It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Silver Bullet Cures and the drug companys

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 02:32 AM
link   
I am of the belief that despite all of the money spent on MS, Aids, Breast Cancer, Parkinsons disease, you name it. That the drug companys have not released the " Silver Bullet " cures because they tend to profit more on the sustained maintainance rather then the cure.

I believe this to be the case without having read any investigations at all.
Only those people who work for fascilities that work on things like this would know. Past Biochemists, and whatever else.

Lets see if we can fish out a few leads for law enforcement as the pharmecutical industry has been raping us for years.

Anyone dare to step forward? Secretarys, Janitors, hear say. I bet we come up with something. It will take time.

Peace




posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I believe there are many reasons why the drug companies would want to and are supressing cures for diseases. The obvious reason is all the money they make on maintenance drugs. Cancers, Aids, Diabetes, etc.....I had this debate already on here with a gentleman and he was quite offended with what I had to say, but I asked him "When was the last time a cure was found for a serious disease?" and he of course had no answer. It's been a very long time.

There is much proof out there that AIDS was man made....so I asked him where is the cure for that? If we made it, didn't we make a cure? But of course, it has literally developed a life of its own since it first appeared.

I'm going to find the thread where I had this heated debate with this gentleman and post it here....

check out this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

editted to post above thread!


[edit on 17-2-2005 by Zabilgy]



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I've always thought that they can probably already cure baldness, but if they cured it, then they wouldn't be able to sell much Rogaine, would they?

It's well known that the best income is residual income.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zabilgy
I had this debate already on here with a gentleman and he was quite offended with what I had to say, but I asked him "When was the last time a cure was found for a serious disease?" and he of course had no answer. It's been a very long time.

I had no answer... please! I acknowledged you point but offered you examples of entirely new classes of drugs and therapies that have arisen as a direct result of HIV and cancer research. Furthermore, I pointed out to you that I personally work in this field, and know many, many cancer and HIV researchers. Hell, I worked in a cancer research lab. You know how many cancer researchers? I stated to imply that all of us scientists are conspiring to make drug companies money is not only complete BS, it's offensive. But I certainly addressed the issue... apparently we need to get into it again. Why haven't researchers eliminated any major diseases recently? Because we've not done it yet, but it's not like we're not working on it. AIDS, used to be a death sentence, and changed, at least temporarily, into a managable chronic condition. If you were aware of the actions of viruses, you'd realize why ridding a body of HIV is impossible: Its genome becomes incorporated into your own. You harbor the viral genetic information for the rest of your life. Hell, what major diseases have we ever cured? We can't cure the common cold, but I don't see everyone yelling conspiracy about that.

In addition to this, you acknowledged in your posting that a company that was sitting on the cure for cancer would be stupid to sit on it. So is it a conspiracy or not?

Would be MORE than happy to reopen this discussion here if you think something is left unsaid or unacknowledged.


There is much proof out there that AIDS was man made....so I asked him where is the cure for that? If we made it, didn't we make a cure?

If I recall, I addressed this issue very specifically. In fact below is taken from the thread you referenced.

Certainly I am aware of the theories surrounding the origin of AIDS. I am more than a little familiar with them. I've read most of Gallo's old grant applications and several books that suggest this. That it's "commonly known today that AIDS was a manufactured disease" is a overstatement at the very least. Certainly some agree with that, and admittedly, there exists some evidence in support of this hypothesis. This doesn't make it so though.

Furthermore, I don't know why if HIV is an engineered disease, we necessarily have a cure. If you'd bothered to read some of the major theories surrounding the manmade origin of HIV, like say Len Horowitz's theory, you'd realize that there is some room in there for accidental release, and even a supportable hypothesis surrounding this notion. If it was released accidentally, why is it necessary that we have a cure.

I thought we'd discussed these things and come to some sort of resolution, but apparently not...


I'm going to find the thread where I had this heated debate with this gentleman and post it here

check out this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Heated... this is nothing.

So... let's get into it.



[edit on 17-2-2005 by mattison0922]



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Something else that most people doesn't know is that the money for the research used by the pharmaceuticals is our own tax payer money, but when they discover something new, they keep all the profits.

Seems to me that the only free thing you can get is if you are lucky enough to get into one of their trials.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Something else that most people doesn't know is that the money for the research used by the pharmaceuticals is our own tax payer money, but when they discover something new, they keep all the profits.

Seems to me that the only free thing you can get is if you are lucky enough to get into one of their trials.

This is true, but this is true of not only the pharma companies, but nearly all basic research. Most of the funding for any basic research comes from the gov't in the form of taxpayer dollars, however any findings generally belong to the person and the university or corporation they are associated with. It's horrible, and it sucks, but this is the way it is with science in general, not just biotech/pharma.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I have a friend who is a programmer. He writes software for some firm that works on Cancer research. He acknowledged that grants are manipulated for those research dollars and administrative puropses.

How much or our reseach money really hits the labs. Do we really need to have foundation? It seems to me that allot of the money in medical research provides an awfull lot of desk positions. I would think it would be more Microbiologists and chemists.....

Theres something ugly about the Pharmecuticals and the disease research. Once the cure is found, all those office jobs, IT jobs, buildings,,,everything vaporizes. Much like the result of socialized health care.

Its about the money. There is no rush to cure, for finding the cure puts people out of work. Those people that work within that industry know within their heart of hearts, the thought that goes go through there head when a memo says they may be on to a cure. omg....where will I work?

Am I wrong? Somehow, I feel sorrow over this.....for it is about the money.
Look at the protection sought regarding drug pricing for over the border meds. What a joke. The Pharmecutical industry should be ashamed. It aint about the money...its about helping people.

I do beleive there are company out their on mission of nobility. I wasnt meaning to refer to all. But somehow in the back of my mind, the whole pricing war, when I have a former mother in Law gettting nailed on Meds, seemed to be an outrageous debacle.

The Pharmecuticals are hightly profitable...on our health care dollars that continually go up and up an up....What is the greater good. Im talking to the Executives of these major firms....


Peace

[edit on 17-2-2005 by HIFIGUY]

[edit on 17-2-2005 by HIFIGUY]

[edit on 17-2-2005 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIFIGUY
I have a friend who is a programmer. He writes software for some firm that works on Cancer research. He acknowledged that grants are manipulated for those research dollars and administrative puropses.

I personally have written and been awared cancer research grants. What exactly do you mean by 'manipulated?'


How much or our reseach money really hits the labs. Do we really need to have foundation? It seems to me that allot of the money in medical research provides an awfull lot of desk positions. I would think it would be more Microbiologists and chemists.....

This just shows how little you understand about grants. The grant funding is for the scientists. Indirect costs are actually awarded in addition to the grant. 'Desk' positions, which are completely necessary, are funded by indirect costs. Indirect costs, depending on the funding agency, generally amount to an additional 30% on top of the initial reward.


Theres something ugly about the Pharmecuticals and the disease research. Once the cure is found, all those office jobs, IT jobs, buildings,,,everything vaporizes. Much like the result of socialized health care.

Its about the money. There is no rush to cure, for finding the cure puts people out of work. Those people that work within that industry know within their heart of hearts, the thought that goes go through there head when a memo says they may be on to a cure. omg....where will I work?

This is just ridiculous. If I cured cancer, do you think I'd really have any trouble getting a job. These statements are completely absurd. The last thing I think about when an experiment works, is OMG, I am going to lose my job. A cancer cure would make my career, same thing for an HIV cure.


Am I wrong?

Totally.


I do beleive there are company out their on mission of nobility. I wasnt meaning to refer to all. But somehow in the back of my mind, the whole pricing war, when I have a former mother in Law gettting nailed on Meds, seemed to be an outrageous debacle.

I sympathize with you. But there is no reason to implicate ALL scientists involved with disease research as being involved with some horrible conspiracy.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Mattison
Not all research scientists are corporate goons, agreed. However, three points:

1. Corporate dollars are the only dollars that matter. Without dollars, research is impossible. Colleges have always relied on corporate dollars, private labs would be nearly impossible without that money. All the advances in medicine of modern calibre are owed to money. Is it any surprise that medicine is beholden to money? There are thousands upon thousands of good scientists in this country, I know that for a fact. I also know the drug companies, chemical companies, and oil companies collude to increase market capitalization without regard for quality of life issues. Important research can and does get lost in the shuffle. Important research can and does get crushed by biased pronouncements by the money-beholden elders of the medical fraternity. "If it can't be patented, who will make money off of it?" Until that changes, the esteemed medical profession will reek of fraud. The surgeon generals ruin it for the rest of y'all.

2. A growing percentage of working research scientists in America are not American. They are foreign nationals in the country on work visas. They're expendable in our government's eyes, and you can bet if one of them proved marijuana cured FMD, the poor bastard wouldn't live long enough to tell another living soul. His family would receive a letter notifying them of his heart attack, and there are no rumors whispered in the lab, because the only five guys left are Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Japanese, and Columbian, they have nothing in common and just want to do a good job so they don't get fired. They barely even talk to each other, just work, work, work. Sweatshops where you get to wear a white coat and drink coffee in between 6 hour blocks of staring into a microscope, impregnating test tubes with a mechanical turkey baster, and jotting in a notebook with a nubby pencil at the behest of corporate desire for more money. I exaggerate only slightly for melodramatic effect(like usual).

3. We live in a capitalist 'paradise' here in America. The ideals of capitalism, well I don't even have to remind you. Money is survival, survive at any cost, GO! How can a profession with a motto of "First, do no harm" take itself seriously when it's under the boot of reptilian sensibilities. If we lived in a socialist society, I can imagine medicine having honest vigour and righteous standing in the community. But modern doctors have been reduced to federally approved drug dealers. Those doctors who care about their patients, and provide holistic cures for their suffering patients, those are the men deemed quacks! We live in an insane society where everything is backwards. The AMA kills more and more people every year by virtue of its refusal to admit its mistakes. The ideals of modern cutthroat capitalism and the medical profession have to be reconciled.

By the way, mattison, are you working on the New Military Research Project?



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Profit. Money. Intent.

Can you explain to me again why the pharmecuticals we attempting to regulate Americans going to Canada for Meds? It wasnt about money was it?

My claim was not to say that all organisations we bad. What I am saying is that as I sit here, I bet there are drug firms that have determined that there are some Silver Bullet cures that have not been released due to profitability.

And from what Ive read in history, when some of these cures do come out, they are priced accordingly. Equivalent to the maintainance and more.

As far as grants go...dont get me started. Ill say DOD grants. They dont get much tougher. Im familiar with the process.

There are people who are professional grant writers. Their job is to be sure that you get the money by saying all the right things. Now you can dispute that all you want, but when your in need of a refuel on your grant,
sometimes the rules get bent. After all...when the grant runs out...its your job.

My intent wasnt to slam grants as we do indeed need research. My intent was Silver Bullet cures being shelved in the name of profit. Could you imagine the outrage?

Lets stay on topic. Im hoping to fish one out....ok?

Peace

[edit on 18-2-2005 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

WyrdeOne
Not all research scientists are corporate goons, agreed.

Thank you.


1. Corporate dollars are the only dollars that matter.

Untrue. Plenty of research yielding many positive results have been funded completely via government monies. Often times corporate dollars are not injected until a technique, molecule, whatever has shown some sort of true promise.


Without dollars, research is impossible.

Agreed.


Colleges have always relied on corporate dollars private labs would be nearly impossible without that money.

Colleges have always relied on grants. But the majority of funded university scientists receive their funding from gov’t grants. Private labs can also be funded quite well with gov’t grants. I personally have submitted two SBIR and an STTR recently. These are grants designed pretty much exclusively for small business… or private lab startups.


All the advances in medicine of modern calibre are owed to money.

This is not in dispute. Scientists need to be paid, chemicals, reagents, equipment, needs to be purchased.


There are thousands upon thousands of good scientists in this country, I know that for a fact.

Thank you


I also know the drug companies, chemical companies, and oil companies collude to increase market capitalization without regard for quality of life issues.

Agreed… welcome to capitalism.


Important research can and does get lost in the shuffle.

Agreed, but it’s not like it’s a necessarily a conspiracy.


Important research can and does get crushed by biased pronouncements by the money-beholden elders of the medical fraternity.

Okay… I have to call you on this. What research specifically? Let’s not speak in vague general terms; let’s talk specifics.


"If it can't be patented, who will make money off of it?"

Well, I agree with this. I am all for open source science information. I think genes, proteins, organisms should be pretty much unpatentable.


2. A growing percentage of working research scientists in America are not American. They are foreign nationals in the country on work visas.

Okay, but this is a whole other set of issues.

They're expendable in our government's eyes, and you can bet if one of them proved marijuana cured FMD, the poor bastard wouldn't live long enough to tell another living soul.

I don’t think I agree with this. Do you have specific examples of scientists being killed because they discovered a CURE for something? Certainly I am aware of the 40 microbiologists who recently died, but this is a different issue entirely, IMO.



We live in a capitalist 'paradise' here in America. The ideals of capitalism, well I don't even have to remind you. Money is survival, survive at any cost, GO! How can a profession with a motto of "First, do no harm" take itself seriously when it's under the boot of reptilian sensibilities. If we lived in a socialist society, I can imagine medicine having honest vigour and righteous standing in the community. But modern doctors have been reduced to federally approved drug dealers. Those doctors who care about their patients, and provide holistic cures for their suffering patients, those are the men deemed quacks! We live in an insane society where everything is backwards. The AMA kills more and more people every year by virtue of its refusal to admit its mistakes. The ideals of modern cutthroat capitalism and the medical profession have to be reconciled.

While I don’t necessarily disagree, I believe this is off topic. I thought this thread was about a deliberate conscious efforts to suppress cures, etc.


By the way, mattison, are you working on the New Military Research Project?

Soficrow wanted me to be involved… sort of. I don’t have any particular project or anything, I am under the impression he just wanted me to keep my eyes open in the literature and on the threads. I’ve worked in biotech/nanotech for a while, and he thought I might add something interesting from time to time. I’m pretty busy these days though…. I shouldn’t even be responding to this thread in this detail now… I’ve got so much stuff to do!



HiFi
Lets stay stay on Topic

Agreed.


Can you explain to me again why the pharmecuticals we attempting to regulate Americans going to Canada for Meds? It wasnt about money was it?

Of course… I’ll say it again. Welcome to capitalism.


What I am saying is that as I sit here, I bet there are drug firms that have determined that there are some Silver Bullet cures that have not been released due to profitability.

And I’m saying I’m open to this, BUT I want to talk specifics. If you think there’s a conspiracy to suppress these ‘cures,’ then let’s discuss one of them.


And from what Ive read in history, when some of these cures do come out, they are priced accordingly. Equivalent to the maintainance and more.

Not sure what this is about.


As far as grants go...dont get me started. Ill say DOD grants. They dont get much tougher. Im familiar with the process.

What does this mean. I’m familiar with DOD grants too. Have worked under several DARPA grants, co-authored two DARPA grants also.


There are people who are professional grant writers. Their job is to be sure that you get the money by saying all the right things.

So? People are good at different things. Not everyone is a good grant writer, why shouldn’t they contract it out. If you’re not a good carpenter, you don’t just say F&*k it and rip your house up anyway… you hire someone who knows what they’re doing. In fact, I personally have contracted grant work for companies. This somehow makes me evil?


Now you can dispute that all you want, but when your in need of a refuel on your grant, sometimes the rules get bent. After all...when the grant runs out...its your job.

Agreed, but this is a different issue entirely. And while I acknowledge this occurs. I am going to state, that IMO, data massage is the exception, not the norm. But this is still another issue. Data massage to get more grant money and suppression of legitimate, valid scientific cures are completely different topics. As you mentioned, let’s stay on topic.


My intent wasnt to slam grants as we do indeed need research. My intent was Silver Bullet cures being shelved in the name of profit. Could you imagine the outrage?

Agreed. Let’s talk specifics though.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
I've always thought that they can probably already cure baldness, but if they cured it, then they wouldn't be able to sell much Rogaine, would they?


You are dead on. Rogaine only works if you use it for the rest of your life as with most major medications.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Public dollars funding private companys, for private profits.

Public dollars funding private and public universities for research. AOK>

And then the public pays private companys for a publicly funded cures.

There should be an offset.

I wasnt event thinking of that.

Peace



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Mattison.....you want to get into it again, fine. You said something like, what major diseases have ever been cured?

Ah, hello, back when we had none of the resources we have today we cured Polio, Small Pox, Rubella (whatever that is), Syphillis, Ghonnorea, Anthrax, Bubonic Plague (is that the same as Anthrax)....etc.....

and these were done a lonmg time ago...what have you scientists done for us lately??



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zabilgy
Ah, hello, back when we had none of the resources we have today we cured Polio, Small Pox, Rubella (whatever that is), Syphillis, Ghonnorea, Anthrax, Bubonic Plague (is that the same as Anthrax)....etc.....

Polio... arguably cured, though I wasn't counting vaccination as a cure. Vaccinations only prepare the immune system, and don't alleviate a disease condition. Small Pox... eliminated from the natural reservoir, but not cured; if it was cured we wouldn't be concerned about it as a bioterrorist agent. Rubella, again, depending on your perspective, arguably 'cured.' Though, if you do contract polio or rubella, which DOES happen in third world nations, you'll be quite aware of the lack of a 'cure' for these diseases. Syphillis, Ghonnorea, Anthrax, and the plague haven't been cured. These diseases can be temporarily controlled with antibiotics, but not eliminated completely. Certainly resistance alleles are creeping into these 'cured' diseases as well, perfectly illustrating the extent to which we've cured disease. Bubonic plague and anthrax are not the same plague is caused by bacteria known as Yersinia Pestis, and anthrax by bacillus anthracis.


and these were done a lonmg time ago...what have you scientists done for us lately??

Hmmmm... perhaps you've forgotten the other thread where we've discussed this: What have we done lately: Entirely new classes of anti-viral drugs, including nucleoside analogs, non-nucleoside analogs, protease inhibitors, drugs that inhibit attachment, drugs that inhibit resistance genes in bacteria, RNA interference also looks promising, therapeutic proteins, including heat shock proteins, antibodies, drugs based on molecular modeling studies... human skin grafts grown in tissue culture, a method to combat SCIDS (bubble boy syndrome), a potential HIV vaccine, methods for earlier diagnosis and detection of cancer, lasik.... hmmmm, can probably think of and locate lots more, but these were just off the top of my head.

BTW, with respect to the bacterial diseases you mention that we've cured: most antibiotics are derived or based on NATURALLY OCCURING COMPOUNDS. Certainly some amount of human ingenuity was involved identifying and isolating these compounds, but it's not like people invented them. They simply exploited an existing source of 'drugs.' We are just not discovering these compounds as rapidly as we once were, but it's not like it's a conspiracy.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Mattison...bottom line...sick people = Big Money for big corporations and the grug companies and for hospitals which are now mostly run by big corporations. No conspiracy here? Bull crap! You say yourself there is much evidence that AIDS was man made. Why?

And we know you're some kind of scientist, but when you speak to us non-scientists can you try and speak in a language we can understand. Your points are lost in your medical terminology.

If a vaccine keeps a disease from happening, then as far as I'm concerned it's a cure.....If some scientists like yourself want to bring those diseases back and infect people with them, then that's pretty sick!



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zabilgy
No conspiracy here? Bull crap! You say yourself there is much evidence that AIDS was man made. Why?

Why, what? Why did I say there is evidence HIV (AIDS is a condition HIV is a virus) was man made? Because there is. Does this make it so? Not necessarily. There does exist a paper and funding trail suggestive of a man-made source for HIV, but that doesn't mean it absolutely happened that way. Furthermore, even if it was created by man, it could have been released accidentally. If you'd read Horowitz's stuff on this topic you'd realize this.


And we know you're some kind of scientist, but when you speak to us non-scientists can you try and speak in a language we can understand. Your points are lost in your medical terminology.

Hmmmm.... not sure what you're referring to specifically here. I certainly wasn't trying to speak in jargon... I looked back over my post; I suppose a term like nucleoside analog could be considered jargon. But I figure those who claimed to be well versed in theories surrounding both drug companies and HIV conspiracy would understand what a nucleoside analog is. You can always google nucleoside analog definition and look at the results. But I don't know what else to refer to them as. I suppose I could say "Drugs that function by resembling 'pieces of DNA' and thereby inhibiting actual nucleic acid synthesis," but nucleoside analog is much more efficient. If you need clarification, just ask.


If a vaccine keeps a disease from happening, then as far as I'm concerned it's a cure.....

Hence the use of the word 'arguably.'


If some scientists like yourself want to bring those diseases back and infect people with them, then that's pretty sick!

You need to chill. I don't personally, nor do I know of any scientist who wish to 'bring back diseases.' But that's not what this thread is about. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If you start a thread about suppressed cancer cures, suppressed HIV cures, or suppressed cures for whatever, simply shouting 'Conspiracy!' and asking 'What have you done for me lately?' is entirely inadequate. If you've got some kind of proof of suppressed cures for ANYTHING, then let's discuss. I am more than willing to discuss. The name of this thread is "silver bullet cures and the drug companies." In his initial post, the author of this thread stated the following

That the drug companys have not released the " Silver Bullet " cures because they tend to profit more on the sustained maintainance rather then the cure.

I believe this to be the case without having read any investigations at all.
Only those people who work for fascilities that work on things like this would know. Past Biochemists, and whatever else. [bold added by Mattison0922]


Please take special note of the bold statement. Implicit in this statement is the idea that science is sitting on cures for diseases, and not releasing them because it's more profitable for them. This person asked for 'past biochemists and whatever else,' to comment. Falling under the category of 'whatever else,' I commented. If you want to state that science has cures, but suppresses them to increase profits, fine. BUT don't whine about it when someone asks you for proof or to back up your claims.

In the other thread authored by you (Zabilgy), you asked why there wasn't a cure for cancer or diabetes, and claimed a big conspiracy. I answered your question, and because you dislike or don't agree with answer you whine and get upset. I am not trying to force you to agree with me. All I am asking is where's your proof?

So, again, I say if you've got evidence of this alleged to conspiracy to suppress valuable medical cures then let's talk about it.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
i tend to feel that there are companies out there that are unscrupulous and drag their feet in the race against many deadly diseases.

i think there are MANY MANY great folks that work research and are totally committed to a cure for these nasties............but the researchers can't necessarily control WHEN the cures are released..........that's controlled by folks well above their heads (i'm making an assumption here)

if the talking heads/money folks don't want the product released then it won't be released..........if they can drag it out a bit and ensure another billion dollars in to the company cofers............then i think there's an excellent possibility that this scenario could happen.


but that's me...........my opinion................for all the great hardworking researchers out there.............i thank god for them and their hard work.

angie



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   


if it was created by man, it could have been released accidentally


Could have.....but QUITE UNLIKELY!! HIV was created to control the population and to achieve that by getting rid of what many consider to be people that are less than human: drug addicts and homosexuals....and possibly blacks if you look at how wide spread it is in Africa!




So, again, I say if you've got evidence of this alleged to conspiracy to suppress valuable medical cures then let's talk about it.


I never said I had evidence. I stated what I believe to be true based on what I've read and based on common sense. Also based on the fact that big business runs this country and big business makes big money off of sick people!!



Hmmmm... perhaps you've forgotten the other thread where we've discussed this: What have we done lately: Entirely new classes of anti-viral drugs, including nucleoside analogs, non-nucleoside analogs, protease inhibitors, drugs that inhibit attachment, drugs that inhibit resistance genes in bacteria, RNA interference also looks promising, therapeutic proteins, including heat shock proteins, antibodies, drugs based on molecular modeling studies... human skin grafts grown in tissue culture, a method to combat SCIDS (bubble boy syndrome), a potential HIV vaccine, methods for earlier diagnosis and detection of cancer, lasik.... hmmmm, can probably think of and locate lots more, but these were just off the top of my head.


This basically says that a lot of research is being done and nothing is actually being accomplished by that research......that there are things that are happening that have potential...and lots of people are making a lot of money off of that "potential".......



You need to chill


Chill what? Chill a bottle of wine? Maybe a nice Chianti? Then what??



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zabilgy
Could have.....but QUITE UNLIKELY!! HIV was created to control the population and to achieve that by getting rid of what many consider to be people that are less than human: drug addicts and homosexuals....and possibly blacks if you look at how wide spread it is in Africa!

Reference, please. I paraphrased from Horowitz regarding the man-made theory of HIV. What’s your source… I mean other than your imagination. How HIV spreads in Africa has nothing to do with whether or not the virus is man made. This is peripheral anyway… whether or not HIV is man made doesn’t isn’t the title of this thread. The topic of this thread is, more-or-less, the conscious suppression of legitimate ‘silver bullet’ cures.



I never said I had evidence. I stated what I believe to be true based on what I've read and based on common sense. Also based on the fact that big business runs this country and big business makes big money off of sick people!!

‘[B]ased on what [you’ve] read…. Hmmmm, call me crazy, but that sounds like a source to me. Whether or not big business runs this country is not in dispute. That big business makes money is not in dispute either… welcome to capitalism. What is in dispute is this alleged conspiracy, that involves the entire scientific and medical communities, to suppress legitimate, viable, working cures for chronic diseases. You’ve not produced any evidence of this, most likely because it doesn’t exist.



This basically says that a lot of research is being done and nothing is actually being accomplished by that research......that there are things that are happening that have potential...and lots of people are making a lot of money off of that "potential".......

Nice attitude! Why don’t you try telling this to the thousands of HIV positive people whose lives have been extended because of drug cocktails that contain nucleoside analogs, protease inhibitors and other new anti-virals that have arisen via recent research. Or how about taking a walk down to your local burn unit and talk to someone about how the skin grafts they’re receiving using their own cultured skin isn’t progress. Perhaps you should send out an email telling the people who have SCIDS, that the fact that modern science has devised a method whereby they needn’t live in the ‘bubble’ anymore, is ‘accomplishing nothing.’ Perhaps you should address the millions of diabetics in this country that access to cheap, readily available, recombinant human insulin that medical science has done nothing for them. Just because you’re bitter, you needn’t belittle the accomplishments of others.



Chill what? Chill a bottle of wine? Maybe a nice Chianti? Then what??

Isn’t chianti a red? I thought reds weren’t supposed to be chilled.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join