brisklynx62 said:There were studies...
Some things have been known for thousands of years, others were discovered in the 19th century or the 20th... there were studies, involving Nobel Prize winners and even nominees, and yet they were suppressed by powerful lobbies with slightly different interests...
I asked you to provide specific cases.
In my "treatise," I explicitly outlined what a study should actually look like and the criteria it needs to meet. Something that is "known" for thousands of years doesn't hold water in science without evidence gathered under specific, established protocols. And those rules aren't just some arbitrary whim; they exist for very substantial and valid reasons.
I'm not some conspiracy theorist, and I know this is all pretty slippery ground; but it's also a certainty that major pharmaceutical companies won't look kindly upon a drug that is available to everyone for free, or anything they can't patent and sell at a premium...
I agree with you there—you could certainly point to medical cannabis as an example—but believe me, when it comes to cancer, which is such a complex disease at the cellular level of the human body, that kind of logic simply cannot apply.
There were studies and research and texts about treating with sodium bicarbonate, but it didn't take off because it was suppressed...
The "studies" you're referring to are specifically the product of a confused mind—a doctor who isn't even a molecular biologist, has lost touch with everything he ever studied, and basically just wants to make a quick buck. He bases his theory on this insane idea that all types of cancer are caused by fungal infections. There are people who bought into his story and ended up dead because they were being "treated" with intravenous baking soda. Currently, in Italy, criminal proceedings are being held against him due to those deaths, and he's been struck from the medical registry.
It’s fascinating how people are more inclined to trust someone with a record like that rather than someone who sticks to clinical protocols and whose work is backed by thousands of hours of research, not just from them, but from countless other scientists.
A German doctor who treated a Monegasque princess and John Wayne worked with Laetrile, but it's largely banned in the US; whereas, for instance, in Mexico it isn't, and there at the Oasis clinic, they achieve extraordinary results with several types of cancer using treatments like intravenous Laetrile.
I can't verify who was treated or how, nor can I see the clinical picture before or after, but there are facts described in this text:
The American Cancer Society takes a very hard line on Laetrile, and honestly, their stance is pretty straightforward: they don't support it. If you look at their breakdown, they classify Laetrile as an unproven alternative treatment that hasn't shown any actual clinical benefit in fighting cancer. The core of the issue is that while people have been touting this stuff for years, the scientific community—specifically the major research institutions here in the States—hasn't found any evidence that it actually works. In fact, instead of helping, the biggest risk is often the toxicity itself. Because Laetrile contains cyanide, using it can lead to serious side effects, which kind of defeats the whole purpose of trying to get healthy. Essentially, the medical establishment views it as a dangerous distraction from treatments that have actually passed rigorous testing. They aren't just being stubborn; they're looking at the data, and the data says the risks far outweigh any perceived rewards. I want to draw your attention specifically to the section under the "What is the evidence?" subheading.
The studies have been conducted, and the results are clear: they didn't show any effectiveness.
It’s just like how R. Simpson is seeing fantastic results using hemp oil—and I’m not talking about that cheap stuff made from seeds, but actual leaf oil. It's been common knowledge for thousands of years that the hemp plant itself is absolutely packed with nutrients and incredible benefits.
Even when it yields great results, they still go ahead and ban it.
Tell me why?
Trying to patent a plant is a losing battle; it’s even harder when the recipe for extracting its oil is common knowledge. Big Pharma doesn't see a way to squeeze a massive profit out of it, so they just slap a label like "quackery" on it and push for it to be banned.
It’s never just black and white, and let's be real—those massive corporations aren't exactly innocent in all of this either.
When it comes to cannabis, I’m right there with you. There are massive lobbies out there that have zero interest in letting people swap out high-priced pharmaceuticals for a simple plant you can grow in a pot on your patio—especially when those drugs they’ve dumped millions into don't even work any better. We are looking at an all-out war here between the scientific community and corporate greed.
It’s funny to me how some people here are so quick to bash anything they label as "alternative"—you know, the whole "it's just weeds and herbs" crowd—yet they'll turn around and rave about some herbal cough syrup, claiming it's a miracle worker and recommending it to everyone they meet. Pick a lane, honestly.
Why? Just because it’s "labeled" that way? People will cling to a label like a lifeline if they believe it makes them feel okay about something, yet they won't give a single damn about anything else.
Funny...
Look, the issue here is strictly your own failure to distinguish and actually grasp what the word "alternative" means. I already broke down the difference in one of my recent posts. We're talking about herbs, plants, and those cough syrups you can just pick up at any local pharmacy.
We aren't talking about "alternative" medicine here; we're talking about complementary supplements that actually have the data to back them up. There are peer-reviewed papers and clinical studies out there—and if you can't find a full study, you can at least find evidence regarding their non-toxicity. The term "alternative" is usually just a polite way of labeling anything pseudoscientific that lacks any clear, proven efficacy through randomized controlled trials. Once something actually holds up under scrutiny, it stops being "alternative" or "pseudo"—it simply becomes science. I'm not sure if there's even any point in me rambling about the broad concept of science and why it matters in the first place.
You can't just blindly trust Big Pharma. It’s almost like there isn't a single medication out there that doesn't come with a laundry list of side effects or act as a sort of slow-acting poison that does more harm than good.
The pharmaceutical industry is essentially just a vehicle that encapsulates the work of scientists. That researcher doesn't necessarily have to be an employee of Big Pharma; they could be working in some independent lab, much like our own Dr. Gić at a research institute. Because of that, it’s honestly pretty stupid to talk about having "faith" in the pharma industry. They are simply a group of people with massive capital looking to turn a profit. There isn't any fundamental difference between them and a private equity firm moving in to buy out and renovate a shipyard. You have to view them through that lens—as entities that need to be pressured through government institutions and legislation to ensure they cooperate whenever human interests clearly outweigh their bottom line.
Do you honestly believe there are drugs out there where companies sink billions into development, only to scrap them at the finish line? It seems more likely that they push products to market even when they aren't the best options, especially if the clinical trial data was a bit shaky or underwhelming. Why would they walk away from that kind of investment?
It’s hard to imagine anyone actually manufacturing and launching a product without proof that it could turn a decent profit—unless, of course, the data is being cooked. Unfortunately, cheating and stealing are baked into human nature, but trying to pull those kinds of stunts over the long haul is getting much harder to pull off these days.
Do you remember what Johnson & Johnson used to be all about? If I’m not mistaken—and I’m pretty sure we’re talking about that specific company—they were deep into pharmaceutical manufacturing. They put drugs on the market that ended up killing people, quite literally, because of the medication itself. After all that, they tried everything in their power to sweep it under the rug, which ultimately forced them to completely pivot their entire core business model just to deal with the fallout.
What happened with GSK and everything else?
There is far too much money circulating in this entire industry. It’s wild to think that these massive corporations would ever allow something that is practically right under our noses—something that's essentially free—to be widely available.
I have no clue which specific cases you're hinting at. There's been everything under the sun—all sorts of medical complications and messy backstories involved.
Isn't it wild when you look at the stats? We’re talking about over 2.5 billion people globally dealing with tumors today. It basically means every third person out there—or maybe even more—is fighting some kind of cancer or tumor. It’s staggering.
Do you have any idea just how much money pharmaceutical companies are raking in from all of this? It sounds harsh, I know... but let's be real. It's the truth.
Even if it seems totally unrelated, I’m certain it isn't.
That’s true, but it’s also an undeniable fact that the global population has exploded in just the last twenty years. We are overpopulated, overcrowded, and under constant, mounting pressure—whether that stress is artificially induced or not doesn't actually change the core of the debate between science and alternative treatments.
I’ve seen this firsthand, both through my own lived experience and by watching what others I know have gone through.
I might not be able to provide hard proof—not without running my own lab and conducting clinical trials—that my mother is still here today because of her alternative treatment. She’s already outlived every single prognosis and statistic they threw at us by more than a year. But then again, you can't prove there isn't a direct connection between the two, either.
Statistics work based on a bell curve—you have two ends and a middle. Thyroid cancer isn't some freak occurrence either; nobody can sit here and guarantee you won't end up on that right-hand tail. Sure, that segment might be smaller than the median, but it’s far from negligible. Talking about it like it doesn't matter is just plain foolish. Every individual carries their own set of odds. Science provides the statistics, the medications, the monitoring systems, and the established protocols. If someone prefers to vanish into the fog of alternative medicine and pseudoscience, that’s their call. It’s a choice.
I’ve always been a firm believer in bridging the gap between hard science and alternative treatments.
I am strictly and exclusively about the science. Maybe I’m just stubborn because of my academic background, but I can’t help how I’m wired—I live and breathe cause-and-effect reasoning and the whole "experiment-to-proven-solution" pipeline. I am deeply convinced that anything backed by credible scientific studies will eventually break through, no matter how much the formal establishment tries to squeeze it out or suppress it, once someone finally finds a way to bring it into clinical practice. That’s exactly why cannabis is already being used for medical purposes in so many different countries.
But you can't just be one-sided and demand studies from journals that are essentially controlled by Big Pharma...
while simultaneously acting like it's perfectly fine that there are countless drugs on the market with side effects so brutal they can actually kill you. |
🙄
I’m sorry, but what exactly is the basis for your claim that a journal like Nature or a database like PubMed is under the thumb of the pharmaceutical industry? We are talking about strictly independent scientific journals and platforms where researchers—usually people with incredibly high moral and ethical standards—publish their work long before they ever even pitch their findings to a pharma giant.
Look, you need to start realizing there are three players in this game: the patients, the scientists/doctors, and the pharmaceutical industry. Everyone has their own interests, and they all have to operate on a shared platform for the whole system to function. These global platforms exist, and they establish their own independent oversight systems. One example is the European
EPPOSIWhen it comes to medication, especially for severe conditions, it’s a constant balancing act between benefit and risk. It’s that simple. And unlike those "alternative" pseudo-scientific approaches, this process happens under controlled conditions, with precise dosages, and carries full accountability.
Edit: Mods, please forgive the OT regarding alternative medicine and let me keep this post up; it is genuinely vital for people to understand these dynamics so they don't fall into delusions or misunderstandings. Thanks.