Why isn't finding the cure for CANCER more important for the world than Climate Change?
If the whole world agreed on finding a cure for Cancer, would that be a better avenue for the world to take than what they have now on Climate Control? Just a thought.
There's a theory that they've found the cure for cancer, but it will never be available to the masses because the pharmaceutical industry makes billions a year from selling medicine.
There's no incentive to find the "cure" for the many diseases we call cancer, because treating it is so lucrative. One look at my oncologist's swanky new offices will tell you there's big money to be made off people who have cancer.
Lisa, hard to believe but I totally agree with you.
Poppy, The goal of a business is to maximize profits. Medical patents for ex. protect R&D costs but they impede progress in cures because other research can't use that protected advance.
I imagine if a cure existed, which it doesn't according to my sister who is a pharmacologist living with breast cancer for 20 years, the pharmaceutical company that discovered it would make billions from the patented rights to manufacture the drug.
Based on my experience it is far more likely the Pharmas push doctors to use their drugs. Pharma does not make money on visits. My inkling is to agree with you Glenis. We might have to make a payment plan but would pay 1,000s extra for a cure for me.
That's more than a theory, but it is half the story, one has to research how the corporations, food industry, and big pharma, control the FDA, CDC, ACA, etc. to understand the very ugly and frightening bigger picture.
Finding the cure for cancer is not as easy as it sounds. In part, there are various forms of cancer with different ailments, causes (such as exposure to the sun, a virus, x-rays, genetics), treatments, etc... Also, there are common ones and rare forms; aggressive or easily treatable. Even the advent of climate change can be an instrument of causing certain forms of cancer. To succinctly state it, there's no one-size-fits-all for cancer. Climate change on the other hand may not have as many components to consider. There can be a few things that can change. Also it poses a immediate concern with long-term effects that can affect generations for centuries to come.
Dean. We have made a major medical cure in the last 60 plus years. It was difficult getting a man on the moon with low technology, but we did it. All the medical industry has done on cancer is to increase the number of cancer specialties. imo Thx
"Climate change on the other hand may not have as many components to consider." You are right Dean, we have NO control over the intensity of the Sun's magnetic field, or solar flares, or the earth's tilt, or shifting magnetic field.
That's an old argument that had been debunked as a misinterpretation of data. While the suns growth may cause warming over a period of time, it doesn't account for the rapid acceleration in the last 200 years. I suggest more on magnetic poles.
A cure for cancer isn't going to do us much good if the planet becomes uninhabitable.
Also, although people talk about "a cure for cancer" like it's one cure, cancer is a blanket term for multiple, very different conditions. A cure for adenocarcinoma, the cancer I had, is not a cure for melanoma, or leukemia. The cure for prostate cancer is not the cure for breast cancer. It will take multiple cures to wipe out cancer.
I think there is no argument in the scientific community that cancer is indeed real. The reality of the other one is still being debated by scientists and others.
It will take a non profit approach to make any cures, imo
In the scientific community Climate change is real. Only for people who believe in alternative facts Climate Change does not exists.
Climate Change is just as real as cancer.
There is no proof that the scientific community agrees that it is real. It is like actors in Hllywd if they want to work they side with Democrats. If a scientist wants funding they have to say they believe in climate change.
Brad, think global, not local. If a Norwegian scientist is studying Climate change he/she is not interested in the views of the American Democratic or Republican Party.
Science is objective. Or is gravity a hoax too?
I'm sorry, but I don't want to see our medical community start "adjusting" data or making corrections to real test results just to fit their narrative. The Climate Change crowd spends too much time and money trying to make things "fit" their narrative instead of letting actual results speak for themselves.
Also, money, money, money...
Ralph, That wasn't my point because that already exists in the medical industry. My comparison was to the unification of the issue that the world would focus on in unison. Certainly, not in the mechanism employed by the Climate Change org. Thx
Maybe the "climate change crowd" fits their narrative and politicians certainly do. Scientists don't as there is always another scientist who will point the error.
That's why science is objective. And if there is a huge consensus about climate chang
You have many types of Cancer, some are curable, others aren't (at the moment).
Although it is hard to compare the two with each other one thing you can say is this :
The problem(and often deadly) of the illness cancer only affects people who have cancer. The problem of climate changes effects everybody and the generations to come.
So it's entirely justified that climate change is high on the agenda by world leaders and cancer is not. The problem with climate change is that it is a worldly problem not a national one. And world leaders have the tendency to protect their own country and think "local".
Many scientists all over the world are working on cures for cancer and a lot has changed the last 50 years since science progressed.
But at the same time over the last 50 years the population on earth has tripled from 2.5 billion to 7.5 billion in 2017. This has an enormous impact on the environment.
It is clear that so many people have an impact and cause many problems, problems that will have effects on generations to come.
Isn't it logical to invest and trying to tackle all these problems. The problems are huge (top of my head : sea level rising, dessert forming, lack of proper drinking water, CO2, food, meat industry (methane production), rice paddies (methane production), migration.) and they all need international collaboration.
These problems connected with global warming are far bigger then one single decease.
There is no reason to believe that climate control is even definable much less solvable. When has man ever been able to do better by trying to make changes. It is possible that any change made by man to alter the environment will make it worst.
People can change and they do. People can stop smoking, knowing that it causes cancer (thanks to scientific research). People can stop slavery if laws are made.
There are lots of world wide changes possible with knowledge and laws.
If we don't stop climate change there will come a time when finding cures for disease is irrelevant. But I don't accept the premise that the movers and shakers of the world prioritise one problem over the other. What evidence is there to indicate that this is the case?
What makes ANYONE think that the "cure" for cancer has not been found yet?
Oh, of course, the mainstream media and the fact that we still have a booming cancer industry involving cancer hospitals, oncologists, cancer drugs, Macmillan Cancer Support, "cancer research" charities such as Cancer Research UK, etc...
There are TWO MAIN ways of getting information about something: From
1) controlled sources (mainstream TV, radio, newspapers and publications, and listening to clinicians), where there’s an agenda to keep the public misinformed and in ignorance. One just has to listen to a selection of news channels to hear the same narrative put out via all channels as if the newsreaders are reading from the same script.
or 2) alternative independent sources for alternative views (by conducting independent research and scouring the public domains, such as, but not limited to, the internet and published/unpublished research papers).
Obviously, one has to use one's own judgement when accessing information on any topic. It is not wise to believe anything one has read/heard until it has been backed up by other reports and evidence. Triangulation is key to having some confidence that what one reads/hears is actually true. Believing EVERYTHING that comes out of mainstream TV, radio and publications (and clinicians) is FOLLY and it allows those in power to control our thoughts and feelings.
"HEALTHCARE" IS BIG BUSINESS. It pays to have a sick population. Where's the money to be made if we are all fit and healthy? What would happen to hospitals, clinics, medical/dental practices, research institutes, Big Pharma, pharmacies, regulatory bodies, employees,.. if we were all well? Health centres would close and many more people would be out of work.
A MULTI-BILLION POUND INDUSTRY has been built up around "cancer" since about WWI. It is interesting to note that cancer has been increasing rapidly since about that time and yet was relatively unheard of in the west prior to that. In fact, THERE ARE COMMUNITIES around the world which DO NOT NEED A HEALTH SERVICE, because THE POPULATIONS ARE HEALTHY!
One has a choice: to BELIEVE what is put out via mainstream channels, where WE ARE TOLD that ALL THAT CAN POSSIBLY BE DONE is BEING DONE to find “a cure for cancer” and that NO CURE has yet been found OR to carry out RESEARCH FOR OURSELVES via the alternative channels available to us. Go on! RESEARCH! Just type in keywords and speak to people who have cured themselves.
So what is your view towards Climate change? You forgot that part.
I work in media, spent most of my career in senior management, know hundreds of people at dozens of outlets and have never heard of any "agenda".
Except from Fox News and Breitbart.
Thank you Peter... my views on so called "Climate Change" have already been aired in response to another question on this site - "Is Global Warming Fact or Hoax?" The key is to carry out thorough independent research using many alternative sources an
I answered this in another thread, to a certain degree.
As for Climate Change, that is partly answered here .https://hubpages.com/politics/Explaining-the-Climate-Change-Hoax-and-why-the-Paris-Accord-was-a-faux
The truth about Cancer is even scarier than the truth about the corruption with our long tenured politicians in D.C. and how Congress answers to seemingly everyone who has enough money to hire a lobbyist, and is concerned for everyone's welfare EXCEPT for the American citizens they are supposed to SERVE.
The FDA knows things, the CDC knows things, the ACA knows things, all the major government agencies and non-profits that are supposed to be informing and protecting American citizens are doing the opposite, they are deceiving, keeping information from, and outright allowing Americans to be poisoned with the worst food imaginable.
These are things any truly interested person can find out for themselves, just by looking to see who sponsors the ACA (American Cancer Association), or reviewing who is head of the FDA and what their background is.
For example Michael R. Taylor the current FDA director, from 1981 - 1991 Taylor worked in private law practice at King & Spalding, one client was the biotechnology company Monsanto. He established and led the firm's food and drug law practice.
Do you know what Monsanto is? If so, you probably know that anyone who has spent the better part of his adult life defending and aiding Monsanto is essentially the last person you want in control of the FDA.
He basically was responsible for the 1958 federal law that prohibits any carcinogenic chemical from being added to foods being struck down.
He signed a guidance that milk from cows treated with BGH did not have to be labeled as such.
He has single handedly been the major power in government (FDA) since 1991 that has blocked all protections for the American people against GMOs. That is over 25 years! Imagine how much damage a person who directly or indirectly controlled the FDA's policies and procedures can accomplish in 25 years.
They aren't trying to FIND a cure for cancer, they are feeding the American population nearly every type of chemical and vitamin/nutrient deprived food that they can that they KNOW is linked directly to the cause of cancer and other severe diseases/disabilities. And they silence through the courts, and by destroying careers, those scientists and businesses that try to stand up against this.
It's far easier to rant against Trump, and blame him for all the world's woes, than to directly confront reality.
by Mikel G Roberts 9 years ago
Are Antineoplastons the cure to cancer?From Wiki:Antineoplaston (ANP), a word derived from neoplasm, is a name coined by Stanislaw Burzynski for a group of peptides, derivatives, and mixtures that he uses as an alternative cancer treatment. These compounds are not licensed as drugs but are instead...
by Sychophantastic 6 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not ............................................................. 51%Not sure...
by SportsBetter 6 years ago
Is global warming and climate change an important issue, or is it a hoax?I know there is much talk about climate change issues. I also know that various people profit off of these concerns, and the media certainly promotes theses issues as well. So a question needs to be asked, is...
by Kenna McHugh 2 years ago
The Sun actually has something to do with the Climate Changehttps://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016 … ge-retrea/
by Jack Lee 5 years ago
Recently, Doc Snow and I decided to each create a hub on the topic of "How accurate are climate change predictions." Here are our opposing hubs - http://hubpages.com/education/Climate-C … e-Are-Theyhttp://hubpages.com/politics/Climate-Ch … hey-ReallyWe are asking people to...
by PeterStip 6 years ago
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate warming up..Why still argue ?There is a 99% Probability that Manmade Emissions Have Caused Climate ChangeWhy do we still debate if there is a climate change at all ?
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|