Would the pharmaceutical industry conceal a cure?

[Sweet Rabbit]

I may have a different thought process being Canadian and have a fantastic health care system. This would be an essential need and free to us. Therefore...Canada would get overpopulated QUICK! I'm sure the USA does not want to deal with that, either.

you guys are just paying for it upfront through taxes instead of paying for it afterwards like we do

it's still bought & paid for either way

 

[Blackthornone]

you guys are just paying for it upfront through taxes instead of paying for it afterwards like we do

it's still bought & paid for either way

There is a third payment option. In China there has been a tradition in which the patient only pays the doctor when he is well. When the patient is sick, he doesn't pay. If the patient is sick, the thinking is that the doctor hasn't been doing his job.

 

[fosing]

Drug companies have been campaigning to make vitamins and other nutritional supplements like herbs classified as drugs for decades. They also want the dosages so low that they would have no significant therapeutic effect. There is very little profit in vitamins and nutritional supplements which are often more effective while being completely safe, unlike drugs, for many ailments. The drug companies find this to be a threat, the more people are into natural healing. Based on this, which is absolute fact, I can say with absolute certainty that the pharmaceutical industry would not only conceal a cure, but they would want to regulate it out of existence.
Pharmaceutical companies are in it to make money, and these companies, like Monsanto, not only make cancer medications, but they make pesticides which are fat soluble substances which cause cancer in the first place.
They make what causes cancer for profit, and they make what manages cancer for profit. They make money hand over fist.
Some drugs have 150,000% profit. I would bet that is the highest profit margin of any product in the world. It probably is more profitable than crack.

In the book, the Breast Cancer Prevention Program, by Samuel Epstein, M.D., it is noted that women with breast cancer have over 50% greater pesticide residues in their breast tissue than do women without breast cancer. Pesticides are supposed to be safe, but that illusion is only maintained by the fact that the exposure of pesticides compared to the body mass of insects is tens of thousands of times greater than the exposure of pesticides compared to the body mass of humans, thus, over the short term, it is tens of thousands of times safer for humans. However, these pesticides are fat soluble, which means that they accumulate in the body over time, and eventually can reach the point at which they cause cancer.

South of the U.S. border, children have been working, spraying pesticides on crops barefoot without any safety equipment and they often get very sick or die very quickly, because they have greater exposure.

absolutes? really??

what do you think your medicines are made of? its either based on that herbal and synthetic shat. consumer rights dictates what shat they want to check out.


"they do R & D to find cure for diseases"

but the conspirators with the cool shades think like...

"THEY do R & D for more diseases so they can find a cure = $$$"

R & D doesnt take overnight, it takes YEARS. they take achievements inch by inch and is a slow process.

yet some people choose to accept they already found it and kept it from the consumers. worst, they believe they are putting the same effort looking for new diseases.

sheesh, the glass is absolutely half empty then.

 

[Blackthornone]

absolutes? really??

what do you think your medicines are made of? its either based on that herbal and synthetic shat. consumer rights dictates what shat they want to check out.


"they do R & D to find cure for diseases"

but the conspirators with the cool shades think like...

"THEY do R & D for more diseases so they can find a cure = $$$"

R & D doesnt take overnight, it takes YEARS. they take achievements inch by inch and is a slow process.

yet some people choose to accept they already found it and kept it from the consumers. worst, they believe they are putting the same effort looking for new diseases.

sheesh, the glass is absolutely half empty then.

Yes, it is absolutely true that Bills have been introduced into Congress to label vitamins and nutritional supplements as drugs. For example,
HR 4173.

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2502654/posts

They did it at least once or twice before, I remember calling my Congressman to protest one in the 90s. Yes, Absolutely true.

Drugs are about patents, not finding better ways of helping people. Drugs are about patentable, proprietary methods to treat diseases for immense profits.
You can't patent natural things like vitamins and herbs, and THAT is why the drug companies don't like them. Vitamins and nutritional supplements compete with drugs, and they have reduced the profits of the drug companies. Do some research before you lambaste my statements.

All that R & D you speak of is about figuring out how to isolate and alter the natural compounds in herbs and such so that they can be patented. Better results could be obtained using the right herbs or a variety of them or vitamins, but again, they can't be patented. By the way, when a company wants to prove that natural remedies are ineffective, they use doses so low they could not possibly have a therapeutic effect, and then do a two year study, and then say, "See, there natural supplements were taken for two years by the study participants and there was no beneficial effect whatsoever". They don't mention the dose, or mention what the real therapeutic dose is that people use to get the benefits when they get benefits from taking these. They design the studies to make the natural remedies seem worthless and a waste of your money. They do it to protect drug profits.
They do things like give people 10-15 mg of vitamin E daily over 2 years. That does no noticeable benefit. The therapeutic dose is 1200 mg. If they had given 1200 they would have noticed real benefits, but they didn't do that, because they wanted the vitamin to appear ineffective. They have done the same with others like Co Enzyme Q10, and virtually every other one.

Imagine putting a 15 cfm carburetor on an engine to determine its performance. I can tell you it won't be very good, if it will even run. If you put a 1200 cfm carburetor on it on the other hand, it can go 200 mph.

So yes, doing more R&D to make new drugs to manage diseases is ALL about the money, regardless of the cost to them. Since they own all the research done to develop said drug, no other company can use any part of that research in the making of their own drugs. That is why it is near impossible for a small drug company to make new drugs legally. The big companies have a vast amount of research to draw from that THEY OWN, and no one else can use. Any expense incurred in R%D is an investment paid off by the tremendous profits of the drug. Considering some drugs have over 150,000% profit, it is easy to see how they can make their money back. However, if people take natural remedies, they don't take drugs, which reduces drug profits. With 150,000% profit, you can see how much money there is to be lost by the drug companies. Wake up.

 

[The Ween]

https://www.hcbl.com/blog/vitamins-prescription-only/

From what I've read, they want the samething in Canada as well.

 

[UltraMarknus]

you guys are just paying for it upfront through taxes instead of paying for it afterwards like we do

it's still bought & paid for either way

Oh, it's paid for, no doubt. But I couldn't imagine getting sick, being in a hospital for 3 days and having to take out a loan to pay for it if I don't have the money at that time. I don't know enough about the US medical system to understand exactly how it works, though.

 

[The Ween]

Oh, it's paid for, no doubt. But I couldn't imagine getting sick, being in a hospital for 3 days and having to take out a loan to pay for it if I don't have the money at that time. I don't know enough about the US medical system to understand exactly how it works, though.

People have lost thier homes due to medical expenses. It can be pretty harsh at times.

 

[Blackthornone]

Another thing I would like to add based upon what Fosing said. He said that drugs are derived from herbs and other natural sources. That means that natural sources are in fact effective at helping the body to heal. Nature tends to make things in a way that allows them to be ingested by human beings WITHOUT causing major negative side effects, while still being effective. The design of nature is so complex that the human rational mind cannot comprehend it's true complexity and the complete design. Nature puts in things that might seem to be irrelevant to the drug researcher, but are actually important in making them safe for humans to ingest and benefit from. While herbs can cause negative side effects used unwisely, drugs are far worse. By trying to find the effective beneficial ingredients in natural remedies to make drugs, drug companies are playing God by acting as if somehow they know better than God as to the type of package that a healing remedy should be introduced into the body by. They are arrogant, acting as if they can completely understand what they cannot, to achieve a patent, all in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

 

[Blackthornone]

https://www.hcbl.com/blog/vitamins-prescription-only/

From what I've read, they want the samething in Canada as well.

Yes, I forgot the part about people needing a prescription to get vitamin C pills,as well as any other vitamin or nutritional supplement as proposed by the Bills that drug companies have tried to push through Congress. The "conspiracy" is real.

 

[OSCORP]

Guys, take Vit C until the point of loose stool/diarrhea, then back off a tad until normal that's a good high therapeutic dose.

Powerful vitamin, C is.

 

[Blackthornone]

Guys, take Vit C until the point of loose stool/diarrhea, then back off a tad until normal that's a good high therapeutic dose.

Powerful vitamin, C is.

Indeed. You can build up tolerance over time, though. It can take months. I can take 16,000 mg a day. Taking the Calcium Ascorbate form makes it easier, because the acid is buffered, as opposed to regular ascorbic acid. Calcium Ascorbate is also a higher quality of vitamin C. Some people argue that Ascorbic acid isn't really vitamin C, that it is too isolated. The acerola berry is an excellent source of whole vitamin C. Most Ascorbic Acid is derived from corn, made in huge vats in Texas, then it is labeled for many different companies, sending it all over the U.S.

500 mg a day is where a lot of people have started. Then they up it by 500 every couple of weeks until you get to 1200, assuming that there are no problems with that progression. That is how it is done for people who have done it. People have used intravenous vitamin C, which is done under a professionals care, in doses of 100,000 mg. Since it is put directly into the blood, there is no issue with bowel tolerance. That is a part of an intensive nutritional protocol and is not for the layman.

 

[uscmhicks]

I had this discussion with a friend a few months ago. I've been ill the last few years and am still battling something I've still not even really had diagnosed ( it's why I'm awake right now at 4 am ). I've been given numerous types of medication from various doctors that have been barely effective and actually ended up creating more problems.

Now for the past 7 or 8 months I've taken no medication whatsoever and completely changed my diet, making sure every day I'm getting the perfect amount of calories , vitamins and all the important stuff as well as only strictly drinking water. I'm not eating my five a day , more like my fifteen a day.
One downfall is that with so much fresh food it's quite an expensive diet but that alone has worked better than anything else I've ever tried.

That said I'm still ill and I'm still not 100% sure what's going on and I'm still suffering from many of the the same symptoms, all I do know is that in my case medication that usually simply masks symptoms isn't the answer and if a cure was found for whatever it was that's wrong with me I'd honestly have a hard time imagining my doctors telling me about it.

My mum was diagnosed with parkinsons disease a few years ago and it's not nice to watch it progressively get worse. also She's only 47 so I find this topic regarding cures interesting, a cure for that would be a miracle for me and my family. I've already started looking into all the diets since I truly believe the food we eat can be just as effective if not more effective that medication.

I think a positive outlook is also important to achieve better health. I had a young family member who was fighting cancer which spread all over his body , he's the nicest guy you could meet , never smoked, doesn't really drink and has always had a positive outlook.
Throughout his treatment from what I saw he kept that positive attitude and then one day his doctor told him the cancer had disappeared.

Now he runs and swims for charity and is fit as a fiddle and expecting a baby, his story even got published in a newspaper.

Anyway there are a lot of things that can be fought off with diet and outlook and in my experience medication sometimes makes things worse and can mask the true problem until it's too late.

It reminds me of those heartburn advertisements with someone ready to eat a huge burger but worried it wont agree with them and then there friend pops in from the kitchen and says " don't worry I have some antacids in the cupboard , eat up ! ".

 

[Blackthornone]

There is a book called A Cancer Battle Plan, by Anne E. Frahm that outlines her program for healing the body of cancer. She had stage 4 cancer that had spread to her bone marrow. She had tried all the conventional treatments, radiation, surgery and chemotherapy, and nothing worked. The doctors sent her home with pain meds to make herself comfortable until she died. Then she went on a comprehensive natural program that involved eating an all organic vegan diet with vitamins and other nutritional supplements, among other things. No animal products or alcohol, ect. In 6 weeks she was cancer free and it has never returned.
Other people have used the Gerson Therapy and have been free of cancer for 40 years or more. I heard one woman on the radio in her late 80s telling her story of how she got cancer in her 30s or 40s and used the Gerson Therapy to heal herself. She said she stays mostly on the diet. She doesn't follow it completely. She does eat things she shouldn't, occasionally, and she eats fresh produce, organic preferred.
A Cancer Battle Plan:
There isn't much talk about that kind of plan, is there? Concealed cure? Nutrition to heal the body of disease is called quackery, but it is really said to discourage people from using nutrition and from quitting drugs in order to protect drug profits, as well as doctor's business. Scurvy is a disease, and vitamin C from limes was used to cure and prevent it, therefore nutrition can prevent and cure illness. If it can cure scurvy, what else can it cure? Because it is known to cure scurvy, the notion that nutrition is ineffective in healing the body is a complete lie. Why lie? Why discourage and ridicule nutrition in the media and medical publications? To protect the medical profession and the drug profits.

 

[devilof76]

I'd like to see statistics on the number of people whose cancer went into remission when they changed their diet, and the number of people who died anyway when they changed their diet.

 

[Devil_666]

I'd like to see statistics on the number of people whose cancer went into remission when they changed their diet, and the number of people who died anyway when they changed their diet.

Those statistics don't exist.

No statistic exists that definitively proves that changing your diet, eating healthy, eating only natural foods, using natural/herbal remedies instead of man-made meds prevents and/or cures any major diseases. It's all speculation. Period.

I'm not disputing that doing all that can make you healthier as far as basic stuff like lowering cholesterol, reducing your risk of health related problems (stroke, heart attack).

But NONE of that stuff can absolutely prevent/cure disease. And anyone who says so is full of ____.

 

[devilof76]

Which is exactly where I'll be standing until someone proves otherwise.

Not holding my breath.

 

[Blackthornone]

I'd like to see statistics on the number of people whose cancer went into remission when they changed their diet, and the number of people who died anyway when they changed their diet.

Well to be fair, a lot of the people who use the dietary approach wait until the last minute, which reduces the effectiveness of the protocol, because the body's faculties have already been so wasted away, in no small part due to following the conventional medicine. Also, few people are willing to do the dietary program, and many of those who do, don't do it all the way. I've heard of people taking supplements and eating organic meat, for example, and getting no real results.


Furthermore, you have to understand that the success rate of conventional cancer treatments is based largely upon EARLY DETECTION. That means that if you detect cancer in 2003, when the cancer just starts, and get treatment and live for 10 more years, to 2013, it seems like the treatment has extended your life by 10 years, but has it?
A person could still have cancer at the same timeframe and not have it detected until 2012, and go on chemotherapy, and die in 2013, living only one more year past DETECTION. Whether the person gets treated early or not, the person still has the same lifespan, dying in 2013, except with early detection, the treatment seems to have given 10 years, whereas in fact, that was just the actual progression of the disease.
Long term survival, as in 20 years or more past detection is what really counts in assessing the efficacy of a treatment. It takes 8-10 years for cancer to develop. It doesn't happen overnight. It might seem like one day you find out you have it, as if you didn't have it for the last 8 years, but that might not be true.


What are the statistics of people who have had radiation, chemotherapy, or surgery in terms of surviving 20 years later? I'll bet the numbers are pretty slim compared to those whose hair fell out and wasted away before they died, not to mention botched medical procedures by regular doctors.


(My mother had that problem. She saw an oncologist for 10 years every 6 months and he never noticed she had cancer. She had to be told by her regular doctor. Then she had chemo and then had a pump implanted to deliver it more directly. This pump came with a 6 foot long hose, which was supposed to be cut to fit.

The idiot surgeons put all 6 feet in, when it should have been 6 inches for her. The tube wrapped around her intestines, preventing her from passing stool. However, before this wrapping up happened, the chemo stopped working. No effectiveness for months. My mom then agreed to start the nutritional program.

She took the pills, but she wouldn't do the diet. She was eating all of these unhealthy things that she associated pleasure with, clearly trying to enjoy herself before her demise.Eating this stuff would give her a sick stomach, so 40% of the time, she was too nauseous to take her supplements.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that she had yellow eyes and the doctor gave her 6 months to live (Which she herself was not told) her eyes changed from yellow to white and she got more energy back, and the ONLY change was the new dietary and supplement program. She drank her carrot juice 60% of the time. She did not do the diet more than two consecutive days.

She lived for a year and a half, instead of 6 months, only because of the nutritional program, partially followed. Because of this, I can personally attest to the effectiveness of the nutritional program. Of course, since she never did the whole program for more than two consecutive days, let alone 6 weeks, we will never really know if it would have worked. That is how most people are.

People won't change their diets even when it might save their lives, even for just 6 weeks.) It doesn't help that the medical establishment as a whole ridicules something that has been proven to work for many people.
Of course I had an investment in saving my mom's life, but she was under so much stress, and she eats that crap she can't be eating, so how much nudging can I really do there? What do you say? She read the book and so did my father, and they were both really impressed, and wanted to do it, and yet she didn't do it really.

The fact that most people are unwilling to change their diets is the real reason why the nutritional protocol has not had more success stories. By the way,her doctor wasn't extremely supportive of the diet, either, even discussing with her how they were eating the same things for meals. Is that nice, or what?

 

[Blackthornone]

Those statistics don't exist.

No statistic exists that definitively proves that changing your diet, eating healthy, eating only natural foods, using natural/herbal remedies instead of man-made meds prevents and/or cures any major diseases. It's all speculation. Period.

I'm not disputing that doing all that can make you healthier as far as basic stuff like lowering cholesterol, reducing your risk of health related problems (stroke, heart attack).

But NONE of that stuff can absolutely prevent/cure disease. And anyone who says so is full of ____.

That's not true. The China Project does. It is the Grand Prix of epidemiological studies.




https://webarchive.human.cornell.edu/chinaproject/index.html

 

[Devil_666]

In other words, exactly what I said: No statistic exists that definitively proves that changing your diet, eating healthy, eating only natural foods, using natural/herbal remedies instead of man-made meds prevents and/or cures any major diseases. It's all speculation. Period.

 

[devilof76]

Like a Santa Ana blowing through here.