10 Reasons Why Hidden Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories Fail

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: LostThePlot

YouTube videos are not academic sources.


More to the point, if you're not prepared to address challenges of validity when you present unsubstantiated claims on a medical themed forum, perhaps an online discussion board is not the place for you.

You completely missed the point.

originally posted by: LostThePlot
Sorry, I should have said treatment for epilepsy, not cure.

Thank you, but let me pop the 'Big pharma conspiracy bubble' for CBD and epilepsy: Epidiolex is a drug made from CBD and it was approved for testing by the US Food and Drugs Administration (even though cannabis is illegal in the United States). This recent study was supported by GW Pharmaceuticals. Findings were presented at the 2015 American Academy of Neurology Annual Meeting.
L INK

As you can see, CBD is being tested by a pharmaceutical company (I haven't read the whole report yet).

But this is off topic anyway, the OP is about cancer.

When you study the medicines they use to treat cancer you will find how they work in the body. This chemistry is out there in moderate amounts in common foods and herbs and spices and found in nature. You can trigger the immune system to fight cancer, increase susceptibility of cancer to get detected by the immune system, persuade apoptosis, increase the energy of our normal cells while boosting the high growth cells, or help to restore cellular signaling between all of our cells.

Cycling these into our diet can help to keep tumors from growing and slow or reverse progression. There are hundreds of ways to kill or reduce susceptability to cancer. Now once you get it full blown, you probably need to see a cancer specialist but after removing the tumor there are more natural ways to clean up the rest. A lot of research is now being done on Immunotherapy instead of chemotherapy because it is much less invasive.

So there is a cure for cancer, or a way of not letting it get out of hand. Cancer cells are constantly being created in our body but our immune system if properly working right will kill them off. If you suppress the P53 system too much by consuming too much antioxidant food, the immune system may not be able to identify the cancers rapid growth.

Society is also listening too much to quack science of nutrition. Concensus of the day is not real nutrition. Two third of Europeans cannot eat a lot of vegatables and process the lipids correctly but the Chinese and people from India can be vegetarians and accomplish this. The mutation is actually not as most people think, being able to eat all veggies is a mutation created over hundreds of generations. Which are you? I can't even figure out which I am with the genetic data available as they seem not to be telling us exactly how this mutation works.phys.org...

Many foods contain properties that can kill cancer cells. limit cancer growth which causes cellular canabalism, or steer our immune system to fight cancer. Moderation if diet and also cycling of foods in the diet can keep most of us from getting cancer in our lifetime. Some people with double mutations might not be able to escape the cancer, they get cancer young. Cancer is a multistep process, meaning our cells have checkpoints to make sure things go right.

There is not much required research on long term consumption of chemicals deemed as GRAS that is added to our food. It either effects you quickly or it is not considered a threat. Too much change too quick can cause cancer, and you can use food chemistry to cure cancer too. It is not a hoax. But if cancer gets out of hand, then you will probably need the medical specialists to cure it. Do not pay attention too much to the Fad nutrition they are spreading, it is just concensus of the time. We are all different with different dietary needs, I cannot tell anyone how to eat, just make them aware that there is another way to look.

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: LostThePlot
Sorry, I should have said treatment for epilepsy, not cure.

Thank you, but let me pop the 'Big pharma conspiracy bubble' for CBD and epilepsy: Epidiolex is a drug made from CBD and it was approved for testing by the US Food and Drugs Administration (even though cannabis is illegal in the United States). This recent study was supported by GW Pharmaceuticals. Findings were presented at the 2015 American Academy of Neurology Annual Meeting.
L INK

As you can see, CBD is being tested by a pharmaceutical company (I haven't read the whole report yet).

But this is off topic anyway, the OP is about cancer.

That's why I said they NOW say CBD works and are looking for FDA approval. They had to synthesize a pill before they'd admit it works. They are trying to do the same with THC and even ketones.
www.albanydailystar.com...

originally posted by: LostThePlot

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: LostThePlot

YouTube videos are not academic sources.


More to the point, if you're not prepared to address challenges of validity when you present unsubstantiated claims on a medical themed forum, perhaps an online discussion board is not the place for you.

You completely missed the point.

And the point of posting unsubstantiated claims was...?

This site provided seer.cancer.gov... has flawed information because it does not go far enough back like many of the other charts also don't do. You have to look at the whole picture, not just what has happened since a certain time. It has to go back farther than the sixties, and account for many carcinogens that have been removed from the environment that caused genetic mutations. The main causes have been removed so the rate should have lowered but they introduced ten fold of the chemistry to replace these. Ten times the exposure actually made it just as bad.

We do not need all of that extra chemistry added to our foods both after growth and before. It is a sales pitch many times by the companies creating these chemicals. Proper preserving of food was known for a long time. The plastic in cans verses zinc lined cans made things much worse. Zinc from those cans actually increased our ability to fight infections. The plastic actually lowers our ability to fight infections, it has many endocrine disruptors. A high percentage of people in the USA are now zinc deficient.

originally posted by: LostThePlot
That's why I said they NOW say CBD works and are looking for FDA approval. They had to synthesize a pill before they'd admit it works.

Epidiolex is not synthetic. This from the link I posted before:

is a liquid formulation of pure plant-derived CBD

And from HERE:

... to get a purer CBD concentrate, GW uses a high tech machine to conduct an extra purification process, creating a product with pure CBD and an almost immeasurable amount of THC.

Medicine is all about trials, errors and eureka moments. Medicine is advancing all the time..... there is no conspiracy or this drug would have never been made.

It's very simple why the conspiracies don't work.
It's because the "cures" don't work.

originally posted by: cuckooold

An obvious implication of a “hidden cure” conspiracy is that researchers and business owners are willing to put the
So I was doing my usual trawl of various websites that come my way, and I came across this article. It's pretty spot on, and certainly gives more than adequate reason why companies suppressing a cure for cancer is extremely unlikely. I will only quote from a few of these ideas, in order to encourage readers to go to the original website to give credit where credit is due. I would encourage those who believe there is a conspiracy and a cancer cure exists to read the claims put forth before jumping in with complaints about evil 'big pharma'.

hatepseudoscience.com...

Medical researchers and their families are just as susceptible to cancer and other diseases as anyone else.

company and shareholders ahead of the lives of themselves and their loved ones. It implies that the thousands of individuals involved in research are flawlessly obedient drones never giving in to the temptation to help someone they care for deeply, or to better the world. It means doctors and scientists must be willing to sit and watch their mothers, their daughters, and their spouses suffer and struggle with a disease they know themselves to be curable.

Pushback from insurance companies.

Again, if any conspiracy theorist with a computer can find evidence of a hidden cure, then insurance companies must also be aware of it. Why would big insurance companies continue paying for expensive yet inefficacious treatments when a cheap and effective cure is available? If hiding the cure brings in the big bucks, then insurance companies are the ones largely responsible for paying the bill. They’d have every incentive imaginable to uncover and expose the suppression of superior and cheap treatments. Why would they be motivated to keep quiet while forking over huge sums of money to something they know to be a fraud?

Actually, companies WOULD make a lot of money from cures.

In what universe would a treatment of such monumental efficacy not be marketable? If it could be patented, then the inventors would go down in history for their achievements (which to many scientists is more valuable than just being ridiculously rich but unrecognized for their accomplishments), and the company they worked for would make billions. Sometimes conspiracy theorists respond to this by claiming that the hidden cures might not be patentable, but that’s not a valid argument either (for two reasons).

In my opinion, the 'hidden cancer cure conspiracy' is just that, a conspiracy. I'm sure that many will argue vehemently against this, but I encourage those who disagree to read the article I have linked, and put forth logical rebuttals, rather than conspiratorial ramblings.

I am more inclined to believe that there is an entire industry dedicated to promoting 'natural' cures for cancer which are simply scams. Seeing that close to 40% of men and women have a lifetime risk of developing cancer, it seems ludicrous that a simple cure could be 'hidden'. The fact also exists that cancer is in fact not a 'disease', but rather, a category of highly diverse diseases. What may work for one cancer may be completely ineffective against a different type of cancer.

seer.cancer.gov...

More information about so called 'Miracle Cancer Cures' can be found at this link.

scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org...

When the UN meets to discuss sustainability of the earth and the conclusion is that humans need to be culled, it seems to me that cures for cancer would be detrimental to their agenda.

a reply to: Qwerm

[citation needed]

They're obviously not doing a good job seeing as we're living longer than ever and people are living post-cancer for much longer. But then you did just make that claim up, so...

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Qwerm

[citation needed]

They're obviously not doing a good job seeing as we're living longer than ever and people are living post-cancer for much longer. But then you did just make that claim up, so...

and I was thinking about the non western civilisation and vaccinations and neglect of OAP'S and fluoride and radiating fruit and stripping food stuffs of nutrients and monsato.

originally posted by: Qwerm

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Qwerm

[citation needed]

They're obviously not doing a good job seeing as we're living longer than ever and people are living post-cancer for much longer. But then you did just make that claim up, so...

and I was thinking about the non western civilisation and vaccinations and neglect of OAP'S and fluoride and radiating fruit and stripping food stuffs of nutrients and monsato.

You forgot chemtrails.
And the illuminati.

a reply to: Qwerm

Can you link to the UN report that states that humans need to be, as you put it, 'culled'?

Sorry OP you're wrong. I can't name names so you're going to have to take my word on this.

A relative of mine is a driver for a pharmaceutical millionnaire. When he asked him about mebandazole he openly told him that they know it can shrink cancerous tumours. But, it would cost too much money in research to get it to market so ultimately wouldn't be profitable.

originally posted by: paradisepurple
Sorry OP you're wrong. I can't name names so you're going to have to take my word on this.

A relative of mine is a driver for a pharmaceutical millionnaire. When he asked him about mebandazole he openly told him that they know it can shrink cancerous tumours. But, it would cost too much money in research to get it to market so ultimately wouldn't be profitable.

Why would it be less profitable than any other cancer drug?
And why's a "pharmaceutical millionaire" telling trade secrets to his driver?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Qwerm

Can you link to the UN report that states that humans need to be, as you put it, 'culled'?

Don't be lazy, look it up urself........AGENDA 21

originally posted by: paradisepurple
Sorry OP you're wrong. I can't name names so you're going to have to take my word on this.

A relative of mine is a driver for a pharmaceutical millionnaire. When he asked him about mebandazole he openly told him that they know it can shrink cancerous tumours. But, it would cost too much money in research to get it to market so ultimately wouldn't be profitable.

Makes outlandish claim: "I can't name names so you're going to have to take my word on this".

Really convincing.

a reply to: Qwerm

Ah, the ol' "You back up my arguments for me!". Nah.

That which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

a reply to: Pardon?

Plot twist: it's a load of made up bollocks.