Welcome to Cancer-Forums.net!   


Useful Links:

American Cancer Society
National Cancer Institute
Cancer Definition

Why Are We Not Allowed To Have The Cure For Cancer?

The latest news from Cancer Trials and Cancer Research around the world.

Why Are We Not Allowed To Have The Cure For Cancer?

Postby Niece » Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:36 am

The cure for cancer is out there see the BBC News link below.

BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7098340.stm also see

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7331006790306000271&hl=en# which is a documentary.

Now see if anyone can answer my question

Its such a simple cheap cure - we do not need the pharmaceutical companies medicine.
I guess the answer is in that statement alone.
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:34 pm

Why Are We Not Allowed To Have The Cure For Cancer?

Postby zared92 » Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:37 am

Yes, I can answer your question.

The first link is to a news report of research that shows a POSSIBLE treatment for one kind of cancer; not a 'cure', but possibly a potential way to to stop breast cancer that is already present in the body from spreading to other parts of the body.

The second is to Run From The Cure, a vdeo that claims hemp oil will cure cancer - and weight problems, and insomnia and just about everything else.

I've watched this video a number of times. As with any internet testimonial, there is no way of knowing if these people had ever had the conditions they claimed, and certainly no way of knowing if they'd been 'cured'.

But I'll accept they had those conditions.

And as I've had cancer, the ones who'd had cancer were the ones to whom I paid most attention. And you know what? - they'd had conventional treatment too, but had chosen to credit the hemp oil with the improvement in their condition.

This often happens with alternative treatments - a patient has chemo and feels crap, because chemo makes you feel crap. After the chemo is over, s/he takes some 'alternative' medicine; soon s/he begins to feel better. Well, that's no surprise, you do begin to feel better when chemo is over. But s/he chooses to give the credit for feeling better, and for subsequent improvements in her/his condition, to the unproven alternative rather than to the conventional treatments, which have been rigourously tested and proven in double-blind clinical trials.

And that's what's happened here.

I had surgery, chemo and radiotherapy four years ago for an aggressive, advanced cancer; I am fit and well, with no sign of cancer at my last routine check-up. Chemo and rads aren't perfect, far from it; but we know because they have been tested and proven that they save many lives and prolong many others. The cancer patients in the film are fit and well following conventional treatment too.

The usual argument, and one you'll probably get in some answers here - is that pharmeceutical companies and governments would want to cover up a 'natural' treatment is that naturally occuring substances can't be patented, so there would be no profit in them.

In fact it's common for synthetic derivatives to be made that are an improvement on the original, and it's also common to get patents on the methods of isolating or administering the substance.

So even if a pharmeceutical couldn't make money directly from hemp oil, if hemp oil, or marijuana, were effective they could make plenty of money and get plenty kudos from developing a safer, more effective derivative. The chemotherapy drug Taxol is derived from yew.

But so far hemp oil and marijuana have not been proven effective against cancer, so pharmaceutical companies don't bother with them. They're after profits, after all.

And cancer is not one disease , it's an umbrella term for over 200 diseases. The difficulty with finding a 'cure for cancer' is that different cancers are caused by different things, so no one strategy can prevent them .They all respond to different treatments so no one treatment can cure them, so there isn't a magic bullet that cures all cancers and there never will be.

Some cancers CAN be cured these days: 7 out of 10 children are cured of cancer. Testicular cancer, Hodgkin's disease, and many cases of leukaemia can all be cured in adults with chemotherapy, most skin cancers are cured with surgery, and many cases of thyroid cancer and cancer of the larynx are cured with radiotherapy.

Many other types of cancer are also cured if they are found early enough. There is still a long way to go, especially with some of the commonest types of cancer such as lung, breast, bowel and prostate cancer.

You're not in the least bit sceptical about a claim that a single substance can cure all known ills? Have you yourself been cured of cancer in this way, or do you actually know anyone who has? Or are you relying solely on information from the internet?
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:50 am

Why Are We Not Allowed To Have The Cure For Cancer?

Postby eddis » Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:41 am

Most will permit it, however I would not be amazed in the event that they do whatever underground to restrict the treatment. If a treatment used to be made nevertheless, I do not suppose the corporations could fear over wasting gains in chemo drugs. The treatment could surely be priced very prime growing an overly prime benefit for the corporation. It additionally is determined by what sort of treatment it's. If its very similar to a vaccine and forestalls phone mutation (melanoma), then it could end up a different formative years shot just like the flu shot, tetanus, and so on. If it most effective needs to be taken as soon as according to lifetime, then yeah pharmicutical corporations would no longer wish a vaccine in the event that they might make extra gains via chemo treatment. However, if the treatment is in a kind where you have got to take a dose daily or week or so. Then corporations would possibly not hesitate to marketplace the treatment because melanoma sufferers will want and never-ending deliver of the treatment.
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:54 pm

Why Are We Not Allowed To Have The Cure For Cancer?

Postby Tavion » Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:42 am

I concur with what Io-mcg wrote. I have a some additional remarks regarding the BBC News link. First of all research in effects of cannabidiol (CBD) is not suppressed by the pharmaceutical companies as you seem to believe. Here is the article by McAllisters group upon which the BBC article is based: http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/6/11... Try enter the search terms cannabidiol and cancer on PubMed and see what you find. Or just scroll down McAllisters article, and take a look at the reference list.

Now that we have established that research in this area has not been suppressed lets take a look at McAllisters article. An important thing to understand is, that his research has been done on cancer cell cultures. It has not been done on cancer patients (yet). In a cancer cell culture all the cancer cells are identical. A major characteristic of a cancerous growth is, that the cells of the tumor are different. You can see this for yourself at http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/NEOH... which shows the microscopic appearance of a breast cancer.

According to McAllisters reference list the study on brain cancer was also done on brain cancer cell cultures (glioblastoma multiforme), not on brain cancers as told in the BBC article.

In the last paragraph of McAllisters article it says "Because CBD inhibits Id-1 expression in aggressive breast cancer cells, a rational drug design strategy could be used to potentially create more potent and efficacious analogues." That sounds like something that a pharmaceutical company could earn money from - doesn't it?

That would be in line with what the pharmaceuticals have been doing previously. Many of the anti-cancer drugs are in fact plant derivatives.

Before a new drug can be used routinely you have to do research to know about efficacy in cancer patients as well as toxicity. And proper research takes time.
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 5:02 pm

Why Are We Not Allowed To Have The Cure For Cancer?

Postby dalan » Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:43 am

cancer is just tissue that rapidly grows because it is malignant. there is no cure for the growing tissue
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:53 am

Why Are We Not Allowed To Have The Cure For Cancer?

Postby Ata » Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:48 am

There are many cures!!!!!!!!! Garlic girl!

the reason why they are not out there is population control. money! and power from the drug companies! ^_^

you strike me as someone who wants the truth more than not accepting the fact that we are being held back! if you want more links which i guarantee will open your eyes, then you will know the real truth. people who say there is no cure are people who dont have an open mind. that will soon become extinct.

VITAMIN C!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of1YXprhY... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4DOQ6Xhq...

Even eating canabis! NOT SMOKING! EATING!!!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjhT9282-...

its all there for free. you cant put a price on free. THATS WHY!


I hope you enjoy what you find. youtube is great. keep looking!

also about the true mean of or existence. if you want that. send me a message. [email protected]
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:47 pm

Why Are We Not Allowed To Have The Cure For Cancer?

Postby Bodil » Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:50 am

The industry and the government makes more money off the long-term "treatment" and drugs than they would if people would be okay.
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:18 pm

Return to Cancer News and Clinical Trials


  • Related topics
    Last post