Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
>
Finding (hiding) a cure for cancer
Here's the trailer for the documentary film 'Cancer: The Forbidden Cures': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etjvb...And for those interested, the entire film can be watched for free on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWLrf...
Interesting (All things Big Pharma and the Medical Industrial Complex don't want us to know I suspect).
Wesley wrote: "Lance wrote: "Interesting (All things Big Pharma and the Medical Industrial Complex don't want us to know I suspect)."Indeed. Another interesting natural remedy for many conditions is Olive Leaf ..."
Wow that is an inspiring story Wes. Well done! I am hearing so many positives about Olive Leaf Extract recently...good to hear it straight from the horse's mouth (so to speak). There's a big drive of late toward this extract here in NZ...it is next on my shopping list.
Hearing a lot more about mega-doze Vitamin C being used successfully to combat cancer. The doctors don't wanna know about it of course, but they've had to admit there have been some "unexplained" about-turns by cancer sufferers using C.
I suspect there's a whole other story in your being "purposely infected"... Do feel free to share some time.
Mate, well done for getting the truth out and sorry to hear about the health. I mentioned the Elm Guest House thing over in the Illuminati theories thread. Do you think the 'known' paedophile group/s in media/politics are tied into things on a larger level? i.e- worldwide Satanism, New World Order etc? You seem to be quite informed on the subject.And I didn't know David Kelly was involved with Mark Thatcher's schemes either...
Thanks Wesley. Yep, am aware of Shrimpton and other stuff you mention, and I think you're absolutely right that paedophilia is used within such circles. Thanks for all the above links. I'm almost surprised that this topic is still refined to 'conspiracy circles' when most of it seems to be plain facts and evidence. But then, of course I'm not actually surprised at all.The Ted Heath stuff I've read about before is particularly disturbing.
This stuff really does need to be exposed- but then it does seem to be coming to light in public awareness more and more. Surely this is the topic that will bring an underground conspiracy to a wider public audience, 'cos everyone cares about kids and would be up in arms if they knew what was going on.
Yep, you're right, but as much as many are kept in hypnotic tow, there are more and more of us 'waking up' to truths all the time. It's all stepping stones... one day things'll be different. I think you'd agree that what matters is we play our parts in exposing such things, regardless of whether we see change within our own lifetimes.I've had my years of being angry with the conspiracy. I'm trying a new point of view!
We're on the same page alright. Personally, I wanna effing help change the world! And that Anonymous video is very good and sums up the whole thing nicely. They're a group I respect but haven't really looked that much into, but I certainly believe we're on the right path with groups like that and others like Occupy. First we need the numbers. That's what everyone can help in. Getting conspiracy fact truths out to the masses by telling whoever they can, in whatever way that person may relate to it. When the numbers increase and the groups begin to merge together, united -but as peacefully as can be- we can then decide what to actually DO! But like I said, it's stepping stones. People are getting dumbed down dumber and people are evolving into new ways of thinking. I know what side I'm on.And one scene in that vid reminded me of this brilliant bit from the film They Live:
http://youtu.be/G-sn9FgY_gs
Harry wrote: "When the numbers increase and the groups begin to merge together, united -but as peacefully as can be- we can then decide what to actually DO!...""They got the guns. But we got the numbers. Gonna win, yeah. We're takin' over. Come on!" -Jim Morrison
Harry wrote: "We're on the same page alright. Personally, I wanna effing help change the world! And that Anonymous video is very good and sums up the whole thing nicely. They're a group I respect but haven't rea..."Harry and Wesley - My concern with Anonymous is that the obvious strength of the organization (membership anonymity) could also be its big weakness in the long-run i.e. It seems much easier to infiltrate and destroy from within than virtually any other organization.
Speaking of that song- do you know it's been suggested the five to one ratio is about the senses?
Yes, I agree exactly with your point re; Anonymous, James. But I also feel, in this stone-step time, that at least people are doing/standing up for something.
Harry wrote: "Five to one, baby. Five to one."No one here gets out alive...
This is my personal experience eon the topic: http://themindunleashed.org/2014/09/fought-cancer-without-chemotherapy-won.html
Gloria wrote: "This is my personal experience eon the topic: http://themindunleashed.org/2014/09/f..."
Gloria - Did you post the correct link? I couldn't find the relevant item...
Usually with cancer you are meant to be at more risk if you have a family history of the type cancer they are testing you for. You are a low risk if you have multiple generations of cancer and none of had the cancer you are being tested for.My family has lots of different types of cancer on both sides; lung cancer (asbestos related), leukemia, bowel cancer. So apart from having red hair and fair skin, I was seen as a low risk.
8 days ago I got my results for my biopsy saying that I have Basal Cell Carcinoma. Basically I have a form of skin cancer. I went to a skin cancer clinic as well for another opinion and found out I have 3 of them but they are going to do biopsies on the other two anyway. I did all the right things: Skin checks, Hat, Sunscreen etc.
Yes younger people are starting to get those cancers that older people usually get. With skin cancers, it usually has to do with tanning beds. I have never used a tanning bed. Average age for Basal cell carcinoma is around 50's-60's. I'm 29. Yes that is young for multiple skin cancers. Some of my doctors have said I am the youngest they have met with BCC.
My boyfriend says cancer is caused by a virus. A virus needs a susceptible host. So how did I get it if no one in my family has ever had skin cancer? Or if the fact that my family has multiple cancers as a history is irrelevant?
I have been drinking Essiac (it tastes awful) but I suspect it would take longer to take any effect than surgery would. Apparently Tumeric is supposed to help, though I'm not sure about that or at least what it is supposed to do.
Kelly wrote: "Usually with cancer you are meant to be at more risk if you have a family history of the type cancer they are testing you for. You are a low risk if you have multiple generations of cancer and none..."I wonder if you live where there is a lot of population? I was reading how bad that was for your skin.
Kelly wrote: "Usually with cancer you are meant to be at more risk if you have a family history of the type cancer they are testing you for. You are a low risk if you have multiple generations of cancer and none..."Kelly - Aren't Basal Cell Carcinoma exremely common? I suspect if skin checks were compulsory most adults would have those to one degree or other. Certainly that's the case Down Under where there's a supposed hole in the ozone layer that lets lots of harmful rays through. As a former sun worshipper, tennis player etc., I can speak from personal experience on this one - unfortunately.
Lance wrote: "Kelly wrote: "Usually with cancer you are meant to be at more risk if you have a family history of the type cancer they are testing you for. You are a low risk if you have multiple generations of c..."Yes Basal Cell Carcinomas are the most common, about 70% of all skin cancers. But as I said usually occur later in life. Skin checks are not compulsory here, but they are free.
Kelly wrote: "Lance wrote: "Kelly wrote: "Usually with cancer you are meant to be at more risk if you have a family history of the type cancer they are testing you for. You are a low risk if you have multiple ge..."Far from free here (NZ).
Lance wrote: "Here's the trailer for the documentary film 'Cancer: The Forbidden Cures': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etjvb...And for those interested, the entire film can be watched for free on YouTube:..."
Thanks Lance.
Wesley wrote: "Suppressed Cancer Therapies - http://www.whale.to/cancer/therapies....The Defeat of Cancer - http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sal..."
Suppressing cures to illnesses is about the lowest thing anyone could ever do.
As a physician, I honestly doubt there are hidden cancer cures. Cancer is such a complex disease that we are only scratching the surface with regard to our understanding of this condition. However, as our knowledge of gene-based therapies come to fruition, I foresee the treatment of cancer becoming more individualized to the specific person and their specific cancer. Our technology is only at the cusp of these therapies. Plus, the medical technology that is currently available is too cost prohibitive at the moment to make such therapies available.
Stephen wrote: "As a physician, I honestly doubt there are hidden cancer cures. Cancer is such a complex disease that we are only scratching the surface with regard to our understanding of this condition. However,..."Certainly that's the official line Stephen. But my understanding is there's some amazing things happening with natural remedies - Vit.C in particular.
Here's but one example we Kiwis have been following with great interest since it broke here in NZ last year... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-ad...
In a nutshell: "Diagnosed with cancer followed by failed chemotherapy (policeman and family man) Anton Kuraia was given only weeks to live. He started planning his funeral. Then he tried intensive infusions of vitamin C. Ten months on and he's alive with the cancer in remission."
One potential problem is doctors receive a lot of their information (either directly or indirectly) regarding cures from Big Pharma...Given the vast amounts of money involved, it worries me that doctors are not getting unbiased info especially when politicians can be bought by Big Pharma as well...
Lance wrote: "Stephen wrote: "As a physician, I honestly doubt there are hidden cancer cures. Cancer is such a complex disease that we are only scratching the surface with regard to our understanding of this con..."Great story. Many of my patients have gone for the Vit C therapy and other holistic treatments. Unfortunately, only one person I know went into remission after Vit C along with plenty of prayer.
With regard to Big Pharma, they are not a fan of vitamin treatments as they are ubpatentable and not profitable. Thus, no financial backing has been attempted on any meaningful scales to discover the potential benefits of more natural therapies.
I, by no means, hang my hat on these therapies, but I would not some meaningful testing to be done on them.
Stephen wrote: "Lance wrote: "Stephen wrote: "As a physician, I honestly doubt there are hidden cancer cures. Cancer is such a complex disease that we are only scratching the surface with regard to our understandi..."You're dead right 'bout Big Pharma - those (insanefuly profitable) pharmaceutical companies have much to answer for, putting profits ahead of lives as part of their modus operandi, ignoring natural unpatentable treatments and potential cures, replicating old (out-of-patent) drugs to bring out identical (highly expensive) drugs under a new name, putting (continuing) costly treatments ahead of finding cures etc. etc. We address all this and more in our upcoming book Medical Industrial Complex.
Stephen wrote: "With regard to Big Pharma, they are not a fan of vitamin treatments as they are ubpatentable and not profitable. Thus, no financial backing has been attempted on any meaningful scales to discover the potential benefits of more natural therapies...."
That's the key point right there, Stephen. You encapsulated the whole problem in a nutshell.
And furthermore, it's not just that there is little funding or interest in natural (unpatentable) therapies, but it's also that there is a genuine financial incentive (billions or trillions of dollars depending on which disease) to suppress or bury such cures. It's no different than massive companies like Microsoft trying to maintain their stranglehold on the market by killing off the competition.
I think it becomes more of a $ickness industry.
Those are my thoughts on it all, anyway.
I used to subscribe to a completely unsubstantiated belief that cancer was curable, but treatment was limited due to concerns of over-population. However, since about a quarter of the way through the book I'm currently reading, my mind has changed. The book is The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer
by Siddhartha Mukherjee. This "biography" has covered cancer research as far back as the author can find it, and discusses the people (surgeons, students, chemo therapists, pathologists, &c) who have contributed to the discovery and treatment of cancer.
One thing that strikes me is that surgeons now are not like they used to be; they were far more egotistical, striving to find "the cure" and bask in the glory of its discovery, living out their lives in fame and wealth. There was an awful lot of experimentation (much to the detriment of the majority of their patients) in the search for such a result.
Another thing that changed my mind was finding out how remarkably different the pathology of cancer is. Describing cancer as one illness with one treatment just isn't correct - the word cancer is just a more succinct way to discuss the proliferation of malignant cells. No one treatment cures all cancer, no one concoction of drugs or one type of surgery. The prevailing theory at the moment is that this proliferation of malignant cells may be caused by an earlier exposure or infection that had not been previously detected - and the variety of such exposures or infections may be the reason each cancer is so different.
Vitamin C may well cure some cancers, and has done so already, though unfortunately NZ's Sir Paul Callaghan, one of the biggest proponents of VC therapy, died of his cancer (article here). It's even more unfortunate that many people who believed in this may very well have passed away without receiving life saving chemotherapy. And to be honest, that's my biggest fear with these sorts of discussions - neglecting evidence-based treatments due to prejudice or conspiracy theory.
The Budwig Diet has been shown in many cases to cure terminal (metastatic) cancer. The mix of organic cottage cheese plus organic flax seed oil is absolutely awful to down (don't try this at home). But again, this does not work every time, only on some cancers.
So to sum up, I believe that people throughout history have truly wanted to cure cancer, both for their own personal fame and for their patients' lives. Alternative treatment works for some, and it may well be worth a shot if you've already been given your final countdown by the doctors. But I would caution against trying alternative treatment before taking the more traditional route of surgical or chemo-based therapies until more evidence becomes available, even if you do so to the benefit of Big Pharma. You do yourself far more benefit by staying alive.
Also, I definitely agree that un-patentable products don't get nearly as much exposure and use as they should. There's likely a whole swag of things from medicines to petrol alternatives that we could be all using for free or very little cost. But I know I'd feel much safer being a guinea pig for an alternative petrol source than I would be to test an alternative cancer cure!
By the way: Hi, my name's Matt, pleased to join your group :)
Matt wrote: "I used to subscribe to a completely unsubstantiated belief that cancer was curable, but treatment was limited due to concerns of over-population. However, since about a quarter of the way through t..."Welcome Matt - and thanks for your insightful comments. Personally I lean toward the alternative route though admit my feelings may change were I unlucky enough to contract cancer.
I suspect we need to be careful using the word "cure" or "cures" where cancer's concerned as I also suspect what may cure one person may not cure another given we are all so different in our make-up, wiring, susceptibility (to disease) and receptiveness (to treatments). Tis a complex one that's fer sure.
Prevention is still the best cure.I think that, going back to your original point about treatment being available but not being offered, we cannot ignore the roles of certain non-medical companies in the world of cancer. Take, for instance, the cigarette companies in the 1950's - having financially lobbied the senate to block requirements for cancer warnings on their packaging, they also managed to block state-sponsored trials of the connection between smoking and lung cancer. Articles published in newspapers and even medical journals caused both public and professional doubt of the link, deterring organizations from funding individual trials. And with such doubt fostered in the medical industry, those privately funded trials had very little impact thanks to blatant misrepresentation of such trials in public media.
Take for instance this quote from "The Emperor of All Maladies":
The centerpiece of [the counterattack on science's exposure of the danger of cigarette smoking] was an advertisement titled "A Frank Statement," which saturated the news media, appearing simultaneously in more than four hundred newspapers over a few weeks. Written as an open letter from tobacco makers to the public, the statement's purpose was to address the fears and rumours about the possible link between lung cancer and tobacco. In about six hundred words, it would nearly rewrite the research on tobacco and cancer. "A Frank Statement" was anything but frank. The speciousness began right from its opening lines: "Recent reports on experiments with mice have given wide publicity to a theory that cigarette smoking is in some way linked with lung cancer in human beings." Nothing, in fact, could have been further from the truth. The most damaging of the "recent experiments" (and certainly the ones that had received the "widest publicity") were the Doll/Hill and Wynder/Graham retrospective studies—both of which had been performed not on mice, but on humans. By making the science seem obscure and arcane, those sentences sought to render its results equally arcane. Evolutionary distance would force emotional distance: after all, who could possibly care about lung cancer in mice? ( The epic perversity of all this was only to be revealed a decade later when, confronted with a growing number of superlative human studies, the tobacco lobby would counter that smoking had never been effectively shown to cause lung cancer in, of all things, mice.)
In another example, Robert O. Becker, in his magnificent book "The Body Electric", discusses the role of electricity in cancer. Originally setting out to determine whether or not limb regeneration was available to humans in the same way it is available to salamanders, he discovered that as the capability for limb regeneration goes down, potential for cancer goes up (with worms at one end and us humans at the other - quite a raw deal we got there!). While researching this very topic, he noticed he was able to stimulate a remarkable proliferation of cancer cells by using electricity. Further research demonstrated that many household items and existing civil infrastructure had similar effects.
At one point, Dr. Becker plotted cancer patients' homes on a map. Interestingly, there was a band of dots on his map. Visiting the location of this band, he was only slightly surprised to see power pylons overhead - cementing his belief of the relationship between electricity and cancer. Petitioning the government to restrict the number or location of such pylons did no good, given the amount of money that had been spent on their implementation. Dr. Becker's persistence did not pay off - eventually his research funding was cut, he was turned down for all subsequent applications for funding, and turned away at the door of any medical conferences he wished to attend.
What can we do when companies, who have invested money or seek to gain profit, can successfully pay off those we've elected to protect us from such things?
Matt wrote: "Prevention is still the best cure.I think that, going back to your original point about treatment being available but not being offered, we cannot ignore the roles of certain non-medical companie..."
I agree Matt. Prevention is the best cure and always will be.
Those tobacco companies have a lot to answer for. They sure are a powerful lobby group - even more powerful than the gun lobby perhaps.
As for "What can we do when companies, who have invested money or seek to gain profit, can successfully pay off those we've elected to protect us from such things?"...Well that's the big question isn't it?
It could be reworded a thousand different ways for a thousand different issues - e.g. What can we do when those we've elected to protect us keep manufacturing reasons to go to war? (a la Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).
I guess the answer is we (the 99%) have to impose our will/wishes/desires on the global elite (the 1%). We have the numbers...shouldn't be a problem.
my dad and grandmother both died of cancer caused by the cold war era project st louis was involved in the late 50's early 60s. (http://www.alternet.org/investigation...) after grandma died i looked into natural cancer fighting remedies. i found info about essiac and it helped my dad get well before other family members shut it down claiming he should go to chemo. the cancer returned and off he went. i know there are natural cures/treatments. big pharma just cant make money off healthy people.
I agree K.P.!There are people permanently curing themselves of cancer every single minute of every day all over the world with natural unpatentable remedies
Hollywood actress Suzanne Somers wrote a book called Knockout in which she personally interviewed thousands of such patients who successfully cured themselves of cancer using such remedies
Here's another one that would be difficult to patent:There's abundant evidence that the state of the entire nervous system can affect cancer. Back in 1927 Elida Evans, a student of Carl Jung, documented a link between depression and cancer in a study almost totally neglected in the intervening years. In a long-term project begun in 1946 by Dr. Caroline Bedell Thomas at John Hopkins School of Medicine, students were given personality tests, and the occurrence of disease among them was charted over several decades. In this and later studies, a high risk of developing cancer has been correlated with a specific psychological profile that includes a poor relationship with parents, self-pity, self-deprecation, passivity, a compulsive need to please, and above all an inability to rise from depression after some traumatic event such as the death of a loved one or loss of a job. In such a person, cancer typically follows the loss in a year or two.
Several physicians have found they can greatly increase patients' chances of a cure with biofeedback, meditation, hypnosis, or visualization techniques. Several years ago O. Carl Simonton, an oncologist, and Stephanie Matthews-Simonton, a psychologist, began using all of these methods, with emphasis on having patients develop a clear picture of the cancer and their body's response to it. For example, a patient might spend a meditative period each day imagining white blood cells as knights on white horses defeating an army of black-caped marauders. When the Simontons tabulated their first results in "terminal" cases, they found that, of 159 people expected to die in less than a year, those who eventually did succumb lived twice as long. The cancer had completely regressed in 22 percent and was receding in an additional 19 percent. These results have held up, and visualization is now being adopted in some other cancer-treatment programs.
- The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life
Both people I've known that died of cancer, and those others who have spent time in hospital for treatment, never mentioned this technique as something doctors encouraged. It baffles me that something that's absolutely free of charge and completely risk-free, regardless of whether or not it works 100% of the time, wouldn't be recommended to patients by their doctors.
What would be the benefit in curing cancer anyway? You live through cancer and then what? You live to see 100 and die of something else. Maybe I'm being too existential but I've never understood the fuss about companies withholding ways to keep people dying. The population is aging and being dumped into asylums--er--nursing homes anyway. Why stay alive? Illness is a tragedy of life. "Big pharma can't make money off of healthy people" but they can also make money off of keeping aging people alive so what are we really arguing about? Is not dying of natural causes really a human right?
Suzanne Somers Throws Knockout for Cancer in this interview and discusses natural cures the medical establishment won't acknowledge: https://www.goodreads.com/videos/8009...
Rinny wrote: "What would be the benefit in curing cancer anyway? You live through cancer and then what? You live to see 100 and die of something else. Maybe I'm being too existential but I've never understood th..."Hi Rinny, interesting outside-the-box thinking.
Not too sure of any answers to the questions you raise, but for me the pharmaceutical game is more about immediate $$. Yes, you're right I think that if people live 20% longer or 30% longer, pharmaceutical companies would probably make more money in the long term, but having a monopoly over the cures or semi-cures for the big diseases is probably where the really big money is.
The average cancer patient spends A LOT of money (either directly out of pocket or indirectly thru insurance or govt subsidies paying for treatment in some countries). Likewise with other major diseases. These massive industries are among the biggest revenue industries in the world. So if say you or I suddenly created a cure that was totally free and not patentable for cancer or AIDS or any of the other big diseases, we would literally be wiping out entire industries that generate 100s of billions of dollars per year...
Possibly a good analogy would be if we created a car that could run for free with a self-generating motor, we would demolish the oil industry overnight.
Rumor has it such inventors often die unexpectedly...
Rinny wrote: "What would be the benefit in curing cancer anyway? You live through cancer and then what? You live to see 100 and die of something else. Maybe I'm being too existential but I've never understood th..."Yes, yes, yes. I have been saying this. Now I find someone else who thinks as I do.
We are encouraged to live long past the time of being able to experience life to the fullest just to keep the money-go-round. Who cares that our aged population are suffering. There is something wrong about our belief in the sanctity of life at all costs. If the body and the mind are worn out and we have lost our independence, why are we told that we must have open heart surgery or a liver transplant or whatever. Why can't we die with dignity.
Why are we so afraid of dying. Life is a blessing as long as we are healthy and loved and we should have learnt how to live life unafraid and to the fullest by the time we reach the age when we start declining in health.
Why does the medical profession have to take an oath to preserve life at all costs no matter how much suffering the patient has to go through before being released. By all means, if a person wants to continue to hold on to life, then they should be given every chance to do so. It is natural to want to preserve one's life while there is hope but should a person feel they are ready to pass over, we should not demand that our medical sciences should keep someone alive against their will.
"What would be the benefit in curing cancer anyway?"Put that question to any one of the millions of cancer sufferers worldwide, or to the families of departed cancer victims, and I think we all know what their answer would be.
Anyways, to answer the question. Cancer's one of the biggest killers of 'Man'. Second only to heart disease I believe. So there's yer answer. It would save many, many millions of lives and obviously save a lot of suffering.
If there was a cure to cancer I believe it would be hidden for a time. As Lance mentioned in a previous post, the industry brings in 200 billion dollars on a yearly basis. Unfortunately there are wealthy, greedy people out there who wouldn't want that amount to decrease due to a cure. If a cure was to be discovered, who knows how expensive it would be. It could be pricier or cheaper than today's treatments.
Oh, so cynical! I have thought like you but after many years, I have developed a kinder belief in human nature. I really do think most people have "do good" hearts.
Laureen wrote: "Oh, so cynical! I have thought like you but after many years, I have developed a kinder belief in human nature. I really do think most people have "do good" hearts."Wonderful in theory Laureen...
Unfortunately, wherever and whenever there's big money at stake (and we are talking BIG money with Big Pharma and the Medical Industrial Complex) the goodness of human nature tends to come a distant third to revenues and profits. A little research (into on-the-record pharmaceutical company fraud, doctor kickbacks from drug and medical supply companies, suppressed cures etc. etc.) will quickly confirm this.
For example, you could Google "pharmaceutical company fraud"
Also check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...
You'll see pharmaceutical company settlements for fraud are in the BILLIONS of dollars...so you can imagine the size of their profits!
It's important to remember the drug companies ain't so interested in finding or developing cures (for cancer or any other illness). There's no profit to be had if everyone's healthy. They make their money from sick people, which is why some refer to the health and wellness industry as the Sickness Industry.
Yes, very interesting Lance. But I found most of the reports were very old. Wikipedia seemed to have a few more recent ones 2012/13. I am not disputing that those at the top are enjoying an income that is obscene but, in my opinion, wealth does not lead to happiness and the stress of keeping that wealth must be very painful. I also doubt if the fraud is quite so prolific as you imply. The amount of convictions is a very small proportion of the drug industries massive output. I do agree that this industry, being for the health of people everywhere, should be absolutely clean and untouchable by profit-mongers. Maybe it could be a mostly non-profit government owned business, I.e. the tax-payers co-operative. Trouble with that is that it would turn into the usual inefficient distribution that Governments are always involved in.
See, I don't know how you fix the seemingly unfixable. We need money behind these companies to keep producing good and new medicines. I can't believe they are not interested in a cure for cancer. Imagine how much money could be made out of it? But there should be some government controls over the cost of such new discoveries.
Laureen wrote: "Yes, very interesting Lance. But I found most of the reports were very old. Wikipedia seemed to have a few more recent ones 2012/13. I am not disputing that those at the top are enjoying an in..."
Then we must agree to disagree Laureen... and I'd suggest you do a little more research.
Re your point about wealth not leading to happiness - not sure that has anything to do with this discussion.
You say: "I can't believe they are not interested in a cure for cancer. Imagine how much money could be made out of it?"
Not sure you've thought this one thru...
A one-off cure (in a best case scenario) for cancer may be worth many millions to Big Pharma in the short term. But what then? People are cured. No more cancer. More to the point, no more profits to be made from dispensing truckloads of treatments for cancer...treatments that yield Big Pharma many, many billions of dollars.
As I indicated earlier, there's a lot more profit to be made from treatments than cures simply because the former are on going and (seemingly) neverending. - i.e. It's repeat business.
The drug companies are very mindful of this and that's reflected in the (comparatively) pathetic amount of funding they put into finding and developing cures for diseases and illnesses.
Big Pharma are happy to release certain types of cures they discover, I believe. After all, new (pharma) "cures" for various illnesses are released on the market every year: they tend to work to varying degrees like chemo for example.However, if someone outside Big Pharma and outside the medical establishment (e.g. an alternative health practitioner) came up with a cheap, easy cure for cancer or any other major disease that anyone could afford using unpatentable natural or everyday ingredients, then this would mean Big Pharma lose trillions of dollars over the next 5-10 years...
So with that much money at stake, and indeed entire industries and mega corporations livelihoods at stake, corruption is always a serious possibility.
I can mostly agree with you James. But I can't agree with Lance. Yes, we must agree to disagree.In any new research, Companies are competing to be the first out of the blocks with the goods. This gives them a distinctive advantage in the pricing of the drug. If they wait for too long, and another company beats them to a possible cure, then they have lost any advantage until they come up with something better. We know that chemo is not the ideal and while it may extend life, there are no guarantees of a successful cure. However, there are new aides being researched all the time and there are, now, some friendlier treatments but the price is not for the poor.
Cancer is not a new disease. It was around well before it was called cancer. If it was easy to cure, one would have been found already. However, I feel that we are getting closer all the time to understanding cancer. My doctor once told me that there would never be one cure for cancer because all cancers are different. I can believe that because the news reporting is always promoting a new idea/method to cure breast cancer or prostate cancer or melanoma, individual reports and methods.
Just because one treatment is found doesn't mean that it can't be improved on. Anyone who thinks this doesn't understand the basics of the competitive market. The fight is always to be the first with a patent. It then has to be passed with the Pharmaceutical Goods Assoc (I think that's what it is called).
So the scientific fraternity is always being asked to develop/discover newer and better drugs than those already on the market. Research never ends. Think about aspirin. It was developed for headaches many years ago. Now it is being used as a blood thinner for heart disease.
I just think it is a little bit insulting not to recognize the great accomplishments that our educated science researchers have given to our societies. Yes, science outcomes can be bought, but do you really think that people all over the world haven't reaped the benefits of scientific research. Of course we should keep an open mind about all world wide developments but please don't get spoilt by what has been provided to us by the science of now.
Laureen wrote: "I just think it is a little bit insulting not to recognize the great accomplishments that our educated science researchers have given to our societies. Yes, science outcomes can be bought, but do you really think that people all over the world haven't reaped the benefits of scientific research. Of course we should keep an open mind about all world wide developments but please don't get spoilt by what has been provided to us by the science of now. ...."
I read what you wrote but I think perhaps you're crisscrossing so many different subjects, Laureen, that it's a little hard to respond as I'm not really clear what you're saying overall.
Nobody in this thread as far as I can tell is putting down all the great achievements of modern science. That's not related to the topic of corruption within the medical establishment as far as I can see.
To simplify: Big Pharma is no different to other industries of equal financial size e.g. the oil industry, banking, arms sales. When you get into business as massive as these industries, there's no limit to the level of corruption and the depraved methods those at the elite level will do to make a buck.
And again, that summary above is nothing to do with being anti-business or anti-free market (reminding you I'm a Capitalist), but it's an acknowledgement that certain industries need to be monitored much more than they currently are. We cannot bury our head in the sand on these issues surrounding modern medicine anymore than we can over the financial corruption surrounding the military or banking sectors.
I'm currently writing a non-fiction book with Lance called Medical Industrial Complex: The $ickness Industry, Big Pharma and Suppressed Cures and there's a Foreword in it written by Denis Toovey, an Australian chemist who was a pharmacist for 40 years and also was the head pharmacist for hospitals all over Australia and New Zealand.
Given Denis has been an insider in the medical establishment, I thought I'd run his foreword here in full:
This book is part of The Underground Knowledge Series by James & Lance Morcan. In it, they raise some very important questions concerning the state of modern medicine today and the major players in the highly profitable medical sector. Questions that certainly need to be brought out into the open and discussed with politicians and administrators who often hide behind closed doors.
While it would be nice to think none of the negative issues raised in this book are true, my suspicions are that, sadly, this is not the case.
In my own career as a pharmacist spanning 40 years, I have seen many examples of patients falling through the cracks in the health system as a direct result of health providers focusing on high patient turnover on a ‘fee-for-service’ basis with no guarantee of results.
On top of this, all too often health professionals have to work within systems created by politicians and administrators that allow for zero direct responsibility for patient outcomes. In fact, it is interesting to consider that, despite the millions of dollars invested in research, we have few medicines that actually cure patients in the real sense of the word.
Sadly, for many doctors, ‘cure’ means ‘a quick fix,’ often putting patients on a medicine for the rest of their lives with the possibility of adverse side effects, and no guarantee of a positive outcome. In light of this, there is no hiding the huge influence drug companies have on the practice of medicine which has stalled finding real cures.
The health system is more about the ambulance at the bottom of a cliff than a fence at the top. What we need, I believe, is a focus on real cures and prevention of disease with a strong focus on the body (healthy lifestyle), mind and spirit.
I am sure people want to take more responsibility for their health, but often do not know where to start. Equally, some health professionals do not take too kindly to patients who want to be involved in decisions about their treatment.
The Morcans highlight the tendency to label holistic as quackery – an ironic description when you consider holistic practitioners tend to focus on dealing with the causes of disease rather than just treating symptoms with medicines.
I am excited that more doctors today are practicing functional medicine, which has a lot in common with a holistic approach. Incidentally, I encourage people to spell holistic ‘wholistic’ to emphasise the whole (big) picture.
Serious questions need to be asked about a health ‘system’ in which politicians are often reluctant to invest money in long term, preventative measures. Measures that may take years to show a return on investment. Instead, they tend to focus on short term tangible things like spending more money to reduce waiting surgical waiting lists (to win votes) instead of dealing with the long term underlying causes, such as obesity, that are plaguing our world.
Regarding obesity, the public health message to reduce fat intake has actually led to many people getting their energy from high Glycaemic index carbohydrates. These often lead to insulin resistance, diabetes and, believe it or not, the production of fat in the body, giving rise to obesity, which is linked to many diseases including cancer.
Denis Toovey B. App. Sc. (Pharmacy) and Post Grad. Dip. (Clinical Pharmacy)
Retired Pharmacist and Author of Better Health for You – Better Health for You: An Insider's Big Picture Guide.
I have only read a few of these posts...I'll come back to them...but my theory is...if thy find a "cure" they'll be out of business so to speak...they need to keep promoting their therapies and testing etc...in order to make money..
there is also a lot to be said for natural "medicines" herbals and such
Cancer may be one of the biggest killers...but I don't think chemo or radiation therapy are neessarily any better...
if you look at veternary medicine...it has become alost as big there as well..although...our 4-legged friends don't seem to have the horrible reactions to the drugs like we do...
if they had a cure..it would be a momentous occasion indeed
there is also a lot to be said for natural "medicines" herbals and such
Cancer may be one of the biggest killers...but I don't think chemo or radiation therapy are neessarily any better...
if you look at veternary medicine...it has become alost as big there as well..although...our 4-legged friends don't seem to have the horrible reactions to the drugs like we do...
if they had a cure..it would be a momentous occasion indeed
Underground Knowledge — A discussion group
Books mentioned in this topic
STOPP (Stop the Organized Pill Pushers) Now (other topics)Self-Consistant Electrodynamics (other topics)
DNA and Cell Resonance (other topics)
Scalar Wave Transponder (other topics)
Medical Industrial Complex (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Suzanne Somers (other topics)Konstantin Meyl (other topics)
“The cancer industry world wide is estimated at a 200 billion dollar a year industry. There are many in various associated positions within that industry who would be without a job if that cash flow dried up suddenly with the news that there are cheaper, less harmful, and more efficacious remedies available. Big Pharmacy would virtually vanish.” –Paul Fassa. Article excerpt in Natural News, September 24, 2009.
In the West at least, cancer is one the biggest natural killers - up there with cardiovascular diseases. Some fatality estimates have been as high as 20,000 cancer patients worldwide dying every day. When a cancer cure is finally found it will save millions of lives and will be the medical discovery of this era.
In the last few decades, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent internationally on cancer research. In the US alone, since President Nixon launched his ‘War on Cancer’ program in 1971, tens of billions in government funding have been granted to cancer researchers.
However, there are theories out there which suggest there has already been a cure, or many cures, discovered for cancer. These popular conspiracy theories suggest the Medical Industrial Complex have a huge financial incentive to suppress cures so they can continue to provide their own costly treatments for cancer patients.
If true, that would be a callous and unforgiveable business model, unnecessarily costing countless lives.
There are many case studies that support the theory. Here’s a sample of those.
In the 1920’s, Canadian nurse Rene Caisse developed a natural concoction of herbs called Essiac. She claimed it could cure cancer and garnered many testimonials from satisfied patients said to be cancer-free after taking the product. Laboratory tests did not confirm Essiac offered any benefits whatsoever, but conspiracy theorists argue the lab tests were rigged and that Big Pharma flexed its muscle to shut Caisse down.
In the 1940’s, German-born American physician Max Gerson (1881-1959) developed anutrition-based cancer treatmentcalled Gerson Therapy. After repeatedly claiming his therapy cured cancer, Doctor Gerson had his medical license suspended and he died while still under suspension. Although now a maligned and mostly forgotten cancer treatment in America, it remains popular in Mexico where there are Gerson clinics in operation, treating local and foreign cancer patients.
In the 1950’s, American coal miner Harry Hoxsey promoted his family’s century-old herbal recipe, which he touted as a cancer cure. He set up clinics in 17 states around America before all were closed down by the FDA.Hoxsey made a rare documentary film in 1957 called You Don’t Have to Die, which detailed his cure and covered the patients he treated with it. There’s a more recent documentary titled Hoxsey: How Healing Becomes a Crime, which chronicles his battles with ‘organized medicine’.
In the 1980’s, Italian medical doctor, chemist and pharmacologist Luigi di Bella (1912-2003) claimed to have developed a cure for cancer known as Di Bella Therapy. The formula was a combination of vitamins, drugs and hormones.
The American Cancer Society says on its website that numerous studies showed Di Bella Therapy “may have had a negative effect compared to the outcome for similar patients receiving standard treatment”.
However, there are some alternative medical researchers who believe Di Bella therapy was a legitimate cancer cure that was permanently quashed by the medical establishment.
Despite the extremely negative press garnered in Italy and the rest of the world there are, or were, cancer patients who swore by Di Bella Therapy and gave testimonials. For example, on the website beatingcancercenter.org is the following statement: “For about three years, the patient has been following the Di Bella therapy without side effects, improving the quality of life and going back to work.”
Luigi di Bella himself consistently stated that pharmaceutical companies were conspiring against him.
The list of other supposed cancer cures said to have been suppressed is long enough to fill a whole book. These range from Cannabidiol, the little-known medical compound found in Marijuana, to a treatment that involves ingesting nothing other than regular household baking soda.
If you have cancer or know anyone who has been diagnosed with the disease, Massimo Mazzucco’s 2010 documentary film Cancer: The Forbidden Cures is a good starting place for those searching for natural cures.
Of course, always consult with your doctor first. (And in case you’re wondering, this is another disclaimer we had to include for legal reasons!).
To be fair, the natural health sector has attracted its share of quacks, too, so all claims of cures should be treated with a degree of skepticism until proven. However, automatically riding roughshod over claims of natural cures, especially where those claims are supported by glowing, bona-fide testimonials, is not the answer any more than gullibly believing them all is.
There are those who may argue that Big Pharma could also make money out of cures for cancer and that it would be a lot easier than suppressing cures. To counter that, many independent medical researchers say long-term or ongoing cancer treatments, like chemotherapy, would be far more profitable than delivering single-visit cures. It has been estimated that the average cancer patient spends tens of thousands of dollars on standard treatments with some even spending hundreds of thousands.
Again, Big Pharma’s repeat customers are sick people. From a financial perspective, cured people are of little use.
As the cancer industry alone is a multi-trillion dollar industry for Big Pharma, it seems believable that if any cure was to be suppressed for financial gain it would be a cancer cure.