Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Big Pharma Psychopathic Greed ~ Suppressed News About Cancer and Aids

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 5, 2012, 4:48 p.m. EST by PeaceNow (84)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This is the degree to which how disgustingly greedy and apathetic the North American pharmaceutical companies (owned by the ruling elite) are. They'd rather see us die while happily collecting money from us. It is not hard to see then, how easy it is for them to callously throw us under the bus when it comes to the financial system. They are callous megalomaniacs.

http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2012/02/health-canadas-famous-herbal-remedy.html

The Canadian Ministry of Health was so threatened by the successes of Rene and Dr. Brusch that they raided the clinic in Bracebridge, seized medical files on patients, threw them into steel drums and set them afire, burning the records to ash, in an effort to keep the documentation from being released on the many successful "cures" of cancer. You can bet the Kennedy clan in Boston won't admit to a herbal cure for cancer, when they contribute to the Oncology School at Harvard Medical Center, and make their fortune from their investment in Libby Pharmaceutical's drugs for chemo treatment of cancer cases.

4 Comments

4 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by learnthis (120) 2 years ago

Stop it with the damn voodoo medicine. Not only is the information incorrect it is dangerous. When someone who believes this stuff ignores traditional medicine and ends up dead (and they will) you will have done nothing to help your fellow man. Do you have a degree in science or medicine...nope you just believe everything you read and pass it on to the next dope. The Canadian Ministry of Health found nothing there that was helping anyone and the "patients" were still dying.

Animal studies conducted at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and the NCI from the 1950s through the 1980s concluded that Essiac was not effective. The majority of subsequent studies have confirmed these findings. A recent laboratory study found that Essiac and Flor Essence actually increased growth of breast cancer cells. Flor Essence has not been tested as a cancer treatment in humans.

So that is just animals you say. Wrong. Again they checked the people at the clinic way back when and none of them were being helped by the voodoo tea. If we could take some herbs and cure cancer every doctor would be jumping up and down with joy. Cancer patients are a drain on teh doctors limited resources (time) and emotions (believe it or not doctors do become attached to their patients and they never like to see anyone die (at least not on their shift).

The problem with your argument is this. There are limited, very , limited drugs to treat cancer, period. The drug companies have and continue to throw billions of dollars at this problem and are yet to be able to solve how to cure cancer 100% of the time. If there were some herbs you could drink or rub on your head when there was a full moon, the drug companies would be very happy because they could stop losing billions of dollar trying to find a cure. Here read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/health/research/02cancerdrug.html?pagewanted=all

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 2 years ago

There are some links here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essiac - in general I would be very skeptical of an herbal cure for AIDS, because the virus actually integrates itself into the cell's DNA in a way which is difficult to fix. An herbal cure for cancer is also unlikely - consider that the most reliable ancient authorities of herbal medicine regarded cancer as incurable (e.g. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Celsus/5*.html ). Even when physicians such as Dioscorides hit on herbs with genuine anticancer qualities like yew bark (taxol), they were unaware of that. And drugs such as aristolochia were frequently used which can cause cancer. The problem is simply that the ancients were good at finding cures when they caused an immediate relief of symptoms (for example, gout medicines or antimalarial drugs), but with cancer, you need to make people feel bad for months and months in order to finally win out over it. Of course, biology can surprise us in amazing ways, but when someone says the entire medical and scientific community is greedy and psychopathic, but that community says it is them greedy and selling snake oil ... well, which is more likely?

[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

http://www.essiactea.org/ Native Americans traditionally have used pine needles steeped as a tea in hot water and this treatment uses the bark. Interestingly, the needles are known to contain high levels of vitamin C and other bioflavanoids and being a plant source, probably some key trace minerals that are beneficial too especially for those who are among the long term nutritionally deficient (which is alot of the reason for disease not to mention toxins and exposure to radioactive materials in excess of what we are evolved to accommodate biologically.)

Now, what's really interesting is I had an Aunt who worked as an RN throughout the 1950's before retiring in the 1960's. Her comment on cancer was based on a conversation between Dr's about cancer and even then, in the 1950's they knew that if a cure for cancer was known it would limit profitability and one of the Dr's seemed to think there already was a cure. Also, a former associate of mine's father was an M.D. in the 1940's and 1950's and he avoided specifically most foods that contained processed 'white' sugar, 'white' or bleached flours.

Nowadays, we know that spiking of blood sugars over time creates an 'unfriendly' environment in the body resulting in premature aging and the chronic diseases of modern man and that humans do better on diets consisting of measured amounts with ratios of more vegetables to protein foods and minimal starches.

Here's a modern day article I found as recently as yesterday confirming what the guy I just mentioned's MD father knew all those years ago:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/daily-review/ci_19852832?source=rss

Detecting the difference between a good carb, bad carb By Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz Chicago Tribune

Posted: 02/04/2012 01:00:00 AM PST

Confused about which carbohydrates you should be eating?

Welcome to the club.

"It's the biggest lack-of-consensus issue in the U.S. diet today," said Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health. "We don't have a standard method for assessing their quality."

Carbohydrates, the most common of the three energy sources we get from food (the others are fat and protein), reside in the vast majority of our food, prominently in grains, vegetables, legumes and fruits. They are essential to good health -- as long as you stick to the good sources and steer clear of the bad ones, which are linked to obesity and a host of chronic conditions, including diabetes and heart disease.

Most health experts agree that processed foods, sweetened beverages and refined grains such as white bread, pasta, flour and rice (which are stripped of their nutrients) are among the worst kinds of carbohydrate-rich foods you can eat.

Your digestive system breaks them down too easily, flooding the bloodstream with simple sugars (glucose), which in turn prompts a surge of the hormone insulin to carry the glucose into the body's cells, said Michael Roizen, chairman of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute and co-founder of realage.com. Too much blood sugar and insulin for too long can be dangerous on several levels: more fat storage, less fat burning, malfunctioning proteins


Advertisement


that eventually lead to organ damage, even cancer cell growth, Roizen said. Your brain also gets addicted to the high glucose levels, leaving you craving more.

What constitutes a good carb, however, can be trickier.

It's not as basic as "simple" versus "complex," as fruits contain simple sugars but are a highly desirable carb source.

Rather, four main factors determine the quality of a carb, Mozaffarian said: dietary fiber (the more the better); how fast it makes your blood sugar rise (aka glycemic index, the lower the better); whole-grain content (the more the better); and structure (if it's liquid, milled or pulverized, it's not as good).

So Cheerios, which are made of 100 percent whole grain oats, get a thumbs up for whole grain and fiber content, but the pulverized nature of the oats makes them inferior to intact whole grains, such as steel-cut oats, Mozaffarian said.

And pasta? It seems like the quintessential fattening carb, but in fact it has a lower glycemic index than rice or potatoes and is a "reasonable choice," he said.

Speaking of potatoes ... the white ones have a high glycemic index, and studies have shown them to contribute to weight gain, so Mozaffarian banishes them to the "bad" list alongside Skittles. But other nutrition professionals, such as Stephanie Dunbar, director of nutrition and clinical affairs at the American Diabetes Association, gives potatoes the thumbs up because they have nutrients.

And then you have Jonathan Bailor, a health and fitness researcher who advises you source carbohydrates from citrus fruits, berries and a host of nonstarchy vegetables, such as spinach, and stay away from starches altogether -- including whole grains. The best foods to eat, Bailor said, are those with greater water, fiber and protein content relative to their calories, so you get more bang for your buck.

"It's not that whole grains are evil; it's just absolutely not as good for us as nonstarchy fruits and vegetables," said Bailor, who recently published "The Smarter Science of Slim" (Aavia; $34.95), the result of a decade of reviewing more than 1,000 diet studies.

Reading the nutrition label can help guide people through the morass. Choose items with less sugar -- Roizen says to aim for 4 grams or less -- and more dietary fiber. And no, brown sugar and honey aren't metabolized any differently from the white stuff. But sugar doesn't tell the whole story, as refined starches with little sugar are still terrible for you.

As a general rule of thumb, Mozaffarian recommends that you look at the ratio of total carbohydrates in a serving to dietary fiber, as that captures both sugar and starch content. If the ratio is 10:1 or more, avoid it. If it's less than 5:1, it's very good.

If all the confusion makes you want to reach for a bowl of mac-and-cheese, rest assured that everyone can agree on this: Eating lots of nonstarchy vegetables does every body good.

SHOPPING LIST

Take this list shopping to help you weed out the bad carbs. BAD CARBS Soft drinks, sports drinks, fruit drinks, beer, french fries, white rice, white bread, sugar-sweetened cereals, bagels, baguettes, croissants, potato chips, pastries, cookies, white crackers, brownies, cakes, pies, candy, sugar, brown sugar, honey Debatable Corn, popcorn, white potatoes, pasta, 100 percent fruit juice (limited quantities) GOOD CARBS Spinach, kale, tomatoes, mushrooms, beets, Brussels sprouts, broccoli, onion, squash, artichoke, berries, oranges, tangerines, melons, mangoes, pears, peaches, low-fat Greek yogurt, sweet potatoes, peas, black beans, kidney beans, lentils, brown rice, barley, amaranth, quinoa, whole-grain bread, whole-grain pasta

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

Ted, Jr. says the 2 years of chemo cured the cancer. Why would he lie? if you say greed, he could make millions more with the "herbal cure".