There’s a very ugly conspiracy theory going around- Medical research is deliberately not finding cures for major diseases. Sound disgusting? It is, extremely. The trouble is that it may have some basis in fact.
Some very heavy qualifiers before I start, and absolutely no apologies for a big article, because it’s a big, complex subject. (No sympathy for people who want post-it note summaries of major issues, either.)
I don’t have a lot of time for conspiracy theories for a few reasons:
1. I have yet to see anyone do a damn thing about any conspiracy theory, except perhaps publicity events for their books and Chariots of the Gods-like videos, etc.
2. Real conspiracies aren’t based on theories. They’re based on facts.
3. You don’t stop a conspiracy by bleating about it.
4. Conspiracy theories are themselves an industry of parasites, like politics, law and the disgusting corporate non-ethos which is apparently determined to act against the public interest in every possible way.
5. I despise conspiracy theories and the cockroach mentality which churns them out.
The “no cures” theory, explained
This is a nasty theory, and it’s been around for a while in various forms, including the ultra-hysterical, self-discrediting version we all appreciate so much. It’s an excellent indicator of the total lack of trust people have in the institutions and organizations which are supposed to be helping humanity.
The main reason this very ugly theory is entitled to any attention at all is due to a combination of epidemiology, toxicology and biological science. There are some questions being raised across a broad spectrum of medical non-achievement.
The basic theory is in two parts-
1. Medical science does in fact know how to cure the mass murdering diseases. It’s sitting on the cures because the treatments are worth billions, and therefore doesn’t want to produce a simple “aspirin” cure. Stem cell research, a major potential cure, is being stymied for alleged “ethical” reasons, but in practice the reasons are all about money.
The issues are straightforward enough. For example:
Cancers, which are simply uncontrolled growth, have previously been stopped in their tracks by growth inhibitors. I know that this was tried in the 1980s and at least some clinical tests were successful and that research has continued. Since that time, it’s also been found that cancers deprived of sugar self-destruct. Other research has also found weak points in the “invincible” disease. Yet it remains a statistically huge disease. Why?
This general theory applies in a modified form to a range of diseases. The basic approach to defeating any disease is simple enough- Block the destructive actions and byproducts of the disease, and train the immune system to destroy it. You’d expect the most pitiful minds to understand such basic logic, but everything from the common cold to TB, diabetes and the vast range of viral and bacterial diseases continue to rage at epidemic levels.
In the past, tests and analysis of diseases were comparatively extremely primitive and equally extremely slow. Genetic science has come a long way since the 1970s, and tests can now be conducted in bulk. In principle, any medical condition can be fully mapped with a few samples very quickly. Mapping growth inhibitor requirements can be quite complex, but certainly not impossible. The same applies to bacterial enzymes, viral infections and other vicious monsters of disease.
Disgusting as the theory of deliberate failure to deal with diseases may be, the question does have to be asked why so many diseases are classed as incurable. That result is unacceptable, and the billions spent in research might as well be directed elsewhere to people who are able to find cures.
The toxic environment conspiracy
The second part of the theory is equally insidious, and if it seems to play on the hatred of corporate behaviour, there are some hard facts which related to it:
2. The toxic, highly polluted modern environment is full of class actions and statutory breaches. If medical science, epidemiology and toxicology are quiet as the grave about this major environmental threat, there are no good reasons for that silence. According to the theory, this is simple collusion, shutting up and not asking awkward questions or producing meaningful information about the toxic threats.
Ironically, this part of the theory falls short of the actual situation in many ways. The facts are slightly less adjectival and pregnant with implied meanings. It is true that the release of active chemicals on industrial scales can create chemical cocktails, some of which can be toxic. These chemicals are quite dangerous on their own. As compounds, they’re a raffle as a health hazard.
In Asia, there’s a thing called the Brown Haze, “officially believed” to be killing about half a million people a year. This is a quasi-new thing, brought on by the rapid development of the Asian economies. The Brown Haze stretches from India to Indochina. The Chinese killer air is another acknowledged deadly general hazard.
If your humor is black enough, you can see where the joke lies. North America, Russia and Europe have been mass producing these toxins for much longer. So they’re toxic in Asia, but not a problem in the West or anywhere else?
In epidemiological terms, the millions of tons of known carcinogens released into the atmosphere since the war alone should be considered as a significant factor in the pandemic-level numbers of patients. Epidemiology hasn’t had a lot to say about this subject since the 1970s. Nor has toxicology. So the theory simply stands on the basis of how little is said or done about it. Massive pollution simply isn’t a topic. Mass media rarely if ever carries any mention of pollution at all. The US EPA, meanwhile, has more or less become an hourly public prosecutor, often dealing with major corporate serial/repeat offenders. Public outcry? Not a whisper.
Any kind of pollution is fixable, easily enough. Chemicals, particularly wastes, can be separated at any point in any process, and quite simply. The wastes can even be re-engineered into useful products, like sulphates from oil. Emissions shouldn’t really happen at all. That usually doesn’t happen, and the folklore reason for that fact is “cost”. Actually, a $10 filter can fix most toxic waste issues at source very efficiently. So much for cost as a reason.
Evaluating the theory
Does the theory stack up? Maybe, but for different reasons to the usual paranoia. Sadly, some of the possible reasons are more worrying than the actual problems:
Can people be that stupid and self-destructive? The historical answer is yes. There are many cases of societies refusing to deal with their issues. The Roman, Chinese and other empires simply allowed themselves to fall to pieces. The Soviet Union collapsed arguably as much as a result of mismanagement and failure to deal with issues as for any other reason.
Are doctors and scientists that spineless? Yes and no. The “research to say exactly what the corporations want to hear” phenomenon isn’t exactly unknown. However, the opposite also applies. Many doctors and scientists are quite prepared to call such crap and prove it’s crap. The jury should look hard at who’s doing the real work and who’s just writing brochures.
Are the various vested interests so totally insane? Quite possibly. If you look at the behaviour of some of the big American corporations, the level of public distrust and hatred they now enjoy is thoroughly deserved. The sanity in the corporate zone comes from the experts. It’s really a question if anyone’s listening to them.
Do governments know about this? It wouldn’t matter much if they did. Governments tend to run on expedient options, not difficult management issues. The modern politician tends to be an avoider of issues, anything but a fighter. They’re not trained to understand the medical and scientific issues. Their policy advisors are to put it mildly questionable in terms of their allegiances. They can be bought and sold, and they’re in many ways simply lobbyists. Some actually are lobbyists.
Is there a solution to the theory, if it’s true? Yes there is, and it’s the same one it’s always been- If people do their jobs properly and the laws are enforced, life’s a lot less dangerous. In this case, all the issues really are life or death.
I don’t like this theory, at all. I don’t want to think that medicine and the related sciences have become simple-minded mediocrities, basking in the bucks while millions of people suffer and die for no reason. However- Years of study of environmental issues and an relentless interest in some diseases since the deaths of members of my family have kept me gruesomely informed.
So- some other questions:
• Would people do something very ugly that affects huge numbers of people for big money? If so, the theory has at least one leg to stand on.
• Would people dodge major liabilities any way they could and enforce total silence on any mention of relevant issues? Make that two legs.
• Are the sincere people contributing researching cures naïve and prepared to trust research organizations? They have to trust them when they commit to funding. Whether they’re right to do so is another matter.
• Are Big Pharma and the related corporations trustworthy in any way? Does this question need an answer? The only real surprise is that they’re not being lynched in the streets. Not so surprising in one way- They get more legal protection than any endangered species. They can’t be sued for their various murders, thanks to Federal US laws which apparently don’t even consider the basic legal principle of redress against injury.
I simply do not believe that any disease, however complex, is or can possibly be incurable. These are nuts and bolts logic problems, not metaphysical crossword puzzles.
I happen to know for a fact that no toxin or other pollutant needs to exist at all in the environment. All of them can be managed, quite easily, with basic modern production methods and at very low cost. This is sheer laziness and greed. There are no excuses, never have been, and never will be. Environmental toxicology is basically a stillborn science. The fact that epidemiology is rarely mentioned in environmental reports or medical stats is an indictment of itself.
The theory is hideous. It’s disgusting. If true, it means millions of people are dying and suffering horribly for no good reason. It means Mammon, yet again, is attacking humanity. It’s an indictment of a society which really doesn’t pay attention to basic survival issues and is too stupid to deal with them effectively when it does.
Just one more thing-
I lost my wonderful, dearly loved mother to disease nearly 20 years ago. I now know there were options that weren’t tried or even considered. I’m not the forgiving kind. So here’s a few suggestions for dealing with any actual parasites in medicine and the other sciences:
Let’s get this straight- Failure to solve major health issues is no longer acceptable in any form. The idea of medical research is to find cures. The idea of epidemiology is to properly assess health issues in the environment. The role of toxicology is to deal with toxins, not take a vow of silence. Any government or law which fails to deal with deadly threats to public health can be and might as well be ignored.
If medical research has to be conducted at gunpoint to get cures on the market, let’s do it. If you’re a contributor to medical or environmental research, start demanding results. There are no insoluble issues and no good reasons for failure. You’re entitled to start expecting results, and fast.
Let's see some cures, now.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com