[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by richter915

I honestly believe that physicians recommend what they do more out of fear than out of greed. In the current system, there's no room to treat patients with sound science and compassion.

I'm not necessarily claiming greed of the physicians. Sure there are tons of physicians who are greedy, but I'm referring to the pharmaceutical companies and cancer research groups. I feel like they put pressure on the medical industry to do things a certain way, and this may result in the fear you refer to. I'm sure doctors are more scared than greedy. Their probably scared of losing their medical license for treating someone unsuccessfully with a non-traditional method. I think it all boils down to the fact that a doctor is going to be willing to risk a patient's safety by using an "approved" method before they would try something that they might believe in more, just because the medical community hasn't "approved" it yet.

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by CollectiveConfusion

Well, right now science does refute the claim "cannabis is the cure for cancer." And that'll probably hold steady. But we're on the same side so it doesn't really matter.

I don't think anyone in this thread is trying to say that cannabis is THE CURE for cancer. We are just trying to say that there has been scientific evidence showing cannabis having a positive effect on the stunting of growth of cancer cells.

Is it going to cure cancer... maybe, maybe not... is it going to help... well there's some evidence that shows it very well could.

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

We disagree because you think that a.) doctors are being stopped from promoting these alternative methods; they're not. They don't promote them because they are either untested, useless or dangerous, and b.) you think the doctor should do something more than say 'no' whenever someone brings up something stupid like a coffee enema. You think they should be advising these things. I believe that they need to steadfastly treat people hawking ideas like Gerson therapy as the quacks and snake-oil salesmen that they are.

You want to go home and shove Dunkin Donuts up your ass while munching on fruit and veggies and hoping your cancer just up and leaves, feel free, I agree with you there - but doctors should NEVER be part of that bullshit.

A) Doctors are being stopped from promoting alternative methods. In the U.S. a doctor is not allowed to treat a patient with a non-traditional cancer treatment. I suppose they could "promote" it but that doesn't help the patient if they can't find a doctor to treat them with it. If the doctor is not promoting one of these methods because he believes it to be useless or dangerous, then fine, but if he is not promoting an "alternative" method that he actually believes in, because big pharma is pressuring him not to (or because he makes more money by doing something else) then this is what I have a problem with

B) Like I've said before if the doctor truly believes that a certain treatment method is nuts, then they should simply say "no" or tell the patient that the method is nuts. You might believe that coffee enemas and fruits and veggies is not a good treatment, but there are other treatments that are being ignored too.

My point is not that there ARE treatments that work to cure cancer that are being ignored (although there might be) - My point is that there are treatment methods and ideas, that COULD be beneficial that are being suppressed in favor of profit.

[richter915]

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

The difference between the Henry Ford example and the "cancer" example is that the Ford one isn't causing sick people to suffer and die. I have no problem with limiting the quality of your product in order to maximize profits. If there is a car that will last forever, I don't blame the manufacture to keep it off the market, in favor of selling new cars every year. But, if there are solutions to medical issues, that are simply being ignored or hidden, just so a billionaire can make a little more money, I feel there is something fundamentally wrong with that.

But that doesn't really answer my question of what is a conspiracy theory or not. The moon landing has tons of conspiracy theories attached to it but it had little to nothing to do with morality and human health. I 100% agree with you that it is wrong to treat patients as customers and treatments as products. That's a question of ethics though, I don't think there's any real conspiracy.

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by richter915

But that doesn't really answer my question of what is a conspiracy theory or not. The moon landing has tons of conspiracy theories attached to it but it had little to nothing to do with morality and human health. I 100% agree with you that it is wrong to treat patients as customers and treatments as products. That's a question of ethics though, I don't think there's any real conspiracy.

The "conspiracy theory" I'm presenting is the link between our broken food system and the diseases this food causes. Diabetes, cancer, heart disease... they're all up, and it's because of factory farms, GMOs and additives, preservatives etc... My "theory" is that the producers of this food are making the food this way to not only maximize the profits they make by selling the food, but to also make the consumers sick. In turn, the consumers of this food will seek medical attention, and will only have a limited amount of treatment options, so that the pharmaceutical companies can then gouge the patients even more.

Is there a conspiracy between the producers of the food and the pharmaceutical companies? That's what I'm trying to decide

[caveBEAR]

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

The "conspiracy theory" I'm presenting is the link between our broken food system and the diseases this food causes. Diabetes, cancer, heart disease... they're all up, and it's because of factory farms, GMOs and additives, preservatives etc... My "theory" is that the producers of this food are making the food this way to not only maximize the profits they make by selling the food, but to also make the consumers sick. In turn, the consumers of this food will seek medical attention, and will only have a limited amount of treatment options, so that the pharmaceutical companies can then gouge the patients even more.

Is there a conspiracy between the producers of the food and the pharmaceutical companies? That's what I'm trying to decide

No.

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

No.

You say "No." Very definitively. This is the issue that I have with everyone. You immediately disregard my theory simply because it is a "conspiracy theory" and you can't even fathom that it might be possible.

[maxvsmaradona]

cannabis won't cure cancer, you retards. it just makes life easier and more enjoyable for those who are winding down to their last few days/weeks

[caveBEAR]

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

You say "No." Very definitively. This is the issue that I have with everyone. You immediately disregard my theory simply because it is a "conspiracy theory" and you can't even fathom that it might be possible.

Let's say one person owns all the food companies in the world (Food Guy) and one person owns all the cancer groups (Cancer Guy), and that your nightmare scenario has come to pass and they're conspiring behind closed doors to get people sick through shitty food and keep them sick and make profits off inferior cancer remedies; if Food Guy saves money by making a shitty product, and Cancer Guy (from a friendly company who's not in direct competition) can benefit and make profits/gain customers from this...that's called 'a fucking awesome business plan'. Sucks for everybody but Cancer Guy and Food Guy, but in a capitalist system, Food Guy and Cancer Guy are expected to only look out for #1. birdman and Simulcast will touch on this, saying things like 'sometimes you have to fire people' or something like that, but they'll stop short at actually making people sick for profit; however, a study came out a while back that showed CEOs have a high propensity for sociopathy, meaning that they literally do not care about anyone but themselves - and then they are rewarded by our system for fucking over the people they already don't care about.

That's my point in all this; even if you're right, why dress it up as a conspiracy? Why alienate the very people that I know you want to 'wake up'. As I've stated before, you and I don't believe in that different of ideas - you just search for conspiracies while I look at reality.

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

Let's say one person owns all the food companies in the world (Food Guy) and one person owns all the cancer groups (Cancer Guy), and that your nightmare scenario has come to pass and they're conspiring behind closed doors to get people sick through shitty food and keep them sick and make profits off inferior cancer remedies; if Food Guy saves money by making a shitty product, and Cancer Guy (from a friendly company who's not in direct competition) can benefit and make profits/gain customers from this...that's called 'a fucking awesome business plan'. Sucks for everybody but Cancer Guy and Food Guy, but in a capitalist system, Food Guy and Cancer Guy are expected to only look out for #1. birdman and Simulcast will touch on this, saying things like 'sometimes you have to fire people' or something like that, but they'll stop short at actually making people sick for profit; however, a study came out a while back that showed CEOs have a high propensity for sociopathy, meaning that they literally do not care about anyone but themselves - and then they are rewarded by our system for fucking over the people they already don't care about.

That's my point in all this; even if you're right, why dress it up as a conspiracy? Why alienate the very people that I know you want to 'wake up'. As I've stated before, you and I don't believe in that different of ideas - you just search for conspiracies while I look at reality.

I'm with you, but the line "you just search for conspiracies while I look at reality" is the one thing I have a problem with. The situation you describe between "Cancer Guy" and "Food Guy", while it may be legit in a capitalist system, is the very definition of a CONSPIRACY. You may be looking at it as reality, and I may be calling it a conspiracy, but at the end of the day it is both. If in fact Cancer Guy and Food Guy are CONSPIRING to maximize profits at the expense of everyone, then it is a CONSPIRACY. Why does conspiracy have to be a bad word. If Kobe Bryant plans to pass the ball to Steve Nash and then Nash back to Kobe for a dunk, and they are keeping it a secret from the other team, there is nothing wrong/bad about this, but it's still a conspiracy.

I guess your only real point in all of this is that there is a chance that I am right, but I shouldn't use the word conspiracy, because people like you automatically think I'm crazy for even using such a word.

The things that go on in our capitalist system, may just be people using the system to the fullest, but if it's at the cost of many people's lives, then I think it's time people look at this system and work on finding a better solution.

If someone is knowingly and purposefully doing things to harm people, this is illegal, but in a capitalist society we can just turn our heads and say, "Well, they're just practicing good business. The system is just shitty"

[richter915]

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

The "conspiracy theory" I'm presenting is the link between our broken food system and the diseases this food causes. Diabetes, cancer, heart disease... they're all up, and it's because of factory farms, GMOs and additives, preservatives etc... My "theory" is that the producers of this food are making the food this way to not only maximize the profits they make by selling the food, but to also make the consumers sick. In turn, the consumers of this food will seek medical attention, and will only have a limited amount of treatment options, so that the pharmaceutical companies can then gouge the patients even more.

Is there a conspiracy between the producers of the food and the pharmaceutical companies? That's what I'm trying to decide

I understand now. That, indeed, would be a conspiracy because you have at least two parties conspiring to undermine a third party for their mutual gain. It definitely sounds far-fetched but when you consider the amount of white collared crime in the US, it wouldn't really be a surprise. I'm sure you're aware of studies that have showed that the cost and risk of organic farming over mainstream manufactured farming is surprisingly low. Where I disagree with you is the action planning. I don't think that these groups are encouraging poor performance from one another but, rather, they simply do not care to improve performance at a rate they are capable of achieving.

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by richter915

I understand now. That, indeed, would be a conspiracy because you have at least two parties conspiring to undermine a third party for their mutual gain. It definitely sounds far-fetched but when you consider the amount of white collared crime in the US, it wouldn't really be a surprise. I'm sure you're aware of studies that have showed that the cost and risk of organic farming over mainstream manufactured farming is surprisingly low. Where I disagree with you is the action planning. I don't think that these groups are encouraging poor performance from one another but, rather, they simply do not care to improve performance at a rate they are capable of achieving.

That's all I've been trying to say all along. If you don't believe that the Cancer Guy and the Food Guy are in cahoots you are welcome to believe that, but not every conspiracy theory has to crazy just because it's a conspiracy theory.

The cost/risks of organic farming are VERY low. I've farmed organically, and the only real risk is nature, which if you do things right (organic) and get your soil biology right, nature will be on your side. Of course there are droughts, floods, natural disasters and pests, but these things are somewhat unavoidable. The people advocating pesticides and factory farming methods, typically claim that their yield will be higher by using these methods, because pests/nature can't wipe out their crops as easily. I'd argue that if you have the beneficial bacteria and microorganisms you need in your soil, they will take care of problems like detrimental pests and drought/flood. People forget that plants/food grew perfectly fine for millions of years without the use of pesticides.

[caveBEAR]

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

I'm with you, but the line "you just search for conspiracies while I look at reality" is the one thing I have a problem with. The situation you describe between "Cancer Guy" and "Food Guy", while it may be legit in a capitalist system, is the very definition of a CONSPIRACY. You may be looking at it as reality, and I may be calling it a conspiracy, but at the end of the day it is both. If in fact Cancer Guy and Food Guy are CONSPIRING to maximize profits at the expense of everyone, then it is a CONSPIRACY. Why does conspiracy have to be a bad word. If Kobe Bryant plans to pass the ball to Steve Nash and then Nash back to Kobe for a dunk, and they are keeping it a secret from the other team, there is nothing wrong/bad about this, but it's still a conspiracy.

Here's the thing; post-9/11, especially because of 9/11 truthers, Loose Change, Glenn Beck, and other bullshit like that, 'conspiracy' has become a bad word. (As well, while you could define the bolded as a conspiracy, you never would. It may match the meaning, in the strictest terms, but it doesn't fit.) Take, for instance, my Dad - he doesn't really have any political leanings one way or the other. He votes Republican one year, Democrat the next, maybe doesn't vote some year. Doesn't really stay abreast of any story that isn't in Time or USAToday, etc. If I tried to describe to him a flawed system of government that allows corporate influence to buy influence in elections, business and the overall power structure of the nation, he could probably follow along and become 'woken up' - I guarantee you, however, that if I started talking about conspiracies, back-room deals, New World Order, Illuminati, connections, straight-up Glenn Beck/Anti-Flag bullshit - he'd just hear his 16 year old rambling about how 'evil' Bush was again and how he did 9/11 and the moon landing was a hoax damnit!!

The average person that you would want to educate about these issues does not have a great response to the word 'conspiracy'. That's all I'm saying. If you're trying to find something, to find your niche, and 'conspiracy hunting' is it - then don't let me rain on your parade. Go nuts, Jesse Ventura, Jr. However, if you genuinely do want to educate people about these very important issues - just dial it back down from 11 to 8 or 9. You'll win more people over with honey than vinegar - and 'conspiracy' is vinegar to a lot of people.

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

I guess your only real point in all of this is that there is a chance that I am right, but I shouldn't use the word conspiracy, because people like you automatically think I'm crazy for even using such a word.

No, not 'people like me'; that's what I'm saying. People like me already know about every single conspiracy theory you're going to bring up. None of this surprises me (that's why when I was being a dick I would type and ) I'm not the one thinking you're crazy - to me, before we started talking more, you came off as unaware or immature. It's the 'regular' people who would never even bother looking into this stuff - corruption, conspiracy or otherwise - who are going to think you're crazy and be turned off - i.e., the very people you don't want to do that to.

I'd know, I used to do the very thing I'm talking about there ^

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

The things that go on in our capitalist system, may just be people using the system to the fullest, but if it's at the cost of many people's lives, then I think it's time people look at this system and work on finding a better solution.

If someone is knowingly and purposefully doing things to harm people, this is illegal, but in a capitalist society we can just turn our heads and say, "Well, they're just practicing good business. The system is just shitty"

The bolded is exactly what you should say. Notice you didn't say 'conspiracy', yet you got your exact point across. If we took a look at the system and found a better solution, then most of the 'conspiracies' that we've been calling 'business as usual' wouldn't be happening.

Neither me, Collective Confusion, or anyone else who was commenting actually believe what they're doing is a good business practice - but the uber-Capitalists and Ayn Rand fans certainly could.

[CollectiveConfusion]

^ that times two.

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

Here's the thing; post-9/11, especially because of 9/11 truthers, Loose Change, Glenn Beck, and other bullshit like that, 'conspiracy' has become a bad word. (As well, while you could define the bolded as a conspiracy, you never would. It may match the meaning, in the strictest terms, but it doesn't fit.) Take, for instance, my Dad - he doesn't really have any political leanings one way or the other. He votes Republican one year, Democrat the next, maybe doesn't vote some year. Doesn't really stay abreast of any story that isn't in Time or USAToday, etc. If I tried to describe to him a flawed system of government that allows corporate influence to buy influence in elections, business and the overall power structure of the nation, he could probably follow along and become 'woken up' - I guarantee you, however, that if I started talking about conspiracies, back-room deals, New World Order, Illuminati, connections, straight-up Glenn Beck/Anti-Flag bullshit - he'd just hear his 16 year old rambling about how 'evil' Bush was again and how he did 9/11 and the moon landing was a hoax damnit!!

The average person that you would want to educate about these issues does not have a great response to the word 'conspiracy'. That's all I'm saying. If you're trying to find something, to find your niche, and 'conspiracy hunting' is it - then don't let me rain on your parade. Go nuts, Jesse Ventura, Jr. However, if you genuinely do want to educate people about these very important issues - just dial it back down from 11 to 8 or 9. You'll win more people over with honey than vinegar - and 'conspiracy' is vinegar to a lot of people.



No, not 'people like me'; that's what I'm saying. People like me already know about every single conspiracy theory you're going to bring up. None of this surprises me - that's when I was being a dick I would type and - I'm not the one thinking you're crazy - to me, before we started talking more, you came off as unaware or immature. It's the 'regular' people who would never even bother looking into this stuff - corruption, conspiracy or otherwise - who are going to think you're crazy and be turned off - i.e., the very people you don't want to do that to.

I'd know, I used to do the very thing I'm talking about there ^



The bolded is exactly what you should say. Notice you didn't say 'conspiracy', yet you got your exact point across. If we took a look at the system and found a better solution, then most of the 'conspiracies' that we've been calling 'business as usual' wouldn't be happening.

Neither me, Collective Confusion, or anyone else who was commenting actually believe what they're doing is a good business practice - but the uber-Capitalists and Ayn Rand fans certainly could.

I understand where you are coming from, but I hate that I have to be the "crazy" one in the eyes of people who just think that "conspiracy" is a bad word.

I think the word conspiracy DOES fit, when there is in fact a hidden agenda to do something that is causing others harm. I understand that if I want to reach certain people I can't use the word "conspiracy" but I guess it just bothers me that people can't handle the word "conspiracy"

I'm not trying to make a conspiracy out of everything. There are some conspiracies, but not everything is a conspiracy. People need to be able to look at the facts and then determine what is a conspiracy and what's not. It's a sad state when conspiracies are taking place and people refuse to see them just because they are labeled as conspiracies.

Do you believe there is a conspiracy by the American government to slowly take away our Constitutional rights? You might say, that's not a "conspiracy" per se, but it's happening and it is a conspiracy. Just my opinion I suppose, but I think it's very well backed.