ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Just started reading the book, 'Boomerang'. It's a fiction book. In the first 15 pages there was something that really made me stop and think. The book is/was high on the best seller list and I've only just begun it. But, in the book, the newly elected President discovers he has metastatic cancer that has spread into his pancreas, i.e., certain death penalty. One of the Staff informs him that there is a top secret, national security drug that CURES cancer 98% of the time. The incredulous new President asks the obvious question: why isn't it on the market?

The answer is that drug companies don't want to cure cancer or anything. They want to treat the problem and indefinitely prolong the sufferer's life so that they can continue to sell their drugs to prolong that life. Think of the economic devastation curing cancer would cause worldwide.

So...that got me to thinking. Is that truly what's going on? Certainly, drug companies would benefit more from treating symptoms and prolonging life than simply curing the affliction, right? I think there has been something like 90 years of research into curing cancer and no cure has been found. Better treatments, treatments that put the disease into remission (for some period of time), alleviates some symptoms, etc., yes. But, no CURE. Bear in mind, in 2024, the oncology drug market was >$145B and, according to Google search, is expected to top $400B in the next 10 years. Do pharmaceutical companies REALLY want to cure cancer?

Looking at all the evidence of the lies the government has told, the media has told (all stripes), Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc., is it so out of reality that this type of thing goes on all the time? I mean we hear so much about 'studies say...', 'tons of research...'. But, who is paying for that study and research? If a renewable energy company pays a lab or a university for research, isn't it in the best interests of the lab/university to conclude whatever they believe the funding company is looking for? If Big Pharma is paying research labs to study cancer or ALS or osteo, does the lab really want to find a CURE or do they want to develop an effective therapeutic that ensures patients need the Big Pharma drug for the rest of their life? The trans hysteria is supposedly backed up by 'research' and 'studies' - but who performed those studies, who paid for them and what did the lab understand the payor wanted out of their research? If something as obvious as two genders and only two genders can be questioned due to 'research' and 'studies', then it's not unreasonable to question who performed the studies and why. (And I say it's obvious because when an individual elects to have gender-reassignment surgery, there is only one choice to pick. You came in as 'X' and you want to leave as 'Y'. There is no menu of 32 genders to choose from. It's a simple 1 or a 0 question.) It appears that research can be fudged (as we seen in polling data and even the climate organizations who've skewed data so that the outcome is what they want). And it's across all industries, I would imagine. When there are 100s of billions of dollars at stake, what's easier than hiring a company to do research/a study that says your firm/industry is God's gift to mankind?

I know this sounds like tin foil hat stuff and it was prompted by a fictional book. But, that scene in the book really made me think. And, honestly, scared me a bit if even a tiny bit of the stuff I just wrote is true.
Yes this is true.

You should research vitamin B17. Go down that rabbit hole. You also should know that it's a proven fact that there are actually more cancer providers than there are patients.
 
Big Pharma has NO interest in cures.

As an investment advisor with familiarity of that business model, I'll die on that hill.
It's not just that. Imagine something natural that cures cancer. Big Pharma will try to synthesize it so they can sell THEIR version. If they are unable to, then they get the natural substance banned by the FDA for public use. Failing that, they discredit any scientist or doctor who tries to blow the whistle.
 
Just started reading the book, 'Boomerang'. It's a fiction book. In the first 15 pages there was something that really made me stop and think. The book is/was high on the best seller list and I've only just begun it. But, in the book, the newly elected President discovers he has metastatic cancer that has spread into his pancreas, i.e., certain death penalty. One of the Staff informs him that there is a top secret, national security drug that CURES cancer 98% of the time. The incredulous new President asks the obvious question: why isn't it on the market?

The answer is that drug companies don't want to cure cancer or anything. They want to treat the problem and indefinitely prolong the sufferer's life so that they can continue to sell their drugs to prolong that life. Think of the economic devastation curing cancer would cause worldwide.

So...that got me to thinking. Is that truly what's going on? Certainly, drug companies would benefit more from treating symptoms and prolonging life than simply curing the affliction, right? I think there has been something like 90 years of research into curing cancer and no cure has been found. Better treatments, treatments that put the disease into remission (for some period of time), alleviates some symptoms, etc., yes. But, no CURE. Bear in mind, in 2024, the oncology drug market was >$145B and, according to Google search, is expected to top $400B in the next 10 years. Do pharmaceutical companies REALLY want to cure cancer?

Looking at all the evidence of the lies the government has told, the media has told (all stripes), Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc., is it so out of reality that this type of thing goes on all the time? I mean we hear so much about 'studies say...', 'tons of research...'. But, who is paying for that study and research? If a renewable energy company pays a lab or a university for research, isn't it in the best interests of the lab/university to conclude whatever they believe the funding company is looking for? If Big Pharma is paying research labs to study cancer or ALS or osteo, does the lab really want to find a CURE or do they want to develop an effective therapeutic that ensures patients need the Big Pharma drug for the rest of their life? The trans hysteria is supposedly backed up by 'research' and 'studies' - but who performed those studies, who paid for them and what did the lab understand the payor wanted out of their research? If something as obvious as two genders and only two genders can be questioned due to 'research' and 'studies', then it's not unreasonable to question who performed the studies and why. (And I say it's obvious because when an individual elects to have gender-reassignment surgery, there is only one choice to pick. You came in as 'X' and you want to leave as 'Y'. There is no menu of 32 genders to choose from. It's a simple 1 or a 0 question.) It appears that research can be fudged (as we seen in polling data and even the climate organizations who've skewed data so that the outcome is what they want). And it's across all industries, I would imagine. When there are 100s of billions of dollars at stake, what's easier than hiring a company to do research/a study that says your firm/industry is God's gift to mankind?

I know this sounds like tin foil hat stuff and it was prompted by a fictional book. But, that scene in the book really made me think. And, honestly, scared me a bit if even a tiny bit of the stuff I just wrote is true.
You’d probably like the show Common Side Effects on HBO. Gets into this sort of thing (and is also funny)
 
It's not just that. Imagine something natural that cures cancer. Big Pharma will try to synthesize it so they can sell THEIR version. If they are unable to, then they get the natural substance banned by the FDA for public use. Failing that, they discredit any scientist or doctor who tries to blow the whistle.
Big Pharma and insurance companies are the worst. I work in healthcare and half the time I want to prescribe something that I know is best for the patient I get something back from the insurance companies along the lines of “this medication is not covered until you try xyz medication (that we know doesn’t work, is outdated, or has tons of side effects)” and of course the out of pocket prices are always outrageous
 


Portland will be a 3rd world city by this summer. they won't enforce a single law.



Life was sacrificed for dei...



If they would just lock up violent people then they stop killing innocent people. Democrats keep letting them out for a reason. They love this.



@TomHoman....



Cops killed an 18yo kid with a gun after stealing a car and leading cops on a chase. The dad then killed a cop by running him over. Cincy appears to be on suicide mission as well.
 
490172936_24496411313282605_3317569243166096644_n.jpg
 

Trump and the rubes changing their message from "You're going to have so much wealth you won't know what to do with it" to "you're going to be poorer so make do with less." Of course the billionaires wont have to make do with less..just the rest of us.

But hey, you can always blame trans, gays, immigrants and minorities.
 
i thought this was fake news when i ran across it on x but it’s real


“…her stance is a subtle nod to Michelangelo’s David. Through scale, materiality, and posture, Grounded in the Stars disrupts traditional ideas around what defines a triumphant figure and challenges who should be rendered immortal through monumentalization.” -times square website


 
And shoot every single one of them through the head with a high powered rifle as they seek to exit the premises. Be done fooling around with them
I loved my time in Seattle back in the 80s. Plenty to do, pro sports, beautiful scenery, an outdoor paradise. I never really noticed the politics back then. What the hell happened? Well, I know what happened. My wife used to bug me about visiting because of all the great things I told her about the city. She hasn't mentioned it in years. We'll plan a trip to that part of the country eventually but it'll be to the mountains of Idaho or Montana. I'm through with major metropolitan areas.
 
The answer is that drug companies don't want to cure cancer or anything. They want to treat the problem and indefinitely prolong the sufferer's life so that they can continue to sell their drugs to prolong that life. Think of the economic devastation curing cancer would cause worldwide.

So...that got me to thinking. Is that truly what's going on? Certainly, drug companies would benefit more from treating symptoms and prolonging life than simply curing the affliction, right? I think there has been something like 90 years of research into curing cancer and no cure has been found. Better treatments, treatments that put the disease into remission (for some period of time), alleviates some symptoms, etc., yes. But, no CURE. Bear in mind, in 2024, the oncology drug market was >$145B and, according to Google search, is expected to top $400B in the next 10 years. Do pharmaceutical companies REALLY want to cure cancer?

They were looking for a way to give and to accelerate cancer in the late 50s early 60s. No one wanting to cure something spends so much time trying to cause, replicate, and accelerate it.

Looking at all the evidence of the lies the government has told, the media has told (all stripes), Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc., is it so out of reality that this type of thing goes on all the time? I mean we hear so much about 'studies say...', 'tons of research...'. But, who is paying for that study and research? If a renewable energy company pays a lab or a university for research, isn't it in the best interests of the lab/university to conclude whatever they believe the funding company is looking for? If Big Pharma is paying research labs to study cancer or ALS or osteo, does the lab really want to find a CURE or do they want to develop an effective therapeutic that ensures patients need the Big Pharma drug for the rest of their life? The trans hysteria is supposedly backed up by 'research' and 'studies' - but who performed those studies, who paid for them and what did the lab understand the payor wanted out of their research? If something as obvious as two genders and only two genders can be questioned due to 'research' and 'studies', then it's not unreasonable to question who performed the studies and why. (And I say it's obvious because when an individual elects to have gender-reassignment surgery, there is only one choice to pick. You came in as 'X' and you want to leave as 'Y'. There is no menu of 32 genders to choose from. It's a simple 1 or a 0 question.) It appears that research can be fudged (as we seen in polling data and even the climate organizations who've skewed data so that the outcome is what they want). And it's across all industries, I would imagine. When there are 100s of billions of dollars at stake, what's easier than hiring a company to do research/a study that says your firm/industry is God's gift to mankind?

I know this sounds like tin foil hat stuff and it was prompted by a fictional book. But, that scene in the book really made me think. And, honestly, scared me a bit if even a tiny bit of the stuff I just wrote is true.

It used to sound like that to me, but I know better now.

My buddy told me about his first experience realizing what it took me another 10-20 years to fully realize. He was researching Parkinsons disease back in the 80s and early 90s because a relative of his was diagnosed with it. People at Johns Hopkins had conducted a study that tied the disease (high correlation back when science and high correlation wasn't dismissed as irrelevant) to OTC antacid use- like Rolaids and Tums. Those were big business back then in both advertising and revenue dollars.

He went back to the library to get a copy of the article that detailed the study in a medical journal for a paper or speech he was writing. That issue was no longer on the shelves. He asked the reference clerk to try to obtain another copy, what it was for, and that he'd come back in a week... When he returned she said she looked for it throughout their network and said it wasn't available.

While he was watching the news or reading a paper or something, he found out the makers of these antacids had donated millions (4-7) to Johns Hopkins between the time the study was published and when the articles/mags/journals were pulled from all shelves. He mentioned that to the clerk at the library and she told him she might have a way to find it.

She did. The article had been put on microfiche with an archive somewhere and she obtained a copy of it for him.

He told me this story about 20byrs ago, so nothing that's been happening surprises me at all. There is not much actual science being done. It is simply extortion for profit with no intent to actually help anyone across much of the "research" field when it comes to pharma and the chemical industry.
 
I loved my time in Seattle back in the 80s. Plenty to do, pro sports, beautiful scenery, an outdoor paradise. I never really noticed the politics back then. What the hell happened? Well, I know what happened. My wife used to bug me about visiting because of all the great things I told her about the city. She hasn't mentioned it in years. We'll plan a trip to that part of the country eventually but it'll be to the mountains of Idaho or Montana. I'm through with major metropolitan areas.

It was absolutely beautiful back then. Good people around as well. Could already see it start to change in the 90s, just like Portland OR. As an older friend of mine said back then, "then all the people from California started moving north..."
 
i thought this was fake news when i ran across it on x but it’s real


“…her stance is a subtle nod to Michelangelo’s David. Through scale, materiality, and posture, Grounded in the Stars disrupts traditional ideas around what defines a triumphant figure and challenges who should be rendered immortal through monumentalization.” -times square website



LmAO! There is NOTHING about that pop art monstrosity that is subtle or "a nod" to Michelangelo's David. The two shouldn't be mentioned within the same continental shelf much less in a sentence. So tired of the name-dropping media and stupid people that eat up their words.

If they wanted to make any kind of valid statement, they should've put a remote in one hand, smart phone rigged with a ringlight, and a super grande Starbucks cup in the other. This as it is... just a Trojan horse with nothing to say
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT