Is this book a turning point?

[Sushan]

This topic is related to the philosophical book for the month of July Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure by Sylvie Beljanski

https://forums.onlinebookclub.org/shelv ... ?id=264811


The author of this book says that cancer can be cured with the use of integrative medicine (the combination of conventional medicine with alternative medicine and supplements of good quality) by using that in an intelligent manner. She backs up her theories with the data from the researches of her father. If this is true and practical, it has to be a turning point in the field of cancer treatment, and being diagnosed with cancer will no longer be considered as a death sentence.

What do you think? Is this an actual turning point? Or has the author given us some false hope in a sweet manner?

[LuckyR]

This topic is related to the philosophical book for the month of July Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure by Sylvie Beljanski

https://forums.onlinebookclub.org/shelv ... ?id=264811


The author of this book says that cancer can be cured with the use of integrative medicine (the combination of conventional medicine with alternative medicine and supplements of good quality) by using that in an intelligent manner. She backs up her theories with the data from the researches of her father. If this is true and practical, it has to be a turning point in the field of cancer treatment, and being diagnosed with cancer will no longer be considered as a death sentence.

What do you think? Is this an actual turning point? Or has the author given us some false hope in a sweet manner?

Several things: first, "cancer" is not a single entity. Cancers encompass many, many different problems that lend themselves to wildly different treatments. Thus anyone who claims that a profuct, natural or otherwise, will cure "cancer", is by definition overclaiming to the point of charlatanism. Perhaps the miracle supplement could help in the treatment of a particular type of say stomach cancer (not all types of stomach cancer and certainly not stomach cancer and lung cancer).

Even if supplements helped with a type of cancer, whoo hoo. New, somewhat better treatments come out every so often. Yay, but hardly a "turning point".

Just to be clear, currently many types of cancers are completely curable with standard treatments, thus cancer is not an automatic "death sentance".

[Sushan]

This topic is related to the philosophical book for the month of July Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure by Sylvie Beljanski

https://forums.onlinebookclub.org/shelv ... ?id=264811


The author of this book says that cancer can be cured with the use of integrative medicine (the combination of conventional medicine with alternative medicine and supplements of good quality) by using that in an intelligent manner. She backs up her theories with the data from the researches of her father. If this is true and practical, it has to be a turning point in the field of cancer treatment, and being diagnosed with cancer will no longer be considered as a death sentence.

What do you think? Is this an actual turning point? Or has the author given us some false hope in a sweet manner?

Several things: first, "cancer" is not a single entity. Cancers encompass many, many different problems that lend themselves to wildly different treatments. Thus anyone who claims that a profuct, natural or otherwise, will cure "cancer", is by definition overclaiming to the point of charlatanism. Perhaps the miracle supplement could help in the treatment of a particular type of say stomach cancer (not all types of stomach cancer and certainly not stomach cancer and lung cancer).

Even if supplements helped with a type of cancer, whoo hoo. New, somewhat better treatments come out every so often. Yay, but hardly a "turning point".

Just to be clear, currently many types of cancers are completely curable with standard treatments, thus cancer is not an automatic "death sentance".

I agree. Not all cancers are death sentences. But, as even you have mentioned, since cancer is not a single entity, being diagnosed with a cancer is a big hard blow to the patient as well as his/her close ones. So in a way it is more or less like a death ssentence.

Yes, there is a rare possibility to any drug to be a magical drug which will cure whatever the cancers. But can't this specific drug be a magical one which can cure many cancers which are still a challenge to the modern and conventional medicine?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I read this book cover to cover. I think the treatments and alleged cures presented by the author could be a turning point. However, could be doesn't necessarily mean will be.

For the reasons explained in the book, there is not a practical way for the powers that be to monetize the treatments and cures proposed in the book.

In analogy, McDonalds could make its menu much healthier, but I doubt it will.

Whether it is McDonalds or Pfizer, such for-profit will generally do what is most profitable. Helping addicts get fatter, drunker, sicker, and so on is typically the way to go for profits.

Big national governments are likewise controlled by the almighty dollar, and so governments ultimately work for companies the wealthy, and by extension for companies like McDonalds, Halliburton, and Pfizer. Violent governments are the power behind the throne in the plutocracy in which we live.

[Sushan]

I read this book cover to cover. I think the treatments and alleged cures presented by the author could be a turning point. However, could be doesn't necessarily mean will be.

For the reasons explained in the book, there is not a practical way for the powers that be to monetize the treatments and cures proposed in the book.

In analogy, McDonalds could make its menu much healthier, but I doubt it will.

Whether it is McDonalds or Pfizer, such for-profit will generally do what is most profitable. Helping addicts get fatter, drunker, sicker, and so on is typically the way to go for profits.

Big national governments are likewise controlled by the almighty dollar, and so governments ultimately work for companies the wealthy, and by extension for companies like McDonalds, Halliburton, and Pfizer. Violent governments are the power behind the throne in the plutocracy in which we live.

I think you are correct. Most of these big businesses which make their profits by making the people to get used to unhealthy practices will never let people to be adopted to healthy practices. So even if all the things in this book are true and practical, when it comes to the level of applying them, none of these big companies will remain silent. The governments also won't take any actions or decisions in favour of the healthy practiced since it will cost them their income from these influential companies.

And on the other hand, I think we do not know yet whether these natural means actually work. They need more research and experiments and have to be proven that they are actually effective. Someone can argue saying that is not necessary because they are natural medicine, but since there is an approved method for a drug to be accepted it will only be fair if these things undergo the same procedures.

[LuckyR]

I read this book cover to cover. I think the treatments and alleged cures presented by the author could be a turning point. However, could be doesn't necessarily mean will be.

For the reasons explained in the book, there is not a practical way for the powers that be to monetize the treatments and cures proposed in the book.

In analogy, McDonalds could make its menu much healthier, but I doubt it will.

Whether it is McDonalds or Pfizer, such for-profit will generally do what is most profitable. Helping addicts get fatter, drunker, sicker, and so on is typically the way to go for profits.

Big national governments are likewise controlled by the almighty dollar, and so governments ultimately work for companies the wealthy, and by extension for companies like McDonalds, Halliburton, and Pfizer. Violent governments are the power behind the throne in the plutocracy in which we live.

Your premise starts logically then quickly veers off the road into the ditch.

Yes, McDs and Pfizer are for profit corporations. Yes, maximizing profits is their goal. No, the reason McDs doesn't have a healthier menu isn't because they want you to get fat and sick. The fault of the McDs menu is the customer's preference for "good" tasting food (over healthful food). Trust me, if McDs could make more money with veggie burgers, they would sell them.

Similarly, the notion that Pharmaceutical companies suppress cures in favor of medications that control, but don't cure disease, is flawed on it's face. If Pfizer can cure diabetes but chooses not to, guess what? Merck will sell it and kill Pfizer in the marketplace. There is no shortage of disease such that companies don't have to worry about running out of patients/customers.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I read this book cover to cover. I think the treatments and alleged cures presented by the author could be a turning point. However, could be doesn't necessarily mean will be.

For the reasons explained in the book, there is not a practical way for the powers that be to monetize the treatments and cures proposed in the book.

In analogy, McDonalds could make its menu much healthier, but I doubt it will.

Whether it is McDonalds or Pfizer, such for-profit will generally do what is most profitable. Helping addicts get fatter, drunker, sicker, and so on is typically the way to go for profits,

Yes, McDs and Pfizer are for profit corporations. Yes, maximizing profits is their goal. No, the reason McDs doesn't have a healthier menu isn't because they want you to get fat and sick.

I am not saying that either McDonalds or Pfizer want you to get fat and sick. Genuine question, not rhetorical: Did you read the book?

[Sushan]

I read this book cover to cover. I think the treatments and alleged cures presented by the author could be a turning point. However, could be doesn't necessarily mean will be.

For the reasons explained in the book, there is not a practical way for the powers that be to monetize the treatments and cures proposed in the book.

In analogy, McDonalds could make its menu much healthier, but I doubt it will.

Whether it is McDonalds or Pfizer, such for-profit will generally do what is most profitable. Helping addicts get fatter, drunker, sicker, and so on is typically the way to go for profits.

Big national governments are likewise controlled by the almighty dollar, and so governments ultimately work for companies the wealthy, and by extension for companies like McDonalds, Halliburton, and Pfizer. Violent governments are the power behind the throne in the plutocracy in which we live.

Your premise starts logically then quickly veers off the road into the ditch.

Yes, McDs and Pfizer are for profit corporations. Yes, maximizing profits is their goal. No, the reason McDs doesn't have a healthier menu isn't because they want you to get fat and sick. The fault of the McDs menu is the customer's preference for "good" tasting food (over healthful food). Trust me, if McDs could make more money with veggie burgers, they would sell them.

Similarly, the notion that Pharmaceutical companies suppress cures in favor of medications that control, but don't cure disease, is flawed on it's face. If Pfizer can cure diabetes but chooses not to, guess what? Merck will sell it and kill Pfizer in the marketplace. There is no shortage of disease such that companies don't have to worry about running out of patients/customers.

As far as I believe pharmacy and food are industries that will never run out of customers. There is no permanent solution for hunger, and despite whatever the research findings related to the relationship between unhealthy food habits and various cancers many people choose not to change their food habits.

And that preference thing applies similarly to medicine as well. Many prefer western, or the conventional memedicine and some prefer traditional or the alternative medicine. But at the same time I think that that preference is not totally personal. The advertising agencies and the representatives from pharmaceutical companies do a lot to influence and drive that preference towards their interests.

[Sushan]

I read this book cover to cover. I think the treatments and alleged cures presented by the author could be a turning point. However, could be doesn't necessarily mean will be.

For the reasons explained in the book, there is not a practical way for the powers that be to monetize the treatments and cures proposed in the book.

In analogy, McDonalds could make its menu much healthier, but I doubt it will.

Whether it is McDonalds or Pfizer, such for-profit will generally do what is most profitable. Helping addicts get fatter, drunker, sicker, and so on is typically the way to go for profits,

Yes, McDs and Pfizer are for profit corporations. Yes, maximizing profits is their goal. No, the reason McDs doesn't have a healthier menu isn't because they want you to get fat and sick.

I am not saying that either McDonalds or Pfizer want you to get fat and sick. Genuine question, not rhetorical: Did you read the book?

I too do not think the McDonalds want to make you fat, but they like you being hungry. But for the pharmaceutical companies it is essential for the illnesses to remain. Otherwise how can they survive.

Entrepreneurs are people who create needs for the customers and then sell their products. Many people say the antivirus companies create the computer viruses, and I too think that is true. I do not say that this applies 100% to all pharmaceutical companies. But I believe they prefer if the illnesses are not eradicated but only kept under control, and that by using their drugs.

[LuckyR]

I read this book cover to cover. I think the treatments and alleged cures presented by the author could be a turning point. However, could be doesn't necessarily mean will be.

For the reasons explained in the book, there is not a practical way for the powers that be to monetize the treatments and cures proposed in the book.

In analogy, McDonalds could make its menu much healthier, but I doubt it will.

Whether it is McDonalds or Pfizer, such for-profit will generally do what is most profitable. Helping addicts get fatter, drunker, sicker, and so on is typically the way to go for profits.

Big national governments are likewise controlled by the almighty dollar, and so governments ultimately work for companies the wealthy, and by extension for companies like McDonalds, Halliburton, and Pfizer. Violent governments are the power behind the throne in the plutocracy in which we live.

Your premise starts logically then quickly veers off the road into the ditch.

Yes, McDs and Pfizer are for profit corporations. Yes, maximizing profits is their goal. No, the reason McDs doesn't have a healthier menu isn't because they want you to get fat and sick. The fault of the McDs menu is the customer's preference for "good" tasting food (over healthful food). Trust me, if McDs could make more money with veggie burgers, they would sell them.

Similarly, the notion that Pharmaceutical companies suppress cures in favor of medications that control, but don't cure disease, is flawed on it's face. If Pfizer can cure diabetes but chooses not to, guess what? Merck will sell it and kill Pfizer in the marketplace. There is no shortage of disease such that companies don't have to worry about running out of patients/customers.

As far as I believe pharmacy and food are industries that will never run out of customers. There is no permanent solution for hunger, and despite whatever the research findings related to the relationship between unhealthy food habits and various cancers many people choose not to change their food habits.

And that preference thing applies similarly to medicine as well. Many prefer western, or the conventional memedicine and some prefer traditional or the alternative medicine. But at the same time I think that that preference is not totally personal. The advertising agencies and the representatives from pharmaceutical companies do a lot to influence and drive that preference towards their interests.

I agree completely. Advertising works. We all think we are able to avoid it's influence, but on average we are incorrect.

[LuckyR]

I read this book cover to cover. I think the treatments and alleged cures presented by the author could be a turning point. However, could be doesn't necessarily mean will be.

For the reasons explained in the book, there is not a practical way for the powers that be to monetize the treatments and cures proposed in the book.

In analogy, McDonalds could make its menu much healthier, but I doubt it will.

Whether it is McDonalds or Pfizer, such for-profit will generally do what is most profitable. Helping addicts get fatter, drunker, sicker, and so on is typically the way to go for profits,

Yes, McDs and Pfizer are for profit corporations. Yes, maximizing profits is their goal. No, the reason McDs doesn't have a healthier menu isn't because they want you to get fat and sick.

I am not saying that either McDonalds or Pfizer want you to get fat and sick. Genuine question, not rhetorical: Did you read the book?

I too do not think the McDonalds want to make you fat, but they like you being hungry. But for the pharmaceutical companies it is essential for the illnesses to remain. Otherwise how can they survive.

Entrepreneurs are people who create needs for the customers and then sell their products. Many people say the antivirus companies create the computer viruses, and I too think that is true. I do not say that this applies 100% to all pharmaceutical companies. But I believe they prefer if the illnesses are not eradicated but only kept under control, and that by using their drugs.

Uummm... if that were true antibiotics wouldn't exist, neither would surgery. Flawed logic on it's face.

[Sushan]

I read this book cover to cover. I think the treatments and alleged cures presented by the author could be a turning point. However, could be doesn't necessarily mean will be.

For the reasons explained in the book, there is not a practical way for the powers that be to monetize the treatments and cures proposed in the book.

In analogy, McDonalds could make its menu much healthier, but I doubt it will.

Whether it is McDonalds or Pfizer, such for-profit will generally do what is most profitable. Helping addicts get fatter, drunker, sicker, and so on is typically the way to go for profits.

Big national governments are likewise controlled by the almighty dollar, and so governments ultimately work for companies the wealthy, and by extension for companies like McDonalds, Halliburton, and Pfizer. Violent governments are the power behind the throne in the plutocracy in which we live.

Your premise starts logically then quickly veers off the road into the ditch.

Yes, McDs and Pfizer are for profit corporations. Yes, maximizing profits is their goal. No, the reason McDs doesn't have a healthier menu isn't because they want you to get fat and sick. The fault of the McDs menu is the customer's preference for "good" tasting food (over healthful food). Trust me, if McDs could make more money with veggie burgers, they would sell them.

Similarly, the notion that Pharmaceutical companies suppress cures in favor of medications that control, but don't cure disease, is flawed on it's face. If Pfizer can cure diabetes but chooses not to, guess what? Merck will sell it and kill Pfizer in the marketplace. There is no shortage of disease such that companies don't have to worry about running out of patients/customers.

As far as I believe pharmacy and food are industries that will never run out of customers. There is no permanent solution for hunger, and despite whatever the research findings related to the relationship between unhealthy food habits and various cancers many people choose not to change their food habits.

And that preference thing applies similarly to medicine as well. Many prefer western, or the conventional memedicine and some prefer traditional or the alternative medicine. But at the same time I think that that preference is not totally personal. The advertising agencies and the representatives from pharmaceutical companies do a lot to influence and drive that preference towards their interests.

I agree completely. Advertising works. We all think we are able to avoid it's influence, but on average we are incorrect.

Yes. We see a lot of advertisements daily, and even without our awareness our lifestyles are modified by them more or less. This is similar to medicine as well. Some people request some drugs with the brand name from doctors not because of anything but because they have heard that the drugs are better. Maybe the doctor knows better, but he still cannot change the patient's mind as the influence of advertising is too much.

Entrepreneurs will always make needs to people and there will always be people who can be easily suggested to buy what the sellers want to sell.

[Sushan]

Yes, McDs and Pfizer are for profit corporations. Yes, maximizing profits is their goal. No, the reason McDs doesn't have a healthier menu isn't because they want you to get fat and sick.

I am not saying that either McDonalds or Pfizer want you to get fat and sick. Genuine question, not rhetorical: Did you read the book?

I too do not think the McDonalds want to make you fat, but they like you being hungry. But for the pharmaceutical companies it is essential for the illnesses to remain. Otherwise how can they survive.

Entrepreneurs are people who create needs for the customers and then sell their products. Many people say the antivirus companies create the computer viruses, and I too think that is true. I do not say that this applies 100% to all pharmaceutical companies. But I believe they prefer if the illnesses are not eradicated but only kept under control, and that by using their drugs.

Uummm... if that were true antibiotics wouldn't exist, neither would surgery. Flawed logic on it's face.

Antibiotics were not initially man made. It was a creation of the nature for the protection of the bacterias. People could extract them, study them and reproduce them. And now we have commercially available antibiotics. Antibiotics can eradicate various infections, but can they do it always?

Surgery was a practice that was available for more than thousand years. It has been developed throughout the history and has come to today's level. But can surgery cure everything?

[LuckyR]

I am not saying that either McDonalds or Pfizer want you to get fat and sick. Genuine question, not rhetorical: Did you read the book?

I too do not think the McDonalds want to make you fat, but they like you being hungry. But for the pharmaceutical companies it is essential for the illnesses to remain. Otherwise how can they survive.

Entrepreneurs are people who create needs for the customers and then sell their products. Many people say the antivirus companies create the computer viruses, and I too think that is true. I do not say that this applies 100% to all pharmaceutical companies. But I believe they prefer if the illnesses are not eradicated but only kept under control, and that by using their drugs.

Uummm... if that were true antibiotics wouldn't exist, neither would surgery. Flawed logic on it's face.

Antibiotics were not initially man made. It was a creation of the nature for the protection of the bacterias. People could extract them, study them and reproduce them. And now we have commercially available antibiotics. Antibiotics can eradicate various infections, but can they do it always?

Surgery was a practice that was available for more than thousand years. It has been developed throughout the history and has come to today's level. But can surgery cure everything?

Well according to the "logic" some invoke, the Big Pharma international conspiracy group would suppress antibiotics since penicillin cures strept throat and the conspirators can make more money selling cough syrup again and again. Similarly Big Pharma would have conspired to make appendectomies illegal since that cures appendicitis in 30 minutes whereas they could sell pain medicine for weeks in it's absence.

Follow the money, obvious, right?

Does that make sense to anyone?

[Sushan]

I too do not think the McDonalds want to make you fat, but they like you being hungry. But for the pharmaceutical companies it is essential for the illnesses to remain. Otherwise how can they survive.

Entrepreneurs are people who create needs for the customers and then sell their products. Many people say the antivirus companies create the computer viruses, and I too think that is true. I do not say that this applies 100% to all pharmaceutical companies. But I believe they prefer if the illnesses are not eradicated but only kept under control, and that by using their drugs.

Uummm... if that were true antibiotics wouldn't exist, neither would surgery. Flawed logic on it's face.

Antibiotics were not initially man made. It was a creation of the nature for the protection of the bacterias. People could extract them, study them and reproduce them. And now we have commercially available antibiotics. Antibiotics can eradicate various infections, but can they do it always?

Surgery was a practice that was available for more than thousand years. It has been developed throughout the history and has come to today's level. But can surgery cure everything?

Well according to the "logic" some invoke, the Big Pharma international conspiracy group would suppress antibiotics since penicillin cures strept throat and the conspirators can make more money selling cough syrup again and again. Similarly Big Pharma would have conspired to make appendectomies illegal since that cures appendicitis in 30 minutes whereas they could sell pain medicine for weeks in it's absence.

Follow the money, obvious, right?

Does that make sense to anyone?

We are still using oral penicillin for various infections, but now we are using advance antibiotics more frequently as the bacteria are getting resistant to traditional antibiotics. Can these Big Pharma can create such resistant bacteria? I think so. Think about the accusation that China gets telling that they created the Corona virus.

When we come to appendisectomy, it is a common, simple surgery which has been performed for years by many doctors and that is why it does not have a big name like "Hartman's procedure". I do not know from where this banning idea for such routine surgeries came. But if we think about the theory of following money, even this sort of routine surgeries are made more sophisticated for the comfort of the patient, but with more expenses from the patient.