The War On Cancer Is A Bust - No Real Progress And Actually A Regress

[haidut]

Mark Twain often repeated a phrase that virtually everybody knows today - "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics". In the age of epidemiology, Big Data, and the rule of chance/entropy, the 3 components of that phrase have largely merged and now most statistical claims can be safely assumed to be mostly lies, driven by a hidden financial or political motive.
One of the massive political (and financial) motivators of the last 50 years has been the War on Cancer, started in the early 1970s. Despite its quite obvious and miserable failure, news media continues to trumpet the "major advances" in cancer care and how the War on Cancer is being won. Every time I hear another news anchor, (often clearly under the influence of God knows what psychotropic drug) gush about yet another "win" in this war, it reminds me of the end of the movie "Traffic" where Michael Douglas tried to give a press conference and convince the public that the War on Drugs can and will be won. Seconds later, he admits that the whole thing is a charade and walks away from the podium and his highly paid/powerful position as head of the DEA.
While Peat has written many times on the many fradulent techniques the cancer industry used to show that they are winning the war, I had not seen any major news outlet make the same argument. Now, I am beginning to suspect that something similar may be about to happen with the War on Cancer. When the official mouthpiece on "establishment science" - The Scientific American - calls BS on the whole thing, then we know the house of cards may be starting to tumble. That public admission of failure joins the voices of the NYT, WaPo, and the Skeptical Inquirer, making it all the more obvious.
The truth is brutal but needs to be said loud and clear - there has been NO progress made over the last 100 years. In fact, the cancer mortality rate kept climbing for pretty much the entire 20th century, before flattening out a bit in the 90s, and then resuming growth again. And even the modest flattening (not even a decline) was not due to any advances in cancer treatments but the success of a few public policies such as reduction in smoking and removal of lead from gasoline. As such, the trillions upon trillions of dollars that were spent on cancer research over the last 110+ years have been utterly and completely wasted. The only people who benefitted from this massive funding effort were Big Pharma, and heads of large government/private labs depending on taxpayer money for continued employment. To this day, NIH continues to gobble billions every year in the name of cancer research and nobody seems to be asking for results. So, the charade continues, but it looks like not for long. I wonder what will replace it, once it collapses for good...

Hopeful Glimmers in Long War on Cancer
Pledged to Find Cancer Cure, but Advances Prove Elusive
The War on Cancer A Progress Report for Skeptics - CSI
Sorry, but So Far War on Cancer Has Been a Bust

"...The occasion was a talk by one of my colleagues at Stevens Institute, philosopher Gregory Morgan, on the fascinating history of research into cancer-causing viruses. In the Q&A, someone commented on how far science has come in understanding cancer's causes. With my usual kneejerk negativity, I lamented that all our knowledge about oncogenes, oncoviruses and other cancer catalysts has not translated into significant reductions in mortality."

"...I'll get to Fagin and Johnson soon, but first some background information. Cancer journalism usually hails alleged advances, but in 2009 Gina Kolata of The New York Times provided a blunt reality check, "Advances Elusive in the Drive to Cure Cancer," that five years later remains all too relevant. Kolata asserts that "the grim facts about cancer can be lost among the positive messages from the news media, advocacy groups and medical centers, and even labels on foods and supplements, hinting that they can fight or prevent cancer." In 1971, she recalls, President Richard Nixon declared war on cancer, vowing that the disease would be cured within five years. Since then, the National Cancer Institute has spent $105 billion on research, and other institutions—private, public and non-profit--have spent many billions more."

"...But the overall death rate for cancer—adjusted for the aging of the U.S. population—has fallen by only five percent since 1950, Kolata points out. During this same period, the death rate for heart disease plummeted 64 percent and for flu and pneumonia 58 percent. The decline in the cancer mortality rate since 1950 has not been steady. The rate actually increased from 1950 through the early 1990s and then began dropping. In other words, the mortality rate rose for two decades after Nixon's declaration of war before dipping downward."

"...The decline in mortality rates since the early 1990s has been credited to improved tests and treatments, but Kolata tossed cold water on these claims last year. "The much touted recent drops in some cancer rates," she writes, "were mostly attributable not to cancer breakthroughs but to a decline in smoking that began decades ago--propelled, in part, by federal antismoking campaigns that began in the 1960s."

"...This view is corroborated by a 2010 Skeptical Inquirer article, "The War on Cancer: A Progress Report for Skeptics." Reynold Spector, professor of medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, provides charts (which I have reproduced) showing how a rise and fall in smoking preceded the rise and fall of the death rate from cancer, and particularly lung cancer. Citing Kolata's 2009 article, Spector agrees with her that "the war on cancer has not gone well."

"...Cancer-research boosters often state that people are surviving cancer for longer periods. But that is because men and women are being screened more frequently with higher-resolution tests and hence being diagnosed with cancer at earlier stages. They are living longer after diagnosis, not living longer in absolute terms. Spector explains: "First, if one discovers a malignant tumor very early and starts therapy immediately, even if the therapy is worthless, it will appear that the patient lives longer than a second patient (with an identical tumor) treated with another worthless drug if the cancer in the second patient was detected later."

"...Cancer has killed people I love at an early age, so I am as desperate as anyone for progress. Sometimes I feel like a jerk when I tell people how little progress we've made, especially after they tell me stories about loved ones who have triumphed over cancer. But if we are to have any chance of overcoming this terrible disease, we must face it squarely."

 

[Vinero]

That's why I never give any money to collectors at the door for "cancer research." I mean, I bet in 50 years they will still need money for "research" because a cancer cure will never be found by them. They should instead look at the past and see that someone called Otto Warburg has essentially solved the cancer problem. All Peatarians should be familiar with the Warburg Effect and how it is essentially the cancer metabolism.
The Warburg "effect" Is, In Fact, A Direct Cause Of Cancer

 

[burtlancast]

This whole enduring cancer racket has a surprisingly simple solution: force the health providers to cover non patentable cancer therapies.

Because what determines the choice between conventional and alternative is the cure rates: we don't know those cure rates for natural therapies simply because most people can't afford them out of their pockets, so they go with conventional.

Also the artificial 5 year survival cure limit should be evidently extended to 10-15 years instead: because many will develop secondary cancers due to the toxic therapies.
But people don't know that.

Something we won't hear anytime soon from cancer gatekeeper Ralph Moss:

"A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy."
- John Diamond (NCI Journal 87:10)."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...046212211619&usg=AOvVaw26NDnPdYgioVarp3xdqIMS

 

[haidut]

Also the artificial 5 year survival cure limit should be evidently extended to 10-15 years instead: because many will develop secondary cancers due to the toxic therapies.
But people don't know that.

Spot on. No doctors I ever asked (some of them oncologists) was able to explain what is it so magical about 5 years survival. As if the cancer has some hidden timer, and if you deactivate it for 5 years it somehow self-destructs. The truth statistic should be the final cause of death of a former cancer patient. If the person eventually died of any cancer then I'd count that as failed therapy. Actually, if the cancer was secondary, I would count it as ioatrogenic death eligible under tort law for litigation and even criminal law for especially egregious cases. This travesty needs to end.

 

[burtlancast]

A rare 2017 article:

Chemotherapy causes cancer?​

Scott Stockdale

Despite the continued use of chemotherapy as the mainstay to treat cancer patients, researchers recently increased their estimate of the number of Canadians who will die from cancer from two-in-five, to one-in-two.

Meanwhile, a 14-year study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in December 2004 called “The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies” (Clinical Oncology (2004) 16: 549e560 doi:10.1016/j.clon.2004.06.007) showed that the overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1 % in the United States.

Moreover, several doctors have stated on the record that chemotherapy actually causes more cancer to develop in patients.

According to Dr. John Diamond, M.D., “A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy.”

Moreover, Dr. Allen Levin and Dr. Glen Warner said chemotherapy actually kills the patients before the cancer does.

The late Dr. Glenn Warner (he died in 2000) – one of the most highly qualified cancer specialists in American - used alternative treatments on his cancer patients with great success. He said chemotherapy was killing people for profit.

“We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison.”

Dr. Allen Levin concurred with Dr. Warner's conclusion that chemotherapy kills people.

“Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors,” Dr. Levin said.

In his book, The Topic of Cancer: When the Killing Has to Stop, **** Richards cites a number of autopsy studies which have shown that cancer patients actually died from conventional treatments before the tumor had a chance to kill them.

Dr. Petter Glidden, a member of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians and the Illinois Association of Naturopathic Physicians, who received his BS degree from the University of Massachusetts in Amhurst and earned his ND from Bastyr University in Seattle, Washington, said chemotherapy is still used because doctors and pharmaceutical companies make money from it.

“That's the only reason: not because it's effective, decreases morbidity, mortality or diminishes any specific cancer rates. In fact, it does the opposite. Chemotherapy boosts cancer growth and long-term mortality rates. Most chemotherapy patients either die or are plagued with illness within 10-15 years after treatment. It destroys their immune system, increases neuro-cognitive decline, disrupts endocrine functioning and causes organ and metabolic toxicities. Patients basically live in a permanent state of disease until their death.”

Moreover, he added that “The cancer industry” (pharmaceutical companies and doctors) marginalizes safe and effective cures while promoting their patented, expensive, and toxic remedies, whose risks far exceed any benefit.

“This is what they do best, and they do it because it makes money, plain and simple.”

Dr. Glidden said toxic chemotherapy drugs just happen to take a little longer to kill than many other poisonous substances – such as cyanide and arsenic - and he said they're designed that way for a good reason.

“We couldn't have people dropping like flies one week after receiving chemo or the gig would be over. Again, that would be bad for business.”

With these kind of claims, one has to wonder how researchers manage to promulgate a “one-in-two” chance of survival for those who take conventional cancer treatments, which means chemotherapy and radiation.

Dr. Glidden said it's clear to any trained eye that initial lesions that are doubtful, or debatable, as to whether or not they are malignant, represent the overwhelming majority of the tumours being detected. In other words, patients with these lesions are either unlikely, or much less likely to develop malignant cancer than those who definitely cancer tumours. By including these initial lesions, which Dr. Glidden characterizes as “presumed neoplasias”, researchers are able to inflate survival rates for chemotherapy patients.

“It is equally clear how often these presumed neoplasias (tumours), which are often subject to both misunderstanding and manipulation, inflate those statistics to the point of implausibility.”

He added that the reason a five-year relative survival rate is the standard used to assess mortality rates is due to most cancer patients going downhill after this period.

Meanwhile, Dr. Glidden said if the long-term statistics (ten plus years) for all cancers administered chemotherapy produced the objective data on rigorous evaluations, including the cost-effectiveness, impact on the immune system, quality of life, morbidity and mortality, it would be very clear that chemotherapy makes little to no contribution to cancer survival at all. But he intimated that this is not going to happen any time soon because researchers are funded by corporations - mainly pharmaceutical companies - which make a fortune from chemotherapy drugs.

“No such study has ever been conducted by independent investigators in the history of chemotherapy. The only studies available come from (cancer) industry funded institutions and scientists and none of them have ever inclusively quantified the above variables.”

He added that clinical studies never inclusively assess the long-term survival and recovery rates of cancer patients because damage to the immune system, organ and metabolic toxicities, endocrine challenges and neurocognitive problems slowly develops after chemotherapy.

“It often does not begin to manifest throughout the body until several months or even years have passed. It takes time, but within a 3-5 year period, most chemotherapy patients begin to have many more symptoms of disease than they ever had before their diagnosis, due to and as a direct result of cytotoxic drug intervention.”

This may be, in no small part, because chemotherapy does not target cancer cells and it kills far more normal cells than cancer cells and damages and toxifies many of the normal cells that do survive.

 

[haidut]

A rare 2017 article:

Chemotherapy causes cancer?​

Scott Stockdale

Despite the continued use of chemotherapy as the mainstay to treat cancer patients, researchers recently increased their estimate of the number of Canadians who will die from cancer from two-in-five, to one-in-two.

Meanwhile, a 14-year study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in December 2004 called “The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies” (Clinical Oncology (2004) 16: 549e560 doi:10.1016/j.clon.2004.06.007) showed that the overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1 % in the United States.

Moreover, several doctors have stated on the record that chemotherapy actually causes more cancer to develop in patients.

According to Dr. John Diamond, M.D., “A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy.”

Moreover, Dr. Allen Levin and Dr. Glen Warner said chemotherapy actually kills the patients before the cancer does.

The late Dr. Glenn Warner (he died in 2000) – one of the most highly qualified cancer specialists in American - used alternative treatments on his cancer patients with great success. He said chemotherapy was killing people for profit.

“We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison.”

Dr. Allen Levin concurred with Dr. Warner's conclusion that chemotherapy kills people.

“Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors,” Dr. Levin said.

In his book, The Topic of Cancer: When the Killing Has to Stop, **** Richards cites a number of autopsy studies which have shown that cancer patients actually died from conventional treatments before the tumor had a chance to kill them.

Dr. Petter Glidden, a member of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians and the Illinois Association of Naturopathic Physicians, who received his BS degree from the University of Massachusetts in Amhurst and earned his ND from Bastyr University in Seattle, Washington, said chemotherapy is still used because doctors and pharmaceutical companies make money from it.

“That's the only reason: not because it's effective, decreases morbidity, mortality or diminishes any specific cancer rates. In fact, it does the opposite. Chemotherapy boosts cancer growth and long-term mortality rates. Most chemotherapy patients either die or are plagued with illness within 10-15 years after treatment. It destroys their immune system, increases neuro-cognitive decline, disrupts endocrine functioning and causes organ and metabolic toxicities. Patients basically live in a permanent state of disease until their death.”

Moreover, he added that “The cancer industry” (pharmaceutical companies and doctors) marginalizes safe and effective cures while promoting their patented, expensive, and toxic remedies, whose risks far exceed any benefit.

“This is what they do best, and they do it because it makes money, plain and simple.”

Dr. Glidden said toxic chemotherapy drugs just happen to take a little longer to kill than many other poisonous substances – such as cyanide and arsenic - and he said they're designed that way for a good reason.

“We couldn't have people dropping like flies one week after receiving chemo or the gig would be over. Again, that would be bad for business.”

With these kind of claims, one has to wonder how researchers manage to promulgate a “one-in-two” chance of survival for those who take conventional cancer treatments, which means chemotherapy and radiation.

Dr. Glidden said it's clear to any trained eye that initial lesions that are doubtful, or debatable, as to whether or not they are malignant, represent the overwhelming majority of the tumours being detected. In other words, patients with these lesions are either unlikely, or much less likely to develop malignant cancer than those who definitely cancer tumours. By including these initial lesions, which Dr. Glidden characterizes as “presumed neoplasias”, researchers are able to inflate survival rates for chemotherapy patients.

“It is equally clear how often these presumed neoplasias (tumours), which are often subject to both misunderstanding and manipulation, inflate those statistics to the point of implausibility.”

He added that the reason a five-year relative survival rate is the standard used to assess mortality rates is due to most cancer patients going downhill after this period.

Meanwhile, Dr. Glidden said if the long-term statistics (ten plus years) for all cancers administered chemotherapy produced the objective data on rigorous evaluations, including the cost-effectiveness, impact on the immune system, quality of life, morbidity and mortality, it would be very clear that chemotherapy makes little to no contribution to cancer survival at all. But he intimated that this is not going to happen any time soon because researchers are funded by corporations - mainly pharmaceutical companies - which make a fortune from chemotherapy drugs.

“No such study has ever been conducted by independent investigators in the history of chemotherapy. The only studies available come from (cancer) industry funded institutions and scientists and none of them have ever inclusively quantified the above variables.”

He added that clinical studies never inclusively assess the long-term survival and recovery rates of cancer patients because damage to the immune system, organ and metabolic toxicities, endocrine challenges and neurocognitive problems slowly develops after chemotherapy.

“It often does not begin to manifest throughout the body until several months or even years have passed. It takes time, but within a 3-5 year period, most chemotherapy patients begin to have many more symptoms of disease than they ever had before their diagnosis, due to and as a direct result of cytotoxic drug intervention.”

This may be, in no small part, because chemotherapy does not target cancer cells and it kills far more normal cells than cancer cells and damages and toxifies many of the normal cells that do survive.

Good find. We know that at the very least surgery and chemotherapy cause the primary isolated tumor to spread and/or evolve into a lethal one. I would not be surprised though if chemo directly causes all secondary cancers. All cytotoxic agents are inherently carcinogenic, which would include pretty much all mainstream chemotherapy.
Chemotherapy Causes Cancer Metastases, Tumor Evolution
Yet Another Study Shows That Chemotherapy Drives Cancer Metastases

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

I have always found standard cancer treatments very strange. The person would look so bad after doing it, much worse than before. But now it all makes sense. They design it to be that way. And I think many people naturally don't like it either, but doctors, with their White coat and authority, make the person look insane and irresponsible if they choose other ways to treat the disease. And not only that, but thay also manipulate other people to pressure the person wth cancer. Talk about stress.

 

[Whichway?]

So what is the alternative? Just spend no money on research? That approach would guarantee that we would never progress in our understanding of biology. It is a journey that will be extremely long and complicated to fully understand how we work and where we go wrong, and the how to fix it. But if we don’t start on the research journey, and keep going....then we have ZERO chance of ever making progress.

 

[Cirion]

So what is the alternative? Just spend no money on research? That approach would guarantee that we would never progress in our understanding of biology. It is a journey that will be extremely long and complicated to fully understand how we work and where we go wrong, and the how to fix it. But if we don’t start on the research journey, and keep going....then we have ZERO chance of ever making progress.

We don't make progress because big pharma couldn't care less about curing cancer, as Haidut said its just a big smokescreen so they can keep selling their scam products and methods to us.

Cures to cancer are already essentially known, and it boils down to fixing your metabolism. The most efficient path to accomplish this could potentially be refined, but basically it involves one or more of the following:

- Thyroid
- Low stress lifestyle
- Fixing your environment
- Ditching PUFA's, increasing quality carbs / foods
- Sunlight
- Reducing / eliminating man made EMF and blue lighting
- etc....

Until mainstream medicine realizes that increasing the metabolic rate is the key to fixing cancer, it's all pointless research because they're looking under the wrong rock for the solution. Even if you manage to devise a method that has a 100% cure rate of cancer but does not fix the issue that caused the cancer in the first place (deranged metabolism), it's a waste because that person will almost guaranteed get cancer again and gain.

I don't see this happening in my lifetime. Oncology is a huge business and if we just start telling people to avoid PUFA and eat fruit to get better, they'll lose $billions and we can't have that now can we.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

@haidut ... thank you very much for collecting and sharing this hard to digest but all the more important info.

I remember you posted a thread a few weeks ago where some info was provided that Pharma now turns to pushing „adjuvant treatments“ together with their chemos and radiations to actually achieve some results because they start to feel a bit of pressure. The adjuvants, simple proven substances, are really the cause for some more positive results.

I can’t for the life of me remember the topic of that thread and this song find it. Do you know which one I mean. It fits nicely into this theme here

 

[burtlancast]

So what is the alternative? Just spend no money on research?

After reading alternative cancer literature for more than 14 years, i came to the conclusion that, besides avoidance of chemicals and PUFAS, the easiest and cheapest anti-cancer diet is still daily apricot seeds for prevention.

You do that every day and you rest assured to prevent any development of young and fragile cancer cells further down the line.

Here's a testimonial, straight from the horse's mouth, about metabolic therapy spectacular success and the miserable failure of chemo and radiation.

This is a 5 parts interview with Hungarian maverick Dr Szabolk Ladi who treats cancer patients with metabolic therapy in defiance of Hungarian medical laws.



05.50: in the lung cancer department he used to work at the institute, there were hardly any patient who recovered with chemo and radio: it delayed the disease but didn't cure it. Even though they started from nothing (they got send protocols and results from the laetrile doctors in Mexico), they got immediately better results than orthodox treatments.

08.15: with metabolic treatment, only 15% of the terminal cases recover completely (from those who first used conventional and failed it)




00.05 radio and chemo and cancer itself damage the body, and it's very hard to reverse it. Those who cannot be saved will still see their survival length increased and their pain diminished.

00.35: of those who came to him before entering the final cancer stage, and have not be damaged by chemo or radiation, 85 % can be saved.




00.00: local (not spread) cervical cancer gets cured 85% of the time with metabolic therapy.




00.05: confirms chemo has only 2% cure rate

00.40: thinks there's now a critical number of both doctors and patients believing the official cancer treatment has failed. There exists 2 studies showing that those not treated with anything have the same or better life expectancy than those treated conventionally. The results for the enormously expensive cancer research are miserable.
And even if metabolic therapy costs 10 times less, the government doesn't support it.

02.05: chemo is carcinogenic: it's his biggest side effect. The same for radiation. We see it in many patients: after 2-3 years they're told they are cured, another cancer appears.

02.40: there's one big problem with chemo: they measure the success rate of chemo by measuring the size of the tumor. But there's always 30% of cancer cells resistant to the chemo: by killing the 70% sensible, you make room for the 30% to rapidly expand further. And we see in many, many cases after chemo that the tumor who was localized before chemo starts expanding and metastasizes. And this is also caused because the immune system has been broken down. And orthodox medicine has nothing to prevent this aggressive expansion post chemo. It takes 1 or 2 months before the immune system recovers from chemo.That leaves 1-2 months for the aggressive surviving cancer cells to spread.But if Laetrile is given with the chemo, it can prevent this spread. That's because laetrile is working without the immune system, even when he's down.

07.20: one interesting thing is we get always better responses from children.
.

 

[lampofred]

I definitely will get called a quack if I say this in real life, and even here, I probably will get called a quack by some... But I think cancer has a major mental component to it, especially cancers that seem to have no direct physical cause like breast cancer as opposed to cancers like lung cancer which clearly have a physical cause rooted in carcinogen exposure. Cancer might be a sign your body is rebelling against your mind after being forced to have constantly suppressed desires/passions/ambitions for decades. Cancer patients are usually the nice-on-the-surface, self-sacrificing type... Healthier, longer-lived people are either the ones that are living out their dreams or the ones that are naturally content/don't overthink things/are satisfied with less.

 

[Cirion]

I don't think you're crazy, even though I don't agree 100% with it but you make a good point but I think it's kind of a chicken or the egg argument given that hypothyroidism tends to cause mental disorders, while having mental problems exasperates hypothyroidism as well. Agree 100% in any case that cancer patients will probably have mental issues since physical and mental disease do tend to go hand in hand.

Hypothyroidism I would argue causes someone to be more likely to be a "people pleaser" type. I know because I've been there. Getting into this state, as you stated, will then cause the person to want to please others at the expense of their own desires, eventually causing more distress. Hence why I pose it as a chicken or the egg argument, in any case, fixing the metabolism directly in most cases should rectify the problem, as the person begins to view their life in a different prism (in the context of a more robust metabolism) they'll note the errors of their ways and most will naturally change their ways to suit their own ambitions at this point. I can confirm through personal experience that fixing a metabolism can and does radically change how you view your situation in life and will often make you have a strong desire to make changes. Being hypothyroid for a long time makes you unmotivated and lazy, so that even if you know what's happening, you won't have motivation to change.

BTW a common cause of breast cancer is physical though, an Iodine deficiency in particular can cause it (which is an unpopular opinion on the RP forums though given that RP is rather anti-Iodine).

 

[Whichway?]

I agree with a lot of the sentiments in this thread. The only problem I see is that without research, we will never understand things, and therefore any attempts to cure cancer will just be leaps in the dark as it has been in years past.

I agree that the system is broken, especially big pharma making super profits off treatments, but the only way that I can see of fixing the system would resemble "socialism" to many. I would propose that governments fund Universities to do the research of metabolism and drug discovery. Also that any and ALL lines of enquiry be looked at, not just those that are patentable. Then companies would be given a licence by the government to produce certain remedies that had been proven in the Universities to work. That way the drug companies don't have the massive development costs of drugs, and the insipid focus on only those remedies that are patentable. Prices for medicines and licences would be set by the government so that citizens could afford treatment and to prevent companies making ridiculous profits off human suffering.

But as I said that is a socialist model of operation, and runs counter to the free market "ideaology" of many who believe that free markets always provide the best solutions. We have a free market solution at the moment to cancer, but it sucks!

 

[tankasnowgod]

I agree with a lot of the sentiments in this thread. The only problem I see is that without research, we will never understand things, and therefore any attempts to cure cancer will just be leaps in the dark as it has been in years past.

I agree that the system is broken, especially big pharma making super profits off treatments, but the only way that I can see of fixing the system would resemble "socialism" to many. I would propose that governments fund Universities to do the research of metabolism and drug discovery. Also that any and ALL lines of enquiry be looked at, not just those that are patentable. Then companies would be given a licence by the government to produce certain remedies that had been proven in the Universities to work. That way the drug companies don't have the massive development costs of drugs, and the insipid focus on only those remedies that are patentable. Prices for medicines and licences would be set by the government so that citizens could afford treatment and to prevent companies making ridiculous profits off human suffering.

But as I said that is a socialist model of operation, and runs counter to the free market "ideaology" of many who believe that free markets always provide the best solutions. We have a free market solution at the moment to cancer, but it sucks!

I think your getting the concepts of "research funding" and "research" confused. You still seem to think that knowledge comes from authority. Why does "research" have to be funded anyway? Look at Andrew Fletcher, and his finding of Inclined Bed Therapy to improve circulation. He received no funding whatsoever, not from government nor private corporations, and made an amazing discovery. It's simple and easy to implement, and it can improve a whole host of conditions. Sometimes, the results can seem miraculous. But these massive improvements make sense, as it improves circulation, and almost every condition would be improved with better circulation.

Of course, the reason Andrew discovered this is because his career was outside the medical field. He is an engineer. The biggest breakthroughs in ANY field usually come from people who work outside of it.

I don't think your "socialist" model wouldn't work, because we already have a "socialist" model. In fact, the system you suggested is pretty much the exact system that is already in place in the US. Pretty much all you suggest that's different is moving all clinical trials onto university property, and setting some more price ceiling on drugs. And if you truly believe in the model you are suggesting..... why are you on The Ray Peat Forum in the first place? You seem to put more faith in government licensed cures than your own research. So, no real point to being on this forum then, right? Certainly, there is not a free market when it comes to health research. Certainly not when you have an FDA and a schedule of drugs, and medical boards everywhere. Of course I think a free market provides the best solutions. Well, best solutions for individuals, anyway.

So yes, I would like to see all government funding for health research eliminated. That would be a massive step forward. But that's likely a pipe dream.

 

[Whichway?]

I think your getting the concepts of "research funding" and "research" confused. You still seem to think that knowledge comes from authority. Why does "research" have to be funded anyway? Look at Andrew Fletcher, and his finding of Inclined Bed Therapy to improve circulation. He received no funding whatsoever, not from government nor private corporations, and made an amazing discovery. It's simple and easy to implement, and it can improve a whole host of conditions. Sometimes, the results can seem miraculous. But these massive improvements make sense, as it improves circulation, and almost every condition would be improved with better circulation.

Of course, the reason Andrew discovered this is because his career was outside the medical field. He is an engineer. The biggest breakthroughs in ANY field usually come from people who work outside of it.

That might work for simple engineering solutions like this. It won't work unfortunately for biology. To do good biological work you need laboratories and a host of equipment and expertise. I've been a biological researcher in a University, so I'm speaking from experience with that area.

I don't think your "socialist" model wouldn't work, because we already have a "socialist" model. In fact, the system you suggested is pretty much the exact system that is already in place in the US. Pretty much all you suggest that's different is moving all clinical trials onto university property, and setting some more price ceiling on drugs. Certainly, there is not a free market when it comes to health research. Certainly not when you have an FDA and a schedule of drugs, and medical boards everywhere. Of course I think a free market provides the best solutions. Well, best solutions for individuals, anyway.

There is a lot of research that occurs within big pharma. They have their own labs. However they are only interested in patentable medicines which can turn a massive profit necessary to re-coup the cost of R&D.

By Government controlling the R&D spend and placing it with Universities, you may have a greater chance of opening up research to many different lines of enquiry, not just the ones deemed by big pharma to be promising.

If I could solve cancer with my own research and in my own lab at home then I would. As I said earlier you need a lot of infrastructure to do research. If you believe otherwise then you must believe in magical thinking, if you feel the average person can nut this out on their own.

And if you truly believe in the model you are suggesting..... why are you on The Ray Peat Forum in the first place? You seem to put more faith in government licensed cures than your own research. So, no real point to being on this forum then, right?

I'm here on the forum to keep learning and to contribute knowledge to others in the hope of being helpful. I don't think it is up to you to tell me whether I should or should not be on the forum.

So yes, I would like to see all government funding for health research eliminated. That would be a massive step forward. But that's likely a pipe dream.

Thank God that you are not in charge of funding to Universities if you feel health research would move forward by cutting all its funding.

Ray Peat is a scientist, and he uses the results of research from many people from Universities. What are you doing on a forum which discusses scientific research from Universities, based on the work of an ex-University researcher? Because wouldn't we be better off with no funding for any of it and just relying on incline bed therapy right?

 

[tankasnowgod]

That might work for simple engineering solutions like this. It won't work unfortunately for biology. To do good biological work you need laboratories and a host of equipment and expertise. I've been a biological researcher in a University, so I'm speaking from experience with that area.

Okay..... so what moves the blood in your body?

By Government controlling the R&D spend and placing it with Universities, you may have a greater chance of opening up research to many different lines of enquiry, not just the ones deemed by big pharma to be promising.

Nope. Not the slightest chance. You seem to live in a fantasy world where there is no such thing as corruption and blackmail. I've seen people talk a lot on this forum about "regulatory capture." They are largely right, although the concept always rubbed me the wrong way. I realize now what it was. It's not so much that the agencies have been "captured." The agencies were setup to benefit large corporations in the first place. Truthfully, there was no need to capture them. Patrick Bryne discusses this often in regards to finance and how the SEC and CFTC are really there to run cover for the corruption in the financial industry, but there is no doubt that the FDA and CDC and NIH and USDA do the exact same thing for Big Pharma and Health Coverage Providers, and Big Agra.

Thank God that you are not in charge of funding to Universities if you feel health research would move forward by cutting all its funding.

Well, considering those institutions won't even entertain the proven ideas about Vitamin C and Cancer that the greatest mind of the 20th century, Linus Pauling, discovered, I don't think they deserve a dime from anyone. Anyway, why would any University need any money from government? Don't they charge tuition from students? Have donors? Make millions from ESPN and CBS and TNT for the broadcast rights to the school's sports teams?[/QUOTE]

 

[Cirion]

Well, considering those institutions won't even entertain the proven ideas about Vitamin C and Cancer that the greatest mind of the 20th century, Linus Pauling, discovered, I don't think they deserve a dime from anyone.

^^ This right here

Dr. Morse has a 90% cancer cure rate with his fruit protocol. Chemo has a 2% success rate and some would argue no effect at all compared to just doing nothing and hoping for the best. Chemo is the preferred method of cancer treatment from mainstream medicine. Yet Dr. Morse is considered the quack and mainstream medicine the savior. Any research that goes against big pharma will not be funded (or have funding taken away) and any research that may happen to show what Linus and others have found will be ignored as "quackery" as we have seen to be the case. Nearly all of the research required on cancer has already been performed as long as 100-200 years ago but dismissed in favor of peddling expensive drugs which do nothing or make it worse.

Perhaps some minute additional research could be made to bring the 90% survival rate closer to 100%, but we're already basically there.

 

[charlie]

I agree with a lot of the sentiments in this thread. The only problem I see is that without research, we will never understand things, and therefore any attempts to cure cancer will just be leaps in the dark as it has been in years past.

We already have a cure. Know a fella who cured his "stage 4 cancer" with fruits, berries and melons along with herbs and now he is thriving. Many many many many many many many others doing the same. There is no healing in big pharma, only cutting, burning, maiming, pumping ya full of toxic chemicals and breaking the bank. Break those chains and set yourself free.

Dr. Morse has a 90% cancer cure rate with his fruit protocol. Chemo has a 2% success rate and some would argue no effect at all compared to just doing nothing and hoping for the best. Chemo is the preferred method of cancer treatment from mainstream medicine. Yet Dr. Morse is considered the quack and mainstream medicine the savior.

Bingo bongo.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

Ray Peat is a scientist, and he uses the results of research from many people from Universities. What are you doing on a forum which discusses scientific research from Universities, based on the work of an ex-University researcher? Because wouldn't we be better off with no funding for any of it and just relying on incline bed therapy right?

What other choice does Ray Peat have? If Peat could draw from research that wasn't government and university-funded, he undoubtedly would. Such research is rare though, since the authoritarians have done everything in their power to eliminate any competition that might benefit society at their expense.

The government has basically monopolized scientific research by stealing everyone's money via taxation and siphoning it into universities closely aligned with the corrupt pharmaceutical companies and the [even more] corrupt FDA.

Like any product that the government touches, scientific research has suffered greatly. Who knows what discoveries would have been made by now if the government hadn't disincentivized or outright crushed all of the potential Ray Peats and Blake Colleges of the world?

Inclined bed therapy is just one small light in the darkness, a mere glimpse of what is possible in spite of our money being continuously stolen from us by the government and given to authoritarian thugs masquerading as scientists.