 |
Add to My Group
SOME QUESTIONS FOR CANCER RESEARCHERS AND THE CDC, WHAT IF CANCER IS NOT A DISEASE?
By Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (about the author) Page 1 of 3 page(s)
For OpEdNews: Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo - Writer
I am questioning if cancer is really is a disease. It certainly is not infectious, and I know that not all diseases are, but in the pathology segment of my BA and MA in (Physical) Anthropology, I stumbled onto ancient cases of various, so-called "modern" diseases and it got me wondering.
I label some of these so-called "modern Diseases" or these toxic "illnesses," injuries, not "diseases." I do so because much of the evidence seems to point to outside forces being responsible for many cancers and because it spreads much like poisoning does, throughout an organism. Yes, I am aware of the retrovirus claimed origin of some cancers and do not dispute that claim, here.
We do not call a bomb, which shrapnel injures people, an infection or an illness any more than we would call a bullet wound an infection or a disease-we call it a wound (though such wounds can become infected) a purposeful injury. I do not believe that many cancers are an organic infection, but instead a toxic attack on the human organism, a poisoning, but one which seems more closely resembling radio-active poisoning in its resistance to healing and its relentlessly toxic destruction.
Lead poisoning can occur from a bullet wound or from other sources such as paint, or ingestion, and although it can be treated successfully with anti-biotics, in most cases it is not considered a disease but an injury:
"One particular category of toxic tort is injury caused by exposure to lead-based paint." Quoted from: http://www.civilrights.com/lead.html Website for Monheit, Silverman & Fodera PC, tort Personal Injury and class action lawsuit attorney's
I will come back to cancer and it's status or designation in a follow-up article, but I first want to pursue the industry, which has been singled out by law as the only official source for making proprietary, medically acceptable, prescription, drugs, without persecution, oops, I meant prosecution. Here, I believe once again in opposition to the concept of a free-market place is the hallmark-trademark of the fascist, the exclusionary, closed market place. It would appear that the same principles which created homo-phobia, racial-phobia, religious-phobia and every other sort of exclusionary barrier, also applies in the fascist state, commercial competitive-phobia, open, free-market, phobia, and fear of truth.
I believe many of the products which claim to be cures and treatments for diseases, those products are officially designated as "Legal-Drugs," are no less dangerous than those of the major street drug dealers in America and may not have curative powers very much greater than what herbalists, "Quacks" and the toxic junk street-drug dealers sell.
Watch the advertisements of the pharmaceutical companies. Are they not focusing on many common human inconveniences, trying to make them appear to be serious diseases? Why? Is it because they are not smart enough to cure real diseases and they'd rather try to entice every stupid, vain bastard, and every poor hypochondriac in America into taking some sort of addictive drug, than to try to cure a relative handful of truly sick people? They are treating toxic injuries with toxic shock "remedies," when there are no such remedies for anything. They are the real quacks, the purveyors of the twenty-first centuries version of, but deadlier than laudanum, or snake oil.
Decades ago they treated Syphilis with gold and arsenic. It either killed the disease or the patient, sometimes both. It was all they had and at the onset, they didn't know any better. That is what the modern treatments for cancer are, unenlightened, but they know better. It isn't so much that that this is all they have; it only is if one boxes oneself into a loosing paradigm. There may be alternatives, but they are not patentable. That is why the industry persists in creating drugs from toxins and Petro-chemical, residue, waste and byproducts, they can patent those, but not a natural product that anyone can find, sell or use. They have boxed themselves in by avarice, and at the same time us.
Their's is a Defcon, End-of-Days method also, "we'll only do this if we can get rich on everyone's misfortune or we won't do it, so you'll all die while we profit or to hell with you all!" that, America, is the kind of people with which we are dealing, fascism at it's finest.
They and their system are Hell bent and so are all who support it, and they know it, that is why they want those they treat to go through hell on some small chance of surviving. They are sitting on stuff that can be tested/researched, stuff that may heal or treat non-toxically, but they cannot figure out a way to patent that stuff, so it's live and die by their profits and to hell with natural cures which cannot be patented. Maybe we need a new patent system, first come with natural cures gets the patent, but only if they share it with other companies. Perhaps all patents of drugs must be immediately shared with other companies.
Once again, we have the fascist hallmark-Exclusivity, at work. However, it is much more than just that. It is a most immoral development that a "cure" or "treatment" can be exclusively held by virtue of a patent. Sorry, but the approach is wrong, immoral and despicable, so is profiting from the poor health of others. It is a throwback to before Jesus' time, when he put an end to the superstition that health and wealth was reserved for those families which were "sin"-free," and everyone else must pay the piper.
Creating medicines for serious illnesses should be cooperative ventures which rally every resource in the world, not profiteering ventures for avaristic exclusionists. Every Major University on the planet should be involved to find the least toxic and best healing method, protocol, cure or treatment. That is why the idea of a corporate profit-motive is an evil one. I say the only moral way to approach healthcare is cooperative research, shared ideas, and no profiting on healthcare products or services, by anyone, ever again. There should be an end to petroleum byproducts being the only source for drug ingredients. The profit motive DOES NOT draw the best people, though it often may draw the greediest people, of low character, with the least resistance to temptation.
Which is why the oil drenched fascists in government support corporate profits on health care, and why they want to eliminate lawsuits against the healthcare industry, they don't want to lose the business. The entire industry is corrupt. Off with their heads, every one! The current paradigm is an idea spawned in Hell.
Later He was a (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
by Mark R. Madler
$9.95
Number of pages: 4
Publisher: CBJ, L.P.
by K. Scott Sheldon
$50.00
Lowest New Price $11.50
Number of pages: 208
Publisher: Wiley
by Benjamin Gidron
$39.95
Number of pages: 246
Publisher: Jossey-Bass
by Peter C. Brinckerhoff
$55.00
Lowest New Price $34.00
Number of pages: 238
Publisher: John Wiley
| 9 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
