The reason I feel the way I do is the truth is seldom told because, if it was, the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research Centers would be out of grant money. Another reason is because doctors don't always tell their patients the truth and almost every research project that has come out has turned out to be bogus. Aside from cancer research, do you remember things like 'eggs cause too much cholesterol,' and they made it sound like if you tasted an egg you would fall over dead with a heart attack; now they say eggs pose no threat to the heart. More than 2 cups of coffee a day was bad for your heart, now it's good for it. Two glasses of wine a day was good for the heart; now wine provides no greater benefits to the heart than eating grapes; actually fresh grapes provide greater nutrition. Cancer research started before the space program. If the United States can put a man on the moon, why haven't researchers already found a cure for cancer?Originally Posted by GeoFisher
Did you see the report yesterday morning about various charities, hard working people were donating money to, and where a huge chunk of the money was going? Expensive fundraisers paid for by donors, automobiles, expense accounts, and large salaries. The director of the United Way was giving herself approximately $750,000 a year in salary; she has recently been fired because she had already been warned twice. Her replacement gave herself a $150,000/year salary. I won't list the others but this is an example. One religious charity is paying its director $1.7 million/year in salary.
According to the CDC, breast cancer patients average survival rate is 5 years but reports released Monday said women under age 50 didn't need a mammogram but every 2 years. Are we to take it that people under 50 don't get breast cancer? What if someone gets it right after their mammogram and have waited 2 years to find out they have it, already in advanced stages? I have a friend who said when she was 19 years old, married for a year and pregnant was told she had terminal breast cancer. She had surgery, and was advised to abort the baby because the chemotherapy would kill it. She refused to abort or have chemo treatments; both are alive and healthy and it has been 40 years. My sister was 25 years old and had a sore lymph node. The doctor told her it was malignant but hadn't spread; she went to New Orleans for precautionary treatment and they told her she didn't have anything to worry about because the cancer was gone. Exactly 6 months later she died and left two babies, still in diapers, without a mother; they cried for 2 years and ripped the sheets off the beds looking for her.
Cancer treatments are a moneymaker for doctors and hospitals and cancer patients are caught in the crossfire because they are the victims. My sister-in-law had lung cancer and spent around a million dollars on treatments over a two-year period. When she told the doctor that she was broke he told her he would see if there was something else he could do. The next day he called and said he checked and new "research" showed she had already received sufficient chemo. A month later she was sitting on the sofa having tea with a relative when she fell over. She was taken to the hospital and died the next day.
There is so much conflicting information on cancer causes, survival and death rates, nobody knows what the truth is. imo
Reply With Quote