The ten counter arguments:
1) For one thing, the ''cancer industry'' does not exist. The medical establishment is not a single entity. You have researchers, physicians, nurses, other health professionals, insurance companies, private consumer organizations, universities, government agencies (such as the FDA), hospitals, HMOs, other managed-care organizations, professional organizations (such as the AMA), pharmaceutical companies, and other private corporations. These entities exist worldwide.
2) There's just no evidence of a conspiracy. Where's the evidence? Whenever a lofty claim like this is met with this simple but salient response the almost inevitable rebuttal is something to the effect of “no, but you really think that....” or “I can't see how...” These are nothing but the beginnings of an argument from incredulity. This is a logical fallacy that entails stating that something must be true/false because you cannot believe otherwise. These sorts of statements in no way actually provide ANY evidence for the original claim. It's a failure to live up to the burden of proof, which, in logical terms, falls on he/she who makes a positive claim. If your argument begins with “I can't imagine...” you have failed at the outset.
3) Cancer is not one disease. There are more than 100 types of cancer. No single treatment has proven effective for every cancer, so there's no indication that any single cure would eradicate all forms of cancer.
4) We have cured diseases in the past. Half a century ago, tuberculosis (TB) was widespread and incurable. Entire hospitals were dedicated to the care of chronic cases. After antibiotics became available, the TB hospitals were emptied and TB specialists were rarely needed. The new TB treatments were not suppressed because of the impact they would have. Instead, the hospitals were converted for other uses and the specialists changed their practice.
5) Cancer affects everybody. The people behind this conspiracy, their families and friends, they are all affected by cancer. This conspiracy would entail them letting both themselves and their loved ones, not to mention millions of other people, die.
6) It is true that it would be more profitable to allow people to contract diseases and then treat them with comprehensive treatments including hospital stays and drugs then it would be to administer a shot and make people insusceptible.....yet this is exactly what they do...... We see vaccines being created and administered all the time. Why would this be the case, if it would be so much more profitable to do otherwise? This casts doubt on the profit motive.
7) In addition, I would submit the idea that a cure is still rather profitable. It's not like they completely lose out on the chance to make money by curing a disease. Vaccines bring in profits. Granted, the profit margins are lower than that of the margins seen for your average drug, but they are profitable nonetheless. In fact, they can be absurdly so, despite the lower margins. For a recent example, look at the financial gains made by the companies that provided the H1N1 vaccine. And the beauty of this is that a new baby is born like every, what, second? There will always be people to whom a vaccination can be administered. So the profits still keep on rolling in. Whether the cure is a vaccine or say, I don't know, genetic manipulation, the solution will need to be given to all of those people being born every day, ensuring that money is still being made.
8) Of all the people that would have to be involved in such a coverup, for everyone to keep it quiet is pretty damn unlikely. We are talking hundreds of thousands of people. Perhaps even millions. researchers, physicians, nurses, other health professionals, insurance companies, private consumer organizations, universities, government agencies (such as the FDA), hospitals, HMOs, other managed-care organizations, professional organizations (such as the AMA), pharmaceutical companies, and other private corporations. All keeping this secret, while millions die. Not only is this unlikely, I would say impossible. Look at some of the small scale conspiracies that we know about. Watergate. The teapot dome scandal. Assassination plans. All ere uncovered, and they are miniscule in comparison to one of this magnitude.
9) There is a shitload of motivation to be the person to find a cure. Imagine the job offers, promotions, prestige and awards this person would receive? It is in the best interests of the people in the 'cancer industry' to be the one to find the cure(s). Suppressing it doesn't make sense. It's like the conspiracies regarding the theory of evolution via natural selection being a lie. It makes no sense for scientists to hide the truth. If anyone could definitely prove the theory wrong, they would. The personal gain would be tremendous.
10) A lot of the cancer research is paid for by governments. On the face of it, the accusation against a private corporation, whom are driven by the profit motive, makes some sort of sense (before you get into the problems with such an idea, including the points I present here). However, governments hiding a cure makes no sense. There's no profit motive there, and it is in the best interest of a government to have a healthy populace, not a sick and dying one.
No comments:
Post a Comment