Loads of money are made with chemo and cancer research. If Vitamin C injections really are better way to treat cancer, can you imagine how many billions will be lost?
Do you think they are so stupid that they'd not immediately funnel the money into researching other diseases that aren't cancer? Or that this one thing is somehow a cure-all for all cancers? What do you think vaccines that prevent infections that can lead to cancer? Shouldn't they, theoretically, be losing money developing such things? Wouldn't the drug companies be able to better sell their drugs by advertising they were the company that beat cancer? Furthermore, wouldn't that also make all the governments that have taxpayer-funded health care stupid or part of the conspiracy as well? Why would a country like Norway pay for chemo if a simple vitamin proved to actually work?
I very highly doubt those sorts of claims, plus any that claim to have a "wonder drug" for cancer. Cancers seem to vary widely and have a variety of initial causes, after all, and some of the most promising developments seem to be tailored to either the individual or the type of cancer (HPV vaccines, for example, among others).
First of all, you are trying to discredit me: I never said vaccines are bad, I never said it is a cure-all for all cancers.
To answer your other more sane questions:
Are governments influenced by companies? Certainly, especially in US.
Is research influenced by companies? Most definitely, sometimes researchers are even bribed.
So you doubt those sorts of claims on Vitamin C? Look into the research that was actually done.
I love science, and probably so do you. But I've already seen too much "science", where results of research was twisted just to be able to publish in a journal.
Don't dismiss me for some alternative medicine dude, I'm not. But I'm also old enough not to believe every fairy-tale that is told claiming to be "science". Especially not in fields where a lot of money goes around.
> There is this cheap thing of Vitamin C injections staight into the blood. A cure that has been "well known" for centuries
Maybe it will be beneficial. It's not going to be a cure, though, it will be something for specific case profiles, and to be combined with other treatments. There are studies which are there, and they say 'no clear evidence', 'may slow the growth', or 'potentially important'. You are talking as if it's going to be a replacement for oncology, and are getting downvoted correspondingly.
Do you think they are so stupid that they'd not immediately funnel the money into researching other diseases that aren't cancer? Or that this one thing is somehow a cure-all for all cancers? What do you think vaccines that prevent infections that can lead to cancer? Shouldn't they, theoretically, be losing money developing such things? Wouldn't the drug companies be able to better sell their drugs by advertising they were the company that beat cancer? Furthermore, wouldn't that also make all the governments that have taxpayer-funded health care stupid or part of the conspiracy as well? Why would a country like Norway pay for chemo if a simple vitamin proved to actually work?
I very highly doubt those sorts of claims, plus any that claim to have a "wonder drug" for cancer. Cancers seem to vary widely and have a variety of initial causes, after all, and some of the most promising developments seem to be tailored to either the individual or the type of cancer (HPV vaccines, for example, among others).