What they won't tell you...

Not exactly. There are reliable and effective treatments for a few specific cancers

works well on testicular cancer, as Lance Armstrong (and at least one of our friends) testified.

Others keep on showing up. Nuclear fusion is a very specific problem and cancer is just a grab-bag of a few of the ways that human genome can get screwed up as it gets copied from cell to cell during routine maintenance.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I lost my mother to caner over 30 years ago, and they were telling us that a new treatment was almost ready for human testing. It's probably still waiting to be useful.

The gross structure of DNA was discovered in 1953. CRISPR was discovered in 2012. 90% of childhood leukemias are cured. Gene therapy is now being used to cure disease. Things are progressing.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

But Sylvia does not have the clue to notice.

t e

ly

Which has taken a while to lead to anything remotely useful.

And may have a couple of very specific applications by now. It's unlikely t o cure your cancer.

It's a rare disease

stics

20 per 100,000 in the 0-4 age group and 10 per 100,000 in the 5 to 14 age g roup.

The kids make affecting images for the fund raising drives, so it gets more attention than is strictly cost effective.

Sometimes. It's unlikely to cure your cancer.

Not all that fast. Heart and circulatory diseases are now better controlled than they used to be so you have a better chance of surviving until cancer catches up with you, or your mitochondria stop working (which is what seem s to finish the people who get older than 110 or so).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

It's you and John Larkin who are clueless suckers for medical propaganda. Sylvia does seem to have some capacity for critical thinking, which both of you totally lack.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I strongly suspect the 'magic bullet' exists out there somewhere and has for some time: a *cure* for cancer with little or no side-effects. But it's not in 'their' interests to announce it, much less make it available. Far more money to be made from extended treatment programs than cures! Keep the cure for the well-in elite only.

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of  
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet  
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

The rearrangement of the outermost *valence* electrons (unless you're talking about nuclear reactions.)

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of  
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet  
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

You're cracked.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

+1

She is right about chemotherapy; it's mostly brutal trial-and-error poisoning. She seems pessimistic about progress, and she may be right. It might take 100 years to to really understand cell mechanics; I hope it's sooner. There would have to be a quantum jump in technology... maybe literally "quantum."

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

There are many kinds of cancer, probably with many different causes, so a magic bullet probably doesn't exist.

But

That would be impossible to keep secret.

Nobody has ever supressed a major medical discovery, as far as I know. Lots of money would be made if cheap antibiotics or BP pills had been supressed, but they weren't.

Rich and powerful people die of cancer too.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

On Dec 16, 2017, Sylvia Else wrote (in article ):

It?s a bit more subtle than that. I follow the literature. The standard research report article says something like: We compared treatments A and B (A being the current best choice), and B is one of the following: B is worse than A, B is no better than A, B is 10% better than A in total survival, and sometimes B is better than A but too expensive for the improvement. Treatments can be surgery, drugs, radiation, et al.

If B is at least 10% better, it usually becomes the new current best choice, and the cycle repeats, forever. In US Football terms, three yards and a cloud of dust. Those marginal improvements accumulate over time into substantial net improvements. But the total improvement is never in the headlines.

Joe Gwinn

But chemotherapy isn't the only treatment for cancer, and lots of advances have been made in the treatment, in the diagnosis and even in the prediction of cancer. Early diagnosis or even treatment before actual illness occurs makes treatment easier and more effective.

That would not be possible without progress in the research of cell and genome biology.

There are treatments that are known to have had successes but aren't genera lly used. The violet ray on skin cancer, and the more extreme approach of [ accidental] direct lightning strike has cleared people of cancer before.

I dislike the term 'suppressed' because it's next to impossible to remove i nformation from the world, therefore the odds of it happening are close to zero. What has been done many times is to demonise & misinform about method s that threaten profit margins - the violet ray is a classic example of thi s.

NT

e

the whole point about badmouthed but effective treatments is that they aren 't financially profitable.

Warts & verrucas are easily eliminated by applying a drop of household blea ch every day or 2. The treatment is effective, the risk is near zero and it takes almost zero time & zero cost. Yet the NHS continues to use cryothera py, which is many times as expensive, slow, painful and causes injury. Ther e is no money to be made from selling a few drops of unpatentable bleach, s o no-one puts money into a big trial or promotes it.

they also follow the money. And in the great majority of cases don't unders tand the realities or implications of what they're involved in.

NT

Freeze spray on a q-tip works fine, and is cheap.

Dermatologists use liquid nitrogen spray. I had a skin cancer once. My GP saw it, called the "roaming dermatologist" who showed up in 5 minutes, sprayed me, and left. Cost zero, pain trivial, cancer gone.

The advantage over do-it-yourself bleach is that he knew that it wasn't a melanoma; I could miss that and be dead.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

the

has

ren't financially profitable.

leach every day or 2. The treatment is effective, the risk is near zero and it takes almost zero time & zero cost. Yet the NHS continues to use cryoth erapy, which is many times as expensive, slow, painful and causes injury.

Sounds like you're confusing quite different things, wart with cancer and d iagnosis with treatment.

NT

In old days they'd probably let an old soldier go "Once more unto the breach, dear friends."