What Would Happen if a ‘Cure’ for Cancer Was Discovered?

You will note the inverted commas around the word ‘cure’. I read somewhere that oncologists do not like to use the word ‘cure’ regarding cancers. Many readers will know that I myself suffered from a malignant cancer. It took the form if a lump on my skin just to the side of my right eyebrow. It was there for years, growing a little, but every now and again, it bled if I caught it. I mentioned it to the doctor when I was there for some other reason. Tests revealed that it was some sort of malignant form of cancer, but very slow growing. It was cut out. Later, the surgeon told me: “We got it all”. (According to my doctor, the reason that it was important to ‘get it all’ was that it was possible for the malignant cells to penetrate the bone of my skull beneath the skin)

Was my cancer ‘cured’? I would not say so. Would it be a cure for heart disease to cut out the heart?

A friend of mine was discovered to have leukaemia. He received the treatment which was available at the time (about 15 years ago). His hair fell out and he was quite weak, but he still managed to get to the pub for a chat, having been picked up from his home and transported there. He was physically very weak, but fully ‘compos mentis’. The treatment worked, and he is still with us. But was his leukaemia ‘cured’? To answer that question, you would have to know what happened to his blood cells in the first place. To effect a proper ‘cure’, you would have to fix whatever problem created the crap blood cells.

Cancers are generally named after their site. Thus, ‘breast cancer’ is called breast cancer because that is where the cancer first started. I suppose that cancerous cells from breasts can migrate and settle and multiply elsewhere. I suppose that a malignant lump which appears, say, in the lung, could be found to contain cells which have the properties of breast cells. I remember a person who used to go to the pub regularly (when local people used to go to the pub regularly, before the smoking ban) and he found a lump on his shoulder. It turned out to be a lump of kidney cells, and it was discovered that he had cancer of the kidneys. The cells had migrated to his shoulder. He died not long afterwards.

Where am I going to with this post?

Well, it does not make sense to me to describe a cancer by its location. Nor does it make sense to describe them by the size of the cells (‘small cell carcinoma’ or whatever). Those words display ignorance. It appears to be common to describe tumours as ‘a nodule’ if they are under 1 cubic centimetre in size, and to describe them as ‘a mass’ if they are bigger than that. Again, those word display ignorance because size is not the important criteria.

If you try to find out about cancer, you find that you enter into a maze. It is a bit like a ghost train. As you proceed, howling sounds are heard, and ghostly apparitions appear. Skelebones, spiders’ webs, torture instruments, blood and gore are spread about. Nothing is real.

The Tobacco Control Industry is built upon incomplete science and superstition. The superstition comes from epidemiology, and the incomplete science comes from the inability of laboratory technicians to cause labrats and dogs to get LC from tobacco smoke. In a sane world, the results of the Doctors Study would prompt the following questions:

1. Why did only a 1000 of 20,000 smokers die from LC, and why did 19,000 not die from LC?

2. Why did any non-smokers die from LC?

3. Why did X thousands of non-smokers die from heart diseases, etc?

In other words, the Doctors Study answered no questions, but created lots and lots of questions. But that is what epidemiology is supposed to do. It is not, in itself, ‘the answer’ – it is ‘the question’.

====

I headed this post up: “What would happen if a ‘cure’ for cancer was discovered?’ By ‘cure’ I mean something like a pill.

Create the scene – Doctor’s surgury:

Doc: “What seems to be the problem?”

Patient: “I find myself panting all the time and I cough up blood sometimes”

D: “Do you smoke?”

P: “Yes”.

D: How much?

P: Oh, maybe 20 a day. (Doc makes mental reservation to double it).

D: Umm. I think that you might have lung cancer. I’ll write you a prescription. One pill three times a day for a month. Come back next month and we’ll see how things are going.

P: Thanks, Doc. Can I carry on smoking?

D: Of course! The question was asked only for government stats reasons. It has nothing to do with your health or anyone else’s. The stats are handy because, cleverly interpreted, they can support any and every ’cause’. Do you dislike oranges? OK. We can produce stats which show that the increase in the growth rate of the divorce rate was directly linked to the import of oranges. The divorce rate could be halved if the rate of import of oranges was halved. QED.

====

And that is what the Tobacco Control Industry has been reduced to. No wonder that some ‘smoking cessation’ venues are reduced to recommending ecigs. The reality is that the Zealots do not like them, but, locally, they are the only hope for local clinics to survive. No one wants the gummy patches; perhaps they will accept ecigs.

Tobacco Control, in all its forms, is an abomination. It is racist, totalitarian, fascist, eugenicist, recidivist, cruel, elitist, feudal, corrupt, usurious. And there are other adjectives which are appropriate.

====

We smokers just want to be left alone. Leave us alone. By all means lift taxes on manufactured cigs, but leave us ‘experimenters with different varieties of tobacco plants’ alone to amuse ourselves. Do not pass laws which stop us amusing ourselves.

===

What would happen is a ‘cure’ for cancer was discovered?

It would be suppressed.

 

Advertisements

2 Responses to “What Would Happen if a ‘Cure’ for Cancer Was Discovered?”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    “Would it be a cure for heart disease to cut out the heart?

    Probably not considered so; but, that would ‘prevent’ all such disease.

    There is quite a difference between ‘preventing’ a disease and ‘curing’ a disease.

    Abolishing smoking would not prevent the diseases ’caused’ by smoking from happening.
    Doll’s Doc Study proved that never-smokers and current smokers had the same probability of dying from such diseases.(Have I mentioned that before?)

    The ‘prevention/curing’ of cancer would only lead to more people dying from heart disease or some other disease.
    Everyone will die from something.

    • junican Says:

      Yes…. I seem to remember you mentioning those facts.

      You only need to cast your eyes over the mortality statistics to notice the vast number of causes of death. There are hundreds of them. The simple fact is that death is caused by the failure of a major organ, which, eventually, causes the heart to stop beating. It is true that sometimes people are described as ‘brain dead’, but that is only because their bodies are being sustained artificially. They would starve to death otherwise.

      A significant number of young people, even small children, who die from ‘smokers cancer’ (bronchi and such), along with many other cancers. It is a shame that there is no ‘cure’, even for those youngsters.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: