The Great Cancer Hoax - There's Been a Cure Since 1977

LOL ... No, I do not have a CT Scan in my home ... LOL ... but the facility about 15-minutes away from my home does. So, I was tested there and then I have an annual Thermography for the past few years. My (mainstream) primary-care doctor agreed Thermography is the best method for detecting the type of cancer I had (breast cancer) ... and a few other types of cancers as well. I wasn't doubting my primary-care doctor or the Oncologist about the Thermograhy's effectiveness, but nevertheless I still researched this and I happened to believe it.

Thermography ($300 - $350) takes about 20-minutes and was not covered by my insurance, while the CT scan, ultrasound, blood-work, and other tests were all covered. I was going to have a PET, but then I never did, nor did I look into it, so I don't know much about PET. While it may, or may not be true, I happen to believe the Thermography is ideal for detecting and testing for breast cancer and other cancers, although not all cancers, such as pancreatic. All of my yearly Thermography reports were clean ... plus ALL of the nasty, awful, horrid symptoms I suffered from were gone -- completely gone and I looked and felt better after completing my program and I was no longer fatigued.

Thermography is not an effective tool for detecting all cancers, such as pancreatic for one, as I mentioned, but it is very effective for many types of cancers -- you just have to ask around and thoroughly research it. But, I had breast cancer and after all of the previous mammograms and ultrasounds, it was decided that Thermography was the most effective tool (for me) for determining if the breast cancer was gone, or if it spread or if it had returned. Sometimes, what works for one person may not work for another.

I also repeat the 30-day program regularly, and on schedule. I am by no means cured 'for life' -- forever and ever -- it is possible the cancer can return, but I don't think that is likely given my determination. I am aware if it returns and it's a cancer that Thermography does not detect, I could be screwed ... so I also have either a CT or MRI as well. I also do have to repeat the 30-day program yearly, sometimes every 18 months, if I push it. It just has not returned in the past few years since my first diagnosis. I also made many positive lifestyle changes.

"The health of a nation's citizens should not be a for profit industry. Otherwise food, insurance and pharmaceutical companies conspire to create an atmosphere that promotes sickness rather then wellness, all to grow their bottom lines and produce profits for the shareholders".

Originally posted by Jana12

My (mainstream) primary-care doctor agreed Thermography is the best method for detecting the type of cancer I had (breast cancer) ... and a few other types of cancers as well. I wasn't doubting my primary-care doctor or the Oncologist about the Thermograhy's effectiveness, but nevertheless I still researched this and I happened to believe it.

Really?

Less than 50% of breast cancers detected by mammography screening have an abnormal thermogram (Martin 1983).

Source

In other words, mammography detects more than twice the breast cancers detected by thermography.

I would hate to think you might be putting yourself at risk of letting a recurrence go undetected.

Originally posted by Ayjay

Originally posted by blackrain17
Cancer research is highly regulated and the gatekeepers are gonna keep it that way. I trust this guy way more than a shill like you.

Dr. James Watson on Cancer Research...

In your linked article, Watson said:

"We're terribly held back on clinical tests by regulations which say that no one should die unnecessarily during trials; but they are going to die anyway unless we do something radical. I think the ethics committees are out of control and that it should be put back in the hands of the doctors. There is an extraordinary amount of red tape which is slowing us down. We could go five times faster without these committees."

...which I read as, "Cancer patients are going to die anyway, so why are we bothering to be safe and careful with them when we could have unrestricted access to them as guinea pigs?"

You said you trust this guy. Do you share his lack of respect for patients' safety?

It's obvious you have no scientific background or else you wouldn't mock great minds such as Dr. Watson or Linus Pauling. Even a systematic shill like VneZonyDostupa wouldn't dare to say anything bad about them...

Anyway, do not put words in Dr. Watson's mouth. He is basically saying the current system has failed and it will continuously fail until we come up with a better treatment, an actual "CURE". Chemotherapy and radiation isn't a cure, when are people gonna realize this? Even you said it yourself, you've lost several loved ones within this year. If there is a cure that actually worked, they would be alive today. Do not misinterpret what he's saying as having lack of respect for patients' safety, he is on your side more so than the government organizations that are on the big Pharma's side.

He truly believes that there are better treatments out there but the system won't let that happen. Of course, he isn't going to straight out accuse our government of doing such acts but he's been in this game for many decades and he knows how things are run. So don't think for a second that our government cares more for the cancer patients' safeties rather than their own pockets. The system is set so the current treatments (which isn't a cure) will be around for many years. He is just expressing his frustrations that there isn't a cure by now, all because of politics, bottom line for profit.

If you have time watch OP's video.

Originally posted by Jana12
"The health of a nation's citizens should not be a for profit industry. Otherwise food, insurance and pharmaceutical companies conspire to create an atmosphere that promotes sickness rather then wellness, all to grow their bottom lines and produce profits for the shareholders".

That has always seemed very obvious to me.

Thinking any corporation cares about you is a mental illness.

Originally posted by Ayjay

Originally posted by blackrain17
reply to post by Ayjay

 

LOL... Let me see your credentials?

I've lost two family members to cancer in the past eight weeks, a third in the past six months, and am following the remissions of four others. I daresay I've seen the inside of more cancer wards in this past year than you.

For a guy that should know how current treatments are not up to par, sure is defending it quite well. If you don't want change keep advocating about Chemo and Radiation but don't complain about your family members passing.

Originally posted by blackrain17
It's obvious you have no scientific background or else you wouldn't mock great minds such as Dr. Watson or Linus Pauling. Even a systematic shill like VneZonyDostupa wouldn't dare to say anything bad about them...

Actually, I studied science at university. I've learned from the mouths of scientists and socialised with scientists. Which is how I learned that a degree and a reputation are no guarantee of infallibility.

Originally posted by blackrain17Anyway, do not put words in Dr. Watson's mouth.

Actually, I quoted him, then gave a close paraphrase. Do go reread what he actually said.

Chemotherapy and radiation isn't a cure, when are people gonna realize this? Even you said it yourself, you've lost several loved ones within this year. If there is a cure that actually worked, they would be alive today.

It didn't work for them. It has worked for the others - the remissions I mentioned. - I'm tired of your black-and-white, baby-with-the-bathwater statements. I'm sorry for you that your girlfriend ran into complications from conventional cancer therapy. It doesn't happen that way all the time.

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by Jana12
"The health of a nation's citizens should not be a for profit industry. Otherwise food, insurance and pharmaceutical companies conspire to create an atmosphere that promotes sickness rather then wellness, all to grow their bottom lines and produce profits for the shareholders".

That has always seemed very obvious to me.

Thinking any corporation cares about you is a mental illness.

Well just listen to some of the posters on here, they are defending Chemotherapy and Radiation with all the side-effects, saying it's the best treatment for cancer. Side-effects for some of these treatment is other forms of cancer. Is that ridiculous or what? Cancer is a big business, no matter how you look at it...

Originally posted by blackrain17

...don't complain about your family members passing.

Go. #. Yourself.

Originally posted by Ayjay

Actually, I studied science at university. I've learned from the mouths of scientists and socialised with scientists. Which is how I learned that a degree and a reputation are no guarantee of infallibility.

Really? What was your major and since you mock all those great minds, you must've won some awards or prizes for your great accomplishments. Why don't you share with us?

Actually, I quoted him, then gave a close paraphrase. Do go reread what he actually said.

That's your paraphrase of what you thought he said. I understood it differently and you can go reread my explanation.

It didn't work for them. It has worked for the others - the remissions I mentioned. - I'm tired of your black-and-white, baby-with-the-bathwater statements. I'm sorry for you that your girlfriend ran into complications from conventional cancer therapy. It doesn't happen that way all the time.

If there was a "real cure" we shouldn't have to gamble with our lives now do we?

Originally posted by Ayjay

Originally posted by blackrain17

...don't complain about your family members passing.

Go. #. Yourself.

Really? You should tell this to your government not me. There are better treatments out there somewhere...

A question for anyone who would like to take a stab --

Regarding cancer research/cures ... does anyone else (beside myself) think it's a bit odd that $78 Billion and 30-something years later, we still don't have a cure?

Psssst ($78 billion is not a typo -- seventy-eight billion dollars)

Originally posted by blackrain17

It's obvious you have no scientific background or else you wouldn't mock great minds such as Dr. Watson or Linus Pauling. Even a systematic shill like VneZonyDostupa wouldn't dare to say anything bad about them.

You know that Watson is an incredibly racist, sexist old coot, right? He contributed some portion of work to a single discovery, which admittedly was a big discovery, but that doesn't make him a good person. Here's a nice article about the most recent awful comment Watson made in public (which led to him losing his position at Cold Spring Harbor Labs).

"Blacks not as intelligent as whites", according to Dr. Watson

Why is it that you'll blindly follow anything Dr. Watson says without looking into who he is, but other doctors are all evil, greedy monsters?

Could it be that Dr. Watson was simply validating claims you already believe, so it was simply a matter of self-validation?

Originally posted by Jana12
A question for anyone who would like to take a stab --

Regarding cancer research/cures ... does anyone else (beside myself) think it's a bit odd that $78 Billion and 30-something years later, we still don't have a cure?

Psssst ($78 billion is not a typo -- seventy-eight billion dollars)

I don't think it's odd at all. There are hundreds of different types of cancers, all with different causes and genetic mutations. Biology and medicine aren't fields where you put X dollars in and get X data out. Experiments take time and often fail, which still teaches us about the issue being studied.

I'm sorry that you have this misconception about medical science, and I'm sorry medicine isn't advancing according to your personal schedule.

You know that Watson is an incredibly racist, sexist old coot

Character has nothing to do with competence, just like education has nothing to do with intelligence.

The real question is:

Why are large amounts of money being invested in, donated to, and spent on cancer cures and causes without any significant achievements that have been applied in practice (other than in chemo related therapy)?

Why is cancer still one of the leading causes of death even after half a century of intensive research (especially in the USA)?

cancerres.aacrjournals.org...

The answer is 200+ billion dollars. Yet not just money. The entire health care industry from universities, hospitals, physicians (oncologists), insurance, and pharmaceuticals are deeply integrated and/or vested in the treatment of cancer with chemotherapy and radiation. A change to the cancer treatment equilibrium would disrupt the entire established order of the medical field of cancer (oncology).

www.msnbc.msn.com...

A 100% cure for cancer could potentially wreck havoc on the current day health care system. Equivalent to restructuring an organization from the top down or bottom up. Changes would need to be made on every level, from updating educational courses, additional training, purchasing new equipment, manufacturing new drugs, changing insurance plans, etc., (too many to list).

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Unfortunately even if a perfect cancer cure is found tomorrow, it would still takes years to become fully integrated into the current health care system. It would not be an easy task with all the red tape that is involved.

I wish a cure can be found today, yet I think that only new cancer treatments that work in conjunction with chemotherapy or when chemotherapy is not an option will have a real chance of becoming approved for medical use. A slow introduction of new cancer treatments will not threaten the established order as much, allowing for gradual adaptation. Incorporating alternative and innovative cancer treatments is the first step in moving toward an all-inclusive cure for cancer.

www.cancer.org...

"I'm sorry medicine isn't advancing according to your personal schedule"



Apology accepted.