Cancer "research", a fraud?

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by me1, May 26, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member

    http://darrendixon.supanet.com/cancerbusiness.htm

    Is "cancer research" a fraud? Is it merely designed to produce massive profits by using highly destructive and totally useless treatments while suppressing or attacking useful, inexpensive methods?
     
  2. hammockmonkey

    hammockmonkey Well-Known Member

    i never trust websites that play shitty music.
     
  3. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member


    Would have been nice to be able to discuss the contents of the book!
     
  4. Petal

    Petal SF dreamer Staff Alumni SF Supporter

    I didn't read the link because im too tired sorry ,but I hope cancer research is not a fraud because my dad has cancer and my family including myself have raised lots of money for cancer research, he has CLL(Chronic lymphocytic leukemia) and is very ill:sad:
     
  5. This is but one of your 6 recent 'conspiracy' threads...and you're insulted/disappointed/annoyed that people couldn't be arsed? :dry:
     
  6. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member



    Well yes, i am if i am being honest. This is an important matter and i believe it needs to be discussed as it effects a great and ever increasing (despite the success!) number of people. The author of the book presents evidence in support of an argument and it is customary to refute the claims and destroy the evidence contained therein.
     
  7. smackh2o

    smackh2o SF Supporter

    Like lynn. I'm too tired to get through it i'm afraid so I dare ot give any opinion.
     
  8. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member


    I am sorry to hear about your dad, Daisy. :hug:
     
  9. I don't know much about cancer research, although I know that there are fraudulent research for other medical conditions cough...CMT...cough. Huge doses of Vitamin C as a possible cure/treatment for CMT, I don't think so. :mad:
     
  10. White Dove

    White Dove Well-Known Member

    That is simply not true. not all cancer research centers are frauds. I have cancer and i have been in a research center for cancer. I have basically been used as a lab rat for them but have recently stopped going. i got free meds and treatment but # 1 - it made me so sick and weak and # 2 it was way too far for me to drive. it was out of the state i live in and that plus not wanting to fight nor stay here so i quit.

    It went into remission for a while when i was at the research center but has not begin to get active again. so it was not a fraud and in some way helped a little except for the sickness and weakness i felt. i did not read the link but please do not assume all cancer research sites or facilities are all frauds.
     
  11. fromthatshow

    fromthatshow Staff Alumni

    I'd agree
     
  12. Anonhelp

    Anonhelp New Member

    In a way yes and no. Yes the research and fundraising is real and has provided scientist with REAL cures for many forms of cancer. However all is lost when the FAA turns it down due to many many reasons. I know I will be called a conspiracy nut but there is proof out there. It disgusts me when I see so many people trying to help their loved ones with fundraisers and wont be given a cure. If they ever decide to release the cures they will be far to expensive for the adverage person to buy. :sad:
     
  13. White Dove

    White Dove Well-Known Member

    yes it is real..

    what about the new research on toad oil ( frog oil / blood ?? ) i did not get to try it cause i think its only in china right now??? but they do prove to cure many things unfortantly i wont be around here after a few days.. to find out if it cures cancer or not
     
  14. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member


    One recent study showed chemotherapy to be useless in 96-98% of cancers. I dont know how they defined the term 'worked', in the case of the 2-4%, i am assuming it was a 'surrogate endpoint', they sought to achieve. In fact, i believe chemotherapy drugs are rated by their ability to shrink a tumour to 50% of its original size, rather than their ability to improve a patients quality or quantity of life. Hence, if a chemo-drug shrunk your tumour by half but killed you quicker than you were dying anyway, it would still be considered 'successful'. Crazy, but welcome to the wacky world of 'evidence-based medicine'. The evidence while not dishonest in the sense that it is factual, is dishonest in the reality that it is misleading.

    An analysis conducted by the then world's leading cancer statistician, in the nineteen-seventies, found that the untreated were outliving those treated with chemo/radiotherapy and surgical treatments. No studies have been conducted since to refute this position. Ask anyone connected with these treatments if it is still the case and they will predictably tell you, without evidence, that it is not and probably laugh...nervously in many cases, if they recognise that you are on to them and cannot be fobbed off with comforting yet insupportable soundbites.

    Over the years various methods have been invented to give the illusion of great strides being made. One is to diagnose 'questionable grades of malignancy' as 'cancer', i.e. many people are being diagnosed with cancer who have nothing more than a benign (non-malignant) lump. The upshot of this is that those people live long enough, post treatment, to be considered evidence of 'cure'.

    A person is generally considered 'cured' by orthodox definition if they show the 'apparent cessation of cancer symptoms for five years'. Meaning that if they die post the five-year period they remain 'cured', and the watering down of the definition with the qualifier 'apparent' means that they needn't -actually- be free of cancer or its accompanying symptoms at all, even during that period of five years.

    That 50% of those people that pass through the five-year survival period can be misdiagnosed is also helpful for those that formulate the statistics and take great pleasure in telling the public of their wonderful 'achievements'.

    Trust me, it is a hoax.
     
  15. hammockmonkey

    hammockmonkey Well-Known Member

  16. Random

    Random Well-Known Member

    No. I don't think it's a fraud in the way you mean it. But I think medical care (at least in the US) is mindlessly overpriced. If you have cancer and you can afford to pay for it, you will get the best medical care that is currently possible. If you can't afford healthcare and you get cancer, you'll probably die and nobody will give a rats ass except for the so-called "bleeding hearts" whom everybody hates because they just care too much about other people. You might die anyway even if you get care but at least you have a fighting chance.
     
  17. janie

    janie Well-Known Member

    "Cancer is, above all else, a nutritional problem. The lethal British diet of meat, dairy produce, eggs, refined carbohydrates, salt and synthetics, with token amounts of fruit, vegetables and wholewheat bread - all saturated with pesticides - is a recipe for a vast range of maladies, cancer included. 1999 will see 700,000,000 drug prescriptions dished out by British doctors: a deluge of vaccines, antibiotics, analgesics, steroids, antipyretics, anti-inflammatories... all add up to a huge onslaught on the body's immune defences."

    All i read was the first line of that paragraph and thats enuff to tell you whoever wrote those words does not know much about cancer.

    I cant claim to be an expert myself but im pretty certain "caner above all else is a nutritional problem" is bs under any context

    Alot of cancers are curently incurable.

    What therapies that exist now for those cancers that cannot be "cured" are meant to try to hold it off.

    Cancer RESEARCH itself i can say is not aimed at generating profit (I cant imagine medically trained researchers working away all their lives for the sake of of profit- there are better/faster ways to make that kind of money)

    What drug companies/other medical supply companise/media do with information from research findings may be (and usually are) aimed at profit. Its here that alot of manipultion and bad things happen. Research findings can be manipulated/presented in ways to persuade the public- the tobacco companies do it with smoking research, anti-smoking organisations do it too-exaggeratnigs things out of proportion

    And sad to say but even in published medical journals/articles research facts are presented in a slighty biased way (just so the findings can be published as an example and the research group can get further funding). This is a recognised problem and medical professionals do (or should do) read new fnindings with caution and pick out the objective message. Major and reknowned journals also screen articles so that only "good" ones are published.

    Doctors (well good ones) dont try to send out false messages- in an ideal world they would explain to the patient that every treatment has its success/failure rate and the benefit to side effect harm balance etc. and then let you as the patient make a decision as to what you want to do. This just doesnt happen with the time constraints and other factors in real life- its hard to get a lay person to understand the whole picture of medical science (something that needs years of training and experience)

    man i actually got a bit worked up over this o_O...

    basically- please dont be hatin the medical profession~, there are good and bad doctors out there just like everythnig else and the good ones are trying to help. And if it seems liek theyre not its cos they're stressed like hell or policies are crap or the hospital system is limiting, watever, I think it'd be very rare to find (even bad doctors) who intentionally screw patients over just for money i mean- its not like they're starving. Also everyone makes mistakes


    p.s. smoking is bad though btw objectively as in-puts people at increased risk of adverse outcomes for a variety of diseases- whether thats good or bad depends on what your definition of good/bad is).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2008
  18. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member

    Janie,


    No forms of cancer are 'curable' using orthodox methods, nor will they ever be. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy are carcinogenic. It is self-evident that what -causes- something cannot also be its cure.

    The orthodox definition of 'cure' differs from a real definition. Their definition is that the patient lives for five more years with the 'apparent' cessation of the symptoms associated with cancer. Not, that the patient is restored to health. Something carcinogenic, poisonous treatments could never effect.

    There is a -huge- misdiagnosis rate, one study of breast cancer, showed that 50% of the women diagnosed as 'early stage breast cancer' were wrongly diagnosed.

    Early detection, and particularly misdiagnosis enables the illusion to be created that people are 'living longer' or being 'cured', when used in addition to the phoney definition explained above.

    Orthodox treatments were examined in the nineteen-seventies and found to kill people -4 times more quickly- than if those patients suffering whatever degree of cancer, or no cancer at all, in the case of those which were misdiagnosed, would die, if they simply chose to do absolutely nothing about their situation.

    I, and many others, await peer-reviewed evidence refuting this position. Ask for it, from any of the people involved in the industry itself and all you will likely receive in response is unsupported reassuances, or ridicule and distain.
     
  19. Rachael41

    Rachael41 Well-Known Member

    I really hope its not a fraud and its done with the genuine intention to help people.

    My mum has cancer and although she doesnt have much time left, and would not benefit from cancer research, i hope its real to help others.

    I dont want other familys going through the pain im soon goin to experience.:(
     
  20. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member


    Sorry to hear about your mother :hug:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.