It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Sabiduria
a reply to: Collateral
What happens once cancer is cured? No more pills needed, no more money coming. Big Pharma will not allow for people to be free from illnesses & diseases.
There have been many cures for cancers that have passed animal trails and were to go on to human trails, however they are never heard from again. I read an article two years ago about this scientist who had developed a cure for cancer and it was supposed to be going on to human trails but the project got pulled and his cure is sitting in his freezer doing nothing.
Myth 7: … and Big Pharma are suppressing it Conspiracy theories don’t add up Hand in hand with the idea that there is a cornucopia of ‘miracle cures’ is the idea that governments, the pharmaceutical industry and even charities are colluding to hide the cure for cancer because they make so much money out of existing treatments. Whatever the particular ‘cure’ being touted, the logic is usually the same: it’s readily available, cheap and can’t be patented, so the medical establishment is suppressing it in order to line its own pockets. But, as we’ve written before, there’s no conspiracy – sometimes it just doesn’t work. There’s no doubt that the pharmaceutical industry has a number of issues with transparency and clinical trials that it needs to address (the book Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre is a handy primer). We push regulators and pharmaceutical companies hard to make sure that effective drugs are made available at a fair price to the NHS – although it’s important to remember that developing and trialling new drugs costs a lot of money, which companies need to recoup. Problems with conventional medicine don’t automatically prove that alternative ‘cures’ work. To use a metaphor, just because cars sometimes crash doesn’t mean that flying carpets are a viable transport option. It simply doesn’t make sense that pharmaceutical companies would want to suppress a potential cure. Finding a highly effective therapy would guarantee huge worldwide sales. And the argument that treatments can’t be patented doesn’t hold up. Pharma companies are not stupid, and they are quick to jump on promising avenues for effective therapies. There are always ways to repackage and patent molecules, which would give them a return on the investment required to develop and test them in clinical trials (a cost that can run into many millions) if the treatment turns out to work. It’s also worth pointing out that charities such as Cancer Research UK and government-funded scientists are free to investigate promising treatments without a profit motive. And it’s hard to understand why NHS doctors – who often prescribe generic, off-patent drugs – wouldn’t use cheap treatments if they’d been shown to be effective in clinical trials. For example, we’re funding large-scale trials of aspirin – a drug first made in 1897, and now one of the most widely-used off-patent drugs in the world. We’re researching whether it can prevent bowel cancer in people at high risk, reduce the side effects of chemotherapy, and even prevent cancer coming back and improve survival. Finally, it’s worth remembering that we are all human – even politicians and Big Pharma executives – and cancer can affect anyone. People in pharmaceutical companies, governments, charities and the wider ‘medical establishment’ all can and do die of cancer too. Here at Cancer Research UK we have seen loved ones and colleagues go through cancer. Many of them have survived. Many have not. To suggest that we are – collectively and individually – hiding ‘the cure’ is not only absurd, it’s offensive to the global community of dedicated scientists, to the staff and supporters of cancer research organisations such as Cancer Research UK and, most importantly, to cancer patients and their families.
CTV News in Atlantic Canada reports that a Cure For Cancer is found and it has been censored just like Dr Buzinski’s Cure for Cancer from Houston, Texas. This report by CTV News covers Dr. Evangelos Michelakis at the University of Alberta and the drug called
DCA which has been found to reduce the size of cancerous tumors. Dr. Dario Alterieri from the University of Massachusetts agreed that the drug should be tested for its side effects and safety issues. However, there is no patent on this drug.
Since there is no patent on DCA and no pharmaceutical company owns this drug, CTV reported that drug companies will not want to bring this drug out on the market or conduct studies on this drug due to the fact that they can’t make a profit off a drug that can be inexpensively produced. CTV News also mentioned that it costs nearly $100 million dollars for testing to become completed on a new drug, so it looks like everything comes down to a matter of money. Of course, there is another case like Dr. Burzinski’s which is the only case I know of where a doctor received five court acquittals with a “Not Guilty Verdict” in Houston, Texas for coming out with his treatment for Cancer that has been hidden from us all since 1977.
I don't get it. The article title is 'Cancer is finally cured' and the text makes no mention of a 'cure.' Instead it cites DCA as being able to 'decrease' the size of tumours. Not 'cure,' just decrease. In cancer terms, decrease is fantastic enough and still way short of 'cure.' The video is from 2011 and YouTube isn't the platform for peer-reviewing medical breakthroughs. We've all seen YT comments right? They can get pretty nasty and the credentials amount to an email address and no-holds-barred or way of judging ages. With this video, the comments have been disabled by the uploader. The story goes back to 2007 and research continues into treating cancer with DCA.
And who are the people administering these "cures" for the below 1% of society? Again, you're just making assumptions based on absolutely no evidence
If they were trying to suppress it, they would just falsify the result of the first two tests to make it look like it didnt work/not actually test anything at all....whats the point of publishing positive results and then not following it up?
I don't get it. The article title is 'Cancer is finally cured' and the text makes no mention of a 'cure.' Instead it cites DCA as being able to 'decrease' the size of tumours. Not 'cure,' just decrease. In cancer terms, decrease is fantastic enough and still way short of 'cure.' The video is from 2011 and YouTube isn't the platform for peer-reviewing medical breakthroughs. We've all seen YT comments right? They can get pretty nasty and the credentials amount to an email address and no-holds-barred or way of judging ages. With this video, the comments have been disabled by the uploader. The story goes back to 2007 and research continues into treating cancer with DCA.
Because he is just Steve Jobs, he's a no body compares to the people who are actually pulling the strings. It's like saying Steve Jobs is as important, powerful & knowing of top government secrets as Dr. Jaap Haartsen, the inventor of Bluetooth. Steve Jobs net worth was $10.2 billion and according to Forbes, that's would be the 46th richest person. Steve Jobs would be between Steve Cohen & David Tepper who both their source of income is hedge funds.
I didn't say anyone below 1% of society get's a "cure". I also didn't technically say there is a cure, I said they are keeping a cure from being created. I've only speculated that if one existed, it would only be available to the highest of the 1% society. The richest & most powerful of the 1%.
I don't know why but that is what is happening. Look at the studies that people say could lead to a cure for cancer, like the one I posted. It was successful for the first two trials but now because there is no patent on DCA and no pharmaceutical company owns this drug, the drug companies will not want to bring this drug out on the market or conduct studies on this drug. That is only due to the fact that they can’t make a profit off a drug that can be inexpensively produced.
Someone decided to title it as 'Cancer is finally cured'. Yes there is a news clip on youtube but as youtube is not the one who published the study, youtube wouldn't be the ones subjected to peer-review. It would be the University of Alberta, the ones that published the study, who would subjected to peer-review.
I was actually quoting someone else from that thread that pointed out that it is not suggesting a cure, rather a new treatment.
You are missing the point of my post.
Only the richest 1% of society would have access to these top secret drugs...yet, Im sure they wouldnt be the ones administering it to themselves or doing the research behind said cures...ergo, it would be very hard to contain something for the !% that is developed by the 99%.
Two trials doesnt make a cure. You only have to disprove it once for it to fail.
My other point would be that if these scientists/believers were so confident in a their cure, they would be putting their own money where their mouth is and proving to the world that it works.
They arent though, which makes you wonder.