Indeed. Not only is cancer a type or category of disease, rather than a specific one, people react to the treatments in different ways, including negative ones. Usually the best we can do is prevention and detection, all of which has nothing to do with curing a disease and have brought much profit to these companies.

As for the latter point: Exactly. Prestige brings profit. Not just in shares (although that's important too), but also in people's choice of products and investments.

There is no such thing as a panacea; diseases and the human body are far too complex. So, hypothetically, if one were to be discovered, the resulting prestige would outweigh the other considerations.

Last edited by blackluna at 3:59 pm, Sep 7 2021

Sounds like you read a conspiracy theorist (I did look at it).

Wikipedia and its sources (many of which are both reputable and did actual clinical studies) say, on the contrary, it usually doesn't work, and overall causes more harm than good. Not only is said diet high in ingredients that many people have trouble digesting or are allergic to, many of its adherents refuse other medical care until its too late or (when it does "work" ) later relapse. Clinical studies don't show any actual evidence of it working, and when it is effective it seems to be either in tandem with mainstream cancer treatments or a case study (as opposed to a general rule).

In all honesty, given the nature of cancers (a malignant growth of mutated cells), I can't see how a diet alone could be an all-purpose cure. That's not how diets work after all, although they definitely do effect the body in many ways; at best, a diet can be a complementary treatment. Suggesting that ultrasound waves as a panacea is more realistic than a diet (the proponents of the former don't go that far, which tells you something).

Also see: Cancer treatments: alternative medicine, Alternative cancer treatments, List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments (where your source's cure falls), and Experimental cancer treatments.

Last edited by blackluna at 3:10 pm, Sep 7 2021

Not how the world works. For one thing, the human body is extremely complex, so what works for some or most never works for all (a circumstance I've had to deal with more than once; e.g. "hypoallergenic" is usually considered "non-allergenic" — and then there are those rare people who react to sunflowers and the like, but no culinary nuts or shellfish — the same thing happens in medications). That's one reason why there are numerous treatments and cures for nearly all diseases. Additionally, people get different side-effects and might have other conditions or be taking medications which would have a bad reaction to any one cure (which is why the medical world usually tries to make sure there are at least two).

Another reason why prescription medications are so damn expensive is that the US is basically the only country funding further research (you can thank government healthcare for that). As for the second and third worlds, usually there's a logistical problem preventing eradication, which is difficult enough in the first world, since many of these countries are unstable and even lack proper sanitation and hygiene (toilets and clean water are the two big ones here).

I honestly don't even know where to start with the last one: just, please do some fact checking. If any company were doing such a thing, it wouldn't be too hard for it to get out and (ignoring morals, since you're assuming they lack them) the loses would not be worth it. Seriously. So, yeah, please gets some reputable sources.

So all white-collar workers are evil? That sure sounds like it could be correct, especially since humans have their own minds. What you just said operates under the assumption that human beings who are part of a company have a hive-mind. Also: the Dilbert principle.

Last edited by blackluna at 3:59 pm, Sep 7 2021

That's the difference between a private company which has to compete with others and a government establishment which will exist regardless of its performance. Thus, the Yugo (one of the better communist-produced cars, which is why it was the only one marketed outside of its country of origin). Which is one of the biggest reasons I've never been in favour of required nationalized health-care.

Last edited by blackluna at 4:16 pm, Sep 7 2021

...Did you deadass just link a site that suggests not getting vaccinated and not visiting a doctor under any circumstances if you have cancer?? This is literally just an essential oils and "alternative treatment" blog. The "Our Suggestions" section might as well just be a guide on how to speed up your trip to death's door if you have cancer.

People like this try to leech as much money as possible from naive, sick people. "Get our book, Defy Your Doctor and Be Healed, and other superior products at the Health Wyze Store." Give me a fucking break. I can't believe you linked this in a thread where the debate circulates around hiding life-saving drugs for profit. Money means everything to both big companies and natural cure bs'ers.

Please look into some of the things blackluna linked if you actually believe this kind of thing. I admit I flew off the handle a little here but I'm sick and tired of watching people fall for these kinds of schemes.

As for the topic of the actual thread, I'm inclined to agree with everyone who already said that there's no way a "secret" this big could be kept hidden for long. If an effective cure for cancer or at least some form of it is found, then its existence would most definitely be leaked within short notice. And if it's not hidden, said cure will more than likely be astronomically expensive.


Last edited by Alimeru at 6:45 pm, Sep 7 2021

You do realize that you just defeated your own point, right? So-called "reputable sources" don't publish anything that harms or offends their sponsors, or isn't for their own benefit. And, they few times they do, it's published on the back page that no one reads.

Forget everything that's happened over the past few decades with Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.; and let's rewind the clocks to the decade of the 1920's. This was a "glorious time", the American middle class was seeing the sky as the limit to their life improvements, the American economy was "stronger" than ever, the League of Nations was keeping peace throughout the world, and it was particularly the time of "muckraking journalism". Where you had independent journalists breaking the big news about all the corruption going on and making changes in the world. Except, they weren't. In 1929, one particular journalist by the name of George Seldes finally had enough and published a book entitled You Can't Print That! that documented all of the news stories that he was prevented from publishing during that decade. And, he carried on that career all the way into 60's, much to the criticism of many. Even earlier than that, back in the 1859, a Nebraskan so-called "surveyor" by the name of William Byers start a little newspaper in Colorado that published nothing but lies, ended up effecting millions to the point that he was going to be lynched, and said lies being the sole reason why Denver is even on the map. And, those are the two most egregious examples that come to mind, and I know there's far more once you start looking. One such experience was reading through a collection of the supposed "best" front pages of the L.A. Times from their founding to the mid-1980's (You know, one of those collections people just buy and place on their coffee table, and never actually open), and finding out that the single largest lynching in the U.S. was against Italians (Strangely enough, in a sports article about John Sullivan's then-recent victory, with the writer praising the murders), and that the source of all the anti-Japanese sentiment prior to WWII was caused by Chinese immigrants (With articles painting the Chinese as virtuous, despite the opium dens, compared to the "evil Japanese who will run business owners out of house and home" ).

Now, with all that knowledge in mind, let's bring some of that forward to day. There are three companies who control almost the entirety of the internet: Google, Facebook, and Twitter. If you publish ANYTHING that those companies do not like, they're going to prevent your content from being viewed, they'll ban you from the platform, and ultimately remove your ability to contribute towards wider society. And, that's in addition to a news media that was just proven as having never been trustworthy since the dawn. Also, the a topper of government officials who constantly change their stories to where what was "misinformation" one week is now set-in-stone law this week, only to go back to being "misinformation" next week.

When boiled all down, how can one look at this circumstance, and come to the conclusion that there is certainly no "bias" or censorship taking place in the wider world? And, remember, this is just in reference to the U.S..

________________

It such a laughable idea it they find such a thing then they have invested money and time in it, so they would release it.

They make more money off living people then dead people, one cure doesn't heal every ache and sickness a living human will need medicine all his life.

The question is will it be easily accessible... let's just say that not ever remedy is easy to get.

Pretending that this is a panacea that would somehow actually cure every type of cancer, I'd say that Yeah They Would Release It. Can you IMAGINE all the time, money, and manpower that would need to go into finding this? They aren't going to just not release it after all that. And like it isn't just going to find it on accident. And if they did, they would need to go through so much testing and bureaucracy to make sure that it is actually a cure for cancer, and at that point, the information is out of their hands, so they might as well claim credit for it. Like seriously, I hate big pharma as much as the next person, but even if moral responsibility wasn't a concern for the individuals (at least one of which would absolutely leak this information), it would be such an economic advantage to come out with this information and charge wild amounts for it