Early cancer detection fraud

[Firestarter]

It would take me a huge amount of time to find official numbers on the number of deaths from cancer, the average age that people die.
Even if I would find this information, I remain sceptical about these numbers, as I find it very strange that when people close to me get diagnosed with cancer, they die without exception in something of a year, but when a famous person announces being diagnosed with cancer they often continue to life “forever”.

That’s besides that not a single president of vice president of the USA has ever died of cancer: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/vie...php?f=21&t=890


Situation 1 – Placebo cancer treatment
Let’s imagine a world in which the medical establishment would administer a placebo for cancer treatment (maybe a placebo could be better than the current cancer treatment...).
In Case A there is no active monitoring of cancer and in Case B people are regularly checked, which without a doubt prolongs the life after cancer is detected (even though the treatment is only a placebo).

Case A – No monitoring
In this situation the whole population dies at an average age of 75 with a standard deviation of 10 years.
15% of the population is diagnosed with cancer at an average age of 65 with a standard deviation of 10 years, and dies after being diagnosed with cancer after another 1.5 years with a standard deviation of 1 year.

Case B – Early detection
In this situation the whole population still dies at an average age of 75 with a standard deviation of 10 years.
30% of the population is diagnosed with cancer at an average age of 55 with a standard deviation of 15 years and dies after being diagnosed after averagely another 13 years with a standard deviation of 10 years.

Conclusion
With early detection “prolonging” the life of cancer patients from 1.5 years to 13 years, Big Pharma could promote both their products (that are nothing but a placebo) and the early detection fraud that brings in cash.


Situation2 – Health damaging cancer treatment
Now it gets horrible, even if the cancer treatment would damage the health of cancer patients, early detection would still look to be working!
Again in Case A there is no active monitoring of cancer and in Case B people are regularly checked, which prolongs the life after cancer is detected (even though the treatment makes the people die younger).

Case A – No monitoring
In this situation the whole population dies at an average age of 74 with a standard deviation of 10 years.
15% of the population is diagnosed with cancer at an average age of 65 with a standard deviation of 10 years, and dies after being diagnosed with cancer after another 1 years with a standard deviation of 0.5 year.

Case B – Early detection
In this situation the whole population dies at an average age of 73 with a standard deviation of 10 years.
30% of the population is diagnosed with cancer at an average age of 55 with a standard deviation of 15 years and on average dies after being diagnosed after another 10 years with a standard deviation of 5 years.

Conclusion
Even though cancer treatment hurts the health in this hypothetical situation...
With early detection “prolonging” the life of cancer patients from 1 year to 10 years (that looks even more impressive than the placebo), Big Pharma could promote both their cancer treatment (that makes people die younger) and the early detection fraud that boosts profits.


There are situations known in which doctors have diagnosed people to cancer that didn’t have suffer from this disease: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6554066


I think that this works similar in other diseases, like for example AIDS: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/vie...php?f=21&t=895

[Intoxiklown]

Are you saying that encouraging medical checks promoting early detection is a fraudulent premise simply to make money?

Tell that to someone who catches prostate cancer early compared to someone who only finds out when they are stage four.

[Swordsmyth]

Are you saying that encouraging medical checks promoting early detection is a fraudulent premise simply to make money?

Tell that to someone who catches prostate cancer early compared to someone who only finds out when they are stage four.

He is saying they have better treatments even for cancer discovered late but they hold them back to milk the public and let them die.

[Firestarter]

Are you saying that encouraging medical checks promoting early detection is a fraudulent premise simply to make money?

Tell that to someone who catches prostate cancer early compared to someone who only finds out when they are stage four.

Please don’t tell anybody that the supposed, proven “benefits” of early detection of cancer, is caused by the fact that this results in “detecting” healthy people. Naturally healthy people will live longer than ill people.
It’s a variation of the healthy user bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_user_bias

The healthy user bias has been used to “prove” the efficacy of vaccines, by first omitting subjects with a compromised immune system from getting vaccines, and then comparing the group that didn’t get poisoned with vaccines (that was unhealthier from the start), with the group that was vaccinated.


The results of “early detection” for big pharma are treefold (or maybe more):

1) It proves the positive effects of their products, regardless if there are any (or even adverse).

2) It boosts big pharma profits.

3) It gives the medical industry control over the patients that are terrified over having some life threatening disease.