How is it...

That we have landed on the moon, inveted so many things, created life saving things but not discovered a cure for canser yet... Do you think they have but are keeping it hush?

Yes they do have a cure, but pharmaceutical companies are making so much money off of treatments for cancer that they won't allow a cure to pass.

wow is that true. I never thought of it that way. is there proof of this or is this an obsefrvtion. just curious. if it is true, thats so horrible that they would let sooo many people slowly die day by day from cancer and for what just to make them money. ha. thats so ridiculous. I would never have even thought that there would be so many people willing to let 3 and 4yr olds and people of all ages die and not lend a hand when possible becuase they are so money hungry. ugh. this makes me sick. I cant even fathom what it could be like to be so cruel for my own benifit. cancer is really bad in my family. my uncle just died last weekend from cancer and he was on hospus for a week and a half before he was finally put to rest and stop suffering. my best friend got bone cancer about 3 years agoa and went through chemo and all that and its so horrible and hard on them. anyways she beat it that time and about a month or two ago and they found something in her lungs which has already been taken out. but there definetly are nooo guarentees. or what the cure. but people care more about making money than saving lives. haaha. so ridiculous. I wish I could get my hands on one of them.

~wow is that true~

I'll be honest - there's no hard evidence that it's true, but there is enough controversy regarding it to make people actually pay attention to it. There has been proof of cancer-fighting drugs, but they don't cost as much as chemotherapy and other cancer treatments, which means less money for pharmaceutical companies. The question is, since these things have been discovered, why are they not in use? It's only common sense.

We live in a cold, hard world where money is the Lord.

this is a silly argument. pharmaceutic companies want to find a cure for cancer because they would change the entire medical industry of how to treat cancer. all the money being made now by pharmaceutical companies are with sub-optimal drugs. As soon as the first one hits the market, the company that makes the savior drug will jump into the stratosphere in marker value. So, no, the pharmaceutical companies are keeping nothing secret. There is no cure for cancer because we have not figured out a way to target out therapy to cancer cells only. As such, both cancer and healthy cells die. A drug that can differentiate between the a cancer cell and a healthy cell will dominate the market. it hasn't been found yet.

Being able to accomplish one marvelous engineering challenge (going to the moon) doesn't mean we ought to be able to accomplish another biological one (curing cancer).

Part of the reason there's no cure for cancer is that cancer isn't just one disease - it's many related ones. Here's an excellent short description of why there will never be a cure for cancer - in comic form! http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1162

All that stuff about pharmaceutical companies not allowing cancer cures is BS...the fact is there is no cure for cancer yet but with stem cells and other forms of research, cancer too will eventually become curable.

Beating cancer is like hacking away at the sun with a rusty spoon. It'll eventually work but it's going to take a long time. Going to the moon isn't such a big achievement anymore, and when scientists beat cancer everyone will be going, why didn't we see that before?, it's so trivial! However if scientists could create a mild form of cancer then the human race could become immortal. Cool ,oui?

Fun mail me and I will give you a very interesting link that I am not allowed to post here. BTW an old but very informative book (if you can find it any more): The Cancer Industry'

They almost never cure any degenerative disease. If they can kill it or cut it out then great, but if they can't reach it or if it just grows back then they have no idea what to do. I'm sure they're trying; it'd make a lot of money if they found a cure.

Cancer rates were far lower 100+ years ago. In spite of the myth most people were still living to 70 or 80 and were old enough to get cancer or w/e; the average life expectancy was just lower because so many people died as kids. Since then we've added a lot of carcinogens to our environment and food, and are eating less cancer preventers. Pesticides have been compared to nuclear radiation in terms of carcinogenic effect. In fact, people who have moved back to Chernobyl have much lower cancer rates than people living in the United States. I got that info from an American who works in Chernobyl all the time without worry, and witnesses the residents first hand. I assume he looked up the numbers too.

If you want to do something in the meantime, eat your veggies like the American Cancer Society says and avoid eating or exposing yourself to chemicals.

***Cancer rates were far lower 100+ years ago. In spite of the myth most people were still living to 70 or 80 and were old enough to get cancer or w/e; the average life expectancy was just lower because so many people died as kids.***

What's your source? We don't have reliable data on cancer rates going back that far, as far as I know; certainly in recent times cancer rates have only fallen.

***If you want to do something in the meantime, eat your veggies like the American Cancer Society says and avoid eating or exposing yourself to chemicals.***

Oh, veggies are full of chemicals. So is everything else. Because EVERYTHING is a chemical.

It's been a long time since I saw the graphs of cancer rates, I think in a library book. Go look it up. As for life expectancy, I've seen dozens of historical sources, even ancient ones, putting the typical death age around there. Just check the ages of anyone at all in history to see.

As for chemicals, don't be stupid. If you can't understand variations in meaning of the same word then don't bother communicating with others.

***It's been a long time since I saw the graphs of cancer rates, I think in a library book. Go look it up.***

Actually, you're the one making claims unsubstantiated by any evidence - it's your job to prove them if you want anyone to believe you.

***As for chemicals, don't be stupid. If you can't understand variations in meaning of the same word then don't bother communicating with others.***

My point is that the term 'chemicals', used to refer generically to bad stuff, is a completely meaningless term. How do you avoid exposing yourself to chemicals when nobody can provide a clear definition of what constitutes a chemical, except the widely accepted term, which is ALL MATTER?