Poll about cancer "cure"

[reeay]

If the person has been cancer-free for that same number of years or even much longer but used alternative treatments, and then tries to share what worked for them, the medical establishment tries to shut them down, calls them quacks, or even puts them in jail.

So it sounds to me like the use of the term has much more to do with profits, than anything else.

Could you share specific incidences where these situations you described occurred?

The medical establishment is a system, a paradigm. They make their own definitions, their own rules/standards, and their own way of measuring success. So alternative modes of care may overlap but is usually not in congruence with the medical paradigm. They have limited capacity to say whether alternative modes of care works or does not work due to certain levels of 'incompatibility' in defining & measuring illness/health.... therefore they are barred thru their ethical code to make definitive statements or recommendations about/for alternative modes of care (because everything they push has to clear their own system and rules of determining success... a.k.a. clinical trials).

They have not found a cure for cancer, only treatment methods that have proven to reduce or eliminate some or all symptoms of cancer. That's why they use the term 'remission.' If they said cure, they would get loads of medical malpractice suits and go bankrupt.

It is a corrupt and imperfect system for sure.

Cancer is rather a wide and complex field of understanding... what is 'cancer'?