There is always a plethora of cancer stories in the press that speak of hope and promise for the ever-ending cascade of new drugs and various treatments. In fact, I’ve noticed that there has been a promising new drug, therapy, or treatment that will change things that is ‘just around the corner’ for as long as I can remember, which is over 30 years ago. What gives?
For example, I found an article about an experimental drug called PLX4032, which is said to reverse the effects of a gene mutation that is found in certain tumors. They say that it is a prototypical example of the new approach to cancer treatment. This is a strategy in which the cancer is targeted based on genotypes, and other various biomarkers of the cancer cell.
In some patients, the drug was said to have produced great results. But when this drug was given to patients with colorectal tumors with the same gene mutation, it failed miserably. This was a ‘flashing red light’ to me that strongly implies that the present paradigm is not correct, and is not working.
In science, the value of a paradigm is only as good as its predictive power. If after 50+ years of intense scientific research, the scientists are not really much closer to a cure than they were back then, that speaks volumes about the paradigm under which they are operating. It is so bad that throughout the article, the experts are basically admitting failure, being naive, and how surprised they were that the drug didn’t work.
Although these researchers and experts are intelligent people, they are all ‘hogtied’ and their mind power is being stifled by a devotion to dogma that is not really supported by the experimental results. In short, they are biased, but are wedded to their bias. This is why they can not, and will not find any cheap, non-toxic, readily available, highly effective treatments for cancer. The current approach will only produce the same effects that it has produced for the last 50+ years. It is designed to do this.
Although they are improving the way that conventional cancer treatments work, the progress is basically moving along at a snail’s pace. For most cancers, the prognosis is not good. At the end of the article, a sentence totally gives away the bias in the system. “The drawback of such a personalized approach is that it will take years to develop drugs for each small subset of patients.” The message is clear. There is no effort being made by the Medical Establishment to find anything outside of a drug to treat cancer, or to even acknowledge that anything outside of a drug therapy can be a treatment for cancer. That’s why they are called pharmaceutical companies. They only make money when they sell a drug. There is no financial incentive for them to find anything outside of a drug to treat cancer! So don’t be surprised about this.
Later on, we will delve into this issue more deeply.