why alternative Cancer Cures is suppressed

I wonder why all forms of cancer cures other than chemoterapy, radiation, surgery, gene therapy, and Nanoparticle is suppressed?

They aren't suppressed. The "alternative therapies" aren't effective, thus they aren't used.

There are many, many nations in the world who aren't under the same financial influence America is when it comes to the pharmaceutical companies. If a cheap, effective treatment were viable, they would have been using it already.

Some of them are effective and within 1 too 5 years cancer will soon be a thing of the past. All these chemo people will be looked upon like bleeders of the past. Blushwood shrub berries and bakeing soda seems very likely cures. Fungus can grow anywhere it`s growing conditions are met. Big profits and money will try too discreadit or try too make a law to stop it`s use with their bought off politicians. get the word out lol

There are some natural herbs that contain active ingredients that can help reduce cancer cells and other stuff. However these herbs are now illegal as they are now the property of big business. You cannot grow them yourself or sell them as you be done under the drugs act.

I had a good friend who was a pathologist/toxicologist, was the good laboratory practices czar for Bristol Meyers Squibb, later ran his own drug testing laboratory and did long term studies for every major drug company.
He told me in his later years that he ascribed the bulk of the health problems he ever had to "allopathic medicine". When he was diagnosed with cancer and given 6 months to live almost 20 years ago he told his oncologist who wanted him to start some chemo-therapy drug "I tested that stuff and saw what it did to animals, if you think you are going to use it on me you are crazy". He cured the cancer with megadose IV sodium ascorbate (vitamin C) 50 grams a day for two weeks. He told me a lump the size of a golf ball on his neck went away and skin cancers turned white, dried up and fell off. He was a "Big-Pharma" insider and became a proponent of natural and alternative therapies. He told me that any treatment for any disease that does not have the possibility of big money for the pharmaceutical industry will be suppressed and labeled quackery no matter how safe and effective it is.

My grandfather had cancer, and, naturally, the recommendation was for chemo-therapy. Let's just say that it wasn't the cancer that killed him...

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
They aren't suppressed. The "alternative therapies" aren't effective, thus they aren't used.

There are many, many nations in the world who aren't under the same financial influence America is when it comes to the pharmaceutical companies. If a cheap, effective treatment were viable, they would have been using it already.

See, the above poster fails to realize that many have, in fact, "cured" their cancer via diet and alternative "quackery". Saying "it is not effective" is ludicrous as many who educated themselves are still breathing. It isn't effective because the AMA and media are blowing their trumpets.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by SmokeandShadow]

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
They aren't suppressed. The "alternative therapies" aren't effective, thus they aren't used.

There are many, many nations in the world who aren't under the same financial influence America is when it comes to the pharmaceutical companies. If a cheap, effective treatment were viable, they would have been using it already.

How about DCA??
thedcasite.com...

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
They aren't suppressed. The "alternative therapies" aren't effective, thus they aren't used.

There are many, many nations in the world who aren't under the same financial influence America is when it comes to the pharmaceutical companies. If a cheap, effective treatment were viable, they would have been using it already.

Not all "alternative therapies" ineffective but sometimes Chemoterapy and radiation are too invasive to our bodies

Originally posted by masonicon
I wonder why all forms of cancer cures other than chemoterapy, radiation, surgery, gene therapy, and Nanoparticle is suppressed?

My partner had seven year all clear last week.
Was diagnosed by imaging, biopsy and bone marrow for Non-hodgkins lymphoma seven years ago...
...continued medical evaluation with no Pharmacuetical intervention.

So it can be done but medical staff don't want to know how you did it.
If they stray outside protocols they find it hard to get another job.
So they encourage you to 'keep doing what you are doing' but don't want to know what it is.

reply to post by masonicon


G’day masonicon

Brachytherapy hasn’t been suppressed…..

High intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) hasn’t been suppressed…..

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) hasn’t been suppressed…..

Irreversible electroporation (IRE) hasn’t been suppressed…..

Photodynamic therapy hasn’t been suppressed…..

Need I go on?

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

Originally posted by masonicon
I wonder why all forms of cancer cures other than chemoterapy, radiation, surgery, gene therapy, and Nanoparticle is suppressed?

Because they do not work - what makes you think that they are suppressed? Where are the double blind peer reviewed tests that show that they do work?

reply to post by dereks


Yeah right, like baking soda etc would ever get the funding to be peer reviewed. It's really a sad state of affairs, that money is determining whether things can be "approved". But I would like for you to show me that "AIDS Medicine" works - now please direct me to a double blind peer review of all those ARV's that were ALL approved within 3 month of application? - Now go back and point me in the right direction of double blind peer review of VIOXX.
Oh yeah I forget - there's none...

And maybe those PEER REVIEWS are not that great either...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.bloomberg.com...

so much for peer reviews...



[edit on 8-2-2010 by Angeldust1199]

Originally posted by masonicon
I wonder why all forms of cancer cures other than chemoterapy, radiation, surgery, gene therapy, and Nanoparticle is suppressed?

Shall I spell it for you? M-O-N-E-Y. B-i-g-P-h-a-r-m-a-c-y. I would submit that every sickness known to man is curable, but if every sick person was not sick anymore, that source of income would dry up overnight.

reply to post by Angeldust1199


Angeldust1199, may I remind you of Scott Reuben.

The anaesthesiologist who got caught fabricating more than 15 studies with fake data.

One of those studies concerns Vioxx.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by jjjtir]

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by masonicon
I wonder why all forms of cancer cures other than chemoterapy, radiation, surgery, gene therapy, and Nanoparticle is suppressed?

Because they do not work - what makes you think that they are suppressed? Where are the double blind peer reviewed tests that show that they do work?

Cause you know there is plenty of honest money floating around to test alternatives....right? No, the mouths of saved lives matter nothing next to the priesthood of the establishment. Its much like "the bible tells me so".

[edit on 8-2-2010 by SmokeandShadow]

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by masonicon
I wonder why all forms of cancer cures other than chemoterapy, radiation, surgery, gene therapy, and Nanoparticle is suppressed?

Shall I spell it for you? M-O-N-E-Y. B-i-g-P-h-a-r-m-a-c-y. I would submit that every sickness known to man is curable, but if every sick person was not sick anymore, that source of income would dry up overnight.

If you have a stool with three legs...
...which leg is holding up the stool?

Here are the three legs...
1. Big Pharma filling demand and satisfying shareholders.
2. Big Medical protocols and doctors with no time.
3. Big patient base demanding instant cures and too stupid to know any different.

These all conspire to keep the system going....
...which one do you blame?

Like Chris Rock said in his comedy special Bring the Pain" there's no money in the cure. The money's in the medicine."

I had Brain surgery to remove a Brain tumour in 2002
My radiotherapy was done in 2002 along with my first Chemotherapy. I had 6 weeks of daily Radiotherapy sessions to my Brain. this was followed by 10 months of Chemotherapy.
Tumour returned in 2007 more aggressive. This was followed by 6 months chemotherapy.

2010 still hear. I suffer now from problems caused by the radiotherapy done 8 years ago. It is still damaging part of my brain and have to take a number of drugs to deal with the changes.

I dont think any of the therapies I have recieve were intended to cure me, but to keep me alive as long as possible. My original prognosis back in 2002 was 3 years. So the these brutal therapies have kept me alive and well.

I'm sure there must be a cure for this disease, but the profits the drug companies make in tried and tested drugs, that keep people alive rather than curing them are far more profitable.

Some one with the patience out there in internet land should start saving every article there is about new treatments. Do that for the next 25 years and then look through those to see what the common denominator is. Maybe then you could solve the elusive cancer cure that researchers will be trying to find for eternity.