The concept that doctors don’t want to cure cancer is a highly controversial one (to say the least) but it is nevertheless a view that many people hold. The reasons given for this are many and we’re going to examine these, and just how much merit they each hold. By the end of this article we will hopefully be able to determine whether your doctor really does want to cure your cancer or whether there really is some kind of conspiracy or at least a conflict of interests.
Well the argument often comes from those promoting natural remedies to cancer and other ailments. People such as homeopaths, whose views on medicine vary largely from the norm. The argument then goes that as pharmaceutical companies aim to make a lot of money from things like chemotherapy, it wouldn’t be in their best interest for those treatments to actually cure the cancer. The idea here is in order to increase share value (a legal obligation often) the pharmaceutical companies and the private doctors will simply manage the illness rather than completely cure it and lose a customer. This in turn means that going to a doctor will mean you’ re advised to take things that won’t cure the cancer and that will only line the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies and the doctors themselves. The better option, so say the naturalists, is to go against the doctors’ advice and take the natural ‘homeopathic’ remedies offered by alternative medicine. The homeopaths will claim that they are misrepresented as part of the larger conspiracy to sell more ‘potentially harmful’ drugs and that those who adhere to traditional medicine are simply sheep.
Let’s consider the viability and reliability of that argument – starting with the source. First of all it seems fairly hypocritical of the homeopathic companies to attack the drug companies on the basis that they’re companies with profit margins; homeopathy itself is a massively booming market and highly profitable and the companies in this industry are required to increase their share value just as much as any other pharmaceutical company. Isn’t it just as likely then that these companies should be pulling the wool over your eyes? What’s more likely – that everyone else is misleading you, or that the makers of homeopathy might be just as guilty?
The better idea then is to look into the third party advice – the advice that comes not from companies but from objective sources such as teachers, magazines and other non-affiliated sources. Notice how the majority of those not in the homeopathy industry do not advocate homeopathy? Another clue to the validity of conventional medicine is to look at countries with a national health service. The NHS (national health service) in England for example uses chemotherapy. This certainly isn’t to increase profits by bringing back customers as in England everyone pays for their health insurance on their national insurance – the hospitals get the same amount of money no matter how many ‘customers’ they have. It’s in their best interests to cure people coming through and in the government’s best interest too – and chemotherapy is one of the most costly treatments offered on the NHS. It would be far more beneficial for the NHS to use homeopathic medicine which would require much lower overheads. They don’t because there is insufficient evidence to suggest it has any effect. Another thing to point out is that health services do cure a lot of other illnesses with almost 100% efficiency. If you have cellulitis for example you could go to the doctor or a hospital and be treated with antibiotics which would cure the problem within weeks. Why would all of these organisations choose only cancer to make money from? Why wouldn’t they be squeezing as much money as possible out of cellulitis and every other problem under the sun?
Let’s look for a moment at how homeopathy works. It works by attempting to mimic the symptoms of the illness itself in an attempt to ‘wash out’ the illness and encourage the body to fight the symptoms. This was based on circumstantial evidence where in one case a treatment for malaria actually exacerbated the symptoms. Based on one case the inventor of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, declared that all things ingested that cause certain symptoms could cure similar illnesses.
But it goes further than this and assumes that every individual should consider themselves more or less susceptible to certain illnesses and therefore counts personality traits and behaviours as ‘symptoms’. The treatment for an outgoing person is different then than the treatment for an introvert.
And then that crucial ingredient (the ‘active agent’) which often would be incredibly harmful in high doses, is then diluted to the point where not even one single atom of the ingredient exists in the final solution. This means that you are actually just drinking water, sugar, or alcohol, or whatever has been used to ‘water down’ the homeopathic treatment. While homeopaths will argue that the water has a ‘memory’ and that the ingredient has left some of its ‘vital force’ on the liquid, no studies can support this as being true and the structure of water does not allow for a ‘memory structure’. If you really want to cure your cancer you can test this yourself – you can look at the literature, you can read the text books and you can examine water under a microscope. Homeopaths will openly admit that there is no active agent in the water so once you witness that water is just a combination of molecules – H2O – you might question its ability to store information. There is no conspiracy here, you are free to examine the facts yourself and come to your own conclusions. Interesting too that the naturalists who claim to be so much more interested in our well being will charge so much for what is essentially just water – even with the active ingredients homeopathic remedies are all priced at four or five times the amount they need to be at least. On the other hand chemotherapy works in a manner we can actually observe, helping the immune system to identify cancerous cells and interrupting their ability to spread and divide. Again this action can actually be witnessed on a microscopic level.
However homeopaths aren’t the only ones who will tell you that there are those who would rather you didn’t cure your cancer. One other theory is that cancer charities are actually just an outfit geared towards making money – that if they found the cure a lot of people would be put out of a job. Again though this is unlikely to be true when you consider just how much money is potentially in a cure for cancer. While you might be making money being paid to research into the possible cures for cancer, surely you’d stand to make more if you’d patented the cure and was the only one who could sell it? There’s the argument that other cancer research teams could pay the person with the break through to suppress the information, but surely it would only be a matter of time before someone in those industries wanted to use their breakthrough, on a loved one or on themselves, and only a matter of time before word got out. And it’s unlikely anyway that any amount of incentive could compete with the market potential of a cure for caner (which would also see the team involved win fame, likely a nobel prize and certainly a place in the history books).
Others point to potential population problems, and here there is perhaps a viable concern. Obviously if we were to find a cure for cancer the population would increase massively, and this problem would only be exacerbated as we found cures for other problems too (even ageing is considered a disease technically). Eventually we would get to the point where we’d have to pick and choose who had the cures and this would create a societal uproar and countless other problems. There’s also the possibility that with cancer cured it would only pave the way for a new illness or epidemic that could potentially be worse. In other words, the way humanity functions means that something has to kill us eventually. The argument goes that the only fair way for this to happen is for it to be random – as it is with diseases. So governments could theoretically be suppressing a cure for cancer.
With so many different governments around the world though, and with power changing hands so regularly, it’s unlikely that none of them would have wanted to release the cure. If not a right wing party in the West then a Green Peace party in the middle East… somewhere there’d have been a party who wanted to release the cure. Furthermore it’s unlikely that the government could so tightly control the use of a drug once it was developed – if you consider how performance enhancing drugs, recreational drugs and other medicines are all available on the black market it would only be a matter of time until we saw cancer cures here.
If you look online and do some research there’s also the fact that many very promising breakthroughs are being published all the time that hint at a cure being available soon. There are new ways of detecting cancer, and many successful cases where cancer has been treated in new ways. Gene doping for one offers a very promising solution.
The fact of the matter is however that traditional medicine is the best tool we have at our disposal in the fight against cancer, and the best tool that our doctors have to provide us with. There are cases where chemotherapy has successfully cured cancer for good – countless cases in fact – and this is substantial evidence that it can work if we’re lucky. If we want to try other alternative medicines then we should do this as well but not instead of those that have at least some theoretical backing. On top of all this there’s the fact that probably, just as you would in their shoes, your doctor does want to cure your cancer and will do everything they can to ensure this is the case.
Last Updated on