|
Post by RAGE_OF_FURY_AM on Jan 15, 2013 23:47:15 GMT -5
First of all if you all know me enough, i am quite intrigued in the advancements of science and medicine. This one really i found quite intriguing. In Early 2012 a Hungarian man was cured of AIDs by the use of stem cells. It is crazy that in the late 70s to early 80s there was little to be done about the STI. Look at us now, we finally have a cure. It was big deal in the news at the time but what about now? Even though it is rare to find the stem cells that are immune to the virus, they should be able to clone them. Yes that would be controversial but it would change and save many lives. I feel that the pharmaceutical companies are possibly in the resistance to the cure but that could just simply be a conspiracy. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by D341Jerman on Jan 16, 2013 3:43:36 GMT -5
Oh man, cure conspiracies are a convoluted issue. In regards to stem cells, there is still a lot of resistance to research along those lines, because most people still believe that the only way to obtain them is to "clone and kill babies." My mom has a whole section on stem cell research in her class centered entirely around dispelling the myths that are disturbingly common in our society still.
Then there's the idea of a cure itself being suppressed. I'm not sure where I stand on that issue, and I try to keep an open mind because there are multiple angles to be considered. For example: If a cure for a major disease like AIDS or cancer were being suppressed, who would benefit? In regards to AIDS, the answer would be the rich, many of whom have quotes (on record) that label them as being in favor of eugenics. Now, look where AIDS is primarily centered-- poor neighborhoods and African countries. Then again, if a cure for AIDS were suppressed, then why has it been cured now? It's only killed a few million people. True fans of eugenics would probably set a higher total to aim for. Dunno, maybe not.
With cancer, the people who benefit are those who stand to make the most money. There are a ton of "suppressed cures" for cancer out there, and heck, even my own great grandmother beat cancer twice with a suppressed cure called the "Hoxie Treatment" (sp?) while her husband, who received chemotherapy, died from his first round with the disease. The rationale is, because all of these cures are WAY cheaper than chemo (chemo runs literally into the millions for each individual treated) they are suppressed by the money makers. But-- as Dez pointed out once, if there are cures like these out there, then why do rich people who should be in the know (like Steve Jobs, for example) still die of cancer?
Someone told me once that the world is a mess of little conspiracies, people and organizations all trying to screw each other over for a buck and no one really knowing what anyone else is doing, haha. Rules out the NWO idea. I dunno, it's all interesting.
|
|
|
Post by RAGE_OF_FURY_AM on Jan 22, 2013 0:41:03 GMT -5
Interesting information! Yeah the who stem cell thing is ludicrous! It is Rodleslavty to have all of these religious freaks thinking that scientists Kill "babies" or human fetuses to acquire stem cells. It makes sense that the cure could just be taking time to become possible for mass production.
|
|