My brain has worked overtime on this subject for a long time.

Do you think that actually do have cures for cancer and AIDS?

If so, which in my opinion they do, why on earth would they say so.
Donation, research money and the money that they get from the govt. would be gone. I think they know much more than they are willing to tell us and give out. It would also mean so many people would be out of jobs.

I don't think they have the cure for everything, but I do think they are in fact hiding lots from the public and the patients.

Another thought to ponder, why do some of the rich beat or continue to live with these diseases and some of the poor just can't afford to pay for these medications and treatments.
Can't wait to hear what other moms have to say on this subject.

By Kathy on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 10:21 am:

I know someone who is very much into conspiracies and cover-ups. He believes that the government DOES have the cures for both cancer and AIDS. In fact, he thinks that the government is responsible for CREATING AIDS. I am not sure if I agree with him or not. His reasoning for feeling the way that he does is that it is a money issue. Why give someone a cure? They will no longer need medicine and treatment that costs alot of money. So everyone will be out of quite a bit of money...millions, probably billions! I just don't know.

By Terri0930 on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 10:30 am:

I also meant to add that I did alot of research on AIDS,one of my friends contracted the virus on his wedding night. He had apendictis sp) and it burst so he needed a blood tranfusion, now mind you this was way back then. He is HIV positive and we went to many conventions and did so much research and it seems to me, that they get so close and then give up. Or to me they realize how much money they would loose, so they go back to the drawing board, and say the one that was so close wouldn't work.

By Jann on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 10:46 am:

I think that doctors are so egotistical that if they were to discover the cure they would never allow it to be kept secret.
I think that the rich might be able to get treatments the the poor can't, maybe prolonging their "life" a little longer, but they still die from the disease.

By Sunny on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 12:58 pm:

No, I don't think they have cures for AIDS or cancer, but I do think they are trying to find that "magic" pill. Some diseases are so advanced, or there is no effective treatment, that nothing can be done. We all have to die from something, even if it's old age. I agree with Jann that the doctors and scientists are too egotistical. (Read the latest Time magazine's article about human guinea pigs.) Imagine how famous a doctor would become if he found a cure for these diseases (haven't we all heard of Jonas Salk? Can anyone name the man who then made the polio vaccine into oral form?). Are they hiding things? Yes, I think they are, but am not sure exactly what.

Why do the rich seem to live longer? My opinion is that they were diagnosed early and given more aggressive treatments because they can afford it. Does the average non-insured person go to the doctor regularly? Do doctors offer them the sophisticated tests and procedures, knowing they might not get compensated? How much will Medicaid cover? Whenever I go to the doctor or other medical facility, the first thing I'm asked is what kind of insurance I have.

P.S. The oral polio vaccine was invented by Albert Sabin.

By Ginnyk on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 07:59 pm:

I don't think the government, or researchers, are hiding a "cure" for either cancer or HIV/AIDS. Fact is, people getting and dying of cancer costs the government (federal and state) a lot more than it presently costs to research for possible cures.
And I agree with Sunny - rich people see their doctors more often, earlier, and can pay for the very best of treatment, and still get cancer (and HIV) and still die of those diseases. They manage to die in more comfort and with less distress for themselves and their families, but they die of them nonetheless.

And, I would bet that most hospitals lose money in treating advanced cancer and HIV patients. With insurance reimbursements being what they are today, most hospitals get people out the door as quickly as they can, no matter what the condition. Medicare, for instance, pays on a DRG basis. This means that if a person has a specific diagnosis, Medicare only pays for X days of hospitalization. If the person is in the hospital x-2 days or x+7 days, the payment is still the same. A lot of insurance companies are now paying in much the same way, or only allowing so many days of hospitalization for a particular diagnosis and if the patient needs continued hospitalization either the hospital has to justify it or they don't get paid even if they can't discharge the patient.

However, I do think many nursing homes (particularly those that are for-profit) make a great deal of money, more by cutting down on services to the bare minimum than because they are paid so well by insurance or Medicaid.

And what about the countries that have some form of socialized medicine, where health care is essentially paid for by taxes? Wouldn't they want to have a cure for diseases that are costly to treat?

Frankly, this conspiracy theory doesn't make common sense to me. (Like many conspiracy theories, I'll admit.)

By Kaye on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 04:08 pm:

I think that some cancers may possibly have cures that aren't publically known. But in todays world of litiagtion things have to be really tested and given lots of time. For example: In 1986 a doctor in Houston found a chemo treatment for Mulitple Scleoris, but this was experimental and no insurance company would cover it. It cost 10k for the initial series of doses over a years time. Now why didn't the public have some clue as to this? There were some select sites that had a little info, but not until you actually saw this doctor did you get all the info. We did opted for this treatment for my mother, took a big loan out and hoped for the best. It was well worth it. Now 15 years later it is readily available for the public and insurance covers it, but this is only true in the past 8 year..come on it shouldn't take that long. So my point is I would just be suprised if there are great meds out there that could really help that we just don't know about and don't have access to.

By Ginnyk on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 06:43 pm:

Kaye, you have a point. There are a lot of "experimental" treatments out there which are only available for a small group of test subjects until they have been thoroughly tested, and even then may be considered "experimental" by insurance companies long after the FDA has approved them. Especially if they are expensive treatments.
On the other hand - does anyone remember thalidomide? Or, more recently, Phen-fen?
Personally, unless I had a serious disease like MS, I would not opt for the "newest" drugs. I try to stick to drugs that have been on the market at least ten years, if at all possible, in the hope that the harmful side effects have shown up by then.
For several years Temple University was doing an "experimental" lung surgery for people with emphysema - essentially reducing the size of the lungs by removing the lower, more clogged up parts. I recently read that a long term study had shown that there was no significant long term improvement from this surgery.

By Jann on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 11:07 pm:

DES was one of those "miracle" drugs, never even tested by the FDA that was supposed to prevent miscarriages, all it did was either cause cervical cancer or infertility in the offspring of the mothers who took it.

By Ginnyk on Friday, April 19, 2002 - 07:25 am:

And, there are some reports now of cancer risk in sons of women who took DES. I have a friend whose mother took DES and who had to have a hysterectomy at age 28 because of precancerous cells and the risk.

By Jann on Friday, April 19, 2002 - 08:52 am:

They are concerned about early testicular cancer (in the 40's) in the male offspring, but it's been somewhat inconclusive. Not as strong of a link at the cervical cancer. Mainly because it is totally rare for a 20 year old to get cervical cancer, but while testicular cancer in a 40+ male might not be the norm it's not unusual.
I am surprised that your friend had a hysterectomy just cause of the cells. I have had bad paps off and on my whole life (DES daugther) but while the risk was there, and I was (still am)monitored, I never felt the need to do anything prophylacticly.

By Ginnyk on Monday, April 22, 2002 - 04:53 pm:

Jann, there was more to it than that, I'm sure, since this is a very sensible woman who bitterly resented the need for a hysterectomy. But she is not a close enough friend that I could ask the details.

By Kym on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 08:41 pm:

I am not one to be treated medically for things, and Thank God, no one in my family has had to be, aside from nebulizers for acute ashtma attacks. I do beleive there are ways of controlling if not eliminating many many diseases, I read an article on a homeopath in Minnesota (I believe) who prescribed a very intensive fast and diet for 75 cancer patients that lasted at least 6 months, and it was 100% cure rate for these patients, he was immediately brought before the AMA and I am not sure if he was disbarred or not. If I can find the article I will post it. The hospitals often do lose money on un or underinsured patients this is true, I live in AZ and we have incredible problems with the illegals getting medical care and not paying, however I would be hard pressed to believe a pharmeceutical company or an insurance company is losing money because of this. These companies, not the hospitals are the ones who stand to lose billions if not more if cures are discovered. or alternative practices are sought among the main stream.
I don't consider this a conspiracy theory at all, just The American Way, which I do not begurdge, I just wish more average person would do some research before popping a pill for everything and that's what would really change things. I am not anti medical care when absolutely needed, but feel we are overmedicating way too many people.

By Ginnyk on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 06:23 am:

I'd need to see the article, Kym. There are lots of rumors and unsubstantiated "I heard" stories about cancer cures. I think it is because we are especially afraid of this disease that we wish and hope so hard there is a magic bullet out there somewhere for it.
My son uses alternative medicine treatments for some things and they work well for him, and I have read many articles about alternative medicine with plenty of footnotes and cites to studies, so I do believe that there are instances where it is helpful and appropriate. I know that here in Philly Blue Cross does pay for some alternative medicine treatments. In fact, I had a friend whose youngest son had really severe asthma which she treated with standard methods for many years before seeking a homeopathic treatment, which worked very well for him.

If the homeopathic treater you mentioned in your post was not a doctor, the AMA would have no control over him (although the FDA might). Unless he was licensed as a physician in his state, there is really nothing that could be done about removing a license (which is done by the licensing board, not the AMA). The only power the AMA has is to essentially say "this is not proper treatment and we are giving this guy a "bad mark", and then recommend to the state licensing board that a disciplinary hearing be held, if he was in fact licensed.
I agree, we do tend to overmedicate people too often (all to frequently at the patient's request). And I agree that the pharmaceutical companies make a bundle from drugs. I get furious every time I see an ad for prescription medications, which usually end with "ask your doctor if thus and so is appropriate for you". Many doctors say that they would not prescribe the newest (most expensive and still covered by patents) drugs as often as they do but their patients insist on the newest drugs. My personal preference is to not take any drug that hasn't been on the market for at least 10 years (by which time most side effects should be known) unless my doctor has a really compelling reason.
We have a mix of the best and worst medical systems in the world in this country - the best, because of the amazing advances in methods of treatment, surgery, etc.; and the worse because of the very large number of low income people who can't get treated because they don't have insurance or their insurance doesn't cover the kinds of treatment they need. In a country with the kinds of medical care we have available to us, we should, for example, have the lowest rate of death at or before birth in the world, but many countries have much lower rates. The two most profitable sectors in the health care field are pharmaceuticals and for-profit insurance companies. Personally, I think it is a sin that health insurance should ever be a for-profit business.

By Joan on Tuesday, June 4, 2002 - 02:40 pm:

I don't beleive that there is a cure for cancer yet. I don't nessasarialy think that people in the media live longer when they are ill, it's just that they are talked about more. You never hear of "Mr. Smith" or "Mr.Jones" in so and so town that has beat his cancer because that is'nt news. You do hear about it when it is a celebrity. My dad was diagnosed with lung cancer 11 years ago, and he beat it, but did you hear about it? No. If he had been famous it would have been news and people would think he "paid" for his good fortune. I do beleive that the rich get better health care, that's for sure, but I also beleive that what is read in the tabloids can't be used as a correct percentage. Does any of that rambling make sence? LOL

By Ginnyk on Tuesday, June 4, 2002 - 06:38 pm:

Makes lots of sense to me, Joan. And how wonderful for your dad and your family.

By Kay on Tuesday, June 4, 2002 - 08:23 pm:

I'll throw in my two-cents on the issue of physicians and AMA 'protocol'. If someone should call the AMA with a complaint against a physician, that person/entity would then be directed to either the offending physician's county medical society and/or state licensing board. The AMA does not have a majority of physicians in its membership, but the state and county associations do.

I just threw this in for clarification, and as an avenue for those who have a complaint/question and seek answers from the AMA, because I can save you some steps.

By Feonad on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 07:29 am:

My girlfriend got breast cancer. She didn't have any insurance and got treated anyway by the hospital in her area. They billed her but she didn't have any money.