According to the medical profession, there are only 3 legitimate treatments for cancer:
The problem here is the influence of big business in the running of the medical profession, which imposes restrictive practices that stifle innovation in the healthcare sector. This means that the losers are the patients who are denied viable treatments. Clearly, the public needs to be protected from people offering false hope but that is very different from refusing to test and authorise the use of substances where there is evidence that they work in curing cancer. The pharmaceutical industry cannot patent natural products and therefore has no interest in testing and approving them for use. However, without the stamp of approval from the medical profession, such treatments are just labelled ‘quackery’ and well-meaning people are put out of business and denied a licence to practise. This happens even when the medical profession has tried to treat people and failed. Despite not being able to help the patient, the medical profession seems to prefer that the patient should die, rather than be treated by a promising alternative therapy. The influence of big business on the medical profession is so strong that it skews the judgement of doctors and leads to unnecessary suffering. There is more money to be made in treating cancer than there is in actually curing it. So, it is better to maintain things as they are, rather than make genuine innovations that will help people to get better. Below is a documentary that looks at this subject in detail. It discusses alternatives that have been shown to cure cancer, which include vitamin B17, shark cartilage, mistletoe and bicarbonate of soda. I highly recommend it. Also, do not suppose that the suppression of cancer cures is just something that happened in the past. It is still happening today. Please look at the presentation below about a treatment called GcMAF. It should be noted that alternative therapies are not guaranteed to work any more than traditional treatments by conventional medicine. However, by ruling out complimentary approaches, people are being denied opportunities for healing that may be viable in their case. Alternative treatments also have less damaging side effects and people should have the right to choose which approach they would prefer to undertake. Below is another very good documentary that deals with both sides of the issue. It explains that when Ronald Reagan had cancer in the 1980s, he received a non-conventional treatment that proved to be effective for him. However, this documentary also provides examples where alternative therapies were not successful.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorA citizen journalist. Archives
October 2018
Categories
All
|