Which approach makes the most money - handling the cause of a problem or dealing with the symptom?

All this talk about sun causing cancer (click here for news article) - no one is asking the right questions why haven't people like the Australians, Africans or the many peoples of the Pacific Islands, who have been walking around with minimal clothing for many hundreds of years, not been dying of cancer caused by the sun

Which approach makes the most money - handling the cause of a problem or dealing with the symptom?

All this talk about sun causing cancer (click here for news article) - no one is asking the right questions why haven't people like the Australians, Africans or the many peoples of the Pacific Islands, who have been walking around with minimal clothing for many hundreds of years, not been dying of cancer caused by the sun?

A look at diet is more likely to answer the question - in years past diets contained a much higher level of saturated fat including oils such as coconut oil and current thinking and evidence is starting to point the finger at the marked increase in the intake in polyunsaturated oils and the reduction on the intake of saturated fats such as coconut oil.

This simple graph shows what fats make up the body and it shows that the bodies fat make up is primarily "saturated" and "monounsaturated" fats with a very small amount of polyunsaturated fat.

The high intake of polyunsaturated fats in the current western diet causes problems with the body's cells making them unstable and therefore more susceptible to attack, resulting in increased risk in cancers.

To add to this, we have had for the last few decades chemicals which we can you put on the skin called "sun screens", but the evidence is now pointing to the fact that they actually promote cancer by introducing chemicals through the skin that increase free radicals which then attack the cells (which due to the high polyunsaturated oils in our diets has already made the cells more susceptible to attack) leading to an increase in cancer!

The two links at that follow will take you to more information about these elements.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/05/06/18213921.php

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fats_and_cancer.html

Back to the heading of this article - Which approach makes the most money - finding the cause of a problem or dealing with the symptom?

It is clear that if polyunsaturated oil (vegetable oil) was greatly reduced from our diets there is a strong probability that we would see an increase in the public health and well being.

Making Money

Now in terms of making money the industry making the polyunsaturated oils will have "clout" in high places and as can be read in books and articles by Dr Mary Enig, Sally Falon, Bruce Fife, Ian Blair Hamilton & Cassandra Bond (see our links page) it is clear this industry will not go quietly if anyone starts to expose the truth about these oils.

So they will do all they can to maintain their market and on top of this, there is a lot of money to made out of finding cures for cancers and the many other illnesses that may be connected to polyunsaturated oil. This results in high revenue for the drug companies if they can come up with a drug to handle these illnesses once they have occurred (this also raises another question - where does all the money go for cancer research and who is actually doing all the research and is the research actually being done with finding a "CURE" (money can be made from a cure) or finding the cause so as to prevent cancer - but that's a question for another time) - BUT NOTE they are unlikely to be looking at the cause from the point of view of stopping the problem before it occurs as this would effectively put them out of business and means no money or profit for them or their share holders!!

So it is clear that from a financial point of view that dealing with the "symptom" is more profitable.

The Bigger Picture

By taking a look at the bigger picture it is clear that this is a short term benefit to a few, in that the few make a lot of money for a period of time. But what happens when all the illnesses require drugs that the state can't pay for anymore because there aren't enough people in work to pay taxes to cover the costs? The system will eventually collapse.

Solution: We need to start having people in charge of large corporations and governments who can think outside of their own financial benefits and who can start to see the truth and are prepared to stand up and deal with some of these issues. In the long run we will all win from this type of action - healthier people do a better job and are generally in a happier state of mind.

Of course we can hope that enough public will become well enough informed to start pushing by boycotting the unhealthy aspects etc and if you take a look at what's happening with the information being pushed around the internet it is starting to happen and perhaps it's just a question of "what is the critical mass?".

VGPM Team