L M C Posted March 3, 2015 Author Share Posted March 3, 2015 If the cure for cancer was simple and cheap/free you can bet the "UK government" would be all over it like a rash for the savings available. Billions. time lost from work savings, family care savings, cancer research savings, cancer drug savings, cancer care savings &c. But unfortunately "cancer" is not one disease, thus it does not have one cure, and it's causes are complex and manifold. I take it you have, or have had, some form of cancer yourself? I don't have, and haven't had Cancer, but a very close relative of mine is living with Cancer:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Someone, Somewhere must know of the CURE Why? Why must there be a cure? Why must someone have discovered it and be hiding it? Why don't you realise that cancer isn't even a single thing? It's a multitude of different mutations, they all behave differently, spread differently and need different treatments. ---------- Post added 03-03-2015 at 23:07 ---------- What a bitter and sour reaction?? Nobody has ever claimed a 100% source. Could we not assume its part of the 20% remainder? I have total and utter respect for all people afflicted by this horrid disease, and whatever reasons you have for the disassociation of the promotion of research is beyond me, as you seem to be in the position where research is exactly what you should be championing, just as I do. You don't need sympathy. You need a voice that is louder than your own. And that is what I and many thousands of others are involved with. And without research, the prognosis is hardly great, is it? Nobody (except you) has claimed an 80% source either. Cancer is a mutation of a cell in the body causing it to replicate instead of self terminate. The cause of these mutations are numerous, and mostly impossible for us to eliminate, for example cosmic rays, or other naturally occuring ionizing radiation. Treating the problem when it occurs is much more possible, but there are numerous forms of cancer and different treatments for every one. Nobody is one day going to have a eureka moment and discover a cure for all cancers. The death rates for many cancers is already falling quite rapidly, the key in most cases is early detection. ---------- Post added 03-03-2015 at 23:09 ---------- But the NHS are pumping terminally ill patients with Chemotherapy which is TOXIC:( ---------- Post added 27-02-2015 at 21:10 ---------- The NHS are pumping Chemotherapy into Terminally Ill patients THAT'S TOXIC:huh: Yes, it's toxic in that it kills cells. That's the basis for many cancer treatments, stop the cancer replicating, unfortunately it's very hard to target drugs to one type of cell and not affect many others, although there's lots of research going on into how this might be done. ---------- Post added 03-03-2015 at 23:10 ---------- Rhubarb..... It's as likely to be a cure as hemp oil is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Why? Why must there be a cure? Why must someone have discovered it and be hiding it? Why don't you realise that cancer isn't even a single thing? It's a multitude of different mutations, they all behave differently, spread differently and need different treatments. ---------- Post added 03-03-2015 at 23:07 ---------- Nobody (except you) has claimed an 80% source either. Cancer is a mutation of a cell in the body causing it to replicate instead of self terminate. The cause of these mutations are numerous, and mostly impossible for us to eliminate, for example cosmic rays, or other naturally occuring ionizing radiation. Treating the problem when it occurs is much more possible, but there are numerous forms of cancer and different treatments for every one. Nobody is one day going to have a eureka moment and discover a cure for all cancers. The death rates for many cancers is already falling quite rapidly, the key in most cases is early detection. (my bold) but actually, according to the woefully flawed and useless poll that k4d has placed at the top of this thread, either cancer ( non specific, generic "cancer") is either 100% curable, or it's 100% not, theres apparrently no middle ground of " well, 'specific cancer x' is curable, if it is caught before point 'y'...". It is pointless, as others have corrected k4d many times throughout this thread, we cannot wave a generic term, " cancer" about, and declare it "curable" or "non-curable". Different cancers have different triggers, and different prognoses, and different treatment regimens. Leukaemia in children, when i was a child, and my little playmate was taken ill and died with it, aged just four, was pretty much a death sentence. 90% of children with it did not survive it. Today 40-odd years later, the odds are much, much better, and now, 90% of children who get it actually survive it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) So a terminally ill patient is expected to take unlicensed and untested drugs which may kill them earlier than the disease would kill them? Have you not read that some trials of this drug have been stopped because of safety issues? No. But, in a sane world, a terminally ill patient of sound mind should have the right to sign a legal document stating that they are aware the drug is not tested, not approved by the orthodox medical establishment, that they wish to take it nevertheless, and, not be prevented from doing so. ---------- Post added 04-03-2015 at 09:50 ---------- If the cure for cancer was simple and cheap/free you can bet the "UK government" would be all over it like a rash for the savings available. If there were savings available, the govt wouldn't necessarily go for it- think of the proven savings available from legalising drugs (no profits going to criminals, virtual elimination of drug crimes and the associated expenses, far less overdoses (due to the drugs being regulated and of fixed quality) etc, etc; yet they still remain illegal. If the cure for cancer was simple and cheap/free you can bet the "UK government" would be all over it like a rash for the savings available. Billions. time lost from work savings, family care savings, cancer research savings, cancer drug savings, cancer care savings &c. But unfortunately "cancer" is not one disease, thus it does not have one cure, and it's causes are complex and manifold. The cancer industry is very, very, very profitable. Some very powerfull companies earn billions from the fact that lots of people get cancer, those companies have a lot of political influence, and, it is most definitly not in their interest that people do not get cancer. Politically, those profits that would be lost if cancer was eliminated, offset the savings. The orthodox approach to cancer relies on surgery and chemo/radio therapy, despite a lack of actual evidence that they are effective: and, ruthlessly shuts down pretty much any alternatives. Edited March 4, 2015 by onewheeldave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 The CURE is not legal in the UK The CURE is legal in Wales The CURE is called Hemp Oil LOL!!! You dribbler :hihi::hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 There's an awful lot of evidence about the effectiveness of surgery, chemo and radio therapy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) A lot of the stats given to patients regarding chemotherapy are deliberately skewed to make it seem considerably more effective than it actually is i.e. by using stats based on 'relative risk'. Often survival rates for those on chemo vs those not on it, can be 1 or 2% in terms of absolute risk- that exact same date when translated into relative risk (as is usually the case when it's communicated to actual patients) could be 50% http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/21/23/4263.long &, from http://www.icnr.com/articles/ischemotherapyeffective.html How is it possible that patients are routinely offered chemotherapy when the benefits to be gained by such an approach are generally so small? In their discussion, the authors address this crucial question and cite the tendency on the part of the medical profession to present the benefits of chemotherapy in statistical terms that, while technically accurate, are seldom clearly understood by patients. For example, oncologists frequently express the benefits of chemotherapy in terms of what is called "relative risk" rather than giving a straight assessment of the likely impact on overall survival. Relative risk is a statistical means of expressing the benefit of receiving a medical intervention in a way that, while technically accurate, has the effect of making the intervention look considerably more beneficial than it truly is. If receiving a treatment causes a patient's risk to drop from 4 percent to 2 percent, this can be expressed as a decrease in relative risk of 50 percent. On face value that sounds good. But another, equally valid way of expressing this is to say that it offers a 2 percent reduction in absolute risk, which is less likely to convince patients to take the treatment. Edited March 4, 2015 by onewheeldave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 So what are you trying to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 So what are you trying to say? That some people don't understand maths ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 That some people don't understand maths ? Well yes, but I'm wondering how it relates to the original point of the thread?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now