More useless cancer research

2 million dollars is supposed to help scientist to develop new cancer drugs. That’s not a bad amount to do something completely useless. It never stops to suprise me how much money is spent for cancer research and how absent any positive results are. No serious scientist would keep going with something that obviously doesn’t work. Because then you make a fool of yourself as a scientist. But cancer researchers don’t care about that, as long as they get their millions of dollars in grants.

“Australian Synchrotron director Andrew Peele said the new detector would ultimately lead to the development of new cancer drugs.” I’m sure it’s a really nice toy and it might even lead to the developmen tof new cancer drugs, but will it do any good for the cancer patients? That’s the question that should be answered. And considering the abysmal failure to cure cancer patients you can be sure that these 2 million dollars will also disappear again in the bottomless pit.7016344-3x2-340x227

“The research is then used to help understand how cancer begins and spreads.” They still don’t know that? I could tell them a few things about how cancer starts, as that’s really not a secret. Just as it’s not a secret how to cure cancer without killing the patient. If a researcher so openly states that they don’t know and don’t care about the truth, then there’s little more to say. But it shows clearly that cancer research is just about money, not about curing anyone.

“Mr Peele said Australia had some of the best researchers in the world who should now be able to make even more cancer-related discoveries.” Well, if the best researchers don’t have a clue what they are doing and lack basic knowledge, then I don’t even want to know what bad researchers are like.

“worked with some very large drug companies, developed drugs and are now getting them onto market,” So you are a great researcher if you can get drugs on the market. Thanks for making so clear what the research is about. For have those drugs saved even one life? I don’t think so. That’s why cancer researchers never mention success rates in saved lives. At the very best they dare to make statements about how much longer the average patient lives. But if the best researchers in the world can’t cure cancer patients, shouldn’t this research stop? Obviously those gazillions of research dollars don’t have any effect.7015900-1x1-340x340

But don’t worry about the money. Researchers have now developed a biochip, that will lower the cost of the cancer treatment. And though lower cost would be nice, wouldn’t it be nicer if the patients would get cured?

“But solid cancers, which make up about 99 per cent of human cancers, also shed what are called circulating tumour cells into the bloodstream,” So in 99% of the cancers cutting the tumour out, or burning it away, won’t do much good, as the cancer has already spread. So why are surgery and radiation still used?

“a biochip that is able to separate the cancerous cells, which are larger and more flexible than healthy cells, and identify them.” And then? Does this mean that finally patients will get cure? Of course not. Nobody in the cancer industry has an interest in curing patients, for there is no business like return business.

“For patients in the early stages of the disease, the process could be used to reduce the chances of the cancer metastasizing” Maybe that is true, but the problem is that doctors rarely find cancer in its early stages. Many cancers grow slowly and by the time it is found it can already be 5 or 10 years old. That’s hardly “early stages”. And this new biochip probably won’t do much about that.

“Billions of the dollars have been invested in cancer, but we have seen really incremental improvements in patient outcomes,” Don’t you love the way cancer researchers make people believe they do great work, when in reality they have nothing to show for all the millions of dollars they get? 7039078-3x2-340x227“incremental improvements in patient outcomes” is completely meaningless, but it suggests that more patients get cured. So I would really like to know what those improvements are. Obviously too meaningless to openly mention.

“We should find a new way, and I believe that this is a new way to do cancer management.” Cancer management? What about curing patients? If you have cancer, do you just want it to be managed, or do you want to get cured, so that you can live till 80 or 90 without any more medical treatments? The smokescreens that cancer researchers use say enough about their failures. If they had results they would say so. That they don’t say it means they don’t have anything.

So if you have cancer the best thing to do is to stay very far away from oncologists. Then do your own research, read books and watch videos and then choose the cancer treatments that have the highest chance of curing you. Cancer can be cured in at least 99% of the cases, but those treatments won’t make any big money for anyone. Herbs or good food don’t get millions of dollars in research grants. So no doctor will tell you about this. If you want to cure your cancer, you are on your own.


One thought on “More useless cancer research

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s