Extremely popular on Facebook and other social media is the idea that a cure for cancer has been found but is being suppressed. The reason given for the suppression is universally the same. The premise is that companies stand to make more money by treating a chronic disease than from curing it. It’s a simple idea with a simple justification, but the implications are staggeringly complicated. If we consider what the world would have to look like for this conspiracy theory to be true, we immediately see numerous holes and contradictions.
It is the nature of human thinking to become upset with behavior we see as unfair. If we are told that the rich and powerful are allowing human suffering to continue for the sake of their wallets, the inclination is to be outraged. Unfortunately, it’s also human nature to justify such feelings once we have them. This causes many to focus on the outrage and forget to think things through and, when presented with the various logical snags inherent to this trope, to rationalize with whatever justifications and compartmental logic is necessary to maintain the outrage. It’s a basic phenomenon we see with virtually all forms of pseudoscience: Start with a conclusion and do whatever it takes to support it.
Here we present 10 reasons why the hidden cures narrative is untenable. We urge people to not only consider these points, but to also pay attention to how they are dismissed or explained away by conspiracy mongers. We believe the methods used to counter these points go a long way to explain why the hidden cure trope exists and persists, and that they reveal a flawed thought process rather than any sort of evidential substance. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and promoters of the hidden cure conspiracy have no evidence whatsoever: just a narrative. Even worse, the narrative has no internal logical consistency.
We have used a cancer cure to illustrate these points, but a hidden cure conspiracy for any disease faces similar criticism. We have also chosen to temporarily put aside the fact that there are many types of cancer, and that different types of cancer would likely require different cures, in order to focus on the implausible logistics that the narrative would require.
1. Not all organizations involved in medical research are for-profit.
It is a myth that all research funding comes from organizations with corporate interests. Universities across the world regularly engage in research, and charities such as American Cancer Society regularly contribute funds. Major breakthroughs in cancer treatments have come from such sources, and in principle there is nothing stopping them from finding the “ultimate” breakthrough.
2. Medical researchers and their families are just as susceptible to cancer and other diseases as anyone else.
An obvious implication of a “hidden cure” conspiracy is that researchers and business owners are willing to put the company and shareholders ahead of the lives of themselves and their loved ones. It implies that all individuals involved in research are flawlessly obedient drones never giving in to the temptation to help someone they care for deeply, or to better the world. It requires a single-minded hive-mentality immune to compassion or grief and a willingness to put a single goal above all personal aspiration, and even above self-preservation itself. There is no company or government on Earth able to operate in that manner. This doesn’t even happen in the movies.
3. Even the CEOs of companies won’t be able to utilize their billions if they’re dead from something their companies could have cured.
Even if you buy into the idea that powerful people do not care about their friends and families, the very appeal to selfishness made by the greed/profit angle says they care a great deal about themselves. If we were to notice that an overwhelming majority of corporate heads and government officials have managed to escape cancer, then we might have reason to be suspicious that a cure has been found and is being saved for a select few. But that’s not what’s happening. With each passing year the list of rich and powerful people who die from cancer becomes more populated. It includes corporate CEOs, politicians, government leaders, Big Pharma employees, and heads of state from around the world. We would have to believe that these people know of a cure but decide not to use it so as to avoid suspicion. It’s silly to think that any of these people, many who already have fantastic amounts of money, would be willing to face the specter of a slow lingering death just to have a little more. It can’t be true that these people are so selfish as to hide a cure in favor of their own gain, yet so selfless that they are willing to die so the conspiracy can remain secret. These sorts of contradictions arise not from evidence or reasoning, but from making as many assumptions as needed to justify the trope of a hidden cure without contemplating their logical implications in sufficient depth.
4. Many if not most researchers are more likely to value fame, prestige and personal achievement over sheer quantity of money.
Even if we tacitly accept that scientists and doctors do not care about making a difference the world or helping sick people, we still can’t assume that the only thing they care about is money. Any scientist who finds or participates in research leading to a breakthrough cure is going to be instantly famous among colleagues and peers. It’s a chance to show all the foes and detractors from your entire life that you are not a loser, that you are in fact the very best at what you do. It not only means a Nobel Prize, it virtually guarantees statues and entire buildings erected in your honor and a mention in virtually every medical and science textbook. It means you can set your salary and work for any company you choose, doing whatever research you like. It means adoration from millions of victims and family members whom you have saved. Finding a cancer cure would mean a reputation to rival that of Einstein’s and a legacy which will persist throughout history. It’s not very easy to believe that any scientist would be willing sweep these benefits under the rug along with the cure, and the more shallow and selfish the conspiracy claims the scientists to be, the more like it is that they value total personal gain over mere financial gain alone.
Image via Sheeple.
5. While all governments would have to be in on it, not all would make money.
Many such conspiracy theories rely on cooperation between governments and pharmaceutical companies, yet there are countries with socialized medicine who could dramatically reduce their healthcare costs if they were to expose hidden cures that were being suppressed. Is it likely that they’d be sitting idly by, losing money while everyone else gets rich? Wouldn’t any country like to reduce healthcare costs and instead spend the money on things like defense and energy development? No, we’d have to believe that, in a world where the “hidden cure” conspiracy can be uncovered by anyone with a laptop and WiFi connection, these countries have somehow missed it.
6. Pushback from insurance companies.
Again, if any conspiracy theorist with a computer can find evidence of a hidden cure, then insurance companies must also be aware of it. Why would big insurance companies continue paying for expensive yet inefficacious treatments when a cheap and effective cure is available? If hiding the cure brings in the big bucks, then insurance companies are the ones largely responsible for paying the bill. They’d have every incentive imaginable to uncover and expose the suppression of superior and cheap treatments. Do you think that they’d be sitting idly by, losing money while the pharmaceutical companies got richer without trying to expose the fraud? Again, we’d have to believe that they had somehow missed it.
7. Actually, companies WOULD make a lot of money from cures.
In what universe would a treatment of such monumental efficacy not be marketable? If it could be patented, then the inventors would go down in history for their achievements (which to many scientists is more valuable than just being ridiculously rich but unrecognized for their accomplishments), and the company they worked for would make billions. Sometimes conspiracy theorists respond to this by claiming that the hidden cures might not be patentable, but that’s not a valid argument either (for two reasons).
Firstly, companies can and do make a lot of money from non-patented products and services all the time (including pharmaceutical companies). This may consist of selling generic drugs, which in some countries comprises the majority of drugs legally sold, or over-the-counter natural supplements, which already comprise a $30 billion industry in their own right.
Secondly, it’s not unheard of for a company to come up with a spinoff of a natural substance which CAN be patented. In fact, that’s the case with a sizable portion of the medications already out there. Often all that is required is the isolation and purification of the active compound, and perhaps a slight modification of its chemical structure, or the introduction of a particular drug delivery system.
8. Companies are already choosing cure or prevention over profit.
There are already examples of inexpensive products which are very effective at eradicating a particular disease despite the fact that letting people get sick and then treating them would yield more profit per patient. However, companies still create them, which would seem to contradict the claim that companies are so ruthless they’d rather people suffer so they can milk a little more money out of them than to market a cure. Why haven’t vaccines and antibiotics been suppressed? Is there not more money to be made from tuberculosis by treating the symptoms instead of administering the cure? Would no one stand to profit if measles were rampant in America instead of rare? Why would companies be so selective about which cures to hide and which to utilize? Again, this only makes sense if you use logic and reasoning not with the aim of finding truth, but with the aim of justifying the trope. Start with the idea that a cure is being hidden and then use whatever assumptions are needed to maintain the narrative, despite confounding details.
9. There’s more than one for-profit company out there, which means competition.
If you assert that a cure would destroy a pharmaceutical company’s profits, then you are also asserting that finding a cure would be a good way for one particular company to beat down all the rest. If all other companies are selling a lifelong regimen which treats symptoms but doesn’t cure, then you only need to set the cost of your cure somewhere just below the cost of that regimen to make tons of money while also devastating your rivals. You then can leverage the prestige that comes with your cure as weight when asking for donations, when seeking investors, when choosing partners and when applying for loans. You can enjoy the millions of dollars in free marketing and promotion which attaches your company name to success. You also have the added benefit of not watching your loved ones die of a curable disease just so you can protect the profits of your shareholders.
It isn’t even necessary for a company to find their own cure first. They could still use the conspiracy against itself. If one of them blew the lid off of some alleged secret cure, or exposed a fatal flaw in a treatment developed by a competitor, they would mop up the floor with their competition. They could then market themselves as The Company You Can Trust. Imagine all the nefarious things they could then get away with if the public saw them as being above suspicion. Even if it were true that there is no money in a cure, the conspiracy itself creates an extraordinary opportunity for any one company to rise to the top and then have cover to do whatever other corrupt thing they please. The more greedy and ruthless a company is, the more likely they are to take advantage of this opportunity. It’s silly to think these companies have no problem double-crossing the public, but would never think of double-crossing each other.
10. Hiding the cure would cost more.
Game theoretic calculations are a lot more subtle than the overly simplistic worldview that hidden cures conspiracy theorists tend to hold. Each company complicit in the conspiracy would have to weigh the likelihood and consequences of being double-crossed by their competitors and of every single scientist formerly on their payroll against the predicted benefits. As we’ve pointed out, a conspiracy this large would require cooperation from many entities that would actually lose money. In order for the conspiracy to work, each of those entities would need to be incentivized to stay quiet; in other words, they’d have to be paid more than they would lose. That’s every country with socialized healthcare and every insurance company which pays for treatments. Don’t forget that each doctor, researcher and scientist involved in any aspect would need to be paid an amount sufficient to overcome any temptation to squeal. Clinical trials are an integral part of drug discovery. That’s even more information to suppress and more people who need paid off. All of this comes after the billions spent on research and development to find the cure in the first place. Also needed would be a small army of henchmen capable of dispatching with those who will not cooperate, and with a budget sufficient to cover this all up. This army would also be required to monitor independent and rival researchers, and would need to get to them before they stumbled onto the cure themselves, so as to either pay them off or kill them. At that point, the price tag for having the privilege of holding the hidden cure would likely be in the trillions. To any corporation in this position, having a cure to hide would be a burden: not a boon.
Strictly speaking, it may be possible to continually amend the hidden cures conspiracy theory with a never ending regress of evidence-free ad hoc assumptions to make the narrative seem to hang together. Indeed, that is a quintessential feature and attraction of most grand scale conspiracy theories. However, the more ad hoc assumptions and the more people who’d have to be involved in order to preserve the narrative, the less likely the story is to actually be possible, so at some point it may be useful to simply apply Ockham’s razor, and concede the monumental implausibility of the hidden cures conspiracy hypothesis.
*This piece was a collaboration between Credible Hulk and I Fucking Hate Pseudoscience, and is cross posted here.
294 Comments
George W. · July 3, 2015 at 2:06 am
You forgot to mention that curing cancer would also create far more geriatric patients who statistically require more medication more frequently.
Statistics Prof · July 8, 2015 at 12:23 am
And which statistics is that? How statistically significant? What’s the gap?
Stoski · July 8, 2015 at 3:25 am
I believe that he was speaking anecdotally.
Simon Balfre · July 8, 2015 at 7:05 pm
I know of a lotion to assist those who experience anecdotal speech patterns, but Big Pharma won’t release the details.
BS for the gullible · August 6, 2015 at 2:26 pm
No, his mantra is disinformation. Everybody knows that the world is overpopulated and the illumiati, feds, politicians, so called rich alete have the cure. Who gave it to them? Think about it who has given us most of our technologies we have today?
gigi · September 14, 2015 at 6:08 pm
It’s the aliens isn’t it.
JULIE · February 2, 2016 at 9:58 pm
If that was true Steve Jobs and many ither people would have been cured of cancer and not died.
Kimberly White · April 24, 2016 at 12:22 am
The aliens is what ai was going to say GIGI!
Mark · May 12, 2016 at 9:38 am
To Julie – Steve Jobs’ religious beliefs went against cancers procedures. He chose to not undergo the treatment, even if there was a cure.
MrBill · September 9, 2016 at 11:33 pm
gOD?
Rob Graham · September 26, 2016 at 1:38 am
Aliens or Satan. All one in the same
Paul · July 8, 2015 at 11:17 am
Google did not find any statistics about the question: “How much medicamentation reqires a person”, asking two groups: (1)geritaric patients an (2)dead persons.
Let me guess the result: (2) = 0, (1) >> 0, high significance.
Statistics pro · July 9, 2015 at 12:06 am
You statistics fools clearly don’t know how to google. Simply typing in “Use of pharmaceutical drugs by age” brings up several graphs that show statistically higher amount of drugs being taken by older patients. Nice try at sounding intelligent, but there are statistics. One is that 88.4% of 60+ year olds report taking one or more drugs vs 48% in ages 20-59. So yes, statistically older people take more drugs. Game, set, match.
Deke · July 9, 2015 at 12:42 pm
It’s Not that he doesn’t know how to Google, it’s that the answer is so absolutely self evident that doing so would be a waste of time.
You know, self evident? Like how self evident that in your case factual mastery + logic – ability to realize something is a joke = not very fun at parties.
luke lukeotron · January 19, 2016 at 8:13 pm
77.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
cleveland · May 15, 2016 at 12:47 pm
People over 60 take more drugs because their respective doctors tell them too. Having grown up in an era when working class people respected educated people of authorities like the medical profession. So if a doctor tells them to take drugs because its good for their health, 90% will not question his opinion because he a doctor, and in their time no google or youtube to give you advise.
If the doctor tells them to watch what you eat, go organic food wise filter your water, grown you own organic food, never eat tin or process food etc, how many drugs do you think their will need to take if nutrition advise in stead of drug advise is given???
Credible Hulk · June 16, 2016 at 5:45 am
Your comment presupposes that those drugs aren’t ever doing those older people any good, and that doctors don’t already condone conscientious diet and excessive programs. By the way, life expectancy has been consistently increasing in nearly every country in the world for the last 150 years ( http://crediblehulk.org/index.php/2016/05/25/life-expectancy-has-increased-significantly-and-its-not-just-due-to-child-mortality-rates/ ), and there is currently no credible scientific evidence that eating only “organic” foods has any health or nutrition benefits over their conventional counterparts (all other this equal).
Darth Vader · December 4, 2016 at 3:26 pm
All you had to do is look up if older people get cancer more than younger people.
Phillip Liesemer · January 24, 2016 at 3:20 pm
Maybe Google didn’t have an answer because “Medicamentation” isn’t a word.
Deborah Cottrell · April 25, 2016 at 2:30 pm
You know, I thought the same thing. Then, I figured I’d better Google it first. Surprise! It IS a word. It’s just an esoteric way of saying “medication.”
Mary · January 27, 2016 at 8:59 pm
Cute. How old are you, Paul? Anyone that I know who is over 60 has a list of medications. If not for illness,for enhancement and prevention…contrary to life insurance actuaries’ numbers, my parents’ generation – who lived into 80’sand 90’s, I believe my generation will fall short. My theory is their weaker members died young of illness (pre-antibiotics,vaccines, etc.). So my generation is inherently weaker. The next generation of spoiled, video potatoes, junk food junkies, etc., will have an even lower life expectation. So enjoy every day!
Ckiff cavanaugh · June 29, 2016 at 6:28 pm
MARK: Religion had nothing to do with Steve Jobs’ choice of cancer (non)-treatment He went with so called “Alternative medicine”, which of course was no help. Vefore he died he said he should have had standard treatment. Religion was not involved.
Wayne · September 10, 2016 at 10:42 pm
Hiding “the cancer cure”. Well, plenty of cancers are curable so on that bombshell the conspiracy theory is flawed.
Gerald · July 8, 2015 at 4:58 pm
You really don’t accept that the older we get the more medication we take, statistically speaking? I’m a dyed in the wool skeptic, but I believe that claim in the absence of any quoted study. That’s hardly an extraordinary claim requiring any studies to back it up. I would assume (without evidence) that there are stats that would prove that. It’s an everyday observation.
Rebecca K. · July 27, 2015 at 4:48 am
The statistical gap between the age groups 25-59 and 60 and older is quite significant. 48% for 25-59 and 88% for 60+
Prescription Drug Use Continues to Increase: U.S. Prescription Drug Data for 2007-2008[PDF – 658 KB]
Rebecca Hart · March 25, 2016 at 2:05 pm
Everyone should check out a you tube video called, “Cancer – Forbidden Cures.” Documented suppression of evidence of cancer being cured by Rene Caisse, and others.
Tom · June 22, 2016 at 7:40 pm
OH, since when did You Tube become a credible scientific source?
Wayne · September 10, 2016 at 10:15 pm
It 100% has no credibility. I have a pal who’s son has bad epilepsy and he has been on cannabis oil along with a group of other patients and it made no significant gains but now he’s improved with new meds. Sorry people it doesn’t work and I really wish it did because I have alot of cancer in my family
Beth Bartlett · September 14, 2016 at 9:47 pm
Credibility – has to do with the facts of the information presented – not the source of the medi
ALTHOUGH MY GUT WRENCHES WHEN I TRY TO IMAGINE ANY FACTUAL PIECE OF INFORMATION BEING OFFERED VIA FOX NEWS – the premise remains valid.
Along the lines of Logic – the article offered here is reasonable in content – yet it does in no fashion provide convincing thought or evidence that Pharma is offering viable avenues to increase the potentials for Healthier Humans – nor – curb it’s practice of sustaining ineffective chemicals for consumption – nor does the AMA make any effort to proactively or reactively establish a more efficient and effective protocol for the more accurate treatment and resulting outcome of patient carev- if so they would with haste – establish a required partnership between Physician and Pharmacist to more effectively and safer meet the patients needs by – clearly establishing guidelines and ethical procedures requiring the doctor DIAGNOSE and the pharmacist PRESCRIBE – PERIOD – END OF CONCERN and RESPONSIBILITY on a point to MAKE A CARE STANDARD GRAND SLAM FOR THE PATIENT IN THE USA!
Ego(s) get in the way of Progress on any topic – even when Human Live and Quality of Life are the subject. This returns to my point of this article – well communicated – but lacks sufficient argument and evidence to validate it as a closed topic. I believe there are a plethora of opportunities to upgrade and even potentially provide cures that are blocked by egos – individual and establishment egos. I would like to think that ETHICS would lead to a positive resolution – but in this space in time – they are valued little AND RARE –
Dj · December 30, 2016 at 10:10 pm
It’s not a source, pet se. It’s an outlet for all to use so consider each “source” individually.
D Beech · July 29, 2016 at 11:22 pm
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUmTprdK_wE
Watch this Video!!! Big Pharma to market and sell this new ANTI-CANCER medication made from Brazilian trees to quote “ONLY THOSE WHO DESERVE IT”!! This Brazilian nature video shows what tree it comes from that the natives there have used for years. Some natives regularly cut roots from huge trees in the rain forest to drink (water) from and say that they then strip off the bark and save and sell the white meat of the tree because their peoples know how it has cured many types of cancer for many years. In fact the wealthy elite who bought up this large tract of land are under contract with big pharma to market and sell this new ANTI-CANCER medication to ONLY THOSE WHO DESERVE IT!!
Credible Hulk · July 30, 2016 at 4:36 am
Evidence, or GTFO.
Wayne · September 10, 2016 at 10:17 pm
No, they don’t. I watched a cat beat a dog up on you tube recently
Elijah Boer · September 22, 2016 at 12:14 am
don’t believe a youtube video, youtube is full of things that anyone could make up.
Ieva Zagante · October 29, 2016 at 7:47 pm
I have read that it takes up to 9 times more money to treat Type 2 diabetic from anything compared to a person without diabetes. And diabetics have problems with heart, circulation and kidneys, they have diabetic feet (which may lead to amputation), but on the whole, person with type 2 diabetes can live very long and consume huge amount of meds that will regulate glucose and cholesterol levels, blood pressure, function of kidneys, improve circulation and do many other things, especially after first stroke/heart attack. So it would be a real loss if such person dies from cancer.
Then there area all types of joint diseases and dementia – joints can be operated, but not all of them and not in all patients, however a dementia patient is also a valuable consumer of drugs that should not be lost to the cancer.
Paula Korth · January 22, 2016 at 4:49 am
I agree with George!
Louis rodino · February 3, 2016 at 3:53 am
There is a big problem when we still sell cigarettes to the public?
lulu · May 8, 2016 at 12:15 am
Cancer sticks
Beth Bartlett · September 14, 2016 at 9:49 pm
There would be a problem if we didn’t – FREEDOM – FREE IS FREE – OR THE LABELS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH USA – NEED TO BE CHANGED TO – WAS SORTA FREE AT ONE STAGE –
Dj · December 30, 2016 at 10:16 pm
Same with cars/trucks, Louis. People get hurt or die on a regular daily basis.
Bryan k Stallard · March 23, 2016 at 3:55 pm
Well heres to this article “YOUR FULL OF SHIT”
I HAD CANCER AND I TOOK Cannabis oil THC and CBD’s for 3 months and I am cancer free and there is a cure for cancer. It has been documented for over 1500 years. These are the facts. Don’t let someone tell you what the facts are. I’m telling you to look it up for yourself.
Credible Hulk · March 27, 2016 at 7:29 pm
“Look it up for yourself” is code for “I can’t produce a shred of credible evidence for my outrageous claim, so maybe you’ll have better luck finding it for me.”
Tim · May 13, 2016 at 6:34 pm
U.S. patent #6630507 B1/CBD Cannabis Oil
See also information at The Truth About Cancer.org
See also Dr. Otto Warburg/Oxygen Therapy
See also Dr. Mark Sircus as well…
There are many doctors, physicians, omcologists, naturopaths, and others that can confirm that cancer CAN BE cured…
Credible Hulk · June 16, 2016 at 5:49 am
As for cannabinoids:
A). It’s not secret. The only reason we know about its potential is because people have been studying its effects in vitro and publishing their work in highly visible journals.
B). The ability to induce cell apoptosis and inhibit angiogenesis in vitro is not a “cure for cancer.” It’s not that simple. Many things can kill cancer cells in a petri dish or inhibit the blood supply to the unwanted cells. Even a hand gun can kill cells in a dish. That’s not the same thing as being able to transport a substrate to the proper cell sites and selectively target tumor cells while minimizing collateral damage to healthy cells. Cancerous cells aren’t easy to distinguish from normal healthy cells. Additionally, cancer isn’t actually a disease. It’s a whole family of diseases with comparable pathology. There are hundreds of types of cancers, and what works for one type won’t necessarily work for some other types.
The point of this is not to say that cannabis is bad, or that researching it further can’t be useful. In fact, I’m actually pro-legalization, btw. Rather, the point is that it’s not so clear cut, and there is no conspiracy. It’s just hard to take anything from the in vitro stage to a full blown cancer treatment.
Here’s some more about all that:
“Virtually all the scientific research investigating whether cannabinoids can treat cancer has been done using cancer cells grown in the lab or animal models. It’s important to be cautious when extrapolating these results up to real live patients, who tend to be a lot more complex than a Petri dish or a mouse.
Through many detailed experiments, handily summarised in this recent article in the journal Nature Reviews Cancer, scientists have discovered that various cannabinoids (both natural and synthetic) have a wide range of effects in the lab, including:
Triggering cell death, through a mechanism called apoptosis
Stopping cells from dividing
Preventing new blood vessels from growing into tumours
Reducing the chances of cancer cells spreading through the body, by stopping cells from moving or invading neighbouring tissue
Speeding up the cell’s internal ‘waste disposal machine’ – a process known as autophagy – which can lead to cell death.”
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/
Ryan Knutson · July 9, 2016 at 7:11 am
Buddy, your article is way off point. you didn’t pick apart a single argument. you focused exclusively on how they couldnt possibly pull it off in a world of uneducated, misled, distracted people. Cannabis oil, or even just eating cannabis has been allegedly curing cancer for ages. People get put in jail for trying it. A guy in Canada gave it away instead of selling it, cured plenty of people, and nothing came of it but his having too go into hiding. this was decades ago. They are finally looking into it now, why? because too many people know, the internet blew it open, they have no choice now. Scientists have had too fund themselves and risk their careers to keep this truth alive privately. Because even if they told you, you could be easily convinced they are lying criminals, there was nothing in it for them but a jail cell or a bullet.
Credible Hulk · July 30, 2016 at 4:38 am
I thought I answered this comment already, but here it is again, so I’ll repeat myself. Your comment is completely off base. Firstly, you failed to address a single argument made in the piece. Secondly, what you’re doing is a logical fallacy known as moving the goalpost.
Thirdly, as for cannabinoids:
A). It’s not secret. The only reason we know about its potential is because people have been studying its effects in vitro and publishing their work in highly visible journals.
B). The ability to induce cell apoptosis and inhibit angiogenesis in vitro is not a “cure for cancer.” It’s not that simple. Many things can kill cancer cells in a petri dish or inhibit the blood supply to the unwanted cells. Even a hand gun can kill cells in a dish. That’s not the same thing as being able to transport a substrate to the proper cell sites and selectively target tumor cells while minimizing collateral damage to healthy cells. Cancerous cells aren’t easy to distinguish from normal healthy cells. Additionally, cancer isn’t actually a disease. It’s a whole family of diseases with comparable pathology. There are hundreds of types of cancers, and what works for one type won’t necessarily work for some other types.
On cannabis as a “cure” :
“Even though there is animal research to support the case that the cannabinoids are anti-cancer agents, there is still no evidence that cannabis oil cures cancer (goo.gl/qeTn44).
First, we should remember that animal studies are ranked lower than case reports, in the hierarchy of research. That’s pretty low-tier evidence – useful for identifying potential, but not much else. Besides, animals are supposed to be more sensitive to the effects of the cannabinoids (goo.gl/RIRbFB – page 243). So, if you only have animal research to support your claim, you are far away from making a credible case for humans.
Also, concerning the two girls who experienced brain cancer remission after smoking cannabis, well, you don’t have a decent sample size if you only have two cases (goo.gl/8ABVzU). And it was not a clinical trial.
The claim that cannabis oil cures cancer is not based on a proper understanding of cancer. Most importantly, cancer is a multi-faceted entity, and not all cancers are caused by the same thing. Each type of cancer and location of cancer has completely different traits and modes of replication and survival. Cancer is not a singular thing. Therefore, it cannot be “cured” by a singular thing.”
http://www.oharatree.info/2015/05/marijuana-and-cannabinoids-and-medicine.html
Moreover, not all the effects of using cannabinoids in this manner are necessarily desirable. For instance, the high doses of cannabinoids required to kill cancer cells also harm blood vessels (inhibit angiogenesis) in healthy cells, as shown here:
Abstract
Cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana and their derivatives, induce tumor regression in rodents (8). However, the mechanism of cannabinoid antitumoral action in vivo is as yet unknown. Here we show that local administration of a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid to mice inhibits angiogenesis of malignant gliomas as determined by immunohistochemical analyses and vascular permeability assays. In vitro and in vivo experiments show that at least two mechanisms may be involved in this cannabinoid action: the direct inhibition of vascular endothelial cell migration and survival as well as the decrease of the expression of proangiogenic factors (vascular endothelial growth factor and angiopoietin-2) and matrix metalloproteinase-2 in the tumors. Inhibition of tumor angiogenesis may allow new strategies for the design of cannabinoid-based antitumoral therapies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026328
In certain instances, cannabinoids can even encourage growth of cancer cells.
>>> Cannabinoids induce cancer cell proliferation via tumor necrosis factor alpha-converting enzyme (TACE/ADAM17)-mediated transactivation of the epidermal growth factor receptor.
Hart S1, Fischer OM, Ullrich A.
Author information
Abstract
Cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana and their endogenous counterparts were reported as useful analgetic agents to accompany primary cancer treatment by preventing nausea, vomiting, and pain and by stimulating appetite. Moreover, they have been shown to inhibit cell growth and to induce apoptosis in tumor cells. Here, we demonstrate that anandamide, Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), HU-210, and Win55,212-2 promote mitogenic kinase signaling in cancer cells. Treatment of the glioblastoma cell line U373-MG and the lung carcinoma cell line NCI-H292 with nanomolar concentrations of THC led to accelerated cell proliferation that was completely dependent on metalloprotease and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activity. EGFR signal transactivation was identified as the mechanistic link between cannabinoid receptors and the activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinases extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 as well as prosurvival protein kinase B (Akt/PKB) signaling. Depending on the cellular context, signal cross-communication was mediated by shedding of proAmphiregulin (proAR) and/or proHeparin-binding epidermal growth factor-like growth factor (proHB-EGF) by tumor necrosis factor alpha converting enzyme (TACE/ADAM17). Taken together, our data show that concentrations of THC comparable with those detected in the serum of patients after THC administration accelerate proliferation of cancer cells instead of apoptosis and thereby contribute to cancer progression in patients. <<< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026328
There is even some evidence that they can interfere with the immune system’s ability to recognize and destroy tumor cells (though my understanding is that some synthetic versions of cannabinoids may be able to mitigate this undesirable side effect to some extent).
>>> Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol enhances breast cancer growth and metastasis by suppression of the antitumor immune response.
McKallip RJ1, Nagarkatti M, Nagarkatti PS.
Author information
– 1Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Medical College of Virginia Campus, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298, USA. [email protected]
Abstract
In the current study, we tested the central hypothesis that exposure to Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta9-THC), the major psychoactive component in marijuana, can lead to enhanced growth of tumors that express low to undetectable levels of cannabinoid receptors by specifically suppressing the antitumor immune response. We demonstrated that the human breast cancer cell lines MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 and the mouse mammary carcinoma 4T1 express low to undetectable levels of cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, and that these cells are resistant to Delta9-THC-induced cytotoxicity. Furthermore, exposure of mice to Delta9-THC led to significantly elevated 4T1 tumor growth and metastasis due to inhibition of the specific antitumor immune response in vivo. The suppression of the antitumor immune response was mediated primarily through CB2 as opposed to CB1. Furthermore, exposure to Delta9-THC led to increased production of IL-4 and IL-10, suggesting that Delta9-THC exposure may specifically suppress the cell-mediated Th1 response by enhancing Th2-associated cytokines. This possibility was further supported by microarray data demonstrating the up-regulation of a number of Th2-related genes and the down-regulation of a number of Th1-related genes following exposure to Delta9-THC. Finally, injection of anti-IL-4 and anti-IL-10 mAbs led to a partial reversal of the Delta9-THC-induced suppression of the immune response to 4T1. Such findings suggest that marijuana exposure either recreationally or medicinally may increase the susceptibility to and/or incidence of breast cancer as well as other cancers that do not express cannabinoid receptors and are resistant to Delta9-THC-induced apoptosis. <<< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15749859
The point of this is not to say that cannabis is bad, or that researching it further can’t be useful. In fact, I’m actually pro-legalization, btw. Rather, the point is that it’s not so clear cut, and there is no conspiracy. It’s just hard to take anything from the in vitro stage to a full blown cancer treatment.
Here’s some more about all that:
>>> Virtually all the scientific research investigating whether cannabinoids can treat cancer has been done using cancer cells grown in the lab or animal models. It’s important to be cautious when extrapolating these results up to real live patients, who tend to be a lot more complex than a Petri dish or a mouse.
Through many detailed experiments, handily summarised in this recent article in the journal Nature Reviews Cancer, scientists have discovered that various cannabinoids (both natural and synthetic) have a wide range of effects in the lab, including:
– Triggering cell death, through a mechanism called apoptosisStopping cells from dividingPreventing new blood vessels from growing into tumoursReducing the chances of cancer cells spreading through the body, by stopping cells from moving or invading neighbouring tissueSpeeding up the cell’s internal ‘waste disposal machine’ – a process known as autophagy – which can lead to cell death <<< http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/
Beth Bartlett · September 14, 2016 at 9:52 pm
YOUR LOGIC AND YOUR COMMUNICATION.- is seriously a comfort – as I have times when – all appears to be – SHEEP IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE – a sad and scarey reality…
Elijah Boer · September 22, 2016 at 12:27 am
ryan knutson, wheres your research, all I see is you making outrageous claims about how some guy in Canada was giving cannabis away and was, apparently curing people of cancer. this guy probably made it up, the guy was giving cannabis away, sounds like he had gotten high one too many times.
the only reason people say cannabis cures cancer is because they want to be able so get high on the stuff.
Austin Rothaus · November 4, 2016 at 5:08 pm
I have found an organism named: Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans. Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans has a metabolism that is genetically modified. How does this relate to cancer some people might ask? A genome sequence in the bacteria is able to repair and fix its genes, as uniprot.org stated ¨ This protein is involved in the repair of mismatches in DNA. It is required for dam-dependent methyl-directed DNA mismatch repair. May act as a “molecular matchmaker”, a protein that promotes the formation of a stable complex between two or more DNA-binding proteins in an ATP-dependent manner without itself being part of a final effector complex.¨ This concludes that Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans is able to repair its DNA. I also have found that a current disease known as ¨Cat scratch¨ contains a bacteria known as Bartonella henselae. This bacteria is able to inject traits into humans, if we are able to inject traits into humans, we will also be able to receive the trait. Another thing to keep in mind is that we can inject traits into other diseases and make the disease not reproductive. To do this we would have to remove certain traits that would enable reproduction of the bacteria. We can do this with a lot of diseases. Another hypothesis of mine is a procedure that would insure that we would not be infected by the disease. My idea is extracting the gene repair trait from acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans and injecting it inside of a human egg that has been fertilized, we would accomplish this by using E2 injection. But to first use it on humans we would have to use it on animals like rats to see if it works. After it worked on rats we could keep trying it to closer species that are more and more related to humans. My hypothesis is that the humans might not accept the trait. I think that humans will not accept the trait because it may be placed wrong or not match up. More than 1,500 people a day because of cancer, we could cure the cancer that changed itself because of DNA, I can change that. I am a 15 year old boy living in Edmonds,WA, if you wish to contact me, my email address is [email protected].
Kisha Winzer · December 14, 2016 at 5:39 pm
This is too truth…reading this gave me chills
Aurora · April 23, 2016 at 4:35 am
Wouldn’t you think that Apple CEO Steve Job….also Patick Swayze…. David Bowie……and all the big millionaires that have recently passed away with cancer would have paid ANY amount of money to stay alive??? Come on!! Pull your heads out of the sand!! If me you or ANYONE else is meant to dye of cancer no medication can cure it!! If we are meant to survive ANY medication can cure it. I’ve seen people on cannabis oil and all the bul$&@@& natural ways die a horrendous death the same as I seen people die with chemo and vice versa! What would I do? Given that I seen more people survive many many years after having the appropriate chemo treatment, I use that but combined with natural remedies to help my body heal! I am a believer of both!! People have survived long long time after chemo and people have died. People work this out!!
trudy wise · May 15, 2016 at 2:03 am
Right on Bryan. Ive seen this in friends over and over again. Complete and utterly cured from cancer, fits and horrible skin conditions.
Tom · June 22, 2016 at 7:41 pm
Of course – I’ve already made my mind up, don’t bother me with the facts. A series of one is called anecdotal! 1500 years ago, they didn’t even know what cancer was!
Dj · December 30, 2016 at 10:18 pm
So you’re saying that IS the cure for all cancers, Bryan?
HEH · May 23, 2016 at 6:41 pm
you did 9/11
I think I am rational · July 3, 2015 at 11:41 am
Excellent post. Of course, you will immediately be attacked as shill’s for big pharma because most folks can take the time for to do any critical thinking.
mrz80 · July 9, 2015 at 3:06 am
“TL;DR. But you must be in on it to spend so many words on it!” 🙂
EMD · July 3, 2015 at 7:48 pm
Never mind 99.9% of scientists involved in bringing a drug to market never realize that “fame”!
Mike · July 7, 2015 at 3:36 pm
They achieve fame and promotion within their circle of peers, which is where the fame counts for the scientists.
KingIsulgard · July 8, 2015 at 7:51 am
Being admired by 5 people is not fame.
And why even research a cure, which is costing millions of dollars, if you have not intent to use it?
We already know of pharma companies NOT researching cures for certain diseases because they are just too rare to make a profit from them. They don’t mind being honest about it. And if they do find a cure, it is unaffordable for “normal” people.
And most likely an “expensive” cure will be found before they optimize it and find a “cheap” process to achieve the same cure.
But that is irrelevant how much the cure production would cost since you can ask whatever the hell you want if you are the first to discover the cure. It’s called a “monopoly”.
Deke · July 9, 2015 at 12:46 pm
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess you don’t know any scientists, because if you ran your fame story by them, you wouldn’t still be using it.
YourMother · April 12, 2016 at 12:00 pm
Why spend resources finding a cure for a rare disease when more people can be saved by finding a cure for more common diseases?
Nigel Turner · July 7, 2015 at 7:22 pm
“fame” is relative. To get published or cited in Lancet would be sufficient fame for most of those scientists because grants, promotions, and tenure jobs all are based on publications and citations. So most scientists who helped bring a drug to market would get precisely the kind of fame they are after.
Tom · June 22, 2016 at 7:42 pm
Are you sure it isn’t 99.9875%
Nick · July 4, 2015 at 1:45 am
This is pretty much how I feel about most conspiracy theories! There are simply too many people to control for any of it to be plausible. Good article.
Sandra Chapman · February 3, 2016 at 8:04 pm
It is easy to control the masses with power, fear & disinformation. Tools of all governments. The financial world is driven by profit. The big pharmacy can dispute & ridicule alternative medicine because they have set the “quantifiable” methods of evidence. Most alternative cases are written off as one offs or spontaneous remissions as they gave not been through big company models of evidence. This way only the funded trials are classed as “bona fidi” even when we have evidence if how the results have been manipulated to hide evidence that dies not fit what big companies wish to promote. As for the heads of big companies can also get cancer- so why would they hide a cure- for exactly the same reason people continue to smoke or drink -because they believe it won’t happen to them. Also because the prevailing thought is established that “anyone outside of rigorous scientific circles doesn’t know shit so it is foolish to even take ant evidence seriously” it is the big companies who have created the belittling of any amount of alternative therapy evidence as to be “subjective (regardless of the numbers of accounts) and so not “scientific”
It’s a sad state of affairs as no doubt there is both good & bad practice in both areas of treatment- Allopathic and Alternative. But when each regard each other with derision and suspicion then only in a few enlightened areas where they work together or alongside each other (China) do patients or health service users get options to benifit from both. With the NHS becoming overloaded one would really think it was time to promote alternative & complementary medicines in partnership with the NHS where hospitals deal with acute/immediate trauma and CAM’s deal with preventative/chronic conditions. Maybe one day.
Jared S · February 9, 2016 at 3:28 am
You fail to account for the heads of companies that DO get cancer and, consequently, die from it. If they have a cure, why do they die from it? Or does the conspiracy go deeper? Are we talking about a Tupac level of deception? “Steve Jobs still lives! Otherwise, how could apple continue putting out new products?” You have to take a step back from your convictions and look at the families of these men and women as well as the thousands of different types of men and women that are involved in the studies you think are all bought out. Do you really, and be honest with yourself about this, do you really think that a human being, just because they happen to be a scientist, could watch his child or spouse die from a disease that he knows there is a cure for? Don’t you think that they would risk the corporate fallout and anger that would come from blowing the lid off of this secret if it meant saving the life of a loved one?
As a lover of money and a general science enthusiast, I have to say that I would face down any government, any corporation, any mafia, essentially anyone that tried to tell me to let a loved one die simply to earn an extra dollar. Not even an extra billion dollars. Money is pointless without human interaction. How is it possible that you have so little faith in the simplest formation of humanity? I would not let my daughter die to make money or to save my own life. What other motivation do you ascribe to, and this is the important part, literally every scientist?
You essentially have to believe that every scientist is a sociopath at best and a psychopath at worst.
Bobby · April 13, 2016 at 7:24 pm
Hit the nail on the Head Jared S!
Lilly · April 19, 2016 at 2:14 pm
That’s been one of my biggest arguments against the great Hidden Cure Conspiracy. And you also have to consider all the scientists and doctors who chose their career path because they lost a loved one to cancer. To believe that each and every one of them had their humanity removed is just a leap too far, in my opinion.
Khush · April 29, 2016 at 3:20 pm
Very well described and explained in the appropriate detail. I believe that rationality of this order is generally dismissed by the fanatical devotees of self-convinced, straightjacketed proponents wedded mindlessly to theories underpinned by little other than googled misinformation and limited intellectual wherewithal. Anyway, my heartiest congratulations- at least there is one individual out there engaged in some rationsl contemplation of such important issues.
Judy Kingsepp · May 8, 2016 at 5:26 pm
Science is a narrow controlled field. Skate the edges, and you don’t get published.
allah peño · July 29, 2016 at 12:10 pm
Do you really think that being published is all that matters to every scientist?
I work a shitty, dead-end agency job, barely scraping by in life, just to get the time to program software and games that I don’t get paid a penny for, because computer science and interactive technology are my passion… So why wouldn’t there be people who are passionate about their own field of research willing to make sacrifices?
David · June 7, 2016 at 6:02 am
Many research scientists who worked for J Reynolds or P Morris knew the effects that tobacco had on the lives of its ‘customers’ yet until it was finally dragged into light, at great risk of people who did get this information out into the open, not many these researchers or scientist or even ‘top level’ seemed too eager to make the facts known to the world. And were quite happy to spend big budgets on advertising to make lure the population and ensure they didn’t worry about the true facts and were sold on this wholesome product as a normal and rightful place in society. Presumably they had families or knew people who needed to be warned? Or CEO, Execs of these companies were getting sick and dying? This is a familiar story. It was the same and still is with Nuclear Energy companies, Companies dumping polluted water, emissions, etc, on communities. Dodgy building and manufacturing practice, many examples of where the ‘top levels’ knew what was happening but stayed quiet. But the point of this article is that there may well be no known cure for cancer. They’re not trying to hide a cure that exists. What they are focusing their development on existing ideas that combat cancer with the use of drugs and ideas that can be patented for their profits, that the good of mankind. They would say ‘well it’s business”. An example being that new research is desperately needed now for development of new anti biotic, but the pharma industry, for some reason seem reluctant to make the investment for this research? There’s also the fact that should alternative ideas be developed, will the board of approval the FDA etc, actually give approval? Delay the application? Why is it that these boards have directors who also seem to be on the board or have large interest in Pharmaceutical companies? The same with political candidates I believe. This isn’t conspiracy theory , this is a fact. If they want to be transparent, and do care about the public, shouldn’t this stopped? Wouldn’t you agree? It’s never a good idea to go along with what we are told, always a good idea to question everything especially when it concerns our health. As far as conspiracy theories, I’m sure many people are genuine, and have good intention and concern for others, but anyone would have to admit, there has been many occasions when there isn’t and have been caught because people asked questions. That’s what freedom is about.
Kisha Winzer · December 14, 2016 at 6:22 pm
Right on David…Everything you said is truth. When people ask questions things come out to the public, sometimes it’s bad, but if we couldn’t save those affected before our questions, we sure can affect those in the future. The NFL and Concussions, hell that was about players health, their LIVES, doctors, and scientist knew, and did nothing. What makes Cancer different.
silli · August 9, 2016 at 1:53 am
I’m not smart enough to take part in this discussion. But I love what you said because it is what I believe. My husband was told he had 18 months or so to live. He had chemo, that’s all. Palliative chemo. He didn’t change his diet or lifestyle. In fact thinking he was going to die he probably indulged more once he felt better. Now 8 years later he is healthy and still here and I hope he will be for a long time. At the time, I knew nothing about cancer, then reading about it I found more conspiracy information than scientific information. I started to believe it and the started questioning why rich people weren’t able to access something as simple as cannabis oil. My auntie in italy died of breast cancer, the doctor gave her cannabis to help with the nausea and side effects. She still died. I don’t know what to believe anymore except what I see. My husband is alive. I have friends that have died from the side effects of chemo. I see both sides. The Internet has created so much information, but also more misinformation. Thank you.
Kisha Winzer · December 14, 2016 at 6:10 pm
How many Big Company Heads of Pharma companies does anyone know? How many have gotten Cancer and died? How many have got Cancer and lived? Who knows, so if one of them did get Cancer and secretly got cured, who would know. It’s been proven that keeping secrets is vital here, so why give a cure to Patrick Swayze, Steve Jobs, David Bowie etc.,because how long will it stay secret. Stop acting like Big Wigs can’t make things happen. Another reason they say there’s no cure, it’s because some are going about it the wrong way. Saying Cancer is caused damaged DNA instead of going after the microbes that damage the DNA. If your not looking at it from the latter point of view, maybe YOU WON’T find a cure, but that doesn’t mean someone hasn’t.We’ll never know what goes on behind the scenes because we’re not there. All we can do is keep gathering info, keep reading,and stay up on the latest news regarding Cancer.
Kevin murray · February 14, 2016 at 10:22 pm
doubtfull
Rebecca Hart · March 25, 2016 at 2:19 pm
Go Sandra. I’m with you, girl. You might like to see a you tube video called, Cancer – Forbidden Cures. Shows documented suppression of evidence of cancer being cured by Rene Caisse and others. Recently an. Italian doctor researched and found a cure for cancer that was very simple. After presenting his findings; he was quickly prevented from practicing medicine. Big Pharma does not want to find a cure for cancer or anything else. The “gravy train” would dry up. People have to spend much more money in managing their disease. The “powers that be” know this.
Martin Cameron · September 5, 2016 at 3:47 pm
Did you even read the article?
April Colby · November 24, 2016 at 4:36 pm
A cure for what cancer?
You do know there are different kinds, right? Like, lots and lots of different kinds?
Wayne · September 10, 2016 at 10:27 pm
Agreed
Michael Clarke · July 4, 2015 at 2:15 pm
This is an exceptional post showing that true human nature shall prevail . However ! Money is still the root of all evil and one only has to discover the etiology of the myriad of sicknesses and diseases to find that interference in content or ingredients for the purpose of making things faster,cheaper , last longer or appear better. Exogenous toxicity from all we ingest from fast foods to industrial waste, these are the stressors that precipitate sickness and disease and feed the wheel of fortune.
So let’s keep looking for the cure all the while maintaing human integrity .
Chris · July 7, 2015 at 4:30 pm
Michael, I’m not sure I follow. You seem to be claiming that the majority of our illnesses come from environmental sources. This implies that if we weren’t surrounded by the effluvia of industrial society and ate better that we’d all be a lot healthier. However, if you look back in history you’d see that disease and infirmity have been with us since the beginning of our written history. In fact, the archaeological studies clearly show disease in the prehistorical record. So what was causing illness and disease then? There wasn’t any fast food or hydrogenated vegetable oil or HFCS or industrial waste.
Deke · July 9, 2015 at 12:49 pm
Check out the statistical record for humans before the advent of farming, make sure to subtract the intentional abandonment infant deaths from the height and age equation. I’m going to guess that you personally might end up being a bit suprised.
Paula Korth · January 22, 2016 at 4:52 am
Ever hear of animals, injuries with no antibiotics, war, etc. Cold, storms drowning…plus the hard work of survival killed the ancient ones!!!
Sandra Chapman · February 3, 2016 at 8:09 pm
A lot of modern disease is not the same as those throughout history. Type 2 diabetes. There is undisputed evidence that ut dysmorphias and heart issues are directly linked to diet.
Rebecca Hart · March 25, 2016 at 2:25 pm
If you look at isolated tribes of people virtually untouched by modern civiliation; they tend to be extremely healthy and live long lives.
Credible Hulk · March 27, 2016 at 7:30 pm
[Citation needed].
mike woolfe · May 15, 2016 at 8:06 pm
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.” – Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime editor-in-chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ) (source)
Credible Hulk · June 16, 2016 at 5:40 am
Since this comment is essentially trying to make the same point as your previous comment attempted to make, I’ll just reiterate the main points I outlined in response to your other comment. It was a valiant attempt to rationalize and justify science denialism, but ultimately futile. Science is still hands down the best game in town insofar as generating reliable knowledge about the universe.
Firstly, the only reason we know that a paper’s findings were false is because the results weren’t replicable, and thus subsequent evidence showed the results to be false. Granted, many studies do have poor design, and publication bias leads to more positive results studies being published than negative, but that is not the primary reason for this problem.
It is statistically inevitable that a certain percentage of studies will yield positive results due to random chance despite the conclusion being incorrect. This will happen more often if a lot of funding is being directed towards hypotheses with an extremely low a priori probability of being true. For example, the more studies people fund on, for instance, homeopathy, or any other implausible idea, the greater the chance of an unreplicable false positive occurring. We can limit the frequency of these false positives by considering the a priori probability of a particular line of research being viable. We can’t always know this, but as it currently stands, a lot of money is wasted on things that were obvious long shots. Alt med is full of prime examples of this.
In other words, this isn’t so much a problem with the ability of the scientific process to generate reliable knowledge so much as it is a problem of inefficient use of funding.
Secondly, no robust scientific consensus is ever based on the findings of a single study (or even a handful of them). Rather, it is invariably built on a consilience of a large body of research, typically involving multiple lines of converging evidence.
Thirdly, the fact that many studies arrive at wrong conclusions does not mean that that’s the case in a particular given instance. The claimant still has to give a compelling reason why a particular conclusion is false if he or she expects his or her argument to be taken seriously.
Fourthly, it is a moot point, because, however fallible a given scientist may be, the error rate of random unqualified contrarians and/or conspiracy speculationists will always be much higher. Rejecting the best available methods in favor of inferior ones on the grounds that the best we have isn’t perfect is simply not reasonable.
Tom · June 22, 2016 at 7:44 pm
Source?
Jeanne Farr · July 7, 2015 at 6:13 pm
Michael Clarke, many people say, and you seem to agree, that money is the root of all evil. The Bible actually says “the love of money is the root of all evil.” There is a big important difference. Money is neutral, neither good nor bad.
John · July 8, 2015 at 6:48 am
Michael; We like this statement and are wondering if the quotation has a chapter and verse?
Gerald · July 8, 2015 at 3:26 pm
Does it really matter, or add anything to find a Bible passage that confirms an old adage? There are plenty of Bible passages that “actually say” things that are demonstrably false or obviously immoral and evil. Your Argument from Authority Fallacy is especially fallacious when the source of the authority is so unreliable and questionable.
There are other things which are the root of some evils that don’t involve money, at least on a one-on-one personal relationship. Religious beliefs are ideas and ideas inform behavior. Wrong ideas drive immoral and evil actions. It has been said, and it is readily apparent to me at least, that for good people to do bad things it takes religion. Thus religion is the root of some evil.
Rebecca Hart · March 25, 2016 at 2:31 pm
Religion is man-made, so it is man that chooses to use his free will to make bad choices. God is Holy and by His very nature, can only do Good.
Bruce MacDonald · July 8, 2015 at 12:45 am
Actually, the phrase was originally, I believe, “the LOVE of money is the root of all evil.” That makes it more interesting and profound, don’t you think?
Rainne · September 13, 2015 at 8:22 pm
Also, it’s not all evil, it’s all kinds of evil, and the difference is a huge one.
John Doh · June 5, 2016 at 7:52 am
But money cannot be loved. The lust for money is a root to evil. Love is eternal. Money temporary.
Ritchie Peyton · July 8, 2015 at 1:09 am
‘The love of money is the root of all evil’ only takes a superficial examination of life and experiences to realize isn’t true. It is a mistranslation of a phrase used in the New Testament by Apostle Paul, “For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil.”
Bible's Friend · July 8, 2015 at 8:16 pm
(1 Timothy 6:9, 10) 9 But those who are determined to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and many senseless and harmful desires that plunge men into destruction and ruin. 10 For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have been led astray from the faith and have stabbed themselves all over with many pains.
Conspirator7654 · December 20, 2015 at 6:55 am
So, that would mean all the organic molecules in the air are working against us. God should have never put me on this earth…smh
Rebecca Hart · March 25, 2016 at 2:35 pm
I think it’s interesting how those that do not even believe in God, blame Him for bad things happening in the world today.
Lilly · April 19, 2016 at 2:30 pm
I have never “blamed” God for anything.
I have blamed Religion for many bad things ~ but that is a very different thing.
I have also asked believers how they can follow an all knowing, all powerful, loving God who will condemn, even the faithful who break any of his rules, to *eternal* torment and pain. I’m not the nicest person on the planet, but I wouldn’t wish a weekend of agony on my worst enemy! So that part definitely bothers me.
Kevin murray · February 14, 2016 at 10:24 pm
We are the abusers there’s no ans
teejay · September 3, 2016 at 8:07 pm
money is NOT the root of all evil,the love of it is!
Tom · July 6, 2015 at 11:34 pm
I’d add that people view cancer as a singular disease when in fact there are over 200 specific types of cancer, each with its own specific pathology and treatment needs and many of these do, in fact, have effective treatment or cures available.
Dave · July 8, 2015 at 8:33 am
Don’t forget that they are now finding that cancers are as individual as the people who get them! It’s a whole range of mutations that can cause even a single type of cancer, compounding the number of -ideal- treatments that would be out there. I stress “ideal” because treatments are likely to still work on a range of cancers, only with varying levels of efficiency.
tldr; yes, cancer is complicated. Surprisingly so!
Harley B · July 7, 2015 at 1:13 am
I used many of these same arguments against a political page on facebook claiming that big pharma is suppressing the cure for profits and stopping research into cannabis as a cure even tho the research has been going on for decades, tho now I have some new ones and a page to point them to thanks. In reality conspiracy theories come from the inability to trust governments and corporations given their demonstrated corruption through out history, I don’t deny that there have been some shady and/or incompetent characters *cough* Abbott *cough* but to believe that they would put their own lives at risk or that they would be able to keep such a secret given their obvious inability to stop conspiracy bloggers is just foolish.
Rebecca Hart · March 25, 2016 at 2:49 pm
Big Phama, the FDA, and others have their ways of suppressing evidence, if that evidence should interrupt their “gravy train.” check out the you tube video, “Cancer – Forbidden Cures.” In it, among other things, is documented intimidation by the FDA even of patrons of these clinics that so threatened them that they shut them down, both in Canada and the United States. At one time there were 500 Hoxley clinics here in the United States, with documentation of curing people of cancer. They were forced to shut down by the FDA. One clinic now exists in Mexico. These clinics used a simple herbal remedy, whose founder was a veterinarian. IF big Pharma cannot make money off of a substance, like natural ones, such as this, they will use propoganda(such as calling the doctors using the natural cures, quacks), intimidation, burning records, etc. All of these things happened to Rene Caisse in Canada, Harry Hoxley in the United States, and others. Most recently, an Italian doctor, who found a simple cure to “kill” tumors. Action was quickly taken not allowing him to practice medicine any longer.
Tom · June 22, 2016 at 7:46 pm
Rebecca, tired of hearing the same excuse for a You Tube video that has no credibility. It it was so phenomenal, then why wasn’t the information published? Give it up.
Jay · September 14, 2016 at 6:42 am
Do you have a reputable source for that information?
Andrew · July 7, 2015 at 2:21 am
I’d actually believe that a non-profit would supress a cure over believing a for profit one doing it. Non-profits have every incentive in the world to perpetuate problems, like they do with racism, poverty, broken families and more. There is no profit in misery but there is plenty of government funding for it.
how to lose 10 pounds a month · July 7, 2015 at 6:25 am
Toxins, that are bodily wastes, can also be released from the body as
being a person works out. If you cannot know this, carbohydrates actually
transforms into sugar once it’s going into one’s body.
You must be aware that the foods within this diet have become limited.
screw this guy · August 8, 2015 at 6:20 am
^
||
retarded spam
Brian Rochford · July 7, 2015 at 2:44 pm
Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.
Benjamin Franklin
Thanks for compiling this content into a single source. No doubt the true believers will remain unaffected but the curious are hopefully still open to these arguments
Rebecca Hart · March 25, 2016 at 2:52 pm
Love the quote by Benjamin Franklin!
Judy Kingsepp · May 8, 2016 at 5:30 pm
Threatened with death also keeps one quiet.
Wayne · September 10, 2016 at 10:35 pm
Depends how hard you are
Mark Nyul · July 7, 2015 at 4:18 pm
Isn’t cancer a form of population control,if we cured it then an already strained ecosystem would collapse under over farming ,pollution, deforestation .In short there are too many of us on this planet already to support the balance
Gerald · July 8, 2015 at 4:42 pm
Yea, it would speed the inevitable. Only more ways to die will save us, because, as a species, we’re not going to do what is obviously needed.
Sharon Buck · July 8, 2015 at 5:10 pm
Nonsense! If we used our resources wisely, the planet could host a greater population. There’s a lot of usable land across the globe that could stand populating. Unfortunately we tend to collect ourselves into small areas, overpopulating those, and creating all kinds of problems.
Kim · October 25, 2015 at 2:20 am
If we became vegetarian, maybe we could increase the world population, but you really need to understand the pressure we have put on our fragile ecosystem right now. Have a good look at some satellite photographs showing the huge, shamefully inhumane European factory farms where animals are kept in tiny cages, unable to even stand up, but bred repeatedly. Their young are born, live their entire lives as they’re fattened then killed, all the time inside one of those concrete and steel torture chambers. The horrific sights from outer space, show thousands of acres of blood pools around each of these factory farms, caused by the massive scale of ongoing, never ending slaughter of these creatures and these photos will help you understand the pressure our current population has already placed on our world. Already, one third of suitable land is under meat production for a meat hungry population. These figures are factual and were recently published, but I cannot recall which organisation published them. I live in Australia and I have heard so many people say, “look at your country, only a small area of land is populated in Australia, so you could take ten times your current population almost immediately,” when in actual fact the populated areas of Australia are the only areas that can sustain life; the rest of Australia is desert and uninhabitable. We already have major problems with water supply in some areas. BTW there are many who say, “the earth has always provided its own natural attrition and by helping people in developing countries who are victims of famine, with populations dying of contagious and other types of fatal diseases, those affected by major earthquakes, cyclones/hurricanes/typhoons, floods, etc, we are not helping, but rather we are interfering by upsetting the earth’s natural balance.”
Casie · April 12, 2016 at 7:40 am
I can’t even begin to describe how disgustingly anthropocentric this statement is.
Rebecca Hart · March 25, 2016 at 2:55 pm
And whom, pray tell; has the authority to dispose of humans? If the ‘Powers that Be’ are doing such a thing; then they are pure evil!
timothy hansen · July 8, 2015 at 12:02 am
These are the same people who are just as convinced that some pandemic will wipe out six billion of us, making the world more habitable.
Alberto · July 8, 2015 at 12:10 am
You all should do some research yourselves, just go on to google scholar and read some academic papers. Get your info straight from the source.
alberi · February 4, 2016 at 9:59 pm
the government hides these type of things because they want to make money for all the treatments they dont care as long as they get their money
Credible Hulk · March 27, 2016 at 6:43 pm
This claim was already addressed in the article above which you obviously didn’t even read. SMH.
mike woolfe · May 15, 2016 at 8:07 pm
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” – Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. (source)
Credible Hulk · June 16, 2016 at 5:37 am
Those are just quotes with no contextual backdrop. I’m guessing that the criticism is probably referring at least in part to the Ioannidis article on more than half of all research findings being false. There are issues to address with that (namely the replicability problem), but the situation is not remotely as you are attempting to represent it.
Firstly, the only reason we know that a paper’s findings were false is because the results weren’t replicable, and thus subsequent evidence showed the results to be false. Granted, many studies do have poor design, and publication bias leads to more positive results studies being published than negative, but that is not the primary reason for this problem.
It is statistically inevitable that a certain percentage of studies will yield positive results due to random chance despite the conclusion being incorrect. This will happen more often if a lot of funding is being directed towards hypotheses with an extremely low a priori probability of being true. For example, the more studies people fund on, for instance, homeopathy, or any other implausible idea, the greater the chance of an unreplicable false positive occurring. We can limit the frequency of these false positives by considering the a priori probability of a particular line of research being viable. We can’t always know this, but as it currently stands, a lot of money is wasted on things that were obvious long shots. Alt med is full of prime examples of this.
In other words, this isn’t so much a problem with the ability of the scientific process to generate reliable knowledge so much as it is a problem of inefficient use of funding.
Secondly, no robust scientific consensus is ever based on the findings of a single study (or even a handful of them). Rather, it is invariably built on a consilience of a large body of research, typically involving multiple lines of converging evidence.
Thirdly, the fact that many studies arrive at wrong conclusions does not mean that that’s the case in a particular given instance. The claimant still has to give a compelling reason why a particular conclusion is false if he or she expects his or her argument to be taken seriously.
Fourthly, it is a moot point, because, however fallible a given scientist may be, the error rate of random unqualified contrarians and/or conspiracy speculationists will always be much higher. Rejecting the best available methods in favor of inferior ones on the grounds that the best we have isn’t perfect is simply not reasonable.
Home Alone · July 8, 2015 at 12:17 am
Meanwhile, all these Big Pharma companies that know they already have the cure for cancer continue to spend untold millions of dollars doing further research and drug trials into the cure for cancer, but somehow carefully selecting only the drugs they know won’t work.
Yeah, that makes sense…
Rebecca Hart · March 25, 2016 at 3:02 pm
The whole medical establishment disgusts me ( with the notable exception of emergency medicine). I’ve seen it with my own family. Sitting in on an appointment for my dad, who is already very frail; they suggested yet another drug. when I questioned the doctor about the side effects that would be affecting his heart(which was perfectly fine), he said with a smirk, ‘Oh, don’t worry, we have cardiologists who can deal with that with other drugs.’ Unbelievable idiots! Do they even listen to what they are saying! More drugs is always the answer for them. They are all definitely in it for the money, and for the “honor” of just keeping people alive at all costs, even if the quality of life is horrible. They will be able to pat themselves on the back!
Rachel A. Riter · July 8, 2015 at 2:03 am
Totally agree with you, but you made a small mistake in point number 2. This conspiracy theory (though not about cancer) is the plot of the 1995 movie Johnny Mnemonic starring Keanu Reeves. He plays a courier in the future who finds out that the info he has is a cure for a devastating disease, and the company that found it and is trying to hide it sends the yakuza after him.
Credible Hulk · July 8, 2015 at 2:47 am
Lol. Wow. I totally forgot about that movie. I remember watching it on cable in 95 too, but I didn’t recall the plot.
Bill Selwonk · July 9, 2015 at 10:42 am
Rachel,
How does a piece of fiction make a valid point invalid? Also, does he not go against his mission because he finds out? I must be missing your point.
Petka Antonov · July 15, 2015 at 10:07 pm
Point number 2 stated at the end: “This doesn’t even happen in the movies.”
Jarry · July 8, 2015 at 2:08 am
Prevention is more valuable than a cure. A whole-food, plant-based diet (more stringent than “Vegan”) has already been scientifically proven and peer reviewed repeatedly, to prevent heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and most cancer. BUT no one I talk with would even consider giving up animal products: dairy, meat, fish, etc., in exchange for a healthy life.- There is no net dollar cost for this diet change, because plants are cheaper than animal products, and most of the knowledge is free, or close to free, on the web from the following: Forks Over Knives; Caldwell Esselstyn, MD; John A McDougall, MD; Michael Greger, MD; Dean Ornish, MD; T. Colin Campbell, PhD; – – By the way – This same diet can often cure these same diseases.
Jillian · July 8, 2015 at 4:33 am
Forks over knives is not a source, of anything, at all.
Jarry · July 14, 2015 at 3:20 pm
The websites referenced, and their publications, contain more academic, scientific, peer-reviewed “sources” in their footnotes and bibliographies, than any of the fad diet books.
Credible Sulk · February 29, 2016 at 1:03 am
I agree, diet has absolutely nothing to do with human health. Humans only benefit from prescriptions to synthetic, patentable, expensive drugs. It’s been proven by the ama and the fda and any other group controlled by the billionaires who own the patents and the med schools. Shut up, take your pills until you die in pain
Credible Hulk · March 27, 2016 at 6:18 pm
Strawman much? Nobody in scientific medicine recommends against conscientious dietary practices for general health. Eating your vegetables, eliminating junk food, and watching your calories isn’t going to magically cure cancer. What an ignorant comment. Most cancers are caused by genetic mutations adversely affecting the normal regulatory controls of the cell cycle, such that either signals triggering replication aren’t turning off when they’re supposed to, and/or cells aren’t receiving signals to induce cell apoptosis (programmed cell death) when the cell is damaged and/or when replication errors have occurred.
Kisha Winzer · December 14, 2016 at 7:11 pm
Cancer IS NOT caused by damaged DNA. When microbes enter the body (microbes enter the body thru meat and other things we eat) these microbes intercept the glucose. These glucose is intended for the mitochondria within the cells to make pyruvate. Pyruvate is the beginning of the Citric Acid Cycle or Krebs Cycle, about halfway thru this cycle a chain reaction begins called the Electron Transport Chain. These two cycles create most of the ATP energy cells need.(They Key is the cells become energy starved)You can say cancer celld are ATP starved cells. Reasons people believe Cancer is caused by damaged DNA is because once the microbes enter the cells nucleus, the DNA of the cancer microbe interacts with the cells DNA causing DNA damage.
Judy Kingsepp · May 8, 2016 at 5:34 pm
Chuckle. Good one.
mark · July 8, 2015 at 8:45 pm
Care to add a reference to your outrageous claim?
Jarry · July 14, 2015 at 3:29 pm
My reply to Jillian, answers this question of “references.” Also, my claim sounds “outrageous” because it is not yet being accepted by mainstream medicine. However, Kaiser Permanente medical system has recently adopted the “whole-food, plant-based” recommendations in its medical advice. Also note: Most of the doctors publishing this material have made millions of dollars practicing mainstream medicine for most of their lives. Now, they recognize many failures of the existing system, and they are working to correct this. Also, most of this information is free or close to free. – Don’t knock this, until you do Google the references given above –
maria · July 9, 2015 at 3:54 pm
I can refute your statement personally. I have maintained a pure vegetable- based diet since the early 70’s. I was diagnosed and treated for breast cancer in 1998.
Jarry · July 14, 2015 at 3:38 pm
Maria – I did say “MOST CANCER” not All Cancer. Also, “Vegetarian” is not the same as the more rigorous “Plant-based, whole food” diet uniformly recommended by these doctors. This is also NOT “Vegan” but more rigorous. You would have to read the literature (free on these sites) to better understand the diet. Dr. John McDougall’s website, and Dr. Michael Greger’s website, have the most extensive, free material that I am aware of. –
Xavier · August 25, 2015 at 7:16 am
Maria, I’m sorry to hear despite a good diet you got cancer.
You have to understand that there is a difference between organic vegetables and the toxic sprayed ones you would find at your local supermaket or veggie market!
Come on it makes sense that if you spray liquid poison on a vegetable that absorbs liquids that in turn this vegetable has become toxic (to a certain extent)! Denying that would be very short sighted to say the least ! (I am making an effort not to use derogatory terms here)
We cannot ignore the fact that cancers develop in a greater number of people since the 70’s. It is also when chemicals were introduced massively and pretty much across the globe to agriculture in general.
Those who deny the correlation here are just naive.
Just like most farmers were when they were fooled in believing using all these poison products on their produce was the way to go!
If you still think these pesticide poisons on our veggies have no adverse effect on our bodies I would suggest you pour some of them in a glass drink it, perhaps then you will understand what I mean.
Credible Hulk · August 27, 2015 at 9:33 pm
“You have to understand that there is a difference between organic vegetables and the toxic sprayed ones you would find at your local supermaket or veggie market.”
– Actually, there is no credible evidence for this claim. It’s one of those things that a lot of people just assume to be the case, but which was never based on anything legitimate.
I’ve addressed many of these claims here.
Here’s a list of some of the pesticides permitted in organic farming:
EPA standards for Organic Ag:
For example, rotenone is an organic pesticide that is a neurotoxin with a suspected link to Parkinson’s. It’s use has gone way down in recent years in the US, so I wouldn’t hold it up as representative of organic farming in the US, but it’s still used in some places, and can be found on imported organic produce from countries which still use it regularly. I just like to use it as an example because it’s such a quintessential case of an “all natural” pesticide that also happens to be rather harsh.
Similarly, chronic exposure to copper sulfate, which is also often used in organic farming, increases risk of anemia and liver disease. Copper sulfate can be corrosive to the skin and eyes. Vineyard sprayers experienced liver disease after 3 to 15 years of exposure to copper sulfate solution in Bordeaux mixture.
Moreover, according to the prominent Organic Ag advocacy group known as the Organic Consumer’s Association, 57% of organic farmers use the Bt endotoxin to combat insects. This is not necessarily a bad thing, because Bt is harmless to mammals even in large doses, but the irony is that this is the same organization that tells people not to consume Bt GMO crops which endogenously produce the exact same proteins.
And the following marketing reports corroborate their claim.
To be fair, it’s worth noting that there is wide variability in organic farming in terms of pest management practices, so not all of them use all of those chemicals. It just depends on what they grow, where they grow it and how big their farm is. People with tiny farms that resemble glorified gardens can get away with using less invasive methods of pest management without losing their crop to pests.
“Come on it makes sense that if you spray liquid poison on a vegetable that absorbs liquids that in turn this vegetable has become toxic (to a certain extent)! Denying that would be very short sighted to say the least ! (I am making an effort not to use derogatory terms here)”
– It’s good that you’re trying to avoid derogatory terms, but what’s not good as that you’re also apparently avoiding providing even the slightest bit of evidence for your outrageous claims, nor providing any symptom that you’ve undergone even the faintest amount of perfunctory investigation to understand basic toxicology or the safety protocols implemented for pesticide usage.
Firstly, the dose makes the poison. This is one of the most fundamental facts underlying toxicology. Virtually ANYTHING has undesirable health effects if you consume it in sufficiently high concentrations. Even water can be toxic if you drink enough of it. There is literally no such thing as a “toxic substance.” There are only varying degrees of dose dependent toxicity which vary from substance to substance. If the levels required for toxic effects are orders of magnitude higher than the ones we’re likely to be exposed to, then we consider something to be pretty safe for practical intents and purposes. If not, then we know to take precautionary measures.
So, you can’t just look at it as though there were some toxic things in the world and some non-toxic things, or that something that is toxic at one dose is bad in any dose, simply because that’s not how toxicology works.
Here you can find a very brief introduction to concepts in toxicology, but for now, suffice it to say that students are generally taught about three main types of toxicity: acute, chronic and subchronic.
As for the case of pesticides, most countries have a very meticulous protocol for assuring safety and enforcing proper usage. For chronic and subchronic toxicity, there is a protocol whereby we set very conservative maximum allowable residue limits to ensure that they are far below the levels at which chronic or subchronic toxicity could feasibly occur. What’s used is something called the No Observable Adverse Effect Limit (NOAEL), or Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Limit (LOAEL) based on numerous studies. I explain it a little further in paragraphs 6-9 of the following article.
“We cannot ignore the fact that cancers develop in a greater number of people since the 70’s. It is also when chemicals were introduced massively and pretty much across the globe to agriculture in general.
Those who deny the correlation here are just naive.
Just like most farmers were when they were fooled in believing using all these poison products on their produce was the way to go!”
– This is incorrect on multiple levels. Firstly, correlation does not equal causation. There has also been a correlation between the rise of organic food sales and autism diagnoses, but that doesn’t mean that organic food causes autism. Secondly, there was a paper by Kort et al. published in Cancer Research in late 2009 called “The decline in US cancer mortality in people born since 1925” which reviewed data reported by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, was obtained from WHO Statistical Information System (WHOSIS). They examined the incidence (rate) and mortality from various cancers from individuals born in 1925 and after.
What the authors found was that rate of cancer in each age group is holding roughly constant. However, since society as a whole is aging, overall cancer incidence is increasing slightly.
(Read more here).
Our average life expectancy has skyrocketed since the 1920’s from approximately 57.1 years for someone born in 1929 to 78.7 years for someone born today.
Some have contended that this is attributable solely to the decrease in infant mortality we’ve seen as a result of vaccines, hospital birthing protocols and other improvements in science based medicine and food availability, but it turns out that life expectancy is on the rise even if adjusted for the decrease in infant mortality.
In other words, more cancer events happen to people who used to die long before they’d had a chance to develop cancer 100 years ago. Rates of different types of cancers zig zagged over time as one should expect, with some types going slightly up, some going slightly down and others staying the same, but the over all rate of all cancers has remained relatively stable for several decades when one accounts for the fact that people are living longer due to improvements in both the quality and accessibility of medical care and food availability.
“If you still think these pesticide poisons on our veggies have no adverse effect on our bodies I would suggest you pour some of them in a glass drink it, perhaps then you will understand what I mean.”
– This is an incredibly poor argument. By that logic, literally everything would be bad simply because there exists some amount, literally millions or even billions of times the levels at which people are typically exposed to, at which some adverse effects could be observed. That applies to literally everything. Trying to eat thousands of pears would put you at risk of formaldehyde poisoning. Drinking several gallons of water at one sitting can cause death by hyponatremia. Breathing air with too high of partial pressures of oxygen can lead to hyperoxia. Many essential vitamins and minerals can accumulate in fat to toxic levels if consumed in abnormally high quantities. Without considering the amount at which something becomes toxic relative to the exposure levels, that is completely meaningless.
As for pesticides on plants, did you know that 99.99% of the pesticides we’re exposed to are actually produced naturally by the plants as evolutionary biological defense mechanisms? ALL produce has pesticides in them, a lot of them are carcinogenic, and they’re no less “toxic” due to simply being “natural.” Here’s the good news, all pesticides, whether they be natural or synthetic, are in such low levels that they won’t affect you.
From the Ames study on naturally occurring pesticides:
>>We calculate that 99.99% (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves. Only 52 natural pesticides have been tested in high-dose animal cancer tests, and about half (27) are rodent carcinogens; these 27 are shown to be present in many common foods. We conclude that natural and synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be positive in animal cancer tests. We also conclude that at the low doses of most human exposures the comparative hazards of synthetic pesticide residues are insignificant.<<
Rebecca Hart · March 25, 2016 at 3:11 pm
Insignificant? That’s your opinion. There are plenty of small organic farmers that are using no pesticides of any kind, organic or otherwise. This needs to be the “wave” of the future. Many small organic farms supporting every community. The farm I work for uses cover crops to supply needed nutrients to the soil, and uses no pesticides!
Credible Hulk · March 27, 2016 at 7:21 pm
It’s actually not my opinion, nor are opinions even relevant on matters of objective fact. I’ve already supplied plenty of credible scientific evidence for the factual merits of my claims. If you think you get to write off facts as mere opinion just because you don’t like them, then that’s a problem with you: not with the facts.
Dee · April 7, 2016 at 7:24 pm
I am in no way a scientist, but you claim since the 70s their have been more outbreaks of cancer? It funny because you should really come up with the numbers by percentage since the 60s 70s were baby boomer eras; which mean a increase of people in the world increase disease. Logically right?
Mary · January 27, 2016 at 9:20 pm
Not true. My father and my Father-in-law both lived to be 94. Both are meatand eggs and white flour bread for Bk daily. Mother did same lived to 88. She died from the complications of cancer treatment. None of them had heart problems, guys didn’t have cancer,none had diabetes, etc. Dads died of old age, the stress of living with stiff joints, loneliness, etc. Vegetables simply will not save the world..
Judy Kingsepp · May 8, 2016 at 5:39 pm
Type O blood seems to need meat. I doubt it has been proven scientifically, though.
Rebecca Hart · March 25, 2016 at 3:07 pm
Totally agree with you, Jarry. The natural cures are the way to go for prevention of health.
Tim · May 13, 2016 at 6:42 pm
Jarry, there is a ton more information at The Truth About Cancer.org website and Facebook page, since a great many doctors, scientists, oncologists, and others speak of the very same things:
DIET AND NUTRITION ARE KEY TO GETTING YOUR HEALTH BACK, AND USING TRADITIONAL MEDICINES AND SUPPLEMENTS CAN CLEAN, DETOXIFY, AND PURGE THE BODY OF TOXINS THAT FEED CANCERS AND OTHER ILLNESSES…
People need to wake up to the fact that cancer cures DO INDEED EXIST.
Credible Hulk · June 16, 2016 at 5:50 am
Would you mind naming some of the few specific toxins that your purport to remove with the aforementioned “detox” regimens?
John · July 8, 2015 at 10:29 am
to me this article strengthens the case for them having a cure, so the scientists can get cancer too….do they though? Fame, as defined as fame in their own circle….maybe they are getting that and they are recognized by other scientists as finding the cure, the money part goes without saying….there is way more money being spent on the treatment than there ever would be for the cure.
Tell you what…when the FDA stops approving things like aspartame in our food and other such cancer causing nonsense…..then I will believe that government and science has my best interest at heart.
Gerald · July 8, 2015 at 4:49 pm
“to me this article strengthens the case for them having a cure,” spoken like a true conspiracy theorist.
Once beliefs are formed the brain begins to look for and find confirmatory evidence in support of those beliefs, which adds an emotional boost of further confidence in the beliefs and thereby accelerates the process of reinforcing them, and round and round the process goes in a positive feedback loop of belief confirmation. Dr. Michael Shermer outlines the numerous cognitive tools our brains engage to reinforce our beliefs as truths and to insure that we are always right.
Rory · August 26, 2015 at 11:26 am
Funny – because that could work in the exact opposite way. So your copy pasting looks cliche but is evidently pointless.
Regarding the cure. Perhaps / perhaps not – certainly compelling writing.
Just one thing though – The rich do not want fame – they want power. The fame thing has always been a laughable explanation.
Credible Hulk · August 27, 2015 at 8:43 pm
Point 4 is not referring to the rich; it’s referring to scientists. If someone’s primary goal is “power” (and/or being incredibly rich), then going into debt to go to school for 8-10 years followed by post-doctoral work would be a pretty poorly-reasoned path to achieving that. Scientists tend (on average) to have greater than average innate intellectual abilities, and there are many more direct and effective ways of utilizing that for the purposes of obtaining wealth and power than by becoming a research scientist. Most CEOs of big corporations (such as the ones that conspiracy theory proponents believe are capable of buying off every scientist on the planet) usually make more in a month than most scientists make in a decade.
Most people who become scientists do so because they want to make a decent living doing something they actually like doing, and which would provide an opportunity to make some kind of lasting discovery that makes a difference in their field. There are rare exceptions, but the bottom line is that it’s just not a sensible career choice for someone who cares only about riches and/or power, and not about advancing our knowledge of the world.
Dawn · October 25, 2015 at 2:33 am
Same goes for those who blindly believe trust everyone and everything told to them by authority figures then…
Credible Hulk · November 21, 2015 at 9:16 pm
As was demonstrated in the above article, blind belief in authority is not a prerequisite to understanding why adherence to contrarian narratives such as the hidden cure cancer conspiracy theories is not evidence-based nor symptomatic of high level critical thinking abilities. That people tend to be reluctant to relinquish their conclusions does not mean that all conclusions were arrived at by comparably legitimate methods of analysis. Some points of view are simply more reasonable and well-formulated than others.
billandted · April 15, 2016 at 1:33 pm
^^^ religion in a nutshell.
Phyllis · July 28, 2015 at 11:58 pm
Well said John …..
Rebecca Hart · March 25, 2016 at 3:13 pm
Spot on, John.
Credible Hulk · March 27, 2016 at 7:12 pm
The only thing “spot on” about his comment is his demonstration of the psychological phenomenon known as the backfire effect.
Sirious · May 11, 2016 at 9:36 pm
Mr Hulk. Credible you are not. Though you weave a fine thread, your emperor is naked. This coin has two sides, and no amount of condescension will alter the fact.
Credible Hulk · May 14, 2016 at 10:08 pm
In saying this, you’re attempting to change the definition of credibility to make it fit your biases. You’re trying to turn the word into something measured by the degree to which something agrees with your own personal beliefs, rather than a term used to denote a tendency to utilize logically sound arguments whose premises rely on verifiable evidence.
ash · June 12, 2016 at 3:23 am
There is more a case for Ace K than Aspartame. People on the web have been telling us Aspartame is toxic leaving behind toxicity being relative to dosage and concentration and how well tested it is. They approved it because there is nothing wrong with it not in the amounts allowed at least. We’re looking at it being, as with saccharine, a calcification problem in rats which creates carcinogenicity which is not what happens in humans and therefore ok for humans. I find the problem with it is interpreting what studies mean and how valid and reliable they are unfortunately takes a level of study by itself hence a lot of misintepretation and a lot of certainty in the interpretations by certain members of the public. In essence, nothing is ‘safe’ outright. We only talk relatively speaking when coming to safety so why worry? Formaldehyde is a level 1 carcinogen, it is also a common building block in nature…you’ll find it naturally occurring in some of your fruit. You can find radon in areas with significantly exposed areas of granite. You do know that your cells produce waste that can cause damage? They can damage themselves in other words. I’m a big advocate of allowing ingredients labels for fruit and veg too just so the public can get a better idea of the chemical reality of the world around us.
Basically on the web you’ll get scaremongering through only recieving half the story. The scaremongering on the web pushed me to go into studying chemistry so at least something good came out of it.
karlein kemps · July 8, 2015 at 3:08 pm
it is very easy to point out the flaws in conspiracy theories ,that come from emotional upset.Because their root is emotional upset the theories have to be viewed in that light and not be taken so literally,that is missing the point and no solution to underlying problems. It would be more constructive to critically observe why so many people have lost their trust in doctors and treatments and what can be done to restore trust, to improve health-care,to diminish the many mistakes and tragedies that happen.
Rebecca Hart · March 25, 2016 at 3:16 pm
Improve healthcare? How about for starters, that your attending physician takes at least ONE course in nutrition. Your body is only going to be the sum total of what you take in. Doctors are nothing but body “mechanics” today. Only treating symptoms with a band-aid, instead of getting to the root cause.
Credible Hulk · March 27, 2016 at 7:07 pm
[Citation needed].
Rebecca Hart · March 25, 2016 at 3:40 pm
I personally right now have a movement disorder that is making my life a torment. Supposedly, the doctors have said there is no cure, however, the Japanese have been doing studies for 30 years about the relationship of the TMJ and movement disorders. There is a fairly simple way to remedy this, by using an oral orthotic that corrects the jaw movement itself, relieving pressure on the trigeminal nerve, thereby alleviating the abnormal muscular movement. News Flash: The US will not allow these Japanese studies to be published here. Mmmmm? Why not? Do you know that the treatment(and I say that loosely), of choice is Botox for movement disorders. And believe me, it does not work that well, and for many it stops working. And, it must be given every 3 months. If you were to pay out of pocket for one typical treatment; the botox is $ 10,000 dollars! You can bet the makers of botox do not want a simple remedy for movement disorders. The dentists doing this oral orthotic are rare and hard to find. I live in the Midwest and now have to travel to San Francisco to see one of these dentists. The powers that be, are suppressing evidence of cures that could be helpful to many people. Pure evil! When I do get well after seeing this dentist. I will be shouting from the rooftops about this simple remedy for movement disorders!
Jhon duarte · July 8, 2015 at 3:58 pm
The cure is in the food. Alkaline.
Gerald · July 8, 2015 at 4:51 pm
Death is in the Draino. Alkaline.
Mike · July 9, 2015 at 5:57 am
Your stomach has powerful hydrochloric acid in it. None of the ridiculous, expensive, useless alkaline products can make it through this . . . period.
Dawn · October 25, 2015 at 2:46 am
Meditation and yoga reduce stress (and yes there have been studies, weve all seen them and read the NHS pamphlets on anxiety etc) which in turn reduces the risk of acidosis in the body
Several of the causes of acidosis can have a link to stress, such as ibs (causing chronic diarrhoea), and hyperventilating
Some causes are also linked to diet such as diabetes, so whether directly or indirectly, what you put in your body and how you treat yourself will affect your PH.
Rebecca Hart · March 25, 2016 at 3:18 pm
Alkaline products? They are talking about alkaline foods. And yes, the majority of your diet should be alkaline foods.
Credible Hulk · March 27, 2016 at 7:04 pm
Again, the alkaline food in someone’s intestines will normally have no effect on the pH level of their blood (which is a good thing, for reasons I’ll explain in a moment). This is due to your blood having a number of different pH buffers. People test their urine and notice a higher ph and mistakenly thing that that’s an indication of changes in ph in all systems of the body, when the truth is that most of those systems have a narrow ph range in which they function optimally, which is why those buffers are critical to maintaining ph homeostasis.
More importantly perhaps, if the person were to somehow manage to overload those buffers, they would die. That’s what happens when someone gets into a state of alkalosis. Both acidosis and alkalosis can be detrimental to human health. The former can result in depression of the CNS, and a decrease in oxygen’s affinity for hemoglobin thus inhibiting its proper binding; whereas the latter can lead to hyper-excitability of the CNS, and an increase in oxygen’s affinity for hemoglobin, which can inhibit oxygen from properly disassociating into cells; This is why Our bodies have those ph buffers to resist major changes towards either greater acidity or basicity.
http://www.healthline.com/health/alkalosis#Overview1
http://www.insufferableintolerance.com/the-alkaline-diet-fad-and-the-people-who-never-took-highschool-biology-love-it/
PhaedraB · July 9, 2015 at 6:17 pm
Hmm. When I was diagnosed with cancer, someone wrote long, impassioned posts about an alkaline diet. She said her aunt had helped many people cure their cancer with it, and the ones it didn’t cure, well that was because they did not have the discipline to change their lifestyle (blame the victim, eh?). At some point in the conversation, she tells me, not only is the aunt dead, she died of cancer. So, not a cure-all, apparently.
Dawn · October 25, 2015 at 2:56 am
Not a cure all, but avoiding acidosis reduces risk of kidney disease amoungst other things
Sugar is something look into, avoid processed sugar altogether… Its certainly something weve eaten more and more of in recent times. Packaged and processed foods are full of ingredients you probably wouldn’t find in nature. It MUST have an affect on our health, we simply havent had time to evolve and optimise our bodies to the diet of today. Whether that affect includes cancer who can say, id put money on in increasing the risk of certain types. I fact I dont think its debated anymore, in prevention literature by the government 5 a day and eating a balanced diet is sited as reducing risk.
Rebecca Hart · March 25, 2016 at 3:20 pm
Maybe not a cure-all, but definitely a huge PLUS for your health in general.
Credible Hulk · March 27, 2016 at 7:03 pm
The alkaline food in someone’s intestines will normally have little or no effect on the pH level of their blood (which is fortunate for reasons I will explain momentarily). This is due to your blood having a number of different pH buffers. People test their urine and notice a higher ph and mistakenly thing that that’s an indication of changes in ph in all systems of the body, when the truth is that most of those systems have a narrow ph range in which they function optimally, which is why those buffers are critical to maintaining ph homeostasis.
More importantly perhaps, if the person were to somehow manage to overload those buffers, they would die. That’s what happens when someone gets into a state of alkalosis. Both acidosis and alkalosis can be detrimental to human health. The former can result in depression of the CNS, and a decrease in oxygen’s affinity for hemoglobin thus inhibiting its proper binding; whereas the latter can lead to hyper-excitability of the CNS, and an increase in oxygen’s affinity for hemoglobin, which can inhibit oxygen from properly disassociating into cells; This is why Our bodies have those ph buffers to resist major changes towards either greater acidity or basicity.
http://www.healthline.com/health/alkalosis#Overview1
http://www.insufferableintolerance.com/the-alkaline-diet-fad-and-the-people-who-never-took-highschool-biology-love-it/
Alan · July 9, 2015 at 4:11 pm
When people are desperate they search for nearby culprits, the most common is Big X (Nestlé, Monsanto, Pfizer, etc). They are big, so they must be doing something wrong, since they’ve done it in the past or at least the selective media conspiracy theorists tend to consume reports so. Thanks for the post, it summarizes a lengthy explanation I had to give to several friends. of mine.
People don’t trust Big companies and since they are for profit they expect to do everything, even outrageous stuff just for money. At least through insistence a few friends dropped the secret cancer cure to Big Pharma is overprincing drugs which is a whole debate on its own.
Elinne · July 9, 2015 at 8:44 pm
Which blows my mind because:
Monsanto total annual revenue: 15,855,000
Whole Foods total annual revenue: 14,194,000
…Yet Monsanto is an evil mega company and Whole Foods is trustworthy….. does not compute.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MON+Income+Statement&annual
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WFM&annual
Chris · July 16, 2015 at 11:57 pm
Yea but Monsanto is a monopoly that rakes farmers over the coals so that they can sell more Roundup and patented seeds. Not to mention the political corruption they engage in. On the other hand, I don’t know anything about whole foods. Never even been to one. But still, f Monsanto.
Credible Hulk · July 30, 2015 at 8:06 am
I don’t think you understand what the term “monopoly” actually means. Mono means one. Monsanto isn’t even close to a monopoly. Also, the plant patent act precede Monsanto GMOs by over half a century, and they certainly don’t have the authority to force any farmers to buy their seeds or roundup. That’s utter nonsense.
Dawn · October 25, 2015 at 3:01 am
F Monsanto http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947
Credible Hulk · November 21, 2015 at 9:05 pm
Vandana Shiva is not a credible source for information on agricultural biotechnology. She is a dyed in the wool activist who lacks even rudimentary first semester level understanding of biology and who continues to repeat falsehoods long after they’ve been refuted by scientists.
The World Health Organization has estimated that a hundred and seventy thousand Indians commit suicide each year—nearly five hundred a day. Although many Indian farmers kill themselves, their suicide rate has not risen in a decade, according to a study by Ian Plewis, of the University of Manchester. In fact, the suicide rate among Indian farmers is lower than for other Indians and is comparable to that among French farmers. Plewis found that “the pattern of changes in suicide rates over the last fifteen years is consistent with a beneficial effect of Bt cotton for India as a whole, albeit perhaps not in every cotton-growing state.”
http://io9.com/the-gmo-mass-suicides-are-a-myth-1565342067
Here are several more authors addressing her claims:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/seeds-of-doubt
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/files/2014/01/GMOsuicidemyth.pdf
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/gmo-and-indian-farmer-suicide/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/05/05/exploitation-indian-farmer-suicides/#.U4AVTPldVZ8
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/03/05/new-research-paper-gm-cotton-in-india-has-probably-reduced-farmer-suicides-not-caused-them/#.UxezR_ldUud
http://www.nature.com/news/case-studies-a-hard-look-at-gm-crops-1.12907
“Fortunately, suicide is rare, and no less rare among Indian farmers than among farmers in other parts of the world. In 2011, the annual suicide rate for Indian farmers in the main cotton-growing states was around 30 per 100,000 farmers. This is higher than in England and Wales where the rate is about 12 per 100,000, but similar to the best estimates of the rates in Scotland and France” http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-does-gm-cotton-lead-to-farmer-suicide-in-india-24045
Sema Erdem · July 18, 2015 at 4:12 pm
Smoking kills! is the evidence base approach to lung cancer with very high probability! Who cares? Neither the smokers nor the producers… And health policies do not apply as well… Human nature has higher priorities than health and common sense!
Rebecca Hart · March 25, 2016 at 3:22 pm
If your stats are true on Whole Foods………thank God for that! The pendulum starting to swing in the right direction!
Credible Hulk · March 27, 2016 at 6:58 pm
How do you figure? They charge exorbitant amounts for products that are in no way superior, and they promote pseudoscience like homeopathy while relying on the deceptive marketing campaign which presents organic as though it were safer and more nutritious. Currently, there is no credible evidence that the organic marketing label connotes greater safety or nutritional value, but there is quite a bit of credible evidence to the contrary.
For example, a 2009 review by Dangour et. al. concluded:
“On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.”
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/3/680.full
Another one the following year (also by Dangour et al) came to similar conclusions:
“From a systematic review of the currently available published literature, evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects that result from the consumption of organically produced foodstuffs.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20463045
A 2012 review by Smith-Spangler et. al concluded:
“After analyzing the data, the researchers found little significant difference in health benefits between organic and conventional foods. No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products, and only one nutrient — phosphorus — was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce (and the researchers note that because few people have phosphorous deficiency, this has little clinical significance).”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22944875
Moreover, older reviews came to similar conclusions, as you can see for yourself here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11833635
Kevin murray · February 14, 2016 at 10:39 pm
Why are people so scared to die it’s going to happen
Scorn · July 11, 2015 at 2:12 pm
And the tobacco corps had no clue whatsoever that their product had deadly implications. They were forced to lie and ultimately say that they knew, coughing up the dough in a massive lawsuit.
And by the logic of the original post, insurance companies clearly loved paying large settlements for millions of smoking related deaths because after all, there couldn’t have been a corporate conspirancy that large without insurance companies being party to it.
So no, there is no such thing as big corporate conspiracy.
/sarcasm
Credible Hulk · July 30, 2015 at 7:58 am
In what sense is that exemplary of “the logic of the original post?” It does not appear that you have a very clear and accurate understanding of that.
Christina · July 15, 2015 at 10:12 am
The Daily Cosmos | Facebook
EvieWFulena · July 20, 2015 at 3:16 pm
Hi there! This blog post could not be written much better!
Going through this post reminds me of my previous
roommate! He constantly kept talking about this. I will send this article to him.
Fairly certain he’s going to have a very good read. Thanks
for sharing!
ArethaASpreng · July 21, 2015 at 1:54 pm
Pretty great post. I just stumbled upon your blog
and wished to say that I have truly loved browsing your weblog posts.
After all I’ll be subscribing for your rss feed and
I am hoping you write again very soon!
google analytics · July 21, 2015 at 6:18 pm
It’s awesome designed for me to have a website, which is
valuable in favor of my knowledge. thanks admin
personal loans · July 22, 2015 at 3:56 pm
I’m not that much of a internet reader to be honest but your sites really nice, keep it up!
I’ll go ahead and bookmark your site to come back later
on. Many thanks
squat racks for sale · July 26, 2015 at 6:02 am
Not often do I encounter a weblog that’s both educational and entertaining, and allow me to tell you, you may have hit
the nail on the head. Your conceptis excellent; the issue is something
that not sufficient individuals are speaking wisely about.
I am happy that I stumbled across this in my pursuit of something relating to this.
Here is my web page – squat racks for sale
graffika.pl · July 27, 2015 at 12:06 am
I couldn’t resist commenting. Exceptionally well written!
E.W. Modemac · August 16, 2015 at 9:26 pm
One repeated fallacy that irks me about these “cancer cures” is the way they lump the many different kinds of cancer into one big generic “cancer.” So hemp cures cancer? Does it cure lung cancer, breast cancer, brain cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, bone marrow cancer, blood cancer (leukemia), skin cancer, or another type? Is the treatment method the same for ovarian cancer versus skin cancer, not to mention the dosage, application, production, and other factors…
Ashle · January 13, 2016 at 4:43 am
Hi im a fan
Kevin murray · February 14, 2016 at 10:49 pm
A cancer cell is malignant whatever the strain so a cure on canceress cells will cure all cancers surely
jay joffe · August 20, 2015 at 12:14 pm
the list of faulty assumptions made by the so-called credible hulk is long. I like his intentions, if he’s sincere, but he’s not going to get far making all of those bad assumptions.
Briefly and not thoroughly:
no, not all research is by big corporations. Only a bit over 90%. And of course the rest is suspicious to the people who only believe what comes from big corporations.
All of those people who die even though they’re wealthy and powerful: Why would they have the best information? They’ve made their money cheating on research to come up with crap that doesn’t work.
The biggest stupid thing he said, “why haven’t anti-biotics and vaccines been suppressed?”
well jeez, hulk. vaccines are there to reduce the population, ask Bill Gates. And anti-biotics? Nobody is investing in research on that any more.
Get up to date and open your mind hulk. Quit assuming that you know everything. You’ve fallen into the very traps you elucidate.
Ask Hermann Hesse: It’s what you see in others that you don’t like that is you.
Credible Hulk · August 27, 2015 at 10:41 pm
You say this, yet you’ve been unable to provide any credible evidence for any of your claims. Weird.
Kevin murray · February 14, 2016 at 10:42 pm
Highly intelligent
Credible Hulk · March 27, 2016 at 6:51 pm
No, he isn’t. Anyone who believes that vaccines are a sinister plot is completely batshit. What Gates was referring to was the well-documented phenomenon whereby regions with very high child mortality rates tend to have higher birth rates in response, and once some of the causes of child mortality are mitigated (such as what we have repeatedly accomplished with vaccination programs over the last 100 years), then birth rates tend to level off. The reduction of child mortality from vaccine-preventable diseases is actually a good thing.
Eric Lescarbeau · August 29, 2015 at 12:09 am
While I respect the desire to champion the scientific method there are a lot of misconceptions in the anti-pseudoscience movement. The root of this problem is in not understanding the difference between the scientific method in principle and the way that the method has actually been applied by scientific institutions in a capitalist society driven by competition for profits.
1. University researchers spend far more time writing grant proposals than they do in the lab. This is because the overwhelming majority of research grants are dependent on matching funds from corporations whose sole interest is in finding profitable end uses. University administrations have also come to depend more and more on private (ie. corporate) donors. Charities are not independent. Most depend on large corporate sponsors/partnerships and their boards are often dominated by people who have worked for or are working in the industry. Corporate interests also don’t need to directly control every dollar of research funding in order to control the direction that research generally goes in.
2. Tobacco companies and their executives knew for decades that their products were causing cancer and killing people. It didn’t stop them from encouraging their friends and families to continue smoking. Oil company executives are well aware that their operations are driving climate change threatening the future of their children and grand children. Yet they keep doing it. What you’re not understanding is that corporations don’t operate on the basis of personal greed. They operate on the competitive drive for profits. This is a logic forced on them by the market and it demands that everything else comes second. Companies which fail to adhere to this logic simply go out of business as less ethical competitors do what they are unwilling to do and takeover their share of the market. So it is entirely conceivable that corporate executives would put profits ahead of the possibility that they or one of their loved ones might not get the best possible treatment IF they got sick. In fact it happens every day.
3. The manufacturers of nuclear weapons are presumably interested in surviving long enough to enjoy their earnings while simultaneously producing weaponry that could wipe out all life on the planet in a few hours. Of course they always assume that their side will win or that it won’t happen in their lifetime etc etc. Sorry, this argument simply doesn’t hold water.
4. See point #1. History is replete with examples of scientists who have been silenced when their ideas threatened the status quo. There is a very real herd mentality in scientific institutions. You go along to get along. Rocking the boat is far riskier than just following the institutional group think. In cancer research this has led numerous researchers to fake results, cook the data, or overlook flaws in their research in order to make their careers. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328 Peer review is one of the pillars of the scientific method but there is little prestige or money in confirming results which is why so few labs are doing it.
5. While states do endeavor to encourage research that saves money for the state, their primary concern is with the health of domestic capital. A small number of states in the world also dominate most of the rest of them so that the interests of foreign capital are often enforced over the needs of a particular nation. US imperialism has led to the situation where pharmaceutical companies and the states of their home countries have to ensure that drugs or treatments will be approved by the USFDA and receive US patents. Why do automobile companies regularly get away with putting out cars that they and state regulatory agencies know will cause undue numbers of fatalities? Because the cost of settling the lawsuits is cheaper than doing a recall.
6. Insurance companies make money by selling policies and then doing their best to minimize the cost of claims so yes, they do make attempts to encourage medical research that helps their bottom line. However, if medical costs were dramatically reduced competition would force them to reduce the cost of their policies. A cure for cancer, especially if it was cheap, would not necessarily help their bottom line since profits are going to be a percentage of the total dollar value of the policies they sell. I think they’d also be worried that people would simply start buying fewer policies.
7. They only make money from a cure if they happen to own it. If a cure was patented by a non-corporate entity, something which the FDA has made pretty clear they would do everything they can to avoid, those companies would actually stand to lose everything. In that case they would do everything in their power to try and suppress the development of a competing technology. It’s also a question of profitability. It’s actually quite common for companies to buy technologies or patents in order to ensure they never get to market. If introducing a new technology is going to make you less profits then why would you do otherwise? You also have to factor in the weight of monopoly capital here. As the size of corporations has grown it has become the norm for them to engage in price fixing and other anti-competitive practices for the mutual benefit of all involved at the expense of everyone else. The more so because there are often common major shareholders. Nothing conspiratorial about it. It’s just how the system has evolved over time.
8. Vaccines are an example where the state encouraged and managed their development because the benefits for national capital outweighed the profits for one particular section of capital. A good example of this is the Ebola vaccine. We’ve known about Ebola for decades but it was only when it threatened to spread beyond the borders of poor African countries that suddenly western states decided it was urgent to fund development of a vaccine. It’s also a bit misleading to refer to vaccines when before them there was literally no treatment for many of the illnesses whatsoever and no companies profits were threatened by them. In fact the modern biomedical industry has really only developed since the 1960s, well after most vaccines were already well established treatments.
9. Refer back to point 7. You don’t seem to quite grasp how monopoly capital actually works and you seem to be envisioning a form of capitalism that exists only in theory or at best back in the 19th century.
10. I don’t like conspiracy theories any more than you do but there’s nothing conspiratorial to how capitalism works and how it ends up distorting and in some cases preventing scientific progress. Game theory is about as reductionist as it gets and simply fails to understand that you can’t reduce political, social and economic forces to individual choices and behavior. Nor can you treat corporations as individuals, despite their legal status. Game theory will never be able to account for the way in which individuals band together and negotiate with one another to pursue collective interests nor how those collective forces can then influence the choices made by individuals. It’s a bit odd that in a time when gag laws and legal contracts restricting the freedom of speech of scientists, along with unprecedented attacks on whistleblowers, that you would be poopooing the notion that companies might be able to get away with suppressing technologies that threaten their interests.
It’s important to defend the scientific method but nothing in your post is about defending it. Focusing on straw man conspiracy theorists rather than developing a critical understanding of how scientific institutions operate in our current society only leads you to defend a capitalist system and its institutions that are failing us.
Genuine application of the scientific method requires a truly democratic society where technology and wealth are owned collectively. You can’t fight for science by defending the very people who are undermining it. Conspiracy theorists, while misguided, are not the enemy and in my experience are most often driven by a desire to see more democratic and transparent control over science and technology so we can actually make people’s lives better rather than destroying the planet for profits.
Johnny Buoy · September 9, 2015 at 7:32 am
The primary purpose of a company is to maximise returns to shareholders. If you were the CEO of a pharmaceutical company and had to make a decision about whether to invest billions in researching a cure or management of a condition, I suspect the latter is where you would direct your resources as it would produce profits for longer.
Credible Hulk · September 26, 2015 at 4:36 am
That’s why that tacit assumption was accounted for in the arguments. As you can clearly see from the points we made in the article (assuming you read and understood it), it turns out the conspiracy theory still doesn’t stand up to scrutiny even when that assumption is made. Your comment is consistent with our arguments. It just turned out that there were so many holes in the conspiracy theory that we were able to debunk it anyway.
Kevin murray · February 14, 2016 at 11:00 pm
so the human condition rests on profit it seems
kali · January 4, 2016 at 2:00 am
cancer business is a $200 billion INDUSTRY
Credible Hulk · January 12, 2016 at 1:52 am
“Cancer business?”
Also, the reasons why money doesn’t salvage the hidden cancer cure conspiracy hypothesis were meticulously explained in the article.
Janet newham · January 15, 2016 at 5:18 pm
Imperial Cancer Research Fund (ICRF)was founded 1902 (when cancer was very rare) Cancer Research Campaign(CRC)in1925. In 2002 they joined tog and became Cancer Research UK (CRUK) =114 yrs research!The cancer ind spend millions on advertising for MORE funds and claim we are winning the war on cancer!!! Despite several £billions in donations hundreds of ‘specialists’, hospitals, equipment, diagnostic tools,etc..Cancer is now endemic inc. babies/ children -and no closer to a cure than when they began researching 114 yrs go!!! Best they offer is a toxic treatment that can actually cause cancer, organ failure, blood disorders -and doesn’t cure, it merely shrinks tumours, but if you live for 5 yrs after treatment youre counted as cured! If an alternative profession had such an appalling record of disasters, they would be banned from practising! Over past 60+ yrs several respected drs/scientists have been persecuted, harrassed etc. for discovering safer,successful,cheaper cures.Claims they were ‘tested’ and dismissed are not true i.e. 1989 cancer ind. asked to do a long study of successful methods used at (alternative) Bristol Cancer Centre. Within 6 wks. they called a press conference and in blaze of publicity denounced Bristol. Oncologist Prof. Karol Sikora said he would support Bristol but was warned if he did hed lose his funding, so he withdrew his support and became Clinical Director of cancer ind. The ind. was censured by the Charities Commission for fraud and had to withdraw their accusation. Prof Tim Macelwain committed suicide, many believe because of his concience in the fraud. Just one of numerous examples.Despite what you write money IS name of the game. “Dept. of Health, Unis. and medical establishments have all been undermined by the cash and lobbying power of giant drug cos. because the drugs ind. has a multi-million pound vested interest in illness…the pharmaceutical ind. thrives on disease…the need to make money rather than cure disease is what drives and directs drug development…Govt. policies work towards political ends rather than public welfare. .”‘The Health Conspiracy’ (Dr. Joe Collier, clinical pharmacologist, London teaching hospital) Scientist and VIPs, if aware of alternatives would use them for loved ones. I have (copy)of Dr Charles Brusch, President John Kennedys personal physcian, witnessed statement on how he cured his own bowel cancer with alternative treatment. So did Robert Kennedys son with bone cancer Donald Factor (son of Max) cured his lung cancer in alternative clinic in Mexico. My own friend given 3 months with terminal liver cancer 2011, now cancer free. and theres 100s more…Theres no conspiracy, the facts speak for themselves. Despite enthusiastic propaganda from cancer industry people are discovering the truth for themselves. http://www.facebook.com/activecancertherapysupport http://www.cancer-acts.com
Credible Hulk · March 27, 2016 at 6:28 pm
Cancer was never really all that rare. Stop spreading misinformation on my site. Cancer is not a modern, made-made disease, it is just more likely to be diagnosed and understood.
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2010/10/14/claims-that-cancer-is-only-a-%E2%80%98modern-man-made-disease%E2%80%99-are-false-and-misleading/
We’ve found it in the remains of a 3000-year-old skeleton.
http://m.livescience.com/44269-oldest-metastatic-cancer-skeleton.html
Despite a continually increasing life expectancy, which increases the chances of people getting cancer who would have died younger of other causes in eras past, cancer rates have actually not been increasing. It’s a myth.
“For over 15 years, the American Cancer Society (ACS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Cancer Institute (NCI), and North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) have collaborated to provide the Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, which contains updated cancer incidence and mortality data for the United States. These reports have documented a sustained decline in cancer mortality, starting with our first report in 1998 (1). In addition to providing contemporary cancer rates and trends, each report has featured an in-depth analysis of a special topic (2–16
Annual Report to the Nation on Status of Cancer presents newly available data on national breast cancer incidence rates by demographic and tumor characteristics for the four intrinsic molecular subtypes.”
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/107/6/djv048.full?sid=c56f408a-1b77-425f-b785-9aa68fe02f6c
There was a paper by Kort et al. published in Cancer Research in late 2009 called “The decline in US cancer mortality in people born since 1925” which reviewed data reported by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, was obtained from WHO Statistical Information System (WHOSIS). They examined the incidence (rate) and mortality from various cancers from individuals born in 1925 and after.
What the authors found was that rate of cancer in each age group is holding roughly constant. However, since society as a whole is aging, overall cancer incidence is increasing slightly.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/69/16/6500.long
Our average life expectancy has skyrocketed since the 1920’s from approximately 57.1 years for someone born in 1929 to 78.7 years for someone born today.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus13.pdf#018
Some have contended that this is attributable solely to the decrease in infant mortality we’ve seen as a result of vaccines, hospital birthing protocols and other improvements in science based medicine and food availability, but it turns out that life expectancy is on the rise even if adjusted for the decrease in infant mortality.
In other words, more cancer events happen to people who used to die long before they’d had a chance to develop cancer 100 years ago. Rates of different types of cancers zig zagged over time as one should expect, with some types going slightly up, some going slightly down and others staying the same, but the over all rate of all cancers has remained relatively stable for several decades when one accounts for the fact that people are living longer due to improvements in both the quality and accessibility of medical care and food availability.
michele ciancetta · June 7, 2016 at 12:26 am
Hi Credible Hulk.. I’ve been reading all these countless posts and I really appreciate the way you’re trying to respond to these non sense people actually giving loads of sources and scientific or sensible explanations.. unfortunately these people would reject any kind of undeniable evidence just for the bloody sake of it! Which makes the whole thing all the more annoying.. just logged in to tell you this actually 🙂
Credible Hulk · June 16, 2016 at 5:24 am
Thanks, Michele. I appreciate that.
Tracy Kolenchuk · January 14, 2016 at 7:18 pm
The reason we have no cancer cure is trivial. Cure is not defined for cancer. As a result, if someone cures their cancer, or a cancer, it is not possible to prove that a cure was present. There are, in fact, many people who claim to have cured their own cancers. There are many people who claim to have cured other peoples cancers. But they are ignored. Cured is not defined. There are no studies of people who are cured, because cured is not defined. There are no statistics of people who are cured, because cured is not defined.
to your health, tracy
Sage · January 23, 2016 at 6:38 pm
A cure for cancer was found by David J Mooney in 2009. Very good rates of remission in mice. Then the IP was boxed up and in slow and limited development by InCytu with a $30m capitalization. It’s not exactly “suppressed” or “secret” in a conspiracy theory whacko way, but it’s tied up by capitalist relations of IP. Check it out. It’s true.
Sage · January 23, 2016 at 6:39 pm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2872791/
Kevin murray · February 14, 2016 at 11:03 pm
I believe you why does no one else tell the world
Epedemiologist · February 3, 2016 at 8:01 pm
Point 8. – Companies are already choosing cure or prevention over profit.
Your comment – Why haven’t vaccines and antibiotics been suppressed?
Stephanie Seneff, over 100 peer-reviewed research papers by this leading MIT researcher on the harmful effects of vaccines should answer your question and help you be more thorough in your research for your future posts 🙂
sm0ky · February 7, 2016 at 11:25 pm
http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq
moreldoctor · February 20, 2016 at 6:22 pm
My mother had Malignant Melanoma that had metastasized thru out her body. Dr Lung at Mountain States Tumor Institute told me to take her home, that if they operated, she would die on the table.
Within four days on Mannetech products she walked to the living room whistling and swinging a cane. Up until then it took two canes and a spotter for walking. After twelve days they scanned her lungs, they had cleared completely.
Dr Lung said that they could successfully operate and would take three lymph nodes from her leg but she most likely would never be able to walk. They pulled the first node and checked it, only two specks of cancer left in it.
But he said that it was full of fighting T-cells. They searched for an extra hour and discovered two more but nothing else. Four tiny cancer cells in a body that had been biopsied and scanned two weeks earlier that was full of cancer head to toe.
She walked out of the institute. It has been many years since that day and I have no affiliation with Mannatech and do not recall which products she used or dosage amounts. I don’t even know it they are still in business.
But I do know that there are several documented cures for cancer in published research papers but because they cannot patent natural cures. Synthetic copies can be patented but apparently they do not work or cause harmful side effects that do not exist with the natural cures.
Keep sending your money to help them with expensive research because we get to read the reports that they are required to publish. Of course they have writers who do so in such mumbo jumbo that even most doctors cannot comprehend what is written.
DR.STEVE MENGO. (KENYA) · February 20, 2016 at 6:53 pm
Interestig,
Hppocrates who lived 400BC.said that “all diseases are the consequences of our lifestyles”.The causes of diseases is toxemia and cannot be germs etc. as as the Rockfella Doctos tell us.
We are born with toxins,grow in toxic houses,farm and procese our foods in toxic conditions,food stores more 70% toxic foods.We too produce toxins during digestion and beathing.We are born with cancer and it can be stopped,reversed and remitted for 200 years.
The world must go back and move on ” primitive lane” and suplement if possible.
wonda julius · February 22, 2016 at 6:36 pm
you people you should remember there is an animal called human being,likely we have the bad one
and the good ones
the good ones are fighting for the better world where there is no diseases,remember that:
Eleni · February 26, 2016 at 7:30 pm
By September 11, 2012 – 4:09 pmShe would need to get a referral for a sleep study from her prmriay care doctor. She may be prescribed a machine to assist with her breathing and she’ll be able to sleep quietly!There are lots of devices and stuff on the market but I doubt they work.Sleep apnea is a sleep disorder, and it means the person stops breathing and suddenly starts again.If she has sleep apnea and it goes untreated it can raise blood pressure, damage the heart and cause weight gain, and the weight gain makes the snoring worse. Try WebMD for more info.
droidcrasher · March 20, 2016 at 7:33 pm
Change your name from CREDIBLE to GULLIBLE!
Credible Hulk · March 27, 2016 at 7:27 pm
You’ve given no plausible reason why such a switch would be appropriate. It’s one thing to claim that a particular argument is wrong, or that its conclusion is the result of gullibility, but if you aren’t capable of presenting a well-reasoned evidence-based argument for why you believe that to be the case, then your position cannot be believed by a thinking person.
Benjamin Patterson JR · March 24, 2016 at 1:27 am
Here is my story..
My wife was diagnosed with a cancer, ( before i learnt of Rick Simpsons oil / RSO ) the hospital said to do chemotherapy and radiotherapy.. she did.. and went through a lot.. but no cure, after a while the doctors said the cancer was spreading and we could look for alternatives.. i searched the internet and found out about the oil.. asked alot of questions.. watched the videos etc.. we made the oil our selves but it couldn’t just work out we were doing more harm than good and the cancer was still there spreading, i searched more on the internet i found a testimony on how a lady got the oil via an email, i immediately copied the email: [email protected], i wrote to this very email and in an hour later i got a reply back asking me some few questions, and enlightened me on how to get the oil in the next 48hours, i placed my order and in the next 48hours the medication oil got to us. immediately my wife started using the oil, it been two months now, since my wife has been using the medication oil and the cancerous problems are gone this very fact was clarified by the doctor.
i put up this piece of testimony for the sake of those once who need this oil to please don’t die in silence their is a cure for your cancer today email [email protected] and get the oil.
email [email protected]
Bradley Scott Roon · March 29, 2016 at 2:16 pm
“I THINK” therefore i know all of these are easily refutable.
The main problem being that you actually believe that cancer – a development of screwed up biochemistry from various means but always ending up with an anaerobic environment for the cancers to thrive in – is going to be fixed with ANOTHER patentable drug.
This won’t happen. There ARE cures that work – they depend on natural compounds and biochemistry – which 95% of your MDs have no training in….
Bradley Scott Roon · March 29, 2016 at 2:19 pm
By the way – i have “talked” (blogged) with people who had metastasized, stage IV lung cancer in the 70s/80s and childrem of those in that situation, who CURED their cancer within 4 months by eating a couple bitter almonds/day – sometimes a couple times/day.
It was SO EFFECTIVE that EVERY bitter almond in the US was pulled and burned, and all imports were banned. Directly attributable to the California Cancer Society…
Credible Hulk · March 29, 2016 at 10:26 pm
So you claim.
Credible Hulk · March 29, 2016 at 10:26 pm
Merely thinking that they are easily refutable doesn’t make it so, which means that you actually don’t “know” it to be the case. Knowledge requires that the thing (allegedly) “known” actually be true, for one, and that there be justification for believing so. Right now, all you’ve demonstrated is that you believe yourself to be correct, but mere belief alone does not necessarily connote knowledge.
PTC · June 8, 2016 at 11:28 pm
I know I’m late here, but I can’t resist. This isn’t even the biggest thing wrong with your post, but I want to address it.
You say:
“There ARE cures that work – they depend on natural compounds and biochemistry – which 95% of your MDs have no training in….”
I would just like to point out that doctors are, indeed, trained on biochemistry. In fact, the first couple of years of medical school are spent going over biochemistry within the human body. I don’t know what you think they learn all those years, but I can assure you this is one of them.
Randy · April 5, 2016 at 4:52 pm
This is the most rediculous post I have ever seen. There are many well documented cures for cancer. I am a healer and I have helped people free themselves of this simple to cure disease. If you ever contract it email me and I will tell you how to get well.
For you edification I would begin your research by studying the works of Dr. Loraine Day, former Chief Surgeon at San Francisco General Hospital. She has published severeal videos about cancer and the medical industry. And remember Chemotherapy is mustard gas. That is right a chemical weapon of mass destruction. And it works wonders. Only 3 in 100 survive it.
I was tempted to let this go assuming you work for big pharma, but I just could not let it go. If you are interested I can direct you to tons of well documented information of thousands who have cured themselves of cancer. I can also give you phone numbers of people I have helped. I hope you speak spanish. And if you are really genuine I also recommend this book. The Water of Life by John Armstrong. Harvard University published the results of their study on cancer and cannabis. The results say that cannabis cures cancer. The University of South Carolina said interesting, I wonder how it does that? So they researched it and published how cannabis cures cancer. These studies are not occult info. They are readily available. Please Please Please. Many people die needlessly because of this hoax. Whose side are you on?
Credible Hulk · June 16, 2016 at 5:57 am
Regarding cannabinoids:
A). It’s not secret. The only reason we know about its potential is because people have been studying its effects in vitro and publishing their work in highly visible journals.
B). The ability to induce cell apoptosis and inhibit angiogenesis in vitro is not a “cure for cancer.” It’s not that simple. Many things can kill cancer cells in a petri dish or inhibit the blood supply to the unwanted cells. Even a hand gun can kill cells in a dish. That’s not the same thing as being able to transport a substrate to the proper cell sites and selectively target tumor cells while minimizing collateral damage to healthy cells. Cancerous cells aren’t easy to distinguish from normal healthy cells. Additionally, cancer isn’t actually a disease. It’s a whole family of diseases with comparable pathology. There are hundreds of types of cancers, and what works for one type won’t necessarily work for some other types.
The point of this is not to say that cannabis is bad, or that researching it further can’t be useful. In fact, I’m actually pro-legalization, btw. Rather, the point is that it’s not so clear cut, and there is no conspiracy. It’s just hard to take anything from the in vitro stage to a full blown cancer treatment.
Here’s some more about all that:
“Virtually all the scientific research investigating whether cannabinoids can treat cancer has been done using cancer cells grown in the lab or animal models. It’s important to be cautious when extrapolating these results up to real live patients, who tend to be a lot more complex than a Petri dish or a mouse.
Through many detailed experiments, handily summarised in this recent article in the journal Nature Reviews Cancer, scientists have discovered that various cannabinoids (both natural and synthetic) have a wide range of effects in the lab, including:
Triggering cell death, through a mechanism called apoptosis
Stopping cells from dividing
Preventing new blood vessels from growing into tumours
Reducing the chances of cancer cells spreading through the body, by stopping cells from moving or invading neighbouring tissue
Speeding up the cell’s internal ‘waste disposal machine’ – a process known as autophagy – which can lead to cell death.”
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/
Shahina · April 18, 2016 at 8:44 am
Even though all your key points are very valuable , these are just points for arguments. As good as it sounds none of this is credited by any evidence or research. It’s okay to have an opinion but it’s not okay to be biased by it and be ignorant. There are people dying out there. Cancer isn’t a joke. And considering all the money involved, why is the drug being heavily marketed? The cost of drug manufacturing is barely accountable for all the 100000 $ bills of cancer treatment. You are diverting the main point by sensible arguments. I neither support this or that part, all I would like to know is why we still don’t have complete knowledge about the drugs administered. The very reason all of this being hidden conspires theories. Why don’t then these pharma companies really reveal and not hide. If they were true, they wouldn’t be afraid and resistant.
Know the complete truth.
Watch this if you can. At least before having an opinion know all about the things you talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqJAzQe7_0g
Shahina · April 18, 2016 at 8:59 am
Also about the current treatment of chemo isn’t 100% success. Wait. It doesn’t even guarantee complete recovery from this dreaded disease. Then why is it still being administered? On top of it the radiation therapy is prescribed by oncologists who wouldn’t prefer using this treatment themselves.
Maybe they are just dots, and when you connect then it becomes a theory but even science doesn’t ignore signs.
We all have our own opinions, for a scientist who had known what he knows would vouch for it and no one disclaims it. But the fact that it really is based upon perception ( that you would called facts developed by another people ) and the truth is really neither understood. And the science everybody is so confident about it’s latin meaning stands for “knowing”. Not to deviate from the topic as some would call, but everyone here no matter a scientist or a holistic researcher would want a cure which is killing millions. Everybody is on the same side for the matter of fact. Some use traditional terms and others terms that mean more logical but only is nothing but based upon their own ego. Stop choosing sides really if the truth matters. These comments shouldn’t even bother the admin but the fact that it does means that there is an insecurity.
Again this is still an opinion, no matter you are with science or not. Everyone has their own way to see things. I hope the truth comes out and we stop fighting over what’s terminologically correct or not. :/
Credible Hulk · January 9, 2018 at 2:12 am
“Also about the current treatment of chemo isn’t 100% success. Wait. It doesn’t even guarantee complete recovery from this dreaded disease. Then why is it still being administered?”
– Probably because its success rate is vastly superior to doing nothing, which has a success rate of roughly 0%. The notion that something is either 100% effective in 100% of cases 100% of the time, or else it’s worthless is not based on sound reasoning. It’s actually called the nirvana fallacy.
“On top of it the radiation therapy is prescribed by oncologists who wouldn’t prefer using this treatment themselves.”
– Do you have any credible evidence that most oncologists wouldn’t prefer using the treatments they prescribe if they were in the same predicament as their patients? Because it seems like something someone just made up.
“Maybe they are just dots, and when you connect then it becomes a theory but even science doesn’t ignore signs.”
– The way in which scientific theories arise is a reiterative process. Finding patterns in the data, (which is what I’m assuming you mean by connecting dots), is only a preliminary stage of the process. A scientific theory is something that explains a set of empirical observations, and makes testable predictions that have been repeatedly corroborated by experiment. The finding of patterns in data helps generate working hypotheses to test. Some of these are eliminated, whereas others becoming increasingly well-supported. After several iterations of this process, ideas for more inclusive theoretical frameworks begin to emerge within a particular scientific sub-community which are consistent with the current set of supported hypotheses. After their logical implications are teased, those are reformulated as yet even more testable questions and hypotheses until a coherent theory is formed whose central tenets have stood up to many experimental attempts to falsify it.
“We all have our own opinions, for a scientist who had known what he knows would vouch for it and no one disclaims it. But the fact that it really is based upon perception ( that you would called facts developed by another people ) and the truth is really neither understood.”
– This paragraph sounds like it may be based on a misunderstanding of what we mean by the words, “facts,” and “knowledge.” In science, facts are essentially just data points. In this sense, their ontological status is independent of the theory-laden manner in which they may be interpreted or explained. As far as knowledge goes, it is understood in science that absolute infallible 100% certainty is not realistically possible for much of anything, which is why we adopt a fallibilistic and/or probabilistic conception of knowledge, and resolve to keep our conception of how things work in as close of alignment as possible with the best currently available evidence. It’s not that the scientific process produces perfect knowledge, so much as that it produces knowledge of superior reliability to any other option we have available.
“And the science everybody is so confident about it’s latin meaning stands for “knowing”. Not to deviate from the topic as some would call, but everyone here no matter a scientist or a holistic researcher would want a cure which is killing millions. Everybody is on the same side for the matter of fact. “
– I would assume so. Yes. I’m not a mind reader, so I suppose it’s possible that there exist people who simply hate humanity and wish that effective medical interventions would stop being used or discovered, but I suspect that they comprise a small minority.
“Some use traditional terms and others terms that mean more logical but only is nothing but based upon their own ego.”
– I don’t know that this is necessarily the case. Some people may be motivated by their personal ego to choose one particular mode of communication over another, but I don’t see any evidence that this is always the case. I also don’t see any reason that it should matter what motivated someone’s style of communication so long as he or she gets his or her point across.
“Stop choosing sides really if the truth matters.”
– This recommendation doesn’t make much sense to me. If the truth matters, then surely endeavoring to find out what the truth is and choosing to side with it should be preferable to remaining perpetually neutral in cases for which the truth itself is not, in fact, neutral. Perhaps what you mean to say is that it is best to be as measured and unbiased as possible in the process of ascertaining what the truth likely is, in which case I agree.
“These comments shouldn’t even bother the admin but the fact that it does means that there is an insecurity.”
– I’m not “bothered” by it, per se, but even if I was, your conclusion wouldn’t logically follow. You’re not accounting for the fact that many types of misinformation can lead to harm if permitted to spread unchallenged. Many people believe in cancer cure conspiracies and then end up dying horrible deaths unnecessarily, because they fell for some crackpot treatment that didn’t work in cases for which a viable science-based treatment protocol existed, but which they didn’t trust because they assumed that their oncologist was evil.
“Again this is still an opinion, no matter you are with science or not. Everyone has their own way to see things. I hope the truth comes out and we stop fighting over what’s terminologically correct or not. :/”
– I think that accuracy and specificity are important, and that people who don’t know enough about a subject to be accurate and use terms correctly should not try to pass their opinion off as being of comparable value to those of experts. However, I also acknowledge that pedantry over terminology does not always serve the purpose of improving communication. Sometimes it’s just unnecessary nit-picking.
Joshua · April 18, 2016 at 5:56 pm
Within our current healthcare realm, there is no vested interest in doctors recommending natural alternatives. It is a profit-driven system and doctors are in bed with the FDA. Ginger alone has been proven to be 10,000x more effective at battling cancer than chemo, but doctors don’t make any money off of you taking a daily ginger supplement. Our modern day doctors are trained to give the traditional treatments like chemo and radiation which are not effective and do much more harm to the body than good. It is time to open our eyes and become informed consumers. We need to stop being victims of this corrupt system.
http://foodrevolution.org/blog/ginger-cancer-treatment/
Diane · April 22, 2016 at 3:01 pm
My problem is that Doctors are so against natural medicine and healthy eating (not so much healthy eating) but having a naturopath involved to teach you healthy things like eating, physical health and the use of herbs. It would be wonderful if Doctors and naturopaths could work together Naturopaths are not against chemo but want to use both chemo (in some instances) with natural foods to enhance the chemo effect and also to help stop some of the side effects of chemo. I am going thru chemo right now and I am going to implement natural medicine but without my Doctors approval. It puts a lot of stress on a person when the Doctor disapproves of your choice and doesn’t want to work with it or even discuss it. I think so much more can be done if they work together.
N. Goodwin · April 24, 2016 at 8:30 pm
suggest you watch this on the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTGye7kA6rM
Shawshank123 · May 10, 2016 at 6:15 am
Here is a theory. What if the people involved in this theory as well as their immediate family did get cured. Us regular folks would never hear about it in the news.
Credible Hulk · June 16, 2016 at 5:53 am
One of the conveniences of conspiracy hypotheses is that one can speculate about any possibilities one wants without the burden of finding reliable evidence for it. I suppose I shouldn’t call it a convenience, per se. It’s actually inconvenient to people actually trying to construct and accurate and evidence based model of reality.
kim Hefler · May 15, 2016 at 4:15 pm
Look what has happened to Dr Brurzynski. If a Dr. has a cure for some cancers; then why is Dr. Brurzynski always going to trial to save his practice. Your head is in the clouds if you think some scientists are not in it for the money. Don’t bother attacking my statements. I won’t be following.
Credible Hulk · May 16, 2016 at 4:20 am
I agree that Bruzynski is in it for the money, but the existence of a few unethical people like him is not a valid counter-argument, because most medical researchers aren’t sociopaths. It’s a good thing he’s being stopped so he won’t continue scamming desperate people. Don’t don’t bother telling me not to refute your statements. You don’t have a say in that. You commented on my site, now you have to pay the consequences. Your participation is not a prerequisite to me debunking your beliefs.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/tag/stanislaw-burzynski/
strongbuilt · May 16, 2016 at 10:49 am
baking soda alkaline’s cancer cells and they die
Credible Hulk · May 17, 2016 at 11:21 pm
This is a systematic review that looked at many studies with a specific focus on if the alkaline diet helped prevent osteoporosis. The change in pH by following an alkaline diet was between 0.014 and 0.02 ph units which luckily is very insignificant because changing you bodies blood chemistry can lead to very negative health consequences. The review concluding that it was not likely any benefit to bone health by following an alkaline diet.
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/pdf/1475-2891-10-41.pdf
“The ‘simple solution’ is apparently to inject tumours with baking soda (sodium bicarbonate). This isn’t even the treatment used to treat proven fungal infections, let alone cancer. On the contrary, there’s good evidence that high doses of sodium bicarbonate can lead to serious – even fatal – consequences.
Some studies suggest that sodium bicarbonate can affect cancers transplanted into mice or cells grown in the lab, by neutralising the acidity in the microenvironment immediately around a tumour. And researchers in the US are running a small clinical trial investigating whether sodium bicarbonate capsules can help to reduce cancer pain and to find the maximum dose that can be tolerated, rather than testing whether it has any effect on tumours.
As far as we are aware, there have been no published clinical trials of sodium bicarbonate as a treatment for cancer.
It’s also worth pointing out that it’s not clear whether it’s possible to give doses of sodium bicarbonate that can achieve any kind of meaningful effect on cancer in humans, although it’s something that researchers are investigating.
Because the body strongly resists attempts to change its pH, usually by getting rid of bicarbonate through the kidneys, there’s a risk that doses large enough to significantly affect the pH around a tumour might cause a serious condition known as alkalosis.
One estimate suggests that a dose of around 12 grams of baking soda per day (based on a 65 kg adult) would only be able to counteract the acid produced by a tumour roughly one cubic millimetre in size. But doses of more than about 30 grams per day are likely to cause severe health problems – you do the maths.”
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/03/24/dont-believe-the-hype-10-persistent-cancer-myths-debunked/#fungus
Jay Kulsh · May 22, 2016 at 5:40 am
This article is so logical, but…
An entirely scientific, effective, low-cost and non-toxic cancer treatment is not being investigated & established because it is not patentable. Hard to believe, but true!
Please see this scientific article published in 2014:
http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307(13)00300-5/abstract
or
http://www.cancer-treatment.net/The2014-GEIPE-Article.pdf
James Peters · July 5, 2016 at 9:44 am
Trials using tumour treating fields/alternating electric field therapy are ongoing https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=novocure&Search=Search The FDA has approved the Optune device in GBM https://www.optune.com
Vishesh · June 5, 2016 at 11:40 am
You are promoting people to ignore alternative medicines on cancer treatment and accept the costly and painful way of treatment.If you were born into a middle class or a poor family,you would have used other promising
therapies to reduce the cost of treatment.I know some people who cured cancer using alternative medicines like ayurveda and accupuncture,it may be because of placebo effect but the point is that they cured it.If you are looking for CREDIBLE REASONS on this treatments sometimes you will not find any because you are blind by the theories of mainstream science and scientists.If the scientists who are researching on cancer cure is close minded like you,they wont find any cure in next 100 years.
Credible Hulk · June 16, 2016 at 5:27 am
If there was anything resembling good evidence that any of those “alternatives” actually worked, then I’d be fine with them. You’re doing your loved ones a tremendous disservice by trying to dissuade them from evidence based modalities and steering them towards unproven ones. That is incredibly irresponsible.
Tom · June 22, 2016 at 7:55 pm
Do you ever get the feeling that you’re talking to a wall?
Credible Hulk · July 30, 2016 at 9:30 am
Yeah. Lol. It’s not this bad on my Facebook page ( FB.dom/TheRealCredibleHulk ), because I have tens of thousands of subscribers, many of whom are accomplished scientists and medical professionals, who will do most of the work for me. Nobody goes and revisits these comments on old blog posts to rebut ridiculous nonsense like what many of the contrarian commenters here have been pushing.
pooya · July 11, 2016 at 7:09 pm
CREDIBLE HULK ,The effectiveness of natureal treatment is proven well.
Credible Hulk · July 30, 2016 at 4:22 am
If that were true, then you’d have provided credible citations to demonstrate the validity of your claim. But you didn’t.
Caroline Richards · June 5, 2016 at 2:53 pm
The only potential cures that ever seem to get any attention are pills and new poisons like chemo….never anything natural. Why? Our bodies are designed to heal themselves if given the nutrients and energy
required.
And where is the media? Any time there is something to hide it seems the media avoids showing up.
A dear friend fought for a year trusting doctors, chemo just made him sicker, suffering until they sent him home to die. What kind of survival is that? Anyone, has that story.
Prevention is the answer….but I’m sorry, ….not hearing anything about that except from the naturalists. Most Doctors don’t even ask you what
your diet is like. They might ask you how much alcohol you consume. Talk about limited thinking. The Pharmaceuticals help fund the education of our doctors….and actually have a say in the information they are given.
I am lucky enough to have found a doctor that combines, diet and supplements…And does not promote prescription medication unless it’s a last resort.
pooya · July 11, 2016 at 7:03 pm
THe fact is this:”chemotherapy and radiotherapy” do not cure cancer only for 3-4 percent.The rest are dead.But the amazing thing is that natural treatment had a 50-60 percent cure.
Credible Hulk · July 30, 2016 at 4:21 am
“Between January 2001 and December 2005, 1225 (222 small cell and 1003 non-small cell lung cancers) patients received chemotherapy and/or thoracic radiotherapy as the initial treatment. Of these, 43 patients receiving chemotherapy followed by thoracic radiotherapy were included into both the chemotherapy-alone and radiotherapy-alone groups. There were a total of 23 (1.9%) TRDs.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22134071/?i=3&from=%2F12094134%2Frelated
“At least 1-2% mortality should be expected for chemotherapy and thoracic radiotherapy.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12094134/
“Deaths within 30 days of chemotherapy during a 6-month period were identified from the Royal Marsden Hospital electronic patient records. Treatment intention – curative or palliative, cause of death and number of previous treatments – were documented. Between April 2005 and September 2005, 1976 patients received chemotherapy with 161 deaths within 30 days of chemotherapy (8.1%). Of these, 124 deaths (77.0%) were due to disease progression. Of the other 37 deaths, 12 (7.5%) were related to chemotherapy, six each for solid tumours and haematological malignancies, of which seven (4.3%) were due to neutropenic sepsis. For the remaining 25 deaths (15.5%) there was insufficient information. There were more deaths after third and subsequent lines of therapy than with first and secondlines of therapy. Only 12 of the 161 deaths occurred in patients who were receiving potentially curative chemotherapy to give a mortality rate in breast and gastrointestinal malignancy of 0.5 and 1.5%, respectively. It is possible to audit mortality within 30 days of chemotherapy and this should become a benchmark for standard practice nationally. Most deaths were due to disease progression in the palliative setting.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2360753/
Here is another, TRD stands for treatment related death. Note also, the overall 5 year survival rate.
“Results: A total of 1317 were identified for analysis. The median age at diagnosis was 49 years with a range of 24 to 74 years. The rate of TRD was 0.1%. The 5 years OS rate was 77.3% with a median follow up of 62 months. The 5 years OS according to AJCC stage were 90.7% for stage I, 83.9% for stage II and 62.2% for stage III disease. The commonest chemotherapy regimen used was the FEC (5-Fluorouracil, Epirubicin, Cyclophosphamide) regimen accounting for approximately 90% of the cases.
Conclusion: Adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer with the FEC regimen is safe with a TRD rate of 0.1% in our centre.”
http://www.hoajonline.com/jctr/2049-7962/1/13
There are plenty of other ones too. Where are you getting idea that more people die of the treatment than disease progression? If that was the case, oncologists would never recommend it.
Also, dying from cancer “naturally” is not a romantic prospect; it is very horrible. The side effects of treatment are not pleasant, that is true, but please read this article to help put things in perspective.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/chemotherapy-versus-death-from-cancer/
Credible Hulk · July 30, 2016 at 4:35 am
Your comment is completely off base. Firstly, you failed to address a single argument made in the piece. Secondly, what you’re doing is a logical fallacy known as moving the goalpost.
Thirdly, as for cannabinoids:
A). It’s not secret. The only reason we know about its potential is because people have been studying its effects in vitro and publishing their work in highly visible journals.
B). The ability to induce cell apoptosis and inhibit angiogenesis in vitro is not a “cure for cancer.” It’s not that simple. Many things can kill cancer cells in a petri dish or inhibit the blood supply to the unwanted cells. Even a hand gun can kill cells in a dish. That’s not the same thing as being able to transport a substrate to the proper cell sites and selectively target tumor cells while minimizing collateral damage to healthy cells. Cancerous cells aren’t easy to distinguish from normal healthy cells. Additionally, cancer isn’t actually a disease. It’s a whole family of diseases with comparable pathology. There are hundreds of types of cancers, and what works for one type won’t necessarily work for some other types.
On cannabis as a “cure” :
“Even though there is animal research to support the case that the cannabinoids are anti-cancer agents, there is still no evidence that cannabis oil cures cancer (goo.gl/qeTn44).
First, we should remember that animal studies are ranked lower than case reports, in the hierarchy of research. That’s pretty low-tier evidence – useful for identifying potential, but not much else. Besides, animals are supposed to be more sensitive to the effects of the cannabinoids (goo.gl/RIRbFB – page 243). So, if you only have animal research to support your claim, you are far away from making a credible case for humans.
Also, concerning the two girls who experienced brain cancer remission after smoking cannabis, well, you don’t have a decent sample size if you only have two cases (goo.gl/8ABVzU). And it was not a clinical trial.
The claim that cannabis oil cures cancer is not based on a proper understanding of cancer. Most importantly, cancer is a multi-faceted entity, and not all cancers are caused by the same thing. Each type of cancer and location of cancer has completely different traits and modes of replication and survival. Cancer is not a singular thing. Therefore, it cannot be “cured” by a singular thing.”
http://www.oharatree.info/2015/05/marijuana-and-cannabinoids-and-medicine.html
Moreover, not all the effects of using cannabinoids in this manner are necessarily desirable. For instance, the high doses of cannabinoids required to kill cancer cells also harm blood vessels (inhibit angiogenesis) in healthy cells, as shown here:
Abstract
Cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana and their derivatives, induce tumor regression in rodents (8). However, the mechanism of cannabinoid antitumoral action in vivo is as yet unknown. Here we show that local administration of a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid to mice inhibits angiogenesis of malignant gliomas as determined by immunohistochemical analyses and vascular permeability assays. In vitro and in vivo experiments show that at least two mechanisms may be involved in this cannabinoid action: the direct inhibition of vascular endothelial cell migration and survival as well as the decrease of the expression of proangiogenic factors (vascular endothelial growth factor and angiopoietin-2) and matrix metalloproteinase-2 in the tumors. Inhibition of tumor angiogenesis may allow new strategies for the design of cannabinoid-based antitumoral therapies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026328
In certain instances, cannabinoids can even encourage growth of cancer cells.
>>> Cannabinoids induce cancer cell proliferation via tumor necrosis factor alpha-converting enzyme (TACE/ADAM17)-mediated transactivation of the epidermal growth factor receptor.
Hart S1, Fischer OM, Ullrich A.
Author information
Abstract
Cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana and their endogenous counterparts were reported as useful analgetic agents to accompany primary cancer treatment by preventing nausea, vomiting, and pain and by stimulating appetite. Moreover, they have been shown to inhibit cell growth and to induce apoptosis in tumor cells. Here, we demonstrate that anandamide, Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), HU-210, and Win55,212-2 promote mitogenic kinase signaling in cancer cells. Treatment of the glioblastoma cell line U373-MG and the lung carcinoma cell line NCI-H292 with nanomolar concentrations of THC led to accelerated cell proliferation that was completely dependent on metalloprotease and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activity. EGFR signal transactivation was identified as the mechanistic link between cannabinoid receptors and the activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinases extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 as well as prosurvival protein kinase B (Akt/PKB) signaling. Depending on the cellular context, signal cross-communication was mediated by shedding of proAmphiregulin (proAR) and/or proHeparin-binding epidermal growth factor-like growth factor (proHB-EGF) by tumor necrosis factor alpha converting enzyme (TACE/ADAM17). Taken together, our data show that concentrations of THC comparable with those detected in the serum of patients after THC administration accelerate proliferation of cancer cells instead of apoptosis and thereby contribute to cancer progression in patients. <<< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026328
There is even some evidence that they can interfere with the immune system’s ability to recognize and destroy tumor cells (though my understanding is that some synthetic versions of cannabinoids may be able to mitigate this undesirable side effect to some extent).
>>> Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol enhances breast cancer growth and metastasis by suppression of the antitumor immune response.
McKallip RJ1, Nagarkatti M, Nagarkatti PS.
Author information
– 1Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Medical College of Virginia Campus, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298, USA. [email protected]
Abstract
In the current study, we tested the central hypothesis that exposure to Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta9-THC), the major psychoactive component in marijuana, can lead to enhanced growth of tumors that express low to undetectable levels of cannabinoid receptors by specifically suppressing the antitumor immune response. We demonstrated that the human breast cancer cell lines MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 and the mouse mammary carcinoma 4T1 express low to undetectable levels of cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, and that these cells are resistant to Delta9-THC-induced cytotoxicity. Furthermore, exposure of mice to Delta9-THC led to significantly elevated 4T1 tumor growth and metastasis due to inhibition of the specific antitumor immune response in vivo. The suppression of the antitumor immune response was mediated primarily through CB2 as opposed to CB1. Furthermore, exposure to Delta9-THC led to increased production of IL-4 and IL-10, suggesting that Delta9-THC exposure may specifically suppress the cell-mediated Th1 response by enhancing Th2-associated cytokines. This possibility was further supported by microarray data demonstrating the up-regulation of a number of Th2-related genes and the down-regulation of a number of Th1-related genes following exposure to Delta9-THC. Finally, injection of anti-IL-4 and anti-IL-10 mAbs led to a partial reversal of the Delta9-THC-induced suppression of the immune response to 4T1. Such findings suggest that marijuana exposure either recreationally or medicinally may increase the susceptibility to and/or incidence of breast cancer as well as other cancers that do not express cannabinoid receptors and are resistant to Delta9-THC-induced apoptosis. <<< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15749859
The point of this is not to say that cannabis is bad, or that researching it further can’t be useful. In fact, I’m actually pro-legalization, btw. Rather, the point is that it’s not so clear cut, and there is no conspiracy. It’s just hard to take anything from the in vitro stage to a full blown cancer treatment.
Here’s some more about all that:
>>> Virtually all the scientific research investigating whether cannabinoids can treat cancer has been done using cancer cells grown in the lab or animal models. It’s important to be cautious when extrapolating these results up to real live patients, who tend to be a lot more complex than a Petri dish or a mouse.
Through many detailed experiments, handily summarised in this recent article in the journal Nature Reviews Cancer, scientists have discovered that various cannabinoids (both natural and synthetic) have a wide range of effects in the lab, including:
– Triggering cell death, through a mechanism called apoptosisStopping cells from dividingPreventing new blood vessels from growing into tumoursReducing the chances of cancer cells spreading through the body, by stopping cells from moving or invading neighbouring tissueSpeeding up the cell’s internal ‘waste disposal machine’ – a process known as autophagy – which can lead to cell death <<< http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/
vossed · September 7, 2016 at 5:53 am
this is very logical and rational it sounds a lot like an easy way to pick apart the moon landing hoax as in using pure logic and reason you can see that it was indeed a hoax
Credible Hulk · January 9, 2018 at 2:31 am
The hidden cures conspiracy also attempts to use pure logic to arrive at its conclusion. They use no actual evidence, since the supposed cover-up of the evidence is implicit within the claim itself. It’s just that they don’t use sound logic in order to achieve that aim. As for the moonlanding, consider the following:
“If someone out there can prove that over 3,000 journalists were paid-off by NASA, that evil geologists are in cahoots with the government, and that Dustbusters aren’t useful, we encourage such people to come forward.”
https://www.inverse.com/article/34408-moon-landing-not-a-hoax-conspiracy-theory-apollo-11-true-real
Colin Weir · September 15, 2016 at 12:06 am
This article is exactly what I’ve been looking for. I’ve had too many wasted nights arguing with people who are set on the conspiracy narrative and don’t seem to hear any basic logical points I’m trying, and apparently failing, to put across. From now on I will save my breath and direct them to this very article as it says everything I would want to say and more. If the afore mentioned people are too stubborn, too thick or possibly both, to accept and understand what is being said here I will worry no more about it and go about my day as any further discussion would clearly be in vain. Thank you Credible Hulk!
(p.s. Did u get ur name from an episode of Q.I? I heard a joke from an older episode referring to the ‘credible hulk’. Just a thought. Also thank you for the Sheeple link, what a lol!)
Credible Hulk · October 3, 2016 at 10:54 am
Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it. The name, The Credible Hulk, was actually something that a few friends in the science and skepticism blogosphere were already calling me. SciBabe was actually the one who talked me into using it and starting a page with it.
Ann · September 28, 2016 at 2:57 am
I want to specially thank Rick Simpson for saving my friend’s life with his healing oil. some years back my friend Rose was diagnosed with a deadly disease cancer of the lungs, we try all medication all to no avail, we also try to do the oil our selves but we were doing more harm than worse. until I saw a post on facebook on how the cannabis oil had cured a cancer patient, I quickly mailed this email: [email protected]
From that very moment we just have to give it a trier, instantly we got a reply from him asking us what the exact cancer problem that my friend Rose has, we explained every details of it to him and he told us, that his oil will heal my friend cancer problem only if we can order for it as soon as possible…..
He calculated the dosage for us to buy i think the dosage he calculated was 60grams of the oil which we ordered plus 30grams maintenance free and also with a body lotion and soap. He told us that if we order it online now by the next 48hours the medication will get to our door step through the delivery services, we decided to give it a try and behold when we did exactly 48hours of ordering the medication came to our door step through the delivery agent and deliver it to us. immediately we emailed Rick back that we have gotten the medication, and the usage instruction manual was also delivered to us. my friend Rose started the medication immediately just after a month of using Rick Simpson cannabis oil, Rose is now free from cancer problem, she is living a healthy life my utmost priority of sharing this short testimony is for those that are suffering from my kind of cancer diseases or if your friend or family members are suffering from this deadly disease, please don’t die in silence there is a cure for your cancer today don’t waste anytime further you have to email Rick Simpson directly and save your live and the lives of others
E_mail:
[email protected]
Roy · October 2, 2016 at 6:32 pm
Cancer is the normal state of the body, every person on this planet has cancer cells. The body produces approximately 100,000 cancer cells a day. The immune system has a dedicated component called GcMAF, (Gc protein-derived macrophage activating factor) that is continually keeping cancer cell growth under control. Your bodys’ GcMAF production can be disabled under certain conditions and these conditions are (i) You are run down (ii) You are highly stressed (iii) You have had surgery. Any of these three conditions weakens the immune system On top of these three condition you get a viral infection. The weakened immume system can allow the viral infection to disable your bodys’ production of GcMAF, with an enzyme produce buy the virus called nagalase. Once the production of GcMAF has been disabled by a virus, the cancer cell production explodes uncontrolled.
Current ‘standard’ treatment (Chemotherapy) is to kill the cancer cells with highly toxic poisons, which are also carcinogenic, which also kills healthy cells i.e. Liver, Kidney, Heart, Brain, Muscle you get the idea. But this does not stop the body to continue producing cancer cells. The cancer will return, if you have not died from the treatment.
The correct method is to treat the immune system and restart the production of the bodys’ GcMAF production
Roy · October 2, 2016 at 6:49 pm
I would like to add that to restart the bodys’ GcMAF production does NOT require the use of pharmaceutical drugs
Devin · October 26, 2016 at 4:42 pm
This has given me great insight. However, I am not fully convinced. I think the one thing that will always make me question the government and all that jazz, is that Marijuana is a schedule one drug, which by definition is supposed to have no medicinal use, however there is patents that suggest medicinal benefits. It’s sort of contradictory. It’s fishy and always will be. I don’t understand what is so wrong about questioning the integrity of our government. Who trusts someone they’ve never met and why should we trust the medians to which their character is betrayed through? I don’t know.
Credible Hulk · October 25, 2017 at 5:21 am
Nowhere in the article is “trusting the integrity of government” listed as a premise to any of the arguments. In fact, the article explains why the conspiracy falls apart even if one doesn’t trust the government. You could distrust everyone (including me), and the conspiracy STILL doesn’t stand up to logical scrutiny (for reasons that I’ve already explained in the piece). Moreover, even if something has patents, that proves nothing about what it can or can’t do. All manner of ridiculous things have been patented, but which did not work. Similarly, the fact that something is a scheduled drug says nothing about its efficacy either. Methamphetamines are scheduled drugs too, but that doesn’t mean meth is a miracle cure. Marijuana also isn’t illegal everywhere. Many of my friends have licenses to either buy it from dispensaries and/or to grow it legally at their places of residence. It’s a huge business.
LEON · November 3, 2016 at 10:12 am
Really? What a joke, I’m actually offended by your stupidity of thinking the government and everyone else is here to help. They make fucking billions of dollars. As far as the CEO goes when have you ever herd of a CEO of a CANCER FOUNDATION dying from CANCER? There is a reason why celebrities somehow make these miraculous recovering. The stupidity in people just annoys, believe what ever everyone tells you gullible idiot. SMh
Credible Hulk · January 8, 2017 at 9:59 am
You say that I’m stupid, yet you demonstrate the inability to accomplish even rudimentary reading comprehension and critical thinking. The conspiracy speculationism fails even when we tacitly assume that everyone is out to get you. That was the ENTIRE POINT of the article, which you would have known if you’d read it.
As for powerful people surviving cancer, the fact is that many celebrities, CEOs and other powerful people have died of cancer. This was already covered in the piece, which (again) you would have known if you’d read it instead of having a knee jerk ad hominem reaction with zero logic, evidence or critical thinking behind it. To reiterate:
“With each passing year the list of rich and powerful people who die from cancer becomes more populated. It includes corporate CEOs, politicians, government leaders, Big Pharma employees, and heads of state from around the world. We would have to believe that these people know of a cure but decide not to use it so as to avoid suspicion. It’s silly to think that any of these people, many who already have fantastic amounts of money, would be willing to face the specter of a slow lingering death just to have a little more. It can’t be true that these people are so selfish as to hide a cure in favor of their own gain, yet so selfless that they are willing to die so the conspiracy can remain secret. These sorts of contradictions arise not from evidence or reasoning, but from making as many assumptions as needed to justify the trope of a hidden cure without contemplating their logical implications in sufficient depth.”
If you don’t read credible information or use critical thinking to examine the claims of conspiracy mongers, and you don’t understand that there are hundreds of types of cancers with different mechanisms, yet assume the people who actually know what they’re talking about are the “gullible idiots,” then you are a case study in the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Duane · November 19, 2016 at 11:40 pm
The people who believe in cancer, cancer research, cancer ‘treatment’ and accept the narrative that the authorities have their best interest at heart are the same people who laughingly believe we went to the moon almost 50 years ago. Yet, no one has been back since and NASA even admits that we can’t go now! It almost makes me ashamed to be part of the human race that people can be so naive. The very most intelligent people are ‘culled’ from society to become doctors, lawyers, scientists and intellectual proponents of the ruse. They are then further indoctrinated in to thinking that they actually are above the frey. They have absolutely NO incentive to buck this system, once they’re making $250,000 per year and many even way more. They are constantly rewarded for towing the line and have no incentive not to. And it is NOT that they are necessarily dishonest of uncaring, it is that they have been “indoctrinated” with false narratives, statistics and the assurance that any deviance from the narrative comes from the uninformed. My ex-wife worked in cancer research for 25 years. On at least 3 occasions she came home telling me of how a particular project was going to ‘cure’ cancer. Each and every time, the arbiters of the research protocols negated the research because of some “technicality.” I, in my search for the truth about all things, not just cancer, became really curious as to why and how this could be happening. She accepted it as that the “authorities” must be correct. The end of our marriage was one night when she came home from work telling of another failed “success story” and I remarked to her that the research industry wasn’t truly ‘looking’ for a cure…that they were looking for a better ‘treatment.’ She went off on me, attacked me and said I was an idiot. Then I pulled a switch and said, “Has anyone ever done a study on the effects of deodorants or make-up on women and how they might effect breast cancers?” Or how about shampoos and talcum powders and other products that we’ve been coerced in to using for the past 100 years? She blasted me with, ” Don’t be ridiculous, of course that’s all been studied, you ARE AN IDIOT and I want a divorce!” She got the divorce and I got the last “I told you so” laugh, although it isn’t funny. These effing products that we put in and on our bodies are all passed through with little or NO guidelines other that asking their manufacturers if they are safe. That’s it! Yes, they’re safe. Just take our word for it. So here we are. My close is simply this: Question EVERYTHING! Question history, question your government and especially your government agencies. Question your food supply and water supply and don’t be afraid to take personal action to ensure the health of yourself, your family and the ones you love. Your health is YOUR responsibility and no one elses. Do NOT entrust is to a person who simply has a “Dr.” in front of his name. He or she was trained and indoctrinated by the allopathic medical industry, totally funded by BIG PHARMA and their allies. Live life and prosper, naturally!
Jeff · November 27, 2016 at 6:53 am
I just finished my final chemo treatmeant for stage4 lung cancer which falls into a group of a 100 and more cancer types. I will say with all my treatment so far im shocked of what I have learned. I could go on and on but I will end with FOLLOW THE MONEY and you can get a good idea why there is not a cure for all cancers. And one more thing when you work for a company that invents products for many things one of the first things you sign in a form stating that you cannot profit or sale or tell anyone of what you have made or you will be sued,jailed,or both and I can promise you it will be both.
Zé do Rock · December 3, 2016 at 8:26 am
Hi Hulk,
I dont know if i’ll be arguing with some arguments to which maybe you replied already, but it would be a hell of a job to go through all those more than 200 comments.
I’m a brazilian writer living in Germany. And usually i’m not someone who drinks some sort of tea when he’s ill – usually when i’m ill, i go to the doctor and take the medicine he prescribes for me.
But some 3 years ago a friend of mine was diagnosed with a brain tumor, and when i saw how small the chances are to survive 5 years – 2% to 3% – i remembered that a friend of mine had sent me an article in a brazilian newspaper about graviola, an amazonic fruit that is supposed to have anti-cancer properties. I started looking for some evidence – if your chances to be cured with conventional medicine are so small, it cant do any damage to look for another solution. And i found out that this fruit has a north american relative called the paw paw fruit. I found 8 studdies, mostly made in the Perdue University in Indiana but also in other countries. They found out that bullatacine, which is found in the fruit, is an extreemly effective anti-cancer substance and virtually harmless (it causes some belly ache in some peeple). Then i came across mor than 150 substances, methods, diets and clinics that ar allegedly effectiv against cancer. I started reserching about them – looking for testimonials on youtube but also in cancer forums, and looking for studdies. I quikly found out that the grate majority of them wer ded ends, still mor than half a dozen seemd to be promising, for instance cannabis, macrobiotics (or at leest one macrobiotic diet), mistletoe, laetrile, paw paw.
I had herd from quite a few alternativ doctors or heelers (or „heelers“, if you prefer, but after all we dont know) that the 5-yeer survival rates ar around 30% or less, and i saw that the official statistics speek of something around 60%. I tried to find out how cancer survival statistics ar made, but the vice-president of the cancer statistical center in Munich told me that she doesnt know anything about statistics, and i should look someware else, for example at the NCI. She could hav connected me with a statistician in the house, but she seemd quite uncomfortable about it, and wanted to get rid of me as quikly as possible.
I started making my own statistics asking friends, friends of friends, aquaintances, asking in the cancer forums – altho in most forums they blokd me after minutes or hours, without any explanation. Thare was no propaganda in it, i was asking for the yeer of diagnosis, type of cancer, type of treetment (conventional or not, and if not, which one), and whether the patient was helthy, ill or ded after 5 yeers (or when the diagnosis was less than 5 yeers ago, how the person is doing now).
Meenwhile i hav 230 cancer cases in my database – it could be much mor, but many peeple dont like to talk about thare own diseese or the diseese of friends, eeven if anonymized. The survival rates for peeple who had conventional treetment only ar by 39% now (and i keep getting new cases, but it doesnt change much), which is better than what alternativ medicin advocates say, but cleerly worse than what the oficial statistics say. I guess that the difrence is partly due to the fact that my survival rates ar absolute while the oficial rates ar relativ (they „discount“ the peeple who’d die anyway), but this would make for at most 5% of the difrence. The other factor is that they count peeple that ar heeld by alternativ medicine as „heeld patients“, since „thare is no such a thing like alternativ medicin“.
Acording to my database, peeple who ar treeted with conventional AND alternativ medicin hav cleerly better chances: 57%. Refusers – the peeple who interrupt conventional treetment or dont eeven start with it – hav 85% survival chances, but this number isnt statisticly significant, since i hav just 14 cases. Still, in the dificult cases like brain, pancreas and lung cancer, the numbers of alternativ survivors ar mor or less the same as for conventional survivors, although i hav 15 times mor conventional patients in the database. 14 out of 15 „conventionals“ died, 2 out of 5 „alternativs“ died.
The meedia say that Steve Jobs could hav livd much longer, but eeven with his „mild“ type of pancreas cancer most peeple dont survive 5 yeers, and he survived 8 – and he didnt do any of the treetments i found out to be really efectiv.
Zé do Rock · December 3, 2016 at 8:27 am
For the 3 first arguments you giv, i hav just one answer, wich is not a statement but a possible explanation: i dont think thare ar a few string-pullers who know that thare ar good solutions but they want to sell thare fish. The medical establishment managed – i guess that that happend mor than 100 yeers ago, and it happend graddualy – to make universities teech that only prodducts from a farmaceutical lab can cure peeple (the new church and its pills say: I’m the way, the trueth and the life, no man cometh to heeling but by me). And eeven a big farma manager will go to a doctor and do wat he ses – doctors ar the peeple who know something about how to cure peeple – and they offen know indeed, but IF thare ar cures outside of what they’v lernd, they wont know it, and they dont want to know it. Wen i heer storys of peeple who cured themselvs with alternativ meens, it is almost always the same: the doctors say, „watever you’r doing, keep doing it!“ They dont say, „hay, thats fantastic, i hav to know evrything about it!“ Wy? Becaus, as you say, prestige is much mor important – not only for reserchers but also for doctors, and if they start prescribing parsly and tomatoes, they wont gane, they will lose a lot of prestige among thare colleagues and in the whole medical establishment – if they dont lose thare license. I know of two of thees doctors in Germany who ar serchd by the poleece and had to flee the country. The fact is: if you prescribe bananas agenst cancer and 9 of 10 patients survive, you’ll be prosecuted for the one who died, while if 10 of your patients di but you just did wat you lernd in scool, nothing will happen to you.
To point 4: you see sience evryware, i seprate cleerly between sience – reserchers – and the medical establishment – big farma, the industry of medical macheens, insurance companies (at leest in Germany, who make money with the disees), hospitals and doctors. Certanly thare is corruption in watever form in reserch too, but i can imagin that many reserchers hav an intrest for sience, and the mane ame of the business with sik peeple is making money. And offen it does work well: three yeers ago i was in Africa and got malaria. The doctor gave me a pil and a few days later i was cured (it came bak twice, but i was cured agen, with a pill developed from the plant artemisia). It is a simple deel: you ar ill and need to be cured, and the medical establishment has a prodduct that cures you – a win win situation. I see it as you see it. But with cancer it is a difrent story: it is a bisness of hundreds of billions of dollars evry yeer, mor than the gross national prodduct of ¾ of the countries in the world, and injecting a new cancer with the treetment you giv – surgery, cheemo and radiation all caus cancer – you can double the proffit. How can you make that money with a cure ware the cancer doesnt come bak?
Reserch is one thing: at leest 20 studdies showd that passiv smoking causes lung cancer, on the other hand 119 studdies didnt show it and some eeven showd the opposit (and wernt made by the tobacco industry, one has been made eeven by the WHO, the world central of the anti-tobacco war). But the medical establishment is something else: they say that „it has been proved that passiv smoking causes lung cancer “, and it is nowadays taut in scool as if it was a trueth like that the Erth is round. So i guess the reserchers didnt li, and the medical establishment didnt li properly, they just told the half trueth, or lets say 1/6 of the trueth, wich is a safe li becaus you cant call it a li. Big farma invests billions in campanes agenst thare competitors like tobacco, alcohol and cannabis – peeple arnt supposed to smoke or drink, they’r supposed to take antidepressants (offen with niccotine, but thats thare own niccotine), and since they offen make you get somehow slak (?), you need mood elevating drugs, and since both work on your stomac, you need pills for your stomac pane too. And you became the ideal client.
Zé do Rock · December 3, 2016 at 8:28 am
To point 5: It is a good argument somehow, but it doesnt work all the time at leest. Germany doesnt hav a socialized medicin as Cuba, but it is certanly much mor socialized than the US. I red a book written by an ex-member of parlament and helth expert, „Die Ware Gesundheit“, and this title is a pun: Die wahre Gesundheit (same pronunciation) would be ‚The tru helth‘, but ‚Die Ware Gesundheit‘ is „the ware helth“, „the prodduct helth“. He’s also a doctor and the book is a history of medicine since the old egiptians until today. Ending in the now and heer, and he ses that also insurance companies make a lot of money with the disees of other peeple, since they get money from pots from the government for the surgeries and treatments they pay, and offen it is mor than wat they pay to the hospitals. But OK, i cant tel much on how it is in the USA, for instance, or in other countries. And it is not eesy to explane wy Cuba, wich inst theoreticly influenced by big farma and alike, hav a rellativly conventional medicine for cancer, as far as i know. But thare is an explanation after all: a new government can just say to the experts, „doctors, do your best“. And they wil, no dout. But starting from wat they lernd, and they lernd wat the universities had been teeching befor the revolution, and it goes on forever.
A few days ago the CEO of a big insurance company (the german Tecnicians Insurance) confessd that his company tels the doctors: „If you ar in dout if the patient is helthy or il, plees write down that he’s il‘. And he sed that actualy he doesnt agree with that policy, but evry insurance company does it nowadays.
So wat can a government do? They will choos a helth minister, and he’l be someone who is reccognized by the medical establishment. They’l never appoint the ex-CEO of a tobacco company or a naturopath as helth minister, so evrything stays in the famly. So i dont think your logic is bad, but stil it doesnt hav to work necessarily. It is like with the WHO: How menny goverments would hav a reeson to think that evrything the WHO tels is a li? Wel, thare could be a reeson: 80% of the WHO budget comes from donations, and you can guess 3 times ware the bulk of thees donations come from. And the donators eeven can decide ware thare money should be used, it is very handy, isnt it?
Zé do Rock · December 3, 2016 at 8:29 am
Argument number 9 is also good, but then we come to cannabis or mistletoe: of course you can make some sinthetic stuf from it or take the substance you need and make a medicament of it. They do, although not for the purpose of fiting cancer. If cannabis was leegal and thare wer absolutely no leegal restrictions on it, it wouldnt be probbably much mor expensiv than parsly. You pay much mor wen you go to the ileegal drug mafia, becaus of the risk they run. Wen you go to the leegal drug mafia and buy cannabis in the farmacy, it is double as expensiv as wen you go to the ileegal drug mafia. Although thare is no risk. And stil, you can treet yourself with 500 or 600 euro a month, wile thare ar chemotherapeutic medicaments that cost 10 000 euro for a months treetment. But now imagin that a farmaceutical company spends menny millions for a clinical studdy and proves that thare cannabis medicament is efectiv agenst cancer. If that is proven, the governments cant go on forever with the ban on a substance that cures such a plague like cancer – they’v been doing it sometimes, but judges, who seemingly havnt been suficiently massaged by the lobby, hav mostly aquitted cancer patients that grow thare own stuf, especialy wen they cant pay the farmacy prices, and on the long run no government cant keep such an absurd situation, exept maybe in North Korea, but then this is the only country ware yu can smoke a cigar in a restaurant and then a joint. So the company could try to sel a monthly ration of cannabis pils for 10 000 euro, but who would buy it if ennyone could get it in the grocery stor for the same price as a dozen bananas? Or just grow it on thare balconies?
And this applies for mistletoe, laetrile and other stuf too: for laetrile yu dont hav to pay a single cent, yu buy for instance apricots, yu pay the price for the apricots and eet the kernels too. Although to avoid the cyanide in it yu mite prefer to buy an extract, eeven if after all it is probbably not mor poisonus than the arsenic yu get in your brekfast eg.
Kerry · December 17, 2016 at 8:45 pm
I really must disagree with this. The loss of jobs as well as the great loss of money is what keeps the cure, if there is one, locked away. Think about how many people would NOT have a job. How many industries built around cancer treatment would go out of business. Cancer research would not be needed. Just like the banks were to big to fail so is the cancer industry and big pharmaceutical. I can say this with experience of have cancer 3 times now and undergoing chemo. Do you know that the most used chemo drug is a spin off of mustard gas a military weapon? So since the 1950’s this is still the best they can do. How much money and how much research?
10 raisons qui montrent que les conspirationnistes du cancer ont sûrement tort | Associations Libres · July 6, 2015 at 6:43 pm
[…] Cet article est une traduction de l’article paru sur « The credible Hulk » le 2 juillet 2015 : 10 Reasons Why Hidden Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories Fail. […]
10 Reasons Why Hidden Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories Fail. | Kembang Gula · July 9, 2015 at 10:06 am
[…] this article was copied directly from 10 Reasons Why Hidden Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories Fail.. […]
Alert: Cure for Cancer Swept under the Rug by Big Pharma! | GULLIBLE LIVES MATTER · January 27, 2016 at 5:35 pm
[…] filled with complex sentences and big words? Find out five other reasons you’re wrong HERE and […]
10 Reasons that Hidden Cancer Treatment Conspiracy Theories Fail - Cancer Alternative Solutions · February 28, 2016 at 1:01 pm
[…] Source: http://www.crediblehulk.org […]
No Science, No Evidence, No Clue – Part 4 – Destroyed by Science · February 29, 2016 at 11:11 am
[…] count of this article to a TL;DR level, I’d like to link to this article by The Credible Hulk, ’10 Reasons Why Hidden Cancer Cure Conspiracies Fail’. […]
EU vote - open for comment - Page 14 - GT-R Register - Nissan Skyline and GTR Owners Club forum · March 19, 2016 at 8:34 pm
[…] 10 Reasons Why Hidden Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories Fail. ? The Credible Hulk __________________ […]
10 Cancer Cure Most Powerful | Mesotheliom Lawyer · April 21, 2016 at 10:14 am
[…] 10 Reasons Why Hidden Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories Fail … – Extremely popular on Facebook and other social media is the idea that a cure for cancer has been found but is being suppressed. The reason given for the suppression … […]
10 Cancer Cure Step | Mesotheliom Lawyer · May 15, 2016 at 10:04 am
[…] 10 Reasons Why Hidden Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories Fail … – Extremely popular on Facebook and other social media is the idea that a cure for cancer has been found but is being suppressed. The reason given for the suppression … […]
The miracle cure for cancer is not being hidden from you | Science Translation · June 1, 2016 at 9:18 pm
[…] 10 Reasons Why Hidden Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories Fail […]
Curing Rheumatoid Arthritis in Mice and Men | Rheumatoid Arthritis Warrior | RA Education | Rheumatoid Arthritis Warrior · August 2, 2016 at 4:57 pm
[…] Robert suggests there’s no progress in curing rheumatoid arthritis because there’s “too much money in treatment.” It reminds me of the many posts on social media claiming the cure for RA / RD is being hidden by pharma companies. We need to appreciate that cure-hiding conspiracies are often promoted by industries that make big bucks themselves. I don’t support cynicism on either side of the argument. Most conspiracy theories are silly because they’re just not logical or practically realistic. Here are 10 clear reasons why from The Credible Hulk. […]
Cancer Cure Naturally India · September 3, 2016 at 6:51 am
[…] 10 Reasons Why Hidden Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories Fail … – Jul 02, 2015 · Extremely popular on Facebook and other social media is the idea that a cure for cancer has been found but is being suppressed. The reason given for the … […]
Cancer The Other Cure · September 3, 2016 at 4:41 pm
[…] 10 Reasons Why Hidden Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories Fail … – Extremely popular on Facebook and other social media is the idea that a cure for cancer has been found but is being suppressed. The reason given for the suppression … […]
Comments are closed.