https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyLtED-dlcU

Many of us have used roots and herbs at some point in time for several reasons, whether it was togoyaro we had to cure Malaria, monkey tail to get high or bush flower to cure eczema, we know deep within that "natural extracts" are good for us and their benefits.

Perhaps our belief of this fact has become skewed overtime or better yet shaken from its once enduring perspective as drugs take center stage in society. More people view herbal remedies as options for minor ailments only, choosing synthetic drugs over herbs for more serious and quicker acting effects.

The general public see herbal medicines as for quacks and fakes. Indeed they are quacks in herbal medicines just as they are lots of quacks in the conventional medicines.

Infact conventional medicines has taken more lives than herbal medicines. Millions have died as a result of conventional medicine.

Herbs have been used as a powerful form of medicine spanning centuries, since the creation of man. Their honor has been spoken about in history. African medicine has a long history of using herbs and was first mentioned in Odu IFA.

Most Africa charms and medicines are produced from roots, herbs and animals remnants. Their results are usually remarkable. Most uncurable illness like cancer, bareness, asthma and other life threatening diseases can be cured by simply taking fruits which are not expensive but pharmaceutical companies would not allow the general public to know this because they are making lots of money from their medicines sales.

Before you say I am wrong about cancer cure, please read what am about to write. Firstly I am not a medical doctor, I am a trained native doctor and I have lots of experience.

Cancer is a nutritional-deficiency disease. It is not caused by a bacterium, virus or mysterious toxin but by the absence of a substance that modern man has removed from his diet. If my analysis is correct, then the cure and prevention of cancer is simple. All that needs to be done is to restore that easily obtained and inexpensive food factor to our daily meals.

It should not be surprising that these medical experts have rejected the vitamin deficiency concept of cancer. There is nothing in it for them. Not only would a world without cancer lead to pay-check shock, it also would represent a blow to professional prestige.

Imagine a cure for cancer found in the seeds of fruits, not in research laboratories and discovered by people without government grants or prestigious diplomas hanging on their walls!

Organized medicine has said Cancer Herbal Medicine is quackery. It says it is “unproven” cancer treatment. However, let us take a closer look at that word. For most people, unproven means simply that there is no proof.

But what is proof? It is not an absolute concept. In the strict sense, there is no such thing as proof; there is only evidence. If evidence is convincing to the observer, then it is said to be proof and the thesis which it supports is viewed as “proven.” If a second observer finds the same evidence to be unconvincing, then it is not proof, and the thesis is “unproven” to that observer.

There is a great deal of evidence supporting the nutritional-deficiency concept of cancer more than enough to convince most people that the thesis is proven. But the word proven, when used by the medical experts has an entirely different meaning.

It is a technical definition. When medical experts says a therapy is proven, it means only that its promoters have complied with the testing protocols set by the agency to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. It is important to know, however, that the successful completion of those tests does not mean, as the terminology implies, that the therapy is safe and effective.

It merely means that tests have been conducted, the results have been evaluated and the board of medical experts has given its approval for marketing, often in spite of the dismal results.

If cancer patients undergoing these medical tests-proven therapies were to read the actual laboratory reports, they would recoil in horror. They show neither safety nor effectiveness and in fact, they are not intended to do so.

Their purpose is to establish the lethal dose, the point at which the therapy will kill 50% of the patients and also to establish the ratio between those who are benefited and those who are not. That ratio often is in the range of only eight or nine people out of a hundred.

Furthermore, “benefited” can mean any slight improvement such as a temporary reduction in tumor size. It almost never means a complete cure.

If anything is “proven” by these studies, it is that most medical-approved cancer therapies are both unsafe and ineffective. Then there is the question of money.

The testing protocols established by medical experts are costly. The promoters of a new therapy must assign a large staff of technicians and compile many thousands of statistical pages. The complete reports often weigh hundreds of pounds and stack over six feet in height.

The process can take years and consume over two-hundred million dollars per study. Only the large pharmaceutical companies can play that game. Although they publicly complain about this expense, they privately approve because it prevents competition from smaller companies.

The potential reward of getting a new product into the world market is well worth the investment. But who would be willing to spend that kind of money on developing a product that cannot be patented? Substances found in nature cannot be patented; only those which are invented by man.

If a company were to spend two-hundred-million dollars to obtain medicines approval for a natural substance, its competitors then would be able to market the product and the developer could never recover the investment.

No substance from nature will ever be legally available for cancer or any other disease unless its source can be monopolized or its processing can be patented. No matter how safe and effective it may be and no matter how many people are benefited, it will forever be relegated to the category of “unproven” medicines. As such, freely available cures from nature will always be illegal to prescribe, to promote and in many cases even to use.

Thank you for reading, leave your comments

Babalawos

Please drop ur number

Deep. Very deep. Well articulated and delivered.

Thank you

Turks:
Deep. Very deep. Well articulated and delivered.

Babalawos:


The potential reward of getting a new product into the world market is well worth the investment. But who would be willing to spend that kind of money on developing a product that cannot be patented? Substances found in nature cannot be patented; only those which are invented by man.

If a company were to spend two-hundred-million dollars to obtain medicines approval for a natural substance, its competitors then would be able to market the product and the developer could never recover the investment.

No substance from nature will ever be legally available for cancer or any other disease unless its source can be monopolized or its processing can be patented. No matter how safe and effective it may be and no matter how many people are benefited, it will forever be relegated to the category of “unproven” medicines. As such, freely available cures from nature will always be illegal to prescribe, to promote and in many cases even to use.

Thank you for reading, leave your comments

Babalawos

I don't believe that substances found in nature can not be patented. plumpy-nut for example is produced from peanut/groundnut, milk, sugar, etc and is used for the treatment of severe and acute malnutrition. It is a product once said to be as important as the discovery of penicillin.
But a company called NUTRISET holds the patent for the product in Europe and several countries including the USA.