Our best interests at heart?

[Ron Tocknell]

Oncology drugs for the treatment of cancer are excessively overpriced. This does not reflect the costs of production so much as the guarantee that their prices will be met by those who have the money and/or the health insurance. Those who don’t can go hang.

Of course, drug companies have to compete with each other to produce ever more effective drugs to combat cancer, which would eventually lead to cancer becoming almost eradicated as with polio and smallpox but for the pharmaceutical industry’s application of what I refer to as the ‘Circular Profit Chain’ (CPC).

The same companies that produce oncology drugs also produce carcinogens and other health hazards in the form of pesticides, food additives and industrial chemicals, thus ensuring a continual market for the most profitable products ever introduced to the global market – drugs that save lives.

To simply state that the pharmaceutical industry has governments in its pocket is a rather sweeping statement that needs qualifying:

Money is “generated” by banks in the form of debt. When you take out a loan from a bank, the money you “borrow” does not exist until the figure is entered against your details. That figure then instantly becomes a debt you owe to the bank and has thus become money.

To function, money must be circulated. It has to be in continuous motion. This is achieved by productivity and retail. Without productivity, there is nothing to retail so producers are the major money vehicles. The more profitable the production, the more money is put into circulation, which further empowers banks to generate debts. The most profitable production comes from the petrochemical industry and the pharmaceutical industry.

Top-level industries are the major arteries of commerce and ‘debt slaves’ (ie; the average person) are the capillaries. All other corporate bodies, including governments (which are corporate bodies whether you like it or not) fall between.

Governments must govern in the best interests of top-level industries and banks. In order to best serve these interests, a government must be stable. In a “democracy”, governments must appear to be answerable to the voting public to maintain stability. However, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s a republican or democrat or labour or conservative government as the essential corporocentric* principal remains inviolable.

Therefore, certain restrictions are “imposed” upon banks and major industries to maintain an illusion of control with the electorate. But this is never more than “lip-service”.

So when certain food additives are independently found to be hazardous, governments can afford to ban them… eventually. There are new additives being introduced all the time so there are always enough harmful industrial chemicals, agricultural chemicals and food additives to ensure that, while not wiping out the population entirely, a sufficiently lucrative market is maintained to keep the gears of this money-machine turning.

The only healthy consequence of all this are the profits.

*”corporocentric” is a term that, as far as I know, doesn’t actually exist (except here, of course). It is used here to mean to serve the needs of the corporate sector as the first priority.