The former site is, as is expected,
very cautious. Because it's true - there's very little solid research on cannibinoids in vivo, almost all of it is in vitro. This is a big deal, because there are a
lot of things that kill cancer cells in vitro. As XKCD so famously put it:
It's an interesting vector for research but it needs far more than what it has now to be able to make any solid pronouncements. The second source offers no citations to primary research, so I'm going to disregard it.
And no am definitely
not asking any doctor now. Have you heard how the 'health' system works? Doctors get paid more if they prescribe you
their approved substances regardless if it actually makes you better. I do not trust doctors in these times, as I'm actually believing cancer is a money making business for the elite ruling class.
http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/the-cancer-indust
I really wonder why you're citing Health Impact News at me. Is it because you think it's a good source? I hope not. HIN belongs to the same cadre of "alternative health" websites that spreads misleading and dangerous conspiracy theories about health, while touting "cures" that do not and cannot work. Case in point:
http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/u-s-media-blackout-italian-courts-rule-vaccines-cause-autism/
http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/how-homeopathy-is-healing-autism/
http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/wi...ity-to-ban-public-fluoridation-of-city-water/
http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/unapproved-but-effective-cancer-cures/
Look at those articles. I didn't even dig very hard - every one except that last one (where I decided on a whim to see if HIN had anything to say about Tullio Simoncini, who believes that
cancer is a yeast infection) that's all right on the front page. If you can read those and tell me that Health Impact News is a reliable source on health news and information, then I'm done debating medicine with you, because you are bad at source analysis. As a general rule of thumb, the moment a website claims that vaccines cause autism is the moment you can stop listening to
anything they have to say on the subject of health, because either they have not examined any of the research done on the topic, or they're lying.
And actually reading through the article in question, it's not much better. It starts right off the bat with a classic gambit - appealing to increased rates of cancer, without any explanation of
why they're increasing. There's actually a reason for this - it's because modern medicine, that thing HIN so despises, has gotten
really, really good at keeping people alive. Remember, cancer is not a question of "if", but "when" - if you live long enough, your odds of getting cancer become almost impossible to beat. This is just how cancer works.
Then it talks about cancer drugs making money. Yeah, no ****. Pharmaceutical companies
don't work for free. Doctors and medical researchers, like everyone else, have to put food on the table. Let me give you a blunt example here, because your video makes this same mistake. What's worse, a cancer drug that, until the patent runs out (20 years), only the rich can afford, or
not having that cancer drug at all? Obviously the latter. Could BAYER act out of the goodness of their heart and sell it cheaper? Maybe, but remember - they're a
corporation. The bottom line is the bottom line. And medical corporations traditionally have a
small profit margin.
It's consistent, and a good return on investment but their profit margins are pretty small. And keep in mind we're talking about a product with a phenomenally long and pricy development cycle - not unreasonable for a medical drug (those
always have long and pricy development cycles), but we're talking 11 years and enough funding for multiple human trials. That's some serious cash and some serious time.
People love to trot out this "cancer is worth so and so much". You know how much a cure for cancer would be worth if it could actually be shown to work?
50 trillion dollars. That is, about 57% of the GWP, and several times the USA's GDP.
Just sayin'.
The next bits of relevant information are quotes from the documentary, "Cut, Poison, Burn". Such as:
“From 1920 to the present time, we have made little progress in the treatment of adult cancers. So, a person who gets prostate cancer or breast cancer today will live as long as a person who got it in 1920.” (Charles B. Simone, M.MS., M.D., Founder, Simone Protective Cancer Center)
This is not true. This isn't even close to true. In fact,
it wasn't true in the 1980 either, and that's 35 years ago.
“Why are people terrified when they hear the word cancer? Because they know it [conventional cancer treatment] doesn’t work.” (Dr. Julian Whitaker, M.D. Founder, Whitaker Wellness Institute)
“Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud.” (Dr. Linus Pauling 1986, Nobel Laureate)
These are super
turbo not true. Ever heard of the
SEER database? It's a database set up by the NCI to help track various cancer treatments and their effectiveness. Analysis thereof shows that it is
trivially obvious that modern cancer treatment works. Hell, this directly contradicts the example earlier from BAYER - Nexavar is incredibly useful in at least two types of cancer and it was developed in the last decade. So that puts the lie to both claims - both that conventional treatment doesn't work, and that cancer research is a fraud. And Pauling
has his own page on Quackwatch - regardless of how good he was at chemistry, he embraced quite a bit of medical quackery.
Beyond that, there's a handful of studies examining the effectiveness of chemotherapy.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61625-5/abstract (
here's Dr. Gorski's analysis if you can't understand the abstract)
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/45395/11060_2004?sequence=1
http://wiki.math.mcgill.ca/dokuwiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/groups/dstephens/reading/earle2001.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2567100/
...I found these in like 3 minutes on google, I'm sure if an actual oncologist spent time looking, they could offer you far more and far more important studies.
Should I keep going? Have I made my case that this article is full of **** yet?
Dr. Thomas N. Seyfried, Ph.D
Aight,
I'm out.
The claim that chemo does not work is a lie.
The claim that cancer research is not being performed or is somehow fraudulent is a lie.
The claim that ketogenic diets will solve all your problems is a lie.
The claim that a cure for cancer exists and is being suppressed is almost certainly a lie.
The claim that all cancer research is based on genetic causes is a lie.
The claim that tumors are mostly fungal in nature is... Wait,
what?!
Sodium Bicarbonate (Baking Soda) Therapy
Dr. Tullio Simoncini is an Italian physician who has found that plain old baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) has a powerful ability to eradicate cancer from the digestive tract and other parts of the body.
His research shows that tumors are mostly fungal in nature, and the baking soda is particularly effective for removing cancer. His therapy injects the baking soda directly into the cancer cells. In spite of his very impressive body of clinical research and success rates for over 20 years, he has been largely ostracized in Italy.
- See more at:
http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/unapproved-but-effective-cancer-cures/#sthash.hwtYN7sc.dpuf
And you know what the most depressing thing about all of this is? It's this kind of scientifically bankrupt
bull**** that leads to people abandoning conventional cancer therapy, their
best shot at survival, in favor of unproven or falsified alternatives that more often than not do
nothing to stop the cancer*. Health Impact News, Natural News, Mercola, the whole ****ing band of them have blood on their hands for bull**** like this.
Please don't cite Health Impact News as a source. Please. This kind of misinformation
needs to stop.
*In fact, there was
a study done to try to assess how well patients of "conventional" therapy (read:
real ****ing medicine) did as compared to those who reached for alternatives. The results?
The 5-year overall survival rates were 43.2% (95% CI: 32.0 to 54.4%) for those who refused standard treatments and 81.9% (95% CI: 76.9 to 86.9%) for those who received them.
[...]
Women who declined primary standard treatment had significantly worse survival than those who received standard treatments. There is no evidence to support using Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) as primary cancer treatment.