http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/genetic_effects_of_nonionizing_electromagnetic_fields.pdf
by a man called Henry Lai, from the Dept of Bioengineering in the University of Washington. This would appear to be 'real' science' - to my untrained eye at least. but Lai too claims to have been targeted by big business
(http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall01.html ) for getting too close to some important scientific 'truths' (i emphasize the word 'claims'). Important to note that the research paper deals with a possible method for the destruction of cancer cells while the 'intimidation' was connected to his research on cell phones.
so my question is this, is the division of the world into the two aforementioned blocks of surly uncaring professionals and professional loonies a simple consequence of the fact that new, valuable research may be being suppressed by organisations who's raison d'etre is manifestly not to preserve human life. again look at the article (yes the mad one) on the cancer cure -esp the first five paragraphs. i repeat and admit, the lack of evidence is appalling thus i can't believe a word of it. but if you ask yourself who would truly benefit from a cure for cancer one is forced to admit that a lot of very powerful organisiations would suffer financially from any cure. here is the big question....is it logical to expect a cure for cancer to ever be discovered if we live in a civilisation where many of the most powerful organisations benefit directly from the continued suffereing of cancer patients. surely it is not a conspiracy theory to point out that a cheap and readily available cure for cancer, should it ever be discovered, would pose a terrifying threat to, among others, the pharmaceutical industry. we should be realistic about this and see cancer not just as a medical problem but as a social and political problem. again, is it not naieve to expect effective, once and for all cures to be produced by organisations whose motivations are based on money and not love. the motivation of the husband watching his sick wife die is a galaxy away from the motivation fuelling the boardrooms and the r&d departments of the pharma industry giants.
bruce lipton is a new-agey 'scientist' selling ideas that are really 'out there' (he has his own theory of evolution for example based on the idea that mutations can occur outside of reproduction). i have to admit, as a lay person many of his ideas (not all!) seem, at least interesting. but what frustrates me is that my doctor wont respond to any questions on this! so again it seems lay people are presented with the choice of having no possibility for new treatments (established medicine) or trying new treatments which no respectable doctor would be seen dead advocating. where is the middle ground?
