I have just finishing watching Forbidden Cures, and it was heart-breaking to see genuine people who felt they had cured cancer being prohibited from helping others. Of the supposed sures the movie looked at in detail there were patterns. Firstly these cures were herbal or dietary, in other words there was no allopathic intervention such as radiation or chemo. Whether they cured cancer or not, no harm could come from what was offered as these natural cures. In the US the FDA has accepted operations, radiation therapy and chemotherapy as cures. What is noticeable about these “accepted” cures is that they are costly and there is no evidence that they actually work. The radiation and chemotherapy are also definitely carcinogenic, the natural cures discussed in the documentary were not.
But the real issue the documentary exposed is that all the supposed natural cures could not be patented, in other words BigPharma could not make huge profits from these cures as they were natural medicine. I am happy to accept that the 1% would block investigation of cures because the 1% could not profit from them but when you see a movie examining many of the possible cures for cancer that have not been investigated and to find that the reason is that there can be no patents it is still staggering. If there are no patents I could understand why BigPharma would not finance the research. But what about the government? Doesn’t the government have a vested interest in seeking cheap natural cures for its people? Quite clearly not. My politics says that the 1% owns the government, and as Rockefeller and Carnegie demonstrated by the way they controlled medical training at the beginning of the century the 1% is clearly interested in supporting BigPharma and the cancer industry.
Here is Harriet Washington discussing the importance of patents, this time patenting life for profits.