake the medical system in four swift, easy steps, back in the early 1900s. In a nutshell, it went something like this:
International bankers that own the drug and chemical companies gained control over the medical education system over 100 years ago.
They gave grants to the AMA and leading medical schools in exchange for seats on their board and the ability to control policy.
Finally, they cleverly engineered their control of virtually every federal regulatory agency relating to the practice of medicine.
'Don't You DARE Cure Anyone!'
In spite of the enormous amounts of money funneled into cancer research today, two out of three cancer patients will be dead within five years after receiving all or part of the standard cancer treatment trinity—surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. This is not too surprising when you consider that two of the three are carcinogenic themselves! One study estimated that chemotherapy benefits about one of every 20 people receiving it.
Over the last hundred years, a number of natural cancer treatments have been developed and used successfully to treat patients in the US and other countries. All have been vehemently discounted, silenced, and pushed under the rug by the medical monopoly, with physicians and researchers attacked, smeared, sent to prison, and professionally ruined for daring to defy the medical establishment.
To this day, with respect to credibility in medicine, “quack” is synonymous with “competition.”
In order to protect the medical monopoly, any viable natural treatment is met with massive opposition by the pharmaceutical and medical industries. Drug companies have no interest in natural agents that they cannot patent, because they interfere with their revenue stream. They will go—and have gone—to extreme measures to prevent the truth about effective natural treatments (competitive threats) from reaching the public.
The FDA is now, thanks to PDUFA, primarily funded by the drug companies and is complicit in this process. They restrict competition in the guise of protecting the public, when the reality is they are protecting the profits of the drug companies.
I'm glad this board is anonymous, so i can fairly freely admit that the most odious market research job i did was a pricing sensitivity research study to find out what the threshold would be for doctors/patients to accept paying for a very expensive new drug that only showed an overall survival increase of 4 months.
How in God's name do you put a family in the position of deciding how much 4 months of life with a loved one is? And how much are you willing to give up for it? Your emergency savings? Your retirement savings? Your home? Ugh.. that was a nasty one.
I've long been a fan of the Gerson Therapy, although I have to admit I don't personally know anyone who's been cured using it. DW and I have had some pretty in depth talks about this because both her parents died of cancer and she is a survivor. Her mother's last month of life cost over $60,000 and she was so sick the whole time she did not even get out of bed once. That doesn't work for either of us. I told DW that if I were diagnosed I would want to immediately head to Gerson's clinic in Mexico for the 90 day treatment. The worst case would be that I would be healthier overall to start chemo and/or radiation and/or surgery. The best case is that the cancer would be gone. I like those odds. DW is more skeptical than I am regarding the potential, which is strange because I don't know anyone that puts more emphasis on eating well.
It should tell us a lot that the only legal cancer treatments in the US are chemo, radiation and surgery. Not that you can't do other things, they just can't be called cancer treatments. Who do you suppose is behind that labeling law? The human body is an amazing machine when it comes to self-repair. The only thing that really makes sense to me is to get the immune system strong enough that it can fight off invaders. The immune system is stronger than cancer cells, but not on a $.99 cheeseburger diet. It also makes no sense to kill a relatively small amount of cancer cells by trying to poison/irradiate/burn up/destroy EVERYTHING and hope you take the cancer out with the rest. It's a stupid idea, really. But that's just me. I'm anxious to read the thoughts of some here that have actually been through the fight.
I know someone who is a "survivor." Their doctor pushed a questionable form of chemotherapy which since has been implicated in kidney failure. Guess who's on dialysis. But it's hard to know whether it was that drug or the statins some other doctor put them on that caused them to fail.
I'm not afraid of dying, but I'm terrified of the medical establishment, who want to "manage" your illness indefinitely; a cure isn't nearly so profitable. Fish on!
I was listening to a podcast of an interview with the woman who authored the study that was published recently that noted that one of the big reasons behind the rapid rise in cancer rates in recent years is a more aggressive focus on early detection, which has led to things that previously might not have been found/noticed being diagnosed as pre-cancerous lesions when they may not ever develop into full cancer. Not quite as conspiracy-theory oriented as Mercola (who I think pushes things too far), but a related message. In response to the rise in early detection, more people are now seeking aggressive treatment -- surgery, radiation, chemo -- for things that might not actually need it. And of course, when you have those aggressive forms of treatment you also have greater levels of possible complications.
I recommend this book for a thoroughly-researched look at cancer funding, research, results, and progress over the past 40 years:
The Truth in Small Doses: Why We're Losing the War on Cancer - and How to Win It, by Clifford Leaf (http://amzn.com/1476739986)
There are a lot of good people spending their lives looking for cures. To say they are in on a conspiracy like that is an insult to their integrity and common sense.
There are a lot of good people spending their lives looking for cures. To say they are in on a conspiracy like that is an insult to their integrity and common sense.
Yosarian, being on the outskirts of the biz, I definitely agree with you. In spite of unfortunate reality that Big Pharma is part of the free market and has to play by its rules, necessitating ugly pricing sensitivity market research tests, I agree that huge strides have been made in most disease states. For example, when I ask PCPs what has changed about their practice over the past could of years, they say "I never have to go to the ER anymore with patients who have heart attacks." This will continue as we move into more targeted therapies by identifying biomarkers, etc.
There are a lot of other pieces of the culture puzzle which if turned around would reduce the demand for pharmaceuticals drastically. It is a complex puzzle, and in some cases, Big Pharma is responding to consumer need, and in some cases, they are creating the need.
There are a lot of good people spending their lives looking for cures. To say they are in on a conspiracy like that is an insult to their integrity and common sense.
+1! It shows a lack of critical thinking skills as well.
+1! It shows a lack of critical thinking skills as well.
Oh. Well. Case closed.
In response to the rise in early detection, more people are now seeking aggressive treatment -- surgery, radiation, chemo -- for things that might not actually need it. And of course, when you have those aggressive forms of treatment you also have greater levels of possible complications.
Over the last few months, I've seen a few different reports/studies in which members of the medical community posit that we're overtreating -- or overreacting to -- many cancers. Patients with slow-growing cancers, like prostate cancer, sometimes suffer more for the treatment than the disease.
I also saw a report ("CBS This Morning") not long ago that some not-quite-cancer illnesses are being classified as cancers for treatment because there's no finer distinction made for the various behaviors of the rogue cells and that the medical protocols "required" to treat cancer are too much of a reaction to those particular illnesses.
Maybe now that it is more common for "The Big C" to no longer be considered an immediate death sentence, we can progress to treating it as specifically as we treat heart problems or orthopedic issues.
This is the natural outcome of a for-profit medical system. The only winners are the share-holders.
The truth is everything is over-treated. They hand out pills like candy, the pills cause problems that require more pills, and so on. I recommend The Last Well Person by Nortin Hadler.
The truth is everything is over-treated. They ...
That has not been my experience. I spend several days a week in an ambulance, helping care for people who are having really bad days. We go to great lengths to not over-treat. Our protocols are not the exception in the state.
I do sometimes encounter patients who have lengthy lists of meds they are taking, which often are complicating their situation. Generally, they got into that situation by seeing multiple doctors over multiple years for multiple conditions in multiple geographical locations, and not telling Doctor A about Doctor B and Doctor C.
This topic is much like trying to justify your religious beliefs - to each his own. My mother was a pharmacist back in the days when their ads were not allowed on regular media - only in professional journals. I don't think it takes critical thinking skills to see that illness is big business these days. Especially diabetes and cancer treatment. My own experience with having various illnesses through the years and seeking care from conventional doctors has been very disappointing. I can't recall a single time when a trip to the doctor didn't result in a frustrating, merry-go-round of tests and prescriptions which did not help me get any healthier. Personally, it would depend greatly on what type of cancer and its level before making any treatment decisions.
There are a lot of good people spending their lives looking for cures. To say they are in on a conspiracy like that is an insult to their integrity and common sense.
Yes. And, Mercola is not a reputable source. He promulgates the "vaccines cause autism" bu//sh*t, which renders him a complete idiot in my estimation. But hey, it's real good for his bottom line!
As most folks know, this is a dance I am in (uterine cancer, grade 3, stage 1a, radical hysterectomy & 3 vaginal brachytherapy [radiation] treatments). My active treatment phase just ended, and I am on a schedule of 3 month check-ups for two years.
I researched my diagnosis, the treatment protocols, and the research behind those protocols. I quizzed my team of providers repeatedly, and developed relationships with each of them. I'm an eyewitness to current cancer treatment, both for myself & the community of support & friends I have made, who are also patients.
I am also enrolled in an adjuvant study being jointly done by Bastyr University of Naturopathic medicine and the Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center, aka the Hutch. I see my Naturopath as well as my PCP & my gynecologist, and an acupuncturist; all treatments I am coordinating.
My eyewitness stance is that everything I have experienced has been outcomes based and reasonable.
ApatheticNoMore
8-13-13, 12:21pm
Mercola is Mercola and I figured if one is familiar with him they pretty much know what he peddles, and thus not worth arguing about. Far be it for me to dismiss anything absolutely out of hand, but some of what he peddles is shall we say pretty low on the credibility scale. But I considered that pretty obvious to anyone familiar with him and those who aren't aren't missing all that much. It's lucrative for him, well what's lucrative in this world is at least as often shady as not I figure (including a WAY WAY WAY overpriced medical system! Yea a medical system that is increasing unaffordable to anyone who isn't rich and where hospital caused illness like MRSA run rampant isn't shady at all - look over there a shiny - Mercola is rich). No, my experiences with the medical system for myself and those I know is anything but positive, and no doctors do not look at what other doctors prescribe (in the 15 minutes allocated to them by the HMO? yea right ...). But that's the sleaze we swim in like fish in water, it doesn't mean some magical cure for cancer exists that is being kept secret. I do think the extent of increases in cancer cases and the possibility of prevention is not talked about often enough. Plus the funding, it does seem some worthy leads have a heck of a time getting funding for further research.
That has not been my experience. I spend several days a week in an ambulance, helping care for people who are having really bad days. We go to great lengths to not over-treat. Our protocols are not the exception in the state.
I do sometimes encounter patients who have lengthy lists of meds they are taking, which often are complicating their situation. Generally, they got into that situation by seeing multiple doctors over multiple years for multiple conditions in multiple geographical locations, and not telling Doctor A about Doctor B and Doctor C.
Acute-care or trauma medicine is the exception to the rule. We mostly do that right.
My bad experiences with medical "care" have all been vicarious--friends and family--thank God, but they have been so appalling and so painful that I have redoubled my efforts to avoid it. And I've noticed that even in cases where dietary and lifestyle changes would solve a given medical condition, they're either not mentioned or the information given is exactly counter to what really works, perpetuating the bottom line.
"The job of the physician is to amuse the patient while the body heals itself."
Voltaire
There are a lot of good people spending their lives looking for cures. To say they are in on a conspiracy like that is an insult to their integrity and common sense.
That would be true, but I think you can acknowledge some pharma/medical industry disincentives to finding a cure without implicating the scores of brilliant and ethical people working to solve the problem. Mercola and the lot aside, cancer is quite simply a cash cow in the medical industrial complex. Would not rushing to find a cure really be that much different than an actuary calculating the cost of a recall vs. the likely number of law suits and the average award from defective product litigation? My guess is there are plenty of people who have worked to project the potential income streams from cures vs. treatments. That's not saying anyone has or would deliberately withhold a cure if one were discovered, but it would be interesting to study resources invested searching for cures vs. new treatments. And I still find it fascinating that more natural, diet based approaches get no more than a footnote from time to time. There could be any number of reasons for that, but regardless of what they are we do know there isn't much profit in produce.
Mercola is not the only one being negative. I read of the concern raised about the number of organizations who fundraise for cancer with the large admin $$$$$$$$$$ costs to manage all of them.
flowerseverywhere
8-13-13, 9:48pm
The original article is posted on Dr Mercola's website. It is an interesting website. Much of the information is very sensible. Such as avoiding processed foods, exercise, eating raw fruits and vegetables and not processed sugars. He also sells lines of vitamins and lots of other products, like tanning beds, which I assume have to do with vitamin d.
The subject is incredibly complex. But one of the truths we live with are the quality of our food is at times very poor. Read any label and you will see a long list of chemicals. But our fruits and vegetables can also be doused with chemicals. So difficult but money talks. People want cheap food and a bag of crunchy salty stuff often wins over an organic apple.
People want cheap food and a bag of crunchy salty stuff often wins over an organic apple.
And by the same token, for a large percentage of the population, being told to pop a pill to make things better will win out over being told to lose 30 pounds and stop eating the crunchy salty shit.
Personally I don't believe that the medical research industry has found a cure to cancer and hidden it anymore than I believe that the oil industry bought the patent to a 200 mpg carburetor and promptly buried it. But I do believe that in our capitalist economy the medical research industry may very well be allocating resources towards developing new treatments rather than searching for a cure that they may never (or not for a really long time) find, and thus won't have any income from in the near term.
try2bfrugal
8-14-13, 12:36am
The one thing I have noticed about cancer research is that most of the natural / drug cures that get publicized tend to be substances that thin the blood - aspirin, garlic, onions, ginger, Warfarin, vitamin D, olive oil, green tea, etc.
Chinese medicine books seem to have made the link between cancer and circulation a long time ago.
When I was going through pre surgery exams, I asked my internist "...what IS cancer...?" She leaned in, looked very engaged, and said, "THAT is the question!" Then she recommended I read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Emperor-All-Maladies-Biography/dp/1439170916
I have not, yet. I have talked to quite a few doctors of several different disciplines, friends & my practitioners, about this. Cancer is one word for a very complex array of diseases. I no longer view it as one disease. To say that there is one way of viewing it or treating it is illogical.
Here is a review of the book:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/books/review/Weiner-t.html?pagewanted=all
Cancer research is robust, and making progress, at least as measured for the last 100 years.
"The heroes of the last few decades of this epic history are Robert Weinberg, Harold Varmus, Bert Vogelstein and the other extraordinary laboratory scientists who have finally worked out the genetics of cancer, and traced the molecular sequence of jammed accelerators and missing brakes that release those first rebel cells. As James Watson wrote not long ago, “Beating cancer now is a realistic ambition because, at long last, we largely know its true genetic and chemical characteristics.” We may finally be ready for war." (From the NYT review.)
I have great regard for everyone working on cancer treatment, from all disciplines. I have little regard for anyone with blithe, simple answers.
Cambridge research on cancer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23665996
There's more profit in diabetes - the patient lives for many years and just keeps on buying and buying the treatment. I'd be more likely to believe the cancer-as-profit center scenario if cancer patients lived longer.
Diabetes--even type 1--is the perfect example of a disease that can be helped by diet, but people are forced to find that out for themselves. Dieticians--with rare exceptions--just parrot what they're told by food manufacturers. Millions of dollars and countless amputations, kidney failure, blindness, and heart disease could be prevented with tight control of blood sugars. But there's no profit in that.
The ADA has recently--very grudgingly--allowed that SOME diabetics can be helped by a low carbohydrate diet--with all kinds of alarmist caveats--but their dieticians apparently haven't caught up.
I can't speak to anyone else's situation but when my mom was diagnosed as diabetic she rigorously followed the dietician's recommendations and quickly wound up with her blood sugar being low enough that even the lowest dose of the medicine sent her sugar levels too low. Over the years I have known several friends and coworkers who were/are diabetic and pretty much all of them don't follow the diet advice with anywhere near the rigor that mom did. They all know they shouldn't have a half pound burger on a big bun with fries and a beer for lunch, but I've seen more than one of them do just that. A lot of people would rather pop a pill for whatever ails them than make any substantive changes to their lifestyle.
Personally I don't believe that the medical research industry has found a cure to cancer and hidden it anymore than I believe that the oil industry bought the patent to a 200 mpg carburetor and promptly buried it. But I do believe that in our capitalist economy the medical research industry may very well be allocating resources towards developing new treatments rather than searching for a cure that they may never (or not for a really long time) find, and thus won't have any income from in the near term.
I also don't think there's a Big Pharma conspiracy to monstrously milk sufferers of every last cent while condemning them to a nasty life and a worse death. Cancer is a very very old condition. The oldest case known so far is that of a 120,000 year old bone cancer in a Neandertal. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/120000-years-of-tumors.html?_r=0
It's also a very complex condition - I see that redfox has already posted the link to the latest cancer research, but here it is again: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23665996
We can certainly take our lives into our own hands, but no matter how carefully we eat and exercise, cancer may not be totally preventable and people who develop it should not be shamed or blamed.
try2bfrugal
8-15-13, 1:47pm
I also don't think there's a Big Pharma conspiracy to monstrously milk sufferers of every last cent while condemning them to a nasty life and a worse death
I think there is a lot of great research on cancer. It is just too bad much of it doesn't seem to make its way to the actual doctors offices on how they treat cancer. Has anyone ever heard a doctor recommend vitamin D for cancer? The pharma / medical industry still seems to be pushing sun screen.
I do find it odd that doctors even today seem to receive so little training in nutrition. I do suspect it does have to do with big pharma protecting their own interests.
I find it interesting how modern research has validated a number of traditional dietary treatments in Eastern medicine for cancer and other major diseases.
A lot of people would rather pop a pill for whatever ails them than make any substantive changes to their lifestyle.
And unfortunately many doctors would rather write a prescription than discuss real lifestyle changes with their patients. Real changes take time, effort, and perhaps more than one try to find a way to make them work.
The problem of our age is that corporations have not figured out a way to make prevention pay.
I participated in a study two years ago at the Fred Hutchison Cancer Research center, aka The Hutch, on the Vit. D influence on weigh loss and breast cancer risk. It's being studied.
What I have learned, being a cancer patient, is that the treatments I went through are totally outcomes based. I cannot speak to other kinds of cancer, just my expereince with my diagnosis. Oncology Gynecologists get together, review the data, and decide collectively on treatment protocols for uterine cancer.
That was highly reassuring for me, as I prefer action based upon science. That's one of the reasons that charlatans like Mercola earn my disdain. I think he is dangerous. (Lest it is imagined that I am opposed to the so-called alternative modalities, I also access naturopathy & acupuncture. These have been adjuvant to my primary cancer treatment, though I have used them as primary treatment in the past.)
Some cancer patients do live a long time. My diagnosis has a 95% survival rate. Pretty darn good! Each cancer is different from other types, and each cancer in each patient is very different. Uterine adenocarcinoma in me, a post-menopausal woman, was very different than uterine sarcoma in a 30 year old who wishes to maintain her fertility. I was fine with having a hysterectomy -- don't miss what was removed at all! It is nice, if one is to have a cancer diagnosis, to have it involving body parts one isn't really using, though not having ovaries, even retired ones, has affected my sleep somewhat.
I do not believe that "big pharma" is a conniving group of evil-doers. I do think that having health care in the for-profit sector is a mistake. I know too many people whose lives are being greatly assisted by conventional medicine to condemn the system. For instance, my friend Greg has his life extended for nearly the years after a glioblastoma (brain cancer) diagnosis. He was treated with intense medical intervention, and it allowed him to die on his own terms. And, I am very glad that other systems of medicine, i.e. naturopathy, acupuncture, homeopathy, massage, etc., are being tested and trialed.
I just saw my PCP yesterday, to review my current status of treatment. She is the big picture holder, and a fabulous PCP. All of my practitioners are aware of my enrollment in the study with The Hutch & Bastyr Naturopathic U, and all welcome it. I suspect I am in a somewhat unusual circumstance, being in Seattle, around all these research facilities & progressive thinking.
Anyone else posting here a cancer survivor? I'd love to hear your story.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.