15 yr old develops revolutionary cancer test

How will the medical establishment suppress this? This kid does not have the medical establishment's best interest at heart. He is their enemy, and they will treat him as such, just my opinion/prediction.
 
How will the medical establishment suppress this? This kid does not have the medical establishment's best interest at heart. He is their enemy, and they will treat him as such, just my opinion/prediction.
My thoughts, too. They're all about the money. So ultra cheap tests available to the population? The worst thing there could be for the medical industry...

Also shows the quality of those scientists that said: No, that's impossible, won't work... and who turned the idea down without giving it a serious try.
 
You mean to tell me that a 15 YO kid was the first one to understand how to do this when there are people who work with this stuff everyday? Please. I betcha with the technology we have available today, that any disease can be cured. But you will never see a cure marketed by the medical profession, only treatment. I do not trust the medical profession or my government whatsoever.

Basically what this tells me is a high school kid made more progress than the whole of the medical profession in this particular case. Either the whole of the medical profession is incompetent, or they don't want to catch anything early, not profitable enough. They are not incompetent. They are super smart, but morally bankrupt IMO. The medical profession, as a whole, puts profits before cures everyday of the week. Not saying there aren't good doctors, just saying that the industry is geared towards profit over cures. I believe they can cure anything they want, but that's bad business to them.
 
The old cash cow for the conventional medical industry, chemotherapy and radiation, fails 95% of the time but doctors continue to perscribe it. Why? A natural, more successful treatment approach that won't fry your immune system ( via the Gerson Institute) www.gerson.org is banned in the U.S. as an alternative to the costly cut, burn and poison option. Imagine. Fruits and vegetables banned. The American government - the best money can buy :)

"Larry, Arky and Larry" ... we should go into the healthcare business together
 
How will the medical establishment suppress this? This kid does not have the medical establishment's best interest at heart. He is their enemy, and they will treat him as such, just my opinion/prediction.

You should put all this sticking it to the man to federal government lol.

The issue would be people being hypochondriacs and misdiagnosing themselves.

A relative created a colon cancer test similarly. Take a poop sample, run some tests, see if you have cancer cells.
 
The old cash cow for the conventional medical industry, chemotherapy and radiation, fails 95% of the time but doctors continue to perscribe it. Why? A natural, more successful treatment approach that won't fry your immune system ( via the Gerson Institute) www.gerson.org is banned in the U.S. as an alternative to the costly cut, burn and poison option. Imagine. Fruits and vegetables banned. The American government - the best money can buy :)

"Larry, Arky and Larry" ... we should go into the healthcare business together

Another treatment with nothing by anecdotal evidence that isn't tested by physical evidence from a wide variety of peer-reviewed journals?

My, oh my Larry. You have a track record here.

Please learn to distinguish between advocacy groups and actual research.
 
Yes the system is far from perfect. The costs and administration of health care is outrageous.
Yet... There are more humans living longer lifespans on earth than at any other time in history. Some diseases such as bubonic plague and polio have been all but effectively wiped out. Yet vaccinations, according to some of the above statements made by Arky and the Larrys, would never even have been created because they don't require constant dosing.

It can't all be as bad as you say.
 
Sure they can cure pretty much anything, but if you invested 20 years and billions of dollars you'd want a payout too. Only solution I can see is to make pharmaceuticals a state run enterprise, but that comes with a whole other set of problems. Or if you wait a few years as biotech grows it is likely a more grassroots research initiative will come about as the cost of labs decreases and the control and tools we have increase.
 
You mean to tell me that a 15 YO kid was the first one to understand how to do this when there are people who work with this stuff everyday? Please. I betcha with the technology we have available today, that any disease can be cured. But you will never see a cure marketed by the medical profession, only treatment. I do not trust the medical profession or my government whatsoever.

Basically what this tells me is a high school kid made more progress than the whole of the medical profession in this particular case. Either the whole of the medical profession is incompetent, or they don't want to catch anything early, not profitable enough. They are not incompetent. They are super smart, but morally bankrupt IMO. The medical profession, as a whole, puts profits before cures everyday of the week. Not saying there aren't good doctors, just saying that the industry is geared towards profit over cures. I believe they can cure anything they want, but that's bad business to them.

+1 Larry.I've thought this for years.The money is in the research and developing new drugs that treat symptoms.....not in cures.Money generated in surgical procedures,hospital stays and more drugs and rehab generate enormous amounts of money for drug companies,and corporations that own the hospitals.

A new trend in the US is to close emerency/trauma rooms in hospitals,because they usually lose money from patient care and transportation.

I sincerly hope this new inexpensive early warning technique works.Its time to get a handle on expensive health care.

Steve B.
 
Another treatment with nothing by anecdotal evidence that isn't tested by physical evidence from a wide variety of peer-reviewed journals?

My, oh my Larry. You have a track record here.

Please learn to distinguish between advocacy groups and actual research.

Yes, so-called "peer-reviewed" journals filled with advertisements from -- hold your breath -- pharmaceutical companies, written by yes-men for said industry. Problem is, who are these "peers" and should we believe lock stock and barrel what they write? Do you really expect unbiased opinions from studies funded by drug companies who in turn fund medical schools? Please. Your track record is obvious here as well. Good luck with that.
 
Yes, so-called "peer-reviewed" journals filled with advertisements from -- hold your breath -- pharmaceutical companies, written by yes-men for said industry. Problem is, who are these "peers" and should we believe lock stock and barrel what they write? Do you really expect unbiased opinions from studies funded by drug companies who in turn fund medical schools? Please. Your track record is obvious here as well. Good luck with that.

Have you ever read a peer-reviewed journal? No.

Well, one of the tenets of the system is that any conflict of interest (i.e. funding from a drug company) is declared at the top of any article. If they are not declared and later found out to be funded by an interested party, then the articles are detracted and in some severe cases, practitioners have actually been struck off the medical register. In the 'Great MMR Autism Scam' Andrew Wakefield did not declare that he was funded by a pseudoscience group (like the ones you cite) with a conflict of interest and as a result thousands of people contracted perfectly preventable - and potentially fatal - diseases.

Andrew Wakefield was struck off the medical register. The peer-review process here was not an ideal solution because the results were falsified. Now, the peer-review system is not perfect and exists to scan out systematic errors in research - i.e. poor statistical analysis. In this particular instance, an antivax group caused a great deal of damage.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110110...udy-linking-vaccines-to-autism-is-fraudulent/

Larry, you have repeatedly repeated a number of pseudoscientific claims without an ounce of evidence or citation. I will admit (as would anyone interested in science) that the peer-review system has flaws - but it's a damn sight better than an interested nutter buying a domain, buying some server space and writing whatever the Hell they like with no backing, research, credibility or evidence - which is the bollocks that you are continually bringing up.

Honestly, I despair at the state of the US education system if it produces people that don't understand the basics of the scientific method and why it's so &%*@ing important to back up your claims with evidence and research.

Incidentally, I come from the UK where the drug companies do not necessary fund medical training and our health system is owned by the state. The only vested interest financially comes from politicians - which is a totally different kettle of fish.
 
The old cash cow for the conventional medical industry, chemotherapy and radiation, fails 95% of the time but doctors continue to perscribe it. Why?

I guess I've been lucky. I personally know six, "5 percenters" who made it due to chemo and radiation. I've met many more that are in remission today thanks to the "cash cow" and I'm aware of many more than that. But for the purpose of this argument, I'll just stick to what I've seen with my own two eyes.

Alas, despite all the arm-chair expert babble that I've read here over the last couple of days, these guys and girls weren't doing too good a job of "healing themselves" at all at the time.

Personally I'm glad they were lied to to the extent that they're all still around to tell their tale. Not convinced they would be if it wasn't for so many greedy medicos and health corporations that clearly decided to rob them blind by saving their lives. I mean, the friggen' cheek right?
 
I have to say that Larryz's attitude is deeply insulting to me. One of my family is currently undergoing chemotherapy and radiotherapy and one of my best friends was saved from a tumour the size of a football (read - soccer ball) at the age of seven by radiotherapy and chemotherapy. It sure as Hell isn't perfect and it does have significant side-effects but I am very grateful that it saved my friend's life when she was so small. Nothing short of a scientific miracle.

Larryz. Go and take your tinfoil hat off. Go outside and read a couple of books. You might be surprised. I would be. Surprise me.
 
I would suggest reading "Over the Counter Natural Cures: Take Charge of Your Health in 30 Days with 10 Lifesaving Supplements for under $10" written by a chemist who worked for Big Pharma as a chemist. The short story is the guy quit due to the way Big Pharma conducted themselves. No matter what side of the debate you are on, I think it's a good read. The guy doesn't sell supplements, just tells you which ones work and why.
 
Last edited:
Larryz. Go and take your tinfoil hat off. Go outside and read a couple of books. You might be surprised. I would be. Surprise me.

Sorry about your family member and friend that really sucks. I didn't mean to insult but hey, I don't think I was the one who initiated this discussion. The other Larry did :)

I get outside every day don't worry. 60+ miles worth a week in my running shows, in this horrible weather, God willing.
 
Bacterium is 100% correct here.

1. Anecdotal evidence is always biased due to the lack of a control group.

2. Extraordinary claims require an extraordinary level of proof. (Yes, you must be able to PROVE to me that wheatgrass cures leukemia)

Usually, when I apply those two simple rules in conjunction with the scientific method, I find that the quackery tends to fall away.
 
When I was going through chemo, radiation and surgery, many people tried to sell me on homeopathic cures. Most of these people were in desparation mode because their case was so far gone (Stage 4 type cancer). The treatments I got did what they were supposed to - shrink the tumor and contain it from spreading. Then surgery removed the tumor and reconnected my body back together. Time will tell whether I have beaten cancer for good, what the side affects will be in the future, and how long I will stay here on the good green earth. I am not against natural remedies, and believe they should be used in conjunction with other traditional medicines and procedures. But I wasn't going to rely on them solely to keep me alive when my prognosis was only about 4-6 months of life without traditional treatment regiment.

Also, like the common cold, there are hundreds of different types of cancer. Curing cancer is not as simple as it sounds.
 
Well, natural cancer remedies like the Gerson Method has indeed been proven to work, as have other natural cures. Chemo and radiation are immune destroying, insanely costly methods that fail 95% of the time. What is troubling is how most conventional doctors will suggest the chemo, radiation route knowing full well it won't work. And will laugh and even become offended if the patient suggests safer approaches. It easy for a low-information uneducated coventional doctor to call something 'quackery'. This kind of ignorance is one of many problems with the conventional medical industry in the States and around the world. Some closed-minded doctors would rather suggest chemo/radiation, knowing full well it won't work, than admit their patient may know something they don't. Like it offends them or something. Many have an ego or arrogance problem. Not saying chemo, radiation cannot physically shrink a tumor, but 9/10 times the tumor returns. Many times is just a silly medical industry game of roulette to the patient's detriment. Jeez, enough already.
 
Back
Top