It’s not that the current research ideas and procedures are totally worthless. But from what I’m seeing, there have been no big breakthroughs or revolutionary discoveries of ways to extend the lives of cancer patients, much less anything remotely approaching a cure. Improvements on 5 year survival rate (which is not really analogous to a cure) are usually measured in months, not years or decades. Something must be wrong with the paradigm, which is obvious to anybody who is actually paying attention.
It’s probably a good thing to try to understand complex metabolic pathways, hormone interactions, gene expression, gene sequences, and other minutiae in regards to cancer. But while all of this knowledge and facts are interesting, they haven’t really yielded any meaningful results. I’m not saying that a extra month or so of life is not important, but I would tend to think that cancer sufferers are more interested in a cure. I would tend to believe that they would actually want to be cured. I know that I would prefer a cure to a temporary remission. And I would also want a high quality of life. What’s the value of an extra month of life if you’re sick as a dog and in intense pain?
My belief is that conventional scientific research is totally focused on finding treatments for cancer by the use of drugs, and drugs only. This is why all of the research is directed to finding drugs and invasive, highly technical treatments and procedures. Since the purpose of a corporation is to make profits, only profitable cancer treatments are going to be researched. Corporate CEO’s are legally responsible for ‘increasing shareholder value’, which is business-speak for making more money. There’s a huge difference between:
a)finding a cure for cancer, wherever and however we can, and
b)finding a cure for cancer that we can make billions of dollars selling.
So that effectively prohibits them from spending research dollars on approaches that are not going to yield a profit. And there is really no corporate profits that will be made by Big Pharma corporations by pushing or researching cheap, natural products that can’t be patented. It doesn’t matter whether or not the natural substances and diet changes are effective. In fact, it may be worse if they are highly effective because it would render all of their cancer medicines and other things obsolete and nobody would succumb to them, thereby killing their profit potential. That would not increase shareholder value.
The end result is that you have a self-serving, self-preserving cancer research paradigm. One paid for and financed by Big Pharma advertising dollars, research dollars, research endowments made to all of the allopathic medical schools, research institutes and government regulatory agencies. This is why there is a career revolving door between research agencies, Big Pharma companies, lobbyists and government regulatory agencies. It’s just a big money party. Meanwhile, people with cancer suffer and die.
The more I thought about it, I finally came up with the way that cancer research works. They research cancer with the same methods that someone who is trying to understand and study an elephant with a microscope. You could study an elephant for decades with your microscope, and you will probably make a whole lot of discoveries. After all, you have a huge amount of ground to cover. But it will probably take you several lifetimes to actually figure out and understand the elephant. And this is obviously because your focus is way too narrow to yield any meaningful information quickly!
The same thing can be said for cancer research. They study everything with painstaking detail. Everything except the obvious things. Diet, toxins in the environment, the general nature and characteristics of cancer cells, are all ignored or thought of as minor. But they can tell you about all of these arcane metabolic pathways and gene sequences and cellular messengers and other factoids that don’t amount to a hill of beans in terms of tangible, meaningful results for cancer patients. But these approaches have yielded mega profits for Big Pharma companies and the entire cancer establishment.
If the true goal was to find a cure for cancer, regardless of profits, it was already done. And most of those people who found them were maligned and/or destroyed. But with that said, if any cure for cancer was found, alternative or mainstream, then that would kill the proverbial ‘golden goose’. A cure would shut down the majority of the cancer profit bandwagon. No more ‘pinkouts’ by the Susan Komen organization, no more donations, no more American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, or the other plethora of cancer organizations that are only around because there is no acknowledged cure for cancer. No more billions spent on researching cancer drugs. It would mean that many thousands, maybe even millions of people would have to find new jobs. Evidently, that is not an option because no matter how futile and non-productive the approach, the current medical establishment is obstinately wedded to this approach, and nothing short of a popular uprising or a conventional cancer treatment boycott will change it.