I respected your post up until the accusation of a conspiracy theory being touted. There is nothing conspiratorial about acknowledging the connection between big pharma and their efforts to suppress any info that could potentially put a dent in their quarterly earnings. If you can't see that, then I don't what to tell you. There are plenty of documentaries that cover this on depth.
Not denying that big pharma have their profit motives. Although if there was a cure for cancer that big pharma knew about, it would be out there.
Top executives, senior researchers and board members of the pharmaceutical industry have died of cancer. Faced with
death, they would seek a cure, and would not have died. No one dies for the profits of some company.
Also, to be clear my interests on the subject have nothing to do with emotional attachments that would cloud judgement. It is simply an interest relating to my prior occupation.
I'm not saying yours necessarily was, it's just something lots of people are affected very deeply on a personal level by. These people go on to produce documentaries, make videos and everything else.
Cancer can be defeated by your body in some cases, but trying to tell people with terminal cancer that eating more greens could save their lives is just plain offensive. My grandmother is dying from cancer, she has the healthiest diet I know of. She's done the whole 5 fruit/veg thing a day for the last 6 years. She never drank. She never smoked. She has cancer.
If you think that eating well will protect you, then great - but you can get cancer whether you eat well or terribly. All that eating well will do is potentially reduce your chances.
I'm not sure what you mean when u say most diets have been debunked... I'm not even talking about a diet, rather just the way you eat. To me the term diet implies one of these fad diets that try to narrowly describe what one should eat. There is no one size fits all solution for how you should eat, but the vid I posted above is a good place to start. From there it should be adjusted for you lineage and goals. Everyone is different. Also, there was no scientific evidence that food would cure her of her disease yet, IT DID. Do you think that doctors have not seen that vid yet still go through the same protocols they always have when a patient walks in with her very same condition? Doctors do not have the freedom to actually practice medicine, only approved protocols. Food is obviously an effective treatment yet there is nobody in the medical community rushing to disperse this info to the masses. Hmmm wonder why? Healthy food isnt patentable, so I'm not sure why you would be confused as to why no one is trying.
When I say diets I mean lifestyle changes, not a fad diet. I mean the diet you consume on a day-to-day basis throughout your life. The papers come out every day and tell you what fruit/veg will stop you getting cancer.
Millions is spent researching such things. Plenty of fruit/veg do reduce free radicals in your body and reduce the chance of you getting cancer, I completely agree.
A healthy diet does reduce your chances of getting cancer.
What I entirely disagree with is saying that changing someone's diet can cure what's already there.
Science has repeatedly proven that no diet change can affect the spread of cancer, beyond starving yourself (& hence the cancer cells) which will slow their growth, but lead to your death anyway.
Also, to try to put a percentage of 35% on how much a good diet could affect your chances of getting cancer is an exercise in futility. Which diet are you referring to with this percentage? How long was the diet adhered to? Who were the test subjects? How in the fuck was it measured at all? Was the diets effects on other contributing factors taken into consideration? This isn't a math equation, and it can't be calculated in such terminology. Not saying the data you referenced is useless just that you are misinterpreting it.
That's not what I meant, what I mean is that 35% of cancers causes are put down to bad diet/obesity. I.e. their root cause is someone spending their entire life eating like shit, or being obese.
I'm surprised so many marketers are unable to see the forrest for the trees on this subject. There is an obvious motive (multiple actually) to not promote using food for preventative treatment, and to throw the term conspiracy theory on there is sign of weak argument. People always use that term as a sort of general classifying of people to discredit them. It's weak sauce.
If there were legit treatments out there, there would be studies. There would be peer reviewed data showing it.
There are cancer charities out there with
millions to spend. They are not involved in big pharma. If they thought there was a cancer cure, they would be investigating it. They would be doing the studies to show that eating some magic bean cures your cancer.
As far as I know, the Cancer Research director's haven't been murdered yet, either.
You can thank government intervention in the medical market from slowing down innovation to a crawl.
Completely agree. The whole shit about people who are terminally ill not being able to buy phase I trial drugs and stuff showing potential is plain wrong too. If you're going to be dead in a matter of weeks, and are willing to take the risks, you should be able to.
