If there was a cure then there would be no cancer, right?

I am a firm believer there is a few cures yes, but the govt is so money run why give us something to save lives theyll lose a ton of money.

Post this in the conspiracy forum bud

Shiv wrote If there was a cure then there would be no cancer, right?

He doesn't mean it that way lol.

What he means is, have the government or a private company already discovered the cure for cancer and are they withholding it from the public? There's lots of reasons as to why they would do this, mainly because they raise millions every year in cancer funding and they see cancer as population control.

I'm not really sure about this one. On one hand there's blatant population control that we see everyday in not enough funding going to poor countries like Africa and very little technology used to prevent drink driving or mandatory seat belt wearing when in a car.

I highly doubt that we'll ever know in this lifetime but the chances are pretty high that there's already been a cure discovered.

Motivational wrote

Shiv wrote If there was a cure then there would be no cancer, right?

He doesn't mean it that way lol.

What he means is, have the government or a private company already discovered the cure for cancer and are they withholding it from the public? There's lots of reasons as to why they would do this, mainly because they raise millions every year in cancer funding and they see cancer as population control.

I'm not really sure about this one. On one hand there's blatant population control that we see everyday in not enough funding going to poor countries like Africa and very little technology used to prevent drink driving or mandatory seat belt wearing when in a car.

I highly doubt that we'll ever know in this lifetime but the chances are pretty high that there's already been a cure discovered.

Totally agree with you on this one. However I never thought about 'population control' before- interesting!

Motivational wrote

Shiv wrote If there was a cure then there would be no cancer, right?

He doesn't mean it that way lol.

What he means is, have the government or a private company already discovered the cure for cancer and are they withholding it from the public? There's lots of reasons as to why they would do this, mainly because they raise millions every year in cancer funding and they see cancer as population control.

I'm not really sure about this one. On one hand there's blatant population control that we see everyday in not enough funding going to poor countries like Africa and very little technology used to prevent drink driving or mandatory seat belt wearing when in a car.

I highly doubt that we'll ever know in this lifetime but the chances are pretty high that there's already been a cure discovered.

On the population control. Send the money to africa and it just goes into the pockets of corrupt officials. If each country used the money right I am sure there wouldn't be anywhere near as much poverty. Also population control via drink driving and mandatory seat belt driving. wot.

People drink driving has nothing to do with population control its just people being idiots. Adding breathalyzers to every car isn't really feasible from any standpoint and there are certainly situations where you don't want to be wearing a seatbelt in a car. People dying through stupidity isn't population control.

Also, cure for cancer. Big topic and I understand the reasoning behind the conspiracy however every cancer is different, and every cancer requires an individual cure. I highly doubt there is 100% cure out there. There are certainly ways to treat and people have been cured but I don't think there is some magic medicine which is gonna cure you right now. Immunotherapy is pretty promising and is likely gonna be one of the major treatments for cancers in the next couple of decades or so. I doubt we will be using chemotherapy within the next 30 years outside of very specialised cases.

Also, if a company did have a cure for cancer, just imagine how much money they would make from patenting it and selling it to other companies. They would likely instantly become one of the richest companies in the world. They could within reason charge what they like, people would take out a second mortgage if it meant they could cure themselves or their family. So I think financially holding onto a cure doesn't make any sense either.

GiveMeRep4free wrote Also population control via drink driving and mandatory seat belt driving. wot.

People drink driving has nothing to do with population control its just people being idiots. Adding breathalyzers to every car isn't really feasible from any standpoint and there are certainly situations where you don't want to be wearing a seatbelt in a car. People dying through stupidity isn't population control.

I assumed that people would know what I meant when I typed this, I'll explain it below though.

I was implying was that with all the new technology, it wouldn't be hard to have a sensor in each seat (mainly the driver's seat) and unless the driver was wearing their seltbelt, the engine can't start and the car wont move. This means that everyone would be guaranteed to be wearing a seatbelt for any car that was on the road. I'm aware that there's already something similar to this in place but it's nowhere near as effective, it just bleeps for a couple of seconds and makes an annoying sound and then it eventually turns off.

Speed control too. Do you think it work be hard to place a chip in new cars and a chip in every speed sign, so when the car goes past the speed limit sign, the car''s maximum speed is adjusted to that sign and the driver can't go over that speed? That would pretty much eliminate speeding completely and stop lots of death. It wont ever be implemented though mainly due to costs, however people are already paying thousands of dollars/pounds for a car so it's not that big of an issue. It's mainly due to population control.

As far as drink driving goes, it would be possible to have a breathalyser in the car or some sort of built in test to tell if someone is intoxicated or not. This would stop drink driving completely because if you can't pass the breathalyser then you can't drive. And anyone who's sober can pass a breathalyser. Of course this would be pretty annoying to do every-time you entered the vehicle so I assume it would need to be adjusted, e.g only necessary at weekends and past 6PM or something like that. It's not a perfect idea but it would certainly decrease drink driving deaths and I'm sure with some work it could be plausible.

I'm obviously not an expert in this but if an average person like myself can come up with some decent ideas to prevent road deaths in under five minutes, I expect that a team of professionals could do a lot better and make something that actually works.

All cancer is damaged DNA that has led to cell division that also managed to bypassed the normal cellular controls and also has the possibility of spreading to nearby tissues. Once we learn how to eliminate damaged cells or stop our bodies from allowing cell division to occur with damaged cells then we've successfully cured cancer.

Immunotherapy is used to increase the body's immune system to prevent any cancer from forming. So this isn't isn't a method used for one specific cancer, it's mainly used to try and prevent cancer as a whole. There is different variations of Immunotherapy though, some being more effective against different cancers than others but the original idea still implies.

GiveMeRep4free wrote Also, if a company did have a cure for cancer, just imagine how much money they would make from patenting it and selling it to other companies. They would likely instantly become one of the richest companies in the world. They could within reason charge what they like, people would take out a second mortgage if it meant they could cure themselves or their family. So I think financially holding onto a cure doesn't make any sense either.

Firstly, you can't patent medical treatment or a discovery. So the company that finds the cure for cancer wouldn't be rich by any means, other companies would copy their method and all cancer funding would likely cease to exist within ten years.

A small private company isn't going to find the cure for cancer anyway, it's by no means easy to find a cure for cancer, especially without a huge amount of money to pay for experiments and tests. If a company has already found the cure for cancer (or if they do) it'll be an already extremely wealthy company and they'd prefer to make millions every year from funding than release a cure for it to be stolen.

i think there is and the government is too money hungry to release the cure, i heard this quote from family guy but its true. "Why cure someone of cancer in a day when you can treat them for a lifetime and bill every step along the way"

I havnt checked other comments, There are tons of cures out there with cbd oils certain diets the reason there isn't any major cures is down to the government, they would loose tons and tons of money if they brought out the right cures it's not profitable give it 20 years and cancer won't be a thing.