(August 22, 2016 at 10:03 pm)ScienceAf Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 9:58 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: It was meant to be offensive. Just as I found your comments offensive (and not the pharmacist jokes, I let those slide, maybe I shouldn't have).

You made posts lending credence to the conspiracy, a medical conspiracy to keep people sick for money. Were you joking then?

If you believe any part of the conspiracy could be true maybe you should rethink your professional path.

What comments were offensive?!?!?!??!!?!? And pharmacist jokes are jokes. I don't care if your offended just don't take your anger our on me.

I didn't credit the conspiracy. And if I did wtf is your problem?
I just was curious and asked the forums about the topic.

And Jesus fucking Christ.
.
.
.
Your professional? Don't you have anything better to do (like maybe your job) other than argue with a 12 year old.

If you think this is anger then you are just a little butt hurt 12 year old.

You made intimations that it could be true, at least partly. Apparently my problem is your comments.

Anything better than to educate a 12 year old? Not at this particular time.

(August 22, 2016 at 10:10 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 10:03 pm)ScienceAf Wrote: What comments were offensive?!?!?!??!!?!? And pharmacist jokes are jokes. I don't care if your offended just don't take your anger our on me.

I didn't credit the conspiracy. And if I did wtf is your problem?
I just was curious and asked the forums about the topic.

And Jesus fucking Christ.
.
.
.
Your professional? Don't you have anything better to do (like maybe your job) other than argue with a 12 year old.

If you think this is anger then you are just a little butt hurt 12 year old.

You made intimations that it could be true, at least partly. Apparently my problem is your comments.

Anything better than to educate a 12 year old? Not at this particular time.

So your calm, and speaking softly in this?

What comments!?!?!?! Please explain it's screwing with me.

Then why try to educate me?

(August 22, 2016 at 2:23 pm)ScienceAf Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 2:21 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Not sure if someone would be framed or murdered for inventing a cure.  I suppose it altogether possible that if there were more money involved in the treatment of a malady than a cure, and a company possessed ownership of both the treatment and the cure; then they may choose to suppress the cure and promote the treatment.  

As with anything, if a need exists, multiple parties will be developing treatments and such.  I would think if a cure was invented, such as a drug to cure cancer, then the drug companies would want to cash in while they had proprietary ownership of the formula.

But why would they cure cancer for a low cost when they could treat it for somones whole life at a high cost and cash of more money from it.

For every complex problem (like how to make lots of money by treating diseases), there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.
-HL Mencken

What you've proposed is a big roll of the dice. Who's to say your sick cancer patients don't die off instead of patiently allowing you to treat them for their "whole life", allowing you to make more cash in treatment costs?

(August 22, 2016 at 10:18 pm)Tres Leches Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 2:23 pm)ScienceAf Wrote: But why would they cure cancer for a low cost when they could treat it for somones whole life at a high cost and cash of more money from it.

For every complex problem (like how to make lots of money by treating diseases), there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.
-HL Mencken

What you've proposed is a big roll of the dice. Who's to say your sick cancer patients don't die off instead of patiently allowing you to treat them for their "whole life", allowing you to make more cash in treatment costs?

Good point, but there would be a lot of people that have cancer.

Not sayin' they'd risk it but hey...

What do I know?

Sorry SAF, I'm not following. How would sick cancer patients dying off because a cure for cancer is being withheld mean there would be a lot of people that have cancer?

(August 22, 2016 at 10:30 pm)Tres Leches Wrote: Sorry SAF, I'm not following. How would sick cancer patients dying off because a cure for cancer is being withheld mean there would be a lot of people that have cancer?

If a lot of people have cancer they'll die but be treated till they die.

If you cure them then there's no profit made.

That's a possible explanation but I'm not sure.

As Alex K alluded to, there will never be a shortage of human diseases. A few generations ago, infectious diseases were a problem and now bacterial illnesses may be coming back because of antibiotics' reduced effectiveness. Diabetes is a huge chronic disease with lots of money to be made from treatment for it and its effects.

I'm skeptical of conspiracy theories and I'm not convinced that there is a conspiracy among scientists and medical professionals to withhold cures for diseases.

Stay in school and keep asking questions. Just make sure you're asking the right questions.

(August 22, 2016 at 10:50 pm)Tres Leches Wrote: As Alex K alluded to, there will never be a shortage of human diseases. A few generations ago, infectious diseases were a problem and now bacterial illnesses may be coming back because of antibiotics' reduced effectiveness. Diabetes is a huge chronic disease with lots of money to be made from treatment for it and its effects.

I'm skeptical of conspiracy theories and I'm not convinced that there is a conspiracy among scientists and medical professionals to withhold cures for diseases.

Stay in school and keep asking questions. Just make sure you're asking the right questions.

Alright, I was just wonderin' but thanks!

(August 22, 2016 at 10:10 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 10:03 pm)ScienceAf Wrote: What comments were offensive?!?!?!??!!?!? And pharmacist jokes are jokes. I don't care if your offended just don't take your anger our on me.

I didn't credit the conspiracy. And if I did wtf is your problem?
I just was curious and asked the forums about the topic.

And Jesus fucking Christ.
.
.
.
Your professional? Don't you have anything better to do (like maybe your job) other than argue with a 12 year old.

If you think this is anger then you are just a little butt hurt 12 year old.

You made intimations that it could be true, at least partly. Apparently my problem is your comments.

Anything better than to educate a 12 year old? Not at this particular time.

You wanna fucking know something.



I'm sorry...
You have a point. 
And yeah, whatever I did.
I'm sorry.
Excuse my language it's just that they sound nice.

I hope you accept my apology I was mad.
And I attacked you, so yeah.
That's all I have to say.

(August 22, 2016 at 10:10 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 10:03 pm)ScienceAf Wrote: What comments were offensive?!?!?!??!!?!? And pharmacist jokes are jokes. I don't care if your offended just don't take your anger our on me.

I didn't credit the conspiracy. And if I did wtf is your problem?
I just was curious and asked the forums about the topic.

And Jesus fucking Christ.
.
.
.
Your professional? Don't you have anything better to do (like maybe your job) other than argue with a 12 year old.

If you think this is anger then you are just a little butt hurt 12 year old.

You made intimations that it could be true, at least partly. Apparently my problem is your comments.

Anything better than to educate a 12 year old? Not at this particular time.

You wanna fucking know something.



I'm sorry...
You have a point. 
And yeah, whatever I did.
I'm sorry.
Excuse my language it's just that they sound nice.

I hope you accept my apology I was mad.
And I attacked you, so yeah.
That's all I have to say.
That I'm very very sorry.