Cancer, research and money

I have a sister who close to 5 years ago had a major seizure; following the seizure, she was diagnosed with a stage 4 astrocytoma, a tremendously aggressive cancer with a survival rate of 3% after 5 years. following diagnosis and the run of the mill radiation and chemo, my brother and I did some research into alternative medicine and got her taking all sorts of things, specifically vitamin b17, in the form of apricot seeds, and a diet of plenty of berries, low sugar, no glucose, etc

5 years later, thank God, she's been healthy, each MRI showing no growth in the tumor. My question is, is she one of the very few who go beyond the 5 year rate (bearing in mind that she hasn't had any chemo in 5 years) or, has her reliance on alternative medicine controlled the tumor in a way that modern science has failed to accomplish?

The title of this thread weaves 3 things together, cancer, research, and money. Now, what does the generic term research and money have to do with cancer? First, the cancer industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, providing thousands of jobs to people in fields ranging from pharmaceuticals to research to management. Second, a great deal of modern brain research is implicitly connected with cancer research, meaning, the problem of cancer provides a catalyst towards brain research.

I hate conspirizing. But one can't help but wonder if the temptation of money and knowledge spurs the leaders that be in medicine to hold back knowledge of cancer cure in order to advance the field if neuroscience forward. The existence of problems force solutions. If taking a seed really did work better than chemo or radiation, Imagine how much less money would be channeled into NIH, foundations and universities working on a cure? It's not that I think they are "evil", or hopelessly money hungry; i think people naive to overemphasized the temptation of money. Rather, I think it is knowledge, specifically at the cellar and subcellular level, primarily in the brain, that inhibits or hamstrings a more accepting attitude towards more simple solutions.

It's really awesome your sister made it past the 5 year mark!
But I've always believed there is too much money in cancer for them to find a 'cure'
There are so many other ways to treat it, the B17 being one of the main one's. Cancer can only thrive in an acidic body, so remove the acidity and your already on the way to stalling/healing it

Glad to hear your sisters ok. It's maddening, isn't it?

I do believe cancer is a trillion dollar industry and the search for the cure is a multi-billion dollar industry.

There are many natural cures, none FDA approved, some made to be against the law to even possess!

Deny ignorance, indeed!

Friend of mine got cancer in high school. Went for treatment for 2 years, went into remission for 10. It came back, went for regular treatment again, been in remission for about 15 years now.

Never went the route of "alternative" treatments.

But here is a story, I'm involved in personally, and it was standard treatment that saved them.

If we took every "I think my friend is alive cause they ate _____ organic ____ extract." then jeez, science might have to rewrite itself.

Another person I know is battling cancer right now, and after giving them 3 months to live, doctors have managed to keep them kicking over 2 years now.

-

Yes, treating is more profitable in some sense than something that cleared it up overnight, BUT, keep in mind not all companies have treatment. Some have no cancer treatments, yet still to R&D. Either they want to market a treatment, or be the first with a cure.

There are "treatments" out there that effectively cure certain types of cancer. And, the company that sells that cure, or -effective treatment- guess what? Rakes in all the market share for that type of cancer. No one wants the treatment that, kinda works okay, but not as good as the other guy's, with, rates of success not so good compared to company "B".

If you have a treatment regimen, but my company makes a cure. NEWSFLASH. You are out of business, I'm rich.

I win, you lose.

Simple as that.

Cures are a lot more profitable than you might think.

I'm not saying natural health regimens have no value at all. In fact, most drugs are developed from naturally occurring herbs, fungi, etc that are used in traditional treatments, usually prescribed for the same condition the drugs end up treating.

I will also say that yes, entirely impossible Pharma companies will go to great lengths to ensure their patented drugs will get used over the natural health products.

But the most important thing to remember with this industry, is that it's not cut and dry.

Big Pharma is not always trying to slowly kill you while taking your cash, and natural health industrialists are not always trying cure you, bring peace love and harmony to all, while not asking for money either.

First of all, I think it is awesome that you have supported your sister like you did.

Of course the school medicine approach has to be done, but I would look for anything else that might help as well.

There is one thing that medicine does acknowledge though. And that is the power to self heal, also ties in into the placebo effect or the so called broken heart syndrom.

If your mind has lost the will to live, your body will soon follow.

That does not mean that we can cure anything just by wanting it. But that DOES mean that wanting to live and actively fighting that thing in your heart and mind CAN make a difference.

I think we still have a lot to learn about the powers of our own bodies.

Back on topic, I hope that your sister will live a long and happy live!

reply to post by boncho


A cure is a one time solution, and although it might rake in immediate profits, long term, treatment would be far more profitable because it keeps the problem alive around longer.

But again, I think there might be other reasons, such as brain research itself, that might be forestalling interest in alternative cancer treatments. As mentioned, an enormous amount of brain research into the infinitesimal structure of the brain - into glia, specifically, and it's complicated molecular processes, occurs primarily through the money provided by cancer research. If cancer were cured, where would the money for this research come from? Where would the impetus for this research come from? I think this deserves consideration. We don't yet know how the brain functions, yet science inexorably and lustfully charges forward, seeking a deeper and more thorough knowledge of this most complicated and mysterious of human organs, the brain.

It takes more than money to bribe scientists and doctors. If they cared much about it, they would have chosen a different field to work in. Rather, research, knowledge, is their treasure. And the existence of cancer provides both a reason and a means towards more thoroughly understanding the human brain. So, perhaps different people are motivated by different reasons; the pharmaceutical execs certainly have incentive to prefer treatment to cure, as treatment is more lucrative. Scientists on the other hand could be reasonably persuaded that the problem of cancer provides the antithesis of a hegelian dialectic which charges science towards a greater understanding of the brain. It's sad to think, no doubt, that they could ignore the suffering of millions of people; its also disarming to think that the logic of capitalism not only spurs technological growth, but also serves to persuade scientists that money and funds simply wouldn't be there if cancer were cured.

This is just a thought. I am elated that my sister is doing well, yet of course my mind runs sometimes in thinking. So many nights I worry about her, I recall our childhood memories, our being so close. I want her to live to 80+, have children, watch them grow up.

Thankyou to everyone for the kind words.

reply to post by Nightaudit


The power of the mind is incredible, and yes, I don't think we yet have an inkling of how far down the rabbit hole it ultimately goes. Nevertheless, research into neuroplasticity has shown how much thinking can change the structure and use of the brain. Certainly, faith in the absolute, unconditional source of being opens the mind and body to a realm of possibilities inaccessible to the strict determinist who let's himself be straddled by the limits of "science" and it's predictions.

One ultimately wonders how consciousness heals the body. Of course, a simple answer such as "a positive outlook produces chemicals which support optimal bodily functioning", but I wonder if it is deeper than that. Are new cells created when one trusts and truly believes that he will be healthy? And what about the collective human consciousness? What does the interaction of millions/billions of minds effect? Does public opinion have effects deeper than merely influencing our likes and dislikes? Or are we organically tied to one another at some quantum level of being? Both enabling and limiting what becomes physically possible through mental effort?

reply to post by dontreally

A cure is a one time solution, and although it might rake in immediate profits, long term, treatment would be far more profitable because it keeps the problem alive around longer.

"Cure" seems a little subjective to me, if I catch the clap and I take antibiotics to rid myself of the infection, that is considered a cure no? But, doesn't mean I can't come down with it again. In fact, the same strain can infect you if your partner isn't treated. And, now there are super strains going around that can't be cured...

If someone rids themselves of cancer with standard treatment, were they "cured"?

In any case, people like yourself that spout the whole "there's no profits in cures!" speeches, always seem very limited in their understanding of business.

I had a friend, CEO of a biotech company, working on a new treatment for a very, very specific type of cancer. He has clinics in South America but was in the process for clinical trials to get into the states. His treatment would effectively "cure" a high number of people with this very, very specific type of cancer.

It slips my mind because we haven't chatted in over two years now.

Mind you, one of the problems with declaring a "cure" for cancer, is that it's nearly impossible to find a be all, end all treatment. Some people react well, some not at all, and some negatively, with many types of treatment. That's the biggest hurdle in declaring a cure, because it isn't for everyone.

Anyhow, back to the business side. As I mentioned before, if you have a profitable treatment program, and I have none, but my biotech company finds a cure, than to me, a cure is a hell of a lot more profit than nothing at all.

See: 1 dollar is more than 0 dollar.

And well, back to my friend, he made a pretty good buck for those people he treated who reacted positively to his drugs, for him, his entire business model was on quick, five shot therapies, getting people in and out of the clinics.

the pharmaceutical execs certainly have incentive to prefer treatment to cure, as treatment is more lucrative.

Depends on a few factors. If one drug costs more to produce, requires multiple treatments, and the patients die off before they can pay, it's not as profitable as charging 10 times the amount, curing them, building your brand and have them pay back the rest of their years they live. Not to mention the whole putting all your competitors out of business type deal. Execs tend to love that.

its also disarming to think that the logic of capitalism not only spurs technological growth, but also serves to persuade scientists that money and funds simply wouldn't be there if cancer were cured.

Industry is industry, cure one ailment and there are thousands more to tackle. I don't think they are worried about running out of problems. And the psych industry has clearly shown that they will simply make up new ones as they need to,

reply to post by dontreally


I am kinda of curious, since your sister didn't get better simply by drinking Horny Goat Weed/ Mold bacterium of Ancient Jelly Walnut Fruit/ Bitter Cherry Flavanoid Clusters....

Why such a knock on modern medicine?

reply to post by dontreally


Great to hear your sister is doing well and I wish her a long and healthy life.

Now you are right in America because the type of capitalism we have and the corruption within our own government everything is for private industries profits.

Meaning that most research is actually backed by the same companies that do not want cures for diseases but want to preserve treatments.

As long as this big mobsters keep controlling how research is done and how much information is allowed into the public we have not chance to get any new cures or new methods of controlling diseases.

Because the shorter the treatment the less profitable, the longer the treatment the more profits, and we all know that is not profits in cures.

Your sister is a very lucky girl with a wonderful family that took care of her during her time of need and didn't not stop with just one type of treatment.

There will never be a "cure" for cancer. Not in the way that people think of a cure, as something specific to be administered. The cure is a proper diet. I equate us to cows and chickens being raised in a battery farm. They are fed GMO corn mostly and require antibiotics just to stay alive. We are fed GMO, processed, unnatural foods daily and require antibiotics and prescription drugs to stay alive.

Originally posted by marg6043
Because the shorter the treatment the less profitable, the longer the treatment the more profits, and we all know that is not profits in cures.

That doesn't account for the fact that instead of multiple radiation treatments, my prostate cancer was cured by a one-time procedure...and since then there are even more therapies coming out that are single treatments. Sorry, your opinion here is wrong, and it is reprehensible for cancer patients to be discouraged from conventional treatment.

There is a lot of arsenic in apple and apricot seeds I think. It can kill cancer but it often destroys what we need along with it. I don't know much about that kind of cancer. Just keep your eyes open for symptoms of arsenic poisoning. If she smells a lot like garlic, her body is dealing with it. Garlic can be used to take arsenic out of the body. The smell of garlic actually originates in the nose of the smeller I think. It is a way to help neutralize and identify arsenic. Does she still need to be taking that stuff anymore? There are other things that contain safer cyanides.