Let us talk about Cancer Research U K and what is it exactly they do.A Fraudulent Charity?

reply to post by hypervalentiodine

My apologies. Its 5 years not 2, (lung cancer) and I probably changed 5 to 2 as that is how long my dad lasted. The survival rate is 6% accordingh to these figures: Survival rates after 5 years
. Back on topic, I believe the Cancer research game is nothing but one huge sham.

Discussing Dr Royal Rife's possible contributions are fairly pointless as it all got destroyed but its nice to see that people are aware of this man and his possible contributions in this field of research. This is the thing with medical science, and I see the same rhetoric coming from a couple of posters here.

"We know all there is to know about this and you are just a silly fool. Put your complete trust and decision making in our hands, we rally do have your best interests at heart you silly little arrogant man"

Now I'm sure you will be about to tell me that because its in the lungs that that makes it oh so hard to find any other real and effective treatment pther than bombarding patients with radiation and poisonous drugs but guess what, you don't need to bother cos I don't believe a word of it. Do I have evidence? Do I have proof? Can I give you a nice linky? Do I look like a medical professional? Oh, the onus is not on me to provide you with a nice set of links. Do your own research, with an open mind, just as I had to.

To be honest, The Macmillan nurses do offer good care and supporting services to cancer patients, as far as I could see anyway, but, its palliative care, nothing more.
Thats right, they just worry about the symptoms, despite having seen adverts claiming "Cancer is not always a death sentence..." Yeah right. In accordance with the OP, I believe Cancer Research to be a fraudulent charity.

What kind of therapy? There is only 2 kinds to be had at this stage. Chemo and radio therapies. Did you even read my post or just wade in because you don't like my opinion?

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver


Discussing Dr Royal Rife's possible contributions are fairly pointless as it all got destroyed but its nice to see that people are aware of this man and his possible contributions in this field of research.

This is the thing with medical science, and I see the same rhetoric coming from a couple of posters here.

And yet somehow, there are groups who are doing research into essentially the same methods as what Rife was purported to have invented. The only sham there is the snake oil sales people using and abusing his name to make a quick buck from people dying from cancer.

Some studies I found once while doing some research into this (my full comment may be found here):

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Which was then cited by two more PubMed papers in 2010 and 2011:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

and

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It doesn't strike you as odd that if this technology was so abhorred by Big Pharma and whoever, that this group was able to get funding for this work, complete the experiments and get published not once, but three times in three years? These guys aren't even the only ones; I have more papers if you need more proof.

Now I'm sure you will be about to tell me that because its in the lungs that that makes it oh so hard to find any other real and effective treatment pther than bombarding patients with radiation and poisonous drugs but guess what, you don't need to bother cos I don't believe a word of it. Do I have evidence? Do I have proof? Can I give you a nice linky? Do I look like a medical professional? Oh, the onus is not on me to provide you with a nice set of links. Do your own research, with an open mind, just as I had to.

Not at all, I'm quite happy to do research where I feel it's necessary to prove a point. Of course there are alternative and realistic treatment options that don't involve either of those two. See here

What kind of therapy? There is only 2 kinds to be had at this stage. Chemo and radio therapies. Did you even read my post or just wade in because you don't like my opinion?

I read your post, yes. It's not your opinion I dislike so much as it is the way in which you've presented it - try doing some actual research.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
I emailed them a year or so ago telling them that they are nothing but an ineffective sham acting as a front, funneling lots of money through to Pharma who have come up with nothing. This was just after my dad had died of the lung variety. I also told them that I wouldn't be donating a single penny to them or any similar minded charitites as after 40 years the only treatment available to the masses at great cost is radiation and poisonous cancer causing drugs.

I got a nice polite reply back telling me how sad it is to lose someone and that soon a manager of some sort would get in contact with me. They neevr did of course.

Radiation causes cancer. Chemo drugs causes cancer in the people that make them, never mind the people that take them. Fact.

Thanks for bringing this up.

I mean really people, 50 years or so of research and billions and billions (worldwide) in well-meant donations and still nothing much on the horizon? Scam, sham, blam!

Just for something to do one night I looked at the Dutch version here. In the very first paragraph of their yearly report they stated:
"We are not searching for a cure for cancer as it is too complex a disease for that." I nearly fell off my stool. Well, at least they are honest I guess. Then they went on to defend what they do do with that money, such as animal testing and a nice fat salary for Mr Director. Someone who also happens to have mroe than one job.

Grrrr!

I have done some more investigating it and it seems someone else has had a look at their finances as well.


here is a brief excerpt:-

Cancer Research UK acquired 477 million pounds in charitable donations between 2007-2008; previously in the 2006-2007 period, it was 420 million pounds. They received 10 million pounds in legacy funds, this is what they claim is their income.

Cancer Research admits that they spend £130 million pounds on actually generating those funds!

2.5 million pounds on Supporter Relationship Management. This is a strategy for the management of future fund-raising.

Cancer Research UK List of Employees & Pay

3,935 employees receiving up to £60,000 per year = £236 000 000 !
38 employees receiving up to £70,000 per year = £2 660 000
30 employees receiving up to £80,000 per year = £2 400 000
21 employees receiving up to £90,000 per year
9 employees receiving up to £100,000 per year
7 employees receiving up to £110,000 per year
1 employee receiving up to £120,000 per year
4 employees receiving up to £130,000 per year
3 employees receiving up to £140,000 per year
2 employees receiving up to £150,000 per year
2 employees receiving up to £160,000 per year
1 employee receiving up to £260,000 per year

Total scammed equals...well you do the sums.

Nearly 4000 employees on £60000 a year...that is absolutely shocking.What do they do?

What treatment was invented from these 4000? How many people did they save?

Since 2002.

£250 million spent on salaries.£130 million spent on raising the money.The rest spent on new buildings and pension top ups!

What is the result of these huge salaries?

Who are these people?

We need to identify these "employees" and find out who they, who they work for are and what do they actually do?

I would not be surprised if this investigation reveals some really unpleasant truths about this charity.

On Sky Tv more advert after advert asking for |£2 a month by direct debit promising to fight cancer...

reply to post by beckybecky

In contrast to the previous poster to you's insinuation that I hadn't done my research, I wanted to gently encourage people to go and do theirs like I did, a few years ago (which is also why I don't have a nice set of easy to click links to follow).

Great stuff beckybecky! As you point out, it seems to be a self-feeding charity. They use the money to employ lots of people who I am sure do a fine job and all, but still no cure or any real breakthrough in real terms. I would guess that the 1 employee listed as earning 260,000 is the director, who imho is nothing but a symbolic figurehead to garner public trust. He does nothing at all really. Signs a few papers, has his photo on the wall and er....goes to a lot of pointless meetings probably. In a few years it will be a different guy with a background of academia and vague medical things.

Now I am sure that most of the regular employees are well-intentioned but people need to look seriously at the results as you have done and discover that while they might "do a lot of work", the results of that work thus far are quite disappointing. Thanks for responding.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

Now I have no desire to debate the finer points of medical things as that is not really OT but let us agree on the last part of that definition, unregulated cell growth for simplicity's sake. Ergo, if you can control the growth, you can control the cancer.

Why not? It's not really that off topic.

Now, what does exposing people to radiation do to help the disease?

The cells in our body have mechanisms to ensure that any damage caused to the DNA contained within, by either chemical or radiation, can be rectified. It has an error rating of something like 1 in every 10^9 (I'll try and find my lecture notes from last year to confirm this)

When cells become cancerous however, they become more susceptible to radiation; many cancer cells have turned off their ability to repair DNA in the process of becoming cancerous.

Secondly, the radiation is aimed from several different angles to intersect the tumour, and to avoid over exposure of the surrounding healthy tissue.

As an example, sufferes of lung cancer also "need" to receive a dose of radiation in their brains to combat spreadage from the lungs, oxygen goes from the lungs to the brain. Is the penny starting to drop yet?

Not really, you'll have to go into more detail on this as I have no idea what you are hinting at?

Peer review? Please. Do your own research and see how they have all been smacked down because it flies in the face of what Big Pharma is all about.

That's what peer review is. People doing independent research using the same methods as the original claimant to try and disprove them. That is the basis of science.

Reading a handful of biased websites on the internet that offer straw man after straw man of arguments does count as research and definitely does not make you knowledgeable on the subject at all

So here's a question for you seeing as how you think its all rosy and peachy. When was the last major breakthrough made with cancer treatment and how many years of research and countless millions in the pockets of profit making, patent bound companies? And how many years before that actually is available to the public?

You are aware of the fact that the road to a successful treatment does not go straight from discovery to available to buy in the shops/pharmacy, are you not?

When a drug is discovered to have anti-carcinogenic properties it goes through a process of research and development to ensure that it is safe to be taken by humans. This is conducted through clinical trials to show the safety and the efficacy of the chemical.

The media doesn't really help with this either, they'll come out with a big headline saying something like "new miracle cure for cancer", but what they don't say is that will take more than a decade of R&D to ensure that it is safe for human consumption.

Like that DCA cancer cure that was floating around here not so long ago. IIRC it had been shown as a promising anti-carcinogenic drug, but what was later found out was that it caused renal failure and neural degeneration.

Here is a website I use frequently, where I have entered a simple search in the scientific subsection of the website.

/r/science

93% of patients do not live longer than 2 years after undergoing therapy. Yeah, the treatment really works well...

Link?

reply to post by Griffo

To be honest, it is not my field of expertise but then I don't need to be an expert to a, have an opinion or b, examine the evidence for myself. ;-P Is that alright?

Well you can certainly quote a textbook at me with what to me look like meaningless numbers, (10 to the power of nine? o rly?) the same kinda numbers that disappear into research which as you so aptly stated...
"You are aware of the fact that the road to a successful treatment does not go straight from discovery to available to buy in the shops/pharmacy, are you not?" Indeed I am. Still waiting, still interested. Not much news yet lately though.

Its the same thing they've been saying for years about most drugs. You either have a good and effective cure or you don't. I'm sure enough animals have been tested on repeatedly and needlessly but thats another topic again. I digress.

My fathers treatment involved at least one dosage or "shot" of radiation directly in/at his brain. I assume it is because the air and thus smoke inhaled can/do/may end up reaching the brain as well. It was apparently a preventative measure but from what little I was told also a regular procedure. I may be wrong and I was not present but it did happen. Anyway, after he got this shot in the head he started coming out with some very strange statements. Imagined events with family members that just did not happen.

He hated his treatment, hated being in hospital and hated taking the mophine so he wasn't high as a kite either. He was very anti drugs on a personal level.

I'm perfectly fine with peer review. Its the only way to verify if something is true. As long as it is leading somewhere. Not just more of the same peer review and little results.

Biased websites and strawman. Ah yes. If we were talking about vaccines this is about the point you would be telling me that mercury in vaccines is really only a tiny amount and therefore absolutely nothing for me to worry about. Yes.

Knowledgeable. Well see my knowledge is also partly based on first hand xperience. Have you ever seen anyone with cancer? A loved one?

Blaming the media now? They use the same idea to ask for donations and maybe we're all getting a little impatient now?

Speaking of which, wasn't there another media piece about them having found a cure for some form of cancer? Some kinda virus or bacteria type thing present in soil? I hear a bell ringing somewhere.

Request for link. see previous post from me and a revised figure of 5 years.

Unfortunately I don't have your quoting and pasting skills but have tried to answer your points one for one.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by beckybecky

 

The agencies are nothing but a scam, like many has posted already big pharma is behind them, so they can research with your donations while withholding any cures that could be found.

What i want to know how we can stop these Cancer Research UK fraudsters from continuing to rip of innocent people.

it is fairly clear from their published figures that they are nothing more than fraudsters who are lining their own and their cronies pockets.

I mean more than £3 billion stolen from the public since 2002 and nothing to show for it.

£3000 000 000 is a lot of money.

How can we stop them? Also prosecute them for fraud.

Is there not some kind of court injunction that we can take out to stop their very misleading advertising and their very misleading Cancer Research UK fraudulent title.

reply to post by beckybecky

I am not a legal expert but I would guess there is very little you can do about their name. The only way to expose them would be to go down the rabbit hole of medical research but that would cost so much in legal fees that I dare to offer the opinion that not even Bill Gates's money would be able to get it through a court to completion.

You would also probably be hard pressed to find a lawyer who is capable and willing seeing as their "oath of office" or whatever it is called is to the BAR and not their clients.

As you have probably seen on this and other threads relating to things "medical", lots of well-meaning "experts" would tell you that you are wrong and then proceed to present lots of "information" which would bore most people #less and quite possibly confuse them. The fact remains, not one piece of meaningful "discovery" or tangible treatment has come out of this "agency" in several decades.
ETA: I wasn't seeking to answer for another but just checked in here again. I notice the detractors all fell silent!

reply to post by beckybecky


I suggest you research some more, because your argument is heavily based on assuming that every employee who earns UP TO £60,000 actually EARNS £60,000,

I earn £24,000, but I also earn UP TO £60,000. You should really check what the AVERAGE pay of those earning up to £60,000 is, because your financial calculations may be very wrong, and that could seriously damage your argument.

reply to post by Snippy23

The next logical question would be....
Do you work part time?
Umm, you suggest we "research more" yet we use "official figures"?
Sounds like a deflection to me.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

Just off to bed, and I think I’ll come back to this tomorrow, but . . get real . . .

I work full-time at the maximum of a supervisory grade in the UK Civil Service.

Deflecting what from what? . . . the figures used maximise everything so they are pretty much bound to be wrong - if the 3,935 employees receiving up to £60,000 per year are actually earning £30,000 each on average, then the total is £118 million out.
Anyhow, to return to the real world, if you’re pushing Royal Rife, and demeaning the MacMillan nurses (ever met them, worked with them?) then it looks like your understanding of disease and treatment depends more on ‘Nexus’ magazine than facts.

reply to post by Snippy23

Right, the figures are wrong so they are lying, Thanks for the info.
ETA If I were you I would read my posts again. I did not "dis" Macmillan Nurses "care".


PS And don't tell me top get real. I've lost 2 close relatives to this bull# disease that no one seems to find a "cure" for despite billions and billions of "research".

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

To be honest, it is not my field of expertise but then I don't need to be an expert to a, have an opinion or b, examine the evidence for myself. ;-P Is that alright?

Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion (as is everyone); however from reading your replies and how you admit that you know nothing about the subject, I'm sorry to say but your opinion will be less valid than someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

Think of it this way, imagine if you were in an aeroplane and for some reason both the pilots passed out (AKA the film 'airplane'), an air hostess asks if anyone on the plane is a pilot and two people stand up. One of them is a pilot who has 15 years of experience at flying planes, the other is a person who knows nothing about flying planes but has read about it on the internet.

Who would you trust to to land the plane and ensure your safety. OK, I know that that scenario is a great over-exaggeration, but the main point still stands. Obviously the word of an expert is going to hold more weight than the word of someone who has read about the topic on the internet. Note: I am not referring to myself as an expert

Well you can certainly quote a textbook at me with what to me look like meaningless numbers, (10 to the power of nine? o rly?) the same kinda numbers that disappear into research which as you so aptly stated...

What I was saying that when the cells transcribe new DNA, they only usually insert one wrong base pair in 10^9.

Biased websites and strawman. Ah yes. If we were talking about vaccines this is about the point you would be telling me that mercury in vaccines is really only a tiny amount and therefore absolutely nothing for me to worry about. Yes.

We're not talking about vaccines though. There are still fallacious statements and strawmen thrown around outside of the vaccine related websites you know

Knowledgeable. Well see my knowledge is also partly based on first hand xperience. Have you ever seen anyone with cancer? A loved one?

Yes I have, and although it's sad, seeing someone die or become seriously ill from cancer doesn't make you an expert

reply to post by Griffo

My opinion is no less valid than anyone else's. Or are we suddenly not living in a democracy?

I'll skip the analogy to airplanes and passed out pilots...

You are talking to a layman, so tell me something meaningfull. 10^9? Sounds like the time.

Indeed we are not.

As previously stated, one does not need to be an "expert" to have an opinion or examine the facts. I have said nothing that is not true.

Thank you.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by Griffo

 

My opinion is no less valid than anyone else's. Or are we suddenly not living in a democracy?

Your opinion is quite a bit less valid, in fact. You throw around numbers and statistics that are either wrong or misrepresented, giving people the false assumption you know what you're on about and that your opinion on the matter is therefore to be trusted. When questioned by people who actually have some idea of what you're on about, however, you back track, claiming that you don't wish to discuss the finer points of medicine in a thread quite solidly grounded in the 'finer points' of medicine and furthermore, that you are not an expert. That's all well and good; no one's knocking you for not being an expert and you can certainly still hold opinions without also holding a degree on the subject-matter. The problem comes when you start trying to give informed opinions on things you are quite clearly not informed about.

As previously stated, one does not need to be an "expert" to have an opinion or examine the facts. I have said nothing that is not true.

Thank you.

Except for all this:

Dr Royal Rife (questionable death, if not murdered and equipment destroyed, killed cancers with some kind of sonic equipment)

93% of patients do not live longer than 2 years after undergoing therapy.

I repeat, more than 9 out of ten people will die after receiving "treatment".

Discussing Dr Royal Rife's possible contributions are fairly pointless as it all got destroyed

What kind of therapy? There is only 2 kinds to be had at this stage. Chemo and radio therapies.

And for the record, anecdotal evidence is evidence of nothing. A betterment on Griffo's analogy would have been if one of the people who stood up was a pilot, with 15 years experience, and the other one a lay-person, whose only claim to fame is his pilot Dad and a few articles that said person had read about Julius Caesar being the first person to invent the airplane (but of course, the government put a stop to that).

reply to post by hypervalentiodine

The OP is about the charity and their results. My opinion is not up for debate here despite what you may think, just throwing facts out there. (My numbers are right, well they were wrong. I said 93% but that figure is now 94% so even less in your favour. 94% of lung cancer patients die within 5 years of having treatment.) I was agreeing with the OP, if you can't sleep at night due to my ignorance then maybe you should just not read. I'm certain you don't behave this way to random people in the street.

Quite frankly I know very little about Royal Rife or his work, I just know its one of the conspiracies and never did look into it that much. From what I vaguely remember, I thought it was some kind of (please excuse my ignorant use of words for things I do not know the name of) "sound device" that got tuned to the "natural frequency" of the cancer cell in question and this was then somehow applied to the body part in question (think Opera singer smashing a wine glass with her voice), but like I said, I only looked at it briefly so could well be wrong. I feel the 2 current Doc's to be more something to watch. The Polish name I can never spell without googling it Bryzinski? and Simoncini. I digress.

Like I said its not my opinion up for debate so debating it is, at least for you, going to be a fairly futile exercise, Believe what you want friend, and I will do the same.

I would guess that you are either studying or are in the profession. The lack of emotion, talking about things as if they were bubbles, or little fluffy sheep, or a gasket. Its pain, suffering and death. And not much else. I'd hardly call watching people waste away and die anecdotal evidence.

Maybe you need to open up that heart chakra a little...

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

The OP is about the charity and their results. My opinion is not up for debate here despite what you may think, just throwing facts out there. (My numbers are right, well they were wrong. I said 93% but that figure is now 94% so even less in your favour. 94% of lung cancer patients die within 5 years of having treatment.)

Less in my favor? I would say it's less in most people's favor, if that's the case. And you are still misrepresenting the statistic. The web site you linked is based off of a paper, which you can download freely here. That statistic you quoted is for men in parts of England and Wales, in both rich and impoverished homes, from the years 1996-1999 (see below). Perhaps you might want to look at something more up-to-date and a little more representative?

Five-year survival for lung cancer patients diagnosed during 1996 – 99 was 6% in men and women, not significantly better than for patients diagnosed a decade or so earlier. Survival among men was significantly lower for the poor than the rich (deprivation gap 􏰀1.4%), a wider gap than for men diagnosed 1986 – 90, although the 5-yearly increase in the gap was not itself significant. The deprivation gap in survival for women diagnosed during 1996 – 99 was small, and unchanged from a decade earlier.

I was agreeing with the OP, if you can't sleep at night due to my ignorance then maybe you should just not read. I'm certain you don't behave this way to random people in the street.

Of course I don't. That being said, I don't often encounter random people in the street preaching false statistics.

Quite frankly I know very little about Royal Rife or his work, I just know its one of the conspiracies and never did look into it that much.

Then why mention it? On page one, Griffo pointed out the fallacy in one of your first statements, specifically this:

"We are not searching for a cure for cancer as it is too complex a disease for that." I nearly fell off my stool.

When it was told to you that you don't seem to appreciate the nature of cancer or how difficult it is to treat, you responded by saying that you "totally disagree", rambled something about various pop-conspiracy cures and implied you knew what you were talking about. My point is, don't harp on about things in a pseudo-informed manner or try and rebut an informed opinion without first being informed yourself.

I would guess that you are either studying or are in the profession. The lack of emotion, talking about things as if they were bubbles, or little fluffy sheep, or a gasket. Its pain, suffering and death. And not much else.

You shouldn't equate my knowledge on the matter or my propensity to argue scientifically with how I perceive a disease, etc. on an emotional level. Not once did I say that it wasn't tragic or sad for the people involved. Trying to deflect away from my arguments by claiming me to be cold and callous based on what education I may or may not have is poor form on your part and no way to hold a proper debate.

I'd hardly call watching people waste away and die anecdotal evidence.

Maybe you need to open up that heart chakra a little...

When you start presenting that anecdote as proof of something, anecdotal evidence is exactly what it is.

One other thing.

As you have probably seen on this and other threads relating to things "medical", lots of well-meaning "experts" would tell you that you are wrong and then proceed to present lots of "information" which would bore most people #less and quite possibly confuse them. The fact remains, not one piece of meaningful "discovery" or tangible treatment has come out of this "agency" in several decades.
ETA: I wasn't seeking to answer for another but just checked in here again. I notice the detractors all fell silent!

Have you actually reviewed cancer research, or is this just another ill-informed opinion based on what you see in the oh-so-accurate media?

And the dissenters fell quiet because the dissenters have busy lives and can't spend all their time correcting the falsehoods maintained by others.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine

Paragraph one. They were Cancer Research statistics, blame them, not me.

Snipe number one, you've never ever heard something in the street, like a half overheard conversation that you didn't agree with? You must not get out much.

Snipe number 2. When it was told to me? Who are you to be TELLING me anything? I did not come here for you, get off your moral high-horse and go annoy someone else. I am not worth your time or your money. But be sanctimonious and condescending, it adds much to your post. Its the tone that makes the music.

There are none so blind as those that will not see...or are paid to look the other way. Medicine is not politics, why are you getting so thetorical? At least I speak in real terms, you know, the pain, the suffering and the death? Its not like somebody just blew a gasket.

Getting back on topic and away from all this mindless banter which is just an attempt by government or healthcare employees or their agents to divert away from the fact that hundreds of millions of pounds, euros and dollars disappear LARGELY in research that doesn't provide much tangible evidence to suggest we are any closer to a cure just yet. If they can reliably test for smallpox and the need for vaccines then surely they can beat some inconsequential thing like cancer? Ah yes, its complicated...like baking powder. Or sound, or antineoplasteons or...so many other things than just radiation and poisonous "drugs".

See you forgot one very important thing in all that pomp and arrogance though. I bet you don't know what either. Medical professionals offer something. Medical advice. What part of the word advice do you not understand?

15 years ago I had a small recycling company. I used to collect bags of waste material from the C R C, on a weekly basis. Paying £1.50 per bag. They are donated old clothing, all the time and their shops, are full of them. Any thing they cant sell to the public. They sell to waste traders. As far as I know all proceeds from this was for the wages of the charity shop staff. Not sure about all the medical part of it.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

Paragraph one. They were Cancer Research statistics, blame them, not me.

I hardly think that the numbers are to blame for you misrepresenting them.

Snipe number one, you've never ever heard something in the street, like a half overheard conversation that you didn't agree with? You must not get out much.

Of course, but it's hardly the same as making comments in a public forum, open for review and critique by passers-by, now is it? If you don't like other members not holding your views or pointing our your inaccuracies then either stop posting on forums and start a blog or be more meticulous in what you are posting.

There is absolutely no need to lower yourself to personal insults. I have never made any insulting remarks towards your person, only criticised your posts and the way you present information. Acting out and trying to insult me like this is, again, a poor way to hold discussion.

Snipe number 2. When it was told to me? Who are you to be TELLING me anything? I did not come here for you, get off your moral high-horse and go annoy someone else. I am not worth your time or your money. But be sanctimonious and condescending, it adds much to your post. Its the tone that makes the music.

I think you're exaggerating the context of how I used the word, 'told', seemingly for the purposes of demeaning my post. That's fine and to each their own. Again, though, it's no way to hold a debate. If you have nothing of worth to say in response to me, then just don't say anything.

Worth my money? I come here on my own time and on my own accord. Though I am flattered you think of me as a shill, I can promise you that I have better things to do with my time than make up stories to pervert your brick-wall-like opinions of research science. Once again, if you don't like being corrected, then I ask you refer to my comment regarding public forums and the suggestions therein.

There are none so blind as those that will not see...or are paid to look the other way. Medicine is not politics, why are you getting so thetorical? At least I speak in real terms, you know, the pain, the suffering and the death? Its not like somebody just blew a gasket.

Medicine has grounds in science and I am a scientist (not a medical professional, as you seem to have assumed). In future, I would recommend you stick to posting things you know about. I'm not saying you don't have familiarity with the patient side of cancer, but that's hardly the same side of the coin as what happens within cancer research groups, knowing about disease itself or really anything except for what it's like to have a family member suffer through it.

Getting back on topic and away from all this mindless banter which is just an attempt by government or healthcare employees or their agents to divert away from the fact that hundreds of millions of pounds, euros and dollars disappear LARGELY in research that doesn't provide much tangible evidence to suggest we are any closer to a cure just yet.

Of course we aren't close to a cure yet. Cancer is an extremely complicated disease state and it is not caused by any one thing - the term 'cure' cannot be brandished in this context, since you can't really have a cure-all for cancer. That's not to say that research isn't being done and that good results aren't being seen. It is and they are, but it is all relative to the type of cancer under investigation - so again I have to ask you where you are getting this statement from? You obviously haven't reviewed current research so I can only assume that once again, you're making grand statements based on nothing but your own personal gripes and media-induced hype. Once again, I implore you to do some research. Google scholar is your friend.

See you forgot one very important thing in all that pomp and arrogance though. I bet you don't know what either. Medical professionals offer something. Medical advice. What part of the word advice do you not understand?

I fail to see the relevance of this. I'm not a medical professional, I'm a research scientist. And yes, part of their job is to give out medical advice. You don't seem to be requesting that, though, so I have to ask what your point is?