For instance a parents child is diagnosed with cancer. What typically happens? The child is poisoned w/ chemo, burnt w/ radiation and sometimes mutilated with surgery all to try and “save” their life. Meanwhile a shitload of money is made off of the child’s suffering and death. Meanwhile the parents are typically forced into BK. The whole process is grotesque. And this country just allows it to happen. What a sick joke!
So you’d rather people die than to have a shot at life, as long as nobody makes any money.
You’re an extremely self centered twat.
1 Like
What would you like to see done about it? I don’t entirely disagree with some of your points, but I don’t know what you think would be better.
There are a few communities there. A tribe still calls the area home, there’s Parks employees, probably some weird people who just like the desert…I’m sure it’s a very small population but technically people can and do live there.
You won’t catch me there, haha. 120 degrees? No thank you.
And I’m just nitpicking. I know that wasn’t the point of what you were saying.
How far off do you think we are from seeing nuclear energy become a widespread thing? Think it’ll happen in our lifetimes?
Yes. America allows children to get cancer.
The problem with nuclear is that it’s hard method to understand compared to something like coal (burn coal, heat water, steam turns turbine generator → electricity) and it’s going to take educating the populace to get rid of the fear of it. It’s much less damaging to the environment then fossil fuel electricity production, but nobody sees that. All they see is the horror stories of Chernobyl (which was doomed to fail from the start) or the one in Japan after the Tsunami. And then it’s fictionalized into more dangerous than it really is too.
I would like to say in the next 50 years we may get to more than 50% nuclear at least in “developed” countries, but I don’t know.
1 Like
And after 50 years of Nixon’s War on Cancer this barbaric treatment is all we got? Your child-like assessment of the situation is laughable. You are so fucking blind it is beyond reproach.
So you’d rather see the “healthcare” industry make millions than treat children in a more humane manner and give them a better opportunity at life? Gawd what a blind corporate shill. Yeah, chemo and radiation man!
You are so fucking ignorant to how cancer grows & attacks the human body and the scientific process it’s just sad.
What’s your cancer treatment plan to give them that opportunity?
If you get cancer someday - feel free to choose certain death over treatment and be thankful you never had to make that decision for a child who may barely understand what is happening.
First off, get pharma out. The government often provides the seed capital to discover new ways for pharma to profit off of sickness. The profit motive perverts healthcare. How much is a healthy person worth to our “healthcare” system? So why would they have a financial incentive to make people healthy?
How about something that works and doesn’t have it’s bottom line as the primary concern.
You mean like chemo and radiation?
This is called projection. You use it an awful lot, don’t ya. You have internalized the propaganda and it has blinded you into believing they are doing their best. Bwahahahaha!
But this cannot be promoted as a viable treatment as the money that can be made from it isn’t on par with the barbaric chemo and radiation garbage.
Yeah so it gives you the opportunity to die of complications from your treatment and not the cancer. Yeah that’s the answer.
No dipshit - I guarantee I know more about science and mathematics than you do (which means I can actually understand the research papers being published). So do the people who actually do cancer research.
You can’t cure cancer with diet. That’s bunk science. Maybe it can be mitigated and tamped down (similar to diabetes).
Best case it’s been seen in animals so far:
Also - the ones treated with both a healthy diet and radiation lived longer then just those treated with the diet. Even the title points to diet as an additional step in treatment (adjuvant is the key word here).
Talk about being propagandized into believing everything you see/read…
Guaranteed to die from the cancer or possibly die from potential complications - most will choose the latter.
Diet when given with chemo shows some promise - not alone:
This has been shown in dogs.
Ehh. animal studies don’t always correlate to human studies. I’m not saying better treatments aren’t out there, likely they haven’t been found yet.
The one study I found that showed some positive correlation was retroactive and only at the end had 4 surviving patients…Not much evidence.
Eating healthier in general helps the body all around so it makes sense that eating healthier while battling cancer has a net positive effect.
The point is, radiation and chemo do work and these natural cures usually, if ever, don’t work. Dietary changes and natural supplements might make traditional remedies work better. If anything, natural solutions are effective at prevention but once cancer appears, you probably will need radiation, chemo, surgery, etc. But they have made gains with regard to those treatments. People can whine about cancer treatment but the survival rates have continuously gone up.
1 Like
I agree with you here.
It comes down to a big game of “choose your suck”
This feels like a stupid question but is cancer “new”? Have people always gotten it or has it developed as our environments have changed?
They have found tumors in “ancient” bodies. I don’t think its new, but our ability to detect is relatively new (compared to the history of humans).
I’m sure certain cancers may be new, or were extremely rare in the past, but not cancer in general. There’s also the possibility that many people didn’t live long enough to develop cancer.