I think someone should know...

[sarasvatia]

...that billions of people have died so that the pharmaceutical companies can make more money.

Vitamin C cures cancer.

Jalapenos cure cancer.

Dichloroacetate (DCA) cures cancer.

High-frequency light cures cancer.

Electricity in your blood cures cancer (and AIDS).

Oxygen (possibly) cures everything.

Green Tea/Cocoa/Red Wine (epicatechin in all cases) cures

Comments

Re: This kind of issue chaps my ass, so don't get me started.

[exclamationmark]

I don't know that it's naive or ignorant. There's a reason why, when you go to the doctor, the doctor doesn't say, "Go get some oxygen/eat some jalepenos/drink some tea!" (According to the information above, it's a good idea!)

Maybe you think if you breathe enough you'll be fine. Of course, since you smoke heavily your health should really be in the gutter ;-)

Not to say that drinking tea or getting some air or something when you're sick is bad, but there's a difference between that and modern pharmaceuticals. Of course, you could say that doctors are in bed with pharmaceutical companies, and they are to some extent. But I don't know that it's malicious. I think my mother (a nurse for many years) would just tell you that it's stupid. They want to either A) make a profit or B) get people out of their faces.

Corporations are motivated by profit, that's for sure. (Can you really be a layman of understanding companies? Economics maybe...?) I don't know that doing so is evil or that companies are evil. That also doesn't seem obvious to me. Sure, people do dumb things when they want money and don't put that aside to work for the best of others. But again, I would say, "Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity." If someone's blinded by greed, sure, that person (or persons, or corporation) will do stupid things because they're not looking at all the options, but that doesn't mean that they're malicious. They just value money to such an amazing extent that they seek out whatever means obtain them the most of that valued commodity. At least, it doesn't seem obvious to me.

I should also say that I, again, don't think that this is what's going on with drug companies or the government. Really, it's not apparent that they're evil.

I can't respond to the Nestle thing without more information *shrug*

Go email some pharmacy/biology/food science, etc professors at UGA or some doctors at the health clinic and see what they say. I've found often there's a difference between what "common people" say about something (say, religion, or psychology, or...) as opposed to someone who spends all their time looking at such things. It's easy to have opinions, it's difficult to have perspective on those opinions.

some things to keep in mind.

[ensurientchaos_]

My experience with doctor's is that they can be as irrational as a laymen, though their irrationality is a development of the assumptions they have determined as consequences of what they know.
For example, I saw doctors while I was in the Army that said I would never get my arches back. But since I got out I have not only gained some of my arch back, I have found basic physiological principles that doctors should know that explain how one can restructure human anatomy as well as specialists that get paid to do so.
But how could those docs make such an oversight? Part of the reason I think, is because the information is so simple. It is also highly mechanical, the kind of processes an engineer would have a good grasp of more than a doctor. There is also the technological bias. It is an unfortunate consequence of the times that what receives the most money for research is that which appears to be profitable. Not only that. But there is a distinctive bias in the medical community against the physical in general. We are an anti-body, in the therapeutic sense, society. Oh yah, you can't make a buck off a hug either.
I think all scientists and doctors should be deprogrammed through intensive buddhist style self-analysis and reprogrammed with Quantum Psychology and The Will to Power.
I am sure you are more than well enough acquainted with different biases in the scientific community and in the academic community in general that are less than scientific. I will list a few, all of which probably play some part in why more forms of cancer treatment have not been researched:
bias of authority: he must be write because he has a big hat
bias of materialism: this is harder to pin down, perhaps it would be better to call it the bias against anything that sounds vaguely spiritual.
bias of weirdness: it sounds fucking crazy so it can't be true!
bias against nature: this is more something contemporary and partially due to the lack of scientific rigor among the proponents for holistic herbal treatments and such. But it's still a problem.
Shit, I'm rambling, must be this green tea. Anyway dude, remember to call me before you see 300 at the Imax. Peace.

Re: some things to keep in mind.

[exclamationmark]

It's true that doctors are fallible, I'm not saying that. And it's true that some people have information others don't. For instance, a general MD doesn't have all the information a chiropractor or thorassic surgeon has. That's why general practitioners refer their patients to specialists for opinions on treatment rather than handling all things themselves. So I'm not saying that all doctors are correct and should be thought of as the end all be all of what should be done, but they have perspectives worth examining and treating as important. And they have the perspective of experience and criticism to add to how they see things that is invaluable.

This applies to PhD's as well in academic fields.

I understand you about your experience with your arches. Reminds me of Mike, my karate teacher. He was told he would never really be able to walk right again and might be in a wheelchair for the rest of his life when the arches in his feet collapsed, but he's still doing karate years later. I've had similar experiences with my own health. So I believe that there are other ways to do things than just some surgery or some drugs that a guy in a white coat prescribes.

Sure, drugs appear to be profitable and are going to get research time while hugs won't. I don't know that this means there's a conspiracy against how great hugs are or that people are evil because they don't appreciate how important a hug is. But I'm not sure that "hugs," or any of the other methods here are a cure for cancer down pat as they seem to purport. Maybe they help, maybe they don't, I'm not claiming one way or the other. So if you want to eat jalepenos to keep yourself healthy, knock yourself out. All I'm saying is that the information presented is sketchy and doesn't really contain data that I can look at and analyze (though I wouldn't have the proper knowledge to properly review the literature anyway).

I'm not sure I understand the biases you list. I kinda see what you're getting at, but I don't see how it relates. I guess I'm just not sure what you mean.

Re: Scientific papers, yay!

[ensurientchaos_]

I wasn't trying to disagree with you.

Re: Scientific papers, yay!

[exclamationmark]

I didn't necessarily think you were, I just felt like expounding on what I had said ;-)