To be honest, this is why I don't buy special "pink ribbon" goods, support "Susan Komen for the Cure", etc.

Cancer is a big racket. There are cures out there, some might be totally forgotten, but they keep coming up with other ones! It's NOT that impossible to cure.

The "pink ribbon" for breast cancer campaign, etc. is just a feel good outlet for some people. It will never result in a cure for breast cancer. Know why? BECAUSE ANY CURE FOR CANCER WILL NOT SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY, BECAUSE IT WOULD KILL THE PROFITS OF BIG PHARMA.

Sad, but true.

Matthew

I won't pretend to understand the whole issue.  But neither the CBC article, or the following discussion address the likelihood for the drug to have the desired effect.

I don't know the full credentials of this blogger, but it's solidly docuмented.

Dichloroacetate - Miracle brain cancer drug or overhyped disappointment?

"... The CBC article states that DCA does not affect normal cells, such that its side effects, if any, would be considerably less terrible than those for 'typical' anticancer drugs (e.g. nausea and fatigue). Given that DCA has been used to treat lactic acidosis for a while now without any particularly serious adverse effects showing up, this is probably true. Interestingly, DCA is a confirmed animal carcinogen, having been shown to increase the incidence of liver cancers in mice. There is insufficient human data to say whether or not it can cause cancer in people. DCA has also been found to have neurotoxic effects in lab animals, but reports of such effects in humans are sparse and controversial.

In any event, the Wikipedia article on DCA makes a good point, which is that the overwhelming majority of new drugs never make it to a pharmacy's shelves. DCA is neat because scientists, small Albertan towns, and private citizens, not big pharmaceutical companies, are paying for its development, but ultimately the chances of it becoming the miracle drug the media is making it out to be are depressingly slim."

I would not go as far then you in your critic of the pharmaceutical bloc, but I do agree that these companies first allegiance are to it's shareholders. In fact, they are required by law to provide them, the best return on their investment.  However, brand name value is solidly linked to how responsibly a company act. This fact act to some degree as a barrier against outright abuse.

Worse in my view, is those illness in very poor countries that go untreated because those only that still suffer those illnesses do not have money to buy medicine or insurance to pay for the care they require.  There lies in my view, the outright scandal.  At least this one is out in the open and can be acted upon.  It occurs only because there is very little care for those poor people and no political motivation to do anything about it.  A single Stem Cell will garner more political clout then a child that can be saved with over-the-counter drug that costs barely nothing.  And that's not Big Pharma's fault, it's our fault collectively.

Quit changing the subject, Vandaler.  You don't have an inkling of big pharma's sins, and how far behind they have left any shred of humanity.  But even if you did know I am sure you would find it in your NO heart to excuse them, one way or another.

Didn't really intend to change the subject. I was just speaking my mind.

I wouldn't mind seeing evidence that the cure for cancer exists and is suppressed, like the title of the thread suggests rather forcefully.  I do contend however that posing a judgement on the article above is pretty thin without an assessment of the real prospect for DCA to cure that particular form of cancer it seem to promise.

Additionally, CAPITALIZING words does not constitute a compelling case either, but I think it's a good subject and I would read each case presented with an open mind... time allowing of course.

On this front, there are two worthwhile films at http://www.truestoriesvideoblog.info

Both are by G. Edward Griffin (author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, among other works), and listed under the heading about health.  The central thesis is that cancer is caused by a deficiency in certain vitamins, much like scurvy, etc.

Either way, it is plain modern medicine has little to nothing of worth to say on the matter.

On this front, there are two worthwhile films at http://www.truestoriesvideoblog.info

Both are by G. Edward Griffin (author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, among other works), and listed under the heading about health.  The central thesis is that cancer is caused by a deficiency in certain vitamins, much like scurvy, etc.

Either way, it is plain modern medicine has little to nothing of worth to say on the matter.

I've looked into it some; I wonder if you would go out on a limb to defend amygdalin (Laetrile).

If you where lucky enough in your misfortune to detect an early cancer that had a high success rate to be treated with modern means, would you decline,  and take that said vitamin ?  

Do you take it presently as a preventive measure ?

I've read many studies that Cancer is mostly caused by a deficiency of Vitamin D.  Other vitamins, such as Vitamin A, Vitamin E, Vitamin C, also come into play, and probably more nutrients as well.

I, personally, supplement with Cod liver oil, Vitamin C, and take generous amounts of olive oil (for vitamin E).  Not only because they prevent cancer, but also help with overall health.  

Another issue is how many processed food additives thwart the absorption of these important vitamins  Of particular note are the chemically made franken-foods such as olean, MSG, sugar alchohols, and aspartame which all thwart the normal absorption of cancer-preventative vital nutrients.  On top of that, low-fat diets, which are recommended to everyone, are sadly depleted of these essential fat-soluble nutrients.