In the course of doing some reading on health, I came across a web site article entitled There’s no such thing as viruses? Now I found the question of whether viruses exist or not to be curious because I’ve studied viruses, have observed them, and actually constructed virus elements into bacteriophage to manipulate plasmid DNA for use in recombinant DNA. So I think it might be a curious question to ask, and may even be considered ridiculous.
What I really found to be curious was how the author continued in his tirade against ‘virus deniers’, and went on to label web sites like Age of Autism and NaturalNews.com as promoters of ‘dangerous quackery’ and that they ‘endanger public health’. The author basically stated that these web sites promote any ‘wacky hypothesis’ that they can find. Instead of providing any basis for his making these determinations, he just resorts to a string of ad hominem attacks on them because they do not agree with the mainstream scientific opinion(s) on these topics. Most of the topics these web sites discuss are not as settled as the writer described above would like us to think.
I think that this is a very dangerous attitude for any scientist to take. When scientists start to denounce anyone with a divergent opinion than what is mainstream, it makes mainstream science susceptible to manipulation and to stray away from the principles that keep science more objective. Someone who claims to be a scientist, and even more amazingly, claims to be an objective scientist sounds to me like a person who probably harbors the most bias. This is because it is known that ALL people have biases. It’s actually the reason for the Scientific Method! Science isn’t a big building full of researchers; it isn’t people with letters behind their names spouting forth scientific truth; and it definitely isn’t people that feel that they are more qualified than anyone else because they may have titles, status or positions with great apparent authority. Science is the embodiment of a process of removing bias from observations made by investigators (also known as researchers), and the identification of as much bias as possible by these same investigators.
The easiest thing in the world to do is to ridicule and ostracize people with information, research and findings that are not mainstream. In fact, the ONLY way that progress is made in science, and in society, is by people who do not accept the status quo. Einstein once said that problems cannot be solved with the same level of thinking that created them.
If we examine the long track record of cancer treatment, we find that the same treatment methods that were used in the early 20th century are essentially the same treatment methods that are used today. In my mind, that appears to confirm that the people that manage science have an attachment to these methods. If there is a real commitment to progress in cancer research, why have no new treatments been found? More curiously, why have no more effective treatment methods been found? We’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars spent, and millions of man-hours of research being done over the years. If all of this work was honestly done, it amounts to a supreme waste of human effort, or a miniscule effort/results ratio. The incidence of cancer has skyrocketed, and despite all of the glowing news reports, the cure rate has not substantially improved over the years.
The verdict is fairly cut-and-dry. It’s not high-level rocket science. We only have a few options here:
-Researchers and/or the Medical Establishment are unable to cure cancer. If that’s the case, why are we paying them all this money and giving them all of this status and authority?
-Researchers and/or the Medical Establishment are unwilling to cure cancer (for whatever reason, whether its protection of the profits made in treating cancer instead of curing cancer). If this is the case, we have the same set of questions. Why are we paying them all this money for research and letting them have high pay, high prestige and status if we’re not getting any return on investment?
This point emphasizes that a lot of physicians and medical researchers are against the Medical Establishment, but fear professional ostracism and retribution if they move against what the controllers of medicine have deemed to be the standard cancer treatment protocols. Some act anyway, and get steamrolled by the Medical Establishment and suffer, while others continue to fight in any way that they can. I believe that most medical professionals that don’t agree with the medical authorities just ‘go along to get along’, and follow the medical status quo so that they can continue to practice medicine without harassment.
For the record, I think that most medical professionals are intelligent. My research into the subject has revealed to me that cancer is not as complex as we are being led to believe. A lot of the complexity is being added and is actually pursued to make it seem like average people cannot understand cancer dynamics. It’s basically a way to obfuscate the issue and get most people to quickly lose interest in the subject. In this same way, it’s the reason why oncologists are so intent to show a genetic cause for cancer instead of admitting that toxic chemicals in our environment are one of the major causative factors.
From what I can see, the true change in oncology will only occur when average people stop allowing the Cancer Industry to foist poisons masquerading as medicines upon them, and begin to seek more health-friendly treatment strategies, even if they’re outside the purview of standard cancer treatment. It just doesn’t look like ‘progress’ to me when the same treatments that were used in 1912 are the main treatments being used in 2012. What do you think?