The Importance of Foundational Topics in Cancer Research

by , under Contemporary Cancer Topics, Conventional Treatments, The Cancer Industry

When dealing with cancer (or just about any other issue facing us today), one of the most important issues facing someone is the very foundation of the thinking related to the topic.  The underlying assumptions and framework of the paradigm are very powerful and determine the final outcome of all conclusions that can be reached.  In the same way that only apple trees can grow from apple seeds, a conclusion based in truth cannot be reached if the intellectual framework of the paradigm is faulty.

In my research on the topic, I see a feverish work level and voluminous amounts of research papers being published.  But I have not seen many (or any) studies that challenge the basic tenets of cancer that enable any breakthroughs to be made.  If the same level of thinking that have led us to the point we are at now is maintained, how will we ever get more effective results if we remain wedded to these concepts?

I do not claim to have read the vast majority of published articles on cancer.  But from the general direction and items being reported, I think that some things about the cancer paradigm can be deduced.  The only treatments that garner major attention from the cancer establishment are the same ones that have been the favorites for at least the last 50 years.  Those treatments are chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.  For some reason, there seems to be a fanatical commitment to these methods of treatment.  As vehement as the commitment to these treatments is, there also seems to be a similar intensity in an aversion to any other treatment method outside of these three methods.

Upon cursory examination, this does not seem to be logical.  Common sense would seem to dictate that researchers would want to pursue any avenue of treatment that has shown promise.  The scientific interest in treatments outside of their favorites is low.  I have wrestled with this state of affairs for a long time, but it just perplexes me.  I was determined to find out why researchers would only be interested in certain research directions and relatively disinterested in others that may offer the promise of higher efficacy.  This does not reflect the scientific standard of research objectivity, which is embodied in the Scientific Method.  It is well-known that no researcher (or person) has the ability to be totally objective.  The purpose of the Scientific Method is to enable researchers to reduce subjectivity in observations as much as possible, and to identify areas where their subjectivity may influence their findings.

Leave a Reply