J
jb116
Guest
That's entering a world of infinite "what-ifs" and the burden falls on such claims to prove a negative. What we know is cancer kills people and not having it also reflects a good metabolism/well-functioning system. If we keep it simple with what is known we work from there. We ask what's good and what's bad defined by how well it preserves and empowers the health of the individual. Anything short of that is manipulating notions of necessary evils into inherently beneficial things. "Cure" is presumptive here in that one simultaneous beneficial thing can't be assumed to be the holistic fix. For example, the statin you mentioned. Statins are presumed to be "cures." More accurate would be to say "We do know that certain "necessary evils" or presumptive "cures" as drugs that forcefully alleviate certain symptoms such as high cholesterol (statin drugs) indeed DO cause quicker death, after all." And who would argue with that...Well, without the cancer, maybe the individual would die even quicker? So how do we know the cure is worse than the disease?
We do know that certain drugs that forcefully alleviate certain symptoms such as high cholesterol (statin drugs) indeed DO cause quicker death, after all.