Is the US government intentionally supressing a cancer cure? No it is not. I am a cancer survivor, and was cured by radiation therapy. Is that not a cure?
I too am a cancer survivor. I had surgery and radiation afterwards and I'm alive right now. One thing that scares the hell out of me is finding out that the radiation I had initially could very well give me another kind of leukemia anywhere from 9+ years after having it. It's been 9 years now and that thought is always at the back of my mind.
In addition to our current oncology arsenal, I can tell you there are many new therapies in clinical trials, right now, using many different mechanisms of action.
Ya, and that seems to be the problem. There are ALWAYS new clinical trials going on and yet here we are, decades later and a 'cure' always seems to be 'right around the corner'-----kinda like the New System---but never materializing. Billions of dollars have been used for research and while we sometimes hear about a 'promising treatment'---it suddenly vanishes and you never hear a damn thing about it again. Or, you just keep hearing about how 'further testing is needed' before being able to submit it through the bureaucratic bullshit that is the FDA. Good example is a wonderfully promising technique invented by an engineer by the name of John Kanzius in 2005, using radio waves to eliminate most cancers from the body (Kanzius himself had leukemia). Here is a brief synopsis of what he invented:
"Kanzius RF Therapy is an experimental cancer treatment that employs a combination of either gold or carbon nanoparticles and radio waves to heat and destroy cancer cells without damaging healthy cells. The specific absorption rate for radio waves by living tissue in the proposed wavelengths and intensity levels is very low. Metals absorb this energy much more efficiently than tissue through dielectric heating; Richard Smalley has suggested that carbon nanotubes could be used to similar purpose. If nanoparticles were to be preferentially bound to cancer sites, cancer cells could be destroyed or induced into apoptosis while leaving healthy tissue relatively unharmed. This preferential targeting represents a major technical challenge. According to a presentation by Dr. Steven Curley, the types of cancer potentially treatable using Kanzius RF therapy include essentially all forms of cancer.
Kanzius built a prototype Kanzius RF device in his home, and formed Therm Med., LLC to test and market his inventions. The device was successfully tested at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in 2005. As of 2007-04-23, preliminary research using the device at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center has shown early promise. If federal approval is granted, testing on human patients may follow. An article published in late 2010 illustrates that radiofrequency fields induce intracellular hyperthermia and necrosis in pancreatic tumors without injury to the human pancreatic tissue grafts tested."
And while it's always good to hear 'promising news' regarding a potential cancer treatment, it can also be angering to see the ridiculous, drawn-out, never ending 'trials' that go on and on and on---meanwhile, millions of people are dying. Here is a link to the 'promising news' of the Kanzius Lab at the Anderson Center: http://www.kanziuscancerresearch.org/news/?id=1
Despite the fact that Kanzius' model was successfully tested in 2005, and despite the fact that none of the testings since have shown any side effects, it's still going to be another 2 - 3 years (at the very least) before it can be tested on humans. WTF? If it works, test it on someone who's terminally ill to see if it cures their frigging cancer! It's-that-simple. Or at least it should be. They keep pushing the date for human testing back too, because I looked into this when my brother in law was first diagnosed in 2009 and back then they were saying that human testing would be "another 2 - 3 years" down the road. So here we are, 2 years later and lo and behold, there's still no tests that have been done on humans. And for no other reason other than "Clinical research is a very tedious process."
Someone mentioned that the governement would love a cheaper treatment for cancer patients as they'd save billions in Medicare each year. Guess what's even cheaper than a cheap drug? People dying in their 50s and 60s. It would save a few trillion in pensions and Medicare eh?
My own feeling is that there are many different cures for cancer out there that have saved peoples lives. In 1938, Essiac tea came within 3 votes of being recognized by the Canadian government as a natural treatment for cancer. It doesn't cure everyone, anymore than chemo or radiation cures everyone, but it has certainly cured some. I think stem cell therapy and super-charging our our immune cells would prove the most promising treatment. There are certainly some drugs out there have saved lives, but sometimes the side effects are so bad, people stop taking them. Cryotherapy for cancer is another treatment that you rarely hear anything about, but it seems to have a pretty good success rate.
I know some might not agree, but to me, after 60 years of research and billions of dollars donated, the return on the investment has been pretty low....in the meantime, Big Pharma continues to rake in billions each year for the same treatment they've been using for decades: chemotherapy and radiation.
On a side-note, I recently finished a book called The Secret History of the War on Cancer by Dr. Devra Davis. She is Director, Centre for Environmental Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. The books describes the industry's knowledge and cover-up of their materials and chemicals which were known to cause cancer, and how the public was kept ignorant of these facts for decades. As a result of greed, money and powers, millions have died as a result. I would highly recommend the book.
