ForumGarden

Being a writer I surf the Web frequently in search of stuff that writers search for on the said Web.

I have seen images of children who have had polio and who have leg irons on; I have read about typhoid, scarlet fever, measles, German measles, mumps, whooping cough, diphtheria and a host of other infectious diseases that are no longer found except among the poorest and most uneducated peoples.

I can even recall my old mother putting money into a tin held by earthlings collecting money for cancer research and Lola has died and been reincarnated several times by now.

And yet despite the gazillions of dollars/pounds/francs/Euros/roubles whatever, cancer still kills & kills & kills & kills.

At the same time great, almost unbelievable strides have been made in the treatment of earthlings who a few decades ago would have died from heart attacks.

Even the spread of the once dreaded Aids/HIV has been arrested.

But the common cold? Nope … No such luck.

Cancer? Nope … No such luck.

Could it be that the multi-gazillion income that is earned by all and sundry that treat the common cold and cancer is so high that finding a cure just isn’t in their best interest?

I wonder.

Nobody likes a cynic.

But he does have a point though !

Hope not. I remember accusing my oncologist of wanting to make cancer a manageable disease, like diabetes. He said no no we want to cure it! I believed him. The one who finally does..........well, we haven't had a medical hero since Dr. Jonas Salk. Cancer is not just one disease, there are hundreds of kinds, it is very complicated. & I'm sure stuff in our environment, like the food we eat & the air we breathe is not helping matters much.

G#Gill;1447421 wrote: But he does have a point though !


Take a look and see how many diseases have been eradicated and say that again.

JJ

are you asking us to trust?

really?

Patsy

It’s a fact that 40% of all people born will one day die from a cancer of some kind.

Probably because of this most of us are somewhat reluctant to enter into a debate about the “Big C” cos we figure maybe if we don’t talk about it then perhaps it will pass us by for now.

But it won’t and more than 40 years after the USA declared war on cancer the National Cancer Institute has spent about $90 billion on “research & treatment” in that time, Still one out of every four deaths in the USA are from cancer.

The American Cancer Society for their part spend over $400 million on salaries every year; over $88 million on employee benefits every year; over $60 million on professional fees every year; $17 million on telephone calls every year; $45 million dollars on rental every year; $19 million on meetings & conferences every year; $29 million on travel expenses every year; $14 million on “miscellaneous expenses every year. Nice work if you can get it.

So what role do the pharmaceutical companies play in all this? Well in 2012, the top 11 global drug companies made nearly $85 billion in net profits. Now if you were in the business of selling arms & armaments, would you be happy with world peace? If you were an oil exporting country, would you want an alternative to petroleum found?

So would it not be in the interest of pharmaceutical companies to get us on as many drugs as possible? Vitamins & herbs cannot be patented so any natural cure for cancer would probably NOT be welcomed by drug companies.

So despite the fact that gazillions & gazillions of dollars are spent on cancer “research”, are you surprised that a cure has not been found and cancer keeps on increasing?

And its not gonna change any time soon.

I agree on the fact of pharmaceutical companies & doctors seem to want to get us on as much prescription drugs possible.

Well that has been my personal experience over the last 12-18 months.

They put me through countless expensive tests/expensive docs & meds and it turns out, the biggest part of the problems could have been found with just 1 simple bloodtest.

Not going in to too much detail: I have also been lied to saying certain simple things cannot be tested, because the test for it doesn't exist, eventhough I found out it does and they facilitate that simple test in the same building.

I think the big C and the flu is a difficult one to tackle though.. like Anne said, there a hundreds of different kinds of cancer.

But on other illnesses that even do have a simple test & solution, pharmaceutical companies & doctors seem to take the long expensive way around. At least in my personal opinion.

Chloe_88;1447484 wrote: I agree on the fact of pharmaceutical companies & doctors seem to want to get us on as much prescription drugs possible.

Well that has been my personal experience over the last 12-18 months.

They put me through countless expensive tests/expensive docs & meds and it turns out, the biggest part of the problems could have been found with just 1 simple bloodtest.

Not going in to too much detail: I have also been lied to saying certain simple things cannot be tested, because the test for it doesn't exist, eventhough I found out it does and they facilitate that simple test in the same building.

I think the big C and the flu is a difficult one to tackle though.. like Anne said, there a hundreds of different kinds of cancer.

But on other illnesses that even do have a simple test & solution, pharmaceutical companies & doctors seem to take the long expensive way around. At least in my personal opinion.


And what's more Mouse ... take the parameters that are set for blood pressure, cholesterol, type two diabetes etc. Are they set by researchers or the medical

profession?

Noooooooooooo they are set by the same companies who market the drugs that are alleged to lower these readings.

So if in any given year the average cholesterol level is 5 ... these people who have our best interests at heart will lower the safe rate to 4 and so on and so on.

Why? well I leave the answer up to you.

Take The Chosen for example.

I am disgustingly healthy (touch wood), but I go for blood tests and a physical every year. This year my cholesterol level was 3.2, my prostrate reading was well within the parameters set and my blood pressure was 140 over 80.

Yet when I left my GP's rooms I had a script in my hand for an additional Carloc tablet which I am NOT gonna take.

140 over 80 is too high.

You do waffle on don't you JJ ?

While researching the Big C, take a detour and look at such things as life expectancy, infant mortility worldwide.

Take a peep at the diseases that have now stopped causing death and devastation across this earth.......all due to medical advances.

I can personally testify that certain cancers are now very treatable, not from googling figures,but from undergoing bowel surgery successfully..........following research presumably......treatments have improved........as a few years ago I might not be here.

The medical people sure saved me from cancer. I was not expected to live, discovered at Stage 3 & over 10 years later here I am & never had a recurrence.

AnneBoleyn;1447489 wrote: 140 over 80 is too high.


True.

Take the Carloc.

Or get more exercise. that might help.

I was hitting 140+/80+ and the doc put me on some BP meds.

I've taken to spending 20-30 minutes on a stationary bike when I get up in the morning, unless the weather is conducive to a morning walk(above 30 f, and below 90 f) and my BP has returned to around 120/60. No more meds.

Or are GPs (just to jump on that subject) worried about being sued if they don't give you any /give you too little medication ?

Anywho, JJ was your blood pressure based on one single reading? I'm wondering because of:

I;ve joined this study that's called lifelines. They ask me to come in every couple of years and they do all sorts of tests. When she started talking to me during the 10x blood pressure test, it went through the roof! when she shut her yap, I was fine (she was asking me difficult, personal stuff).

My let's call him "father-in-law", had something similar at his GP office. He ended up with a little machine for 24 hours, that would messure his blood pressure every so often. Turned out he was fine, the high reading at the GP's office was a one-off.

jones jones;1447487 wrote: This year my cholesterol level was 3.2


That was good then!

Just to add in there..

mine was "uhum"..... a bit...... higher.. But still within current "limits"... might be due to all that cheese and smoking I do...

I think it's a good question you have put up, but like Anne said there are hundreds of different kinds of cancer. But I think your OP can be seen much broader, not just on one particular illness.

Chloe_88;1447501 wrote: Or are GPs (just to jump on that subject) worried about being sued if they don't give you any /give you too little medication ?

Anywho, JJ was your blood pressure based on one single reading? I'm wondering because of:

I;ve joined this study that's called lifelines. They ask me to come in every couple of years and they do all sorts of tests. When she started talking to me during the 10x blood pressure test, it went through the roof! when she shut her yap, I was fine (she was asking me difficult, personal stuff).

My let's call him "father-in-law", had something similar at his GP office. He ended up with a little machine for 24 hours, that would messure his blood pressure every so often. Turned out he was fine, the high reading at the GP's office was a one-off.


It was a once off in his rooms ... I have a BP monitor at home which registered 125 over 60 a while ago.

BP can vary from time to time and is not like the thermostat on your cooker that can be set to low/medium/high. many factors affect it.

jones jones;1447520 wrote: It was a once off in his rooms ... I have a BP monitor at home which registered 125 over 60 a while ago.

BP can vary from time to time and is not like the thermostat on your cooker that can be set to low/medium/high. many factors affect it.


And yet GPs make split sec decisions, based on one reading.

I agree, BP varies and many factors do affect it. Well again, in my personal experience it does.

And of course like the rest of humanity some GPs are more conservative and cautious than others.

jones jones;1447520 wrote: It was a once off in his rooms ... I have a BP monitor at home which registered 125 over 60 a while ago.

BP can vary from time to time and is not like the thermostat on your cooker that can be set to low/medium/high. many factors affect it.


Yeah, I know that my BP goes up when I have to go see the doc. And it goes up more after I have sat twenty minutes in the waiting room, and another twenty in the exam room, waiting to see him.

The magazines they offer are women's fashion, Home Decorating, and those celebrity rags. I should bring my Kindle along, I guess.

LarsMac;1447527 wrote: Yeah, I know that my BP goes up when I have to go see the doc. And it goes up more after I have sat twenty minutes in the waiting room, and another twenty in the exam room, waiting to see him.

The magazines they offer are women's fashion, Home Decorating, and those celebrity rags. I should bring my Kindle along, I guess.


Last year while my best buddy was dying of liver cancer I spent a lot of time in waiting rooms. Always brought a book.