reply to post by hypervalentiodine
You are most correct. You are becoming repetitive. Not to mention there is something wrong with your English comprehension skills. What part of
"Five-year age-standardised relative survival rates for the most common cancers in men and women diagnosed during 2000-2001 are shown in Figure
1.1." do you not understand? Now I know you are being deliberately misleading yourself. Rather pathetic don't you think?
Oh I am not preaching to the public. I see very few people following pr commenting on this thread so fail to see how you arrive at that conclusion. I
am not forcing people to believe what I say, merely presenting some alternative information that "science" chooses to ignore. Its all available
information out there on the interwebz.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree, no?
I am not here to serve you up links and research on a dish. Mine was done some time ago so I have not got a nice handy list to hand but something
tells me Cancer Research, or rather the results it has obtained so far, world wide, is not really much to crow about.
See, thats an opinion. Based upon facts and things I have seen, mission statements, yearly reports, etc. You can disagree with my opinion, as I can do
with yours.
I am not interested in your explanations of how you think science works. I think its quite obvious how science works and that they are the ones who
get to choose which research is done and which research isn't. For my part, they can scrap all animal based testing.
I will leave you now, with one last wikipedia quote about Cancer Research. Here's your "science":
Source
Issues Newsweek magazine published an article criticising the use of lab rats on cancer research because even though researchers frequently manage to
cure lab mice transplanted with human tumors, few of those achievements are relevant to humanity.[14] Oncologist Paul Bunn, from the International
Association for the Study of Lung Cancer[15] said: "We put a human tumor under the mouse's skin, and that microenvironment doesn't reflect a
person's—the blood vessels, inflammatory cells or cells of the immune system".[14] Fran Visco founder of the National Breast Cancer Coalition
completed:"We cure cancer in animals all the time, but not in people."[14] [edit] Funding Some methods, like Dichloroacetate[9] and Coley's
Toxins, cannot be patented and thus would not garner the investment interest towards research from the pharmaceutical industry. Many claim that this
is why such research is often slow moving, as it lacks funding from pharmaceutical companies. [edit] Innovation The organizational behavior of the
large institutions and corporations that research cancer, may unduly favor low-risk research into small incremental advancements, over innovative
research that might discover radically new and dramatically improved therapy.[16][17] Breakthrough-ideas are frequently scoffed at by the powers that
be.
Now lets just examine this publicly available information for a moment....
Animal testing is largely pointless, we can cure it in animals but not in people? Wow!
Ah yes, the old patent argument. Not enough financial interest. But wait, weren't we donating something like 400 million pounds of our own money
there?
And that last paragraph needs no commentary I think.
So basically what we have is a corporation that ignores public wishes, researches the things that it wants to while ignoring some of the more
ground-breaking research and gets paid for doing so, while hoping to discover that one magic drug, compound or virus that will earn them bucketloads
of cash. Well, thats just great! Now, where is the real health care in all this?
And seeing as how you can't even read the information presented, I will converse with you no more. I wish you well.
