re: 12 year worldwide meta-analysis study revealed Chemotherapy has a 97% failure rate.

quote:

---

know two researchers that both found cures for cancer but when they presented their findings they were told to bury them

---

No you don't

BTW do you really it's "too profitable" for insurance companies? It costs them billions annually.

the808bass killed the retard logic earlier

If there was a cure for cancer it would PRINT money.

There is a recent "cure" for obesity and look at how much money those GLP-1s are making.

quote:

---

I know two researchers that both found cures for cancer but when they presented their findings they were told to bury them...cancer is too profitable.

---

I have a close friend who underwent an experimental trial for Stage 4 lymphoma along with 100 other trial patients 24 months ago. He had 4 months to live when he started but the medicine combination they gave him was so effective that he was cancer free after 6 months and has not had any remission since. He said the doctors at MD Anderson said every patient was lymphoma free after this trial treatment. It is currently going through all of the FDA bureaucratic procedures to get approval right now. It cost him $1.9 million to pay for this experimental trial treatment process.

If they're right, that family member lived in spite of the chemo.

quote:

---

What’s the failure rate on thoughts and prayers ?

---

Shockingly better than chemo.

97% failure rate seems mathematically impossible.

statistically, would doctors not push other forms of treatments if 97% is the number?

quote:

---

Ailsa Twitter link

---

John Barron.

I’m guessing it’s ValerieAnneSmith1970

quote:

---

This is the dumbest shite. So they let relatively young folks die rather quickly instead of drawing out the treatment for years and actually making more money? Seems like if they “cure” the able bodied people of cancer with these hidden cures they could then profit off of other maladies or relapses, etc.

---

Yes, if you're looking just at the crass financial motives, living people allow you to generate RVU's and dead people don't. Others have said more or less this & that effective treatments are also bankable (except for extremely rare diseases whose treatments don't have cross-disease treatment potential), but what I should add because it’s easy to miss in conversations like this is that oncologists don’t actually use “cure” as their main benchmark & not because they’re cynical, but because cancer isn’t a single enemy you defeat once. It’s more like a whole ecosystem of diseases that behave differently and change over time.

If you look at medical history, progress against cancer looks less like a movie climax and more like a long engineering project. Mortality has been falling for decades. Treatments that used to be devastating are often more targeted. Some cancers that were once quick death sentences are now managed for years or decades.

It’s a bit like heart disease - nobody talks about how we're either suppressing (or have found) “the cure for heart disease”, but we generally all recognize that fewer people are dying because of incremental advances that quietly accumulated, so slowly that you mostly didn't notice it happening.

There’s something almost tragicomic about it - there is no dramatic moment where someone announces victory, just thousands of clinicians and researchers modestly nudging survival curves year after year while most of the public understandably wishes for a clean breakthrough.

The real story isn’t suppression. It’s slow progress that doesn’t make headlines because it arrives a few percentage points at a time. That leaves things open for grift/ghoulposting however (also tragicomic ).