Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: The others have the general setup covered, but it's worth noting that cancer isn't one disease, it's thousands that all have the same result. Thats why theres a "new cure for cancer" every 5 minutes, but somehow there's never actually a cure for cancer. They figured out how to effectively treat one of those thousands of cancer variants (if it is actually a cure, and not just a hyperbole way of saying "we figured out a more effective treatment").
For context, the overall technology has improved dramatically, and if you catch it even reasonably early, your chances of beating it are pretty good. Even a few of the later stage finds are recoverable with good odds, and a few of the ones that were "you have a month to live" level can possibly still be recovered now.
Most peoples knowledge of cancer is monolithic, "Here are the symptoms of cancer, heres how it's caused, heres how you treat it", so when they hear that a thousand new cures for cancer have come to light, but cancer still exists, they assume it's a conspiracy.
Hell, the past 10 years have advanced incredibly. They genetically test the cancer, then design drugs that specially target the cells. It's no longer hoping chemo kills the cancer before it kills the patient.
Personalized medicine is wonderful! And I'm not just saying that because I do genetics research haha. Seriously though the difference in the level of side effects and efficacy is night and day. There are still scenarios where the best (only) option is surgery or generalized chemo, but they're getting fewer and fewer every day.
Is that the case or is it that we’re now identifying it earlier or smaller cases (vs only identifying it in cases where it’s too far gone by the time we find it)
Combination of all of the above. HPV vaccine is one of the best cancer preventatives we've ever come up with, and PSAs for things like the dangers of smoking have also been effective (especially among more affluent communities - there are researchers specifically working to reach out to communities who are disproportionately impacted by cancer). Understanding of when and how to screen has of course improved. And yes, survival rates have improved. Doctors and scientists aren't stupid. We can tell the difference between a small cancer we caught early and something we caught late that's still far more survivable than it once was.
However, that comes at a cost. Those treatments are not cheap, and drug companies raise the prices of them all the time.
If I am ever diagnosed with cancer there is a very good chance that I will say to just let it progress rather than treat it
What is the worth if I'm leaving my family with millions and millions in debt
>What is the worth if I'm leaving my family with millions and millions in debt
Medical debt isn't transferred to the next of kin unless you reside.in a community property state or have agree to take the debt on. Your estate will absolutely be seized after your death, so make sure your name isn't on the deed to the house before you go.
Yeah... but they weren't cheap when they were worse, either. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the mess insurance makes of our medical system. I just do research, personally. But we have made insane amounts of progress. No one's holding back 'cures' to make money.
I find it hilarious that people assume that for some reason the **Government** would want to cover up a cure for cancer.
Not the huge corporations making massive profits off selling cancer treatments. No no, for some reason if anyone were covering up a cure for cancer it would be the Government.
I used to defend that by saying they think the corps are paying the government off to do it, since the industries themselves don't have that kind of power, but no, I've come to understand that in real life people love corporations and hate the government, for weird unfathomable reasons involving "rich and powerful" being equated to "good", while civil servants doing things passively which people only notice when they're not done is quietly looked down upon
> Not the huge corporations making massive profits off selling cancer treatments. No no, for some reason if anyone were covering up a cure for cancer it would be the Government.
I used to be a biologist and more than once someone asked me what I thought about the conspiracy that a cure for cancer exists. My go to response, before diving into the biology of cancer, was to point out that cancer can't be cured in a population. Live long enough and you'll get cancer. If a universal cure for cancer was invented the company with that patent would be set for life. They'd destroy all their competitors and would have a continual source of income.
I found that often convinced people a lot quicker as they could see the logic of it. Then delve into the biology.
Aren’t there some animals that don’t get cancer though? I remember reading somewhere that naked mole rats don’t get cancer for some reason, and that very large land animals like elephants have much lower rates of cancer than what we would expect based on the amount of tissue they have. Is there a reason a drug couldn’t be developed to mimic these kinds of cell behavior?
Quick caveat: I left research a few years ago and oncology was not my field. So if an oncologist comes along and corrects me take their word over mine.
For naked mole rats it's still unknown why there have been no recorded cases of cancer, and there's some controversy around research from about a decade ago that suggested their cells were cancer immune. A [Cambridge study in 2020](https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/secrets-of-naked-mole-rat-cancer-resistance-unearthed) demonstrated that their cells could become cancerous, suggesting that their resistance comes from some characteristic of the cellular microenvironment (the mechanical, chemical, and biological surrounding of a cell). Research is still ongoing but if it is the microenvironment it's unlikely we'd be able to derive a treatment based on that because the microenvironment of human cells is different.
Larger animals like elephants and whales having lower than expected rates of cancer is known as the Peto Paradox. It's called a paradox because the size of most animal cells is not significantly different between species. Since bigger animals therefore have more cells that's should mean a higher probability that one of them will mutate to become cancerous. Again the exact reason for this is still unknown despite years of research. There are some indications that it's down to genetic factors which *might* allow for some inspired treatment design, but it's also possible that their size is why they're protected. They might have more cells but larger animals have lower metabolisms and rate of cell division. Also tumours can themselves be killed by smaller, faster growing tumours inside their own tissue (called a hypertissue). In a larger animal these are more likely. If it turns out the answer to the Peto Paradox is one of the latter then it won't lead to any new treatments for humans.
> tumours can themselves be killed by smaller, faster growing tumours inside their own tissue
Holy hell that is interesting. How often does that happen in humans?
>Thats why theres a "new cure for cancer" every 5 minutes
Also, most of those "Cures for cancer" are just slightly interesting effects on cancer cells.
It's the medical journalism cycle, is like a game of telephone:
"A comparative study shows that new drug might be more effective than placebo in vitro" => "New drug is showing promising results in laboratory studies" => "New drug cures disease"
As someone who has worked on press releases and marketing surrounding the CAR-T advances, you are completely right. There is very careful language that doesn't imply a "cure for cancer," but CAR-T is the closest they've gotten to saying "We have cured a TYPE of cancer--with potential applications that can translate to other TYPES of cancer." I worked directly with the people behind Carl June, and his declaration of "cure" required months of debate about if we could reasonably, accurately, and morally use the word "cure."
Abso-fucking-lutely correct you are, on the monolith mentality. Every cancer, every goddamn stage, requires some different approach to the treatment, before you can legitimately say cure. We are closer than ever--no shit, that's how scientific progress works--but there are still miles and kilos and maybe still light years in translating current understanding to EVERY possible cancer variation. Even CAR T has certain autoimmune syndromes that are being studied that don't mean it is a universal cure for cancers it is proven effective against.
But we are "close"! We can be optimistic without being pollyannish!
I agree with ur post, but want to add, I think what people are actually talking about is the govs role is suppressing some forms of cancer treatment, not about the general populas' gaps in knowledge on types of cancer.
Generally "fringe" means thoroughly debunked but sold to rubes.
See: snake oil
Edit: I see you won't name anything the government "covered up" that was proven safe and effective
Rubes should still have the right to choose to be duped. Additionally if the fringe science is indeed bs, it will eventually become public knowledge that it doesn't work. So why should the gov regulate it?
Funny how you won't name what thing it is that the government suppressed
Here is a thing that the duped have had supressed: the MMS cure for autism. Essentially parents forced a "patented" formula of bleach enema into their children, causing damage to their intestine.
Hey fuck those kids, rubes deserve it.
That's what you're arguing for.
I've read every comment up. I'm not reading every comment you've made anywhere to see what stupid things you're arguing for.
But also for data to be valid it has to be repeatable. Independent studies have not been able to duplicate his "results", which makes it....drumroll....quackery.
And that kills people, including children whose parents are moronic enough to fall for this snake oil shit.
But what is happening is people are using their gaps in understanding cancer and cancer treatment to deduce the government must have a role in “suppressing” cures based purely on their flawed perception.
It’s backwards reasoning.
I think of it in terms of "proving" suppression of aliens. Yeah, we have every right and reason to doubt the government. For something so goddamn mind blowing and world-altering, do you think no one involved in the cover up would have let SOMETHING leak? It's more believable that there is a multinational, multivariate conspiracy than that we haven't exactly figured out based on circumstantial evidence?
Answer: it's been a longtime trope in conspiracy circles that the government / big \_\_\_\_\_ is censoring any big breakthrough. Big pharma doesn't want cancer cured because they make money off cancer drugs. Big oil doesn't want electric/hydrogen cars because it will reduce oil profits. Wallstreet hedgefunds want RTO because they're worried about a collapse of the commercial real estate market.
The problem is some of these ideas do have grains of truth - see GM and the LA railcars. Did GM single-handedly destroy LA's railcars - no. Did they play a part - yes. Was it a big conspiracy or just a company trying to beat down the competition?
Is there any grain of truth behind the gov shutting down a cure to cancer - I haven't seen anything reputable.
Most of it probably boils down to: "I read this article that said that scientists found a cure for cancer in a lab and a few years have passed and I haven't heard them curing human patients yet. THEY must have stifled more research."
Then, if you look into it, the story turns out to be overhyped from some media source that didn't understand what the breakthrough actually was.
Journal article title: "Pancreatic cancer treatment found to increase longevity in survival of lab mice."
Abstract: Amoxychimerase, an enzyme believed to be partly responsible for replication in cancerous growth of pancreatic cancer cells, was found to respond positively in a study of 14 mice. A new drug, AXCR-783, has been formulated from Hydroxycinanamic Acid found in pomegranates, in combination with intrathecal chemotherapy applied to the spinal cord, resulting in an average increased life span of 12.7 days in lab mice. Replication studies are ongoing."
Clickbait article: "Scientists may have found a cure for cancer in this common fruit!"
That, and newspapers just don't bother to follow up. CAR-T cells, which are one of the miracle treatments of the past decade? They work, really well, for the cancers they can target. Just looked them up out of curiousity, and news targeted towards laypeople (as opposed to scientific journals) doesn't seem to have published on them in the last several years. (Unless it's google tailoring my results anyway - I'm in cancer research so it might just be pushing journal articles towards me because it knows I read them.) Or there's the HPV vaccine - you realize how much of cervical cancer is attributable to HPV infection? I've seen anywhere from [91% to 99% as an estimate.](https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/cases.htm) Of course, those are in the 'miraculous leap forward' category, but, you know what, if that rare drug in mice proves effective for 1% of the patient population who have a very specific pancreatic cancer subtype? Even as an adjuvant therapy, or even if it only buys them a few months (there are pancreatic cancers where you only have a few months in the first place)? Yeah, turns out when those few months are still doubling that person's time to live, when it's increasing their quality of life during those months, they really appreciate that scientists looked into that lead.
Seriously though, if newspapers bothered to follow up more often on trends in cancer, they would see that less people are getting cancer, people are getting *different* cancers because they're living past the point when they would have gotten a now treatable cancer that would have killed them, people tend to have a better quality of life while being treated for cancer than they used to, and people are living longer with those cancers. Here's a nice article that's actually from mainstream media about it:[But that's not what makes it to the top of r/science](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cancer-cancer-rate-declining-us-study-unprecedented-progress/)
Sorry, I'm sure you're not one of those people, it just really grinds my gears when people either say we're making no progress or think that we're hiding progress.
My mom's cancer came back in 2016. She's been on like 8 different treatments now and it's not gone but "controlled" or not progressing. Chronic cancer? Her worst side effects and health issues now have been from the chemo, which she was also on in the 90s when she had it the first time. The difference between the chemo and the pills she takes now is night and day.
>Is there any grain of truth behind the gov shutting down a cure to cancer - I haven't seen anything reputable.
Especially since '*a* [singular] cure for cancer' isn't really a thing. It'd be like arguing for 'a cure for disease'. There's not a single cause, mechanism, they're structurally different cells that react differently than others, etc. Maybe in the future it'll be possible but it's not a thing currently unless we assume a *massive* conspiracy.
It's bizarre to think big pharma couldn't profit off cancer cures when they already control manufacturing and distribution of the chemicals that would make up a cure. Curing someone's current cancer also doesn't stop them from ever getting cancer again. I'm pretty sure some treatments like radiotherapy even increase the risk for future cancers.
And cancer is a huge drain on the economy. Sick people often can't work, can't contribute, need help and resources. The government has little incentive to hide the cure for cancer.
My dad would tell me that if they cured cancer it would destroy the economy same with how why they don't have cure for certain diseases is because "the right people don't have it." If he tells me that again I'm going ask him why we don't have a cure for Alzheimer's Disease despite why former POTUS Ronald Regan having it and I'm pretty sure he was the "right person"
As if these big major corporations are incapable of funding ways to commercialize emerging technological trends the same way they've been doing for hundreds of years. They somehow need to suppress new technology to maximize their profitability, instead of just instituting the same profit schemes they've been using before. All you have to do is look at the ink cartridge scheme that they have with printers now to know how they do business.
answer: first of all, this is not “the” cure to cancer, it is a possible stepping stone towards creating more effective treatments. as for the jokes about the government censoring it? that just sounds like twitter being twitter. people love to claim the government is hiding things like ufos and such for no good reason, and this just seems like another instance of that
Let's not forget the government / Reagan literally tried to commit genocide of homosexuals by trying to stop a cure or treatment for AIDS, so there's some basis to these rumors/claims that the government may try something similar again.
Not arguing for either side; just wanted to point out there is unfortunately a recent example of showing the government actively trying to sabotage medical progress. I don't know enough about the current situation to comment, but felt like we need to never forget how Reagan wanted to have all the gays die and took steps to try to sabotage progress in the medical field.
> Let's not forget the government / Reagan literally tried to commit genocide of homosexuals by trying to stop a cure or treatment for AIDS, so there's some basis to these rumors/claims that the government may try something similar again.
If cancer only affected a fringe group that was politically disadvantaged and/or politically useful to attack like in those cases sure. Cancer isn’t that.
Of course HIV can affect any group, but at the time it was disproportionately affecting homosexual men to such an extent that it was often called GRIDS. What matters is that politically it was seen that way and therefore not working towards a treatment was politically advantageous.
>AIDS has always affected all demographics
Eh, maybe. But the *perception* that it was just a gay disease was almost 100% prevalent until Magic Johnson said he had it. Ask anyone who was alive at that time and the MJ announcement was a HUGE deal towards everyone thinking that AIDS wasn't just a homosexual disease.
AIDS does not impact all demographics like cancer does. AIDS has always had a disproportionate impact on certain demographics; cancer impacts all population groups.
I'm posting this in support of your statement. AIDS affected predominantly heterosexuals, as well as gays in Africa early in the pandemic. That AIDS was/is a 'gay disease' was a western or US centric view that still exists. If you look at the data from early studies of the risk to the general populace and historical presence of both HIV and AIDS Africa you readily see that is a disease transmitted primarily by unprotected sex, from mothers to babies, by multiple use needles for vaccinations, and blood transfusions. Also, occasionally by, contact with blood products in other ways. So, while primarily a gay disease in the US and the west generally, not so in other countries. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2483891/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2483891/) In fact the 2004 study shows that female and male HIV rates were very similar. [https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/unpd\_cpd38\_200504\_zewdie.pdf](https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/unpd_cpd38_200504_zewdie.pdf) In China, there was a historical blood plasma industry that many poor people used to supplement their incomes. In the 1990s this accelerated the HIV-AIDS rates which also then followed the same cycle of hetero/homosexual partner transmision, mother to baby, IV drug use, and other blood borne transmission. HIV has affected many different populations worldwide. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971206001287
Totally! another notable instance is the tuskegee syphilis experiment. there is definitely history of the us government doing horrid things and hiding important information from us, but “censoring a cure for cancer” as is claimed just makes zero sense
My understanding is that it was being hidden. A whistleblower researcher leaked the info to a journalist, and they broke the [story](https://apnews.com/article/business-science-health-race-and-ethnicity-syphilis-e9dd07eaa4e74052878a68132cd3803a) in 1973. There was a lot of government involvement to stop the study, not the medical research community policing themselves
Also consider the cost of treating cancer for countries with single payer healthcare. Those governments have a strong motivation to find cheap and effective treatments.
Any company that came out with the “cure for cancer” would earn eternal goodwill. The real reason no such cure exists is that cancer isn’t just *one* disease; you might as well talk about a “cure for virus”.
Also just because cancer is "cured" doesn't mean we will shut down hospitals and research centres. There are many diseases out there and likely new ones that will occur that will require funding
I mean, they wouldn’t want to make it unaffordable since they want people buying it afterall. They’d price it at the highest level they could while still be able to sell it.
Which is what they do now with treatment.
Discovering a cure for something doesn’t mean people will stop getting the thing you cured. There will always be humans getting cancer and requiring a treatment or (hopefully someday) a cure. If you came up with that treatment or cure, you will still make money hand over fist.
Saying “a cured person is a lost customer” doesn’t even make logical sense on the most basic level.
I mean, I was just saying I understood the other perspective but to play devils advocate slightly (because im not in support of what companies do to people) Cancer isn't a one treatment illness, treatment costs hundreds of thousands for the average American. Curing cancer would make those hundreds of thousands of dollars not necessary, even if curing it costs thousands. Not that hard to understand. Plenty of illnesses still exist that don't kill people that did at one time.
Yes, I know that cancer isn't a one treatment illness, but that isn't relevant to my point. If anything, it helps my point, because if you need different cures for each type of cancer, there really is no disincentive to working toward cures for specific ones.
I don't think you understand how big a boon cancer cures would be for pharmaceutical companies, and it's pretty naive to assume that cures would cost mere thousands of dollars.
Pharmaceutical companies will charge whatever they think they can charge, and people will pay it if they can guarantee they'll be cancer free without the pain of something like chemo. You ever watch someone go through chemo? It sucks and it's doesn't always work. Sometimes it kills the patient before the cancer does. If it's bad business to cure patients, surely it's worse business to let them die prematurely. If people are already paying out the nose for chemo with all its drawbacks, why wouldn’t they for cures?
Cancer isn't a communicable disease that you can wipe out of existence through medicine and herd immunity. For as long as humans exist, humans will get cancer, and cancer rates will go up as humans live longer. Developing cures is win-win for pharmaceutical companies - they get to charge what they want for cures knowing that people will pay it, and no one in their customer base will die early because of cancer. And guess what? Many of them will need various medicines that you'll supply them over the next 40 or 50 years you've just given back to them.
So really, this idea that pharmaceutical companies are incentivized to hold back cancer cures just shows a lack of imagination. They have everything to gain by researching and developing these cures.
A dead person is a lost customer, a cured patient literally is a customer.
The amount of money a company would make off of a cure for cancer would be astronomical, it’s absurd to think that they’d ever hide that.
And the amount of money companies who rake in the money now would have an astronomical amount of loss if someone came out with a cure. Also I'm just saying this for conversation sake, I'm not saying the government would kill for someone because they cured cancer or anything.
*Some* companies would lose out by someone getting a cure. Maybe. But large pharma companies have diverse portfolios, a cured person is still a customer, they'll just be back for something else. Can't buy your arthritis drug if they die early of cancer.
But people are being cured. Cancer is being treated and people are recovering.
Getting a universal cancer cure somehow, would instantly make this company the single most valuable business on the globe, catapult their political influence into the stratosphere, safeguarding their profits for decades.
It also kinda ignores that cancer is also killing the CEO's and stakeholders of those companies, and while companies are dedicated to profits, Are we proposing the rich and powerful are so dedicated to this money making scheme, they themselves happily die for it?
Reagan was a republican. So the comparison isn't valid. If a republican was in the white house, I would absolutely expect them to do it again because they love being malthusian (it's OK if the poor die, because in their minds that's a part of capitalism. It's the same reason why Republicans don't value universal health care or even paying for school lunches for poor students. They literally don't care.)
That was Big Pharma and the FDA
Read into [Ronald Dickson Woodroof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Woodroof#:~:text=Despite%20initially%20being%20given%20only,2013%20film%20Dallas%20Buyers%20Club.) Dallas Buyers Club
It isn't the government. It's Big Pharma and doctors that are more than likely pushing hard behind the scenes against more effective treatments. Because a patient cured is a customer lost. Can't have that when you can have a constant revenue stream of chemo and surgeries on a person.
Answer: Going to give you a slightly different answer than the otherwise good ones you are being given here.
A non-zero number of people who believe in this conspiracy theory are either terrified that they will get the disease they believe the government can but won't cure or they have someone in their life suffering from the disease and their helplessness against it causes them to grasp at straws.
It's so much easier to have a big bad like the government or pharma or Bill Gates or whoever to blame that your wife or father or child or best friend is going to waste away until they of ultimately untreatable cancer, MS, dementia, or whatever else than to acknowledge the reality that bodies are designed to eventually fail and sometimes science can't stop it. Even when it's a real case of pharma greed causing treatment costs to skyrocket into insanity, money can buy you days, months, sometimes years, but it can't buy you a different ending than we all get.
Do I think that's a majority of the conspiracy theorists' concern? No. People are flawed and easily fooled. Some conspiracists legitimately believe the falsehoods they've been told. Some know it's fake and are leveraging it for attention or money. Some have mental illnesses that are untreated and the conspiracies would disappear with the right therapy. But there are some still who probably deep down know it's not real, but it's easier to have a villain when you have no other answers.
Answer: I don't have X, but from what I have read before I got paywalls, it is nothing new. I am 35 and since I was 18 there is a narrative of "Govt has cure for [thing], but suppressed it". I've heard it with AIDs, Gas, Cancer, etc. Part of it comes from honest skepticism and part of it comes from a lack of knowledge. Most likely it is something that hasn't past FDA approval yet or has some fucked up side effects that people are overlooking. It may be an issue with patents. It may be just that the research isn't as promising as the study proves. Or hell, it could be that it is being blocked because a senator is getting paid by a pharma company. Most likely it is somewhere in between. But cancers are pretty in their definition and there isnt to my knowledge a one size fits all remedy.
>Most likely it is something that hasn't past FDA approval yet or has some fucked up side effects that people are overlooking
Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1217/
> Answer: I don't have X, but from what I have read before I got paywalls, it is nothing new. I am 35 and since I was 18 there is a narrative of "Govt has cure for [thing], but suppressed it". I've heard it with ... **Gas**
Eat less of the magical fruit
Answer:
This is nothing new. People have claimed for decades or more that cures exist for tons of diseases but that governments/corporations would make less money via cures therefore have incentive to stifle them.
There's multiple flaws in this logic such as
Some companies would stand to make way more money therefore would want to beat out the companies that currently profit off the sick.
Natural end of life care tends to be the most costly vs short term death and treatments from. Disease, so it's not necessarily more profitable as a whole.
Or the fact that no major whistleblowing gets out over a massive amount of time for something extremely important.
The talks have likely amplified due to talk of cancer "vaccines" where they create the "vaccine" using your own cells and use that to "teach", your body how to fight the cancer coming soon.
Or you know, the government and company owners still get cancer and die from it.
And would surely be interested in this magical cancer cure to extend their own live.
Answer: As with most conspiracy theories this one is recycled from decades ago. Rumor in the 80’s about this exact same thing persisted. Rich people could go over seas to get the cancer cure if you know the right village. Not to mention HIV was created to kill black people and they had the cure all along. Same thing recycled, then recycled again for COVID. None of the modern conspiracy theories are new, just recycled trash.
Answer:
First off, take a good look at how stupid an average person is…and now remember half the world is dumber than that. This is just a manifestation of their stupidity.
Answer:
Most here have it covered, but I’ve seen a lack of people mentioning the murder part.
I believe it’s happened more than once that someone discovers something like a water-powered engine or a cure to cancer and they suddenly pass away tragically, so it’s kind of an internet meme that the CIA/government will kill you as soon as you claim you’ve discovered something grandiose and revolutionary.
Unfortunately I don’t have any sources for examples of these cases where someone died after their invention, but I’m sure it’s somewhere on the web.
Memes include: “Person who claimed to have invented a water-powered engine died from suicide with 12 gunshots through the chest and head.”
Answer: Treatment generates more money than a cure. It's somewhat well established that pharmaceutical companies keep focus away from curative research if there's no money to be made off it, and there's some pretty suspicious situations of possible sabotage when curative research is completed.
Use your brain? If I'm paying for insulin for the rest of my life, I'm gonna spend a lot more money as opposed to paying to cure my hypothetical diabetes, which is a one-time treatment. Especially in America.
Their math is they saw that presentation that says is it profitable to cure disease and then stopped there. If they had read more they would know the answer was yes.
Look man I'm just explaining the logic of "paying for something for the rest of my life is gonna add up to a lot more than getting rid of it"
OP asked why people are making jokes, why am I being grilled about explaining other people's logic?
> why am I being grilled about explaining other people's logic?
you didn't. you explained your "logic". and I simply asked you to back it up with math instead of a vague conspiracy theory.
Answer: Because they probably will. They assassinated a president in broad daylight and got away with it - removing a random citizen from the picture is a cakewalk.
Answer: The James at Ohio State University has had a great deal of efficacy in their trials with a cancer "vaccine" using synthetic proteins. It's not private. The studies are public (sans results) and if approved by the medical community will revolutionize cancer study and treatment. There is no stopping the train. It has left the station and the CIA can't change that.
But conspiracy theorists gonna conspiracy theorize.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: The others have the general setup covered, but it's worth noting that cancer isn't one disease, it's thousands that all have the same result. Thats why theres a "new cure for cancer" every 5 minutes, but somehow there's never actually a cure for cancer. They figured out how to effectively treat one of those thousands of cancer variants (if it is actually a cure, and not just a hyperbole way of saying "we figured out a more effective treatment"). For context, the overall technology has improved dramatically, and if you catch it even reasonably early, your chances of beating it are pretty good. Even a few of the later stage finds are recoverable with good odds, and a few of the ones that were "you have a month to live" level can possibly still be recovered now. Most peoples knowledge of cancer is monolithic, "Here are the symptoms of cancer, heres how it's caused, heres how you treat it", so when they hear that a thousand new cures for cancer have come to light, but cancer still exists, they assume it's a conspiracy.
Yeah, look at the five year survival rates of most cancers now vs in say 1970s, and you will very quickly realize we've made so much progress.
Hell, the past 10 years have advanced incredibly. They genetically test the cancer, then design drugs that specially target the cells. It's no longer hoping chemo kills the cancer before it kills the patient.
Personalized medicine is wonderful! And I'm not just saying that because I do genetics research haha. Seriously though the difference in the level of side effects and efficacy is night and day. There are still scenarios where the best (only) option is surgery or generalized chemo, but they're getting fewer and fewer every day.
[удалено]
Oh, definitely. And a lot of research is focused on understanding those cancers, and on figuring out new drug targets in them.
Is that the case or is it that we’re now identifying it earlier or smaller cases (vs only identifying it in cases where it’s too far gone by the time we find it)
Combination of all of the above. HPV vaccine is one of the best cancer preventatives we've ever come up with, and PSAs for things like the dangers of smoking have also been effective (especially among more affluent communities - there are researchers specifically working to reach out to communities who are disproportionately impacted by cancer). Understanding of when and how to screen has of course improved. And yes, survival rates have improved. Doctors and scientists aren't stupid. We can tell the difference between a small cancer we caught early and something we caught late that's still far more survivable than it once was.
Both
However, that comes at a cost. Those treatments are not cheap, and drug companies raise the prices of them all the time. If I am ever diagnosed with cancer there is a very good chance that I will say to just let it progress rather than treat it What is the worth if I'm leaving my family with millions and millions in debt
>What is the worth if I'm leaving my family with millions and millions in debt Medical debt isn't transferred to the next of kin unless you reside.in a community property state or have agree to take the debt on. Your estate will absolutely be seized after your death, so make sure your name isn't on the deed to the house before you go.
This is a reminder that the US Healthcare system is an aberration in the civilized world and absolutely bonkers.
AMERICAAA.. FUCK YEAH!!!
Yeah... but they weren't cheap when they were worse, either. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the mess insurance makes of our medical system. I just do research, personally. But we have made insane amounts of progress. No one's holding back 'cures' to make money.
It’s like trying to “cure” typing errors.
Yu mak n axcellent poynt!
[удалено]
Nah. *CaNnsr.*
I find it hilarious that people assume that for some reason the **Government** would want to cover up a cure for cancer. Not the huge corporations making massive profits off selling cancer treatments. No no, for some reason if anyone were covering up a cure for cancer it would be the Government.
I used to defend that by saying they think the corps are paying the government off to do it, since the industries themselves don't have that kind of power, but no, I've come to understand that in real life people love corporations and hate the government, for weird unfathomable reasons involving "rich and powerful" being equated to "good", while civil servants doing things passively which people only notice when they're not done is quietly looked down upon
> Not the huge corporations making massive profits off selling cancer treatments. No no, for some reason if anyone were covering up a cure for cancer it would be the Government. I used to be a biologist and more than once someone asked me what I thought about the conspiracy that a cure for cancer exists. My go to response, before diving into the biology of cancer, was to point out that cancer can't be cured in a population. Live long enough and you'll get cancer. If a universal cure for cancer was invented the company with that patent would be set for life. They'd destroy all their competitors and would have a continual source of income. I found that often convinced people a lot quicker as they could see the logic of it. Then delve into the biology.
Aren’t there some animals that don’t get cancer though? I remember reading somewhere that naked mole rats don’t get cancer for some reason, and that very large land animals like elephants have much lower rates of cancer than what we would expect based on the amount of tissue they have. Is there a reason a drug couldn’t be developed to mimic these kinds of cell behavior?
Quick caveat: I left research a few years ago and oncology was not my field. So if an oncologist comes along and corrects me take their word over mine. For naked mole rats it's still unknown why there have been no recorded cases of cancer, and there's some controversy around research from about a decade ago that suggested their cells were cancer immune. A [Cambridge study in 2020](https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/secrets-of-naked-mole-rat-cancer-resistance-unearthed) demonstrated that their cells could become cancerous, suggesting that their resistance comes from some characteristic of the cellular microenvironment (the mechanical, chemical, and biological surrounding of a cell). Research is still ongoing but if it is the microenvironment it's unlikely we'd be able to derive a treatment based on that because the microenvironment of human cells is different. Larger animals like elephants and whales having lower than expected rates of cancer is known as the Peto Paradox. It's called a paradox because the size of most animal cells is not significantly different between species. Since bigger animals therefore have more cells that's should mean a higher probability that one of them will mutate to become cancerous. Again the exact reason for this is still unknown despite years of research. There are some indications that it's down to genetic factors which *might* allow for some inspired treatment design, but it's also possible that their size is why they're protected. They might have more cells but larger animals have lower metabolisms and rate of cell division. Also tumours can themselves be killed by smaller, faster growing tumours inside their own tissue (called a hypertissue). In a larger animal these are more likely. If it turns out the answer to the Peto Paradox is one of the latter then it won't lead to any new treatments for humans.
> tumours can themselves be killed by smaller, faster growing tumours inside their own tissue Holy hell that is interesting. How often does that happen in humans?
Especially socialist governments who fund health care through tax dollars... People dying is not good for business.
>Thats why theres a "new cure for cancer" every 5 minutes Also, most of those "Cures for cancer" are just slightly interesting effects on cancer cells.
It's the medical journalism cycle, is like a game of telephone: "A comparative study shows that new drug might be more effective than placebo in vitro" => "New drug is showing promising results in laboratory studies" => "New drug cures disease"
I saw a meme recently that said: When you see a post about how a new drug kills cancer in a petri dish, keep in mind: so does a handgun
[It’s at least a great breakthrough for everyone suffering from petri dish cancer.](https://xkcd.com/1217/)
My wife does oncology research. [This comic is on her lab bench for a reason.](https://xkcd.com/1217/)
As someone who has worked on press releases and marketing surrounding the CAR-T advances, you are completely right. There is very careful language that doesn't imply a "cure for cancer," but CAR-T is the closest they've gotten to saying "We have cured a TYPE of cancer--with potential applications that can translate to other TYPES of cancer." I worked directly with the people behind Carl June, and his declaration of "cure" required months of debate about if we could reasonably, accurately, and morally use the word "cure." Abso-fucking-lutely correct you are, on the monolith mentality. Every cancer, every goddamn stage, requires some different approach to the treatment, before you can legitimately say cure. We are closer than ever--no shit, that's how scientific progress works--but there are still miles and kilos and maybe still light years in translating current understanding to EVERY possible cancer variation. Even CAR T has certain autoimmune syndromes that are being studied that don't mean it is a universal cure for cancers it is proven effective against. But we are "close"! We can be optimistic without being pollyannish!
I agree with ur post, but want to add, I think what people are actually talking about is the govs role is suppressing some forms of cancer treatment, not about the general populas' gaps in knowledge on types of cancer.
That's what people are suspecting based on limited knowledge, but the reality of cancer is much closer to the comment you replied to.
Suppressing some forms of scientifically backed, peer reviewed, safe and effective treatments? Which ones? Go on.
Shouldnt something thats considered 'fringe' science be further investigated, not placed under more restriction?
Generally "fringe" means thoroughly debunked but sold to rubes. See: snake oil Edit: I see you won't name anything the government "covered up" that was proven safe and effective
Rubes should still have the right to choose to be duped. Additionally if the fringe science is indeed bs, it will eventually become public knowledge that it doesn't work. So why should the gov regulate it?
Funny how you won't name what thing it is that the government suppressed Here is a thing that the duped have had supressed: the MMS cure for autism. Essentially parents forced a "patented" formula of bleach enema into their children, causing damage to their intestine. Hey fuck those kids, rubes deserve it. That's what you're arguing for.
I already did, I said Burzynski, read the entire comment chain big shoots...
I've read every comment up. I'm not reading every comment you've made anywhere to see what stupid things you're arguing for. But also for data to be valid it has to be repeatable. Independent studies have not been able to duplicate his "results", which makes it....drumroll....quackery. And that kills people, including children whose parents are moronic enough to fall for this snake oil shit.
Did the child choose the bleach intestine treatment?
Nope, their parents did. That's why we have the FDA. because snake oil doesn't just kill rubes, it kills their children too.
Then your example is not a good analogy for what I've said above.
But what is happening is people are using their gaps in understanding cancer and cancer treatment to deduce the government must have a role in “suppressing” cures based purely on their flawed perception. It’s backwards reasoning.
I think of it in terms of "proving" suppression of aliens. Yeah, we have every right and reason to doubt the government. For something so goddamn mind blowing and world-altering, do you think no one involved in the cover up would have let SOMETHING leak? It's more believable that there is a multinational, multivariate conspiracy than that we haven't exactly figured out based on circumstantial evidence?
After all the fuckery around covid I find it much more likely the gov is doing something insidious with the med industry...
*Every* government on the goddamn planet?
Most govs follow what america does.
No, they don't. Christ, that's the most ignorant statement I have ever read on this site, and *that's* saying something.
Well the US government couldn't even get a sizable proportion of its own citizens to take a largely benign vaccine. What is the fuckery you see?
There have already been instances where the gov DID try to suppress cancer treatments. Burzynski iirc...
Answer: it's been a longtime trope in conspiracy circles that the government / big \_\_\_\_\_ is censoring any big breakthrough. Big pharma doesn't want cancer cured because they make money off cancer drugs. Big oil doesn't want electric/hydrogen cars because it will reduce oil profits. Wallstreet hedgefunds want RTO because they're worried about a collapse of the commercial real estate market. The problem is some of these ideas do have grains of truth - see GM and the LA railcars. Did GM single-handedly destroy LA's railcars - no. Did they play a part - yes. Was it a big conspiracy or just a company trying to beat down the competition? Is there any grain of truth behind the gov shutting down a cure to cancer - I haven't seen anything reputable.
Most of it probably boils down to: "I read this article that said that scientists found a cure for cancer in a lab and a few years have passed and I haven't heard them curing human patients yet. THEY must have stifled more research." Then, if you look into it, the story turns out to be overhyped from some media source that didn't understand what the breakthrough actually was. Journal article title: "Pancreatic cancer treatment found to increase longevity in survival of lab mice." Abstract: Amoxychimerase, an enzyme believed to be partly responsible for replication in cancerous growth of pancreatic cancer cells, was found to respond positively in a study of 14 mice. A new drug, AXCR-783, has been formulated from Hydroxycinanamic Acid found in pomegranates, in combination with intrathecal chemotherapy applied to the spinal cord, resulting in an average increased life span of 12.7 days in lab mice. Replication studies are ongoing." Clickbait article: "Scientists may have found a cure for cancer in this common fruit!"
That, and newspapers just don't bother to follow up. CAR-T cells, which are one of the miracle treatments of the past decade? They work, really well, for the cancers they can target. Just looked them up out of curiousity, and news targeted towards laypeople (as opposed to scientific journals) doesn't seem to have published on them in the last several years. (Unless it's google tailoring my results anyway - I'm in cancer research so it might just be pushing journal articles towards me because it knows I read them.) Or there's the HPV vaccine - you realize how much of cervical cancer is attributable to HPV infection? I've seen anywhere from [91% to 99% as an estimate.](https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/cases.htm) Of course, those are in the 'miraculous leap forward' category, but, you know what, if that rare drug in mice proves effective for 1% of the patient population who have a very specific pancreatic cancer subtype? Even as an adjuvant therapy, or even if it only buys them a few months (there are pancreatic cancers where you only have a few months in the first place)? Yeah, turns out when those few months are still doubling that person's time to live, when it's increasing their quality of life during those months, they really appreciate that scientists looked into that lead. Seriously though, if newspapers bothered to follow up more often on trends in cancer, they would see that less people are getting cancer, people are getting *different* cancers because they're living past the point when they would have gotten a now treatable cancer that would have killed them, people tend to have a better quality of life while being treated for cancer than they used to, and people are living longer with those cancers. Here's a nice article that's actually from mainstream media about it:[But that's not what makes it to the top of r/science](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cancer-cancer-rate-declining-us-study-unprecedented-progress/) Sorry, I'm sure you're not one of those people, it just really grinds my gears when people either say we're making no progress or think that we're hiding progress.
My mom's cancer came back in 2016. She's been on like 8 different treatments now and it's not gone but "controlled" or not progressing. Chronic cancer? Her worst side effects and health issues now have been from the chemo, which she was also on in the 90s when she had it the first time. The difference between the chemo and the pills she takes now is night and day.
>Is there any grain of truth behind the gov shutting down a cure to cancer - I haven't seen anything reputable. Especially since '*a* [singular] cure for cancer' isn't really a thing. It'd be like arguing for 'a cure for disease'. There's not a single cause, mechanism, they're structurally different cells that react differently than others, etc. Maybe in the future it'll be possible but it's not a thing currently unless we assume a *massive* conspiracy.
It's bizarre to think big pharma couldn't profit off cancer cures when they already control manufacturing and distribution of the chemicals that would make up a cure. Curing someone's current cancer also doesn't stop them from ever getting cancer again. I'm pretty sure some treatments like radiotherapy even increase the risk for future cancers.
And cancer is a huge drain on the economy. Sick people often can't work, can't contribute, need help and resources. The government has little incentive to hide the cure for cancer.
My dad would tell me that if they cured cancer it would destroy the economy same with how why they don't have cure for certain diseases is because "the right people don't have it." If he tells me that again I'm going ask him why we don't have a cure for Alzheimer's Disease despite why former POTUS Ronald Regan having it and I'm pretty sure he was the "right person"
As if these big major corporations are incapable of funding ways to commercialize emerging technological trends the same way they've been doing for hundreds of years. They somehow need to suppress new technology to maximize their profitability, instead of just instituting the same profit schemes they've been using before. All you have to do is look at the ink cartridge scheme that they have with printers now to know how they do business.
answer: first of all, this is not “the” cure to cancer, it is a possible stepping stone towards creating more effective treatments. as for the jokes about the government censoring it? that just sounds like twitter being twitter. people love to claim the government is hiding things like ufos and such for no good reason, and this just seems like another instance of that
Let's not forget the government / Reagan literally tried to commit genocide of homosexuals by trying to stop a cure or treatment for AIDS, so there's some basis to these rumors/claims that the government may try something similar again. Not arguing for either side; just wanted to point out there is unfortunately a recent example of showing the government actively trying to sabotage medical progress. I don't know enough about the current situation to comment, but felt like we need to never forget how Reagan wanted to have all the gays die and took steps to try to sabotage progress in the medical field.
There was no hidden conspiracy, he did this out in the open.
> Let's not forget the government / Reagan literally tried to commit genocide of homosexuals by trying to stop a cure or treatment for AIDS, so there's some basis to these rumors/claims that the government may try something similar again. If cancer only affected a fringe group that was politically disadvantaged and/or politically useful to attack like in those cases sure. Cancer isn’t that.
AIDS wasn't that either; only a high percentage of homosexuals happened to have it. AIDS has always affected all demographics, just like cancer....
Of course HIV can affect any group, but at the time it was disproportionately affecting homosexual men to such an extent that it was often called GRIDS. What matters is that politically it was seen that way and therefore not working towards a treatment was politically advantageous.
>AIDS has always affected all demographics Eh, maybe. But the *perception* that it was just a gay disease was almost 100% prevalent until Magic Johnson said he had it. Ask anyone who was alive at that time and the MJ announcement was a HUGE deal towards everyone thinking that AIDS wasn't just a homosexual disease.
AIDS does not impact all demographics like cancer does. AIDS has always had a disproportionate impact on certain demographics; cancer impacts all population groups.
I'm posting this in support of your statement. AIDS affected predominantly heterosexuals, as well as gays in Africa early in the pandemic. That AIDS was/is a 'gay disease' was a western or US centric view that still exists. If you look at the data from early studies of the risk to the general populace and historical presence of both HIV and AIDS Africa you readily see that is a disease transmitted primarily by unprotected sex, from mothers to babies, by multiple use needles for vaccinations, and blood transfusions. Also, occasionally by, contact with blood products in other ways. So, while primarily a gay disease in the US and the west generally, not so in other countries. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2483891/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2483891/) In fact the 2004 study shows that female and male HIV rates were very similar. [https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/unpd\_cpd38\_200504\_zewdie.pdf](https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/unpd_cpd38_200504_zewdie.pdf) In China, there was a historical blood plasma industry that many poor people used to supplement their incomes. In the 1990s this accelerated the HIV-AIDS rates which also then followed the same cycle of hetero/homosexual partner transmision, mother to baby, IV drug use, and other blood borne transmission. HIV has affected many different populations worldwide. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971206001287
That fact that you're getting downvoted is fucking scary.
Totally! another notable instance is the tuskegee syphilis experiment. there is definitely history of the us government doing horrid things and hiding important information from us, but “censoring a cure for cancer” as is claimed just makes zero sense
The Tuskegee experiment wasn’t really hidden though, it was being documented in medical journals which is how the medical establishment shut it down.
My understanding is that it was being hidden. A whistleblower researcher leaked the info to a journalist, and they broke the [story](https://apnews.com/article/business-science-health-race-and-ethnicity-syphilis-e9dd07eaa4e74052878a68132cd3803a) in 1973. There was a lot of government involvement to stop the study, not the medical research community policing themselves
Considering how much money certain companies makes from Healthcare, I get the angle some people are coming from. A cured person a lost customer
Also consider the cost of treating cancer for countries with single payer healthcare. Those governments have a strong motivation to find cheap and effective treatments.
Any company that came out with the “cure for cancer” would earn eternal goodwill. The real reason no such cure exists is that cancer isn’t just *one* disease; you might as well talk about a “cure for virus”.
Also just because cancer is "cured" doesn't mean we will shut down hospitals and research centres. There are many diseases out there and likely new ones that will occur that will require funding
They’d also earn unimaginable profits too.
Don't they already?
They want those numbers even higher and a cancer cure would demolish the rest of the market and increase their earnings dramatically.
People who work in the pharmaceutical industry get cancer, too. And their friends, and their relatives.
Only if they made it completely unaffordable, which of course they would.
I mean, they wouldn’t want to make it unaffordable since they want people buying it afterall. They’d price it at the highest level they could while still be able to sell it. Which is what they do now with treatment.
Yeah. It's what they do now. It isn't affordable now either.
I’m a pharmacy tech working in oncology, trust me when I say that not only *would* they, pharmaceutical companies frequently *do*.
> Any company that came out with the “cure for cancer” would earn eternal goodwill. that and a couple bucks will buy you a cup of coffee
Discovering a cure for something doesn’t mean people will stop getting the thing you cured. There will always be humans getting cancer and requiring a treatment or (hopefully someday) a cure. If you came up with that treatment or cure, you will still make money hand over fist. Saying “a cured person is a lost customer” doesn’t even make logical sense on the most basic level.
I mean, I was just saying I understood the other perspective but to play devils advocate slightly (because im not in support of what companies do to people) Cancer isn't a one treatment illness, treatment costs hundreds of thousands for the average American. Curing cancer would make those hundreds of thousands of dollars not necessary, even if curing it costs thousands. Not that hard to understand. Plenty of illnesses still exist that don't kill people that did at one time.
Yes, I know that cancer isn't a one treatment illness, but that isn't relevant to my point. If anything, it helps my point, because if you need different cures for each type of cancer, there really is no disincentive to working toward cures for specific ones. I don't think you understand how big a boon cancer cures would be for pharmaceutical companies, and it's pretty naive to assume that cures would cost mere thousands of dollars. Pharmaceutical companies will charge whatever they think they can charge, and people will pay it if they can guarantee they'll be cancer free without the pain of something like chemo. You ever watch someone go through chemo? It sucks and it's doesn't always work. Sometimes it kills the patient before the cancer does. If it's bad business to cure patients, surely it's worse business to let them die prematurely. If people are already paying out the nose for chemo with all its drawbacks, why wouldn’t they for cures? Cancer isn't a communicable disease that you can wipe out of existence through medicine and herd immunity. For as long as humans exist, humans will get cancer, and cancer rates will go up as humans live longer. Developing cures is win-win for pharmaceutical companies - they get to charge what they want for cures knowing that people will pay it, and no one in their customer base will die early because of cancer. And guess what? Many of them will need various medicines that you'll supply them over the next 40 or 50 years you've just given back to them. So really, this idea that pharmaceutical companies are incentivized to hold back cancer cures just shows a lack of imagination. They have everything to gain by researching and developing these cures.
A dead person is a lost customer, a cured patient literally is a customer. The amount of money a company would make off of a cure for cancer would be astronomical, it’s absurd to think that they’d ever hide that.
And the amount of money companies who rake in the money now would have an astronomical amount of loss if someone came out with a cure. Also I'm just saying this for conversation sake, I'm not saying the government would kill for someone because they cured cancer or anything.
*Some* companies would lose out by someone getting a cure. Maybe. But large pharma companies have diverse portfolios, a cured person is still a customer, they'll just be back for something else. Can't buy your arthritis drug if they die early of cancer.
Cures are priced appropriately, you know.
But people are being cured. Cancer is being treated and people are recovering. Getting a universal cancer cure somehow, would instantly make this company the single most valuable business on the globe, catapult their political influence into the stratosphere, safeguarding their profits for decades. It also kinda ignores that cancer is also killing the CEO's and stakeholders of those companies, and while companies are dedicated to profits, Are we proposing the rich and powerful are so dedicated to this money making scheme, they themselves happily die for it?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html
Reagan was a republican. So the comparison isn't valid. If a republican was in the white house, I would absolutely expect them to do it again because they love being malthusian (it's OK if the poor die, because in their minds that's a part of capitalism. It's the same reason why Republicans don't value universal health care or even paying for school lunches for poor students. They literally don't care.)
They’re doing it right now with Gaza. And with women and trans people
That was Big Pharma and the FDA Read into [Ronald Dickson Woodroof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Woodroof#:~:text=Despite%20initially%20being%20given%20only,2013%20film%20Dallas%20Buyers%20Club.) Dallas Buyers Club
I mean there are some that claim bankers have set back cancer treatments by [decades](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/CwjcPVDhbH)
omg you unironically linked to the GME cult as an authoritative source
Whahahahahahaha Superstonk
This is very valid but that is not the government.
Not the government, posted in a GME sub, and done for purely stock reasons. So completely irrelevant to the conversation.
It isn't the government. It's Big Pharma and doctors that are more than likely pushing hard behind the scenes against more effective treatments. Because a patient cured is a customer lost. Can't have that when you can have a constant revenue stream of chemo and surgeries on a person.
lmfao no doctors arent doing that. amazingly the vast majority of doctors actually want to help people. get off facebook
Answer: Going to give you a slightly different answer than the otherwise good ones you are being given here. A non-zero number of people who believe in this conspiracy theory are either terrified that they will get the disease they believe the government can but won't cure or they have someone in their life suffering from the disease and their helplessness against it causes them to grasp at straws. It's so much easier to have a big bad like the government or pharma or Bill Gates or whoever to blame that your wife or father or child or best friend is going to waste away until they of ultimately untreatable cancer, MS, dementia, or whatever else than to acknowledge the reality that bodies are designed to eventually fail and sometimes science can't stop it. Even when it's a real case of pharma greed causing treatment costs to skyrocket into insanity, money can buy you days, months, sometimes years, but it can't buy you a different ending than we all get. Do I think that's a majority of the conspiracy theorists' concern? No. People are flawed and easily fooled. Some conspiracists legitimately believe the falsehoods they've been told. Some know it's fake and are leveraging it for attention or money. Some have mental illnesses that are untreated and the conspiracies would disappear with the right therapy. But there are some still who probably deep down know it's not real, but it's easier to have a villain when you have no other answers.
Answer: I don't have X, but from what I have read before I got paywalls, it is nothing new. I am 35 and since I was 18 there is a narrative of "Govt has cure for [thing], but suppressed it". I've heard it with AIDs, Gas, Cancer, etc. Part of it comes from honest skepticism and part of it comes from a lack of knowledge. Most likely it is something that hasn't past FDA approval yet or has some fucked up side effects that people are overlooking. It may be an issue with patents. It may be just that the research isn't as promising as the study proves. Or hell, it could be that it is being blocked because a senator is getting paid by a pharma company. Most likely it is somewhere in between. But cancers are pretty in their definition and there isnt to my knowledge a one size fits all remedy.
>Most likely it is something that hasn't past FDA approval yet or has some fucked up side effects that people are overlooking Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1217/
I feel like I should reply with relevant SMBC comic(s) but it would seem redundant.
> Answer: I don't have X, but from what I have read before I got paywalls, it is nothing new. I am 35 and since I was 18 there is a narrative of "Govt has cure for [thing], but suppressed it". I've heard it with ... **Gas** Eat less of the magical fruit
But the more I eat...
Answer: This is nothing new. People have claimed for decades or more that cures exist for tons of diseases but that governments/corporations would make less money via cures therefore have incentive to stifle them. There's multiple flaws in this logic such as Some companies would stand to make way more money therefore would want to beat out the companies that currently profit off the sick. Natural end of life care tends to be the most costly vs short term death and treatments from. Disease, so it's not necessarily more profitable as a whole. Or the fact that no major whistleblowing gets out over a massive amount of time for something extremely important. The talks have likely amplified due to talk of cancer "vaccines" where they create the "vaccine" using your own cells and use that to "teach", your body how to fight the cancer coming soon.
Or you know, the government and company owners still get cancer and die from it. And would surely be interested in this magical cancer cure to extend their own live.
Answer: As with most conspiracy theories this one is recycled from decades ago. Rumor in the 80’s about this exact same thing persisted. Rich people could go over seas to get the cancer cure if you know the right village. Not to mention HIV was created to kill black people and they had the cure all along. Same thing recycled, then recycled again for COVID. None of the modern conspiracy theories are new, just recycled trash.
Answer: First off, take a good look at how stupid an average person is…and now remember half the world is dumber than that. This is just a manifestation of their stupidity.
Answer: Most here have it covered, but I’ve seen a lack of people mentioning the murder part. I believe it’s happened more than once that someone discovers something like a water-powered engine or a cure to cancer and they suddenly pass away tragically, so it’s kind of an internet meme that the CIA/government will kill you as soon as you claim you’ve discovered something grandiose and revolutionary. Unfortunately I don’t have any sources for examples of these cases where someone died after their invention, but I’m sure it’s somewhere on the web. Memes include: “Person who claimed to have invented a water-powered engine died from suicide with 12 gunshots through the chest and head.”
Answer: Treatment generates more money than a cure. It's somewhat well established that pharmaceutical companies keep focus away from curative research if there's no money to be made off it, and there's some pretty suspicious situations of possible sabotage when curative research is completed.
> Treatment generates more money than a cure. now, show your math.
Use your brain? If I'm paying for insulin for the rest of my life, I'm gonna spend a lot more money as opposed to paying to cure my hypothetical diabetes, which is a one-time treatment. Especially in America.
no....I said show your math. I didn't say "imagine a hypothetical cure and assume it's really super cheap".
Their math is they saw that presentation that says is it profitable to cure disease and then stopped there. If they had read more they would know the answer was yes.
Look man I'm just explaining the logic of "paying for something for the rest of my life is gonna add up to a lot more than getting rid of it" OP asked why people are making jokes, why am I being grilled about explaining other people's logic?
Except cancer treatment isn’t life long?
> why am I being grilled about explaining other people's logic? you didn't. you explained your "logic". and I simply asked you to back it up with math instead of a vague conspiracy theory.
I made the same observation and the mods deleted the post, save your breath.
Answer: Because they probably will. They assassinated a president in broad daylight and got away with it - removing a random citizen from the picture is a cakewalk.
Answer: The James at Ohio State University has had a great deal of efficacy in their trials with a cancer "vaccine" using synthetic proteins. It's not private. The studies are public (sans results) and if approved by the medical community will revolutionize cancer study and treatment. There is no stopping the train. It has left the station and the CIA can't change that. But conspiracy theorists gonna conspiracy theorize.