Does the name "John Titor" ring a bell?
It's an internet classic. Even served as a crucial part of the Steins;Gate series.
… Also… For fuck's sake, some of these capchas are off the wall. The bot gets through before a human because by time the human gets done trying to guess what the fuck - the bot has submitted a hundred requests (I guess… Maybe they have a lockout that limits trial frequency from a single IP).
Just because someone is driving does not mean they have any control over where they are going.
I'm not entirely certain this is true.
In a free market system, in theory, the person who develops the cure gets the most business. Again, in theory, as the means and access to biotech grow, the ability for new market competitors should also expand - meaning that any conspiracy to hide cures among the mega-corporations have a shelf-life. While I will agree that a savvy corporation would not likely market a cure when they can market a treatment, this benefit lasts only so long as there is no reason for their competitors or upstarts to upset the market with a cure.
After all, if you can get treated or cured - which would you pay for?
Thus, I ask why it is medical competition does not release cures more frequently - and I believe there are two substantial factors. First is the FDA regulations. Because a business must front the costs to get a drug treatment through FDA inspection, there is a significant barrier to entry into the market.
Second is the nature of market patents. The only drug a company is going to sink time and money into clearing regulatory systems is a drug they can hold the exclusive rights to. This means that there is almost no incentive to use "multi-purpose" drugs for treatment. Because of how FDA rules work, even if a drug is very well studied with known toxicity, side effects, etc - a doctor cannot prescribe the medication for any diagnosed symptom or illness it has not already been approved for by the FDA. So, if a simple cough syrup could cure cancer, or something, but that syrup has no ability to be patented, the companies will not invest money into clearing regulatory hurdles to authorize it as a cancer treatment.
They will go out of their way to develop a whole new synthetic drug that does the exact same thing as some over the counter medicine - just to patent it and push it through as a treatment.
I am exaggerating to some degree, but the trials to clear a drug through the FdA are not cheap and rather than the market working to bring an effective product to the consumer at a reasonable price, the market works to develop an exclusive legal right to deny its production competitors access to the same market - because if I were to get aspirin approved as a cancer treatment at great cost to myself, then ANY aspirin from any manufacturer can be prescribed to a patient.
But if the drug that undergoes approval is a special one that I hold the patent to - then I can recover the costs of all development and approval. …. And possibly completely gouge the market.
Another aspect is that share holders of a company can never agree on much other than mutual profit for themselves. This will invariably create a corporate climate which, to get advanced, one creates profit at any expense to the business. Wages get frozen to fuel profit reports, workplace quality gets sacrificed, labor is exported. You even get such insane decisions as choosing to relocate manufacturing to the very countries executing industrial espionage and hosting state-sponsored competitors to their market.
If it gets a profit, it means more cocaine and more hookers. It is the common denominator among corporate share holders and every large corporation will inevitably be hollowed out by its owners when said owners can't actually own the business as an expression of their self.
Something to think about in the context of a democratic republic.
I don't think the concept of objectivity is present in their minds.
They are used to being able to say or do anything, and the people around them do whatever it takes to make their statements seem true enough. As such, they say whatever they want to be true, and expect reality will match it regardless.
The idea that something like reality exists apart from their words and may just rebuke them is kind of an alien concept. As the old saying goes regarding the king writing an order that the tide return.
Or from Gulliver's Travels in Laputia - the leaders have one eye turned to the heavens and one eye to the microscope and will walk into anything immediately in front of them unless a normal person throws a bean or stone to hit them in the head to redirect them. The floating island/city of Laputia.
I agree, but if I would not go to jail for opening up a clinic and prescribing people a cure which works, who stands to make more money?
The fact is that there are many of us who are pretty damned sharp cookies who can read and interpret the medical literature published about drugs and their interactions with people - some of us, were we born in an era before medicine - would have created it.
The internet has made it easier than ever to search white papers and original medical research - exploratory research by charities or even some companies - usually they find the thing that works so they can try and figure out a means of developing a patented drug to do the same thing. Occasionally they do actually reduce the severity of side-effects and whatnot (digitalis being one such example… Though that was arguably back when people were still interested in actual medicine rather than wealth extraction).
In today's world of medicine, a doctor actually can't be a doctor. He can look in the FDA's book of regulations and find an authorized treatment for the symptoms. A database program is what they have reduced the role of a doctor to.
I got a laugh from a vetranarian when I said I would rather be treated by a vet than a doctor just because they can get away with actually being a doctor. He admitted to thinking the same thing from time to time.
The democrats are also blatantly supporting riots that burn down cities and threaten to murder people.
I am sure that the mob they are funding will never, in a million years, decide to go out of their control.
What is necessary for us to win is for the people to realize that they need to stop feeding the beast. The abusers do nothing but ride atop the work of others. Government does nothing, and yet it can steal from us via inflationary printing and even assert itself as the author of our success. Many large businesses do very little or have otherwise radically overvalued their organizational capabilities in the market. Yet they insist they own our deviced and equipment long after purchase and even patent our genome as their own.
All we have to do is stop playing their game and we win. Who cares what laws they write against our businesses? The same legislatures which author these ordinances against their citizens often do so in direct opposition to the decisions of the Supreme Court and others, which they are constitutionally bound to regard.
If people stop playing the game the courts have deemed irrelevant, there are those of us whose oath will then be able to take action in dispersing state sponsored terrorism at all levels.
You're still not aware of where you are, it would seem, nor whose house you are in.
The video/song is actually Q-relevant. The quote is from "Devil's Advocate".
"You sharpen the human appetite to the point it can split atoms with its desire. You build egos the size of cathedrals and fiber optically connect the world with every human impulse. You grease every gold plated dollar green fantasy so that every man becomes an aspiring emperor - becomes his own god!
Vanity is my favorite sin!"