does the government have the cure for cancer and keeping it from us?

MY son recently said something to me that made me wonder, he said they (government) have the cure for cancer and have had for a long time. I asked why he thought this and he said, "Have you ever heard of a top government official dying of cancer? They never get it and that does not make sense, percentile wise they should be some of them have it but no they don't, so the only conclusion is they have the cure but don't give it out but to the select few, they let the chips fall for the rest of us as population control. Do you think this could be true?

[Edited on 24-10-2003 by goose]

There is a lot of money made on treating cancer and cancer drugs so a cure would put a lot of them out of business. It is kind of wierd that some of the methods used to treat cancer are known causes, i.e. zapping people with radiation.

I know this is weird, but here is a link with a lot of politicians and where they died, when, and how they died. Maybe there is something to the theory.
politicalgraveyard.com...

[Edited on 10-22-2003 by darklanser]

Originally posted by darklanser
Maybe there is something to the theory.

politicalgraveyard.com...

Now that someone has mentioned it, I've heard of fewer politicians dying of cancer (absolutely zero) than of "lead poisoning"...
IE: 9mm Migraine, Full Metal Jacket Retirement Plan, etc...

my stepdad, former representative R- Illinois, he's in his 70's, not dead, but has had about 3 strokes (amazing he's still alive). I'm sure there's been at least one or two of them that have died from it. The insight of kids is amazing isnt it?

As long as large amounts of money is involved in the 'treatment' , no cure will be found. Keep in mind doctors only treat people, they dont cure diseases anymore. If people arent sick, then there's no incentive for them.

Originally posted by Grommer
As long as large amounts of money is involved in the 'treatment' , no cure will be found. Keep in mind doctors only treat people, they dont cure diseases anymore. If people arent sick, then there's no incentive for them.

I have to agree. It's down to money at the end of the day. So many billions are made from the drugs and treatments that the pharmaceutical companies would lose out BIGTIME if a cure were to emerge. A lot of people would have a far smaller Bank balance - so we die to keep them their lifestyles safe.

A man designed a petrol style engine a few years back that ran on purified water. None of the motor or engineering companies he took his design to would have anything to do with it. Why? If people could run their cars on water the fuel industry would collapse and a lot of billionaires would lose not only their source of income, but also the status which that income often brings in oil countries - and all of those countries would lose their power and status within the world. At the end of the day, it's the same situation as a cancer cure. Rather than everyone reaping the universal financial and health benefits of a gasoline/petrol free society, we suffer so those higher up the ladder can be kept supplied with money. So our quality of life must suffer to keep theirs how they like it.

I'm not a religious guy, but seen in that context, money truly is the root of all evil.

and the cure is fairly simple too, just soundwave pulses at a certain frequency on the cancer spot, but hey its not proven nor will it be allowed to be proven.

Is that the Rife technology?

Originally posted by goose
MY son recently said something to me that made me wonder, he said they (government) have the cure for cancer and have had for a long time. I asked why he thought this and he said, "Have you ever heard of a top government official dying of cancer? They never get it and that does not make sense, percentile wise they should be some of them have it but no they don't, so the only conclusion is they have the cure but don't give it out but to the select few, they let the chips fall for the rest of us as population control. Do you think this could be true?

[Edited on 24-10-2003 by goose]

well using this logic reagans wouldnt have alzhiemers. right?

if they have all these cures then none of them present or past would have any ailments. and that just isnt so.

first of all the cure for cancer is out there it is in switerland and i think England. The doctors take a liquid from unaffected cells and inject it into the blood stream and the liquid goes directly to the cancerous cells and atacks. I rember some stats like pancratic cancer patints mortality rate was 95 percent (some must of been beyond saving) but it was on the Drudge Report a couple of weeks ago,
Secondly Ronald Regan dosn't have cancer he just got sick of all the publicity

Is it the same thing with AIDS then?

Originally posted by scubaman
Is it the same thing with AIDS then?

since you bring that up......what about magic johnson? never looks sick, never seems to get sick. what gives?

"but he has HIV"

but still....come on....something's up....