Conspiracy regarding cancer cures and the role of "Big Pharma" in their suppression

jh79

Curious to hear if many believe that cancer has already been cured and that big pharma is behind a conspiracy to suppress this?

For me the conspiracy fails because a single cure is beyond our scientific capabilities and might never be found. I also think that there is no financial reason to suppress a cure, pharmaceutical industry doesn't work in the manner that the people who believe this conspiracy think.

endacl

A single cure for a single cancer may not be beyond our capabilities. You'd have to find a definition of 'cancer' first, though.

weisses

Our ego stands in the way of this CT..... All the fame recognition etc for the team who finds the cure ... To tempting to suppress imo

jh79

endacl wrote: »

A single cure for a single cancer may not be beyond our capabilities. You'd have to find a definition of 'cancer' first, though.

That has already been achieved for example breast cancer , generally the above conspiracy consists of a single cure for all cancers.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Our ego stands in the way of this CT..... All the fame recognition etc for the team who finds the cure ... To tempting to suppress imo

Ego sounds negative, in this case a good quality to have.

weisses

A professor advices people over 50's to take aspirin daily to prevent cancer .... Nice to see a drug derived from nature working against Cancer

eyescreamcone

It is far more likely that "big pharma" has the capability to do better against individual small cancers (numbers wise) but won't as it's uneconomical.

Big pharma wants to cure common diseases and make big money by playing the numbers game.

Diseases that affect small numbers will only be cured by fluke.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

A professor advices people over 50's to take aspirin daily to prevent cancer .... Nice to see a drug derived from nature working against Cancer

Taxol is a famous cancer treatment derived from a natural product, Vinblastine too both plant based.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paclitaxel

degrassinoel

weisses wrote: »

A professor advices people over 50's to take aspirin daily to prevent cancer .... Nice to see a drug derived from nature working against Cancer

seems to be standard practice for GP's to tell their patients with high blood pressure and some heart conditions to take an aspirin a day too.

eyescreamcone

All medicines come from ingredients that occur naturally. The trick is putting these ingredients together in the correct doses.

jh79

eyescreamcone wrote: »

It is far more likely that "big pharma" has the capability to do better against individual small cancers (numbers wise) but won't as it's uneconomical.

Big pharma wants to cure common diseases and make big money by playing the numbers game.

Diseases that affect small numbers will only be cured by fluke.

Cancer is second only to heart disease I think , 1 in 3 will develop cancer at some stage in their life so it is certainly a common disease. Obviously there are certain rare cancers that might not initially seem worth an investment due to a small market but Orphan drug legislation counters this.

weisses

degrassinoel wrote: »

seems to be standard practice for GP's to tell their patients with high blood pressure and some heart conditions to take an aspirin a day too.

Was doing some reading up on aspirin and its really a kind of "miracle" drug/medicine

Did not know about its potential regarding prevention/control of gastro-intestinal cancers in over 50's though

jh79

eyescreamcone wrote: »

All medicines come from ingredients that occur naturally. The trick is putting these ingredients together in the correct doses.

Are you referring to the elements?

jh79

degrassinoel wrote: »

seems to be standard practice for GP's to tell their patients with high blood pressure and some heart conditions to take an aspirin a day too.

Maybe a myth but was told in college that aispirn wouldn't make it past the modern regulatory bodies . This guy thinks so too.

http://www.medicalprogresstoday.com/spotlight/spotlight_indarchive.php?id=1039

jh79

Nice blog on the complexities of cancer and the difficulties face by researchers

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/why-havent-we-cured-cancer-yet/

enno99

jh79 wrote: »

Nice blog on the complexities of cancer and the difficulties face by researchers

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/why-havent-we-cured-cancer-yet/

Dont think I can read any more Gorski Orac links he seems such an obnoxious prick

jh79

enno99 wrote: »

Dont think I can read any more Gorski Orac links he seems such an obnoxious prick

Really? Based on what?

jh79

enno99 wrote: »

Dont think I can read any more Gorski Orac links he seems such an obnoxious prick

Putting aside your personal opinion of him it is well worth a read. It highlights how complicated cancer is and in the process show how fanciful a single cure CT is .

Torakx

It's my understanding that cancer is a mutation of cells.
I doubt if a way can be found to mutate them back again.
I'm still not fully decided on the fungus issue, relating to cancer.
In the case of candida albicans yeast fungus, it will make the cell walls permeable and spread into the blood stream. This is known as leaky gut syndrome.
What I often wonder, is if this leaky gut syndrome and fungal infection when scanned, looks like bowel or colon cancer to a doctor.
Because if it does, that patient might get the wrong treatment.
I have not heard of a doctor diagnosing candida albicans and everyone I have spoken to with it, has not been diagnosed by a doctor, yet had seen many doctors in most cases.

With regards to testing samples. What do they look for when they do a biopsy? Do they have a chart with definitions of different types of cancers and cells?
I'd like to see how they tell it is cancer or fungus for example.
Actually I just found some pictures:D
There is a fair difference I think.
As for doctors diagnosis, I don't know what the normal response is, to finding candida infections. I've never heard of a doctor recognizing it really.
If they did, there would be no need for many other treatments of the diseases it causes.
CFS for example. And I was reading today, maybe even Fibromalgia.

cdoherty86

jh79 wrote: »

Curious to hear if many believe that cancer has already been cured and that big pharma is behind a conspiracy to suppress this?

For me the conspiracy fails because a single cure is beyond our scientific capabilities and might never be found. I also think that there is no financial reason to suppress a cure, pharmaceutical industry doesn't work in the manner that the people who believe this conspiracy think.

I don't believe pharma have a cure but It seems obvious they're motivated by profits rather than altruism and there's a revolving door between the government agencies like FDA that approve chemicals for human consumption and the companies that manufacture them.

This is also a problem with the food industry.

So, I completely understand why people would presume pharma have a cure for cancer.
Instead of marketing a cure they continue selling other drugs used to treat cancer as a way to maximize profits.

There are patents on drugs which prevent developing nations from manufacturing their own cheaper, generic versions and inevitably people die in large numbers being unable to afford the branded versions. So it's not really a theory, it's fairly evident the pharma companies care more about their bottom line than helping people overcome illness.

A book by Ben Goldacre about the industry might interest you.

Bad Pharma: How Medicine is Broken, and How We Can Fix It

jh79

How would a system without patents work?

People don't die because of patents they die due to poverty / societal issues preventing access to affordable medicine, laughable to lay the blame at the feet of "Big Pharma".

cdoherty86

jh79 wrote: »

How would a system without patents work?

People don't die because of patents they die due to poverty / societal issues preventing access to affordable medicine, laughable to lay the blame at the feet of "Big Pharma".

So why did you start this thread if that's what you believe?

jh79

cdoherty86 wrote: »

So why did you start this thread if that's what you believe?

Maybe read the op again.

cdoherty86

jh79 wrote: »

Maybe read the op again.

Your initial post implies pharma companies are not influenced by profits or have I misunderstood you?

jh79 wrote:

People don't die because of patents they die due to poverty / societal issues preventing access to affordable medicine

Patents prevent access to affordable medicine.

Generic drugs are often the only drugs poorer people can afford.

jh79

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Your initial post implies pharma companies are not influenced by profits or have I misunderstood you?



Patents prevent access to affordable medicine.

Generic drugs are often the only drugs poorer people can afford.

You have, cancer cures and their suppression by the pharmaceutical industry is a common conspiracy theory. Scientifically a single cure for cancer us unlikely and secondly even if one was discovered the idea that the pharmaceutical industry would try to suppress it is flawed too.

It would be very naive to believe any company is not influenced by profits.

Without the protection of patents there would be no new drugs and therefore no new generics.

The pharma industry is entitled to sell its products at a price that yields a profit, as in any industry. it is the role of the Government to ensure affordable medicine is available to all.

cdoherty86

jh79 wrote: »

You have, cancer cures and their suppression by the pharmaceutical industry is a common conspiracy theory. Scientifically a single cure for cancer us unlikely and secondly even if one was discovered the idea that the pharmaceutical industry would try to suppress it is flawed too.

It would be very naive to believe any company is not influenced by profits.

jh79 wrote:

I also think that there is no financial reason to suppress a cure, pharmaceutical industry doesn't work in the manner that the people who believe this conspiracy think.

This last quote suggests to me you believe pharmaceutical companies to be influenced by more than just money. What are the other reasons apart from financial?

The pharma industry is entitled to sell its products at a price that yields a profit, as in any industry. it is the role of the Government to ensure affordable medicine is available to all.

Are you suggesting the government regulate the price of drugs? Or do you mean provide assistance to poorer people with subsidies?

jh79

A cure for cancer, if even possible, would still be attractive financially for Big Pharma companies

cdoherty86

jh79 wrote: »

A cure for cancer, if even possible, would still be attractive financially for Big Pharma companies

You're not answering my previous questions so why did you really start this thread?

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Curious to hear if many believe that cancer has already been cured and that big pharma is behind a conspiracy to suppress this?

For me the conspiracy fails because a single cure is beyond our scientific capabilities and might never be found. I also think that there is no financial reason to suppress a cure, pharmaceutical industry doesn't work in the manner that the people who believe this conspiracy think.

I started this thread to see what people thought about the above.

What question do you want me to answer?

jeanrose770

Although there may be no "CURE" I do believe there are many ways to reverse the growth of the foreign cells to the point of nonexistence.
The balancing of your bodies pH is KEY.
The fact your body can heal itself is a good secret to keep.

jh79

jeanrose770 wrote: »

Although there may be no "CURE" I do believe there are many ways to reverse the growth of the foreign cells to the point of nonexistence.
The balancing of your bodies pH is KEY.
The fact your body can heal itself is a good secret to keep.

pH link is a complete myth.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/03/24/dont-believe-the-hype-10-persistent-cancer-myths-debunked/#acidic-diets

jh79

jeanrose770 wrote: »

Although there may be no "CURE" I do believe there are many ways to reverse the growth of the foreign cells to the point of nonexistence.
The balancing of your bodies pH is KEY.
The fact your body can heal itself is a good secret to keep.

Cancer cells are not foreign cells.

cdoherty86

jh79 wrote: »

I started this thread to see what people thought about the above.

What question do you want me to answer?

post #26

jh79

cdoherty86 wrote: »

This last quote suggests to me you believe pharmaceutical companies to be influenced by more than just money. What are the other reasons apart from financial?



Are you suggesting the government regulate the price of drugs? Or do you mean provide assistance to poorer people with subsidies?

To provide effective medicine to their customers.

Something along those lines

cdoherty86

Something along those lines?

You're being very ambiguous.

If you unequivocally disbelieve in the suppression of a cancer cure, there was no reason to start this thread, was there?

Unless of course you wanted to sow seeds of discord to amuse yourself.

jh79

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Something along those lines?

You're being very ambiguous.

If you unequivocally disbelieve in the suppression of a cancer cure, there was no reason to start this thread, was there?

Unless of course you wanted to sow seeds of discord to amuse yourself.

"Something along those lines" was in response to your question on whether the government should intervene to help provide medicine to the poor.

I was under the impression that boards serves as a platform to discuss topics of personal interest and seeing as this is a Conspiracy Theory forum and cancer cure conspiracies are common I was interested to see how popular a CT this is.

degrassinoel

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Something along those lines?

You're being very ambiguous.

If you unequivocally disbelieve in the suppression of a cancer cure, there was no reason to start this thread, was there?

Unless of course you wanted to sow seeds of discord to amuse yourself.

If you want debate the validity of this thread, i refer you to the feedback thread above. It's been covered already. Please don't derail this thread any further.

cdoherty86

You want opinions on why people believe a cure for cancer is being suppressed just to disprove them?

jh79

degrassinoel wrote: »

If you want debate the validity of this thread, i refer you to the feedback thread above. It's been covered already. Please don't derail this thread any further.

Different thread, no controversy with this one in Feedback.

degrassinoel

jh79 wrote: »

Different thread, no controversy with this one in Feedback.

My bad, but the same thing applies - bring it up in feedback if it's not already been addressed.

weisses

Can i suggest broadening the discussion into a more general role of big pharma suppressing or pushing cures/medicine ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Can i suggest broadening the discussion into a more general role of big pharma suppressing or pushing cures/medicine ?

Would a separate thread be better in case it descends into a kind of Big Pharma v Big Snake Oil game of Top Thrumps?

MeatProduct

It's a little cynical but I don't see how big pharma benefits from a cure for cancer over treating cancer and it's symptoms. The latter would appear to be a far greater revenue generator.

If I had to report to the shareholders of a pharma company I don't believe I'd behave any differently; have a business plan that allows us to profit from poor health while not actually curing the root cause. It's a great business model, repeat customers that are with you for a lifetime. Curing these people is bad for business, no more repeat custom.

MeatProduct

MeatProduct wrote: »

It's a little cynical but I don't see how big pharma benefits from a cure for cancer over treating cancer and it's symptoms. The latter would appear to be a far greater revenue generator.

If I had to report to the shareholders of a pharma company I don't believe I'd behave any differently; have a business plan that allows us to profit from poor health while not actually curing the root cause. It's a great business model, repeat customers that are with you for a lifetime. Curing these people is bad for business, no more repeat custom.

But this model falls apart if you don't assume that Pharma is a single entity.

If one company is producing a treatment for an illness, then another company wants to out compete the first company they need to make a treatment that works better.
The best way to out compete a company is to produce a cure rendering the competitor's treatment obsolete.

Even so, we have examples from history that don't fit with what you are saying.
Pharma companies allowed smallpox and polio to be virtually wiped out (Smallpox entirely, polio in places where their highest payers were) even though treating those diseases were very involved and costly.
On top of that they make no profit at all from them because the vaccines aren't in use either.
Why would they do this?

And what about the alternative health industry that absolutely do offer cures to things? How are they able to stay afloat with such a poor business model?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

But this model falls apart if you don't assume that Pharma is a single entity.

Would you not define any cartel as effectively "a single entity"?

jh79

Which companies are part of this cartel and what products are affected by this cartel?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Would you not define any cartel as effectively "a single entity"?

Only if it includes every single big pharma and had total control over all of them.
If one company is able to get more profit over the others, then that's what they will try to do.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Only if it includes every single big pharma and had total control over all of them.
If one company is able to get more profit over the others, then that's what they will try to do.

But that is not what a cartel is.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

But this model falls apart if you don't assume that Pharma is a single entity.

If one company is producing a treatment for an illness, then another company wants to out compete the first company they need to make a treatment that works better.
The best way to out compete a company is to produce a cure rendering the competitor's treatment obsolete.

Why would they have to out compete anyone? If they both invent an illness, they both can sell the lie and both make money from nothing.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

But that is not what a cartel is.

So then, no.
Even if an all powerful cartel exists, it would not be able to stop every company from attempting to produce a cure.
Even then, the best way for them to stop that and maintain a monoply would be to beat them to the punch and produce a cure.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why would they have to out compete anyone? If they both invent an illness, they both can sell the lie and both make money from nothing.

We are talking about cancer which is not an invented illness.
Besides that it is being suggested that these companies are exploiting illnesses that have symptoms that require expensive treatment, so a made up disease cannot work for this.
Making up an illness then curing it right away seems like a very bad business plan.

So why do you think Big Pharma allowed smallpox and polio to be effectively wiped out?
How, if providing a cure is a poor business model, does alternative health industry do so well?

Rotunda Shill

Nigella Satvia Black Seed oil has been quite well documented for curing cancers.

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjmbr/v40n6/6124

http://www.medicinabiomolecular.com.br/biblioteca/pdfs/Cancer/ca-2404.pdf

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/16-more-reasons-black-seed-is-the-remedy-for-everything-but-death/