Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Originally posted by Azp420
Treating cancer and chemo/radiation therapy is BIG business. Curing cancer or having people cure their own cancer is not. Their is a mass of
scientific studies that show huge potentials and cancer curing in animals but because they use natural products which can't be patented, even if the
pharmas wanted a cure (they don't), there is no funding to take it much further.
You don't think there's a business in curing cancer, when one-third of the population will suffer from some form of it? You don't think a pharma
company could patent a cure and sell it for $100,000 a shot? Or maybe they would find a cure and then dilute it into a month-long treatment plan, a
shortened version of chemo or something of the sort?
Why would a company NOT want to be known as "the company that cured cancer"? You didn't see Pfizer balk at the chance to reduce HPV and cervical
cancer, did you?
Not to mention the fact that cannabis (Rick Simpson's hemp oil really does work) remains illegal and is being kept illegal with funding not
only coming from tobacco and alcohol companies but pharma companies too. Rick Simpson has taken masses of evidence and cases to the Canadian cancer
foundation and they don't want to know him. No body in the industry is interested in a cure because it would cost a lot of jobs and a lot of money
and sadly it is money that makes the world go round.
So...why are cancer rates not dramatically lower where hemp is legal?
The typical person believes whatever the MSM tells him to believe, therefore this is the only source of information that really needs to be
controlled. Hundreds of small websites are barely a drop in the ocean compared with the power of the MSM. It is human nature to ridicule those with
beliefs that vastly differ from the beliefs of the majority. If you walk up to the average person and inform them that an alternative cure for cancer
exists and has been known about for some time they will think you are mad.
They'll probably think you're mad because there is no data, no evidence, not patient population, and no logic behind such cures. I would react
similarly if a colleague of mine claimed to have cured cancer, but told me, "Erm, well, I don't have any data because, um...the government! The
government is taking all my data and they won't let me show anyone...but you have to believe me!"
Their mind will not even allow them to seriously consider the possibility of what you said being true because the mind is designed to reinforce
its existing beliefs and filter/disregard/discredit any (even credible) information that contradicts those beliefs. It is far easier to control the
masses than most people think. TV just does everyone's thinking for them.
Ah, right, I forgot. YOU have a "special" mind, and the rest of us are just "sheeple".
You are proving how complete and effective the brainwash is. If there is a cure, and it comes from a plant you can grow in your backyard, then, NO,
they cannot patent it and charge $100,000 a shot. THAT is the big problem, in their eyes. That is ALL they care about.
And thinking the govt is not involved in drug testing? When all the drugs are made from.....petrochemicals. The oil companies ARE the drug
companies. The oil companies ARE the govt. The govt IS the media. The testing is funded BY the drug companies. How could you possibly believe they
are at all telling the truth about anything?
The "well documented" BS that you seem to back up, is chemotherapy. Apparently, according to these independent tests you seem to believe in, the
ONLY acceptable treatment for cancer is chemo. A process where they flood your body with virulent poison, and zap you with loads of radiation as
well, the two main things that CAUSE cancer. How is it possible that anyone in their right mind would even consider for a second that something like
that might even work? It's pretty much the stupidest thing possible.
It's probably time to examine the success rate of chemotherapy that has been used for so many decades. What is the success rate of chemotherapy as
used by oncologists?
An important paper has been published in the journal Clinical Oncology addresses exactly this question. This meta-analysis, entitled "The
Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies" set out to accurately quantify and assess the actual benefit
conferred by chemotherapy in the treatment of adults with the commonest types of cancer.
All three of the paper's authors are oncologists. Lead author Associate Professor Graeme Morgan is a radiation oncologist at Royal North Shore
Hospital in Sydney; Professor Robyn Ward is a medical oncologist at University of New South Wales/St. Vincent's Hospital. The third author, Dr.
Michael Barton, is a radiation oncologist and a member of the Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Liverpool Health Service,
Sydney. Prof. Ward is also a member of the Therapeutic Goods Authority of the Australian Federal Department of Health and Aging, the official body
that advises the Australian government on the suitability and efficacy of drugs to be listed on the national Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (PBS)
– roughly the equivalent of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Their meticulous study was based on an analysis of the results of all the randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) performed in Australia and the
US that reported a statistically significant increase in 5-year survival due to the use of chemotherapy in adult malignancies. Survival data were
drawn from the Australian cancer registries and the US National Cancer Institute's Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry spanning
the period January 1990 until January 2004. Wherever data were uncertain, the authors deliberately erred on the side of over-estimating the benefit of
Even so, the study concluded that overall, chemotherapy contributes just over 2 percent to improved survival in cancer patients!Yet, despite the
mounting evidence of chemotherapy's lack of effectiveness in prolonging survival, oncologists continue to present chemotherapy as a rational and
promising approach to cancer treatment.
Give me a break!! NINETY EIGHT PERCENT FAILURE RATE is somehow an effective treatment?