This seems the same as mpg in vehicles. Either tech has failed or big oil has won.

People are cured all the time.

~50% mortality rate from a highly toxic cancer treatment is not an acceptable cure or treatment.

What is the statistic of cured cancer patients who refused chemo for holistically harmless alternative treatments like CBDs, B17, and healthy dietary plans that promote higher pH level? I would wager it to be much higher.

Yeah refusing treatment is stupid.

As someone who has been exposed to the radiation oncology industry for a long time, I wish this conspiracy was true. Unfortunately the best cure we currently have is chemotherapy, ~50% success rate is a modern scientific marvel that we're fortunate to have.

I know many patients who have opted for only CBD/cannabis treatments and those who supplemented their chemo with these holistic treatments. The addition of chemo is always better, I'm speaking from tangible results. Ask any radiation oncologist if you should take CBD etc in addition to chemo and they will all say it can't hurt to try, but it alone won't be enough.

Steve jobs would still be alive of he'd followed traditional treatment.

There's simply too many types of cancer for a single cure. Gene therapy is a promising solution being researched, in conjunction with chemo etc.

Please feel free to try CBD in conjunction with your treatments, don't rely on them alone. Suggesting people do this is very dangerous and will cost people their lives.

I get downvoted everytime I defend chemo. I really wish there was a simple solution or a grand conspiracy to hide the cure, but their isn't.

Instead let's focus on the cause of increased cancer rates.

You'd be wrong https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cancer-patients-who-use-alternative-medicine-die-sooner-study-finds-n892841

Exactly...

"Complementary medicine did no apparent harm if people used it alongside conventional surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, the researchers found. But when people opted out of proven treatments to choose herbs, homeopathy or other alternative treatments, they were twice as likely to die of their cancer."

Actually most cancers are considered chronic conditions and technically uncurable, as it tends to recur.

Most not all.

It's like killing a fly with a bazooka, yeah you'll probably kill it, but destroy everything else too.

The goal of chemotherapy is to get as close to killing you without actually doing so. Modern chemo is very precise and has a fantastic rate of success. Early detection and treatment is the best chance of success. Please people get regular checkups.

I actually believe this one

It's called CDB oil.

Stage 1 of what?

Sorry meant schedule 1.

"SCHEDULE 1 (CLASS I) DRUGS are illegal because they have high abuse potential, no medical use, and severe safety concerns; for example, narcotics such as Heroin, LSD, and cocaine. Marijuana is also included as a Class 1 drug"

People tend to think of the health industry as monolithic, but it really isn’t. If a company like, say, Pfizer happened upon a cancer cure, they’d tend to make way more money marketing and selling it than they would hiding it.

If there was a conspiracy to hide a cancer cure, I don’t think the motive would be money — in fact, hiding it would be a financial sacrifice. But it would make sense to me as an Illuminati plot to avoid potentially catastrophic rapid population growth.

No if you're looking at it from a financial perspective then not curing cancer is way better. Think about it like this, Pfizer also makes millions upon million for the drugs for chemo, and then the drugs to treat the chemo symptoms, and then the drugs to help those symptoms.

Absolutely not. Because hiding the cure also entails the risk of your competitor publishing it instead. It's a classic "prisoner's dilemma" situation. The only viable option is to monetize it first.

You don't really understand prisoners dilemma then. Look it's just simple math that you make more treating the disease than curing it.

Ehh yea I do.

​

You have a pharma company which produces chemotherapeutics or the like. You also happen to sit with the cure in your archive. If you choose to monetize the cure you will have a practical monopoly for 14-21 years (as that is the duration of a pharma patent), you would be the only person to rake in money for those years and everyone else would make 0 dollars. You could also choose to not monetize and keep making money on your existing products, BUT you are at any given point in danger of one of your dozens of competitors to all of the sudden monetize the cure first, being the one making all the cash. Then you would make $0 for the next 14 years. In every situation you would absolutely monetize the cure ASAP, as you can't risk someone else doing it before you.

You're waaay over simplifying the situation. Again, you make more money treating symptoms of a disease than curing it.

I'm sorry, do you not understand what I'm saying? You can't provide symptom treatment if someone else is providing the cure, no one would buy it. And yes, of course I'm simplifying it, but it still holds up, and it's absolutely the reason that hiding it would be stupid as hell.

It takes only about 3 years for other medical companies to find a work around for your patent. So it goes like this, continue making billions or patent a cure and make billions for a short period of time and then make no money in 3 years when everyone else figures out your idea.

> It takes only about 3 years for other medical companies to find a work around for your patent.

​

Ehh what? If you do a decent FTO in beforehand and set up defensive IP (as you bloody well should), then you can absolutely keep monopoly. If you could only keep patent for 3 years, then no one would ever do anything in pharma, so the claim that you can only have profits for 3 years is just blatantly false.

I promise you, do some actual research on the medical industry and how the patent/R&D side of it works. Why do you think every pill that comes out has a generic version a few years later?

I'm pretty sure that I've already done quite some "research" on the topic. I had a meeting with my patent attorney just this monday on how to expand our current filing to better protect us. Mind you that we are even working with analogs of naturally occuring hormones, that are already used in other drugs, and we still managed to make a pretty sturdy fence. But it's probably easier for me to give you examples of how long they last, take PTH analog for post-menopausal osteoporosis, which is currently held by Elli Lilly's Forteo:

approved in 2002 and run out in 2019: http://www.gabionline.net/Biosimilars/General/Biosimilars-of-teriparatide

To this day they still hold their market share as being the only teriparatide option: https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/comment/global-osteoporosis-market-reach-11-2bn-2027/ And the projections are clearly that they will start losing market share at 2019.

And as you can see in a more general overview: https://www.pharmamanufacturing.com/articles/2018/10-major-drugs-losing-patent-protections-in-2018/ patent expiry is what makes the threat of generics (all those patents are way waaaay older than 3 years, btw)

Interesting. My argument is coming from a few conversations with a professional researcher/expert at my University but I suppose I should do a little more research myself. But either way, if the average patent is 18 years yeah you can make a ton of money in those 18 years but again it's not nearly as much money as continually treating it.

Academic researchers aren't really that knowledgable about drug development, for the most part atleast. My colleagues are professors 30 years my senior, and they still hired me to consult them on this.

Just look at it financially, 100 billion dollars for 18 years, or 50 billion dollars perpetually.

Every company would take the 100 billion dollars now, because you can't guarantee that the 50 billion would keep on coming. This field is hugely competitive and you have to have new leads in your pipeline constantly, so it's better to have a dollar today that you can invest, than a dollar tomorrow that you might not even recieve.

Thats why it's a conspiracy man. That's the whole point of what I'm getting at. They can guarantee it by coordinating and planning.

Dude there are thousands of companies with millions of employees. It would be absolutely impossible to coordinate.

And how many of those companies are owned by Eli Lilly and the other massive conglomerates? It's a conspiracy my guy

Only a fraction, and you only get bought if you have a patent, and if you have a patent then the treatment is public. There's no conspiracy, I know that first hand.

all the big pharma companies agreed on these things (such as to hide all these cures) to maximize wealth extraction probably a long time ago. secret agreements are legally binding too.

secret agreements are legally binding too.

No, actually conglomorates are illegal. Also, it wouldn't work because there are THOUSANDS of biotech companies. Even if Pfizer and Roche had a deal, a biotech company could easily just go out and file a patent.

Curing cancer is bad for business. Think of all the research funding and hospital programs for cancer research. You cure cancer, no need for any of that money to come pouring in.

Why cure a disease when you can make money treating it.

Nobody in the civilian population knows what causes it, so it keeps people scared of it and booking doctors apts too.

I guarantee that if a bilderburg family member or Bill Gates developed cancer, it would "disappear". If they were able to keep that Rockefeller alive for as long as they did with 5 heart transplants that proves that money can buy you anything. No way he made the transplant list that many times.

I know a guy that believes the government has a cure for cancer, and his reason is that no president has ever had cancer (during their terms) I don't doubt it.

Didnt Ruth Bater Ginsburg have a very aggressive cancer a few years ago ??

Cures are out there and cancer is extremely profitable for hospitals to treat. Plenty of cheap cures out there, hydrazine salts, cbd, thc, harmala, just to name a few.

The cure for cancer is real. Stop eating and using anything processed from any company.

actually some the causes of many cancers are well-known and we could prevent a lot of these.

Carcinogenic environmental toxins. We get exposed to many cancer causing chemicals each day and not surprisingly many of us develop cancer. Instead of finding a miracle cure maybe we try to limit exposure to chemicals that cause the disease in the first place.

There is of course no money to be made, that's why we rarely discuss it.

Firstly, capitalist corporations exist to create profits for their stockholders. Long term symptom management is much more profitable than expensive research and development of cures.

Secondly, all eyes are on population growth so anything that reduces natural mortality rates is going to be unpopular amongst the globalist elite who make the decisions.

Fasting.