Is Cancer Too Industrious To Ever Find a Cure? Americans are intelligent and inventive, we could

Unfortunately, little progress has been made since then, as reports from 2015 show only 72.2 percent of U.S. children are fully vaccinated (KFF, 2017). Healthy People 2020 recommends a national goal of 80 percent to maintain herd immunity (Child Trends Databank, 2015). Despite the life-saving importance of immunization, these stagnant rates show that many mothers of U.S. children do not adhere to vaccination recommendations. These critics and skeptics of vaccines are a part of the anti-vaccination movement. Originating upon the discovery of the first vaccine in 1796, this movement has progressed for hundreds of years. Currently, through media and prominent anti-vax social figures, the public can easily be relayed messages of vaccine controversies rather than scientific facts. Falsehoods include perceived low risk of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases, “overloading” the child’s immune system, mercury in vaccines, reports of negative reactions after vaccination, and the infamously popular myth that vaccines cause autism (Mittenzwei, Morrison, & Williams,

Science is supposed, to tell the truth, but because humans are the ones performing the experiments sometimes there are flaws.  For instance, Andre Wakefield in 1998 of Royal Free Hospital in London, England, said the Measles, Mumps, and rubella vaccines were to blame for autism. Andrew Wakefield came to this conclusion based on results found in eight out of twelve children. His results were then published in a medical journal called Lancet. Andrew Wakefield condemnation of vaccination caused the public to become scared ("vaccinations and Autism". . .). Andrew Wakefield's research was the starting point of the conspiracy theory that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccinations cause Autism. Furthermore, It made people, especially parents of autistic kids, question and lose trust in vaccinations. Without Wakefield's research people, might not question vaccinations as much as

According to American historian, David Oshinsky of the Wall Street Journal, “the controversy over vaccines is as old as the vaccination itself.” While both sides of the immunization controversy have gathered ample sources backing their claims throughout the duration of this controversy, the validity of the two sides couldn’t contrast more. The pro-vaccine advocates provide factual information supported by scientific research, while the anti-vaccine advocates make bold sensational statements that attempt to place blame for various diseases and genetic disorders on vaccines, while failing to support to any such claims with scientific evidence and instead substituting this with hearsay from media outlets and non-reputable sources. Regardless

One such factor helping to manifest these large-scale epidemics is a study from 1998 by Andrew Wakefield, which claimed that there was a direct link between autism and the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine (Smith 1). As a result, many parents refused to vaccinate their children out of fear, and vaccine-preventable diseases like measles began reappearing more in both America and Britain, the place where Wakefield conducted his study (Cohen 2). Although a later investigation by the British Medical Journal discovered that Wakefield had distorted or altered the medical records of all twelve of the study’s participants and that he had been paid $674,000 USD by lawyers attempting to sue vaccine manufacturers, the atmosphere of apprehension surrounding vaccines is still strong among many individuals, and especially parents (Cohen 1-2). But despite all the controversy and the scientifically unsupported arguments of anti-vaccine sympathizers,

Some others may believe that vaccinations can lead to many health problems in the future including Autism. According to an article by Seth Mnookin these allegations started in 1998 by study in The Lancet about the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccinations. Andrew Wakefield the lead author claimed there was a connection between the vaccinations and autism but, later Brian Deer discovered Wakefield's falsification of the study resulting in Wakefield losing his license.After being proved false it was already out there and many still believed that vaccines caused autism. There has been countless other studies that proved there were no connections between autism and vaccinations including one from the CDC after these allegations occurred.There

More parents are choosing to not vaccinate their children these days because they fear for their own children’s safety from damaging side effects due to the shots. Parents worry about metal such as aluminum and formaldehyde in vaccine. Formaldehyde significantly increases the risk of asthma and allergy in young children. Parents actually believe vaccinations causes cancer. There are studies that say vaccines can and do cause cancer. The original paper that found a link between vaccines and autism was retracted by Lancet because they believed the statements in the paper were false without any ambiguity. Wakefield wrote the paper to make money. It was found that he didn’t disclose that he was a paid consultant to lawyers that were representing

Many getting treated will still have the peril of acquiring a disease because of the terrifying number of people going around unvaccinated. The anti-VAX group’s suspicion is making it difficult to find a solution that could find a way out of the ditch already created. Many people in the anti-VAX group believe that many vaccines have the capabilities of causing things such as autism. Great Britain debunked this theory after being published in the journal Lancelet and the lead author of this article, Andrew Wakefield, lost his medical license in 2010. However, as the years went along, the fear of life-saving vaccines took hold of millions of parents. Due to the suspicions created by the anti-VAX group, the lack of trust in America’s doctors is near the bottom of all the industrial countries: 24th out of 29 countries surveyed. Recent research has found that those who have the least faith in the government are the least likely to vaccinate in the case of an outbreak of

Why focus on treatment instead of finding a cure? It is simple; there is in profit in finding a cure for cancer. Desperate and eager to live, the typical cancer patient spends about $50,000 fighting the disease. Chemotherapy drugs are among the most expensive of all treatments, many ranging from $3,000 to $7,000 for a one-month supply. If the cancer industry allows a cure, then their patient base goes away (Dr. Mercola, D. (2011, January 1). Cancer: Forbidden Cures | Natural Cancer Treatment. Retrieved February 26, 2015, from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/08/03/natural-cancer-treatment.aspx.) It makes more

Cancer. We all know someone who has suffered from it or has passed away because of it. Cancer now affects one in every three people, and is the second highest cause of death in the United States. For decades, the medical community has been on the hunt for a cure for cancer, and have been subjected to intense ridicule from the public because of a lack of progression toward a possible cure. In recent years, many scientists, doctors, researchers, and the general public have come to believe that the cure for cancer is being suppressed because of this lack of progress. Those who say it is suppressed claim that the drugs used to treat cancer actually cause cancer, making a patient sicker and sicker. As a result, the patients are forced to spend

The trend to refuse vaccinations is believed to have stemmed from a fake study completed by Andrew Wakefield in 1993 saying the MMR vaccine caused autism and bowel disease. In Wakefield’s study he tested 12 children who had grown up with normal development who presented a loss of acquired skills after receiving the Measles/Mumps/Rubella vaccine. According to the study, “Behavioural disorders included autism (nine), disintegrative psychosis (one), and possible postviral or vaccinal encephalitis (two)” (Wakefield, 1998). It was later found that these diagnoses were false and Wakefield had been paid off by parents of children with autism to make these claims and that there was no evidence to support

Misinformation is spread through the media as a result of the perception of the role that the corespondent portrays. More specifically the author believes that authority figures talking in public about denying vaccines’s connection to autism, often leads to the solidifying of peoples views. February 28, 1998 The Lancet contained a study published by Wakefield et al that claimed vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination caused a higher chance of autism. The study was later disavowed by nearly all the authors and was retracted by the journal in 2004. The author of the news article states there is simply no scientific evidence that links vaccines to autism. However since this study has been released some of the public has altered their

Well, the medical field has devoted a great deal of research and money to disband the claim. But, Wakefield’s research, though bogus, did spawn much debate and has many parents hesitant or downright refusing to vaccinate their children. In addition what compounds the issue and has made matters worse is many actors have

However, they are not the only group involved in sharing this knowledge, as the ‘Media’ as a contending group of knowers who concern themselves with collating and sharing knowledge, have caused a widespread distrust and fear of vaccines, due to claims of toxic components within vaccines and suggested correlation to rising autism diagnosis. Celebrities, naturopaths and sites hiding behind pseudoscientific ‘evidence’ have come forward over the years in pro-tests of vaccines,

Cancer is now for a while now, first people to write about it was ancient Egyptians 3000 B.C. seems like since then the cure for it should be developed by

In that cancer has afflicted humans throughout recorded history and dates back to approximately to 1600 B.C., the definition of eminent as it relates to finding a cure could be stated as a period exceeding fifty to a hundred years. However, using such a timeframe would render our statement unappealing. So, to make the statement that the cure for cancer is eminent intuitively appealing, we will define eminent as within five years. To test this concept we need to turn to the opinions of oncologists and other cancer specialists who are involved in the quest to conquer cancer. Dr. Otis Brawley, Chief Medical Officer for the American Medical Society feels, “the idea in calling for a cure does scare me a little bit because I don’t think that’s realistic in some cancers” (Landau). Dr. Leonard Saltz, a notable colon cancer expert at Memorial Sloan-Kettering stated of cancer, “It’s a much more complicated problem than anyone ever appreciated. It will, unfortunately, be with us for a long time” (Landau). These two respected doctors echo the opinion of most other experts. These experts believe the emphasis now is more on managing the cancer than curing it, much like we manage diabetes or heart disease. Additionally, the very fact cancer encompasses over 200 diseases and we have yet to cure a single one is daunting evidence that the cure for cancer is not imminent and we must therefore discard the notion.