2026-04-12
Following on from "Are You a Suitable Case for Treatment?" we list the four psychological walls of human self-justification that the industry encourages us to build around the various possible bad circumstances to which the use of their products by individuals may lead.
Yes, it's all in the mind, all impossible to prove/disprove at the individual level, and all a result of the uncritical acceptance of a single proposition: that the industry has our well-being at heart ...
But doesn't the USA have RICO laws for a reason? (And should not the regulators be independently testing the validity of these notions at the population level, where it is provable? Likewise should not the media be reporting on how well the regulators are doing? And if neither of these are doing their job, how well are the public supporting those independent investigators who are trying to hold the powerful to account?)
More points to consider for UK (and elsewhere):
- There's a reason why it is illegal for non-regulated practitioners to offer a claimed cure for cancer. The only way a new cure can be offered is via 'our' monopolistic NHS over which we have no effective control.
- The cancer research charities have been "looking for a cure" for all of my lifetime ... if they had looked elsewhere than in our wallets they might have had more success.
- If they had investigated the claims of those that did dare to offer a claimed cure instead of automatically prosecuting them, they might have found something worth following up.
- At what point should we call their bluff? After 25 years, 50 years, or 75 years? There's no point waiting beyond our expected lifespan of eighty-something is there?
