I Hate You, I Hate You, I Hate You With A Passion

There is so much money being made in the treatment of cancer there is no incentive to find a true cure and certainly NO incentive to prevent it. There is virtually nothing being done to prevent getting cancer because there is no money to be made if no one ever got cancer. So sad but it is truly all about the money.

To believe what you say is to ignore the advances in treatment and diagnosis that are obvious to even the most casual observer. To think that there is more money in treatment than cure so no one is spending the required time and effort to find cures is pretty weak.

F350, how old are you? I ask because you sound like you have not lived long enough to know just how corrupt pharmaceutical companies and political figures are, if a cure was given for cancer, aids, and other diseases all that money spent on treatments would stop, then they would charge such a high price for the cure that only the very rich could afford it,and lets not forget pharmaceutical companies can contribute to election campaigns, so politicians will back these companies on keeping info secret so they can continue to contribute to the politicians.

Mid 50s. This discussion falls into the "100 mile per gallon carburetor that the oil companies supressed" category. This victim mentality is not going to help you deal with reality.

I think I'm with F350 on this one.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronnie P.:
I think I'm with F350 on this one.

I know I am.

quote:

Originally posted by Shoals Resident:
There is so much money being made in the treatment of cancer there is no incentive to find a true cure and certainly NO incentive to prevent it. There is virtually nothing being done to prevent getting cancer because there is no money to be made if no one ever got cancer. So sad but it is truly all about the money.

There are at least two vaccines that have been developed that have shown effectiveness in preventing cancer--one for pancreatic cancer and the other for cervical cancer. The one for cervical cancer is very effective; the jury seems to still be out on the one for pancreatic cancer. Other preventive vaccines are under development.

The research community is not conspiring to prevent a cure for cancer. That theory has about as much validity as the one claiming the 1969 moon walk was staged in some desert in Arizona.

quote:

Originally posted by Shoals Resident:
There is so much money being made in the treatment of cancer there is no incentive to find a true cure and certainly NO incentive to prevent it.

Of course there is incentive. The company who comes up with some sort of magic bullet for cancer will become rich beyond all measure.

But this is not likely. Cancer is not a "disease." It is a varied galaxy of different diseases that share a common culprit of cells suddenly becoming immortal, oddly enough. Each malady requires a different approach.

When we understand how to combat cancer, we will likely cure aging itself.

Well said, sofa.
Cancer is but a collection of rogue cells gone amok. It is not transmissible from one to another like a virus or bacteria.
Since each type is dependent on its base cells (lung, pancreas, liver, etc,) each one has to be treated as a separate problem.
To stop cancer would involve changing the genetic code of cells, we are not there yet.

But there is a lot of progress with targeted chemo drugs and better surgeries.

I have a very lively SIL who had stage four breast cancer 20 years ago. She is doing very well today.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by Shoals Resident:
There is so much money being made in the treatment of cancer there is no incentive to find a true cure and certainly NO incentive to prevent it. There is virtually nothing being done to prevent getting cancer because there is no money to be made if no one ever got cancer. So sad but it is truly all about the money.

There are at least two vaccines that have been developed that have shown effectiveness in preventing cancer--one for pancreatic cancer and the other for cervical cancer. The one for cervical cancer is very effective; the jury seems to still be out on the one for pancreatic cancer. Other preventive vaccines are under development.

The research community is not conspiring to prevent a cure for cancer. That theory has about as much validity as the one claiming the 1969 moon walk was staged in some desert in Arizona.

In the late 50's there was a man who I knew personally who worked with a drug for cancer called "Kabiason" (this may be a bad spelling, but that is how it sounded).
It was for the most part large doses of certain vitamins mixed in distilled water.
Although no doctor, this man was treated many people with cancer who doctors had given up on. He had great success with certain cancers, and some it wouldn't cure, but he did heal a lot of people who lived on a normal length life.
He tried to get doctors to give it to my aunt, and pressured my dad to pressure the doctors, and they did start just a few days before she died.
The AMA refused to recognize the treatment, and doctors for the most part wouldn't try it on their patients. As a result , the man finally dropped trying, and went to work for Von Braun and helped with the space program of the day.
Since that time, I have always believed that the drug companies have us by the b*lls and won't consider anything as simple as mega-doses of vitamins. Any way, the story is true, whether my suspections are correct or not.

When I said there was "no incentive to prevent it" I was referring to the fact they we are killing ourselves with all the chemicals that are added to our food and that we expose ourselves to (cleaners, air freshners, etc). There is too much money being made by adding hormones and preservatives for the food industry to ever agree to removing them and they contribute so much money politically that they have a huge voice. There are many things that have been proven to prevent cancer but they are kept basically quiet. I know a gentleman that is in cancer research and he states emphatically that cancer cells have to have an acidic environment to grow, that if people would use a simple (and cheap) test on a regular basis to make sure that they keep their bodies on the alkaline side there would be virtually no cancer. Why does this not get more publicity? It certainly isn't harmful even if it did not work but would certainly make a huge difference in the numbers of people getting cancer. There is mega money to be made in cancer therefore we will continue to have research and treatment.

quote:

Originally posted by Sassy Kims:

quote:

Originally posted by Ronnie P.:
I think I'm with F350 on this one.

I know I am.

Here here

quote:

Although no doctor, this man was treated many people with cancer who doctors had given up on. He had great success with certain cancers, and some it wouldn't cure, but he did heal a lot of people who lived on a normal length life.

I'm sure you can provide some legitimate evidence for this?

How is it that a non-doctor can come up with exactly the right vitamin mixture (and distilled water - that must be the key) that cured all cancer?

Yeah, I'm sure you note the sarcasm. Susanne Somers is promoting essentially the same crap medicine. That is what it is: crap medicine.

You me better of going to a faith healer.

quote:

I was referring to the fact they we are killing ourselves with all the chemicals that are added to our food and that we expose ourselves to

Umm, we have the highest life expectancy of just about any nation on earth? People born today will likely live well into their 80's where just 100 years ago, 60 was tops. Hundreds of years ago, 50 was tops. Thousands, 30 or so.

Now exactly how are we killing ourselves?

quote:

I know a gentleman that is in cancer research and he states emphatically that cancer cells have to have an acidic environment to grow, that if people would use a simple (and cheap) test on a regular basis to make sure that they keep their bodies on the alkaline side there would be virtually no cancer. Why does this not get more publicity?

Because is is junk science?

You can't regulate your body's acidity any more than you can control your white count. Your body's ph level stay in a very narrow range and controlled by a very complicated bit of machinery that does not respond to taking acid pills (available from the health food store).

Your best bet for a cancer treatment is placing trust in your medical doctor. Not some guy who has something he wants to try.

Let me asked something else. I have had friends of mine that went to the doctor for check ups and everything was find, only to find out later that they had cancer. If you have any experience or know someone that has please share any information, thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by F350:
Mid 50s. This discussion falls into the "100 mile per gallon carburetor that the oil companies supressed" category. This victim mentality is not going to help you deal with reality.

I have the Popular Mechanics article on that. Dec 1936. If someone will tell me how, I will be glad to post it or upload it.

quote:

Originally posted by Sofa King:

quote:

Although no doctor, this man was treated many people with cancer who doctors had given up on. He had great success with certain cancers, and some it wouldn't cure, but he did heal a lot of people who lived on a normal length life.

I don't give a damm if you believe it or not. I'm not advocating it, just stating what I know.
For your information there wasn't any internet back in the 50's, therefore no links.
Just things I remember. Again, believe it or not, I don't care.


I'm sure you can provide some legitimate evidence for this?

How is it that a non-doctor can come up with exactly the right vitamin mixture (and distilled water - that must be the key) that cured all cancer?

Yeah, I'm sure you note the sarcasm. Susanne Somers is promoting essentially the same crap medicine. That is what it is: crap medicine.

You me better of going to a faith healer.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
In the late 50's there was a man who I knew personally who worked with a drug for cancer called "Kabiason" (this may be a bad spelling, but that is how it sounded).
It was for the most part large doses of certain vitamins mixed in distilled water.
Although no doctor, this man was treated many people with cancer who doctors had given up on. He had great success with certain cancers, and some it wouldn't cure, but he did heal a lot of people who lived on a normal length life.
He tried to get doctors to give it to my aunt, and pressured my dad to pressure the doctors, and they did start just a few days before she died.
The AMA refused to recognize the treatment, and doctors for the most part wouldn't try it on their patients. As a result , the man finally dropped trying, and went to work for Von Braun and helped with the space program of the day.
Since that time, I have always believed that the drug companies have us by the b*lls and won't consider anything as simple as mega-doses of vitamins. Any way, the story is true, whether my suspections are correct or not.

Here is the TRUTH about that snake-oil nostrum. It was called "Krebiozen" and it was the product of a charlatan named Dr. Stevan Durovic. It has been decisively shown to be a bogus cure. Moreover, there are undoubtedly any number of folks who were cozzened into reliance on Krebiozen as a cancer treatment and who died as a result, since they had a good chance of cure using conventional treatment that they rejected, on advice of Durovic or other quacks. Example:

"As an example, Orme Moritz suffered. She had read about krebiozen and thus refused surgery for primary cancer of the breast. She was accepted for study by the Krebiozen Research Foundation and for approximately one year, in 1958, received krebiozen. The records at the Krebiozen Research Foundation show her case at that time as "early operable." The tumor doubled in size while she was on krebiozen. Finally in September, 1958, after nearly a year's delay, Drs. Ivy and Durovic recommended a radical mastectomy. She died 10 months later of metastatic cancer of the lung from adenocarcinoma. of the breast. This is a sad tale of delay and avoidance of what might have been curative treatment because of unfounded hope that krebiozen treatment might make surgery unnecessary. How many similarly lost their chance for effective treatment because of krebiozen is unknown."

More from the link:

"In the course of the legal and political wrangles that have marked the history of krebiozen, the Krebiozen Research Foundation gave to the FDA and the National Cancer Institute records of 504 patients who were supposed to have been among the best in the Foundation's file. The FDA did a thorough job of following up the data on these patients seeking out hospital and doctor's records, pathology reports, death certificates and more complete data than the unsubstantiated records of the Krebiozen Research Foundation. An expert committee applied the usual criteria for evaluation of cancer response. Of the 504 patients, only 288 case records were found adequate for interpretation. Of these, two patients had tumor regression. In 13 other instances, doubtful effects were seen which were either incompletely substantiated, associated with other treatments, or unconvincing in the significance of the effects since early death or simultaneous growth of other tumors occurred. This experience might occur in a large sample of cancer patients, spontaneously. The 24 panel members recommended against clinical trial."

As a humorous aside, it is interesting that at least two physicians successfully ordered vials of Krebiozen from the "Krebiozem Research Foundation" for treatment of patients who had undergone "bilateral pneumonectomy," which is thr emoval of BOTH LUNGS, an operation which no one could have survived in that pre-transplant era!

Here is that story, which would be truly laughable if it were not so tragically exemplary of the silliness and ignorance that attended the Krebiozen controversy:

"In 1962, California physician decided from what he had seen and read that krebiozen research was not a bona fide clinical investigation. He wrote to ask for krebiozen for a patient who had had a bilateral pneumonectomy. Bilateral pneumonectomy (the removal of both lungs) is incompatible with life. No questions were asked, however, and krebiozen was sent with the usual request for $9.50 a vial. When the physician didn't pay, he received rebillings at monthly intervals. When he reported this to the FDA, further investigation followed."

"In March, 1963 another physician wrote deliberately stating his patient had had a bilateral total pneumonectomy, the unambiguous removal of both lungs. This is inconsistent with life and with common sense, but the Krebiozen Research Foundation, whose principal scientific consultant, Dr. Ivy, is a distinguished physiologist, sent 8 ampules of krebiozen and a bill for $76."

Krebiozen link: http://www.quackwatch.org/01Qu...ancer/krebiozen.html

Yet another quack cancer "remedy" was laetrile. This stuff was derived from apricot pits. It is no more effective against cancer than is Krebiozen, but it continues to be touted and marketed as a cancer cure, as documented below:

"Recent Enforcement Actions
On April 20, 2000, the U.S. Justice Department obtained a preliminary injunction barring Christian Bros. Contracting Corp., of Whitestone, New York, and its president, Jason Vale from making or distributing amygdalin, Laetrile, "Vitamin B-17," or apricot seeds [10]. Although Vale signed a consent decree, he continued his sales activity through a network of Internet sites, toll-free telephone numbers, and shell companies. In 2003, a federal jury in Brooklyn found him guilty of criminal contempt [11] for which he was sentenced to prison.
In July 2000, Kenneth N. Michaels and his company, Holistic Alternatives, both of Louisville, Ohio, were indicted for allegedly conspiring to distribute Laetrile and hydrazine sulfate in interstate commerce. The indictment also alleges that with intent to mislead the FDA, the defendants failed to register their drug manufacturing facility [12].
On September 1, 2000, a United States District Court Judge issued a preliminary injunction against World Without Cancer, Inc., The Health World International, Inc. of Bay Harbor Island, Health Genesis Corporation, an Arizona concern that does business in Bay Harbor Island, Florida, and David E. Arizona, an officer of the three corporations. The ruling enjoins the defendants from introducing or causing the introduction into interstate commerce of laetrile products, apricot seeds, or any other unapproved drug product as well as manufacturing, processing, packing, labeling, promoting, or distributing these or any other new drug. The order also requires the defendants to modify their Internet web sites to cease using the web sites to promote the sale of or offer for sale their laetrile products [13].
In February 2004, Jack Edwin Slingluff, D.O., of Canton, Ohio, was charged with introducing an unapproved new drug into interstate commerce. The one-count criminal information states that he "caused thirty (30) vials of the unapproved new drug Amigdalina B-17 (AKA Laetrile) to be shipped from West Palm Beach, Florida, to Salem, Ohio; in violation of Title 21, Sections 331(d), 355(a) and 333(a)(1), United States Code."

Here is a link to the full "Quackwatch" report on this particular snake oil.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Qu...Cancer/laetrile.html

There are other quack "cures" being promoted and quack doctors are still around peddling--and profiting from-- speculative, unproven "cures" for cancer and detouring patients from the opportunity to be cured by conventional treatments. Beware of these snake oil quack doctors; they have no more credibility than the old-time medicine show hucksters of frontier times.

READ THIS warning of the consequences that can result from the desperate resort to quackery:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Qu...opics/harmquack.html

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Qu...opics/harmquack.html

There is one therapy, chelation therapy, that seems to have some promise in reducing arteriosclerosis, but the jury seems to still be out on this treatment. The link below is to an American Heart Association paper, which describes a long-term clinical test, concluding in 2010.

My wife's stepmother had severe angina for several years. She had chelation therapy in her mid-80s, and afterwards had almost no attacks of angina. She died at age 91. That is an anecdotal experience, but one that made an impression on me, since I had seen her suffer considerably with angina.

"The trial is taking place at about 100 research sites across the United States and is testing EDTA chelation therapy by using the most widely practiced means of administering it. The trial began in 2003; patients receive 30 weekly intravenous treatments, then 10 more treatments given bimonthly, over a 28-month period. They also receive high doses of vitamins, which are also often given with chelation therapy. (The effect of such vitamin doses will also be examined in the trial.) The study is expected to be completed in 2010."

Link http://www.americanheart.org/p...html?identifier=4493

Better, your link on krebiozen did not show up .

Would you please re-post it As I would like to check it out.

The guy I know didn't "invent" the formulation, but his interest was in the delivery method of injecting it with distilled water.


Edited to say:
Never mind, I googled it with your spelling.
From what I read, and what I remember, this is not the same thing this guy was using. What he was using was mega doses of vitamins in distilled water.
What brought this whole story to mind was a recent conversation with the guys I was in a band with, and this subject came up. A couple of them named 4 or 5 people they knew, that I didn't, who were given up on by Memphis doctors, but "cured" by his treatment and lived on many more years.
All are dead now, as had they lived, all would be in their late 90s now.
At any rate, all this was started to say that maybe the drug companies would rather keep treatments on the market than cures.
All that was a rememberence from childhood.

quote:

Originally posted by btchpls50m:
Well said, sofa.
Cancer is but a collection of rogue cells gone amok. It is not transmissible from one to another like a virus or bacteria.
Since each type is dependent on its base cells (lung, pancreas, liver, etc,) each one has to be treated as a separate problem.
To stop cancer would involve changing the genetic code of cells, we are not there yet.

But there is a lot of progress with targeted chemo drugs and better surgeries.

I have a very lively SIL who had stage four breast cancer 20 years ago. She is doing very well today.

For the record, the "old and cranky" was NOT a reference to your sister-in-law...??

I have revised my post on Krebiozen to include the link I omitted earlier. Sory about that.

Bet---Don't know anything about the "vaccine" for pancreatic CA.
The Gardasil vaccine for HPV may not always work, has risks and side affects and may be associated with up to 49 deaths so far. Pharmaceuticals not an improvement on the Pap smear, for sure. The HPV is now being associated with cancers of the mouth and neck developing in young people.

http://www.doctorbob.com/10_3_29news2.html

Seems to me the best advice for my girls and boys is to avoid risky behavior and then you won't have anything to worry about.