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