Brilliant, just brilliant. I guess I didn’t consider the “being paid” part “based off utility.” It really sounds like a game-changer, as I am well aware of the “stranglehold” you speak of that has mangled mainstream science.
I think you are referring to the Sovryn Tech interview with David. They are talking about returns for investors and then David says that sure there will be profit but what about a kid jumping out from behind a tree in Africa with a cure for cancer. This is around the 35 minute mark in this interview. I think in that case he is not so much referring to the anonymity of the network, but the fact that people would have a lot of computing resources available via the network. Resources that are currently only available to businesses that can pay for large servers, etc.
I think the Sovryn Tech interview with David is excellent and definitely worth a listen so I recommend it to everyone. Same goes for the weekly Sovryn Tech podcast (I’ve been listening since I found the interview with David). Bryan is really on top of what’s happening in tech and makes some interesting predictions about which he is right more often than not.
The SAFE network enables people to access information that has been suppressed for thousands of years. after people gain the ability to speak certain truths without penalty, civilization will rediscover the secrets that have been held from us for so long. do you really think cancer is incurable?
Who censors theories about medical cures on the internet?
If someone had interesting ideas about curing cancer & started a blog about it, it could do very well on the current internet & safe won’t revolutionise that.
I’m sure cures for cancer will arise, but I don’t think they’re not coming to light due to any suppression on the internet, so I don’t see how Safe will help with this.
I love the safe network, but don’t see how it’ll help anyone find a cure for cancer, though an integrated collaborative open medical research platform on Safe / internet may well help move knowledge forward towards cures that won’t be found through traditional research.
This is on of the reasons I became Interested in the Safe Network. I am sure an advance app could handle data such as this.
by compiling what is known scientifically (medically). But also Including human experience,habit,and environment.
There has been a lot of legislation around the world (particularly in the US) that makes it very dangerous and difficult for any therapy to ‘claim to cure/treat cancer’. There are clearly very good reasons for that as well as some troubling implications for alternatives that can be effective but consequently get no exposure in the mainstream. I’ve no idea how much the new data paradigm will impact our approach to medicine of course. I agree that the internet is open enough that we can find the information we need if we want to, all it takes is time and effort.
There’s potentially a lot of power in the combination of anonymity and trust though. Trusted and anonymous sources could change the way we access information and potentially provide broader, higher quality and more detailed data that would be harder to find or put together on clearnet. I suppose a lot depends on how trust evolves and how responsible/well-informed the people who earn trust while remaining anonymous actually are.
Do you have any links to evidence of this? It sounds ridiculous, so it’d be good to see something to justify the belief.
The first thing I found about this was “The Budwig Diet is an unproven anticancer treatment developed by the German biochemist Dr. Johanna Budwig in the 1950s”.
If it’s been around since the 1950s, tried by many, and without people being able to prove its effectiveness in treating cancer, I’d guess it doesn’t treat cancer very well, or at least not in a predictable / repeatable way.
It would be so easy to demonstrate scientifically if it worked, and nobody has the power to prevent people doing so… not even the Clintons.
Apologies for the scepticism, but extraordinary claims require at least some evidence to be taken seriously.
Yeah, I don’t think you understand cancer. More likely reducing intake of man made toxins than any try snakeoil answer. How many kg of perfume and makeup do women ingest for example.
Still since this thread is bumped and in reply to the OP @macroevolution I’d suggest there’s an industry waiting to happen in the management of patient data - allowing individuals control over what happens to their medical data rather than it sitting unstructured in some hospital’s data warehouse. Making that option for research available through SAFE is a clear prospect.
If there are restrictions then the opening post of the topic will usually tell you about the restrictions. Also each category has an “about this category” topic that tells you about the topic and what is expected in there.
Also the forum guidelines would have pointed you to the opening post. If you have not already read it, then I suggest you do
Don’t expect society to believe there’s a simple solution to a problem when everything is based on fake money and everyone’s at each other’s throats attempting to come out on top of the pack of lies. We’ve reached a tipping point where there’s a herd mentality in half of the people on the internet, let alone society itself, that it’s somehow literally impossible to cure something… really absurd. Business as usual, industry as usual; if it turns out I end up saving people by doing this protocol, then I hope swathes of deniers just drop off the face of the Earth. (First I’ve heard of the protocol.) Most things are unproven, and definitely doesn’t mean that you should stop looking into it, especially if it’s helped people on the brink of death on many occasions. But oh I better believe the first result on Google which is just to scare people into not propagate it for fear of being shunned and called a kook, rather than reading the thousands of deeper pages written about it indicating near the complete contrary. I have nothing more to say.