Rate of the disease

>80% rate that used to be 15% in 1980s, with all else the same

dont be surprised when the dysgenic pos is you

the cancer epidemic is the disaster caused by industrial toxind, polluttiona supported by corporate and politocal interests.

your climate change is a red herring.

its almost like you are trying to suppress the facts

Yes, I am part of the conspiracy, along with everyone on Veeky Forums, and your mom.

>this bait graph
Only ~39% of people get cancer at ANY point in their lifetime, the number of cases per year is decreasing, and most live at this point because the most common forms of cancer have low mortality rates.

Also this graph is completely unsources

seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html

>asking for the source of a graph
>trying to suppress the facts

95% of people get cancer each year kek

that is for ~2040 lifetime incidence

In 1971, when President Richard M. Nixon initiated the War on Cancer, the average person had a 1 in 10 risk of developing cancer in his or her lifetime. Today, that's changed – for the worse. The risk as of 2005 is 1 in 2.

this is the major cause of rapid decline in western populations

cancer is now as common as the flu, that is intentional. the existing cures for cancer are intentionally suppressed.

the great culling/poisoning orchestrated by CIA, CFR, etc has led to dramatic population declines. the genocide machine is being refueled by new immigrants to pack into the poison chambers

'1 in 2 people will develop cancer in their lifetime'
medicalnewstoday.com/articles/288916.php

wrong.
cancer cases expected to soar to 70% of the population the a few years

independent.ie/irish-news/ireland-warned-of-cancer-epidemic-35763209.html

drsircus.com/general/cancer-epidemic-getting-worse/

>incidence of cancer at 1 in 2
scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/02/04/why-are-cancer-rates-increasing/

theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/03/worldwide-cancer-cases-soar-next-20-years

who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr27/en/

>More Younger Women Getting Breast Cancer

articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/05/21/breast-cancer-young-women.aspx

youtube.com/watch?v=lINa5jGEQ5w

it is 1 in 2 people. meaning 50% of the population
cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/risk/lifetime-risk

by ~2025 it is 80% of the population

the oligarchs get the cures and live to a ripe old age. the plebs get the epidemic and get to panic about russia and the climate instead of getting cured

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_ablation_and_immunotherapy

president Reagan's medical history, though guarded by privacy, reveals that he had skin cancer [ 1987 ], colon cancer [ 1985 ] and prostate cancer [ 1987 ] during his presidency.

"He died at age 93, and not from cancer. " [ Although President Reagan refused America's outdated cancer treatments, he did not share his cancer story with his fellow Americans. ]

>Rockefeller 102 yrs old
>Jimmy Carter 93 yrs old, cured of metatstatic cancer in 2015
>Gerald Ford 93 yrs old
>Reagan 93 yrs old, cured of metatstatic cancers (colon, prostate, skin) in 1985
>George Bush 93 yrs old
>Henry Kissinger 93 yrs old
>Charles W. Robinson 95 yrs old
>Robert S. Ingersoll 96 yrs old
>Andrew Marshall 95 yrs old
>Prince Philip 95 yrs old
>Zbigniew Brzezinski 90 yrs old

consider the fact that cancer treatments have remained the same for 100 years using archaic radiotherapy and chemo

consider the fact that immunotherapy, cryoimmunotherapy have been around for over 100 years, but suppressed and avoided by medical establishment

consider the fact that the FDA setup red-tape and expensive phased clinical trials to delay and discourage new treatments

also it has been proven that diseases like cancer can be treated with a combination/cocktail of old common, cheap, repurposed drugs and other suppressed alternatives

while they got the goyim worried about the climate, they are culling them with cancer

Wow good post, I haven't look into these for a while. All of them work well in so many different ways. You know I have old papers, on most of them. But its on my old computer's hard drive. with reports on useing them from cancer forum patient. going back years who have tried them for a while. then posted there results from useing them. You know there so many diferent cancer fighting componds that work. Some a lot better the just stoping the curb cycle (the way cells devid) like chemo and radiation dos. Im just amaze they with all the cancer resurch that been going on over the last 100 years doctors still keep useing chemo and radiation.

Most of the drugs are off patent so no drug company will invest money on trials, the same with certain immune system modulators and non surgical procedures

It shouldn't be surprising. There are billions of dollars in profits to be made from cancer treatment. Why cure it when you can sustain the business model with a limitless supply of desperate patients?

Did you know that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off of health care. The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 passed by Nixon changed everything

>the law Nixon mandated also included clauses that encouraged medical providers to not CURE afflictions, but to PROLONG them by only treating the symptoms. There’s no money to be made in CURING sickness.

Is the health insurance business a racket? Yes, literally. And this is why the shameless pandering to robber baron corporations posing as “health providers” is such an egregious … and obvious … tactic to do nothing more than plump up insurance company profits.

the downfall of the American health insurance system falls squarely on the shoulders of former President Richard M. Nixon.

In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be

Immunotherapy/Warburg's metabolic treatments have been called quackery by the medical establishment ignoring research and clinical evidence:

>Coley's Immunotherapy suppressed for 100 years
>Arnott's cryotherapy suppressed for 100 years
>Warburg's metabolic approach suppressed for 90 years
>adjuvant hyperthermia has been suppressed 100 years
>invivo tumor lysate vaccine suppressed 100 years

>Photodynamic therapy suppressed for 50 years

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Coley

>archaic
1800s saw the birth of mass communication as well as modern oncology.

The radio, telephone, radiation therapy, and oncological surgery were prevelant 100 years ago.

100 years later, you have, for as little as $50 anyone can purchase a handheld, portable, flat device that features high-definition color display, FM radio, internet access, telephone communication, music playback, live audio/video conferencing, streaming, recording, gaming, word processing, GPS, camera and other advanced capabilities.

100 years you have: Warburg, HIFU, cryoablation, RF ablation, photodynamic therapy, laser ablation, MWA, immunotherapy all being neglected

and just use the same rusty, old chemo/radio

This thread is absolutely fucking bonkers.

relax autists. this is just scare mongering. you will all get a high paying job. get married to a virgin qt. have 5 aryan babies. live healthy productive lives to 140 years, thanks to modern science. retire in florida and collect your pensions. just like the previous generations.

it's literally fucking nothing. so lets just refocus on the real issues: climate change, russia, #resist, gay rights

>consider the fact that cancer treatments have remained the same for 100 years
Consider the fact you're utterly full of shit.

this. goys are living much longer than goys from the 1970s, when the rate was 10%.

so take the 60% rate of disease and thank modern science for extending all of your lives to above 100 years

He is right

In 1971, when President Richard M. Nixon initiated the War on Cancer, the average person had a 1 in 10 risk of developing cancer in his or her lifetime. Today, that's changed – for the worse. The risk as of 2005 is 1 in 2.

January 2016 marked the 45th anniversary of President Richard Nixon’s State of the Union Address when he officially declared war on cancer.

He promised Americans that he would begin “an extensive campaign to find a cure for cancer.” He said, “The time has come in America when the same kind of concentrated effort that split the atom and took man to the moon should be turned toward conquering this dreaded disease.”

It sounded great. After all, just a couple years earlier we had put a man on the moon. The computer language BASIC and the first handheld pocket calculator were introduced. The vaccines for polio and mumps were developed. The first human-to-human heart transplant was successfully performed. In 1971, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was invented and genetic modification of organisms was introduced. It seemed reasonable that, if we really focused on curing cancer, it could be accomplished. But it didn’t happen.

Forty-five years later, the primary treatments for cancer remain surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.

this is insane!
why are people being distracted with climate change when there is a real ebalo-tier epidemic that is expected to impact 80% of the population by 2020s?

>inb4 elderly disease
as discussed in the articles ITT, its not an elderly disease, unless you consider anyone past 20 to be too old to live

Cancer 'is purely man-made' say scientists after finding almost no trace of disease in Egyptian mummies

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1320507/Cancer-purely-man-say-scientists-finding-trace-disease-Egyptian-mummies.html

is the world being setup for culling?
scientists warn a global pandemic is imminent that could depopulate the planet

hypothetically, there exists cheap old drugs that can be repurposed to treat the pandemic.

FDA requires 30 years of testing before the existing drug can be repurposed and approved to treat another disease

so even if there exists a known treatment, it will not be available to the public for 30 years, after most of the population is culled.

>radiation therapy
Medicine has used radiation therapy as a treatment for cancer for more than 100 years, used since 1800s

Chemotherapy: archaic
Since Paul Ehrlich, considered the “father of chemotherapy”, more than 100 years, used since 1800s

neglected treatments:
RF ablation available since the early 20th century and neglected
cryoablation available since the early 20th century and neglected
HIFU available since the 1940s and neglected
hyperthermia available since the 1800s and neglected
immunotherapy available since the 1800s and neglected
photodynamic therapy since the 1960s and neglected
stereotactic radiation since 1940s and neglected

>The National Cancer Institute v. The rinky dink sources you pulled out of your ass

Cancer is a problem but its not going to have an 80% lifetime incident rate you raging autist.

these are also some resources providing more details:

books.google.ie/books?isbn=0976057816

amazon.com/Lost-War-Cancer-Alternative-Therapies-ebook/dp/B00N1YPUR0
ncri.ie/sites/ncri/files/pubs/Cancer projections for Ireland 2015 - 2040.pdf

>Lets skew those statistics any way that looks good to us.
see the rate from 1900 to 2015?

actually its intentionally under-reported/mis-reported as complications/suicides/over-doses. the authorities really dont want to cause alarm and public panic of the epidemic, they try to focus public panic and hysteria on oligarch issues: global warming or russia

One time I heard the head of the intensive care unit give a talk in which he bragged about how he had one of the lowest mortality rates in his unit. I went out to lunch with him, where he became a bit inebriated, and told me how he managed to get those statistics---by wheeling the dying patients out into the corridor where they died and didn't sully our departments record.

With the projected statistics for cancer in this country at 8 of 10 Americans will develop cancer in their lifetime

>y-yes goys, trust the guardians of your lives, the NCI, FDA, Nixon and all those who have been c̶ul̶l̶i̶n̶g̶ curing you. you now have the best radiotherapy and cancer incidence rates compared to the 1970s and 1980s

and the culling will go primetime in a few years when cancer incidence would be 80%

dont hold your breath on a cure to be released:

Andrew von Eschenbach, As director of the NCI he announced in 2003 that his organization's goal was to cure cancer by the year 2015

same theme throughout the regime

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_von_Eschenbach

>>Lets skew those statistics any way that looks good to us.

US covers up short life expectancy by importing millions of elderly immigrants from China, Mexico, India, Asia etc...

if the US were not practicing this, it would reveal a massive die-off of the native population

here is a useful insight on this matter

In 2010, more than three in eight (.25 percent) U.S. adults ages 65 and older were foreign born, a share that is expected to continue to grow. The U.S. elderly immigrant population rose from 2.7 million in 1990 to 4.6 million in 2010, a 70 percent increase in 20 years.

>Cancer is a problem but its not going to have an 50% lifetime incident rate
thats what they said in the 70s, when it was 10% and life expectancy was 73

now the rate is 50% and life expectancy is 76

>What are ageing populations?
>What is a selection shadow?

This thread is cancer.

OP is posting it everywhere, keeps posting blatant lies, and listens to no one.

Classic paranoid delusion - maybe he has a brain tumor.

...

Speaking as someone who works in cancer research you have no idea what you are talking about. A cure for cancer is as reasonable as a vacine for disease. Cancer is too many things for any one cure. It is not easy at all. We barely know anything about it. You are spreading false information on a topic you clearly don't know any real facts about. Please stop it.

...

i don't usually do this, but this

Mate if the FDA in its current form existed in 1953 we wouldn't have a polio vaccine

It costs billions of dollars just to get a fucking drug approved by the FDA

you could be sitting on the literal cure to cancer but you would never get it to the public because you'd go broke trying to jump through layer after layer after layer of red tape

penicillin and aspirin would not be available to the public if it would have received the modern clinical trial treatment

~20 years ago ebola vaccine was ready to save lives!! it just now went thru all the regulatory b.s and still not allowed to be used in the US!!

>The researchers said tests in people might start within two years, and a product could potentially be ready for licensing by 2010 or 2011.

>It never happened. The vaccine sat on a shelf. Only now is it undergoing the most basic safety tests in humans

if ebola epidemic was in the US in 2003 it would take 14 years for the drug finish phase 3 clinical trial and still not be available to the public.

a cancer epidemic does exist, the cure has existed for over a few decades. by the time it will be available, china would have settled north america.

>Russia treated cancer w/ photo-dynamic therapy for over 20 years

>USSR treated cancer w/ virotherapy since the 90s (Rigvir)

>Cuba has real cancer vaccines

>China has real gene therapy Gendicine

>China treats most solid cancers w/ ablation (HIFU, RF, cryo etc) since the 1990s
>China offering advanced procedures including Molecular Targeted Therapy, HIFU, cryoablation, gamma knife, photo-dynamic therapy, targeted therapy, stem-cell therapy, immune cell therapy, NK Immunotherapy, and gene therapy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_ablation_and_immunotherapy

this treatment has been ignored for a long time, yet it has proven to cure even metastatic. even though the tech has been used for decades it will take a few more decades for it to be approved in US.

meanwhile, China already uses it

The information you will learn is mostly censored and banned in the United States when it comes to cancer treatment, as only pharmaceutical products approved by the FDA are allowed to treat cancer in the U.S.

Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry and the U.S. government has lost the war on cancer.

At the beginning of the last century, one person in twenty would get cancer. In the 1940s it was one out of every sixteen people. In the 1970s it was one person out of ten. Today one person out of two gets cancer in the course of their life.

The cancer industry is probably the most prosperous business in the United States. In 2014, there will be an estimated 1,665,540 new cancer cases diagnosed and 585,720 cancer deaths in the U.S. $6 billion of tax-payer funds are cycled through various federal agencies for cancer research, such as the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The NCI states that the medical costs of cancer care are $125 billion, with a projected 39 percent increase to $173 billion by 2020.

The simple fact is that the cancer industry employs too many people and produces too much income to allow a cure to be found. All of the current research on cancer drugs is based on the premise that the cancer market will grow, not shrink.

This guy again...

Look, I'll give it to you that lots of perfectly valid potential cures are passed up, insurance wont cover anything but the main stream cures, and there's so much money in both treatment and research, that I wouldn't be surprised that, like many other long term conditions, some degree of internal sabotage isn't involved.

But cancer rates and cancer mortality rates have been going nowhere but down, when you take age demographics into account. There is no epidemic. Humans actually have less tumors than most animals, despite living closer to concentrations of carcinogens.

Yes, chemo has a shit record, but that's the last ditch effort fix, and most often it's used on the elderly, where it has almost no hope of working.

Meanwhile, in the US, something like 70% of men develop some sorta prostate cancer by the time they are 60, and the mortality rate is less than 5%. Cuz so many doctors are so eager to stick their fingers up guy's asses, and they are quick to remove that bit of swollen manhood.

It is related to climate change, indirectly.

As consumerism and population increases, so does cancer causing pollution and climate change.

>But cancer rates and cancer mortality rates have been going nowhere but down, when you take age demographics into account.
Maybe in the us, where they've outsourced a lot of the manufacturing, but I doubt this is true in China.
World wide, cancer rates are increasing.

...

stop eating your fucking mcdonals dude.

The overwhelming reason why more people die of cancer now compared to the past is because we have cured most infectious disease but not cancer. Life expectancies have risen as you would expect.

The probability of getting cancer in a given year has barely changed, assuming you don't smoke of course. Other causes are old age, sunburn, obesity and sodium nitrite preservative, but these are minor factors and don't seem to have changed things much overall.

To be frank, OP is patently wrong. You'd need some pretty creative sophistry to muddle the basic mathematical concepts of proportion and frequency.

The real question is what drives conspiracy theorists. They could be trolling of course, or dare I say have low intelligence, however they do spend a lot of time on it, enough to make a troll bored and enough for anyone to eventually understand the basic concepts mentioned.

Emotions play a role. Spooky frightening angering conspiracy theories are abound. Perhaps more sadly a loved one has cancer or they have cancer and they don't know quite how to deal with it. Logical fallacies play a role, perhaps like UFO conspiracy theorists they think a large volume of spurious evidence like blobs in grainy photos is proof, a kind of filibustering such that even if someone spent days meticulously disproving every tiny detail they could find a huge pile more. As long as 1 thing remains unexplained in their minds the explanation must be their theory. Confirmation bias. Could a common mental illness affect people's ability to reason?

A good question is why are they unwilling to critically analyze the evidence on their own? They demand others be skeptical of the government but they complain about skepticism aimed at themselves or the conspiracy theorist they got the idea from. Emotions are a motive but a fully fleshed out explanation of the mechanism behind it would be good.

People weren't dying of cancer as much "back in the day" because polio did it first

In a land mark article, John Bailar published in the “New England Journal of Medicine” “Are we losing the war on cancer?”

We recently confirmed that this is, still the case. We obtained from the WHO mortality time-series data of 20 countries over 45 years (1960–2015). During these 50 years the age standardised cancer death rate has varied little (−4%).

These data confirm the preliminary results from Bailar and contradict the notion of a breakthrough in cancer prevention, early detection, and cancer treatment (Summa 2012). Today, as before, cancer to the notable exception of some childhood malignancies and of lymphoma remains almost universally fatal.

Today cancer is an epidemic. Tomorrow the Chinese replace you.

Sell em a treatment. Never a cure.

Cancer treatments make hospitals and the pharmaceutical industries billions of dollars, why would they have any incentive to ever cure or find better treatments for cancer?

why and how did the FDA approve the non-therapeutic, risky and lifethreatening, sex reassignment surgery and therapy as a standard treatment for those gender dysphoria mental disorder?

why and how did the FDA approve the risky and lifethreatening, non-therapeutic circumcision of male infants as a standard treatment in newborns?

Unwilling parents are even persuaded by doctors to have non-therapeutic circumcision of their newborn male children.

and why does the FDA deny, reject, and disapprove of life-saving, therapeutic cancer treatments that are practiced in other countries?

modern western medicine comes from a long tradition of eugenics

the technology/methods to cure cancer have been available for atleast 50 years

protip: invivo tumor lysate vaccine

shit like: invivo tumor lysate vaccine, adjuvant hyperthermia has been around for at least 100 years

we are 50 years behind in treatment
the chinese have adopted treatments that are still being denied in the west

>g-goys the epidemic is fake, the russian global warming is real!

you sound like the burger genociders of the past

In the 1920s scientists showed that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer.[224] Which resulted in no governmental ban on smoking.

In the UK and the USA, an increase in lung cancer rates was being picked up by the 1930s, but the cause for this increase remained suppressed. Decades followed of suppression of truth, unsuccessful attempts by victims to sue the companies and government protecting the interests of the tobacco mafia.

After 7 decades, and millions dead, the tobacco mafia in the United States has suffered greatly since the mid-1990s, when it was successfully sued by several U.S. states. The suits claimed that tobacco causes cancer, that companies in the industry knew this, and that they deliberately denied the legitimacy of their findings, contributing to the illness and death of millions worldwide.

The industry was found to have decades of internal memos confirming in detail that tobacco (which contains nicotine) is both addictive and carcinogenic (cancer-causing

There have been multiple court cases on the issue that tobacco companies have researched the health effects of tobacco, but suppressed the findings or formatted them to imply lessened or no hazard

yet compare the benefit of doubt towards deadly tobacco with the prolonged, bureaucratic burden of proof for modern, elegant, non-brute force, safe, cheap cancer cures

the cause of the epidemic which will cull the majority of the population is intertwined with industrial toxins, pollutions, and modern western lifestyle promoted by corporations, politicians and social engineers.

it took 100 years for the authorities to acknowledge that smoking is harmful to health

it will take 1000 years for the authorities to allow minimally-invasive, effective, curative treatments with great safety profile

the epidemic is silenced. the cures are suppressed. they want you to not exist.

I just read through all the posts and didn't find anything substantial. Cancer epidemic is not an issue so there is no need to panic. You will all get cures anyway because we got the best science money has to buy.

So ot's literally nothing guys. Just forget about all this and focus on urgent gay rights and global warming issues

but muh vaccines

>one person in two
Source?

wow!! the ability to detect cancer is directly correlated with the advent advanced imaging technology.

kys

it is 1 in 2 people. meaning 50% of the population
cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/risk/lifetime-risk

scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/02/04/why-are-cancer-rates-increasing/

'1 in 2 people will develop cancer in their lifetime'
medicalnewstoday.com/articles/288916.php

Thanks.

I've read through the entire thread and it was a total nothing .....*yawns*..... must be time for a nap. All these nothings make it sleepy around here. Get some rest from all the distractions and tomorrow we tackle #GlobalWarming #Resist!

about 40% of cancer cases are below age 60

That sounds made up.

There isn't a single scientist that would pass up the opportunity to have his name accosiated with a cure for any disease. There isn't a single pharmaceutical company that wouldn't want the exclusive rights to that treatment. There isn't a government regulator that would want to be the one who blocked it. There isn't a single news organization that wouldn't report on it. What all of you are stating is absolutely ludicrous. Your data is wrong. Your facts are wrong. Your argument is based on very little to no credible information and what is credible is slanted. I'm sad for you all. There are absolutely fascinating things going on in immuno-therapy now that actually has caused complete remission in some cases. That essentially IS a cure. Wake up and do some research. These idiotic conspiracies theories should be taken to /pol/ and left out of Veeky Forums. Seriously. Go learn something.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1500929/

learn2googl

you should really stop embarrassing yourself with your ignorance

>There isn't a single scientist that would pass up the opportunity to have his name accosiated with a cure for any disease

there are countless of scientists that have been denied and suppressed
William B. Coley (immunotherapy 100 years ago)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1888599/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7724661
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3833486/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1742910/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4777220/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CpG_ODN
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16814541

Warburg (metabolic therapy)
Burzynski (HDAC inhibitors and combotherapy)
Dr. James Arnott (cryoimmunotherapy),

>There isn't a single pharmaceutical company that wouldn't want the exclusive rights to that treatment

look into DCA, CimaVax-EGF, metformin, bromopyruvate, Magicray, and countless others. it may be too much for your low intellect

virtualtrials.com/surviveben.cfm

There is lots of competition in the drug market, including from off-patent drugs which are blocked for re-purposing by FDA regulations

This keeps the monopoly and profit margins high, as people have no options but to obtain unaffordable drugs approved by FDA.

>Nothing to see here goys there is no cancer epidemic. everyone is getting cured. run along now.

When you age, you die. Simple as that.

You cells can either stop working, kill themselves, or become cancer. There;s no way around it unless you replace the cells or end up replacing the cells in a ship-of-theseus type of way.

stfu OP. pic related is the real stats

this

relax everyone. sure there is an epidemic, but pharma will have a cure soon. isnt capitalism great?