I know of several promising anticancer therapies (mainstream not New Age) which are not being developed for clinical use, or are proceeding very slowly toward clinical use, because the developers have to find some multinational drug company which will spend $1 billion taking them to market. Meanwhile we spend $1 billion on airstrikes to bomb militants on the other side of the world, who are no doubt evil and deserve to be bombed. Yet is this the right choice, given that government money is limited? Are our leaders thinking clearly on these issues? Should anticancer therapies depend only on morning teas, while military actions are subsidized by government in their billions, with no guarantee of success apart from killing people? Who decided that human medicine had to be based on free-market, capitalist economics, whereas warfare would receive vast government subsidies? Just imagine if morning teas were held to fund airstrikes in Iraq or Syria: no plane would ever leave the ground! This is not fuzzy-minded idealism but practical sense: the gain for our country in fighting new wars is at most temporary, whereas the gain for our country (or the world) in finding a cure for breast cancer would be immensely valuable and last forever. Our leaders cant think clearly, I understand the problem right away. We cannot place our faith in any of them. NO MORE WAR (Gipsy Lane, June 6, 2014). Just imagine if TV sets around the world were to announce that benevolent extra-terrestrials had written that message in crops four months ago? No one would believe. We are truly blind here and immune to truth. Come on, Quetzal, it is time to fulfil the ancient Mayan prophecies!
Posted on: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 02:03:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015