Cancer will always be with us, according to more recent research

[Mr.Savage]

http://www.npr.org/2014/08/21/34201...er-new-research-suggests-cancer-cant-be-cured

The first comment below the article at that link reads:

As a cancer researcher...I don't think we've ever thought the possibility of eradication feasible. Most of my colleagues look to more of a co-existence or management model much like HIV as a more achievable goal...this puts a greater emphasis on advancing early detection vs late stage cures.

A great many of us are possessed of the idea that the medical establishment is watching our collective back, working feverishly to cure every ill the flesh is heir to.

Let me talk about how Big Pharma is to thank for pretty much all the pharmaceutical breakthroughs in the last 5 decades, if not more.

I doubt if going into implicit detail would do much good, but suffice it to say that a "breakthrough" can only be called such if it can be patented.

This severely limits the range of useful substances available to patients.

Developing pharmaceuticals is a complex, expensive and long process, that's why a cure for Alzheimer's or Asthma has been in the works for the last 3 or so decades and still isn't on the market.

We are talking development costs in the billions of dollars for the most cutting edge or revolutionary pharmaceuticals. Big Pharma realizes that whoever finds a cure for cancer will make all those billions back and then make enough cash to make Bill Gates seem like a pauper, because everyone is going to want the sure-fire cure and they will be ready to pay a lot to get it.

Given the above-stated facts(?), let us consider the logical consequences of finding a cure for Cancer, Alzheimer's or Asthma.

Parkinson's Law provides a useful explanation:

The First Corollary:

"In only the rarest of circumstances can an organization succeed if the fulfillment of a singular assigned mission means an end to the purpose which created it. If not provided with a subsequent mission, the organization will actually impede the goal(s) for which it owes its very existence."


If Big Pharma announces a sure-fire cure for "X chronic disease", then their patient base for that disease evaporates. It therefore makes more financial sense, in the long run, to keep a steady stream of patients alive, but sufficiently ill so as to necessitate protracted treatment; better known as "Symptom Management".

This often strikes many as an unlikely postulate, but consider that after all those who can be cured, have been cured, it would spell the end of the disease itself, as a sure-fire cure also means a sure-fire preventative. This would eliminate the need for research foundations and fund raisers, not to mention the disease specialists would find themselves redundant.

A gentleman in my acquaintance was recently diagnosed with a 3.5 CM malignant tumor in the lower left lung for which he was given 3 courses of Platinol, a Cisplatin based chemotherapy drug which has been in continuous use since its introduction in 1978.

His oncologist told him "though our success rates with this drug have leveled off, this is still cutting edge stuff we're using."


Most people seem to exhibit a sort of "Stockholm Syndrome" when it comes to their regard for modern medicine as in the quote below:

...it is still better that someone survives because Big Pharma spent the time and resources and took the risk on an experimental drug then if both died in agony because Big Pharma didn't exist...

Big Pharma might be driven by profit, but it also plows down insane amounts of money into pharmaceutical development and research, far more money then any or all governments or NGOs could ever do.

Big Pharma wouldn't plow down insane amounts of money if there was no guarantee of an equally insane return on the other end.

As stated above, this usually involves a patent. Without that, the profits aren't there. Nothing is done "for the good of the people"; that's not where the money is.


DMSO is one of the more well-publicized substances that could benefit almost anyone, yet it is continually kept out of modern medical practice, and its use is discouraged among physicians.

This news report from 1980 shows just how well DMSO can improve such a wide variety of ailments, and gives the reasons why it will never be adopted for clinical use:

...the attitude adopted (toward modern medicine) has been much like that
of the ostrich:

"Why shall we face the horrors of the situation and permit ourselves
to develop a fear and consternation of the medical care and institutions
which we must accept when ill? It will only aggravate matters."

This attitude implies a failure to realize that most of these rackets will shrivel
and vanish when exposed; and the balance can be destroyed easily by the force of public opinion and action intelligently directed.

It is my purpose to expose them and to point out how the public can act to protect itself.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

Well, maybe they could tone down ethics a bit and focus on the prevention via genetic level.
(or we can debate this for few million years until natural selection sort things out - at least for cancer that kicks in before reproduction)

P.S: nobody likes a quitter.

 

[Rosiv]

Maybe my paranoia wants me to believe this is true, I hope it is not. On the plus side, we have all the rapid science from the capitalist motivations of money. A negative would be the lack of "morals" or "ethics" I guess, whichever word fits better, that these industries are allowed to operate with.

 

[Fox12]

Eh, we'll fix it in time. It's like ageing, or our own mortality. It's an unfortunate imperfection in our design that we will one day cure. You and I won't see it. We'll die. But our descendant won't have to worry about this.

 

[Mr.Savage]

You guys read this shit?

Nope.

Me either.

TL;DR Version:

Big Pharma profits, Oncology, Fundraisers, Research Foundations, and Charities all go away if Cancer is cured. They don't want to go away and get new jerbs.

 

[Fox12]

I can't read or understand words. Here's a picture of George Clooney.

I read the article. In the scope of the vastness of time and space, cancer is less then nothing. We are less then nothing. The entire human race is less then nothing. And I'm supposed to be scared of a few pharmaceutical companies? Everyone and everything you've ever known will be destroyed, including Earth and the human race, and none of them will be remembered. Every work of art, every conquerer, every hero, every despot, and every humanitarian will be forgotten. All of the groups you mentioned will fade away into dust. We're talking about a passage of time lasting millions, and billions of years. As society and technology advance, finding the cure to cancer will not only be possible, it will be inevitable. Assuming we don't go extinct first.

We won't see it. You and me are going to die, and it will probably be very, very painful. Thankfully, if our feeble race survives long enough, our descendants won't have this problem. They'll find the cure to every disease imaginable. Then they'll discover the cure to mortality. All the groups you mentioned are feeble little pissants that can, at best, hold back humanity for a few seconds before the long march of progress carries on. All they will do is guarantee that a few more people die. Big pharma may seem powerful, but in the face of the sheer scope of time they are nothing. They are a temporary construct of a flawed economic system that hasn't worked itself out yet.

Yes, it's distressing that there's so much wrong in the world. And it's sad that we won't live long enough to see it changed. It's sad that we will have to suffer, and then die. But there is hope. Not for us. We're the damned. But our descendants will be able to live a much better life then us, and that's good. I've seen my mom stricken with cancer. I've seen my aunt, uncle's, and grandparents die of cancer. I've seen my uncle waste away with AIDs while his family demonized his homosexual lifestyle. I know that I have a higher risk of cancer then most people, due to genes. That all really sucks. But future people won't have to worry about any of that, and that makes me feel pretty good.

 

[Mr.Savage]

I read the article. In the scope of the vastness of time and space, cancer is less then nothing.

After many years studying patents, out-of-print books, and medical articles by people ahead of their time, there aren't words to effectively convey just how ironic that statement is.

We are less then nothing. The entire human race is less then nothing.

I wasn't trying to broach the existential, but these days, I am inclined to agree with this world view.

And I'm supposed to be scared of a few pharmaceutical companies?

You're not supposed to be scared of them, but let's face it; we will all require medical attention of some sort in the future if we haven't before.

I can only speak for myself, but I'll be looking for something other than prescription drugs and needless surgery to deal with any health problems that may crop up.

Everyone and everything you've ever known will be destroyed, including Earth and the human race, and none of them will be remembered. Every work of art, every conquerer, every hero, every despot, and every humanitarian will be forgotten. All of the groups you mentioned will fade away into dust. We're talking about a passage of time lasting millions, and billions of years. As society and technology advance, finding the cure to cancer will not only be possible, it will be inevitable. Assuming we don't go extinct first.

I can't help but hear the voice of Carl Sagan in my head as I read that bit. You're mostly right, and I struggle with a defeatist perspective all the time.

What I find bemusing is the assumption that the cure for cancer would be made cheap and available to all; as if our decedents would lack the imperative to exploit others. Natural selection can only purge so many poor traits.

We won't see it. You and me are going to die, and it will probably be very, very painful.

Probably a realistic prediction, but if there is even a remote possibility of avoiding that last bit, it warrants investigation.

All the groups you mentioned are feeble little pissants that can, at best, hold back humanity for a few seconds before the long march of progress carries on. All they will do is guarantee that a few more people die. Big pharma may seem powerful, but in the face of the sheer scope of time they are nothing. They are a temporary construct of a flawed economic system that hasn't worked itself out yet.

Given the whole "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it" thing, I doubt very much that things will work themselves out when history shows how unnatural a course that would be.

Yes, it's distressing that there's so much wrong in the world. And it's sad that we won't live long enough to see it changed. It's sad that we will have to suffer, and then die. But there is hope. Not for us. We're the damned."

Defeatism is always alluring, and in so many situations, it's practically realism. The fact is; there are a dizzying amount of real-world solutions that have been proven to work, but would disrupt the current economic system, so they aren't brought out through mainstream channels.

That all really sucks. But future people won't have to worry about any of that, and that makes me feel pretty good.

I'm not so confident that a utopia awaits our decedents, nor am I contented to suffer in my own time by subjecting my flesh and blood to the whimsy of a system that seeks only to profit from my misfortune.

 

[one squirrel]

snip

Parkinson's Law provides a useful explanation:

The First Corollary:

"In only the rarest of circumstances can an organization succeed if the fulfillment of a singular assigned mission means an end to the purpose which created it. If not provided with a subsequent mission, the organization will actually impede the goal(s) for which it owes its very existence."


snip

Meh, this does look very much like an ad hoc explanation at best, not suited to make any useful prediction about what to expect from an organization. You could say the exact same thing about literally every single interest group or field which does not exclusively rely on unpaid work and is meant to solve any sort of problem. Just a few examples: the police, WHO, any kind of politcal activism, environmentalism... just to name a few, but the list is endless.

 

[Mr.Savage]

Meh, this does look very much like an ad hoc explanation at best, not suited to make any useful prediction about what to expect from an organization.

What is the specific variable which renders this explanation ad hoc?

You could say the exact same thing about literally every single interest group or field which does not exclusively rely on unpaid work and is meant to solve any sort of problem. Just a few examples: the police, WHO, any kind of politcal activism, environmentalism... just to name a few, but the list is endless.

The entities you mention are elastic in their function, and therefore adaptable. The some cannot be said for a research institute or an entire medical branch which specializes in a singular discipline whose stated goal is to eradicate the reason for it's very origin.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Management and treatment options will improve. Assuming we can stop companies evergreening patents...

Basically, this isthe real problem confronting us to ever finding better drugs that actually do more. It's actually more profitable to patent a slightly less effective compound medication formulae (knowingly), wait till people complain and/or patent runs out, change the formula to something you always knew was going to work better, evergreen the patent by saying it's something entirely new.

A lot of countries outlaw that practice, but in the US it's legal and even outside the US it's incredibly expensive and time consuming to fight.

I don't think cancer is 'curable'. Cancer is a lifelong spectre that even if you beat it requires constant scanning and examination to see if it returns. It's not something you can simply vaccinate against, nor is there likely going to be a magic, all-purpose pill that cures all cancer in every form.

I think cancer will become easier and quicker to diagnose, and treatment better, but I don't see how you could cure cancer.

 

[one squirrel]

Meh, this does look very much like an ad hoc explanation at best, not suited to make any useful prediction about what to expect from an organization.

What is the specific variable which renders this explanation ad hoc?

You could say the exact same thing about literally every single interest group or field which does not exclusively rely on unpaid work and is meant to solve any sort of problem. Just a few examples: the police, WHO, any kind of politcal activism, environmentalism... just to name a few, but the list is endless.

The entities you mention are elastic in their function, and therefore adaptable. The some cannot be said for a research institute or an entire medical branch which specializes in a singular discipline whose stated goal is to eradicate the reason for it's very origin.

Admittedly, my use of the word ad hoc was not correct, but you understand what I mean. I am still not convinced that

1. The financial gain of curing a disease would be lower than treating symptoms. If I ran a company which could cure cancer, surely, after some time the funding for cancer research would disappear, but I would be the richest Mofo on the face of the earth by that time.

2. Reseachers wouldn't just find a cure and promote it just to become famous or for their own gratification. If someone could cure for AIDS or cancer, private companies would not be the only possible way to distribute and promote it. The state/government has a huge interest in the physical wellbeing of citizens, not even to mention the insurance sector.

What would, according to you, be the solution, or best counter-measure to Parkinson's law? I don't see an alternative to Big Pharma.

 

[Hoplon]

Misleading title is misleading. it should read something more like "cancer cannot be stopped from being a possibility" which i will admit is not very sexy at all but more accurate. nothing to do with curing a given individuals cancer but about eliminating it from humanity the way we can do with diseases such as smallpox.

they might even be right. might not be of course, these things could well change as we learn more.

 

[Amir Kondori]

First of all cancer isn't one thing, it is a large collection of different diseases that feature similar symptoms and causes. We CAN cure cancer, certain cancers caught at certain stages can be cured, so that blows the first hole in this conspiracy theory bullshit.

Secondly there will likely continue to be more effective treatments for various cancers developed. There are some interesting treatments for some cancers coming down the pipe even now.

Keep in mind that cancer cells are our own cells. Anything that can kill the cancer cells can and will kill our own cells. That is why chemotherapy is so awful for people to take.

As advanced as our medicine is we still have a long ways to go in understanding and healing the human body. Compared to even 100 years ago the advances in the field of medicine have been IMMENSE. I cannot overstate to you how far we've come. So many diseases that could not be cured, conditions that had no treatment, that today no one has to think twice about. Yet we take it all for granted. If I had been born 100 years ago I'd have almost no vision left, because I have a rare eye disorder that damages my vision. Because of modern medicine I have close to normal vision.

There is no big conspiracy here, you can literally email the people working on cancer treatments today, and I urge everyone reading this kind of stuff, be skeptical. The fact that we don't have this anymore:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SgdTsCd5QmQ/UrcDkgUsWYI/AAAAAAAAIBY/aqdOdTrEBKo/s1600/Children+in+an+iron+lung+before+the+advent+of+the+polio+vaccination,+1937+2.jpg

should clue us all in to the fact that we're living in a golden age of medicine and things are only getting better. We should all feel lucky to be living when we are.

 

[Albino Boo]

Another case of latest paper syndrom settles the answer for ever. Science is a process that produces changing conclusions based on evidence. If you analyse a data set a certain way you get one answer, if you analyse a data set a different way you get a another answer. If you get a bigger data set then the answer changes again. The process always continues and a hypothesis is there to be disproved.

So what if the lastest paper says the possibility of cancer will always exist. Another paper published next month might say the opposite. A published paper is the first stage of the debate and all it does is open the area to further investigation.

 

[Mr.Savage]

I am still not convinced that:

1. The financial gain of curing a disease would be lower than treating symptoms. If I ran a company which could cure cancer, surely, after some time the funding for cancer research would disappear, but I would be the richest Mofo on the face of the earth by that time.

The thing is, your cure would have to be expensive if you want to be the richest Mofo around. And you would have a limited number of patients to make that money off of.

So you want money? Then you take a page from Big Pharma, and lean towards treatments which are the most expensive, the most complicated, and least accommodating to self-administration as you can get. Only in this way can you justify your funding requirements.

Many cancer drugs cost well over $100,000 for a year's worth of medicine. In the fight against cancer, most people can expect to be on more than one drug. The bill for medications can escalate to nearly $300,000, a price tag that doesn?t include fees charged by a doctor or a hospital. Health insurance companies ? including government polices like Medicare ? don?t cover the full cost of these drugs. Some policies don?t cover some of these drugs at all.

Bristol-Myers Squibb will charge $141,000 for the first 12 weeks of treatment and $256,000 for a year of treatment, according to the Wall Street Journal.

And don't forget, cancer often reoccurs, and is treated the same way all over again. Something you can't take advantage of so you have to make hay while the sun shines.

How can a cure that works the first time generate more revenue than something like Chemotherapy which doesn't work every time?

At that point, it comes down to simple ethics, really.

2. Reseachers wouldn't just find a cure and promote it just to become famous or for their own gratification. If someone could cure for AIDS or cancer, private companies would not be the only possible way to distribute and promote it. The state/government has a huge interest in the physical wellbeing of citizens, not even to mention the insurance sector.

The government would likely step in and regulate how much you could charge for the cure, so that anyone could get it.

What would, according to you, be the solution, or best counter-measure to Parkinson's law? I don't see an alternative to Big Pharma.

Honestly, the best alternative to Big Pharma that I've run across is what this guy had going (and he isn't even the first one to discover it):

 

[DefunctTheory]

If I'm reading this right, you're pointing to a two year old article and then making the claim that cancer is only incurable because of the money involved.

It's a strange argument to make, honestly, because there are better examples to point to that may actually be legitimately what your talking about (Though I wouldn't make the argument myself). Cancer isn't one of them. For one, as Amir Kondori pointed out, cancer is a huge world, with hundreds of conditions being linked under the name 'cancer' who's only shared characteristic is 'cells gone wild.'

For two, there is a very good reason why many say cancer is unpreventable - It's a logical consequence of how cells work. Trying to create a 'vaccine' for cancer is about as reasonable as creating an oil system for a combustion engine that never requires oil replacement - It's a fruitless endeavor that boggles the mind. Where to even start?

Will we ever being able to prevent cancer? Perhaps. But if there is a way to do that, it's probably unlike anything we currently practice in medicine. It's going to be something as bizarre to us now as the idea of vaccination were in 1797.

What would, according to you, be the solution, or best counter-measure to Parkinson's law? I don't see an alternative to Big Pharma.

Honestly, the best alternative to Big Pharma that I've run across is what this guy had going (and he isn't even the first one to discover it):

Spoiler

John Holt used hyperthermia therapy to treat cancer, yes. But it's a therapy that's currently being used in many places. Modern medicine (Or Big Pharma) is picking it up and running with it.

 

[Amaror]

The entities you mention are elastic in their function, and therefore adaptable. The some cannot be said for a research institute or an entire medical branch which specializes in a singular discipline whose stated goal is to eradicate the reason for it's very origin.

Yes, because one a research institute cures cancer, or rather another form of cancer since cancer represents a wide variety of different diseases, there obviously will never be a single disease ever. The medical system will break down, because a single disease was cured. Oh, the humanity.

Your entire point is pointless. Reseach institutes and medical personal isn't flexible? Theres enough diseases for research institutes to operate for centuries. One kind of disease cured will put noone out of existance. And even if a cure is found it will still be need to be adminerstered by doctors. Or they will just start to specialize in something else.
That's not even touching the fact that holding back a cure would be retarded since it would easily make the corporation or individual inventing it one of the richest in the world.

 

[Mr.Savage]

We CAN cure cancer, certain cancers caught at certain stages can be cured, so that blows the first hole in this conspiracy theory bullshit.

I'm talking about curing terminal cases. Early detection is small potatos. What little progress is reported by the pollyanna of the cancer profession can primarily be attributable to early detection and prevention - activities which cannot begin to address, quantitatively, the large sums invested each year in cancer research and treatment.

Keep in mind that cancer cells are our own cells. Anything that can kill the cancer cells can and will kill our own cells. That is why chemotherapy is so awful for people to take.

Liposomal Cisplatin is at least a step in the right direction as regards the mitigation of collateral damage to healthy cells: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20671511

As advanced as our medicine is we still have a long ways to go in understanding and healing the human body.

That exact phraseology is repeated ad nauseum in the medical field.

In terms of the big picture, we are continuing to make progress, but we have a very long way to go."

Compared to even 100 years ago the advances in the field of medicine have been IMMENSE. I cannot overstate to you how far we've come. So many diseases that could not be cured, conditions that had no treatment, that today no one has to think twice about. Yet we take it all for granted. If I had been born 100 years ago I'd have almost no vision left, because I have a rare eye disorder that damages my vision. Because of modern medicine I have close to normal vision.

I'm not indicting the entirety of modern medicine. I myself have benefited from the skilled hands of a trauma surgeon after an accident, but that, admittedly, is a less profitable branch of practice.

There is no big conspiracy here

I never suggested there was. I merely stated that the current business model utilized by Big Pharma is a long established one, and they are used to making money a certain way.

The fact that we don't have this anymore:

should clue us all in to the fact that we're living in a golden age of medicine and things are only getting better. We should all feel lucky to be living when we are.

In the poliomyelitis epidemic in North Carolina in 1948, 60 cases of this disease came under our care. These patients presented all or almost all of these signs and symptoms: Fever of 101 to 104.6?, headache, pain at the back of the eyes, conjunctivitis, scarlet throat; pain between the shoulders, the back of the neck, one or more extremity, the lumbar back; nausea, vomiting and constipation.

The treatment employed was Vitamin C in massive doses, given intravenously. It was given like any other antibiotic every two to four hours. The initial dose was 1000 to 2000 mg., depending on age. Children up to four years received the injections intramuscularly.

With precautions taken, every last patient of the 60 recovered uneventfully within three to five days, escaping the iron lung.

During the past century there has been a great improvement in the art of medicine. Some of this improvement does not represent a real advance in medical science, but constitutes the process of retracing ground that was lost when young medical science arrogantly threw aside the age-old tradition of medicine that accumulated and was handed down since the origin of man. But real advance has been made. If this aspect of the subject is slighted, it is not because of failure of appreciation of it.

 

[Mr.Savage]

Reseach institutes and medical personal isn't flexible?"

Not the specialist branches, no. How does an Oncologist change his specialty?

Theres enough diseases for research institutes to operate for centuries. One kind of disease cured will put no one out of existance.

No, but it would cut off a rather significant revenue stream

And even if a cure is found it will still be need to be adminerstered by doctors.

Would you be opposed to self-administration?

That's not even touching the fact that holding back a cure would be retarded since it would easily make the corporation or individual inventing it one of the richest in the world.

And you think that all the drug companies who compound Chemotherapy wouldn't lobby against the proliferation of something that jeopardizes their position?

If I'm reading this right, you're pointing to a two year old article and then making the claim that cancer is only incurable because of the money involved.

You read it right.

It's a strange argument to make, honestly, because there are better examples to point to that may actually be legitimately what your talking about

Such as?

(Though I wouldn't make the argument myself)

That's why I'm doing it. It's popular to assume that the Medical Industry puts public health first, but a thorough examination of their own history reveals obvious incongruities.

Will we ever being able to prevent cancer? Perhaps. But if there is a way to do that, it's probably unlike anything we currently practice in medicine. It's going to be something as bizarre to us now as the idea of vaccination were in 1797.

While you'd maintain it would be highly improbable, do you believe it is at all possible for this discovery to originate outside of the conventional research circles?

John Holt used hyperthermia therapy to treat cancer, yes. But it's a therapy that's currently being used in many places. Modern medicine (Or Big Pharma) is picking it up and running with it.

And Holt didn't even originate the concept of using RF bands to target Cancer. That honor goes to Royal R. Rife (1934), whose method was quite unique, and even garnered acceptance by the Smithsonian Institute. It used coordinative resonance (without diathermic effects) to selectively target cancer, leaving healthy tissue unharmed. His discovery was violently suppressed by the Medical Trust.

https://archive.org/stream/annualreportofbo1944smit#page/206/mode/2up/search/rife (Smithsonian Institute Report.)




This very same concept was rediscovered independently by Anthony Holland:

 

[Tiger King]

There was an episode of Vice fairly recently about the new methods of tackling cancer.
Scientists are taking diseases such as meningitis and even aids, tinkering with them so the disease becomes a vaccine that helps the bodies immune system, to then discover and attack tumours.

Here is a snippet of the documentary, it's fascinating stuff and the doctors in it believe we will have a cure possibly in our lifetimes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGkJYMPPA4s

Cancer is going to always be with us I imagine but I think one day we will be able to manage it.