Quote:

---

jsut found out a some info...in a book...

---

Quote:

---

that the FDA is trying to keep from us as well as other cures for many diseases

---

Please, the book already sounds like it has been written by some paranoid madman. The FDA is an American organisation - even if such a thing was possible some stupid government body isn't going to restrict such a thing and what's to stop its knowledge being released via other international voices?

The cost spent on healthcare that could be saved would be phenomenal and would also have governments jumping for joy due to the extra preserved life which means much more collectable taxes for government spending.

Why let someone die from cancer or AIDS now when the government could be collecting their money?

The book's a lot of crap.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

doomed said:
Cancer along with many other diseases only kills when you acknoledge it. People have lived with it unknowingly for years, I'm sure it the realisation and 'treatment' which ultimately cause it to spread and kill (or maybe just speed up).

---

People have lived with a lot of things, unknowingly - and then died.

There are treatments that are almost worse than the disease. Chemotherapy kills a lot more than just cancer cells, for example. If done in time, before the cancer debilitates the entire body, it can be successful.

Back in the 1980's I lost so many friends to AIDS, I lost count. Most of them had no idea what was causing their illness. There was virtually no treatment, and they died pretty horrible deaths. They lived with it unknowingly - and it killed them. Not becaise they acknowledged it, but because it is a deadly disease.

There are side effects from virtually any medical treatment; from something as benign as aspirin to the latest purple pill, or chemotherapy or other cancer/disease treatments. One weighs the effects vis-à-vis the hoped-for results and makes a decision whether to have the treatment, or not.

But in the end, it's the cancer/didease that does us in.

--------------------
Tim...
HB's B
http://www.timandvictor.com

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Please, the book already sounds like it has been written by some paranoid madman. The FDA is an American organisation - even if such a thing was possible some stupid government body isn't going to restrict such a thing and what's to stop its knowledge being released via other international voices?

The cost spent on healthcare that could be saved would be phenomenal and would also have governments jumping for joy due to the extra preserved life which means much more collectable taxes for government spending.

Why let someone die from cancer or AIDS now when the government could be collecting their money?

The book's a lot of crap.

---

Oh no, Dazzle! I am so disappointed of you.
I do agree that such book sounds like 'a lot of crap' but... You only need to look at the current issues within the Government pension schemes, to realize that actually, the less people make it to 100 years old, the better it is for the Government!
Come on Dazzle, I thought this was a pretty obvious one for a smart a** like yourself ;-)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Please, the book already sounds like it has been written by some paranoid madman. The FDA is an American organisation - even if such a thing was possible some stupid government body isn't going to restrict such a thing and what's to stop its knowledge being released via other international voices?

The cost spent on healthcare that could be saved would be phenomenal and would also have governments jumping for joy due to the extra preserved life which means much more collectable taxes for government spending.

---

Dazzle,

Yet again, you seem certain that your point of view is right. But, again, might I humbly suggest that your eyes may be blind to The Truth?

You assert that FDA isn't sufficiently powerful to control international voices. But you're wrong. The US is the biggest market for pharmaceuticals, and where the FDA leads all the other regulators around the world follow. The consequence is that all developers of new medicines won't develop new drugs if they don't think the FDA will approve the them.

You assert that governments would be jumping for joy if more people's lives were preserved. But your assertion flies in the face of the facts. The FACT is that new drugs are becoming ever more expensive to produce. So expensive, infact, that payers (governments, insurance companies, individuals) can't afford to buy them. Why is this? The increased cost is in ever increasingly restritive and unnecessary regulations. Regulations, remember, that are put in place by the FDA, and copied around the world.

And there's a double whammy too. Even with the raised barriers, people can still show that super expensive (expensive because of the FDA, remember) drug treatments can still produce a net-positive cash-flow into the economy (which is partly your point Dazzle). But the FACT is that Government payers choose to ignore these economic facts, and instead pretend that new treatments can't be afforded because they are too expensive.


The TRUTH is that excellent new treatments for serious diseases are not reaching people suffering from those diseases. And whichever way you cut it, this is down to the policies of government bodies like the FDA.

Perhaps it's time that an excellent author like Dan Brown tackled this topic; and revealed the truth to the world. It would be interesting to know how far groups like Opus Dei and the Free Masons have infiltrated the FDA, don't you think?

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

MsVetra said:
Just a humble suggestion: Dan Brown may want to write about this topic, but many already have...

---

You make a valid point, Vittoria. I think Dan Brown - with his talent for accurately researching details - could do an excellent job here. But, as you say, others have perhaps already covered this ground.

Mayber there other, more pressing things that the public need to be made aware of.

For example, there are rumours circulating that an unknown group have recently discovered how to travel in time, and that political instabilities are being deliberately caused in certain regions of the world, using time travel as a key weapon.

It seems unbelievable, until you look at time-space, relativity and super string theory in a bit of detail. Then you see the amazing truth: time really is just one more dimension. And with the right technology, it's possible to travel across time, as easily as it is to travel across the planet in a plane.

The surprising thing is that a secret group has had access to the funds necessary to develop this technology: the costs are thought to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. That puts some of the richest people on the planet at the heart of this secret group.

The thing that would make this interesting for Robert Langon to investigate, is that people first noticed the evidence of time travel through symbols. It seems the symbols have been appearing in places where they didn't exist before.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Sephia said:
now you're crossing the line into pure paranoia.

---

LOL!!!

For a moment I thought I was reading Dazzle's post!

Remarkable, are you paranoid? ;-)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

But, frankly, I'd be more likely to believe in Atlantis than government covering up time travel.

---

Well Sephia - the point is, that it's not a Government covering up time travel. Obviously, something like this is very difficult to prove - so I do understand your point of view.

And to SweetSophie13 - why thank you! I'm glad you like it.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Sephia said:
Keep in mind that it is the THEORY of Relativity too.

---

Please, please, please don't play into the hands of the scientifically ignorant by abusing the word "theory" to suggest a weakness or lack of evidence. That's the tactic Creationists so often resort to in their attempts to undermine the "theory" of evolution, thinking that by pointing out that since scientists use the word "theory," they must not have sufficient proof to call it a "fact" or a "law."

The fact is, scientists by convention stopped using the term "law" more than a century ago, when it became clear that science was a process of ever-refining discoveries, and that even the scientific tenets we had taken for "absolutes" still had the potential to be more complex than we were capable of observing through our experiments.

Newton's "Laws," for instance, had always failed to match exactly with experimental results, though they were quite close. Scientists for the better part of two centuries attributed this discrepancy to "measurement error"--the notion that our measurement tools just weren't precise enough to get the predicted result--they'd get 9.99999 instead of the theoretically-predicted 10.0, for instance.

With his theory of relativity, however, Einstein was able to plug some of the holes in Newton's Laws, adding new terms to his equations to explain those minor discrepancies not in terms of measurement errors, but in terms of very minor influences that Newton had not noticed.

That a physical "Law" could be shown to be incompletely understood created controversy in the scientific world at the time. The idea of closing the door on an area of study and saying, "we've figured it all out now" suddenly seemed quite naive. Since then, it has been the norm for scientists to use the word "theory" to describe their understanding of everything, to acknowledge the fact that our models of how the universe works--no matter how accurate they seem to be--can always stand to be refined.

Scientists no longer refer to the "law of gravity," for example, because in the post-Einstein world we know that gravity behaves curiously under certain circumstances. It's now "gravitation theory." That doesn't mean that what science knows about gravity was wrong, or even that it was significantly incomplete--we may well know 99.9% of what there is to know about gravitational force, but we also know that through further study we're likely to refine that to 99.99%, 99.999%, 99.9999%, and so on, by studying those quirky areas where the existing theory seems to break down. Scientists therefore use the word "theory" to acknowledge that there could still be something left to learn about a subject, no matter how much we already know.

Even so, it's important to distinguish between the different senses of the word "theory." Scientists use the word in much the same way that musicians do. Students of "music theory" learn about the staff, keys, notation, and composition techniques--the body of knowledge accumulated throughout the ages about how to write music is known as "theory," and it's no different with science. "<something> theory" is the body of accumulated knowledge that represents our understanding of <something>, whatever field that might happen to be. That's also why scientists prefer the term "relativity theory" to "theory of relativity"--the latter phrase is just too open to misinterpretation.

Edited by Arras (10/08/05 10:47 AM)

Post Extras: