You know I typically avoid arguing with conspiracy theorists I guess, but I'll try to help you out a little bit here.
I'll give you a specific case study throughout my response, you will probably argue the small details but miss the larger point of what is going on. First read this article and honestly evaluate your argument again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_cancer_therapy
“Simple, there are no money in cures. Same reason they made disposable razors...create a product that people throw away and have an endless need for...”
So this is a big half truth you are pitching here. Why do drug companies make vaccines in the first place if there is no money in prevention? Let me guess it is to keep us alive from all the communicable diseases so they can pump us full of more expensive drugs for chronic conditions yada yada. What if the chronic conditions are simply more complex problems?
“The sooner you realize you are being sold a bill of goods the better, my mother worked in cancer research at one of the premier cancer centers in the country(Roswell Park) for many years and in medical research regarding cancer for another 30+ years at HWI...she will be the first to tell you they are interested in things that work, as long as they don't work "too well"...”
Ok, this is incorrect. If a drug company had a hypothetical compound which say could turn an acutely deadly disease into a very treatable chronic condition (essentially curing the disease) according to your logic they probably would not release this compound and continue to treat with chemo, radiation, etc. Case in point is Gleevec developed by Novartis, its a real example instead of hand waving mineral arguments.
“The silliness in my opinion comes from the current solution to cancer, which is basically your cells in your body going haywire, by effectively taking a nuclear bomb to the body and hoping it kills the cancer cells before it kills enough normal cells to kill the patient. I mean how in any form of logic dose that make sense. If you took that argument to a 5 year old and asked them if that made sense, they would be able to tell you no. Yet somehow this is the "answer" to cancer treatment??”
So its easy to criticize older chemotherapeutic and radiation treatment (which is I assume what you are calling a nuclear bomb) as having too broad a spectrum, the scientific community does the same thing and tries to lessen the toxic effect. The facts are though that for most cancers different regiments of chemo and radiation significantly enhance long term survival rates. Look on pubmed for thousands of examples. You should read up though on newer targeted therapeutic approaches to treating cancer specifically Gleevec as I mentioned above with CML. Also good examples are herceptin for certain kinds of breast cancer. These are compounds which have very low toxicity and specifically target the cancerous cells. Targeted therapy is going to be commonplace in the future.
“You will make a lot of money in this because people will continue to have the wool pulled over their eyes, unwilling to do their own research and read readily available information. Even when they do read it, there will be plenty of people like you who will say "anything that goes against what I am taught in school must be wrong". “
So this paragraph shows a basic misunderstanding of what science is. The beauty of science is that it is based on peer review and reproducibility, challenges to current theory and dogma are embraced. Of course what we are taught in school is wrong! Textbooks go out of date very quickly and it doesn't make a lot of sense to read them in light of cutting edge peer reviewed journals. Our views of the universe are constantly in flux based on current technological advances.
Again to bring up the example of Gleevec for CML in cancer biology. The scientific community did not receive Druker's ideas very well at first, however through peer review and reproducibility he was able to overturn conventional treatment dogmas and essentially pioneer the field of targeted cancer therapeutics.
“Well, Guess who controls what you are taught in school? The same people who don't want any of these things to see the light of day. So when you control what is allowed to be used in treatment, control what forms of treatment are taught in school, and have the FDA as your lapdog to control what will ever see the light of day, what chance does anything that goes against these treatments have?”
Case study Gleevec. Read about it.
“Especially when it will erase billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs from the economy? None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. None of these organizations have your best interest in mind.”
“If I ever get cancer, the absolute last place I will go for treatment is one of these cancer treatment centers and partake in their money bilking human poisoning experiments.”
So just take vitamins or whatever when you get cancer. No one forces you to receive chemo or radiation for cancer, there are plenty of double blind studies through which show its efficacy, its your choice.
“As per usual, Western Medicine has zero interest in actually finding and solving the root cause of any problem(why the cells are doing this), only in destroying them once present by any means necessary, and usually resulting in causing a lot more problems without actually solving any of the problems they are trying to fix.”
This set of statements is utterly wrong. There are entire branches of molecular and cellular biology dedicated to figuring out what makes cancer cells tick so to speak and unique ways to try to correct problems. Look in journals if you want to read more about it, again gleevec is an incredibly good example of figuring out what makes cancer cells tick and how to correct this problem.
“No surprise there since the body is likely suffering from a long term deficiency in something(minerals, vitamins, etc) and they do nothing to actually correct the imbalance or solve the actual cause of the problem.”
Show me a couple peer reviewed study indicating a specific mineral deficiency leading to a specific kind of cancer like you said. They don't exist, there can't be meaningful scientific discussion about them just a bunch of handwaving and hypotheticals.
“More and more scientists are beginning to think that adult diseases are nothing more than long term deficiencies in certain minerals or nutrients the body needs to perform certain functions. Without these nutrients, the function cannot be performed, which eventually results in the body breaking down at a certain point(depending on what the deficiency is). It would be like a building neding repairs, but not having any bricks to do it. Eventually the building will start to fall apart.”
Show me some peer reviewed articles about this then. It may be true in some cases but not in all, the natural world is never in absolutes. Give me a specific example.
“Of course, the solution for medicine is to pump you full of drugs, which by the way, are ALL based on a synthetic form of something natural. The difference being, the natural form has no side effects and works better while the synthetic form doesn't fool the body and the body doesn't like it and causes more problems than it fixes.”
No, again you are speaking in absolutes. Read about gleevec, it isn't based on something natural at all. This statement shows a lack of understanding in the design of therapeutics. Read this article for starters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_design
“Let me guess, you and your ilk believe the FDA, AMA, ADA and all the other medical institutes are all standing together singing "Kum Bye Yah" with each other and holding hands while doing all this "research" that never seems to amount to anything other than new expensive drugs that kill people, while secretly behind closed doors what is really happening is they are high fiving each other, smoking cigars, drinking $1000 a bottle cognac and laughing on the way to the bank in their Rolls Royces...”
Well not really, its not productive to think of things in absolutes like you described. Those organizations do not have the general public's absolute interests 100% at heart. No organization does. I think they are contributing to the greater good and progress of the scientific community. Why would rich executives allow themselves or their own children to be treated with drugs if they knew the system was a fraud?
“You believe what you believe, but your opinion these are "silly" is basically like an ostrich that sticks his head in sand.”
Wondering if you also believe that vaccines cause autism, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, the US didn't land on the moon, or multiple small clowns assassinated JFK?
“Perhaps Jesus said it best thousand of years ago: "Now hear this, O foolish and senseless people, Who have eyes but do not see; Who have ears but do not hear."
We all know what happened to him...”
There is a very cruel irony in this quote you wrote, I hope some of my responses help change your mind.
