That doesn’t mean wacky impossible conspiracies are on the table. Those sorts of things are just not sociologically possible. If they were we’d still be living in the thrall of King Xerxes or something.
I try to think of things in terms of Rothbard’s “power elite analysis.” It’s not wacky to think that people act in their own self-interest. The government benefits from a docile population, and flouride makes people docile. Coincidence?
Who’s King Xerxes?
That’s 1) crazy and pointless and 2) not supportable by RNA studies. HIV shows no signs of having been artificially built.
It’s not pointless if the WHO wanted to implement the UN’s population control agenda. But you’re probably right on this one - it’s pretty wacky.
The last thing the medical establishment and the cancer industry want is a cure for cancer. Cures are bad for business.
Try to tell people (at the fda) that there might be nutritional based cures for illnesses and they will laugh at you. “The solution to medical problems lies in pharmaceuticals and radiation, only!”
“The last thing the medical establishment and the cancer industry want is a cure for cancer. Cures are bad for business.”
I don’t know that it’s entirely true. There is potentially an immeasurable benefit for name recognition with regards to a cure. There are factors relating to patents and investigational trials that I won’t get into but an analogy could be drawn to medical devices like cervical disc replacements which while not a cure is considered a more anatomical solution than fusing portions of the spine. However, considering the investment for R&D and the subsequent clinical trials (well over $10M) the return on investment is fairly poor; I would posit that it is likely longer than the device technology lifetime. However, the intangible benefit is being known as the company that has the technology and the potential pull-thru sales or trust you will garner.
I imagine a cure would still be profitable unless there is industry collusion to agree not to provide it (i.e. only provide treatments), otherwise I would foresee the first to market making a significant gain.
"So, taking a form of vitamin C that stays in the body much longer is “cheap”. "
There’s alot of nutritionist that don’t like ester-c. He’s not alone.
Also, getting vitamins and minerals from food instead of supplements is best. Products like rejevenate plus and vitamineral green are all food. Super packed. Way better than taking vitamins.
Most people look to organic to mean no pesticides and insecticides. Although, the FDA has taken over organic and let some nasty stuff in. You have to educate yourself.
“Uh, nobody forces you to get a cancer treatment.”
Government has regulations that pretty much give a monopoly to “big pharma” cancer treatments. Also, billions of dollars of taxpayer money get funneled to these big pharma cancer treatments. Nixon’s war on cancer was a horrible example. Cancer rates actually increased after that.
Not only that, but there was a case recently where a mother might goto jail for not giving her child chemotherapy.
“Don’t tell me you’re one of those vaccine autism people?”
Umm…giving an H1N1 shot to a little infant protects them how? And an adult how? Many of those victims ended up getting the flu anyway. Plus they got all the toxins in the vaccine. At the very least, read the lew rockwell.com authors who talk about the subject. People like Dr. Donald Miller.
Don’t forget about the flu pandemic in ukraine that could be linked to vaccines a few years ago, source there was also reports of planes spraying something before the outbreak, crazy i know. source
That article is bunk. Ester-C “traps” vitamin C in cells? That’s exactly what I said the point of it is. I noticed that this website is also selling its own vitamin brand. Shocking.
So wrong. Minerals in foods are often chemically bound so that it is essentially unusable. Supplements are designed to increase effectiveness.
The Flexner Report is 100% irrelevant. Chiropractic was vigorously attacked from the day of its inception for the obvious reason that it is competition for the M.D.
“So wrong. Minerals in foods are often chemically bound so that it is essentially unusable. Supplements are designed to increase effectiveness.”
That is the complete opposite of reality. Isolated supplements get absorbed less, when the body is defiecient in them compared to a food that has that mineral. Also, you don’t run the risk of getting too much of a mineral when you eat it in the form of a food vs taking an isolated supplement.
Getting the food source is always superior. Plus they’ll be other nutrients in the food as well. This is common knowledge among nutritionists.
It’s common knowledge among quack internet blogs shilling for commercial websites. Believe whatever kook you want. Just don’t try to pass it off as educated.
“It’s common knowledge among quack internet blogs shilling for commercial websites. Believe whatever kook you want. Just don’t try to pass it off as educated.”
Just resort to name calling. very nice. Really effective too.