why the government or the World Health Organisation would suppress these cures. Keep in mind that the medical industry doesn't always have your best interests at heart.
2006-09-12 00:01:35 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Health ➔ Diseases & Conditions ➔ Cancer
I have spoken to at least 3 doctors on that very subject...2 in New York State and one in Texas...now I work in a hospital so I develop a more personal relationship with these doctors so its not usually information they are gonna go around chatting about...but think about this, How could you make more money...by treating a patient once and curing him...or..having him keep coming back for treatment more then once. Incurring all the hospital bills and treatment bills. And if a cancer patient has Medicare coverage more then likely all thier bills will be covered anyways so doctors will always get paid on the deal. Magic Johnson has had HIV for what...15 years now? He can get a blood test and they can find no traces of HIV in his blood...but he had the money to get the treatment he needed...He paid the right people...A regular person with HIV and Cancer wont have such luck....because its much more profitable to the Medical industry to just keep these people alive long enough to keep paying the bills..and if that answer doesn't satisfy you ..I had a doctor tell me that, You can't try to cure everything because people are supposed to die. If everyone kept living all the time the world would be over run and destroyed.
2006-09-12 00:12:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
It looks such as you have been listening to that infomercial guy on previous due night television. No, i can inform you with finished self belief, as somebody who works in a study laboratory, that if a scientist discovered a treatment, or maybe theory they discovered a treatment for a affliction, you may hear approximately it. the explanation is that the incentives for academic scientists are rather different than for those interior the drug industry. it is real that drug companies make extra income treating persistent affliction, so as that they make investments extra of their study in persistent affliction. maximum scientists, in spite of the undeniable fact that, don't have a similar incentives. the familiar reward for many lecturers is popularity. they elect to be renowned. And what extra effective thank you to be renowned than to treatment a affliction? hence, there is not any conspiracy masking up remedies to persistent affliction. apart from, the financial reward of having a healthful artwork tension might a techniques outweigh the loss in drug gross revenues, and the financial equipment may be stronger, no longer weaker, if persistent illnesses have been cured.
2016-12-12 07:01:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answers given are correct except for the part about the world being overrun and destroyed. We have enough natural disasters.
2006-09-12 12:09:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
MONEY HONEY IS THE ONLY REASON IF THEY FIND AND PUBLISH CURES DO YOU THINK THEY WILL MAKE MONEY THEY ALREADY HAVE CURES AND THE MEDICINE TO CURE A LOT BUT THEY WON'T BECAUSE THEY WANT ALL THE MONEY AND DO NOT CARE THAT PEOPLE DIE
2006-09-12 00:08:31 · answer #4 · answered by jk poet 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Think of all the money they lose on selling drugs, and hospitalization of these terminally ill patients. It is dispicable, but the bottom line is MONEY.
2006-09-12 00:05:19 · answer #5 · answered by WC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You can't sell drugs and "treatments" for diseases no one has.
2006-09-12 00:04:23 · answer #6 · answered by Dognose0 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
they would lose lots of money
2006-09-12 00:07:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋