A cure for cancer does exist???

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by StroShow, Apr 25, 2010.

  1. StroShow

    StroShow The return shall be legenday! V.I.P. Lifetime

    I'm not sure if this belongs in this section so if it doesn't would a moderator please move it to the appropriate section. So the other day me and my friend were talking about Cancer. And he brought up an interesting point, but one that I also dont agree with. He said that scientists actually as a cure for Cancer but the goverment doesn't want them to release it because 1) It brings in billions of dollars for research and 2) It controls the population. Do you think he has a good point or he's way off base??

  2. Twitch

    Twitch Registered Member

    I don't think that even America would prolong the suffering and death of millions for money.
  3. JessEpiphany

    JessEpiphany Registered Member

    I'm not sure. My husband says the same thing. I'm not sure how I feel.
  4. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    I don't think a cure for cancer is even possible. You can't cure something unless you eliminate the cause. If you look at all of the genetic modifications that go into the food that we eat, it's no wonder that people eventually get cancer from it. If we as a society continue to demand things like cheap food, we're going to continue to get it. It's unhealthy and in many cases it's grown/produced at accelerated rates which rely on unsafe methods.

    The FDA is a joke and so is the food pyramid. Sure we need the things that they recommend, but we're not able to get it naturally anymore. Almost all of our food is artificial in some way. If suggested daily nutrition requirements were correct then people who met those requirements wouldn't be getting sick all of the time still. And certainly our immune systems would be able to fight off cancerous cells.

    Here's one for you all. Did you know that every last one of us has cancer? Our body's kill off cancerous cells every day.

    The cure to cancer is a good immune system.
  5. MenInTights

    MenInTights not a plastic bag

    I'll second that! Here's an example of the FDA being a joke. A few years ago, the made the cherry producers remove claims that cherry juice can cure gout even though there have been studies showing that it does just that. Then a year or two later, they approved some new drug to cure gout. :-/ What a coincidence. What would happen if we spent more time looking at foods that heal instead of pharmaceuticals that heal. Actually, it wasn't just the cheery farmers that suffered from the fda crackdown. Many fruit and natural foods were told to stop promoting their benefits.

    Not that drug companies are bad or haven't done incredible things, but it just seems there's a better way sometimes and it starts with building our bodies to fight this stuff.
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2010
  6. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member

    Is it possible your friend is right? Sure, I guess so.

    But I'd need evidence that's a bit more substantial than "a cure exists because I said so".
  7. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    In all fairness Brix, they know where cancer comes from, it's just very hard to stop. It's mutated cells, to put it simply. The trick is creating a medicine or treatment that will target only those cells and prevent the mutations from occurring. Also, the cure to cancer is not a strong immune system. Healthy people get cancer, too. That's just silly to suggest.

    Lastly, the assumption that we all have cancer is only half correct.

    Source - Mayo Clinic
  8. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    Healthy people according to the FDA, perhaps. I don't necessarily think there is a big conspiracy here, as exciting as that would be. I just think that the FDA doesn't necessarily have the best interest of people in mind for whatever reasons.

    Healthy people still eat hormone grown chicken and beef right? And what about the vegetarians you ask? Would it surprise you to know that most of the fruits and vegetables we import are grown through some form or artificial means? Supply and demand forces this process though. People want ripe bananas so companies turn to methods that make bananas ripen even faster than normal. Same with a lot of things.

    Lunch meat? Might as well be called "Cancer meat" for lack of a better marketing term. Only problem is they'd have a harder time selling those to "healthy people" if they called it that.

    I just think there's more to the term "healthy" (or would it be less) than meets the eye. There's a lot going on behind the scenes that cause problems for so called healthy people. One day you "think" you're healthy. The next day you have cancer and the only explanation offered to you is that "healthy people can get cancer too". There's something wrong with that picture because healthy, by definition, would (or is it "should") mean a strong immune system as well, right?

    The standard that our doctors and our society accept for "healthy" is more or less "You get a cold 8 times a year. You get the flu maybe twice a year. A migraine every other month and a random case of who knows what twice a year. Congratulations, you're healthy!"

    Perhaps average/normal, but not healthy by any stretch of the imagination. You can't be sick and healthy at the same time. It would be an oxymoron. :-/
  9. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Why? And where did I say I was quoting the FDA?

    Proof? A link would be good. I want to read somewhere that "lunch meat" causes cancer because that's what you're suggesting. Not to mention, I don't think people associate deli meat to being healthy. I'm almost 100% sure.

    You know what? I'm certain.

    Has it occurred to you that you could be eating shit food and still have a healthy immune system? I've been sick once since May of last year (by sick I mean anything more than a runny nose or headache) and I eat junk. It's something I've been attempting to change but it's true. I simply don't get sick. I get your standard runny nose in the winter here and there and a headache from watching too much TV or being on the computer for too long, but other than that I've always been extremely healthy. So your whole "fake/processed food = cancer/unhealthy" theory is not a strong point unless you've got some serious evidence to back it up.

    And yes, the term 'healthy' is heavily loaded and can take on a lot of meaning. It's part of the reason why I think your idea of health=no cancer is kind of silly.

    So then what would you suggest? Never getting sick, ever? Is that really a valid argument? What about the people who are a bit overweight, but have zero problems going through their days? My grandmother for instance is heavyset and she's going to be 90 this year. The only health problem she's ever had was genetic and it hasn't stopped her from being a fully functioning human being even into her 9th decade of life.

    If by "sick" you mean incapacitated. I say this because even during his bout with cancer, Lance Armstrong seemed quite 'healthy' to me.

    I'm sure by now you've said to yourself at least once, "Yeah well that's just you/that's just your grandmother/that's just one case" and my response would be:


    Debating health is almost as pointless as debating the existence of religious icons and that's because health varies on a case by case basis. What's good for you will kill the guy sitting next to you. It's pretty much been proven that you can't treat health on a general basis. It's why doctors perform so many tests before making diagnosis' or performing treatments. Another solid point: allergies. Some people can't handle exposure to certain things. It's not even fully understood how that mechanism even works but it's out there. That being said, it's very possible you could have two overweight people and one be entirely healthy by a general definition. The other could be a total mess with heart problems, diabetes, etc. while the other guy could be just fine and have no current ailments or none at all in his history, he's just a bit chunky.

    Our bodies are all different, thus you can't apply the same thinking to a large population and expect correlation.
  10. Oooh_snap

    Oooh_snap Living on the 0th floor V.I.P. Lifetime

    No, I don't believe there is a cure for cancer that the government just isn't allowing scientists to reveal. The first reason, is because there are SO many different types of cancers that all metastasize in different ways, so I don't think there will one cure for every cancer unless it is some for of machine like a linear accelerator that can pinpoint any tumor and eliminate it. I suppose that is possible, but I still couldn't imagine the government doing that. There would be so much liability behind that, and I like to think that the government does have our best interest in mind.

Share This Page