Suppressing Cures and Promoting Illness is Good for Biotech
September 17, 2019 — Every once in awhile we get a peek behind the corporate curtain to see how the thinking of big business really works. This is one of those rare moments.
Goldman Sachs provided a detailed analysis of how curing disease is bad business for biotech companies. One example given is a Hepatitis C treatment from Gilead Science that achieved a 90% success rate of recovery. In a very telling quote analyst Salveen Richter wrote, “curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines … Where an incident pool remains stable (eg, in cancer) the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise.”
While Richter doesn’t flat-out say “the more sick people we have the more money biotech will make” in all effect he does say so. The comparison to cancer is ominous. Dr. Gary Null, founder of http://prn.fm/, has said for years that the cancer industry does not want to find cures, and they actively target those who have found cures.
Supressing Dr. Burzynski’s Cancer Cure
One critical example of this is Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski. In “The Suppression of Cancer Cures,” Dr. Gary Null lays out how Dr. Burzynski discovered a substance that inhibited the growth of cancer without the brutally toxic side effects of radiation or chemotherapy. His reward for this was being placed under investigation, losing all of his research funding, being rejected for all grants he applied for, and being labeled a “quack.” Dr. Burzynski has had unique and unparalleled success with glioblastomas (brain cancer). This is an area where the mainstream orthodox therapies have very close to a 0% success rate. I have a family member who had a glioblastoma and went through all of the conventional orthodox therapies. This loved-one died an excruciating, painful, drawn out death that dragged out over a 2 year period of time. It was a very expensive death and was very good business for biotech.
Burzynski is still practicing medicine and curing people with cancer today at his famous Burzynski Clinic, however the only place he is allowed to practice is in Texas. He was bad for the cancer business so they tried to destroy him. When the couldn’t destroy him, they settled for isolating him so that he wouldn’t harm their profitable business of “treating” cancer patients (often treating them to death). Insurance is rarely allowed to cover his treatments but for some rare cases. In those cases it is required that the patient has already gone through all of the mainstream orthodox treatments first – which weakens the immune system and leaves the patient already near death’s door.
Vaccine Injured Children
The picture at the top of this blog post is of children in California staging a candlelight vigil with their parents at the state capitol. The pictures placed at the vigil are of vaccine-injured children, many of whom have died. Many of the children holding candles are the siblings of those children who passed away. Up until September 10, 2019, these children were allowed to have medical exemptions written for them by their doctors stating they were at a higher risk of vaccine injury since their siblings were killed by vaccines.
But those medical exemptions are bad for business.
If these children “get away” without being vaccinated, they hurt biotech in two ways. First, biotech does not get to sell their vaccines to be injected into these children. Secondly, there is zero chance these children will have adverse reactions to the vaccines which could help aid a healthy and sustainable business model for biotech. The healthiest and most sustainable business model for biotech is illness-management, not cures, as the Goldman Sachs report makes very clear.
On The High Wire last month Del Bigtree reported how the medical establishment is now trying to redefine the word “healthy.” Instead of the definition being “the absence of disease, weakness or malfunction” they want the word “healthy” to include illness-management.
Cause it’s good for business.