Oh ok. Too many movies. No where did I say it was simple or there was a magic pill. But if you honestly believe that there aren't cures or inventions that would benefit the world that aren't being buried by the government,big companies or whoever else because they would not be profitable then you my friend are in a sad state of denial.
I'm sure there are some inventions that are tucked away, but cures, no. Cures are profitable, no matter what you may think. Here is a good example:
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average life expectancy at the beginning of the 20th century was 47.3 years. A century later, that number had increased to 77.85 years, due largely to the development of vaccinations and other treatments for deadly diseases. Of course, vaccines and treatments only work if they're given, which is why many of these diseases still persist in poorer, developing countries. Despite the success of vaccines, only one of these diseases -- smallpox -- has been erased from the globe.
Vaccinations are one of the greatest gifts mankind has given to itself. With vaccinations we have to a great extent wiped out (Cured):
1.) Polio
2.) Chicken Pox
3.) Tetanus
4.) Diptheria
5.) Rabies
6.) Article cited states the Flu - which I will get into later.
7.) Measles
8.) Small Pox
9.) Pertussis
10.) Pneumococcal disease - Pneumococcal Meningitis would be a BIG profit generator without the advent of vaccinations
PREVENTING it ~ 80's/ early 90's?
11.) Yellow Fever
12.)
Cervical cancer - i.e Gardicil
Not by vaccination, but by enlarge we had/have cured:
1.) Tuberculosis
2.) Malaria
These are all diseases that have been, or are being, or could be wiped out. Make no mistake however that these cures are still generating profits for those that manufacture them. Which is why I am confused with your stance, not to mention your arrogance and brashness on this topic.
As you put the statistic out there, cancer causes
895 BILLION IN LOST REVENUE. In other words, cancer does not support sustainable revenue generation. It would be more profitable to cure cancer for two reasons:
1.) Cancer treatment, if failed, generally means death. Meaning that a pharmaceutical company and the government would only be able to profit off of this person one time. Cancer treatment in the form of a cure could possibly mean repeat profit generation from this same patient. The companies would generate more profit from sustaining this person due to high risk of developing cancer yet again. Even in the video, Burzynski's "cured" patients sometimes required redosing. So to sum up, a pharmaceutical company would make money off of successfully treating cancer, and possibly by successfully treating a/the cancer again later on down the road.
2.)These patients, whom lives have been saved, would live longer lives. Longer life expectancies typically lead to other common pathophysiologic breakdowns such as heart disease and diabetes. These pharmaceutical companies would thus generate revenue off of sales of these medications to a entire group of people that they wouldn't have before - approximately 12.4 million each year (that is a lot of profit generation keeping those people alive to allow them to buy that aspirin).
3.) Lets review here: Chemo treatment = $$$$ x 1 dose = death. Cure treatment = $$ x 1 dose = life = possible more doses? = more $$$.
As far as supporting research what makes you think I don't? But then again why is it that supposedly they have had the smartest people in the world for decades that have received billions upon billions of dollars if not trillions doing research and they have not come up with anything? Yet they can put a AA battery in a coke can shoot it into space and observe stuff 14 billion light years away.(being sarcastic, or maybe it was in a movie).
Even with just a quick search and you find your cell research society saying same thing. 2/7/8/9 basically all refer to the same thing. Available but Not Profitable.
International Society for Cellular Medicine | www.cellmedsoc.org
1.) I never said you didn't support research... I simply made a suggestion on where to direct donations due to your desire to find more "cures" as opposed to "treatments." The only true way to cure many of the diseases prevalent nowadays is through vaccination, stem cell transplantation, or gene therapy.
2.) Biology at the level we are at is a lot more complex and harder to manipulate and experiment with than simple physics. It is fairly easy with the correct calculations and computer models to develop a flight path and direct a rocket to orbit another planet (quite amazing eh?). It is not so simple to direct or manipulate different biologic mechanisms. The body and the physiology, the pathophysiology behind all of this is quite astounding, I wouldn't even know where to begin. A good start would be to pick up any pathophysiology book in a book store one day and read the very first chapter typically labelled "The Cell," or something along those lines. You will then be engulfed in a....brief... all ~ 30 pages full, of cell anatomy and physiology to include cell messaging, transport, protection, adaptability, programming,
growth, death, differentiation (important and directly related to cancer) etc.
Pulled this from a report in the Huffpost Impact. Forget the $895 billion cause that not the cost of treatment. But look at the 12.4 million new customers they get each year. Putting out a cure would be like shooting your gifted horse in the head.
So I guess we just agree to disagree. And I bet it's safe to assume you believe earth has the only living beings within the universe to. Well I guess that is true since the government says so.
Ok, I'm done. Because "It is what it is" whatever that may be.
Lets get back to the flu here. The flu is a wonderful, I think, example of why your conspiracy theory is flawed. For the most part the flu is a self-limiting and highly profitable seasonal disease. During the H1N1 scare, our hospital seen record numbers come into the ER - highly profitable I might add. Its a great revenue generator because you hit people with a double whammy (generally the elderly). First you get major profits with the revenue from vaccination. Second you get major profits from the revenue of those that still end up subsequently getting ill with the flu and the antivirals they get to unleash on you.
Well guess what? Even with that being so, they are currently researching a more effective and longer lasting flu vaccination that is suppose to last longer than one flu season and protect you from more than one strain of flu (hopefully out soon [like within the next decade soon]). Now why would they shoot this gift horse in the mouth?
Folks, I have no problem believing this story. I'll be researching it to verify, but it's presented as just one more incident motivated by an age old problem: GREED.
If the video is true and correct, and it looks pretty solid at first glance, then it is really no different that the diet issues that the gov't allows for the sake of the factory farming industry or the 71000+ page US tax code that our government has for the sake of big business or the supression of the electric car that has been happening since early in the 20th century...the list goes on.
As an example, Google "meat linked to cancer". You'll find endless articles in respected national publications regarding the consumption of meat and it's link to all sorts of
cancers and
heart disease. Guess what the TOP TWO leading causes of death are in the US according to the CDC? Yep...check it out here:
FASTSTATS - Leading Causes of Death
In spite of this, our government still allows that industry to do business as usual and to hide the truth of their product and it's effects on our health.
Our goverment is no longer for the people (and hasn't been for a long time). It is for the profit of it's benefactors. Anything that jeopardizes that profit is considered a threat and the gov't and those benefactorys (big business for the most part) will work to suppress, bury, cover, hide and kill it. EVEN, evidently, a cure for cancer.
I think you are finding a growing problem these days and that is sensationalism and the reporting of misleading statistics. While I am sure that red meat is not as healthy for you as white meat, I doubt it is truly THE causative factor in heart disease and/or cancer.
To sum up with that, a great book to read that may help you understand what I mean is called "The Nun Study" by David Snowdon. This guy does a great job in documenting his efforts in creating the most extensive study on Alzheimer's disease epidemiology, which includes some of the reasons it is so hard to develop epidemiologic studies on humans. Not to mention the difficulties in finding a true cause and effect relationship.
I do wonder though, what killed the electric car - however, watching a single and strongly biased video is not a great basis to form a conclusion. I've heard stories however, I can only hope they are not true.
lease:
Sounds too good to be true
