30 Dec 2011 18:28:23
i have a skin condition called vitiligo (the same thing michael jackson had) i have had this for over 15 years, and everytime i saw a doctor, i was told that there is not much they can do, and that there is no cure. so i always thought that was the case and had no choice but to learn to live with it.
however recently i met somebody who told me that the doctors are infact lying. she told me that she got vitiligo as a result of taking wrong medication (which was wrongly prescribed) when she threatened to sue, she was offered a full treatment (which is gurranteed to solve the problem) and given £10,000 as compensation. the vitiligo has now 95% disappeared, but there is still tiny marks on her skin.
so eds/postes
do you think that cures for other diseases have been created/discovered, however they are not given to patients for whatever reason. for example- they dont treat cancer so population numbers are more manageable. i feel sick and betrayed by all this.
LFC 2929
{Ed033's Note - Of course, if we take just cancer for instance. About 10 years ago it was estimated that each person that went thorough the "normal" cancer treatment, the total treatment cost was $400,000. With 1 in 4 people or less getting cancer, this amount of money is too much to let other "cheaper" treatment to get in the way. People are just commodities now. There are allegedly a number of cancer treatments that are much better than this "normal" treatment including the 3 below:
Dr. Burzynski Antineoplaston Therapy
Dr Tullio Simoncini - cancer is a fungus - part 1 of 3
Run From The Cure - The Rick Simpson Story
Haven't they also supposed to have developed acure for asthma but the amount they rake in from prescription charges and all the other secondary stuff like allegy stuff they wont release the cure? {Ed001's Note - remember the cure for ulcers was suppressed for years due to the amount of money that was raked in from drugs such as Zantac?}
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
So they don't treat cancer to make the population more manageable, and yet also suppress cures in order to make more money? Right. Antineoplaston therapy has never had a successful clinical trial, nor have any of the independent trials ever managed to reproduce the claims made by Burzynski. If you don't believe in the scientific method, ie. independent tests and peer-reviewed studies, then you have no business using a your computer, or a phone, or a plane....etc. Its actually pretty low to make people believe in some alternative treatment for cancer when it is essentially nonsense.
W.O {Ed001's Note - independent trials aren't always truly independent, which is why people mistrust their results. After all, it was independent studies that were telling us that margarine was good for us, when in fact it is far from good for us. It just so happened that the funding to conduct the studies came from the same people who manufactured the margarine. Often the so-called independent studies on low cost cures comes from the drug companies with a vested interest in disproving their efficacy. You really can't expect people to believe the final results, even if they are finding the correct results people are naturally going to be suspicious.}
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
So apart from impugning the integrity of scientists, what are you saying? That you would rather trust the results claimed by the inventor of a treatment, which have never been able to be repeated by any one else testing those claims, than the results found by a host of different oncological studies? Even though antineoplaston therapy is not a "cheap" treatment, but actually one of the most expensive? There is no logic to that.
W.O. {Ed001's Note - no, I was merely saying why it is that people fail to trust the independence of the studies. Hardly impugning the integrity of the scientists to state the truth.}
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0